Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 September 28

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 28

Three

In the movie Inglorious Basterds a British SOE operative was caught out by signifying the symbol for three in a non German manner. I studied German for over 7 years, and I did hear that German ladies wear wedding rings on their right hands, but is this other thing true ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherlilly (talk • contribs)

I have seen three different methods of using the fingers to signify the number "3" in fairly widespread use. In the U.S., the most common method is to use the index, middle, and ring fingers, with the thumb holding down the pinky. But I have also seen it done with the middle, ring, and pinky, with the thumb holding down the index finger, AND with the thumb, index, and middle finger, with the ring and pinky resting against the palm. I have no idea which of these is more "German", but there are likely cultural connections, so it is not outside of the realm of possibility that someone could spot where you were from, or not, by how you made the hand sign for three. --Jayron32 04:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

here is the first one I describe. here is the second. here is the third. --Jayron32 04:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen I.B. but if the OP means the written symbol for three, then it could be a reference to an old movie in which some German soldiers are pretending to be British and one of them gets found out becuase he writes a seven with a line across it, which is apparently a more germanic way of writing it. I'll try and find the film.Popcorn II (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the OP means Finger counting. The I.B. scene is mentioned in that article. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm german and would use the third way to signify three if that helps. No idea if this is universal. I would consider the other two methods to be quite odd though. The ring thing is true as well (not just ladies, men as well).195.128.251.111 (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that answers it then - I personally only use the third method when i am counting from 1 to 3 - if I was asked to hold 3 fingers up it would automatically be the middle three with thumb holding down pinky... But as that is described as the "US" version by Jayron so maybe nowadays it's each to their own... To the OP please be aware that this film is fictional and therefore this fact isn't actually true of the times - maybe it was a convenient way to start a gun scene... Gazhiley (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

can you help me?

Hi I'm Sally and I'm new here. My boyfriend told me the other night he was reading something about a primordial soup, and he was really interested in it. I would like to make it for him, but I don't have the recipe. Could you help? Sallysays (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope that's a joke, but in case it's not: see Abiogenesis. The "primordial soup" theory is that life originated about by a reactions of various molecules in a liquid environment. - Jmabel | Talk 07:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For one recipe (not really authentic, but a reasonable imitation), see Miller–Urey experiment. --Trovatore (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As Shantavira notes below, of course the product is not intended for human consumption. --Trovatore (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The possibility of creating conditions out of which new life may arise is an intriguing prospect, if you and your boyfriend are willing to undertake responsibility for the consequences...? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See Stone soup on ideas for making it more delicious :) Dmcq (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Be warned that it tastes horrible and he could die from drinking it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Nanny Ogg's Cookbook has a recipe for "primordial soup", a sort of gumbo with green food colouring. Its only connection to primordial soup theory is a jokey name, though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In the book it's Primal soup. Would posting the recipe be copyright infringement? Vimescarrot (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the WP legal disclaimer (the following is a quotation from a newspaper, not legal advice), and not considering the accompanying descriptive text: "No, says Alex Papakyriacou, of intellectual property law firm Briffa. "Case law suggests that reproducing a written recipe in the preparation of a dish is not copyright infringement." AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to say that you can't copyright the dish itself. I'm almost sure that the text you use to describe the recipe is copyright. Vimescarrot would surely have to paraphrase, unless it's short enough to slide in under fair use. --Trovatore (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is under US law, but indeed recipes aren't copyrightable, as the list of ingredients is the only practical way to phrase this particular idea. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, but there's more to a recipe than a list of ingredients. There's considerable freedom for "artistic choices" in how you word the instructions for preparing the dish. --Trovatore (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the short version of primal soup: Lots and lots of fish, squid, and shellfish, with some white wine, tomatoes, an egg, some pasta, and various herbs and seasonings. And of course green food colouring*. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

*Technically (see The Science of Discworld), primal soup should be a vivid turquiose. But no-one who is anyone was there, so why worry?

