Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 30

= July 30 =

Spread betting on 2008 US election
After Las Vegas's bookmakers declared Barack Obama elected and paid out the bets on him, did spread betting still take place? If so, what was the spread on election day? Neon Merlin  00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably there were: people will bet on anything. But the increasing odds in favor of Obama had become a running joke well before the election.  At least one Irish bookmaker paid off its bets on Obama two or three weeks before the election, possibly in the hope that the bettors would reinvest in the upcoming World Series.  PhGustaf (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

An adequate forum on Wikipeida?
I have a few issues I would like to discuss concerning the validity of certain articles and policies on Wikipedia. Does anyone have any suggestions for any internal forums or notice-boards that I could post my queries to? Any help would be certainly appreciated. Torkmann (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your question is pretty vague. The best places to start, though, would be on the talk pages for the articles and policies you question.  Be polite, and bring good sources.  Try to find resolution there before entangling yourself in  the alphabet soup of mechanisms for filing formal complaints.  PhGustaf (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * General discussion about policies takes place at Village pump (policies). Gwinva (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks I'll go check out the pump page. 02:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torkmann (talk • contribs)
 * A quick glance at your history shows you started a bunch of unanimously opposed AfDs. I don't mean to be rude, but perhaps proposing things for deletion just isn't your thing? Why not do something else? APL (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, seriously. Take it from experience, worrying about whether things should be deleted will only make you irritated and an unpleasant person to deal with. Try creating new content and improving existing articles and you'll have a much better Wikipedia experience on the whole (though you'll probably get irritated anyway—such in the nature of anonymous collaboration). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

prices of medicine
how can a medicine cost US$124 in the US or Canada but only $8 in Australia. I buy 3 medications and they cost me $8, 8 and $11 a packet. In North America thes3 are over $200! In Australia it is impossible to pay more than $1264 a year for medicine (or$318 for senior citizens). After that it is all paid for by the government. Is there a safety net like that in North America or do you pay forever such obscene prices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payneham (talk • contribs) 04:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some government programs for certain categories of the very poor. (See Medicaid) Also most Americans have health insurance. However, a lot of insurance does not cover prescriptions, or covers them with a very large deductible. So ... yes, Americans sometimes wind up paying huge amounts for prescriptions, and yes, there is a safety net, but you have to be really poor to take advantage.
 * To learn about the whole inefficient mess, check out Health insurance in the United States APL (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe there's a certain plan in Cuba to provide some medicine very cheap/free, and not provide the rest, or expensively. I think there was a story of someone trying to leave with a suitcase of the stuff back to the US. Just to provide a tangental point asbout pricing policy. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 07:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In Australia there is a thing called the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which is a Federal Government scheme that heavily subsidises the price of medicines. As new ones come out, they are assessed and placed on the scheme. About the highest price under the scheme, for income earners, is $35; pensioners and other welfare recipients pay $5.(The unsubsidised price of the drug is written on the label, as a tiny boast of how good the scheme is). Some medications are not on the scheme, but if they were to cost $300 nobody would buy them. In a country where people are used to paying hundreds, they can charge more. - KoolerStill (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's easy to say you wouldn't pay it. But if you need it to live then you'll pay it. A lot of USA people with good insurance think as you do, but when they lose that insurance, or the coverage suddenly changes, they absolutely pay for their meds if they can possibly afford it without starving. APL (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The question was not whether the government will pay the medicine cost for you or not. The question was actually about its price. If Australia is paying for the patient, that would make it more expensive in Australia than in the US or Canada. Probably, what makes the price higher in the US is simply that these medicines are protected by a patent.--Quest09 (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would you assume that the government would automatically pay more than a consumer? As a single-payer they have massive bargaining power that individual consumers simply don't have. APL (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you assume the government will use its "massive bargaining" power more efficiently than the consumers? Mostly they won't care for what they are paying.--Quest09 (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, bureaucracy and all that, but we do have responsible government here in Australia. It's not entirely barbaric. