Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 February 29

= February 29 =

My smartphone lens coating is half gone. Should I scratch off the rest for symmetry?
If "scratch off the rest" is better than "leave it mottled", what'll scratch it off without scratching the lens cover? Fingernails? I think the sand and months of keys and coins only scratched the coating but I can't be sure.

(I treat my phone like crap cause it's 1080p poor battery lol (but yes I upgrading soon) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * iirc, the point of a lens is to focus as much of the incident light as possible to appropriate single points ... which is to say, right now, what you have is (probably) a fairly homogenous semi-filter, rather than an asymmetric filter. My vote, therefore, is keep. however, you could tell us whether you see any deleterious effects in the photos taken by said camera. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's not "optically active" and only what's behind it is a lens. But any degradation was slight so maybe "don't scratch" is better. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Camera modules of widespread smartphones are very cheap. You can buy most for under 20$. Check out some shops on the web. --Kharon (talk) 02:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not advice on what you should do, just an idea to consider. Regular toothpaste is microscopically abrasive and can be used to polish slight scratches out of CDs and even phone screens, i tried to add a link but it's telling me ehow is on wikipedia's black list, just google toothpaste polish scratches.. if you decide to go that route. I obviously can't guarantee it won't damage the existing lens and getting toothpaste into your phone's crevices definitely sounds like a bad idea, so use your own judgement. Vespine (talk) 02:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Kharon, there are cell phone repair shops in just about any medium sized city. You should be able to find someone who can replace the lens for you for a nominal charge.  You can even do it yourself, see here which shows that lenses are available for anywhere from $2.00 - $20.00 depending on the specific model of phone, and there are numerous videos available on youtube that will walk you through the repair yourself.  -- Jayron 32 02:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also while toothpaste is indeed a very good amateur general polish sollution i highly doubt this works well with optical lenses because these always need a very fine polish process that takes allot of time and very exact machinery on top. But worse even these very cheap lenses for smartphones are not made of glass but plastic today. --Kharon (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Firedamp
Given today's events, and given what I know about methane clathrate and permafrost, I have a question: Is it a common problem for coal mines in the Far North to be damp-ridden? If so, how is this alleviated (besides the obvious answer of more ventilation), and what special precautions have to be taken because of this? 2601:646:8E01:515D:986D:7DB1:2770:DAA7 (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has articles about Firedamp (with links to notable mine disasters and precautionary devices such as the Geordie lamp and Davy lamp) and coal seam fires of which thousands are burning underground at any given moment. The OP has already linked to the section Coal mine that mentions modern safety improvements such as electronic gas monitors and recovery of gases released during the mining process to generate electricity.


 * In the far North the Svalbard mine was dogged by accidents throughout the century with at least one fatality a year. One day in 1952 two gas explosions killed six and nine miners respectively, and a year later 19 were killed. During less than 50 years' mining at the tiny community of Ny Ålesund, no fewer than 80 miners died. AllBestFaith (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info! 2601:646:8E01:515D:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Did convection in households gas and electric stoves are been use a same scheme?
