May 28

My dad is paranoid about saving electricity, and keeps insisting that we switch off the button at the back of the modem whenever we're not using the internet (but doing other stuff on the PC). Are his fidgetings justified, and does keeping the modem switched on really result in unnecessary electricity consumption, and also, as he says, "wear and tear" on the modem? It's such a pain in the neck to switch it on every time I wish to go online and wait for those titchy blinking lights to be steady before connecting.... =/ Thanks in advance. 117.194.236.69 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most sites I've found mention that a modem uses about 7 watts. Without having one handy, I can't double check that but it seems reasonable. Your IP address geolocates to India. I don't know how much you pay for power but here in the States, I pay about 12 cents per kilowatt hour. So at 7 watts, it would be fractions of a cent per day. As for switching it off and on all the time, I would think that you're putting more wear and tear on the switch than you do on the rest of the device. They're built to be turned on and left on for months/years at a time. Dismas|^(talk) 08:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. That's the exact argument I was trying to convince my dad with. On a related note, does keeping the main switch (the one which the UPS is plugged in) and UPS switched on (while the PC is itself in hibernate/shut down mode) consume electricity at all?? Is it bad for the UPS in case it gets over-charged like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.231.188 (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I have a Modem that pulls 30 watts, and my

kWh

is a little under .09 USD, so leaving it on 24 hours a day would cost me $1.81 at the end of the month. Conversely, if I only had it on 10 hours a day, it would cost me $0.76 at the end of the month. Thankfully, I'm not really hurting for that extra buck. Although, Dismas is right - almost all modems are meant to stay powered on, and the constant on-off cycle will certainly shorten the life of the device, though I can't say by how much.

On the second note, a PC that is shutdown or in hibernate mode will draw no electricity. (The only thing it would need power for at that state is some basic settings and time, which are powered from a CMOS battery inside the PC.) I wouldn't worry about the UPS - if it's made to standard, it has over-voltage protection built in, and will not over-charge itself. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:12, 24 Iyar 5771 / 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the UPS will not overcharge itself, but it will consume a very small amount of electricity to keep its batteries topped up even when the computer is switched off. Also, a computer in hibernate mode does consume a tiny amount of electricity, but not enough to worry about. Dbfirs 07:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a modem supplied by TalkTalk (OK I know, UGH!), it never worked properly and I was told to switch it off at night. What a pain that was, and it still never worked properly. A letter of abuse to the CEO got things moving and they sent me a new one of a different brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.237.222 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never shut my computer equipment off at all, except for monitors. The definitive way to settle the dispute is of course to measure the actual current draw from the actual device being argued about. This gadget is an example, designed for non-electricians who don't know what a "multimeter" is or where to poke its little probes. Googling the gadget's name, I noticed it for sale at prices from US$20 to US$67, depending on the model you want. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this global warming thing comes in, what would it actually do to the world. Does anyone know of any decent maps of what the earth might be like afterwards, where would uncovered from under ice, where would be flooded, which areas would become more or less inhabitable when their weather patterns change, and so on? Obviously it would depend on just how much warmer it gets, how much ice melts, and the infamous complexities of the global climate system, but I am just looking for a rough estimate of what sort of thing might happen, were things to get quite serious.

148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stirring up a political hornet's nest... Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth is considered by some a good starting point for looking at what the future may hold. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:57, 24 Iyar 5771 / 28 May 2011 (UTC)

STATE OF FEAR by Michael Crichton is a very well researched book focusing on global warming and the environment. He includes 28 pages of references and throughout the book he explores and explains a range of environmental issues. There is a plot, with a small group taking on the powers that pollute, but this can be skipped (although it is a good read).Froggie34 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See State of Fear particularly State of Fear#Scientific. Also I've never read the book but my impression and reading the article supports my impression that it doesn't have 'decent maps of what the earth might be like afterwards, where would uncovered from under ice, where would be flooded, which areas would become more or less inhabitable when their weather patterns change, and so on' or otherwise 'a rough estimate of what sort of thing might happen, were things to get quite serious' which wouldn't be surprising since it presents the idea it's all a hoax. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No such maps can be made for several reasons: 1. gravity is not constant across the earth's surface - sea level is not a constant around the world. And changes in sea level are nicely inconsistent around the earth over the past few decades. 2. areas under heavy ice loads appear to rise as ice melts (viewed apparently in Greenland). 3. the compressibility of water is a function of temperature - so the deep ocean temps enter in - for some temperature increases, the volume of water may decrease, and we have, alas, insufficient data on that.

