Miscellaneous desk
< May 20	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 22 >

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 21[edit]

Besides water[edit]

Besides water, what other liquids could fish live in? Milk? Coffee? Paint? Others? $KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！)$ 11:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before trying that, consider this: How long might freshwater fish live in salt water, and vice versa? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some fish species can live in both freshwater and saltwater. These species are called Euryhaline fish. However, most fish species can only survive in one or the other based on their salinity tolerance, or how much salt their bodies can handle.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

12:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fish cannot live in any liquid except water. Some species can cope with a certain level of pollution - so might manage dilute milk or coffee. It would depend on the species, the exact contaminant, and the concentrations. 86.141.19.154 (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all the proposed liquids are water solutions. So is any water that isn't distilled or otherwise purified by humans. The issue is, as you noted, the contaminants. For coffee, the caffeine would likely kill the fish. Caffeine is quite toxic to many animals (the whole reason why plants make it is as an insecticide). And I assume fish can't live in liquids that aren't water solutions, e.g. oil, except maybe liquid breathing solutions as mentioned below. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely diluted coffee or any other liquid - as long as the dilution is done with water - is indistinguishable from water with minute amounts of extraneous matter, which in turn is indistinguishable from naturally occurring drinkable fresh water. So the question is, as you continue to dilute it, when does coffee cease being extremely weak coffee and become extremely slightly adulterated water? I have certainly been served the latter, masquerading as "coffee". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An extreme oldie... Waitress in lonely café, gazing out window: "It looks like rain." Male customer, the only other one in the cafe: "Yes, but it smells like coffee." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple was visiting Moscow, and they were in a horse-drawn carriage, when the driver said "It looks like rain". The husband says, "No way, we have clear skies." and the wife says, "Rudolf the Red knows rain, dear." Cue drum roll.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

11:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a combination of perfluorocarbons, used in liquid breathing, would work for fish, too ? StuRat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The description of this technology only relates to filling mammalian lungs with the fluids. While it is possible that gills might also be able to absorb oxygen from the same liquids, the fact that they are much denser and more viscous than water would probably make it very difficult for the fish to actually swim. 86.131.28.46 (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says "Perfluorochemical (perfluorocarbon) molecules have very different structures that impart different physical properties such as respiratory gas solubility, density, viscosity, vapor pressure, and lipid solubility." So, hopefully one (or a combo) could be found that works for fish. This is the only water-free suggestion I've seen so far. StuRat (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's courageous and noble enough, a fish can live forever in our hearts. And there's at least a passing myth that some can live in a tank of human blood (because salt, clearly). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Youtuber Tobis_tricks[edit]

there is a youtuber, he has not even 3000 subscribers and he also has only max. 5.000 views per video but he asked for support, he made a video to demonstrate how to be able to view a website when adblock is enabled. The owner of the website are now in court to institute legal claims. If he lost his "battle" he will be forced to pay a fine over 8.000 Euros for 1. "showing how to circumvent copy protection" 2. copyright claims. What I don't understand is how he could get so much support if he is so small on youtube. He got from different people 8.000 Euros to his bank account to pay the best layer which is available to win this battle. This sound like something impossible. Because someone who has only 5.000 views is like "nobody" in youtube...--Ip80.123 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes if you cry hard enough, people will help you. Seriously, though, are you sure he is not lying? Either about the court case or the fact he got so much help? Can you verify this?

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

18:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can only vertify that he didn't had 8000 euro and that his fundraising project endet because he had got enough money on this one plattform where he asked for moeny. It was something like Fidor Bank. @[[KägeTorä And the comments under his videos are like "there is no copyright claim I give you money" or verbale attacks against Axel springer or kai dietmay (which is the person who wants to ban him out of youtube and which want to force him to pay 8.000 euro) --Ip80.123 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5,000 views per video is quite a different thing from 5,000 views in total. Although we can presume some of those views are from the same people watching each video, it's unlikely all are. And in any case, multiplication gets you to big numbers pretty quickly. If only 1,000 people give you 10 Euros each—not a very large amount for most people in developed countries—you now have 10,000 Euros. If people donate more, obviously, it takes even fewer donations. This is kind of a general human problem: our brains just aren't good at easily visualizing large quantities (see Dunbar's number). Sure, 5,000 views isn't that large compared to the highest view counts, but the highest view counts are outliers. 5,000 people is too large to fit in many venues. And to reiterate, if you average 5,000 views per video the total number of people who have watched at least one of your videos is higher than that. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to delete this for BLP reasons but will leave it for now. However I won't complain if someone else deletes it including all replies. Anyway I think the most Youtube creators with only 5000 views per video are going to seriously struggle to get €7000 solely from their viewers for most things. Sure it's more likely than a creator with only 1 view (where it's still technically possible) however you still need a reasonable percentage of your viewers to donate. But there's no reason to assume it's only viewers and this also isn't most things. Whatever people here may personally feel about it, ultimately legal threats especially ones where people fundamentally disagree with the claimed law the sort of thing which often get attention and get people who feel particularly strongly (meaning both that they are willing and they are willing to donate a fair amount). [2] [3] [4] are some examples apparently discussing the case and I think at least one was before the crowd funding finished. These also all the social media etc. This doesn't seem to have gone especially viral but it was likely known to significantly more than just viewers. BTW if I understand [5] correctly there were 458 donator so between €13-14 average which isn't especially high but does suggest there was more interest than simply giving money to a random person. Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mamiya RB67[edit]

This is an important type of film camera. There used to be a Wikipedia entry for this camera. It has disappeared. What happened to it? How can it be re-instated?

Ted Rook

NY USA

67.210.40.116 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any evidence that Wikipedia has ever had an article called Mamiya RB67, although it may have existed with some other name that I can't find. We do have an article about the RB67's cousin the Mamiya RZ67, and CameraWiki (which isn't affiliated with us) has an article about the RB67 (which may be what you remember). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a draft stub article at User:Rgoffin/Mamiya RB67, last updated in 2011, incidentally. Until recently, such articles would have shown up on Google and similar search engines. Tevildo (talk)

Thank you. I believe you are mistaken. Please check the entry for Mamiya RZ67, within that article you will find references to the Mamiya RB67, which are now dead links, they used to exist but do not any longer. How can the original entry be resurrected? Ted Rook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.210.40.116 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The links were added in 2013 (see this diff), but we've never had a mainspace article on the RB67. The titles of deleted articles can be found at Special:Log/delete, but "Mamiya RB67" doesn't appear on the list. Tevildo (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

67.210.40.116, the links are not dead links, they are red links. That could mean they were previously live and their destination has been deleted, but equally (and in fact more likely per the findings above) they could have been created as red links because an editor thought there ought to be such an article, as an encouragement for someone to write it. This is a common procedure on Wikipedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it seems I am mistaken then. I appreciate everyone's help. Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.210.40.116 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

some script program for mac?[edit]

Hey, 10 years ago, when I was using windows there was a game, as I remember which has count how much times i press my mouse button per second a full minute long. Than the game has ended And one of my friend had for Windows a script program which has emulated that someone is clicking the mouse button very very much times. We called this "cheating" because of course no one could beat the highscore of the bot program. Is there something like this for mac, where I can programe a bot to click the mouse button a few times per hour itself? Or that the bot will press a key on the keyboard? I found again a game like this on mac and I would like to cheat. --Ip80.123 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that such a program is risky to use, as you may end up clicking all sorts of things you didn't want to click. StuRat (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]