Did convection in households gas and electric stoves are been use a same scheme?--85.141.232.206 (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That’s why, did gas technics are been outdated?--85.141.232.206 (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex, (assumption from style of English) It's not clear what you are asking here. Conduction, convection and radiation are all used in both types of stove.  Gas stoves are still popular.    D b f i r s   13:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. More thanks. Did the best households gas stoves as and all best gas technics are always been only in states which have a much gas natural resources and mass using it, as always been told us a comparative economic advantage?--85.141.232.206 (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is a nice comparison of electric and gas, ovens and ranges, in terms of efficiency, cost, etc.  SemanticMantis (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A household Stove may be for room heating or cooking. Electric stoves have at the simplest just an on/off switch but may be controlled to run at any power level from 0 to 100% of maximum. Gas stoves in contrast need a means of ignition, a flame failure safety cutout and may have Auto reignition. Bottled propane gas, butane gas and line-fed natural gas are widely available for gas heating. In the US Compressed natural gas (CNG) is used in rural homes without connections to piped-in public utility services. AllBestFaith (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * When I lived in central Pennsylvania, there was no natural gas plumbing, so nobody used gas appliances. I wonder if anyone can find some maps of residential natural gas coverage areas/distribution networks? SemanticMantis (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I interesting, did gas technics are always been more effective than electric technics? I thinking, may be the USSR had not much gas natural resources, if gas technics of the USSR are not been effective, of course if be that, so if discuss about households gas stoves.--85.141.232.215 (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I see if the USSR had much gas natural resources, a gas technics in the USSR were always been more effective than electric technics, as always been told us a comparative economic advantage.--85.141.232.215 (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I interesting, did it make sense to develop a gas technics for states which have not much gas natural resources, is it been effective?--85.141.232.215 (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While natural gas is a less expensive source of energy than electricity in most places where both are available, the amount of energy used in home cooking is typically quite low, so other issues take precedence. One issue with gas is that ventilation is needed, or you can just let the fumes accumulate in the house, as long as the cooking is minimal.  StuRat (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * StuRat, may be a gas being none functional?--85.141.232.14 (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Professional chefs prefer gas stoves (with proper ventilation), since they are quicker, both because they don't require preheating, and because the heating occurs not only at the bottom of the pots, but on the sides as well, due to convection. (While some convection occurs wherever there is a fluid with a temperature differential, the gas flow starts the convection process and increases it, while electric stoves heat mainly by radiation and conduction.)  Subsequently, electric stoves have more of a tendency to burn food at the bottom of the pot, while gas may burn food at the waterline.  None of this affects the convection inside the pot, of course.  Gas is also preferable because the heat can be more quickly reduced, while an electric stove is so slow that it is often necessary to remove the pot from the burner.  As for ovens, there is very little difference there between gas and electric.  One advantage of gas, in all cases, is that it is generally more reliable, with gas outages being quite rare, while electrical outages are common. StuRat (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So, what gas formula is been the best for gas technics as and for cooking and how much it is being in nature?--83.237.192.78 (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are asking about the natural gas supply, we are expected to reach peak gas production around 2020-2030, with production declining after that as supplies go down: Peak_gas. I'm, not sure if fracking for shale gas has been figured in, though, which has dramatically increased production, at least in the US. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Could be the cost of development always been determines the success (efficiency) of this development, therefore the development which have a more low cost is always been more successful (more effective), so that did the more effective between gas and electric technics are always been technics which have a more low cost?--83.237.205.177 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course, low costs are always been considered to exclude from economy.--85.141.233.63 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As I discussed above, the cost isn't the only factor, or even the most important factor, when it comes to cooking. The percentage of household income spent on energy to run the stove just isn't enough to much matter. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * StuRat, why be that, if low costs are always been considered as much effective costs in economy?--85.141.233.169 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Because most purchase decisions are not solely based on cost. Would you buy used underpants, if they were cheaper ?  I'm hoping not. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * StuRat, but what to do, if the cost of capital - the cost of the national currency is forcing you to economise costs constantly?--83.237.220.215 (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So that, everything will be economise.--83.237.198.247 (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd look for "low hanging fruit". That's an expression that means you find the easiest ways to economize, with the best return on investment, and do those first.  