text:
User talk:Prometheuspan~enwikibooks

User talk:Prometheuspan/archive1

User talk:Prometheuspan/archive1

apparently i have been listed as possibly in contravention to wiw. So, I'd like to go over that. --

Wikibooks hosts instructional resources
Since this clause of this policy statement is increasingly being used as a rationale for deleting content from this project, I think a major discussion needs to take place (again) on this topic. Perhaps with some time passing from the original arguments and changes that were made earlier, perhaps we can hold a rational discussion on this topic. --- Honestly, I would be willing to pull out materials from my notes which show that my stated goal even before i found wikibooks or had even heard of wikibooks was to write Textbooks. I have 10 year old freindships that i could probably get to attest that this has been a brewing idea of mine for that long.

The evolution of the idea is important, originally i was going to write textbooks on POV issues, which i am an expert on. However, a year long retreat into the wilderness made me realize i was too bent from arguing. So i thought about what i knew and where i might want to go with it, and the concept of ThinkStarship was born.

Its first incarnation was "Geeks of all trades" a now defunct phpbb website i managed to create with the help of a freind. --

 * Wikibooks hosts instructional resources. As a general rule, most books you might expect to find in the non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop are not acceptable because of the list of exclusions in this policy. This is for textbooks. A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class.

--- Honestly here, ThinkStarship rapidly departs the stated convention. Its Textbooks are for theoretical colleges inside of theoretical space ships, and for theoretical libraries onboard same. So "existing class" i suppose no, don't meet that as a criteria. However, I think that the idea here is sound to generate texts with a space exploration/ colonization theme. Its a big umbrella, and a great human motivator. ---

 * As a general rule, most books you might expect to find in the non-fiction section of your local library or bookshop are not acceptable because of the list of exclusions in this policy. The primary mission for Wikibooks is the creation of textbooks for instructional purposes.  A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class.  Other content may exist on Wikibooks, but it should still act in a supporting role for textbooks as a general instructional resource.

- My textbooks would be textbooks in every sense other than that they are for classes which don't exist yet. Somehow, it seems like that isn't any different from most Wikibooks; You can't have a text for an existing class being written right now; Texts being written right now are for classes LIKE existing classes in the very immediate future. ---

Once consequence of this, however, is that content like Voter's Guide, Colonising Mars, and most of Computer and video games bookshelf would be subject to deletion. These topics have been debated before, but the big question is how do you make a policy here that permits some creativity but at the same time focuses the effort here to textbooks and textbook-like content? --Rob Horning 13:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC) --- Good question. I don't see how this really makes everything as subject to deletion as you are saying. What is looks like to me is more of a guidelin of the direction current efforts should go in. I hope in any case that this is what is meant. As an interesting aside, I have now secured by means of making freinds a new potential host site, but, I'd rather stick here as it does help me to focus and because its a great support mechanism. Plus, I really do think what i am doing is not only in the purview of Wikibooks, but is sort of on the cutting edge actually to solve the problems that the rule is otherwise adressing. For instance, if wikipedia ran a "collaboration" effort to come help ME out, we would have a very focused and streamlined path to generate the minimum set of textbooks to quallify the library as an operational educational library.

 * I wouldn't even try. I don't think thats what wikibooks should be doing.  Wikibooks was made for instructional resources.  Some of those fit in a classroom setting.  Some of them are more practical knowledge (how-to books, for example).  Others are fields that don't fit in a college or high school classroom.  These items should not be excluded, just because they aren't "textbooks".  Keep wikibooks as accepting non-fiction, and explicitly exclude areas we don't want.  Its always possible to add exclusions if we find more material we don't want.  Its next to impossible to remove exclusions, because a book will never grow to critical mass to see if its useful to us.  It would be deleted long before then.  --Gabe Sechan 22:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I keep hoping that Wikibooks will make a "Fiction" bookshelf, and that this would relieve me of SOME of the burden of living up to the standard placed before me. Still, and even so, The point here in the main is and always has been to write the library document that would be carried into space. That is simultaneously paralell in mission in many ways with wikibooks.

 * So should we revert Jimbo's addition here?

