December 28

I am going to Las Vegas soon, and bringing my laptop for the first time. Rather than pay my hotel for using the internet in my room, I would like to take my laptop around town and plug in where I can access it for free. Where can I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agastordoff (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling 'WiFi free vegas' gives hundreds and hundreds of sites listing free hotspots in hotels, restaurants, casinos, coffee shops, airport terminals and libraries in Las Vegas. Give it a go.. Nanonic (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choose your hotel carefully and you might get free wireless anyway. Astronaut (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TANSTAAFL - if "free" it'll just have been rolled into the overall cost of the room. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but on the other hand the true cost of wifi is often far less than the surcharge that may be asked for it when billed separately. Also, since it is a shared resource, the true cost would generally be cheaper if all guests are paying for it than if only self-selected individuals pay for it. Dragons flight (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just so you know my background, I grew up in the United States. In American movies and television often the Italian (or Italian-american) mafia is portrayed in a romantic light. Often Italian mobsters are depicted as harmless, almost comic buffoons, all in a good-natured way, in countless movies. On the other hand, Russian gangsters are almost uniformly portrayed as threatening, violent, really "bad dudes." My questions are 1) does anyone agree with these generalizations, and 2) if this is the case, how would you explain why? Torkmann (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of Italian immigrants in America, and the movies are often made by Italian writers, directors, and actors. There are fewer Russian Americans, and Russia is a traditional enemy, sort of "over there" where things are always worse. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On The Sopranos, in season 3 there was a "Russian mafia" guy "Valery" who had been in the Interior Ministry or Spetsnaz. One of the U.S. Italian-descent gangsters misheard that he was an interior decorator. The guy was practically indestructible, and to me was portrayed in a favorable light, overall. They simply could not kill him, as he was Rasputinesque. The Italian-American gangsters, by contrast, looked like "babes in the woods." Edison (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian mafia are lately depicted as the "mafia we know"—the mafia of the 1930s, Al Capone, etc., real "American" mafias. (Hence, The Godfather is about the Americanization of the Italian mafia, in a way.) The Russian mafia is generally depicted as a post-Soviet phenomena—the result of the end of the Cold War, with a lot of hardened bad dudes coming over from other shores, not Americans at all. They represent something different.

As for reality—I doubt it is true at all. There are no cuddly gangsters, whatever their nationality or ethnicity. One should not confuse such tropes with anything resembling reality. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's just the Russians anyway. The Albanian mafia, Chinese triad, Yakuza etc are usually potrayed similar to the Russians. While I agree with the premise there are no cuddly gangsters and a lot of TV overly romaniticised and ignores the brutality and ruthlessness of organised crime, some of the American Mafia had some sort of code of conduct/honour. These codes didn't mean they weren't violent but may have sometimes meant they avoided things like killing police officers. While such codes exists for many criminal organisations I think many (including the American Mafia) have started to move away from such things and so it's not something that associated with the more 'recent' organisations in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is "honor" that ever kept mafia members from killing police and civilians—I more suspect that it is an attempt to keep a low profile and to avoid retribution. No business organization (illegal or not) can afford "honor" if it doesn't work with the business model! --Mr.98 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Italian mob had a slightly different public face due to their involvement in providing alcohol during Prohibition in the US. You can get people to go along with you if you either scare them or are buddies with them. Providing the general public with liquor gave them a big step in the second direction. Matt Deres (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I tend to agree with the OP's generalizations. 2) As well as mobsters Italy has long been the source of opera, fashionable styles, high cuisine and such high-profile entertainers as Ol' Blue Eyes (1) and (2). How is a poor Russian mobster to compete with all of that? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the famous "A fifth of Beethoven," which was on the Saturday night fever soundtrack (and used in the film), and the not-so-famous "Night on Disco Mountain," also on the same soundtrack and also by Walter Murphy, does anyone know of any other 1970's-era disco remixes of classical music? I once heard a disco-inspired version of the overture to Orphee aux Enfers by Offenbach ONCE but never got any information on it. Any help would be appreciated. Torkmann (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hooked on Classics series of classical medleys typically used a sort-of disco beat as a connecting thread. