July 6

Does anyone know of any microcars that are capable of being bought with some level of reality in the states? Preferably, something that gets more than 70MPG and isn't an antique. Something like Bajaj USA, although I'd prefer with doors and cheaper, I'd really appreciate anything anyone could show me. I know Corbin has the Sparrow and there's the Tango out there, and the Aptera coming up, but I'd really prefer something that runs on gas and is already out. Again, though, I'd love anything you can show me --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 02:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a couple of

Smart Fortwo's in the U.S. but our article lists them as "greymarket" currently. Rmhermen 03:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

yes, they aren't technically sold by a reliable dealer in the states yet, but anyway they aren't really what I consider small. Basically, I'm talking "Motorcycle that will keep you out of the rain", not "Smaller than your average sedan" --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 04:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart is officially arriving in the States with the 2008 model year, but I've heard that that model year is already completely subscribed for. Dang! The cabrio looks sweet!

Atlant 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this link, from the Microcar article, is U.K. based, but ships worldwide. The ad copy indicates they are based on antique designs, but with today's technology. 152.16.59.190 07:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they were street legal in the states, I don't want to deal with importing things if I can help it. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those are street-legal in the USA - there was some discussion of this on the MINI2 or NorthAmericanMotoring forums (I forget which) - but the manufacturer can't afford to put them through the emissions and EPA testing or to do the required crash-testing (which they'd fail for sure). Look how long it's taken to get the SmartCar into the USA! SteveBaker 11:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't going to find ANYTHING that does 70mpg in the USA - period. Remember we're talking US gallons - not UK gallons (which are larger) and that the small diesel engines that get such great mileage in Europe are not legal in the US because of the kind of diesel they require. Some hybrids claim this kind of MPG number - but it's not remotely achievable in real driving conditions - it's well known that the nature of the hybrid engine is uniquely suited to the EPA test conditions - which leads to wildly unfair comparisons. Honda have said that they'd like to provide a more realistic number to their customers - but they are required by law to quote only the EPA numbers. So - your choices come down to the

MINI Cooper (42mpg - which is pretty amazing for a conventional gasoline engine on a really sporty car). The SmartCar isn't quite available in the USA - but it's coming soon - I'm not sure what practical MPG it gets (remember - US gasoline - US gallons!) - but I'm pretty sure it beats the MINI. I'm not aware of any other cars that get more than 40mpg - although there probably are a few out there. My 1963 classic Mini gets 55mpg - but it's an antique - and you explicitly disallow that in your question (with some justification I'd say!). SteveBaker 11:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Simply put, Steve... you're wrong. I just linked to something that gets well over 70MPG, I'm just looking for more like it, with maybe a bit more protection. --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just said it - you ruled out vehicles without doors. Now - is there a car with doors that does 70mpg and is street-legal in the USA? I don't think so. The Bajaj sneaks around the rules and manages to be called a motorbike or some such - the very moment you put doors on it, it legally becomes a "car" and all of those emissions, safety, etc laws drop into play - and now you can't get something that's efficient enough for your needs. Don't get me wrong - I'm a HUGE fan of microcars (I own one - and I wrote TWO featured articles about them) but the US legal situation makes them very tough to sell as new cars. Once they are more than 25 years old (as mine is) or if you can get them classified as something other than a car - then everything gets easy again. But as soon as you put doors on the things - BLAMMO! - laws everywhere - and you're back looking at 40mpg. SteveBaker 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say ruling out things with doors, I just said I'd prefer one with them. Although, again you're wrong, I have seen Meter Maid style cars on ebay that were licensed as Mopeds/Scooters, not cars, because of their three wheeled configuration. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 17:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-wheelers are extremely dangerous -- even more so than motorcycles. A motorcycle stays upright when cornering because the rider and the shape of the cycle encourage dynamic stability, while a car stays upright because the wide wheelbase gives it static stability. The single front wheel of a three-wheeler robs it of the static stability of a car, but the two rear wheels prevent the tilting needed for a motorcycle's dynamic stability. --Carnildo 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is your point? Do you honestly think I didn't realize that? I don't really care, I just want a covered motorcycle/scooter style vehicle, not a full car. I don't need you to point out dangers in my choices --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will find even fewer with the new EPA MPG determination method: this site claims to have the new rating and the MINI only rates 27/36 while the Prius gets 48 city/45 highway. Rmhermen 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (without evidence) that they used the '06 MINI - which was indeed ~36mpg. The '07 has had a total engine replacement and a bunch of new efficiency tweaks and MINI USA still claim 40/41/42mpg (it depends somewhat on the options you pick) SteveBaker 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Slightly side topic, but..) Does anyone know if there's a plausible explanation for laws which say "You can't sell this car in the states; it doesn't pass crash tests" while simultaneously allowing motorcycles which also don't pass a crash test? I've never been able to figure this one. If we let people choose to take the risk to drive a motorcycle, how can we not allow them their choice of a very small car? I'd love to have a city car but such things just aren't very available where I live. Friday (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because motorcycles are taken as being inherently dangerous, whether they are or not --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laws are patchy things. There are all sorts of lethally dangerous things that are legal - and all sorts of fairly harmless things that aren't. That's government for you! SteveBaker 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is there a simple explanation for why emissions laws end up significantly reducing mileage? It seems counterintuitive (based on the admittedly simpleminded observation that if less emissions come out, either less fuel went in or more power came out). —