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The question was why the asker has to pay $124 in USA and $8 in Australia. The Government subsidy is the answer on all prescription medicines. Over the counter medications (cold remedies, painkillers etc) would not sell if they looked too overpriced compared with what people are used to paying. Newly released specialised drugs (eg new cancer treatments) may cost $20,000 for a year's supply, until they are shown to be good enough to go onto the PBS. Australian drugs are just as protected by patents as US ones, and are often imported or made under licence from the US patent owner. Of course, there are many generics as well, and pharmacies often offer the generic substitute, if there is one. The saving to the buyer may be only $5, to the Government maybe $20 to $50. The Government has huge bargaining power, as a drug that is on the PBS will sell thousands or millions more units than one that costs the user $3000 for a month's supply (or 3 times the disability pension). This power IS used, as the scheme costs around $7 billion a year (for 20 million people). Consumers have close to zero bargaining power in a situation where they have dire need of an item, which is available from only scarce sources. - KoolerStill (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess some in the US would say subsidised drugs are an unfair tax on the healthy :-P Astronaut (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Road taxes are unfair on those who walk or stay at home? state run schools are an unfair tax on the uneducated and those past school age? taxes to build dams are an imposition on those who prefer whiskey? - KoolerStill (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what things are like in Australia but the NZ government's Pharmac definitely uses it's bargaining power. This is sometimes controversial because of questions about whether the cheapest drugs are necessarily the best but it's clear Pharmac does use their power. As has been mentioned patents aren't the issue here. These generics are produced after the patent has expired, not via compulsory licensing (reading that article I was reminded how the US government partially used threats of doing the same thing to force the price of Ciprofloxacin down despite their usual strong opposition to such things ) or ignoring the patents as is done in some developing countries. In the case of Australia I believe, there's great controversy about the changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as a result of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement and there's also fear here in NZ that we may be forced into similar changes as a result of a planned NZ-US FTA. These changes are widely accepted I believe to be the result of US pharmaceutical company lobbying. This and the great opposition of the large pharmaceutical companies to NZ's Pharmac and similar things like Australia PBS is IMHO ample evidence that they are using their bargaining power quite effectively, whether the outcome is the best may be a different issue, but it's not the issue that was raised. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Above it's said that "government subsidies" are the reason drugs are so much cheaper in Australia (indeed, most of the world outside the US), but I think there is usually more to it. Often, from what I heard on the news when they were talking about making it legal to bring in cheap drugs from Canada, there are laws in the country that put a limit on how much a drug maker can charge. The government is not paying the drug company and the savings are passed on to the country's citizens, it is simply illegal for the company to charge more, so they don't. This works because the pills have such a low marginal cost. The companies spend billions of dollars developing the drug, yes, but it's relatively cheap to manufacture the finished product. As a result they can sell it at these government set prices and still make a large profit, and their only alternative is (in theory) to not sell in that country, in which case they would make no money. Naturally many Americans feel like they have the crappy end of this stick and have pressed to institute similar caps, but the lobbyists then say that if their biggest market (the US) were to have similar price caps, it would become unprofitable to develop drugs. It is regrettable but unavoidable that the rest of the world is getting a "free ride" off of American customers' high prices. To me this argument loses a little of its shine when you consider that drug companies are so damn profitable. TastyCakes (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

shirt sizes in Canada
I was looking at a shirt from a Canadian website and it was labelled size "G". what is that? S. M. L. or Xl.? are there other strange letters used in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payneham (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most likely "G" is for "Grande", or "Large". There would most likely be a "P", for "Small", too.  But it's more important to note that Canadian shirts are all wool or polyester fleece: it's too cold up there for cotton or rayon or silk. PhGustaf (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Say what? We don't "cotton" to people who imply we (all) live in igloos and dine on pemmican. (Why, I haven't seen a polar bear in weeks.) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And pure cotton is actually warmer than pure polyester (although I'm not sure about blends). Neon  Merlin  05:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I bought a cotton shirt here only a few days ago. Maybe I crossed the Canadian-Mexican border without noticing when I went to buy it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just in case the OP is confused, G for Grande and P for Petit are French. Acceptable (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Though strangely I believe the next sizes up after G are XG and XXG rather than TG or TTG. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm I'm pretty sure I've seen both. TastyCakes (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bands influenced by D&D