What we do know is that very large areas of land were under water in the past when we believe the earth was substantially warmer overall than it is today.

It would be nice if we also knew more about plate tectonics, which is a fairly new science. The existence of deep "roots" for mountains etc. means some of the simplified views of the earth's continents are still being emended on a regular basis. It would be really nice if someone could make such a map - but with so many variables, it would be crystal ball time. Collect (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles about this

Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

C. S. Forester? I mean, as an example of fiction being sometimes well-researched.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this Google Earth plugin which simulates the sea level rise, but it doesn't reveal land uncovered by retreating ice. This search show many other utilities that you might find useful. Astronaut (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This NASA page is titled "How Will Global Warming Change Earth?". It has a couple of interesting global maps showing changes in precipitation in the winter and summer, colored not only by increase or decrease in precipitation but by how well the various climate models agree. There's also a reference page with many links to further information. Pfly (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from "Coins and notes", which has now been cut off from the "live" page and gone to the archives:

Do banknotes have any real advantages over coins that would justify using them at all so that if they had never been invented, inventing them now would help the situation instead of hindering it? JIP | Talk 17:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now? Nah, it probably wouldn't be worth the effort. But before digital transactions became commonplace, it was convenient that you could move large amounts of money around without the aid of a wheelbarrow.

Again, it's a historical accident that we're using bills for less than you could buy a sandwich with. Imagine if you needed to buy an entire ship-full of precious cargo. You can't do a bank-transfer because the ship-captain's bank account is in a different country and wire-transfers won't be invented for thousands of years. It's easier for everyone involved if you can just exchange some documents that signify certain amounts of value. APL (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, if we have already agreed that the physical form of coins is in all respects so much better than that of banknotes, then wouldn't large-valued coins have filled the same purpose much better? We have already established that the monetary value of coins does not need to be in relation with the intrinsic value of the raw metal, and that coins can have security features. What would have stopped us from minting 100 € or 1000 € or 10000 € coins? JIP | Talk 18:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm firmly in favor of the United States making a conversion to a $1 coin (and introducting a $2 coin would be a good idea, too—Europe and the Canadians have the right idea), I don't think it's correct to say that we have agreed coins are superior in all respects, nor that the security features available for incorporation into coins are equally effective to those available for notes. Microprinting, embedded security threads, unique serial numbers, watermarks, multicolored or fluorescent inks, holograms, and clear plastic windows are all features that exist in modern, circulating banknotes of various nations that would be difficult or impossible to employ (and make sufficiently durable) in coinage. (Where other security features can be added to coins, there's necessarily much less area on which to arrange them.) Even if a country did add such features to their coins, it would take decades for the old, less-secure coins they replaced to vanish from circulation.

As a matter of practicality, it's also (generally) harder to misplace objects that are physically larger. A hundred-dollar (or -euro) note won't roll under the refrigerator if you drop it, and it's less likely to fall out of your pocket and get lost in the couch cushions. It's easier to find an object the size of a banknote on a cluttered desk than it is to find a quarter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But coins don't blow away in the wind (or, if they do, then you'd best stop worrying about your coins and get into a tornado shelter). StuRat (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American men aren't keen on carrying purses, and if bills were replaced by coins, they would have to start doing so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Men in most countries make do perfectly well with pockets. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And suspenders to keep the weight of the coins from pulling their pants down. And it's fun to walk around emanating that jingling sound. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, if you don't have anything constructive to contribute, perhaps you could contribute somewhere else? We get that you have an irrational emotional attachment to paper dollar notes, and that you believe that everyone else must feel the same way that you do. (I also strongly suspect that Bugs has never lived or spent a significant amount of time in a country that makes sensible use of larger-denomination coins, and probably doesn't realize what he's missing.) Men in the United States seem to manage just fine with quarters in their pockets; I'm not sure why the addition of one new coin denomination would suddenly push every red-blooded American male's trousers past the tipping point.

