Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 November 30

= November 30 =

In which official document(s) are the non-ISO basic Latin characters in Morse code defined?
I don't see them in the ITU recommendation. Write English in Cyrillic (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Stalking
Is stalking other users allowed on wikipedia? Pass a Method  talk  13:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See Harassment. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are hoping to be stalked you could put an open invitation on your user page. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Price of CO2 Fire Extinguishers.
Our article on fire extinguishers is pretty light on details of how each type works...so I'm puzzled by why a 5lb dry powder extinguisher costs $18 (Home Depot) and a 5lb (identical-looking) CO2 extinguisher costs $180! They both have pressure gauges and identical-looking release handles and such...I know that the powder kind use nitrogen as a propellant - so they much both have to be pressure vessels. My mental image of the CO2 extinguisher suggests it ought to be way simpler than the dry powder variety. Why the 10x price differential?

(I was looking for more info online and came across this wonderfully clear explanation: :-) SteveBaker (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Do they require thicker walls to support the increased pressure ? StuRat (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is increased pressure...the dry powder kind have nitrogen under pressure as a propellant. Seems like it would have to be a hell of a lot of difference to warrant the 10x price of CO2 extinguishers. SteveBaker (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Dry powder extinguishers work at 100-200 pounds of pressure (depending on the powder type). CO2 extinguishers are at 1500-2150 pounds of pressure. Sounds like a hell of a lot of difference to me. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah! That would be the reason then! Many thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Paragraphs with multiple topics
Is it permissible for one paragraph to cover two or more topics? The background to this question comes from this edit of mine being reverted. Pass a Method  talk  19:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is being answered at the help desk Help_desk RudolfRed (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That isn't the issue. It's whether a bit of trivia belongs in the intro of the article, and in my opinion as well, it doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But, ignoring the actual bad edit and focusing on the Q: No, in general a paragraph really shouldn't cover more than one topic. An exception might be made when there just isn't enough to justify a new paragraph, although that's a bit of a style issue.  Some styles guide allow a single sentence as a paragraph, while others discourage this.  I might tend to throw a bunch of unrelated single sentences in a misc. paragraph, and join them together somehow: "A few additional facts about X are: It's highly nutritious, flammable, and has fur in it's nostrils." StuRat (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it seems a lot of editors have no idea about topicality in paragraphs, and seem to go by a "paragraphs should have five to ten sentences" standard. I have (exaggerating only a little) separated out three sentence lead paragraphs into three separate one-sentence paragraphs.  You'll meet resistance to this, but it encourages future editors to expand each separately into its own fuller paragraph according to topic. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Mind Map book
Hello there, I have already own The Mind Map Book: Radiant Thinking - Major Evolution in Human Thought. Recently, I've found the new edition of the same book of this author, The Mind Map Book: Unlock Your Creativity, Boost Your Memory, Change Your Life. I am thinking to buy the latter edition. Shall I get any new insights from the new edition? Any suggestion would help. Thanks--180.234.70.70 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't really tell you what you are going to find helpful. The best option would be to read the Amazon reviews, and you have already looked there.  I would also say get the book from a library first, although I don't know how easy it is to find English language titles like that in Dhaka. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Apart from the edition, what are the differences between this two books?--180.234.70.1 (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the UK at least, you can "look inside" the one you don't own, if you follow the link you posted above. If you can do that in your country, you should be able to see for yourself what the differences are between that one and the one you already own. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