talk) 00:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course, part of it may be that 'emissions' aren't all created equal. For example, in order to extract the maximum amount of energy from the fuel, you want to burn it in the engine as completely as possible. Intuitively, you would achieve this by using a lean mixture (less fuel and more air); this will burn faster, hotter, and more completely. Unfortunately, the hotter combustion is also enough to increase the production of

nitrogen oxides: a key ingredient in acid rain and petrochemical smog

.

So you run the engine a bit richer, with a supposedly ideal balance of fuel and air. No (well, less) nitrogen oxides now, but now you're not getting complete combustion, which leads to

catalyst. After that process, very little will be left at the tailpipe besides water vapour and carbon dioxide (yes, a greenhouse gas—but much less toxic than the alternatives). Unfortunately, pushing all the exhaust gas through the tiny channels in a catalytic converter takes some energy, which then can't end up as power at the wheels. In other words, one pays a small energy cost to convert tailpipe emissions to less toxic forms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

What's that little car that the two Japanese guys drive in the Wii commercial, and what kind of mileage does it get? - [1] Corvus cornix 01:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's a

Smart - they havn't been available in the USA until very recently, so you don't see many of them around. There is an all-electric version of the Smart - I think the one that's coming to the USA (and the one in the Wii commercial) is a Smart Fortwo. According to our article The Smart averages 4.7 L/100 km (50 mpg or 21.3 km/L) for the gasoline model and 3.4 L/100 km (69 mpg or 29.4 km/L) for the diesel. - if this kind of car is what interests you, you should also check out the Mitsubishi i. SteveBaker 02:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I have noticed that virtually all advertisements of watches in magazines show the watches with the time as 10:12 or thereabouts. It is the same for very make of watch. Why is this so? 221.120.97.99 06:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately our article on 10:08 appears to have been deleted. Check out a copy here. Weregerbil 06:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another candidate for our Reference Desk FAQs. -- JackofOz 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time I have seen this question on the ref desk. That alone should warrant the reinstatement of what appears to me to be a perfectly good article. Thanks for the link.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Here's the

^{talk email} 07:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The cause of the deletion seems to have been two-fold: Firstly that the article was unverifiable (well - it had some references - but for various reasons they were not approved of) - Secondly that there was strong evidence that whilst certain watch companies did habitually choose the same times for all of their watches, that the time chosen wasn't always 10:08 - and it varied from company to company. I think if one wrote a comprehensively referenced article and named it something like 'watch time settings in advertising' or some-such - then it wouldn't be deleted. There was some evidence presented that Timex always chooses 1:10 - not 10:08. SteveBaker 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly has to do with making sure that the manufacturer's name/logo is not only visible (i.e., not obscured by the hands) but is also "framed" by the hands so as to call more attention to it. That's just what someone told me; don't know if it's true or not.

