Miscellaneous desk
< November 11	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 13 >

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.

November 12

What is the subconscious of the subconscious?

We all know that we have a subconscious. It's been a psychological staple since Freud discovered it. It was there all along leaving clues. Even in those days people knew that, at times, they did things impulsively, they dreamed, and they knew logically that every action wasn't preplanned. And now we're aware of it. We simply gave it a name. And once you're aware of something it can no longer completely control you. The jig is up, subconscious.

I had a guy tell me once that he literally asked his subconscious for a sign when he wanted to make a tough decision. It sounded a little crazy, until I realized that we dream and have bursts of inspiration all the time. The strange thing is, sometimes a solution will appear in a dream. My point here is twofold. 1. Since we've become aware of our subconscious, we can somewhat manipulate it, and not just let it roam around free, creating unconscious havoc 24/7. 2. Something is driving that. The subconscious "runs" on something. And once we figure out what it is we will have total control!....I think. I have a sneaking hunch that that something is being run by something as well. But, I'm getting a little ahead here. One step at a time. The thing is- something is running our minds. Nobody can pre plan every moment of thier life. Because there are outside forces and variables, some say. Then, please explain how a even a person in isolation can't predict the exact thoughts he'll be thinking in exactly 3 days, 1 hour and 14 seconds from now. And even if he's a smart ass and says I'll think the word "cat" at that exact time, he is now only focused on that time! There's the 3 days plus where his mind is more or less on automatic pilot and thinks what it wants (with some conscious(?) interruption, of course.) As I said earlier, we're aware of our subconscious and can now (somewhat) manipulate it. So now that people like me are aware of this force that runs the subconscious, it seems to have gone into hiding. It seems to be some sort of inifinite regress. We discover what that is, and then we try to discover what it is that runs that, and the next thing you know, you have wet finger touching a livewire hair.

With all the cutting edge brain studies out there there must a word for it, or a "concept", if you will. But maybe there isnt. However,- I feel that eventually, with your help, we can discover what "it" is. And I figure since Wikipedia is constructed with some of the most brilliant minds on Earth (educators, scientists, etc.) we may be able to discover it by the time this thread is archived. And if you're not from Earth, that's okay, you don't have to tell me that (dont wanna make trouble for anyone, Zoltar16-~***). Just let us in on what's really going on. It would be worth your while, because here we have something called a Nobel Prize, and it pays big bucks so you can enjoy the many comforts here. And if The Big Secret happens to be a mind machine planted in a crater on Mars, so be it. We can handle the truth.

So,-who will step forward and help me solve the greatest neurological mystery of all time? Dr. Carefree (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While imaginative, your proposition is a bit far fetched, in my opinion. It automatically assumes that something drives the subconscious, while it's possible that it's autonomous. Has it been demonstrated definitively that something lies beneath the surface of the subconscious?Calamus Fortis 02:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly - the available science points in 180 degrees the opposite direction. From all we know and can measure and observe - it appears that everything we do and say is ENTIRELY driven by our subconscious and there is simply no such thing as 'free will'. Our conscious minds are merely observers of the results who justify the things that have already happened. There are some very elegant experiments that we will often take action several seconds before we consciously "decide" to do so - and our subconscious mind is 'editing' reality and skewing our conscious impression of time passing in order to 'cover up' these peculiarities. SteveBaker (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples extrapolated from "subconscious", two are Collective unconscious and Superconscious which redirects to the same article, though I had the impression it was a step beyond it yet again. Filters upon filters it seems. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A wonderful read is Blink (book) by Malcolm Gladwell. In particular there is a section about a card-game experiment. The game is such that it becomes apparant to most people after about 50 hands that choosing one of the suit-colours is more likely to result in a 'win' than the other. What is interesting is that after a much smaller number of hands people's betting pattern has changed. That is to say that people have changed their behaviour to result in more wins but they are not 'consciously' aware of the change in tactic. The book is all about how decisions made in the 'blink' of an eye are sometimes better, and how to harness when that kind of 'thinking' works and also how it has limitations. Very interesting stuff. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard that one...I'll go and grab a copy of the book. Do you have details about the rules of this card game? SteveBaker (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gladwell.com/blink/blink_excerpt1.html is the best I can find without buying the book/lending it from the library. I would highly recommend any of Malcolm Gladwell's work he's a very enjoyable read and his TedTalks are great - the one about ragu sauce is wonderful. ny156uk (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's a cool link - thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much music can fit on a CD-R?