- No, I don't think we need to revert the wording, i think we need to explore what the meaning is in a non-alarmist mindset. I don't feel threatened by the wording as is, tho the interpretation might be a problem; obviously i do ride the edge of several different layers of the criteria for being here. Trying to walk that line as best i can is something i am growing into more slowly than i would have hoped, but its a worthwhile adventure, and I am aware of the conventions and believe that the minor indulgences i am asking for are justified by my mission; to write textbooks. ---

Certainly what it means needs to be expanded a bit more somehow, even if I agree with your sentiments here. Jimbo's wording can be, and is interpreted strictly on many VfD discussions as just textbooks alone and nothing more, with more of an attitude of going for more strictly college textbooks at that. Wikibooks has certainly gone beyond that, and I think this official policy needs to reflect that change somehow, or some serious discussion should happen if we are to remove all non-textbook material altogether. -- From my POV the whole removal and deletion thing is so overused. Rather than think in terms of deleting and moving, why not think in terms of organizing and creating a sense of order thus that we veer wikibooks in a direction?

The two schools of thought were certainly played out with the Jokebook, where the inclusionists want to keep it here, and the deletionists wanted it gone for good never to come back. It certainly sits right on the threshold of what could be considered an instructional material by a very loose definition.

 * I'm not trying to play that VfD out here again, but the point I'm making is that this is an unsettled question, and similar books are going to be popping up here on Wikibooks again and again with this issue unresolved. It seems as though Jimbo is either undecided himself on this issue, or that it is to become a continual point of argument for Wikibooks in the future, where each borderline case is to be decided by VfD.  That doesn't sound right either.  --Rob Horning 21:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

- The problem is that its an informational engineering attempt made too simple. It needs a lot of fleshing out and a lot of thought. Other, very different methods ought to be employed to achieve the same goals. -

Protection of minors and adult material
nothing thinkstarship intends to do on wikibooks would ever cross over G methinks. Theres a plan in the works to move once the textbooks as such are finished andto go to a new host site where who knows what will happen, but that is in the far future and not really anything concerning wikibooks.

 * I disagree. First off, having a garuntee mean anything is impossible-  we'd either need a huge number of admins, or we'd need to switch to an approval based edit system instead of a wiki.  Both of those are unacceptable answers.

--- I think an automated welcoming system as we have right now is probably sufficient, the problem is conveying quickly to potential authors where to take their potential traffick, esp if it doesn't fit here. -

 * I think that it is a bad idea to have all the negative "Wikibooks is not..." instructions full stop. We really should be able to define what wikibooks is in positive terms (with it being implied that wikibooks is not anything that doesn't fall within what wikibooks is), Jguk 06:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and plus, a page directing people to other places for adding materials on subjects x,y and z would be nice. --

I have removed it because it is too drastic of a change. It needs some discussion (here on en.wikibooks.org) first. --Kernigh 21:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC) just buzzing around and thought to throw in 2 cents. "too drastic of a change" is true, but more complicated than that and potentially misleading. The original charter is "textbooks" and video games really never did meet those criteria. What happened was a loose interpretation of the rules, owing probably in part to wanting to have ANY material on a newly started project. Wikibooks is full of stuff which doesn't really fit the prime criteria. Again, I think a bookshelf labeled "Fiction" and another labeled "POV" are probably very good ideas.

Is there a wikicity on videogames that isn't too specific? (biggest problem with wikicities, they are tiny micro-umbrellas.)

Another thought; there ought to be more than just a "what wikibooks is not" page, as in a "where to go to contribute on topics x,y,and z" page. Thanks fer listening... Prometheuspan 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

explain
"I don't understand"

Gawsh, i think i do, and, i'd like to explain.

this is about the information resource function of informational engineering, and what happens if the content as a whole ends up significantly departing from what is in the libraries best interest for convincing the general public that we are indeed a library.

Its a social and informational engineering tactic, and as such, it is remarkably sensible.

The flipside from my head is the problem of excessive exclusivity. This is a GOOD tool for the purpose of insuring the success of Wikibooks as an information resource AT ITS CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY STATE. It is a Bad overall idea for the long term library because it limits the scope and size of the umbrella.

The larger the umbrella, the more applications the information service has, the more clients the information service gets.

I'd like to quote Jimbo. --- We have to draw a line somewhere, and we can argue internally endlessly without getting much resolution. So a useful technique is to try really hard to reference some external standards. - This is true; we need standards by which to generate reliable and useful information as an information service. The real question here, is how and why and what and the particulars and details of those standards. A key issue from my perspective is the duration of implementation of an engineering tactic. Prometheuspan 21:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

> 1. What about guides to games that are not video or computer games? > These can include guides on how to play chess and go (which we already > have), bridge, whist, etc.. together with suitable strategies; > conceivably this may also include more modern games such as risk or > monopoly or cluedo. To my mind, guides on well-known intellectual games > such as these have educational value and are worth keeping, but your > comments would be welcome.

My question would be whether or not there exist classes at accredited institutions on the subject which use something similar _as a textbook_.