For example, if you want to save on your electricity bill, I suggest switching to CFL bulbs from incandescent, if you haven't already.  To save on gas, I suggest insulating the hot water pipes and getting a programmable thermostat, so you can automatically turn the temperature setting down when at work, etc.  And you can turn the temperature setting down when home, too, and put on a sweater.  I also put Styrofoam plugs in windows I don't really use, to save on heat loss that way.  But changing your stove to save electricity is something that may never pay for itself, as the tiny savings each year wouldn't cover the purchase price, over the life of the product (or your life).  If you need a new stove for some other reason, then it may make more sense.   StuRat (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * StuRat, do you mean that the cost of any thing always depends on the economise cost that this thing creates during it use life?--83.237.196.0 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, the total economic cost of an item includes the purchase/installation price, the cost to maintain and operate it (including the cost of electricity or gas, in this case), and the cost to dispose of it. So, the entire life cycle must be counted. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that all it is always be simple, because a more cheapest things are always creates a more economise costs.--83.237.196.0 (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the less expensive item initially costs more to operate, such as cheap bubble jet printers with expensive ink, versus expensive laser printers with cheap toner. But, that's not always the case.  For example, an economy car may use less gas and be less expensive to repair, than a luxury car. StuRat (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition, the cost of things are always determines the demand for these things.--83.237.205.147 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Not always. Veblen goods are items where the demand actually goes up as the price goes up.  The more common situation is a necessity, like life-saving medical care, where few people will opt to die rather than pay the price, whatever it is. StuRat (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you StuRat. But I think that more cheapest things are always been more cheapest in any cases of economise, so that a most cheapest things are always been a most economise.--85.141.232.160 (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Therefore a households electric stoves are always been much expensive for states which have a lot of gas natural resources than households gas stoves, as also a households electric stoves are always been more expensive for states which have much gas natural resources than households gas stoves.--85.141.232.25 (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably for the successful development of the economic and technics the USSR was always needed a lot of gas natural resources.--85.141.232.14 (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand that Russia used to export more gas to Europe than they do now, due to embargoes over the Ukraine issue, and that many European nations don't trust Russia enough to allow themselves to become dependent on Russia for gas. So, for Russia to develop economically, they really need a peaceful end to the Ukraine problem, agreed to by all nations, and not to engage in any similar attempts to regain portions of the old Soviet Union.  Russia's support for Bashar Assad in Syria also is causing problems, particularly in trade with Turkey. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe stupidity made my country USSR-Russia, at first saving electricity and in the end saving natural gas.--83.237.204.19 (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there was no sense to my country USSR-Russia to choose their banking on natural gas development.--83.237.203.78 (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the end, it is be possible that natural gas development was turned out more cheap to my country USSR-Russia than electrical development. (Of course, for win an electrical development in my country USSR-Russia, their needed to make electricity cheaper than natural gas and disassemble - demount the electricity meters.)--83.237.195.28 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean negative and positive electrode?
I read many times about negative and positive electrodes, and I didn't pay attention for the deep meaning, therefore I didn't knew more than that the positive has + and the negative has -. For example if I'm taking ECG machine which has two electrodes only (there are others machines with more, but I'm talking about one channel) one is positive and one is negative, what does it mean positive and negative in this context? 93.126.95.68 (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A modern ECG (electrocardiograph) machine has 12 electrodes that are placed on the body. They detect small AC signals relative to the common ground of the instrument and patient, and the display polarity shows the QRS complex as an upward spike. A device with only two-leads, such as an E-meter (whose electrodes are interchangeable), cannot legally provide any medical diagnosis. AllBestFaith (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. But I didn't understand what is the answer to my question. (I mentioned explicitly that there are machines with more electrodes, but this is the less important point in my question that talks about the meaning of positive and negative electrodes rather than the meanings of the waves - such us p / qrs/ t waves) 93.126.95.68 (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An automated external defibrillator is a heart-related device with only two electrodes. In general, the positive electrode has a positive potential, and the negative one has a negative potential. What that means depends a bit on the medium between the two. In a normal metallic conductor, electrons move from the negative potential to the positive potential. In ionic solutions, anions will go to the positive electrode (the Anode), and cations will go to the negative electrode (cathode). Note that I'm bad with arbitrary symmetries like left/right, negative/positive, anode/cathode, so it might be the other way round ;-). . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * also artificial pacemaker as far as I know. 93.126.95.68 (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)..