ergot 17:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It is indeed a Frequently Asked Question, and not surprisingly, it has been addressed by

talk) 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I realize why watch/clock advertisers do it. Its quite obvious. But my question is how is it that all advertisers happen to use the same time more or less. Showing the clock faces as 1:50 would accomplish the same result. I was wondering whether there was some convention or agreement that governed this. 221.120.97.99 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since coming home from collage for the summer my little brother has taken the opertunity to reunite with some old friends, and he seems to be enjoying this very much. Unfortunetly, as his older brother, I feel like I am being left out of the reconnecting: nearly all of his time has been spent with his friends, and even the things we used to do togather he shows no interest in. I feel badly hurt by this, but I don't want to intrude on (or in) his personal life. I have hit road block here, and its doing detramental things to my health -- I feel lonely and I know that my depression is relapsing again (albeit mildly). What can I do to get reconnected with him? 70.238.127.244 07:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As in most cases, the answer lies in good communication. On some level or another, communicate to your brother what you have communicated (above) to Wikipedia. Good luck, also. (JosephASpadaro 07:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

He may well feel more secure in his relationship with you than he does with his friends - your are his big brother, and a "constant" in his life. His friends will all have gone off to different colleges, making it harder for him to have kept in touch with them, so now he's making the most of what he knows is likely to be one of their last times all together. After college they will all go on to different careers, some will move far away - but you will always be his brother, and so wherever you are will always have a sense of "home" for him. What Joseph said above is true - you do need to communicate with him (but I do know from experience that this can be very hard for someone with depression). Maybe suggest that you and him have a "brothers" day - just you and him, go over some of your old haunts seeing how they have changed while he's been away, see a film together, something like that. Even something as simple as saying "I missed you" might be enough to help him understand how important he is to you. I do wish you good luck, and hope sincerely that you and your brother both have a good summer, and some good times together. DuncanHill 09:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you or your brother, but people change, and relationships change. Your brother may have become more independent. He may want to "reinvent" himself and pursue new interests. If either of these is true, he may no longer want to do the things that he did with you as a kid. If he wants to move in a new direction, you can still have a relationship with him, but you will need to take an interest in his new interests. If he is trying to be more independent, he may go through a period, maybe even a few years, where he wants to spend less time with you. If this is the case, your best course would be to accept and support his wish for independence, and to cultivate relationships with other friends or family members to meet your emotional and social needs. Eventually, if you remain loving and supportive toward your brother, he will probably come to value your relationship as an adult, and you are likely to remain close, even though your relationship will have changed. Remember that change is inevitable in every relationship. Marco polo 14:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is the answer to question that what came before? egg or hen? is this a trick question or does it have any solution?

Wikipedia has an article for every situation - see

The chicken or the egg for a discussion of this perenially fascinating question. DuncanHill 08:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Our article on

the chicken or the egg might explain that there's not meant to be an easy answer. (edited to add: that serves me right for not reloading the page!] --Charlene 09:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I just asked a hen. She said the cock came first.--Mrs Wibble-Wobble 09:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed on the science desk in the past - the conclusion is "The Egg came first". As with so many of these old 'dilemmas' - they are easily solved if you define your terms accurately. If we define:

• "an egg" as Egg does: an ovum together with its shell or outer layer, internal membranes and nutrients for the embryo.
• "a chicken" (per Chicken) as an fully formed bird which is at least 99.9% genetically similar to a modern domesticated animal of the species G. gallus.
• "before" (in the context of chickens and eggs) as chicken comes before egg if said chicken lays said egg - egg comes before chicken if said chicken hatches from said egg.

...then there is no dilemma at all. Genetic studies show that the first ever G.Gallus was a mutated Asian Red Junglefowl - so it was hatched (as is the case with all birds) from a shell-encased ovum that (in this case) was laid by a bird of the species 'Asian Red Junglefowl' (which was not - per our previous definition - a "chicken"). That "egg" was clearly "before" the very first "chicken" - QED.

However, if you choose different (and I would say "unconventional") definitions of 'egg', 'chicken' or 'before' (or take unconventional definitions of any of the other words in the question) - then you can make it come out differently. A commonly used argument with this question is that the question somehow implies that "egg" means a chicken egg - not just any old egg. So if you choose this (rather odd) definition for "egg": "a shell-encased ovum that was laid by a chicken" - then the situation is reversed - the ovum that the first chicken hatched from was not laid by a chicken - so that was not an "egg" according to this rather special definition - hence it becomes clear that the chicken laid the first chicken-egg so the chicken came first. But I don't think that definition is in any way implied by the question. You can also (arguably) redefine "before" by saying that the genetic material for the first chicken must have existed before it was injected into the first egg - so the egg that the first chicken hatched from was technically formed after the chicken itself. Whilst that's scientifically true, I don't think that's the meaning for "before" that we really want here - and it violates the "fully formed" part of the chicken definition to include single-celled chicken embryos. But as I said - pick your definitions for the words that make up the riddle - you can make the answer be whatever you want...but for any clear definition of the terms - there is no ambiguity whatever.