Notice how this works: first, we can be quite broad in what constitutes a textbook, for example at my sister's cooking school, they use a cookbook for a textbook, no question.

But in virtually every university, there are classes on Shakespeare which use Hamlet as material, but not as _textbook_ per se.

I am unaware of any course at any accredited institution which teaches risk or monopoly or clue. Chess and go, probably, but I actually don't know. Doom? No. --- For good psyche reasons, nobody writes textbooks using Doom as a reference resource. Could it be done in theory? Sure. Not by me, and, more to the point, what is there isn't that.

The problem we are trying to solve here is that geek pursuits are not always scholastic, and geeks have the time and energy and motivation to write books for geeks that aren't scholastic. Might this ever be in the pervue of Wikibooks? Maybe 10 years from now when Wikibooks has an up and functioning library. Right now, it causes system friction. Entropy ensues. Prometheuspan 21:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

> 2. Your comments included a direct reference to wikibooks having > textbooks suitable for "elementary school, high school, or college > courses" (and I'm not sure what age groups you meant by "college" as it > seems to mean different things in the US from what it means in the UK). > I trust this list was not meant to be exhaustive and that you would > agree that textbooks related to professional learning (eg accountancy), > adult learning (eg cookery) and (if not covered by "college") university > learning are suitable for wikibooks.

Yes! I think we should be quite broad about it. The key point is that there have to be some kind of courses offered by some kind of serious institution of learning. --- While i agree, in theory, and in principle with the engineering tactic, i think that the primary flaw is that there lacks provisos or explanations. What problems are you trying to solve with the "rule" Jimbo?

Perhaps the more important question is "Can we think of some other standards which would be more inclusive and still adress the problem?"

Personally, I don't think that is such a tall order. I remember a similar moment for my poor little "caught in the middle" brain on Dennis Kuciniches website not so long ago. On the issue of abortion. You see, I totally want there to never be an Abortion ever. I think that is a great and wonderful goal. However, legislating that won't solve as many problems as it will create, and the real solutions to the real problems are an order of magnitude more complicated than that. In order to never have abortions, you have to engineer a more just and supportive society with also a saner approach en totalia to human sexuality. The problem is circular. Those persons most opposed to Abortion are incidentally those perpetuating the social paradigm which is most responsible for Abortions as a social outcome. Prometheuspan 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

discussion methods
Hey, you new to Wikibooks? - yes. sorry. -- Please don't cut lines through other people's arguments :) It is harder to follow. Can you just use the indent notation?

Sure, but, i don't see how it works to keep ideas together. maybe you could explain the convention better?

 * It is pretty simple to indent in Wikibooks, in the form of "chatting" long term in an argument/debate. You can use the "edit this page" to see how I did this.
 * Level 2 indent
 * Level 3 indent
 * So on, so forth
 * To Infinity :) --Dragontamer 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

wow, kewl, I'll try that as soon as my head digests it fully.

 * Erm... you just cut lines through my paragraph again :-/ The issue here is now I don't know who said what anymore.

--- okay, well, on my talk page, methinks i still do it my way. maybe i should label comments especially. I am sorry but this is how i think. I will not cut into the middle anymore esp you personally since you make the point. Maybe you can add the names. Maybe i go try to clean it up? Sorry again. ---

Their words are separated from their signature. When more than one person is talking, the issue gets very bad indeed. Take for example what you did at the Staff Lounge. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see immediatly if it is you or Robert Horning who is talking. Because of the lines it appears that those comments Robert made were done by anonymous contributors. Look at the lines you cut through in this section already. Just with 5 or so lines, we have 3 unsigned comments, any of which can belong to you or me. When there are more than 2 people in a discussion, it only gets worse.

 * The ideal thing to do is to just add your comments below their post with one more indent level. Also, it is reccomended not to use the lines. I realize other wikis use the line notation for their discussion pages, but here at wikibooks, things are done differently. --Dragontamer 23:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks comment
I didnt understand your comment on User:Jguk's talk page. RobinH 12:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I hadn't seen your comment earlier (someone else had made a comment on a separate issue later, so when I checked the diff I didn't see it). I certainly don't read what you said as a personal attack.

 * I understand how you feel about THINKSTARSHIP whilst its location is uncertain. About that, I can only say two things. 1) that it is not my decision, but the community's as to whether it meets WB:WIW (as amended by Jimbo). 2) that regardless of where that discussion ends up, it is no-one's intention to delete any wikibook covered by Jimbo's addition to WB:WIW from the internet. Plenty of time will be given to any book falling foul of that to find an alternative wiki which would welcome it. The conclusion from this is that any amendments and improvements you make to the book will stay.

