Miscellaneous desk
< January 28	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 30 >

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.

January 29[edit]

Zipcard in a washing machine and dryer[edit]

I have, through idiocy on my part, inadvertently washed my Zipcar access card through both a washing machine (cold water only) and dryer cycle. It looks the same as it ever did, superficially (it is not deformed or anything), but will it work again? Obviously I could try it to find out, but if it didn't work, that would be kind of a huge pain in the neck (I'd have to call them to unlock the car each time I wanted to get in it... not fun. And reserving it just to test costs money.). (And getting a new one ordered up costs $15, which I'd like to pass on, if it's possible.)

The Zipcar article indicates that they are RFID cards. Can they survive such conditions? Note again that the wash cycle was cold only (don't ask), though the dryer was obviously hot. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Customer Service phone number on the card? Your best bet is to call them and find out what to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The customer service phone people aren't going to know what conditions their cards can withstand. My gut feeling is that an RFID chip encapsulated inside a card that hasn't deformed or broken is probably fine, but I'm not an expert. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic! It's not the same thing, but I have 2 thumb drives which have been through a front load commercial washing machine, one of them twice. And they still work! The drying cycle sounds a bit iffy. (I didn't dry!) I expect that an RFID chip is well encapsulated, as 93.97.184.230 said, so I think your chances are good!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once put a RFID card for the doors at a place I was working through a wash-and-dry cycle. It was fine, even though the heat from the drying cycle made it bend to the shape of the drum! So yeah, I wouldn't worry. --Roydisco (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: it worked just fine. Hooray. Thanks. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Average dentist salary in Indonesia?[edit]

How can I find out the average (or median) dentist income in Indonesia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.155.128 (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By asking 1000 Indonesian dentists and then finding the average. OK, serious answer now, I suggest you find someone on the Languages ref desk that speaks the relevant language/s and see if they can help you find the information. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photography[edit]

Hi,

I am keen to know how to become a Wildlife Photographer? I am not being able to know where to start from..... Everyone other thinks that it is a useless profession.......... Just help me out with this........

Thanking u.

Deepak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddienaps (talk • contribs) 07:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With a profession like photography, you can't just jump in and specialize in whatever field you want to straight away. You have to start at the bottom and build up your experience. Become a photographer first, then start trying to specialize. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit negative. I know an animal photographer; he works in a zoo. I think the photography evolved out of the zookeeping, in his case. 213.122.17.205 (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, begin as an asistant to the best photographer who will take you. Type of photography not important - you are there to learn the basics. Study part-time. Get the basics in place. Then move on to a job where you can gain first class experience. After a few years (5?) you should be able to start to specialise. (Obviously you can photo wild life in your spare time - you also have to learn about habitat, woodcraft and patience.) Good luck.Froggie34 (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise...buy instructional books on photography, or contact local schools/education centres to see if they do night-classes on photography (a lot of places do). Get out there and practice. A wise person once said that the worst 10,000 photographs you'll take are your first 10,000 (i.e. it's a numbers games). If you want to try get into the business think about ways you can do it 'part time' or as a income-generation hobby. THere are plenty of Stock photography websites where you can submit your work and get paid for every 'use'. They're an excellent place to get started. Once you feel you have a good stock of photographs consider approaching card-manufacturers, calendar manufacturers directly. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First get a camera (my first was a Fujifilm FinePix S5600 and I was very, very satisfied) and remember to take it with you wherever you go. And just start shooting away. You'll soon learn how to choose the scene composition, zoom, sensitivity and all those other tidbits; from my experience it all comes with practice, and if you ask me, it's way better than spending tons of pounds/euros/whatever on books. And, you'll sooner or later find out which type of photography you prefer, and which subjects you fancy - wildlife, people, clouds, whatever. And remember to always enjoy what you do - you're off on an excellent adventure. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My wife, who actually is a wildlife photographer, partially agrees with all the responses so far. I'll try to sum up what she had to say. Think about how you learn best and go with that. If it's in a classroom, go to night classes or workshops. If it's with books, buy books. And if you're naturally good at just picking something up and going with it, get a camera and start shooting. As far as stock photography goes, that's a tough way to start. You have to have a very large number of images to even get their attention. And then once you do, you usually have to sign a contract saying that you'll provide them with X number of images per month/year. Basically, they're not there to help starting photographers out. They're a business that needs good photos to sell. Not just any snap shots will do. My wife recommends the book The Photographer's Market which advises on where a photographer can sell their images. I have no idea where you are, so I don't know if it's published near you. Magazines like Nature's Best Photography and Nature Photographer are good for learning. And when you're ready, you can submit images to them for printing. Also, one of our friends is also a wildlife photographer. He's travelled to Kenya, the Arctic, and other far away places to take pictures, he's been published numerous times, and he still has a "day" job teaching biology at a college. There are very few who can do it for a full time income and even fewer still who get "rich" doing it. And lastly, it was Ansel Adams who said, "Any photographer worth his salt has 10000 bad negatives under his belt". Best of luck, Dismas|^(talk) 13:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I install Windows 7?[edit]