The fact is, using the consumer price index [1] (or some other reasonable method of tracking inflation), a U.S. dollar banknote in 2010 has the same purchasing power as a quarter did in 1975, a dime in 1950, or a nickel in 1910. If the size of coins and notes had tracked with their purchasing power over the last century, the smallest denomination paper note in the U.S. would be worth twenty dollars, and five-dollar coins would be circulating. Meanwhile, the government would have acknowledged that the penny – and, realistically, the nickel – are irrelevantly tiny denominations in this day and age, and withdrawn them. For those who think that notion is shocking and absurd, I will note that the Swiss (who are generally acknowledged to know something about money) use a 5 rappen coin as their smallest denomination (about 5 U.S. cents); their largest coin is worth 5 francs (about 5 USD), and their smallest banknote is worth 10 francs. Somehow, they manage. Contrary to your imagined stereotype of Europeans, most don't wear suspenders, either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could redirect your criticism to the guy(s) that keep asking this same question over and over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with ToAT and I said something similar the last time this came up. I suspect far more people have lost coins because of falling out of their pockets/wallets/whatever then they have notes blowing away in the wind and I don't think it's just because they value notes more. I also agree with ToAT that JIP must have been reading a different conversation if he/she thinks we agreed coins are superior in every way. Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They might be "superior" in terms of durability compared with paper money, but that's more than offset by various inconveniences. And by the way, I'm sure a 2-dollar coin would be every bit as popular as the 2-dollar bill is. Or did you know there was such a thing? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. All this fuss about liking some coins and/or notes and not liking others. I like all money, whatever it's made of. Never do seem to be able to get enough. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No argument! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money money money makes the world go round but it can't buy love (all videos). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep your hands off my stack: [2]. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One incontrovertible advantage: In the short term, it's much cheaper to print the notes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how one defines 'much cheaper'. In the previous discussion, I noted that the U.S. dollar coins run about eight cents to mint, while the paper notes cost about four cents. (Those numbers are now a few years old, but the relative costs have presumably remained about the same.) In one sense, it's a 'large' difference: a factor of two. In another sense, they're both relatively inexpensive; even the more costly coins cost a tenth of their face value. (And for paper notes that last two years in circulation, the break-even time for the switch is just four years.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that large value coins were tried in ancient China before the invention of paper money, but were not trusted by users because a 100-cash coin would never be the size and weight of 100 cash coins (otherwise why would the government bother minting them?). Orthodox histories are critical of such coins (called "大钱", "big coin") because it was felt that they were a ploy to take wealth from the people by essentially shortchanging them. The mistrust of "big coins" led to inflation.

"Big coins" were replaced by banknotes, which were sometimes very successful as they were fully backed by "real" coins in the treasury and freely exchangeable for "real" coins. However, when the credit of the government deteriorated paper money also became subject to massive inflation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "big coin". This is a "big coin": Rai stones. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So a 100-cash coin couldn't be developed because such a coin weighing as much as 100 1-cash coins would be impractical, and people were distrustful of such a coin weighing about the same as a 1-cash coin, and so they invented a paper statement that its holder had the right to 100 1-cash coins? Couldn't this statement have just as well been made of metal, as it's far more durable than paper? I understand that banknotes allow for more advanced security features than coins (and the more a monetary object is worth, the more security features it needs), and while such security features are possible for coins, they are more expensive to implement. But which are easier and which are more difficult to counterfeit, coins or banknotes? And lastly, the argument "it would take decades for the old, less-secure coins to vanish from circulation" is invalid if we considered the hypothetical situation where the less-secure coins had never existed, but the large-valued coins had been designed to have security features from the start. JIP | Talk 19:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By making it from paper, they clearly divorce the face value of the statement from its material value. If they made it from metal (any metal), there would be an implicit assumption of a link between the metal content and the face value. --Carnildo (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be? The link is pretty minimal right now with the value of the metal of a $1 US coin being less then 10% of the face value. You don't need a coin the size of a hockey puck for a $100 coin, since you don't need $100 of metal value in the coin. Heck if the government wanted, they could just declare that all the $1 coins were now going to have $100 printed on them and be made with security features instead of what they have now and they would not be all that different. Googlemeister (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just watched The King's Speech, and a very good film it is too. However, there's one scene which prompted a question. The King is visiting Logue's house, and Logue's wife returns unexpectedly from her bridge evening. Logue then introduces the King to his wife. Now, usually, one would indeed introduce a gentleman to a lady, rather than vice versa. However - IT'S THE SODDING KING!!! Does Logue commit a dreadful faux pas, or is it an example of a very unusual social situation where the expected procedure (namely, that commoners are presented to Royalty) should be reversed? Tevildo (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. The King is present on personal not royal business and Logue (an Australian!) has established that he the therapist is the boss here. ~~