 * Now I'm beginning to understand what it means. Let's continue with the example of the ECG electrodes, then we have medium of matallic conductor. I know what is electrron and what is positive or negative potential (positive potential = more positive charge than negative charge. Negative electrons= more negative charge than positive charge) but I don't understand how it happens, it says, how one electron gets positiveness while the other gets negativeness 93.126.95.68 (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read our article on electron. Electrons are always negative. Normal matter consists of electrons with negative charge and atomic nuclei with positive charge - with each atom normally having exactly enough electrons to balance the positive charge of the nucleus (which is due to the protons in the nucleus). But under certain conditions, atoms can lose or gain extra electrons, creating ions. Or, in a metal, the atoms form a lattice in which many electrons are freely shared between different atoms. In the case of an AED, the medium between the two electrodes is the human body, which is basically a bag of salty water with some less interesting structures. If giving a shock, the positive electrode is charged positively (i.e. depleted in electrons), the negative electrode is charged negatively (with a superabundance of electrons), and a current flows through (hopefully) or around the body to equalise the potential. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a shame. I don't believe that I wrote "electron" instead of charge, it was by confusion. Believe me that I know what is electron, ion, cation and anion. I edited it. Anyway, ehat is AED? 93.126.95.68 (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
 * An AED is the automated external defibrillator mentioned above, basically a device to handle some heart conditions by giving an electric shock that is simple enough that it needs only minimal training. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I think that now I just don't understand how could we do one electron negative and the other positive. It is the same metal. What does make it with positive charge or negative charge? (you see that if we take off the machine of the electricity, then the electrodes will have the same charge) 93.126.95.68 (talk) 19:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The heart is a "machine of electricity", and does produce a very small voltage between different points on the skin when it beats. This voltage is amplified by the ECG machine so that we can observe it. Tevildo (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're all a bit confused by the question. My guess would be that if you have a multimeter, EEG whatever and you have a + electrode and a - electrode, then you ought to get a reading of +1 if there is +1 volt at the positive relative to the negative, and -1 if there is +1 volt at the negative electrode relative to the positive.  (If that's an EEG reading, I would advise quietly stepping out of the room and letting someone else play with the alien)  However, there's a certain element of uncertainty at this guess, which I hope does not exceed 50%, so don't count that as an answer just yet.  But please confirm if that's the question you're asking. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do my glass lenses get foggy but my eyes do not?
Both use lens. But my glasses always get foggy when I eat a steamy meal, but my eyes do not. Why not? Not that I complain about the phenomenon. Just that I find it peculiar. 140.254.77.140 (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * - not sure if I'm meant to be taking you seriously about the whole "why aren't my eyes steamy?" thing, but condensation is the scientific term for the process. It's when the steam from the food turns into a liquid, which appears on the lenses of your glasses. If you are being serious, the lenses in front of your eyes prevent the moisture from actually entering your eyes. The "phenomenon", if that is what you wish to call it, actually is annoying, not to mention a safety risk to runners and cyclists. --Ches (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that explanation, as eyes have plenty of moisture in them all the time. It's the fact that the lenses are cold that allows water vapor to condense on them (heating the glasses would stop condensation, just as the defog setting in your car does for the windows).  Also, blinking clears excess moisture from the eyes, much like windshield wipers. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your eyes are always wet from the secretions of your tear glands - a little extra moisture will make no significant difference. Blinking maintains the layer of moisture anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The eyes are of course coated with liquid... actually though, from a reading of tears it's far more complicated than I'd imagined, with separate lipid, aqueous and mucus layers. If your eyeglasses had something wiping them as often as you blink, and were heated with a nice warm supply of blood flowing continuously through them, I imagine they would remain always quite clear though. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If we are simply guessing, the OP does not live where the air temperature is so low as to cause the surface of his eyeballs to freeze between blinks. Somewhere like Ohio. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ???. Step into a steam bath. Temperature and humidity is well above the Dew point point of the eyeballs. Just as the steamy meal is above the dew point of ones specticles. Of course, the eyeballs themselves do not fog because of the wetting agents  there in– just like smearing soap onto glasses to stop them fogging in a steam bath. Yet, one has to blink a lot to wipe away the excess accumulation of water, in order to retain normal vision. Spit also helps to stop the fogging of spectacles and scuba diving masks for the same reason that it has wetting properties, so that the condensates don't form globules and fog ones vision. Does this make sense to you?--Aspro (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Antifungal antibiotic