Yoohoo, it's sally back. This is beginning to sound like a lot of work, and it may have a yuck factor too. Can I get a can of it somewhere? I asked someone whose got some brains, and they said I should try "Hoyle's Panspermia". Oh wow, I don't like the sound of that at all!! Sallysays (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm really starting to think you're pulling our legs here. But if you want to present your boyfriend with a jokey "primordial soup", just look for tinned gumbo, and add food colouring. If you want to get the real thing, you can't because no-one knows for certain if it existed or what exactly it was. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that "primordial soup" is merely a metaphore for conditions under which new life might be created. Obviously this depends on the nature of your relationship, but he wouldn't be the first boyfriend to express an interest in re-creating such conditions. :-) Mitch Ames (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You might wish to invite the astronomer who coined the phrase "Big Bang", namely Fred Hoyle, to this dinner, and discuss panspermia, 'the hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies'. The wonders of having an encyclopedia at you fingertips. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The evening would presumably have to include a seance, as Prof. Sir Fred Hoyle no longer dwells on this mortal plane. However, his long-time colleague and fellow Panspermist, Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe, could attend in corporeal form. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an educational video of Julia Child cooking up some primordial soup. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ebay and auctioning

What does ebay do besides from auctioning ? Are there other activities related to their business ? And is this ebay thing only can be done in the US, can it be done in other countries as well ? I think I have problem in understanding the real concept of "ebay"ing. Please help. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 09:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, as far as other countries go, the article answers that question with a rather large table. I'm not sure how you could have missed it. The article also explains quite a bit about the company, including what other businesses they own, so I'm not sure what we can answer that isn't already there. As far as what it means to "ebay" something, it just means to sell your item on eBay. Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, what I am trying to ask is for example if I'm staying in HK, can I buy products that are listed on US ebay ? HK people can only buy products from HK ebay? Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 10:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You can buy from anywhere in the world, and sell to anywhere in the world if you want to. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you or the other party wants to deal with customs and shipping costs should be taken into account, of course. Also, many sellers will only deal with people in their own country. Dismas|^(talk) 12:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I live in the USA and have bought items on ebay.co.uk without problems - but (as others have pointed out), some sellers don't offer their goods for sale outside of their national boundaries. It's vitally important that you check this before bidding. SteveBaker (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And there are lots of people in China, HK, Ukraine, you name it, who advertise on regular US ebay.com. I have ordered from them many times. Shipping is slow but the prices are often dirt cheap (as far as an American is concerned, I'm sure they're making a killing on it, which is fine by me!). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As for your first question, what EBay does besides auctioning, the EBay article touches on their other businesses, most notably two businesses they acquired, PayPal and Skype (the latter which, I believe, is now considered to have been a disastrous purchase). Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's almost always better to be a seller than a buyer in dotcom things, as far as I can tell. Many of them simply don't have rigorous business models other than being sold to a bigger company at some point. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

'Stronger Yen'

This article on the BBC does not make sense to me - it seems to contradict itself. I have always thought of the BBC as a trustworthy source of news, so I believe that I must be missing something really obvious here, so please can someone put me right. The article states that the Yen is on an '8 month high' against the dollar, at 88.23 Yen compared to 87.10 Yen in January. It then says that this 'stronger yen' is good for Japanese importers but bad for exporters. As I was led to believe, when a currency goes up, this means it is weaker, and it would cost more to import and exports would be cheaper. What am I missing here? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If we were talking about the Euro going up from $1.40 to $1.50 I would say it is getting stronger, but with the yen, is it not going from 1/87 to 1/88 which would indicate that it is getting weaker? Googlemeister (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am glad we both agree on this. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confused: the Yen now is worth more than it was for the past few months: the dollar has gone down against the Yen and the Yen has gone up against the dollar. This means that the Yen buys more overseas goods, which means it's good for importers; however since other currencies are worth less, then foreigners can buy fewer goods. You might be confused by comparing the January price, 87.10, against the current price, 88.23, but the BBC is talking about the intervening period when the Yen was weaker.