So - as is almost always the case with these ancient "dilemmas", there is no dilemma whatever - the only possible source of confusion is the choice of meanings you choose to apply to the words the question is phrased in - and that's just because we have a somewhat inexact language. So much of human existance would be so much easier if words were clearly defined. Think about the abortion debate in the USA - it comes about largely because "human being", "life" and "murder" are so poorly defined. One side accuses the other of murder - the other denies this - they both agree that "murder" is defined as the artificial termination of "life" in a "human being" - they both agree that "murder" is wrong and should be illegal - they don't disagree in the slightest about what actually happens in the abortion process - but they have wildly differing definitions of the terms "life" and "human being" that they hurl back and forth. Define your terms - and you are either forced to agree that abortion isn't murder (and therefore we have to agree on what the conditions are for an abortion to be legal) - or that abortion is murder (but then maybe we have to agree that abortion is a bad thing) - either way the rhetoric goes away and we're forced to actually debate the issues.

SteveBaker 11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always defined this as a creationist vs evolutionist question. If you're a creationist, the answer is Chicken, because God created birds to populate the land and sky, he didn't create bird eggs to hatch into birds. If you're an evolutionist, the answer is Egg, because dinosaurs were laying eggs long before chickens evolved. (although I also like the point our article makes about pro-lifer's calling it a tie, since the egg IS a chicken already! ;-) --Maelwys 14:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it - the creatures of the sea beat out the birds, since many of them lay eggs, the odds seem pretty good that the egg still wins out. But as I said before - it's possible to define your terms to have the answer come out any way you want. SteveBaker 14:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Hehehe! I just realised - the Bible says that God "let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky" - that kinda rules out chickens because they are flightless. There was an entire day full of egg-laying birds before the chickens snuck in under the "livestock" clause! I'm still rooting for 'egg' here!) SteveBaker 14:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, chickens can fly. They're not all that good at it, but they can fly. I've personally seen a chicken fly up into a tree and perch there. --Charlene 18:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i live in lahore(pakistan) can any1 tell me where can i (if possible) learn persian (farsi) in pakistan? and what is the normal time it takes to learn persian. i know it depends upon a person's ability and etc but what is a normal average time to learn a language with sufficient fluency

There are at least two institutions offering Farsi in Lahore. GC University has a department of Persian, and there is Berlitz. (For Berlitz, you may need to select "Pakistan" in the country menu to find the Lahore location.) There may be other, less formal and less expensive schools offering Farsi. It is impossible to say how long it will take you to "learn" Farsi. First, by "learn", do you mean "learn enough to travel smoothly in Iran"? That would take much less time than learning enough to carry on smooth conversations on a variety of subjects or to do business in Farsi. If by "learn" you mean that you want to become fluent in Farsi, then you probably won't be able to do it through formal study alone. You will need to spend a year at least in a Farsi-speaking environment, probably in Iran, though you will probably reach fluency faster if you have done some formal study beforehand. How long it will take you to learn Farsi depends on the ease with which you learn other languages. This, in turn, may be related to your age. If you are younger than 10, you will learn more quickly than someone older than 10. If you are younger than 18, you may still have an advantage over an older person. Finally, the time required to learn Farsi will depend somewhat on the languages you already know. If you speak only English, Farsi will be harder for you to learn than if you speak Urdu, because Urdu uses a script derived from Farsi, contains many Farsi loan words, and is more closely related to Farsi than is English. So, if you know Urdu, some of what you know will help you learn Farsi. You may be able to learn enough to function in Iran as a traveler after only a few months of study or even a few weeks of intensive study. If you want to do business or carry on a range of conversations in Farsi, you will probably need years of study with classes only once or twice a week, or perhaps a full year of daily classes. However, the exact time will depend on your background and aptitude. Marco polo 14:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok i know japan is expensive, but im planning to go on holiday there plus i live in the UK and london was ranked higher than japan as one of the most expensive cities in the world (2007) and look how strong the pound is compared to the dollar at the moment! (£1 = $2) so i want to know are clothes, designer gear, beauty products more expensive compared to prices in the UK (for e.g. would a chanel bag or jimmy choo shoes cost more in japan?) and is the pound stronger than yen?