Are there any pharmaceutical drugs (or, more broadly, any chemical compounds) that are effective against both bacteria and fungi? I see the term "antifungal antibiotic" used throughout Wikipedia (search results) and elsewhere, but the term doesn't seem to apply strictly to what I'm asking about. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * One thing to be aware of is that there is a normal balance of bacteria, etc. on your skin, in your body, etc., and killing off everything leads to bad things happening. For example, some little nasty that was controlled by the bacteria now grows out of control.  See broad-spectrum antibiotic.  StuRat (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that the use of the term "antifungal antibiotic" may be a loose use of the term "antibiotic". Although "antibiotic" actually means "against life", it primarily refers to antibacterial antibiotics, which are either of fungal origin or are similar to antibiotics of fungal origin.  Bacteria and fungi are usually enemies, because they are competitors for food supplies.  The bacteria and the fungi, in any particular environment, are likely to keep each other in check.  I would have concerns about whether a product that is effective against both bacteria and fungi is safe to animals (which, like fungi, are eukaryotes).  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One example of such a drug is dapsone. Ruslik_ Zero 20:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure dapsone is used as an antifungal? The Wikipedia article describes its use against bacteria and against parasites (protozoa), but not fungi.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * According to this information leaflet "DAPSONE is used ... to help control ... a fungal disease called Actinomycotic mycetoma", though that article seems to say that this is a bacterial infection. Eumycetoma (contains a rather gruesome image) is apparently the fungal equivalent. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dapsone is used to treat Pneumocystis pneumonia, which a fungal disease (and a HIV defining disease). Ruslik_ Zero 20:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The OP might be looking for an antiseptic, but any such medicine (iodine, alcohol) is likely to be caustic to human tissues as well, which is why one applies rubbing alcohol, iodine solution, or hydrogen peroxide only externally. The only best answer we can give is, speak to your physician or pharmacist.  If you are in the US, google your nearest 24-hour CVS pharmacy and ask to speak to the pharmacist.  They will give anonymous consults. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Also as a mouthwash/gargle, although you might want to avoid iodine there, as it tastes awful, and use grain alcohol rather than rubbing alcohol, which is toxic if swallowed. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Miller, Trey Parker, global warming
Do these guys still claim that global warming isn't a serious problem?144.35.45.70 (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The beliefs these people hold about science aren't themselves really science. You might get better responses (quotes from interviews, etc.) if you asked this at the Entertainment desk, which is usually better suited for discussion of celebrities. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * These are rather science-irrelevant, potentially WP:BLP violating questions. We suggest you contact these people via their publicists, rather than asking volunteers at a reference desk to speculate on a loaded question regarding their state of mind. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of interviews that can be quoted/referenced. OPs don't have to care about BLP, respondents do. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing exempting OP's from the BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course not. What I meant was that OPs don't have to care about the fact that some respondent might violate BLP in the future. The question as-written is fine, if perhaps on the wrong desk. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I really need to define "potentially"? This was meant as a cautionary note.  It's not like I castigated the OP and then erased the entire thread.  Per Pink Floyd, pay attention, please. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you're addressing Mantis? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (Yes, I think that's most likely, I remind people of WP:INDENT here a lot :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The question in no way violates BLP. If it did' violate BLP, you could remove it. But it does not. OP can ask any question they want, without having to consider that some respondent may violate BLP in their response. It is silly to cast aspersion on the questioner because it might engender a response that violates some guideline. If you see a BLP violation, please do remove it. But also note that every'' post on the ref desk could potentially lead to something that violates some guideline, and so mentioning that is not really helpful. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Most of this Wikipedia policy nonsense is silly, but it's true this sounds like a basically biographical question. We have articles Dennis Miller, Trey Parker ... if these are the people you mean, climate change doesn't sound like their occupation, so there's no guarantee they've addressed the subject since. Wnt (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've found many references to some comments in interviews from Parker, but nothing after 2010 or so. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)