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for something like this? I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 04:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technoclassix is a compilation; more early techno than disco. Adagio for Strings version somewhere also. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a situation where I have a friend who is planning to quit his present job( a Govt job) ,to join the corporate world. I find my friend quite inefficient in the way he deals with work and this is a opinion which has been endorsed by all his colleagues. I feel that he may be a failure in his new job too. Should I advice him not to leave the job or should I remain silent?. My friend is quite obstinate and has a exaggerated view of his own abilities!I am ceratin that he will not listen to me! What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.241.94 (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion, not fact, and the ref desk is not intended to be a discussion board. Here's a couple of questions back, which you might consider: If he fails in the corporate world, will he be able to get his government job back? Also, something to keep in mind: Your tax dollars are contributing to his government salary. Do you want you tax dollars going to someone who's ineffecient? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has it got to do with you, directly? OK you are concerned for him, but he must make his own decisions. Try to advise and likely lose out... advise NO. He is a success. You are scorned. Advise YES. He is a failure. You are blamed. Advise caution and deep thought, no more. Believe me I know, from hard experience.Froggie34 (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are genuinely certain that he won't listen to you, what is the point of saying anything? --Tango (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An inflated view of one's own competence is the normal human state of being. See, for example, Kruger and Dunning's paper "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". While they found that individuals in the lowest quartile of performance on a task tended to massively overestimate their own ability, no group was immune to a tendency to overrate their competence. In addition to the work Kruger and Dunning conducted, thir paper also provide valuable references to the corpus of psychological study demonstrating our own inflated views of ourselves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from what I've read before, supported by Dunning–Kruger effect is that competent people actually have the tendency to underestimate their ability Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama got all the way to the White House by, among other things, reminding his nation of this ("Yes, we can"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding (I haven't re-read our articles on the subject) is that competent people accurately assess their own abilities but believe other people's overestimates of their own abilities so underestimate their relative abilities. (Did that make any sense?) --Tango (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethically speaking, you really have no reason to discourage your friend, because you are not hiring him. Let the employer decide if he has the abilities they want. Let your friend take the risks he wants to take. It is not a moral dilemma at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may not be obligated to discourage his/her friend, but I wouldn't say he/she has no reason to. To me, being a good friend is enough reason to offer a word of advice when you think your friend is likely making a bad decision. --71.185.178.230 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe. But people have to make their own decisions and find their own limits. When it comes to employment (and love), I think a good friend lets you figure that out on your own. When it comes to investment, well, maybe then you've got to pipe up every one in awhile. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, not everyone in the corporate world works efficiently, and some inefficient people do quite well in the corporate world, based on my observation during years of work for a corporation. Marco polo (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In looking back at this, I'm inclined to agree with Mr.98. Let the guy do what he wants, even if it might be wrong - because it might be right. Maybe he's inefficient because he doesn't like his government job! He might thrive in another job. Don't presuppose what someone else can or can't do. That's bordering on "nannyism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caution your friend. Note very carefully your own limitation in being able to assess the situation thoroughly, whether you think you are limited in this way or not. Ultimately it is your friend's decision. But you want him to weigh it carefully, so you want to implant the thought, subtly, in his mind that it might not be the right decision. But in fact it might be the right decision. Your concern for your friend means you want him to weigh any potential changes carefully. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry under Richard Longfield states as follows: On 1 October 1795, Richard Longfield was created Baron Longueville, and on 29 December 1800, he was created Viscount Longueville. Both titles became extinct on his death in 1811.