 * Another point I can usefully make is that if you could provide a clear explanation of why you believe it complies with the Jimbo-amended WB:WIW (assuming that you do believe that), that may help resolve the issue quickly. Without wishing to be rude, I have so far had difficulty in following the line of your arguments, which makes it more difficult for me (and no doubt others) to come to a view on this matter. All the best, Jguk 20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 01:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your answer. My argument is pretty complex. I think that Jimbos actual wording and idea are being blown out of proportion here. I'm caught in an interesting middle. I totally agree with Jimbo in theory, via the lens of my interpretation of what i think he means. I don't think that everybody elses interpretation is realistic, and seems alarmist. I agree with Jimbo, mostly because i understand the information engineering angle. It is exactly the kind of thing i could see myself saying 3 years from now when ThinkStarship gets big and has a lot of participants. I think that I have tried to make an argument that thinkstarship is within the WB:WIW, I suppose it doesn't help that this is interspersed with comments where i try to get people to see what i see in terms of the wisdom of what he is actually saying on the one hand, and the difference between what he is actually saying, and how it looks to me like everybody is misinterpreting that. To start with, the way its worded doesn't make it sound like its to be applied to anything in the past; its a foreward moving information engineering concept, nothing in the things said leads me to believe he meant it to be retroactive. Secondly, it looks like a pretty open ended Guideline, not an absolutist and certainly not a literalist rule. From my perspective, Jimbo made a sensible new suggestion, and by virtue of imagining it to be retroactive, everybody has gone into a sort of panic attack. I'm glad you asked me this, I think i'll repost it to Jimbo. ThinkStarship actually factually does sort of sit on the fuzzy line between fiction and fact, and on those grounds, I can't claim absolutely to see myself as totally totally totally within WB:WIW. In fact, to some extent, Thinkstarship is sort of one big toe over the line, and the rest very much in line. More important to me personally is that ThinkStarship actually looks to me to have essentially a paralell mission statement to the whole of Wikibooks; To generate an online library of textbooks covering every subject. In an absolutist or literalist interpretation of the rules, especially the "Must be reasonably useful to existing class", I don't think ThinkStarship would pass. "Existing Class" is a pretty strong qualifier. However, in a non absolutist and non literalist interpretation, ThinkStrships materials would be applicable to Classes in the very near future. Those classes would teach the subjects in question from a different angle than is currrently being used; Thats what a "Thematic Unit" does to a subject. Lastly, even tho i am VERY sympathetic to Jimbo, I agree with the assessment that he is out of the loop. Its hard to continue to be a BENEFICIENT dictator when your participation is only 44 edits. I think he should get his self over here and spend some time working with us before making Information engineering rules. The evolution of a place like wikibooks is somewhat organic, and won't conform to expected rules. What Jimbo can't understand is the molasses sort of way that books creep foreward as compared to articles. I think we should quit deleting things in general, and start shelving them appropriately. I keep saying over and over; get a "fiction" and "pov" bookshelf. We probably don't want to encourage those shelves to become populated, but the fact is, people are going to come here and write stuff which they think in good faith is "textbook" and which isn't. Instead of deleting it, I think we should consider it a starter book, and look for ways to improve it.

Third response to brain dump commentary
First, sorry for the delay getting back to you. I have been, and am still, extremely busy.

Regarding your most recent responses in the ThinkStarship thread:

''I'm feeling pretty sensitive to "odd" ideas lately. I have some good ideas and some mediocre ideas. All of my ideas are pretty well covered by science on the one hand and my willingness to allow process to be what it is, not what i assume on the other. Please forgive me if this sounds annoyed, but all i am doing here is trying to get the experts together to get them to solve the problems, not pretend that i allready have the answers.''

The thing is, some of the design choices you've made assume that you already have the answers. I'll try to give a better explanation below.

This is all very interesting and i hope that you will consider making a presentation of this kind of information in the actual document.

Regarding me adding material to WikiBooks for this project, I'm actually not sure this is the best place to put it. You're pitching this as a textbook, but what it actually appears to be is a "design study", which is a different type of beast. Further, anyone with sufficient skill to be in a position to help actually implement a space colonization project will already have expertise in the areas you'd be teaching about in any textbook collection associated with ThinkStarship. I can see a WikiBooks project happening after the design study is done, to teach people about it, but what would best serve the interests of the project at present would be just improving existing texts on orbital mechanics, spacecraft design, existing proposed space habitat designs, ecology of closed systems, and so forth. This sidesteps the question of whether or not ThinkStarship belongs on WikiBooks by restricting contributions to things that definitely _do_ belong here.