Don't forget also that that Euro and the Pound are usually quoted as dollar price of one unit, so when they get stronger the number goes up. The Yen is usually quoted as Yen to the Dollar, so when it gets stronger the number goes down. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I was confused by the article, too. The writer assumed that everyone knows that the yen has been at nearly 99 to the dollar in April, but the BBC normally has a higher standard of communication to the non-specialist. Dbfirs 20:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. The article doesn't specify what the Yen was in the intervening period that's true. But it seems clear to me that it was significantly weaker in the intervening period whatever the value was. Knowing what the value was may help understand the situation better but even if you hadn't mentioned it was 99 to the dollar, I would still understand the article despite having no knowledge of what the Yen had been like beyond what the article says. I do have some minor experience in reading these sort of currency articles and perhaps that's necessary to understand the BBC article. Note that article does not compare the Yen now to January. It says it's on a high now and higher then anything else since 87.10 in January. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article says that the yen has "reached 88.23 yen per dollar - the highest since January's 13-year high of 87.10." In other words, one yen was worth about 1.13 cents when the article was written (it's currently 90.25 yen per dollar, or a value of about 1.11 cents, according to Yahoo). Over the past eight months, the yen has had a lower value, trading for as little as 100.9285 yen per dollar, or a value of about 0.99 cents, on April 6. You have to look back to January, when the yen was doing quite well with a value of about 1.15 cents, to find a period when the yen was worth more than it was when the article was written.

I would disagree with your characterization that "when a currency goes up, this means it is weaker." When a currency goes up, this means it is stronger. "Going up" means that it is worth more, so it will have a lower ratio against the dollar. For example, the yen strengthened against the dollar from April 6, when there were 100.9285 yen per dollar, to the time specified in the article, when there were 88.23 yen per dollar. John M Baker (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, remember that the Yen is normally quoted the other way round from most currencies - Yen/Dollar rather than Dollar/something. So when the Yen "strengthens" the Yen/dollar rate goes down - but we normally say the Yen is "going up" anyway. Canadian dollars, for example, are normally quoted as "so many $US per $CDN", and that number rises when the $CDN "goes up". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, note that the original article says: "The currency reached 88.23 yen per dollar - the highest since January's 13-year high of 87.10." That means that 87.10 is considered higher than 88.23 (otherwise it would have said it was the highest for 13 years). DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fish identification

The fish in question

File:Purple fish with red eyes in aquarium.jpg is up for renaming (and, I suppose, possible transfer to commons), but is lacking any information about what it is. Unfortunately, I'm rubbish with fish, so if anyone else could have a go at identifying it that would be great. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some species of chiclid? Googlemeister (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly some kind of Cichlid. Difficult to say which one. Almost certainly from Africa. Are there any other pictures? If not maybe just 'African Cichlid'?Popcorn II (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Chromis abyssus ? http://geology.com/press-release/top-ten-species-2009/deep-blue-chromis.shtml http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=deep%20blue%20chromis%20fish&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.251.196 (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I renamed the file and changed the links here accordingly in anticipation of moving the file to commons. kmccoy (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Geography / Deserts

Are there any deserts which also have a forest as part of them?

Petrified Forest National Park lies within Painted Desert, Arizona. Beyond the many man-made examples that could be cited, it'll come down to your definitions of what exactly constitutes "desert" and "forest". Going with the "less than 250 mm of annual precipitation" definition of desert, I find that boreal forests have precipitation as low as 200 mm annually. There are additionally many forested areas along rivers and lakes in desert regions. — Lomn 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some cactus forests near Phoenix. They would be rather different from a traditional forest. Googlemeister (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Chihuahuan Desert includes portions of Lincoln National Forest and other forested areas including the Guadalupe Mountains (forested at higher elevations) and the Davis Mountains. Big Bend National Park also includes forested areas and is in the Chihuahuan Desert. Trees include Ponderosa Pine, Juniper, Pinyon pine, Madrone, Cedar, Oak and others. WTucker (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

An oasis might fit your definitions. --Sean 14:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Tonto National Forest is in the Sonoran Desert. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The sky islands in the Sonoran Desert are perfect examples of forests surrounded by desert. Specifically the Santa Catalina Mountains, the Rincon Mountains, and the Santa Rita Mountains have extensive pine forests when they are not being burnt by wildfires. The pictures in the articles aren't too great, but it is "honest to goodness foresty forest" when you get up in altitude. Mount Lemmon in the Catalinas actually has a ski slope. If you have a lower cutoff for your definition of forest, the riparian areas in the Sonoran desert might also qualify as you can get nice big tall cottonwoods and such which look a bit like a forest when you get a dense enough area of them. 152.16.15.144 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)