I have seen elsewhere that he was created Baron Longueville in 1795 - how do you know that this was on 1 October 1795 - and who bestowed the title? The Revd. Thomas Brooke Clarke (1757?-1833) named his son Longueville Loftus Tottenham Clarke (1795-1863) born in May 1795 ... and the 'Loftus' and 'Tottenham' carry associations with the Marquess of Ely who was Clarke's patron at that date. The Longfield-Longueville connection was as meaningful so I have to suggest that knowledge of the 'Longueville' title must have come through rather earlier in the year than October I should appreciate a contact with the source of your article With thanks S.W. Massil (London) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.38.200 (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing whatever of this particular case, but I do know that baronies are sometimes/usually announced before they are formally created by letters patent. A case in point was John Forrest, whose barony was announced in February 1918 but had still not been formally created by the time of his death in September 1918, so he died Mr Forrest, not Lord Forrest; despite the fact that he had been signing his name "Forrest" since February on the assumption that he was now (as good as) a lord. So, by analogy, if Longfield became Baron Longueville on 1 October 1795, it's likely he would have known of the honour some considerable time before this. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing I can find is from the London Gazette [1] and the date of record is Oct. 5th: "His Majefty's Royal Letters Patent being received, granting the following dignities, Letters Patent are preparing to be paffed...To the Right Honorable Richard Longfield, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten, the Dignity of Baron Longueville...". I can't reconcile that with Oct. 1, the Gazette is/was the official paper of record, so I would be inclined to use Oct. 5th. The Royal Letter would of course have been issued earlier, but I don't see it getting to Dublin Castle in just 4 days. Also, I'm not clear on why the title would be extinguished on his death, presumably he fell short with his lawful begetting of heirs male? Curious that... Franamax (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Peerage, vol VIII page 129, gives the 1 October 1795 and 29 December 1800 for the creations of the Barony and Viscountcy of Longueville. At the time of the creation of the Barony, Longfield had spent 34 years in the Irish Parliament. Longfield was very wealthy and the proprietor of boroughs which returned eight members to the Irish Parliament, and the CP notes a description of him in 1799 (which was written by a political opponent) as saying that when he spoke in Parliament "perhaps no member of the House .. commands more attention". He was a supporter of the Act of Union and his Viscountcy was one of 46 Irish peerages created a matter of days before Union took place - and that the Viscount subsequently became a Representative Peer. There is also a report that Longfield wrote a letter to Lord Chichester in 1803 demanding further reward for his services to the Government (BM Add MS 33111 fo 170). He died s.p. in other words without any children, despite a 53 year long marriage. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am trying to find out what these are, and there seems to be a confusion between:

• an improvised firearm made from pen parts, vs.
• a small gun of standard manufacture made to look like a pen.

To wit: under the subheading cryptic firearms, the page on Improvised firearms describes guns made to look like innocuous objects such as a "flashlight, pen, ." In seeking information on the pen gun I've seen references to model names and numbers which seem to be products of standard manufacture, some of which appear (as red links, unfortunately) on the List of firearms page. I don't even know on which Talk page to ask this, but it seems like both articles have only partial information. Is it possible that both types (that I tried to describe above) share the name "pen gun"? How to sort this out? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you know that the reference was to a firearm, not just to a "Light pen" or Light gun. Dbfirs 14:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's one on the web, besides the several mentioned as red links on the List of firearms. I would think that an improvised "pen gun" would be made of part(s) of a pen, as a zip gun is constructed of a length of broken-off antenna), not improvised (of what?) to look like a pen. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, of course, if I had known the period you were studying, I wouldn't have suggested a 1970s invention (light pen). Dbfirs 22:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This video shows a pen gun at 7:17. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for having already asked this on the Computing Desk but without any response. Maybe better luck here.Please could someone help me? I recently accepted an offer from AOL to have my AOL Broadband service upgraded to include my telephone service at a single all-inclusive monthly charge and so far, I am very happy with both aspects. But the AOL service (called Platinum 2) changed the way my screen works and I have lost a lot of the options I used to have with AOL when sending e-mail. I find that I cannot make any pictures I attach to my e-mails "Fit to Window" as previously. And I cannot reduce any that I receive so that I can see the whole picture on screen. I also used to be able to "frame" each picture and add sub-text to them but no longer. AOL have been unable to help and so I am hoping someone here will be able to help. Thanks in anticipation. 