telephone call blocker
A couple of weeks ago I was asking about how to block unwanted telephone calls, and I got a device as suggested by someone. They also asked for me to report on how it was working. I've been adding unwanted calls to the block list as they have come in. A little while ago one of the blocked numbers called a second time, and the device blocked it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Beautiful, isn't it? Does it allow blocking by area code? Is there a limit on how many numbers? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, good. Although that's not the type of blocker I'd want, as they can just change their numbers to get through, and you'll have to block hundreds of numbers.  Rather than a black-list, or even a white-list, which fails when a friend calls from a new phone, I'd like each person to have to enter a secret unique code to get through (would work just like an extension).  Thus a friend could call from any phone, and their code would function as a caller ID.  Anyone who doesn't have a valid code would either be blocked entirely (say during election season), or allowed to leave a message (otherwise).  StuRat (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is one of the more expensive ones, but it has a lot of flexibility. You can have 30 "invited callers" and 30 "VIP callers" that are on the white list.  You can have 80 blocked numbers, but a blocked number can have wildcards, so you can block all from area code 800, for example.  And then you can have 10 numbers in blocked area codes that are allowed to get through.  And anything without a valid number is automatically blocked, by default.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So what happens when a friend calls from a new phone ? StuRat (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, does it allow a passcode number or for people to record a message if they are blocked? μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It does not use passcodes, but I can list 60 numbers that always get through, plus 10 exceptions to blocked area codes. If someone gets a new number, they get through (assuming that they have a valid phone number).  There are a large number of people that I want to get through to me, and I don't want to bother with passcodes (this one doesn't do them anyway).  So far I've only blocked individual numbers, but I plan to block toll-free area codes with a couple of exceptions to be determined.  I think I can set it up to let unknown callers go to the answering machine, but I don't want to do it that way. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So if someone you know calls on a phone they borrowed (which isn't in your list), because theirs was forgotten, lost, stolen, not charged, etc., they can't get through ? StuRat (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, they can get through, and that's the way I want it. Right now, the only ones that are blocked are ones that don't have a valid number (ones with fewer than 7 digits or show non-numeric characters) and ones I specifically block.  I plan to start blocking toll-free area codes once I determine all of the exceptions I want to list.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you conveniently and temporarily disable the blocking without erasing all the blocked numbers? For example, my parents would like to block all calls from their state except for their two local area codes.  But if family were travelling and had to call from a payphone in another part of the state they might have trouble.  They might want to turn off the blocking temporarily just in case.  Could they do that without losing their settings? μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You can temporarily removed the blocked area codes from the list and then add them back without losing anything else, but I don't think there is an enable/disable option for individual items on the block list. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That would work for them. I'll talk to my dad. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Medeis, assuming this is just a device you plug inline with the phone (Bubba73 could probably confirm), your parents could also just temporarily disconnect it and plug the phone directly into the wall for situations like that. Just suggesting it as a simpler solution than modifying the list. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be a easy temporary solution to allow all calls to get through. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

After having the device less than 2 weeks, I've blocked 10 numbers that have called. One of them tried to call a second time and was blocked. This is almost one per day, despite being on the US National Do Not Call list since its inception and my state's list before that and telling these people to take me off their list. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the do not call list idea just doesn't work. There would need to be millions of million dollar fines levied at the companies which violate the rules, to convince them to respect it.  And, since many of those companies are located offshore and/or can't be located, there would be no way to collect those fines.  Clearly, we need a better system to restrict access to our phones to only those we choose to permit. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Before the US national list, my state had a list, and it worked better than the national list. It looks to me like the phone company should provide this service, but when I talked to them a few years ago, you could block only local calls with their service.  So far I'm happy with the device, but I've used up 10/80 of the numbers already.  You can add additional units, but I wish it could block more numbers.  I'm going to get one for my parents, but I'm getting numbers to block first. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me what this 'device' is and if it is obtainable in the UK.85.211.219.215 (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The one I have is this one. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is the first one mentioned at List of devices to screen telephone calls. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Eli Whitney
Where exactly did the rumor come from that Eli Whitney was a black man?74.163.16.121 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I never heard such a rumor, but, presumably, it helping in picking cotton makes it sound beneficial to US slaves, who were largely black men, at the time. The reality, though, is that it made growing cotton more economical, which meant more slaves were put to work on cotton plantations. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suspect the issue is not so much to make the cotton gin sound positive, but to be ironic: wouldn't it be ironic if the inventor of the machine that enabled slavery was in fact Black? --Mr.98 (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't care what race he was,but people tellin' he's black the other white,what is he ALREADY?!74.163.16.121 (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of online discussion about the issue. But the common thread is "Don't believe the rumours; he was white".  Our article doesn't address the matter at all; maybe it should.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the article already addresses it by having a portrait of a white guy at the top. Snopes may be a more appropriate place for debunking. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The one that got me on a test is that John Brown (abolitionist) wasn't brown. I only had a pic like the one at the top of article to go off of, where he looks rather brown, and my textbook never stated his race. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect the confusion comes from muddled memories of a complicated priority dispute regarding the invention of the cotton gin. This page from the Smithsonian summarizes a few of the claims that have been made, including the one that Whitney really just appropriated and mechanized an approach used by African slaves he owned. Somewhere something got muddled about who Whitney himself was, though there's really no historical question about that. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There's also the fact that a lot of African Americans (a term I dislike, but which is useful here) have ethnically British last names and biblical first names. I. e., the name "sounds" black to American ears. μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Anglo-Celtic names? Like the Irish name O'Bama, for example?  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Obligatory link to reference which backs up Jack's assertion. -- Jayron  32  20:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I said "British" meaning to encompass names of Goidelic, Brythonic, Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Norman derivation. But my certain guess is that Whitney is Anglo-Saxon. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)