What mainstream bands, if any, are known to have been influenced by Dungeons & Dragons? Neon Merlin  05:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a musician, but Vin Diesel has publicly admitted to being a big D&D player as a youth. I'm not positive, but I think I remember hearing that Andrew W.K. may have also been a D&D player as well; not sure how it influenced his music.  Weezer's song "In the Garage" from the Blue Album contains blatant references to D&D sessions played in the garage.  That track is probably the best chance you got of a blatant D&D reference in a major band's song.  -- Jayron  32  05:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Marillion were named after Tolkien's book of jottings The Silmarillion, and there's a clear link between Tolkien's "sword & sorcery" and the origins of D&D, even though the makers of the game deny they were influenced by Tolkien. Progressive rock in general often gets accused of being in hock to dubious Tolkienesque mythologising, although in my experience it's hard to find an actual progressive rock group to whom you can make the Tolkien accusation stick. --Richardrj talkemail 06:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger McKenzie aka DJ Wildchild? Renegade Master was remixed by Fatboy Slim and contains the line (unless it's a mondegreen), "d4 damage, power to the people". AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think Nerdcore and Nintendocore bands might be influenced by D&D but I can't think of any specific references. Of course, if you extend it to Tolkien, then Led Zeppelin is an obvious choice. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Nerdcore article references a NY Times article called Dungeons, Dragons and Dope Beats; however the article barely mentions D&D. mc chris's fourth release was called Dungeon Master of Ceremonies.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  12:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some lyrics sites have that as "default damager". My own mondegreen was "d-floor damager", a contraction of "dance-floor" and therefore a cool and hip way for the guy to express that he dances about a lot. Rolling a D4 for damage doesn't sound very impressive. 81.131.64.44 (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And "D for damager, power to the people" gets 1190 Ghits in quotes versus 313 with d4. The fact that it's "damager", rather than "damage", also makes me think a reference is unlikely. Neon  Merlin  21:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought the name d12 had to have a second meaning... Tempshill (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a little list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_in_popular_culture#Music which mentions that one Owen Pallett and an MC Chris released D&D themed albums, while Mindflayer appears to be an entirely D&D focused band. 81.131.64.44 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rhapsody are not necessarily directly influenced by D&D, but certainly by high fantasy. Steewi (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Menes's Music
Does anyone recognize the music in the following video clip of juggler Michael Menes: ? Thanks. --Think Fast (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Try the Entertainment Desk.71.236.26.74 (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The UN and us
Do Europeans love the UN more than US citizens love it?--Quest09 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My, you certainly have a lot of questions! &para; Yes. -- Hoary (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am bored, so what? Besides that, not all my contributions to the Ref.Desk are questions. Thanks for your answer anyway, even if it was only one word. Quest09 (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the general population, but I can at least say that conspiracy theories about the UN appear to be an American thing, as does appointing an (interim) ambassador who's openly hostile to its existence. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ask India how well they like the UN. Specifically, why do small countries like France carry so much weight? It's no wonder Europeans like the UN. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's because France were one of a small group of nations heavily involved in the creation of United Nations and are one of the permanent members that were granted veto-power 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't think France thinks of herself as a small country. Is there some bias creeping in? Remember France was a world power whilst many modern countries did not exist!90.0.2.7 (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)DT
 * Worth noting is that the five permanent members of the Security Council were the major victorious powers in World War II &mdash; not exactly an unimportant historical factor, as the Council was established in 1946. Currently, France remains the world's third-largest nuclear power (in terms of number of warheads, their stockpile and active nuclear forces are slightly larger than China's); the five permanent Security Council members are also the only signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty who have nuclear weapons.  (India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have not signed the NNPT.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * here's a survey. Surprisingly the U.N. is MORE popular in the Americas than in western Europe. Colour me surprised. Fribbler (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That may partially depend on the fact that the United States is on the U.N. security council.--WaltCip (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The survey is from 1999. That seems a bit outdated considering the various foreign political events that has occurred since then. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only in the USA have I seen grafitti urging the US to leave the UN. Astronaut (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Gross generalizations such as assuming that Europeans or Americans can be more or less categorized as vaguely "loving" a multilateral bureaucracy are difficult to answer, and may well simply spark unhelpful debate. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the UN building is in the USA is probably a plus, from the American standpoint. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Workload on distance learning degree course