is windows 7 better than windows XP ??? i have windows XP installed in computer , should i install it........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.253.131 (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Better" is subjective, and which Operating System you use is depends on the hardware you have, your personal needs and several other criteria which we can not determine. This question might get more response on the Computing desk, but if you choose to post it there -- use the link at the top of the page so that a proper title is given, sign your post, and provide more detail. --LarryMac | Talk 14:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XP is good. I wouldn't upgrade yet unless there's a problem with XP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it meet Windows 7's minimum requirements? Is your hardware (and software) compatible? Run the Upgrade Advisor to find out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 7 is extremely sucky on a machine that only meets the minimum requirements. Microsoft were under considerable pressure to lower the bar for 'acceptance' so a minimally acceptable machine runs Win7 exceedingly poorly. Unless your computer is pretty new and has all the fancy bells and whistles, I'd definitely stick with XP. I think the jury is still out on whether Win7 is better on faster machines - but on a less than fully modern high performance machine, XP wins hands-down. SteveBaker (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first question is the same for any possible upgrade - do you have any problems that would be solved by upgrading? Upgrading for the sake of it is usually a bad idea. Windows XP will still be supported with security updates for April 2014 (and that could well be extended). So, unless there is some specific feature of Windows 7 that you think you would benefit from, you shouldn't upgrade until then (or a few months before in case you have problems at the first attempt and have to revert back to XP and try again). --Tango (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 7 is quite nice, there are a few useful tricks with moving windows around and changing the background and such like, though I also quite liked 98. Also, check to make sure all your programs would still be compatible with the new version. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redesigned start menu and taskbar are quite nice. The ability to dock windows to sides of the screen is something I've been wanting in Windows since 3.1. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question that has to be asked, with any potential upgrade, is "What's in it for me?" We know what's in it for Microsoft: Big Bucks. As Tango was saying, what problems will you fix and what problems will you cause? The latter is likely going to be somewhat of a known quantity. The former is more personal. OK, so the cosmetics look nice. But XP looks nice. Do you have an issue with XP that only 7 will fix? Does XP have anything you can't live without, that will go away in 7? The answer to those kinds of personalized questions should drive the decision to upgrade or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a specific upgrade item, though not about XP vs. 7. I run IE 7. My standard-issue office PC also runs IE 7. I keep seeing messages on youtube that support for IE 7 will go away "soon". It's been saying that for like a year. We aren't allowed to run youtube at the office, so that's no problem. At home? Well, when and if they stop supporting IE 7, then I'll consider an upgrade. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just switch to FireFox - it's much better than IE anyway and the exact same version runs on all modern OS's. Besides, you can upgrade IE without replacing the entire OS. IE 8 runs on WinXP and Vista as well as Win7 and it's a free download! I can't think of any reason not to upgrade. SteveBaker (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would Firefox do for me that IE won't? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE, but many Firefox users say it's the addons that make the difference, such as adblock, which does exactly what it says on the tin. You know, an upgrade to IE8 should be free and easy (unless your work computer is locked down (mine still runs IE6). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about 2012[edit]