I suppose "stronger" here would relate to purchasing power parity. 80.0.130.158 12:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember cigarettes being US$2.50 in Japan at a time when they were US$1.20 in the States; soft drinks were also about US$2.50 a can (vs. US$0.50 in the US). Sorry, I don't remember what clothing or beauty products cost; I'm not sure that I bought any. Everything seemed a lot more expensive, though, with the unsuprising exception of Japanese art, which cost about a tenth of what it did at the time in the US. Exchange rate questions can be answered by this excellent site.

ergot 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It will depend a lot on where you are. For example, Tokyo will be more expensive than Osaka, but if you're out in the 'burbs things will be even cheaper. It will also depend on what you want to buy. If you want to buy levis, you'll be spending more than if you buy other brands. Actually, come to think of it, you might be spending more on clothing anyway if you're larger than most Japanese people would be. I've read a lot of advice saying to take plenty of clothing, since they probably won't have a lot that will fit --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If PPP is too difficult to understand, then you could use the Big Mac Index. This http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8649005 says the Yen is 28% undervalued against the US dollar, and the pound is 21% overvalued compared with the dollar, so that would suggest (I think) that the price things in Japan would be 95% of those in the UK. Given that you would probably be buying at some mainstream city-centre store in Japan, while in the UK you could search out some backstreet discount warehouse, then I still think you would pay more in Japan. So the short answer is "yes". I know it used to be extremely expensive even compared to London years ago - it probably hasnt changed all that much. 80.0.132.127 18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what this Big Mac index suggests is that prices in Japan are only 59% of those in the UK! Marco polo 21:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many images do eyes send to the brain every day?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Hodgson (talk • contribs) --Anthony Hodgson 13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was always told that your cells refresh every 10 milliseconds. Looking it up I find that rod cells respond at 100 ms. Cone cells respond faster, but our article doesn't actually quote a figure. Taking it to be an image every 10 ms you could get a good figure for images per day. — Laura Scudder ☎ 13:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a fudge since they don't snap frames, but if you're going to compare apples to oranges, this would be the way I'd do it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The eye doesn't work like a TV camera - it doesn't snap a bunch of still images and send them one at a time to the brain. It doesn't have a 'frame rate' in frames per second that you could multiply by 60x60x24 to arrive at your answer. The rods and cones work continuously and asynchronously - so that motion is continuously perceived also. Not only that, but what the eye sends to the brain isn't an 'image' in any meaningful sense of the word. The layer of neurons behind the retina does a lot of preprocessing on the image formed there before sending it on to the brain. So, whilst it's an interesting one to ask, it depends on a false premise and therefore cannot be answered. Sorry! SteveBaker 13:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See

Saccades taking the eye from one fixation point to the next. This is necessary because the area of distinct vision is only about 2 degrees across. So in analyzing a scene, reading, or just looking around, we perform 4 or 5 fixations a second (P. Lindsay and D. Norman, Human Information Processing, Academic Press, 1972, pp 166-167.) The brain centers integrate these images automatically and without attention into a model of the external world. So assuming we are awake 16 hours a day, and ignoring blinks and periods we are "resting our eyes" with the lids closed, or staring fixedly (as through a microscope) and ignoring periods where we are smoothly tracking movement, there would be 57,600 seconds when we are seeing, and 230,000 to 290,000 eye fixations, with each "sending an image to the brain." This also ignores images the eye sends to the brain at night, like lightning flashes or car headlights hitting the ceiling, because the brain might not be tuned in. A video camera (in the US) with 30 frames per second would have sent 1,728,000 images in the same period. Edison 15:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(EC) A better measure than signal frequency might be saccade frequency. A saccade is a fast, more or less involuntary, movement of the eye, each lasting between 1/50th to 1/5th of a second. When you're taking in a scene, you don't smoothly survey it like a TV camera, but instead your eyes jump from place to place to focus on an individual element of what you're looking at. A fun and accessible book that covers some of this material is Mind Hacks. ISBN 978-0596007799.. --TotoBaggins 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? You guys are trying to equate the saccade frequency with the "number of images transmitted" - how does that follow? The eye does indeed jump around like that (and it wobbles to improve resolution too) - but that doesn't mean that the eye "takes just one picture and sends it to the brain" during each saccade. Nothing could be further from the truth. If that were true then we'd be unable to perceive motion at frequencies higher than the saccade - I can tell you for sure that I can easily tell the difference between 60Hz and 72Hz video out of the corners of my eye (where they are most flicker-sensitive) - and distinguishing 30Hz from 60Hz is something that pretty much everyone can do - so 4Hz or 10Hz is in no way the correct answer - even if we for one moment entertain the idea that the eye works this way (which it most definitely does not).