Doing a home study degree course in the UK, with 120 course credits taken every year for 3 years and a notional 36 week year, about how much study time each week would be recommended? There are no lectures or essays, it's all assessed by end of year exams. 86.151.94.245 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on the student. I study through the Open University and they say about 16 hours a week. To get 120 points you'd need to do 2 60pt courses a year (not impossible but means no breaks). I would expect that in the above scenario you'd want a good 5-10 hours+ a week even if you think you are quick learner etc. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You really need to ask your Course Tutor. He or she probably won't know exactly but should be able to give a guide. Is there a forum on-line ? if so ask other students. In any case, as has been said, a lot depends on style of learning and objective. I learn best in an all-out, drop everything, for 6 weeks before an exam. (Then forget it all in a couple of hours after.) But I don't look for a First. Finally, much depends on the subject (practical or theory), your motivation, and your learning style (check that out it will be helpful to discover your preferred way to study http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire). Finally, finally, I am very glad to now be setting and not taking exams!! Urgh!!90.0.2.7 (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)DT
 * I don't have a tutor, cause I haven't enrolled yet. The course is with the University of London External System, does anyone already study there? Thanks for the test link btw. 86.151.94.245 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

hereditary deaths
my great grandfather was killed by a clown (off duty, the clown was drinking in a bar and stabbed my geat grandfather to death, this was not quite the wild west but rough and wild times), and my grandfather was a clown (in a circus). Two months ago my father killed a clown (this was a genuine accident, the clown ran into the side of him in his car (it was not a clown car) and crashed through the windscreen), does this mean I will either be killed by a clown become a clown or kill a clown? Score Deal Gun (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really - but it does show just how dangerous it is to be a clown.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heredity is a genetic trait, what you're talking about here is not that at all. ZS 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yabbut it's possible to pass environment on. If Chuckles had a kid who parades as a peanut, the kid is doomed too. PhGustaf (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Infertility is also hereditary. If your parents didn't have any kids, you won't have any either.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia cannot give medical advice to the OP's problem of Coulrophobia. The ideal murder is the murder that no one believes. An example is to dress up as a clown and beat your victim to death with a rubber chicken. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Spoiler (especially for coulrophobes): Forget, before I even recall his name to your attention, this sinister amateur clown —— Shakescene (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You beat me to it. I'm not sure he used a rubber chicken, though. I think it was more like piano wire. So, do you recall this one: Why was his house so cold? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed this to a footnote because otherwise it created this annoying references section at the end of the page, and I think that's only supposed to be for articles. Don't worry, I've messed those two up, too. (I presume this was allowed and didn't requite a moderator's help; if it did, I'm sorry.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC


 * Your solution didn't work. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

sloe gin liqueur
What causes some sloe gins to have a creamy head and other sloe gins not to have a creamy head? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.173.209 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

GCSE core and extended exams
British GCSE qualifications in many subjects have "core" and "extended" tracks, with easier questions in the core exam but the highest possible mark being a C (which is the de facto pass grade nowadays). Taking the extended exam means you can score up to an A* star. But does anyone know if extended candidates have to sit the core exams as well? Can't find that explained anywhere, but I'd rather not phone my brother's school and plead total ignorance! 86.151.94.245 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't have to. The 'extended' exam includes material/questions as tough as the 'core' and 'tougher'. ny156uk (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that just as core exams only go up to C, extended exams don't go all the way to the lowest grades e.g. AQA Higher Tier Maths only goes to D. If a candidate does less well, my understanding is that they can fail despite being at a pass (e.g. E grade) level. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My experience (GCSEs in 2004) was that there were three tiers - Lower Foundation, Intermediate and Higher. I don't remember the max. grades but I trust your 'Intermediate - C, Higher - A*'. I took all Highers and only took the Higher papers. The higher papers had the same total marks available, but with higher difficulty questions. --JoeTalkWork 23:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Average GRE and university