is there something to worry about the 2012 future forecast??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.253.131 (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. --LarryMac | Talk 14:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Watch the film. It's a documentary, like Plan 9 from Outer Space only with a budget larger than a McDonald's gift certificate. At the start of that film, Criswell said, "Future events like this will affect you in the future." Certainly the 2012 movie has at least that much credibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Mesoamerican Long Count calendar and 2012 phenomenon. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's false, there's nothing to worry about beyond what we normally worry about. And if it's true, there's nothing that can be done about it. So either way, it's no worries, mate. I was intrigued by one theory that it's not the end of the world literally, just the world as we know it - a dawn of harmony and understanding, or some such. Similarly, 1969 was supposed to be the dawning of the age of Aquarius. How has that worked out so far? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, people worry about catastrophes and apocalypses for pretty much the same reasons they worry about death - they want to know if there's anything they can do to stop it, and they want an incentive to rush out and do things (for better or worse) that they would normally not have the courage to do. the destruction of everything is a wonderful, freeing motivation. It seems to me that there are simpler, more direct ways to get yourself amped up than fantasizing about the end of all existence... but don't mind me, I'm sane. --Ludwigs2 16:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} ;) - Fribbler (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol - I'd have to cite myself. which I could do, mind you, except I'm worried I might get caught in a self-referential feedback loop and explode. we'd end up with little bits of me all over wikipedia; nasty cleanup job. --Ludwigs2 17:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most insightful comments I've ever seen was from the late Stephen Jay Gould, who said, "Man is the only animal that worries about the future, so we invented God to take care of the future for us." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the Mayans knew the world would end in 2012 is a bit like saying that IBM knows the world will end in 2038.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble: Not IBM. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ bbugs: of course, the Christians would retort that it's our own danged fault due to original sin - biting into that apple made 2012 (and 2038, and y2k, and the millennium, and the millennium before that) seem like real problems. can't abide creationism, personally, but the story of genesis has some rich symbolism.

@ Shantavira: I always find people's response to the Mayan calendar interesting. You can't read about the Mayan calendar without reading about the fact that it's cyclical, and yet everyone seems to forget all about its cyclicality when they think about 2012. how people get from "It all starts over again" to "It all ends" fascinates me. --Ludwigs2 18:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you believe in the Mayans' powers of prediction? They didn't even see the Spanish coming. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

true, but Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! --Ludwigs2 23:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they did predict the Spanish coming, just not what they would do once they arrived. Didn't someone work out that there were a whole series of disasters at the beginning of the mayan calendar as well, 5000 years ago. I'm sure I remember reading something about a layer of sediment dropped during a flood, with more sophisticated pottery below it than above, and legends from around the world about burning skies and terrible floods and storms and few scattered survivors and so on. Of course the Maya usually counted the date in 20s, rather than 13s, which might give us an extra 2500 years, perhaps. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, if they haven't already, the experts on this subject need to take Erik von Donachen and his "Chariots of the Gods" into account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past is a book written in 1968 by Erich von Däniken. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of this Line in English[edit]

Resolved

Dear Sir, Please provide me with the meaning of this Line "do re mi fa sol la ti do???"...in English.please Sir. Thanking You —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnSh223 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are names for the notes in a musical scale; see Solfège. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as the "origin" section of that article will tell you, they are originally Latin, not English (although they are now used in English and some other languages). --Anonymous, 23:58 UTC, January 29, 2010.

See Do-Re-Mi for the non-scholarly, pop-culture version. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of videos on the subject:"Solfeggio""Do-Re-Mi" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I want to bet on the Supreme Court reversing Roe v Wade this term.[edit]

Is there a British or other bookmaker accessible online from the USA who'd let me place the bet? Thanks. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of them have it as pre-prepared odds, but lots of British bookies (and possibly other countries too) will allow you to walk in and request odds on a range of bets not on the 'menu', so to speak. It's worth a try. Prokhorovka (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sucker bet. It ain't gonna happen. Woogee (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "sucker bet" in the sense of the linked article. It would be a "novelty bet". Bookies are willing to offer odds, but the odds will be poor value and the bookies will only accept small stakes because there are too few offsetting bets to safely pool the liability against other punters. The definition of "the Supreme Court reversing Roe v Wade this term" could be problematic; "this term" is obvious, but what degree of change would constitute a "reversal" is a matter of opinion. For comparison Paddy Power is already offering odds on the outcome of "the next referendum on the topic of abortion held in Ireland", which will either be Yes or No. jnestorius^(talk) 23:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intrade or the Iowa Electronic Markets do not have a listing for it. Someone with more experience with prediction markets could try others.--droptone (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]