We know (and I can prove it) that the eye is more sensitive to flicker ("is taking more photos per second") at the edges of the retina than at the center. This proves that the eye is not a synchronous 'camera' that takes a series of snapshots. You can prove this to yourself by peering at a CRT-based TV set out of the corner of your eye - you can clearly see it flickering. (Well, most people can...some can't...doing it in a darkened room helps...doing it with a British 50Hz TV makes it even easier - it doesn't work well with projection/plasma/LCD TV's though). Now, stare directly at the center of the same TV screen - and there is no more flicker (well, unless you are very sensitive to flicker - which a fraction of a percent of people are). What does that do to your "saccade" theory? If your eyes grabbed a picture every time they saccaded, then firstly you'd be unable to see flicker since I'm sure we agree that 60Hz is a MUCH higher frequency than the saccade - and secondly, the entire eyeball saccades - how could your outer retina be more sensitive to flicker than at the center? So this blows your theory out of the water. Furthermore, we know that the 'recharge' rate of a rod is of the order of 100ms (10Hz) - so one individual rod can't see 60Hz flicker. If all of the rods 'fired' at the same instant - then recharged and 'fired' again 1/10th second later, we'd have no 60Hz flicker response - and we do. What actually happens is that one rod fires - then some short period of time later, a different rod fires - if the first rod sees light and the second one doesn't - then there was flicker at a higher rate than either rod individually could detect. This proves conclusively that they don't all fire at the same time to take a single 'picture'. Each rod or cone grabs data as fast as it can - and they all do so at different times - completely out of sequence. So there is never a time when we are 'between video frames' - vision is a continuous function - not descrete 'frames' of data.

Worse still - the eye doesn't send "images" to the brain - it sends higher level concepts than that. Maybe something like: "I've spotted a sharp edge subtending 12 degrees slanted at 45 degrees to the horizontal, moving left-to-right at 1.2 degrees per second". That's more the kind of thing that travels along the optic nerve - it's not some kind of a picture made up of little rod/cone sized pixels like a digital camera - it's MUCH higher level than that. The eye is not a simple camera - there are layers of neurons behind the retina that preprocess the data before sending it off down the optic nerve to the brain. Also, User:Edison should know that whilst NTSC TV cameras work at 30 frames per second, each frame consist of two distinct images called 'fields'. So it's 60 fields per second - which is 60 unique pictures - each of which paints only half the scanlines of the TV - but which is none-the-less a completely separate image from the one that follows it. However, that's irrelevent because the camera analogy is utterly inappropriate here. If you were forced to come up with some kind of analogy, the way that MPEG video files are motion-compressed might be nearer the mark (although they still have a fixed frame rate - which the eye does not). What comes down a satellite TV feed is something like "this block of pixels is travelling from left to right at such-and-such pixels per second - and here are some pixels to fill in the gap it left behind".