How much music is it possible to fit on a standard CD-R? That article says "The 120 mm disc has a storage capacity of 74 minutes of audio or 650 MiB of data. CD-R/RWs are also available with capacities of 79 minutes, 59 seconds and 74 frames (marketed as 80 minutes) / 736,966,656 bytes (702 MiB), which they achieve by molding the disc at the tightest allowable tolerances specified in the Orange Book CD-R/CD-RW standards." There is also this FAQ. Now, the CD-Rs that I normally buy have got "80 mins" written on them, and sure enough, when I try and burn some music to one using iTunes, I can't get more than 80 mins on it, regardless of the file format the songs are in. But, someone just gave me a CD-R with 80 songs on it and over 10 hours of playing time, although the total data is only about 600MB. (The file format is MP4, if that makes any difference.) It looks just like a standard CD-R to me. How has he done this? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend has written the CD as an MP3 CD and you as an Audio CD. In iTunes you get to specify which way you want to burn CDs (preferences/options area). An audio-CD will work in 99.9% of CD players. An MP3-CD will only work in MP3-enabled CD players (more and more of them these days are mp3-cd enabled). The MP3-cd stores the files as MP3s (or preseves the format), the Audio-CD takes the MP3 format and when writing to disc writes it in a format that 99.9% of CD players can read (as in like normal CDs you'd buy in the shop). If he has found a way to burn 10hours of music onto an 80-minute CD that will work in 99.9% of players then he has developed/found a very very clever piece of kit. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's obviously made an MP3 CD like you say. Many thanks for that comprehensive response. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist killed by ruling class

I remember vaguely a story about a scientist who claimed that the ground is round like a ball but the king at that time believed that the ground should be square covered by a hemisphere of the sky. As a result, the king killed the scientist. QUESTION: Is there any record of such incidence? Is so, please let me have some pointers to such story or related stories. I did a search with key words: scientist killed by king but nothing showed up. Thank you in advance. twma 11:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sky would be in the shape of a cloister vault rather than a hemisphere if the earth is a square, maybe that's where the term the vault of the sky came from? Haven't heard of any such story. Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion: perhaps you should try other words instead of "scientist." In a culture where the ruler believed in a square earth, "science" wouldn't be a widely used term. A mathematician, maybe? A philosopher? Possibly a heretic. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anyone dying over the cause of round versus flat earth - but plenty of scientists have died for their beliefs. Giordano Bruno for example - claimed that the sun was the center of the universe and that the universe is infinite...and as a result was burned at the stake (bizarrely - with his tongue "clamped" so he could neither recant nor make a final statement of his beliefs!). Yes - we've all heard the story of Galileo...he was relatively lucky! SteveBaker (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may not have been a scientist, but in a similar vein, how about Socrates? Mac Davis (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, a "flat earth" has never been the prevailing view amongst educated Europeans. The modern myth that "Columbus proved the earth is round!" is all Washington Irving's fault. A "square earth" covered by a domed sky sounds like it may be early Chinese astronomy. FiggyBee (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the reference but saw a comment that there were people who knew better, but it wasn't the official view. Similarly a vacuum was controversial (horror vacui) in those times[1]. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As shown by the heading, SHORT stories of scientists killed or suppressed by ruling classes are what I am interested to know. They do not have to be about astronomy or mathematics. Thanks for the names of Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno. twma 08:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Lysenkoism. The Soviet Union adopted a crackpot scientific idea as official dogma and scientists who disagreed were suppressed and sometimes executed. --Anonymous, 10:48 UTC, November 13, 2008.