Yes, an important aspect of the story is in the demonstration that traditional protocols went out the window in the relationship between Logue and the King. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That his is Australian is irrelevant - the King was King of Australia too. --Tango (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is true tango. He was also king of australia, but he was not there on kingly business. He was there on personal business. kingly protocol does not cover every eventuality. If Logue had not controlled the situation, then he could not have been of service to the king.Phalcor (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what a superb actor 'Logue' is !85.211.237.222 (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Geoffrey Rush? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't believe he didn't win the Oscar. There's no figuring the Academy's logic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logic probably doesn't have anything to do with it, Senor Bugs. If it were a logical thing, the best performance would be obvious to everybody without exception, and there'd be no need for a vote. One thing the Academy has over most everybody else is that they have to view all the nominated films before they vote. For other people, typically they'll see one or two of the nominees, then decide the film they really, really like is Oscar-worthy, but without ever giving the other three or four nominated films a chance at all. Then they complain that the voting by the Academy is somehow unfair when it doesn't go their way, when they themselves are the ones with the colossal biases. I know there are exceptions, but that's how it usually goes, in my experience. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz, I beg to differ. In most of the cases in which the vast majority of the public is unsatisfied with the verdict of the Academy, the people have seen the winning movie (Of course!! Who wants to miss out on something labelled "Oscar winning"??), and yet greatly prefer something that's been ignored by the Academy. 117.194.238.205 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind we aren't talking about something winning the best movie but instead best supporting actor. I suspect quite a lot of people critical of Geoffrey Rush not winning the Oscar haven't actually seen

The Fighter (2010 film). Also I would question whether anyone seeing the movie after it won an Oscar can give a fair review. If they were unsatisfied with the results it's easy to imagine them being negatively influence when viewing the winner. (Of course it can go both ways, particularly if they were more neutral on the results.) People can also be influenced by the general hype etc but so can the academy. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I've seen in numerous documentaries that the sago worm is a delicacy in Indonesia. Does anyone know about a company that sells these (dead or alive) and delivers to the US? I have a brave friend who wishes to try them, but isn't having much luck finding them.- 87.211.75.45 (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find anyone that imports them. If you want to try another, easier to obtain worm, though,

mealworms are delicious (especially fried in sesame oil with a little garlic). Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 08:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

According to this, they've become an invasive species in California, so if your friend lives within reasonable distance he might be able to catch some in the wild. I don't know how he'd go about doing that, but short of going to Malaysia that would probably be his best bet (if he does, be sure he cooks them before eating. eating raw things found in the wild isn't a good idea). Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 04:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Importing alive would probably be illegal & immoral. Importing dead would probably not be profitable, as the west isn't big on eating "worms", and it would be expensive to ensure each worm is in fact dead, and there are no viable eggs anywhere in the package. On top of that, it wouldn't be as authentic, would it? :p Tell your friend to take a holiday to New Guinea. ¦

• He simply wants to buy them one single time for personal use. He's not aiming for profit. Of course, dead worms would probably be less tasty than the living ones, but if you can't import living worms, it can't be helped. - 194.60.106.38 (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He might not be aiming for profit, but someone willing to import them likely would be. ¦

Reisio (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]