Is there a ranking which considers the GRE of its undergraduate as a quality measure of the university?--Quest09 (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It probably doesn't mean much, the GRE's aren't anything close to universal even for students applying to grad schools; I took them but made a last minute career change and it turned out that the masters program I was applying to didn't even ask for them. Also, med students and law students take unrelated exams as well (MCATS and LSATS, IIRC).  Unlike the SAT/ACT which are nearly universal for college acceptance, the GRE isn't nearly as important for grad school acceptance, despite the marketing push by the College Board to make it so... -- Jayron  32  03:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The GRE is not that important for anything anymore, and getting less so.  Torkmann (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Optical vs. electronic viewfinders
Digital cameras these days have both optical and electronic viewfinders. With an optical viewfinder, you see the subject as it is - not as it will be photographed. The only things that an optical viewfinder will tell you about the finished photograph are the cropping and the focus plane. You will only get to see things like the aperture value and the shutter length (which affect the lighting, the sharpness, and the focal depth of the picture), the exposure compensation, and the white balance setting, after you take the photograph. With an electronic viewfinder, you see at least the exposure compensation and the white balance setting straight away. Still, people tend to prefer optical viewfinders. Is the only reason for this that they're instantaneous, and require zero power, or is there something I'm missing here? J I P | Talk 20:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Camera optical viewfinders often show various indicators for exposure, flash, and low battery, but rangefinding viewfinders are fairly rare. Unless the camera is fully automatic you can set and see the aperture and shutter settings before you take a photograph. The user of a reflex camera user with interchangeable lenses has reason to prefer the optical viewfinder. An electronic LCD viewscreen is handy for positioning the camera anywhere away from the face or when using spectacles; it can also show correctly the effect of an electronic (in addition to optical) zoom, and have other uses such as showing menus, instructions, and previously taken photographs in memory. Unlike the optical viewfinder on non-reflex cameras it has no parallax framing error on close-up pictures. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For the first comment, there's no reason why electronic viewfinders couldn't show them too. For the second comment, of course you can set the aperture and shutter settings beforehand - it's their whole point - but I can't imagine how you'd actually see their effects until after you've taken the photograph. The third comment is actually in favour of electronic viewfinders, and the fourth comment applies equally well to optical and electronic viewfinders. So I have yet to see any advantage to optical viewfinders, other than being instantaneous and requiring zero power. J I P  | Talk 21:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With a digital camera with a digital view finder you can see the effects of the aperture etc if the camera refreshes the screen by constant taking photographs - in other words the camera would be constantly taking a photo, but only when you press the button does it save it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like an optical viewfinder for really bright or dim environments. When it's bright outside the LCD often gets washed out and is pretty hard to see, but the optical works fine.  When I'm in a dim environment and don't/can't use a flash, then the optical lets me pull the camera in close and steady it with my arms and head.  If I was using the LCD, I'd have to hold the camera out at a bit of a distance and would have more camera shake. Tobyc75 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My 1952 Rollieflex camera has nothing electrical on it but the flash synch. But it's easy to frame a shot with the camera held directly overhead.  Bugger to get film for it these days, though.  PhGustaf (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I used to use 35mm film SLR setups - I decided not to embrace the digital revolution due to the cost of all the new kit required. One could readily see all the aperture effects by pressing a preview button, which caused the lens iris to contract to the position set manually or by an exposure-priority semi-auto function. These were bottom of the range Zenit-E or Minolta bodies with corresponding or different makes of M42 screw lens fittings, so I'm sure that more expensive equipment could/can do all this and more. I deliberately started with all-manual systems including an in-camera or separate exposure meter, in order to learn how all the basic parameters interrelated, rather than rely on automatic systems that would do all the thinking for me but fail to cope with non-standard conditions, and lessen my understanding of the processes involved.


 * I personally greatly enjoyed the challenge of working out beforehand all the correct settings as well as the framing and so on to achieve what I wanted in each shot, and the satisfaction of wasting as few frames as possible (film and development being not trivial in cost) through applied skill. I have watched digital SLRs in use and the philosophy of "bang one out, check it on the viewfinder, if substandard wipe it and try again and again" seems less craftsmanlike. Of course I was mostly a hobby photographer (though I did a little paid work) and I can understand why professionals and specialists might find digital systems (now that they can approach the resolution of film) more cost effective, and digital images more immediately amenable to computer manipulation and transmission (though film images can be readily scanned). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the zero power aspect is very important. That big LCD screen on the back is a huge power drain.  Astronaut (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My reason is that the image quality is no good to look at (especially if you have to focus) - typically they are ~250,000pixels, about 1million pixels would be a minimum for me.83.100.250.79 (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a few things here. 1) Optical-viewfinders vs (eye-piece) lcd-viewfinders and 2) vs the-back-lcd-screen-as-the-viewfinder.