Unfortunately it also happens in the democratic free world. This is why I asked. Thanks again. twma 12:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um Galileo and Giordano Bruno hardly lvied in a democractic free world. Indeed any country with a ruling class is unlikely to be democractic and probably not going to be free Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where to buy onycha

Where could i buy the onycha perfume? Not the essential oils? or the perfume with onycha ingridients or perfume from the onycha(and other) essential oil blending

Hi, I see this same question at yahoo answers and blurtit. Have you tried googling "Onycha perfume"? A lot comes up. It's confusing too, because some say it's the sstuff from the Onycha mollusc's operculum; others that it's labdanum and still others, that it's something to do with benzoin resin. Happy searching, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Election Results - again.

Taking on board earlier comments about the lateness of the result, I can't help noticing the gap between the 2 leading contenders is about 5000 votes or 3% of the lowest of them. Forgiving my ignorance about the eligibility of those (provisional) votes still being counted (I am in the UK where such issues don't arise IAIAA), isn't it about time this result was declared given the significant margin already counted? Or - could it be that the Returning Officer (UK expression) knows the result but doesn't like it and so doesn't want to publish it? Only asking. 92.21.183.83 (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So long as their are votes being counted the elections officers cannot certify a final number of votes which is what their job requires them to report. "Declaring" the result is something that news agencies do based on their own formula and inclinations. And the whole 2000 election process showed some limits to that process. There are good reasons to expect that Obama may have won a large majority of these provisional votes due to the campaign's attracting occasional voters who may have more registration issues than regular voters and the Democratic Party's large voter registration efforts, some of which had issues (ACORN). (Also 5000 does not seem to be 3% of 1.4 million) Rmhermen (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - you're quite right - it seems my third-world calculator's floating decimal floated too far to the Right - unlike John McCain's popular vote. Thanks for the answer though. But what exactly IS a provisional vote? In the UK you are either ON the Electoral Register before Election Day - or you're NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.183.83 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional vote, provisional voter, provisional voting - found it: Provisional ballot. Not that it is a great article. Basically provisional ballots are given to voters with issues like no matching name on the election roll, incorrect identification, etc. In my state, you have to swear an oath in front of the poll worker that you are who you claim to be and that you are registered in that precinct to get a provisional ballot. These then must be checked to ensure you weren't lying or voting multiple times, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional ballots are a way to mitigate vote suppression efforts on election day, where one party has their people at the polling places to try and reduce the number of voters likely to favor the opposition by a variety of challenges. If someone does not cast a ballot on election day, there is not provision for their doing so later. This way the vote is cast, and the decision whether to include it in the total can be made later if it makes a difference in the outcome (as in Florida 2000). Evidence can be presented later to prove the person is entitled to vote, when someone challenges their right to vote. Edison (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where one party has their people at the polling places to try and reduce the number of voters likely to favor the opposition by a variety of challenges. Sorry Edison, am I to understand from what you have written that party workers are allowed to stand at the polling stations and deter potential voters from doing so? Sounds like Zimbabwe to me. 92.21.183.83 (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allowed? No -- though there's a natural limit to the law that can be exploited. If there's a 100-foot no-politicizing zone, for instance, you can set up camp 105 feet away and heckle. That's a natural consequence of the First Amendment. Does stuff happen? Sure it can, and no democracy is immune to such chicanery. — Lomn 19:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just read the article suggested by Rmhermen - thanks. Clear as mud if you ask me. I am in the UK and I get a ticket from the Electoral Registration Office to PROVE I have a vote. Strange thing is - when I turn up at the polls without my voter's card, I still get to vote simply by saying who I am and where I live. Strange. 92.21.183.83 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote suppression efforts may be done by official election judges or accredited poll watchers, who challenge the voter's right to vote. The grounds might be that their reported address has changed (but still in the voting district) or that they have the same name as a convicted felon who is in reality a different person. Or that their identification card has a different address or different spelling of the name ("Wurzelbacher" versus "Worzelbacher"). One party reportedly planned to challenge, at the polling place, the right to vote of those whose homes had been foreclosed [2]. The goal is to strike a balance between preventing stuffing the ballot box with votes from phony voters, versus preserving qualified citizens' right to vote. Edison (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, either your name is on the list or it isn't. Taking the polling card you receive through the post (after sending back the electoral register registration form you receive through the post some time before) can speed things up, but it isn't required. Oddly, you don't generally need ID, although where I live the polling station only serves a very small area and the people running it know everyone anyway, so that may be why. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also receive voter's registration cards - but it is mainly to tell us where are precinct votes at and which districts we are in. I have never needed it to vote - in my state I now need a photo ID (a driver's license or legal equivalent) but that is a recent development. Rmhermen (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a provisional baptism whereby an adult gets baptised on the basis that he/she has not previously been baptised, but it is conditional to the extent that if he/she has, then this attempt is null and void. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coins in toilet bowls