92.30.103.0 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two things working against you. First, nobody who doesn't use AOL is going to have the faintest idea of how this proprietary setup works or is supposed to work. Second, at this time of year, many people have decided to spend time with their real-world friends and family, reducing the pool of potential answerers. AOL, on the other hand, should know what you're talking about and they also have an obligation to help you to some degree, even during the holidays. Your best bet is to contact them. If that truly doesn't work out, then give the thread in the Computing desk a couple more days and repost your question there with details regarding 1)how you used to do what you want, 2)what you've tried to do now to accomplish the same thing, and 3)what AOL told you to do and what happened when you tried to do it. If AOL isn't doing what it's supposed to even while you follow step-by-step instructions from their help desk, then it could be that the problem is due to your operating system, so provide that info as well. If any other programs aren't doing what they should, that should also be mentioned. I'm not really a tech guy, but those of the kinds of information people post when they're trying to get a problem diagnosed. Good luck. Matt Deres (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Matt. I'll take your advice and wait for 2010. Though to be fair, the AOL Helpdesk is in India where I wouldn't have imagined there was much by way of Christmas disruption. 92.30.103.0 (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point about holidays was only in reference to the lack of help here; we're volunteers and come or go at whim - you can and should be able to call AOL at any time for technical support. If they can't or won't give you the service you're paying for, I'm sure there are no shortage of internet service providers in the UK (assuming I've geo-located you correctly). Matt Deres (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Matt - problem solved. I did contact AOL (in India) again and this time was told that in buying their Phone and Broadband package they had moved me to a different version of their website that incurred the loss of some features. So, as advised I uninstalled their new version (AOL Desktop) and re-installed my old version (AOL9 VR), and have regained all the features that were missing. And I confirmed with the Accounts Department (in India) that there would be no penalties to my new combined package subscription. So I trust someone else here may benefit from my experience. But thank you for your interest - I am genuinely grateful to you. Have a wonderful New Year in 2010. 92.30.103.0 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should mention that at the Computing desk, so that others can learn from it there. Thanks, 99.241.68.194 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What font is used for the word "Computer" on the cover of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_%28magazine%29 ? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's similar (but not identical) to Twentieth Century. Perhaps someone with inside knowledge could comment. Tevildo (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a pretty dead ringer for Futura Bold to me. The C is dead-on, as is the funny U. Some of the weights are a little different than this one (thicker around the joints of the P for example), but I would just chalk that up to variations in the specific typeface used (different typefaces often have slightly different implementations depending on the foundry that made them). Definitely Futura Bold. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definately a sans-serif font, and there are many of those. List_of_typefaces#Sans_serif and Samples of sans serif typefaces some good places to start. The unusual way the C ends with vertical lines rather than horizontal leads me towards Bell Centennial as a likely option, though Futura as noted above is another one. --Jayron32 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks like Futura Bold as well. It isn't Bell Centennial, because there is no tail on the lower-case u. — Michael J 00:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that happen? When I was a child I was blond but now my hair is dark brown. So, why is that? --Belchman (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question. The article Human hair color notes the phenomenon, but does not explain it, nor does it contain any references that do. The same thing happens in my family. Both me, my brother, and my father's hair darkened with age. Hair color is caused by melanin, and there are several different types of melanin that go into making hair color. Brown Eumelanin imparts a brown or yellow color, black Eumelanin imparts a black color, and Pheomelanin imparts a red color. Your hair color derives from your particular mix of these three pigments. Thus, blonds have brown eumelanin, with out the other two, while brunettes have some of all three, redheads have mostly pheomelanin, etc. etc. So, the likely cause is that melanogenesis gets turned on for these pigments at different ages; so that in the young lesser amounts of the darker melanins are produced, and as one ages, the darker melanins get "turned on". This must be a genetic thing, and not universal, since there are plenty of examples of people who have the same color hair their whole lives, while others (like you and I and likely my children) experience a wide variation in hair color throughout their lives. It would be interesting to get a better biochemical or physiological explanation, since this is what I was able to piece together myself reading the above articles. --Jayron32 21:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer the question, but will note that a similar situation can occur with the texture of the hair, changing it from straight to curly or vice versa, leading to old wives tales about how something or other caused it to happen. My hair changed around grade three or four (i.e. not tied to puberty as might be expected) and my parents blamed a barber who'd given me a haircut shortly before. My maternal grandfather's hair changed (also at an early age) and since he'd recently been to the seaside for the first time, the "salt sea air" was blamed for the change. Matt Deres (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that blonde-haired children are more cute than other children and that this is a natural mechanism making them more likely to be protected and saved in the event of disaster. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the same note, someone once told me they thought it was because, evolutionarily, young children are more likely to need to hide from predators and so need better camouflage. That seemed interesting and vaguely reasonable at the time, although I guess it assumes an environment with blond looking plants, like grass or wheat or something. Part of me thinks a more likely reason is that it became a sort of evolutionary indicator for youth, particularly when looking for a mate. Many males seem to prefer females with light hair, perhaps because it indicates they are younger and more fertile, or at least it did before L'Oreal et al. Having such an indicator of age (fertility) would seem an evolutionary advantage for a group. Of course that doesn't explain why young boys have light hair as well. TastyCakes (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also does not explain why some people do not experience a darkening of their hair, nor does it explain why not everyone is born blond. The OPs question doesn't really ask about evolutionary purpose (which is always a dubious undertaking anyways, since evolution doesn't have any intelligence), but rather on the biochemical and physiological causes of the event. That is, not why hair colors evolved in the first place (which seems to be where you are going) but rather the specific mechanism in the body that causes some people to experience darkening hair color throughout their lives. --Jayron32 20:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure exactly what he meant by his question (perhaps he could enlighten us), but it seems to me that by looking for a strictly physiological explanation, you are answering the "how" but not the "why". If someone were to ask "why are polar bears white" you could give a pretty good argument that it's so you can't see them in the snow. I think that's a better answer than "they have a specific type of melanin", but it of course doesn't explain why some bears are brown or black. Also, I didn't say that evolution had any intelligence, I said that having a way to judge people's ages more accurately could be evolutionarily advantageous. TastyCakes (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it said that one possible evolutionary reason why so many gentlemen "prefer blonds" is because blond hair makes it easier to tell whether a potential mate is healthy or not (Why? I have no idea!). That being the case, perhaps children have lighter color hair in order that their parents can better tell if they are healthy. Once the child is old enough to handle that stuff themselves, there is less need. Unfortunately, that's speculation piled upon speculation - so I could easily be quite wrong on this one. SteveBaker (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically addressing TastyCakes' quandry about boys also having blond hair (mine too was much lighter when I was one, and not just because of Hong Kong sunlight) -- remember that the very large majority of genes are equally inheritable by both sexes: the Y chromosome that (usually) determines malehood is only one out of 46 and is markedly smaller than the rest, hence carrying a smaller than average gene complement (which does not, so far as we know, include any influencing hair colour). The two human sexes are basically the same model with only minor tweaks (which non-genetic factors can sometimes over-rule), so nearly all features are common to both, and most of the rest are modifications of the same feature in one or the other direction. The upshot of this is that if a feature-producing gene or gene combination is advantageous to one sex and not disadvantageous to the other, it will usually persist and be present in both. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Alexi Laiho from Finnish Metal band 'Children of Bodom' got any children?86.149.0.243 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This biography suggests that he was married. This interview seems to confirm that, as well as suggesting that he may have one child. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 04:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have witnessed both Kenyan, Nigerian and Asiatic acquaintances shaking hands conventionally with the right hand but at the same time touching their right elbow or fore-arm with their left hand. It is not a coincidence and it appears to be some form of respect action. These occasions have usually been formal situations between people who did not previously know each other. I have tried searching with Google and the Wikipedia article on handshake is sadly lacking in this style. Can anyone tell me what this style of handshake is called. Richard Avery (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is a specific name for this but the difference in handshakes usually denote different levels of intimacy, friendliness or respect. This is nicely depicted in the movie Primary Colors but I cannot find a clip of it, here is an extract from the book describing it. meltBanana 13:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]