No - I'm sticking strongly to my first reply (because I happen to know this with a good degree of certainty): "It's a meaningless question" because visual perception is a continuous process and "images" (as such) are not involved in the eye/brain communication. SteveBaker 17:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that each saccade takes a snapshot, but that the eye jumps from element to element in a scene to focus on it individually. I find this chunked processing -- which most people are unaware that they are performing, but can easily prove to themselves that they are -- to be an interesting entrée into visual processing, and did not mean to imply that we have frame grabbers running at 5-50 FPS. --TotoBaggins 20:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't - but User:Edison did. The 'jumping' effect isn't the wierdest thing (by far) about the eye. I love the constant small vibrations of the eyeball that effectively increase the resolution of your vision. When your eye muscles get tires, that vibration goes away and your eyes seem not to focus properly. It's not too surprising that the 'video signal' from our eyes is shut off when we do a rapid eye movement (presumably to prevent blurry/confusing images going to our brains) - but what is utterly astounding is that you are unaware of the 'gap' in data because your brain fills in the missing 'video' from recent memories and where that's not available - from imagination! Just think about that - when you pan your eyes fairly rapidly from one side of the room to the other - you aren't seeing what's really in the middle of the room during that movement - it's all put there from memory! It's really hard to do an experiment to test that because as soon as you concentrate to much on what you are seeing along the way, your eye motion will immediately either slow right down or jerk across the scene so you can see it properly. Your brain also fills in the 'blind spot' where the optic nerve enters the back of your eye and there are no rods or cones. It does that infilling in amazingly ingeneous ways - and some careful experiments have shown that when you stare at a page full of text, the blind spot is filled in with random-ish letters - in the correct font - but not spelling real words - and just occasionally with malformed characters (eg a hybrid of a 'b' and a 'q' that has both an up and a down 'stalk'. It points to the fact that the level of consciousness that does this knows roughly what a letter is - and how to elaborate on fonts and that text is organised in rows - but it doesn't know about words and spelling! What's even more incredible is that we are generally unaware of this blatent 'cheating'! The brain is a VERY strange thing - but it's about as far from a "camera" as you could imagine! SteveBaker 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one said the eye or the brain was a camera. The blind spot, constant high frequency nystagmus of the eye and the critical flicker frequency have nothing to do with the number of images sent to the brain from the eye. I stand by my answer, which is referenced, which is more than I can say for yours. Edison 04:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try! Sadly, I'd already read your "references" and not one of them in any way backs up what you are saying. I present some experiments that you can do yourself - right now - which your theory cannot explain. You are correct in saying that the limit of flicker detectability has nothing to do with the number of images the eye sends to the brain - because the eye doesn't send pictures to the brain - it sends higher level and continual data of an entirely different kind. My argument is that precisely because you can detect flicker frequency (and at a vastly higher rate than an individual rod or cone could detect) - that shows clearly that neither your saccade frequency nor the rate of rod/cone recovery isn't the limit at which the retina captures data - if there is such a limit, it must be far faster - at least 60Hz. Then consider also that some parts of the retina are sensitive to different flicker frequency than others - another trivial experiment you can do right now. That entirely defeats the idea that a single snapshot image is taken because if it were then our retina's would be uniformly sensitive to flicker - and they most certainly are not. What follows of your argument (which consists of multiplying out the saccade frequency by the number of waking seconds in a day) is therefore a complete fiction. When you say 290,000 eye fixations, with each "sending an image to the brain." you are taking a completely unreferenced and quite utterly fallacious leap from "number of saccades" to "number of images" - just in order to get some kind of an answer to an unanswerable question. If some reliable (and moderately recent) reference clearly says that on every 'fixation' of a saccade (which merely means that the eyeball comes to a temporary halt), exactly one image is sent by the retina to the brain - then I'll happily concede your point. But 22 years of vision research in the military flight simulation business - and one simple experiment that anyone can do at home - says that you don't have a reliable reference because it's simply not true. It only takes a moment's thought to realise that if our eyes only sent 4 or 5 "pictures" to the brain each second (as you have very clearly claimed) then we would be totally unable to distinguish between 5Hz, 10Hz, 30Hz or 60Hz movement - when in fact it's perfectly possible to distinguish 60Hz from 72Hz. So, no - you don't have any references and your answer of 4 or 5 pictures sent to the brain per second is laughable. SteveBaker 05:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing a report on Advertising and need to find statistics on how many different Brands people will see in one day? (on average) --Anthony Hodgson 13:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which title did gandhiji return to the British after the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre?

You can find the answer to your question I believe in

this section of the article. Lanfear's Bane

can anyone kindly tell me whether increasing population will result in increase in the weight of earth ?--my eight year old asked me this question to which my reply was that it would not make any difference,but could not explain it correctly enough.§§ΔSripati.pp 17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)§–17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Sripati.pp[reply]

You were right. No - the mass (we can't strictly talk about 'weight') of the earth didn't change - not in the slightest. Everything that went into making those extra humans came in the form of food and water - the water came (ultimately) from the earth's oceans - the food came from things that ate other things that...that grew in the ground and got their nutrients from the soil, the air and the water. Ultimately, everything that made up the weight of those extra people got subtracted from the weight of the soil, water and air of our planet. So, no - the mass of the earth won't change in the slightest because of that. (Now, probably some pedant will come along and point out that humans move faster than dirt or seawater - so there is a relativistic effect increasing the mass of the planet - or that increasing use of nuclear power is converting more mass into energy per E=Mc² and reducing the mass - or that we are increasing the number of things we shoot off into orbit and that's decreasing the mass - or that the continual showering of the earth with meteors and cometary debris is increasing the mass - but we're going to studiously ignore all of those people and tell your 8 year old kid that you were absolutely 100% correct - which you are - to any detectable degree!!).