Does anyone know why in some homes in the UK (and possibly abroad) the dwellers drop a small coin (usually copper) into the toilet bowl and leave it there until it is eventually flushed away only to replace it with another? Is this perhaps serving the same function as throwing money into other water constructs and making a wish, some strange feng shui belief or someone just spending a penny? Nanonic (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK and have never heard of anyone doing that. It sounds like a strange superstition to me. --Tango (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto - never come across it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - it's a new one to me too (and I'm also a Brit). Maybe someone in the household just as a problem with coins falling out of their pockets? Once one is in there, it might take a long time to flush away because the water can't easily get under it and it's pretty dense. Perhaps that gives the impression that the coin is continually replaced - when in fact it's just the same unflushable coin. The expression "to spend a penny" relates to the old coin operated public toilets that took a pre-decimalisation 'penny' - more recently, they went up to 10p. Hence the frequently found graffiti: "Here I sit, all broken hearted - I spent 10p and only fa..." ...OK, nevermind. SteveBaker (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line two is "But that's not the worst of it/I thought it a fart, but instead I shit..." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10p? You visit cheap public conveniences - the toilets at London Waterloo station have been at least 20p for several years. --Tango (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20p? It's a while since you've been. Network Rail charges 30p at Euston, Birmingham New St, and Manchester Piccadilly these days! -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 00:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