 * 1 - Optical viewfinders work better in almost all conditions compared to current lcd viewfinders. Lcd viewfinders become slower/more-jerky in bad light. Optical viewfinders are normally brighter and produce a (potentially) sharper image. They also save energy. Doubtlessly at some point in the future lcd viewfinders will replace them but for now i've never used one that's anything like as good as optical in anything but perfect lighting
 * 2 - Using an eye-piece vs using the screen on the back. This is a personal preference thing more than anything. I find I 'focus' (my attention) on the image more by excluding everything but that which I see throuh the viewfinder. Also there's good reason to believe for normal shots that using the eye-piece makes it more likely that you will hold the camera more steadily (less camera-shake/blurring). As noted above it also saves power as LCDs take up a fair bit of the camera's power. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am British - speak passable Spanish - going to Cuba - would welcome current and currency tips. Ta.
As per subject heading, I am in need of advice. Our 7+7 tour and stay (including 3 days + in Havana) are all-inclusive but there will be times when we may "break-out" and do our own thing,so we may need to use Cuban Pesos CuP and at other times we shall need to use convertible pesos (CuC). But given that we can't use AMEX Travellers Cheques or USD, and also given that Mastercard may not be acceptable, do I really need to take bundles of £Sterling with me? Or what else might apply? All current answers (and links) on currency and culture will be much appreciated. Thanks in anticipation. 92.9.61.186 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume you have had a look at the right section of guide books such as http://www.lonelyplanet.com/cuba/practical-information/money-costs If it was me, I would hedge my bets and take Visa and MasterCard credit cards, my ATM cards, and a bundle of tenners.  Personally, I would also avoid "all inclusive" packages - if you have pre-paid for tour food and drinks, you are less likely to spend money in local restaurants and bars or even step outside of the resort.  Astronaut (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a tourist, you won't have access to Cuban pesos, just the convertible pesos. Sterling, Canadian dollars and Euros are freely accepted, though prices are higher than you might be expecting. (I have been to Cuba 4 times in the past 25 years, most recently this past February.) Vendors in the markets don't generally take credit cards, so cards are only really useful if (a) not affiliated with a U.S. bank and (b) you are buying tours or renting cars and the like. VISA seems the best recognized card. There isn't a much of interest available to buy. It is a society that likes cash. (You will need about 2 CuCs per day for your chamber maid, unless you like finding water all over your floor or no clean towels.) Most hotels have in-room safes and I have never had any trouble with them, though everyone knows someone who knows someone whose hotel safe was robbed. You can also "lodge" funds with the hotel and draw against the amount. (There may have been a small fee for this; I can't remember.) If you want more information about my personal experience, come to my talk page. // BL \\ (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the chamber maid left water all over my floor or no clean towels in my room, I would call housekeeping and get someone round to fix it, and I would be even less likely to leave a tip. Ultimately, the maid could get fired. Astronaut (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In Cuba, my experience is that everything is promised, and then not much happens. Your experience there may be different. // BL \\ (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cuba sounds like Tijuana, minus the charm. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With better healthcare. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing to note -- You may understand Castillian Spanish, but that doesn't mean you'll understand Cuban Spanish, or, as some would call it, rapid-fire mumbling. Try watching Buena Vista Social Club without looking at the subtitles. Get to know the phrase un poco más lento, por favor -- you'll need it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Earthquakes in Portland, Oregon
How much more (or less) likely is it for a major earthquake to hit Portland, Oregon, vs San Francisco or Los Angeles? --69.113.82.135 (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't find any stats on the matter offhand, but this article while largely a self-advertisement, does give some interesting facts about earthquakes in the northwest. Keep in mind the Cascades volcanoes, which are children of the plates that cause the quakes, start well north of San Francisco and stretch clear into BC, so certainly the potential for strong earthquakes is significant, even if there hasn't been a "major" quake to hit what is now Portland in 300 years. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You can check seismic hazard in the states from maps provided by the USGS . Note that the maps look at the likelihood of exceeding a certain level of ground acceleration within a 50 year period. Mikenorton (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)