P.S. I love these kinds of questions from kids around that age. Just be prepared for "Why does a mirror swap left and right - but not up and down? Why does it still swap left and right when I lie on my side? Why doesn't turning the mirror through 90 degrees fix that? Why doesn't a photo of me have left/right swapped? If you don't know the answer, a good strategy is to have the kid look CAREFULLY at his/her reflection in the bowl of a spoon - and run away fast before they ask the next question! SteveBaker 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This sort of question is why it's a good idea to teach kids both critical thinking and research skills, that way when they have a question, they figure it out themselves instead of confusing you. On a serious note, I highly recommend picking up a book on "why things are", or some such like that, a science book that explains how various things work. Why the sky is blue, what causes rainbows, etc. I had a few when I was a kid, and they were very, very helpful. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm constantly plugging this book here, but I promise I have no attachment to it other than absolutely *loving* its depth and accessibility: The Flying Circus of Physics is as good as it gets for a "how the natural world works" book, although it's above the level of the average eight-year-old; it will be great for you to be able to explain it to him/her, Dad. The Way Things Work is a classic, of course, and will have a lot of good stuff a child will be able to grasp (the fun pictures help). --TotoBaggins 20:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that when kids start coming up with their own questions - there is about a 0.0000001% chance that any book is going to have the answer! You get quite a good mental workout from hanging out here on the reference desks - but that's nothing compared to an inquisitive 8 year old! Some that I got: "Why is it that when I put my hands like this (palm-to-palm) they are the same - but when I put them like this (both flat on the table) they're different?" (actually - that was maybe a 5 year-old question) - that's hard to answer! "Do the clouds get smaller when it rains?" (be careful!), "How come Sam (our dog) can eat a bone when I can't?" (I'm truly not sure we ever answered that one satisfactorily), "Why doesn't the battery on Aniken's Light Sabre ever run down?", "Where do noises go to after we finish hearing them?" (gotta think about that one!). The classic: "Why is the sky blue?" is something you can be ready with a snappy answer for - but some of these others are TOUGH! SteveBaker 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well? DO the clouds get smaller when it rains? --Charlene 17:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, we concluded that to start with they just get more tenuous (but not strictly 'smaller') - but in the end as the last of the rain falls, they get smaller. I think we got that from a book I have about clouds, fog, etc that was written in the early 1900's sometime - I'm not near my book collection right now - I think it's called "Vision through the Atmosphere". SteveBaker 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really really love the "Where do noises go to after we finish hearing them?" one. It reminds me of certain poems by Pablo Neruda. S.dedalus 06:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

81.77.228.115 18:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Seeing the Shell-Mex building has recently been sold can you please tell me the initial total cost to build it??[reply]

Shell Mex House was built as the Cecil Hotel in 1896, then the largest hotel in Europe. It was later restructured (in 1930) into the current building. The cost of either construction doesn't appear to be available, at least not on the internet. Rockpocket 05:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info regarding subject.68.10.222.113 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC) [spam-bait-removed][reply]

A movie is being made about

You can! Go to the article - click on the 'edit this page' tab. Make your changes and hit 'Save page'. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia

that anyone can edit! We really mean that! SteveBaker 02:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

But when you add it, make sure to mention somewhere that other people can read that this is true, other than Wikipedia. Sadly, it isn't enough just to say "I saw them filming it.". Has your local paper perhaps written about it? Are there reliable websites that confirm this? You really need to include a

reliable source so that people who don't know you will know that it's true. Otherwise, silly people would just add ridiculous things to articles! :-D Skittle 17:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Have you brought this up at

Talk:Wendy Williams (radio host) ? —Tamfang 19:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The meaning of ciao mi buono amico

Italian ... hello (or goodbye), good friend. Antandrus (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not grammatical standard Italian. Mi as a possessive is Spanish, not Italian. --Trovatore 23:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]