If I find myself with large amounts of free time, I'll probably put an expanded version of my comments here on my own site, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.

I think that this (nuclear pulse propulsion) ''is the primary form of "nuclear powered" rocket which i had been exposed to, but it was described very differently from what you have here. The bombs were going off almost inside the engine.''

Then it wasn't an Orion-style drive. You might be thinking of inertial confinement fusion drives, that cause a pellet to undergo fusion and explode, but I've already commented on them. We can't presently build them, and any technology for them in the planning horizon you're using would be too heavy to use for a space drive.

Thats not true, my one claim to reasonable knowledge is that i found out 20 years ago basically what you are saying (about Bussard Ramjets) ''and was so heartbroken than i tinkered the idea up a lot to make it work in any case. My ramscoops aren't used for much in most cases other than to get more speed once allready moving, and they are nuclear powered magnetic/plasma driven, which means that they double as a magnetic thrust system.''

Again, what you are describing isn't a ramscoop. Any ramscoop that tries to collect hydrogen from the interstellar or even interplanetary medium has to be going fast enough that you don't need it for your colonization project, and _also_ gives a net loss for the reasons mentioned for Bussard drives.

There are "nuclear powered magnetic/plasma" drive designs, but I've already covered these under "nuclear-electric" drives. The closest to what you describe seems to be the VASIMR drive, but any electric drive will have similar performance characteristics. I like Hall effect thrusters because they can be bought off the shelf right now and are very well understood, but both VASIMR and Hall thrusters avoid the erosion problems ion and classic plasma drives have, and so would be suitable.

''This isn't true, i do know how big space is, and, this is why i am talking about asteroid colonization, you see, a key component of the plan is to piggyback onto objects that are allready traveling around the solar system. Cruithnes closest pass is only abit farther out than the moon.''

Then you aren't factoring in how long you have to wait for your orbits to synchronize with each other. A requirement of any realistic colonization scheme is that you get from point A to point B in a short enough time that your environment maintenance systems don't break down. I'd handwaved this at 5-10 years in my original estimates. Unmanned probes can last a lot longer because they aren't as complicated and don't have to perform continual recycling. Colonies can only get away with longer lifetimes after being founded because they have a large amount of matter and energy freely available, making partially open-loop systems possible and relaxing power constraints. Your ship can't afford this, which I explain in more detail below, and you'd be stuck on the asteroid for a very long time before it passed close to another object you were interested in.

I don't think trying to avoid the problem by colonizing these _small_ asteroids is feasible. You have the problem of trying to run industry in microgravity, as previously mentioned, as well as lacking hydrogen (in the inner solar system), and having a higher rate of mass loss from your colony (matter lost goes away, rather than staying on the body you've colonized). You can't just spin the colony habitat - industry will be spread out all over the place, especially for power generation.

''i have contemplated these problems and still consider going after small rocks to be the best early tactic. I am not alone in this, a lot of other people have similar ideas.''

I've heard lots of people propose this, but haven't heard any reasonably sound plans for _how_ to do it. Certainly the claims of massive economical paybacks from the ones I've heard aren't convincing (we're already sitting on top of a ball of metal with lithophillic elements pre-concentrated). We already know how to build colonies and industry on larger bodies, so I fail to see why we wouldn't have these as the first targets of colonization.

''Again, I am not a physicist and i don't do algebra. I have on the other hand studied ecology sciences in pretty good depth, and I think i know what is possible. I'd be going for a garden as soon as the ships got into space because i know thats the best way to do it.''

This is the difficulty that I mentioned a couple of times above: you're assuming that something is the best solution without working the math to see when it makes sense and when it doesn't.

I ran numbers last week for recycling of air, water, and food, and got the following. The key is that it's _not_ free - you at the very least have to add power plant weight to handle the recycling load, and for air and water, that's the dominant constraint. Breakeven of stored supplies vs. recycling happens when supplies weight exceeds the weight of the recycling equipment (assumed here to mostly be power plant weight unless otherwise noted).

 * The power plant is assumed to produce 100 W/kg. This is quite good for a closed-loop system; I was assuming 10 W/kg for my original posts. Cars get about 300 W/kg of engine-related system, but are open-loop. The higher the power to weight, the more maintenance it's going to need, and you can't do much maintenance on spaceship turbines sitting next to a live fission reactor, so 100 W/kg is probably _optimistic_.

 * Recycling oxygen takes about 20 MJ/kg (mostly the cost of electrolyzing the water produced as an intermediate step). Humans consume about 1 kg/day (based on figures at Breathing on Wikipedia), or about 1e-5 kg/second. