Miscellaneous desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 20 >

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.

May 19[edit]

Images École nationale de l'aviation civile and Institut Polytechnique des Sciences Avancées[edit]

Hi. Reading the article École nationale de l'aviation civile and Institut Polytechnique des Sciences Avancées, I try to add an image for both of them. But, unfortunately, I can't because I don't have an account. Is there anybody who can help me and add these two imagines. You can found them here for ENAC : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:École_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile_(logo).svg and here for IPSA : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Logo-ipsa.png. Thanks for your help. Kind regards. 81.253.75.129 (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean "National School Of Civil Aviation" and "Polytechnical Institution Of Advanced Science"? I always will be drt2012 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Musical talent/proficiency[edit]

At what age is it considered too late to learn and be proficient at a musical instrument, if any?--WaltCip (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there really is an age given. If you've never had any musical training before the age of 10, even practising singing, then I'd imagine you'd find it very difficult to hear the differences in intervals. I know there was some study into the benefits of learning a musical instrument, which found that the benefits for other educational outcomes were dependent on starting before the age of 10. But generally, if you're prepared to put in the hours, I wouldn't imagine there was a cutoff, and I've never heard that there was one. Just remember: 10,000 hours to get good at anything. Good luck! 86.161.213.137 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's never too late to learn and be proficient. Starting young may tend to make it easier to learn more quickly, but as 86 said, if you put in the hours you can't help but get better. Regular practice, ideally every day, is key, as is finding a good teacher. There are plenty of good books out there about how to practice in general. A piano-oriented book I enjoyed reading is The Perfect Wrong Note, [1]. Pfly (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Never. I know several people who have learned their first instrument in their 70s. Proficiency is a relative matter. Proficient enough to be a studio musician? Proficient enough to perform? Proficient enough to play with others? Proficient enough to have fun? For most of us, the last is what matters. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of term "theoretical X"[edit]

When did it start becoming common to use terms like "theoretical physics" and "theoretical computer science" etc.? Did it start with physics and spread to other fields? 65.92.6.118 (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the sort of thing that the Google Ngram Viewer is great at resolving. In this case, theoretical physics as a phrase took off as a "thing" starting in the 1920s, and is definitely more significant than the others. But if you drop physics out of the terms, you get an interesting result — theoretical chemistry exists as a phrase since the 19th century, theoretical biology takes off starting in the 1960s (with a weird spike in the 1930s), theoretical mathematics isn't too popular a phrase, theoretical computer science gets big in the 1980s. On who came first, if we isolate the timespan for pre-1920, we can see that theoretical chemistry really seems to have predated theoretical physics, even though theoretical physics really took off in a much bigger way as a phrase. Interesting, not what I would have guessed a priori, though it makes sense in retrospect: chemistry was really the Big Science of the late 19th century, well before physics, and what we today call theoretical physics is something that didn't take off in a big way until the early 20th century. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find theoretical mechanics appearing earlier than any other phrase I can think of, coming into use around 1790. Looie496 (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, very good point. I hadn't heard the term before but it clearly is being used in the same sense that "theoretical physics" would later be. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be right in thinking (based on memories of modules I was assigned at university in the 70s) that the term "pure mathematics" is that field's nearest equivalent of "theoretical x-ics"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.211 (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pure mathematics" and (to a lesser extent) "abstract mathematics" were used in this sense. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of early uses refer to "theoretical astronomy" and "theoretical geometry", those examples being from 1723 and 1730 respectively. Even earlier is this reference to "theoretical philosophy" (i.e. natural philosophy), from 1657. Warofdreams talk 23:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I prefer about the N-grams approach as opposed to the OED approach is that N-grams actually shows you usage changes, rather than "first appearance." The first appearance of the term "theoretical physics" is much less interesting (in my view) from the fact that it starts becoming very heavily used starting primarily in the 1920s. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The N-grams approach is interesting, but it misses many books - none of the sources I linked to appear in its results. Warofdreams talk 12:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, but if the term is actually in regular use, it ought to average out in terms of the trends. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your good answers. 65.92.6.118 (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venue for Champions League final[edit]

The venue for the 2012 UEFA Champions League Final is the home stadium of one of the finalists, Bayern Munich. This naturally gives a massive home advantage to Bayern, although that could not have been foreseen when the venue was decided in 2010 [2]. Why was it done this way? Surely it would be fairer to decide on the venue only once the finalists are known, thereby ensuring that no side has home advantage? Or, if more advance planning time is needed, to choose a venue that is not used for club matches at all, thereby avoiding the problem altogether? Note, I'm interested in referenced sources as to why the venue was decided so early in this particular case, not generalizations as to why it might be done in this way. Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 19:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The venue is always selected many months before the final, so I think it's unlikely that there will be sources covering why it was again selected early in this particular case. For some suggestions on why the venue is always selected early, this article mentions some of the preparation required for the 2011 Final - there's no way it could have happened in a couple of weeks. Warofdreams talk 21:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "this particular case". Everything I've seen indicates that both this and next year's were selected at the same time, and the 2014 has already been announced as well. Are you referring to the finals for this year or the location specifically, as every indication has the location picked very early pretty regularly. Mingmingla (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to Warofdreams or VW? The indenting seems to imply Wod but I don't see any possible confusion on what Wod means Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. VW. Mingmingla (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3] from 2007 says about UEFA president Michel Platini: "The former France playmaker added he wanted the European Cup finals to be played in soccer stadiums with an average capacity of 70,000 to solve security issues." There are few options at List of European stadiums by capacity and most of them are home to a top club who may reach the final. Even if they aren't the home stadium, there may be a top club in the city. For example, the other 2012 finalist was Chelsea from London, and Wembley Stadium is in London. The home advantage wouldn't be much different. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there was some advantage in being able to "stay at home", but the final is much like the Super Bowl, some of the tickets go to sponsors and others, and the rest are divided between the partipating clubs. I don't think it could be organized in time at some random city.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the home advantage didn't work too well did it!! Richard Avery (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]