people in england charge you to go to the bathroom? weird —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.182.76 (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The charge is mostly to keep the homeless from inhabiting the toilets. 86.4.187.55 (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A handful do, but it really isn't the norm. The only ones I've personally encountered are at Waterloo Station. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here I thought I was a tyrant for putting a 10-cent charge on my bathrooms when playing Roller Coaster Tycoon. I didn't know there were actually public bathrooms that charge money! Is that just a UK thing, or do other countries do it too? Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pay toilet. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered one in Western Australia, there was an attendant and small towels available, so maybe it was towards costs of upkeep. It was a railway station public "restroom" by the way. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the public toilets in India and Sri Lanka have attendants, who hand you a towel to wipe your hands, and then put their hand out for a tip, and scowl fiercely if you decline or if you want to but have no change, so they may as well be pay toilets. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many toilets in Austrian cafés and restaurants have an old crone hanging around them to keep them clean, with a table by the door on which is placed a plate for tips. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the malls in Yellowknife has free toilets but you need to get a key from one of the stores. The other has a pay toilet which was a quarter, profits go to a charity. The free ones at the Yellowknife Tim Hortons and the hospital don't have a changing table in the mens. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a gingerbread house Richardrj. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it surprise anyone that we have an article on the pay toilet? I'm old enough to remember these in the U.S., usually at bus stations. I also encountered these in Germany in the mid-1980s (usually with some little old lady mopping the floor in the background) as well as pay showers at campgrounds. I really am glad to see that Paris has stalls: the last time I was there, there must have not been any public toilets, given the number of guys peeing in the alleys. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it wouldn't surprise us, since jpgordon kindly provided it above. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrods was about £3 the last time I splashed out. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only time I've ever seen 'em was in Bali. I found it really weird. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 00:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Bus and Train stations have Pay Toilets in Serbia. These usually have an attendant (called "Baba sera" which translates to something like "granny shit" or "shitty granny"), you have to pay before entering the toilets and can take several sheets of toilet paper from the attendant if you need it. Also, in some places the toilets are often poorly maintained and dirty. And male toilets are almost always equipped only with urinals and squat toilets. — Shinhan < talk > 21:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Original Musing on my part, but is it possible that pay toilets - even if the pay is relatively negligable - get dirty slower than non-pay toilets? People seem to value and take more care of things they had to pay for than things they got for free. FiggyBee (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether your reasons are correct but many pay toilets in Malaysia are definitely better then the public toilets, which isn't saying much. Actually I wonder if people may be less contentious because hey I paid for it...... I think it's a combination of better upkeep due cost recovery and reducing usage. Actually things are similar here as with Serbia although our pay toilets are common in shopping malls and the like too (although I think they're dying out perhaps since many of the newer shopping malls have abandoned the practice and for the smaller ones it's not cost effective). Amongst other things, manual pay toilets probably depend a lot on wages in a country. For example here in NZ with the minimum wage at $12 it's not going to be particularly effective to hire someone to collect say 20 cents per customer unless you get at least 68 customers (accounting for the fact that 20 cents will include a 12.5% GST component) per hour. Obviously public acceptance plays a part too Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amelie's soundtrack

How difficult is it to learn how to play Amelie's soundtrack on the piano?--Mr.K. (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone I knew with nil piano experience learned to play the score from The Piano (film) to impress a boy. It took her three months. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome. I hope it went well and they're happily together. Romance isn't dead, it seems. Belisarius (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was complicated, but you're right, heartfelt romance is not dead. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page featured articles

I asked this at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles, but I don't know how often that page is checked, which is why I'm posting this here as well. If you know of a better place where this can be posted, then please respond below.

The following question may seem rather trivial, but I wanted to inquire about it anyway. I'm wondering in what manner the intro of a main page featured article is constructed on the actual Wikipedia main page. I'm only asking because I noticed that the introductory content on the main page portion of a featured article doesn't always match the introductory content on the actual featured article itself. For example, in today's (November 12, 2008) main page featured article, Joe Sakic, the main Wikipedia page mentions that Sakic has Croatian origin; yet, in the actual article itself, there's no mention of it in the intro. Directly before the article was displayed on the main page (as in the day before the article got on the main page), there was no mention of his Croatian origin either. It may have been mentioned in the intro of the article a while back, which is why I'm wondering just how the introductory content on main page featured articles is constructed. From what point in the article's edit history is the introductory content taken? -- Luke4545 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on some recent version the article's intro, but edited for length and main page style requirements. This is virtually always done by User:Raul654, so you might consider asking him. APL (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I actually found out about User:Raul654 shortly after I posted this, and he basically answered my question. Thanks anyway. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The principal author of the article actually writes the first draft of it (at least, I did for my two FA's) - that's a part of the nomination procedure. But the final editing comes down to Raul. It's worth bearing in mind that the extra notoriety that a new FA gets shortly after passing the FA process - and again as it's about to appear on the front page - means that there is a flurry of last-minute editing that may well change the intro of the actual article between Raul snagging it and the page actually appearing on the front page. One of the ironies of the WP:FA process is that the most attention and improvement an article ever gets happens AFTER the FA process has already said what a great article it is! It would really be much more productive if people would look at the articles that aren't quite of FA quality yet - rather than focussing on articles that are pretty much perfect already. SteveBaker (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]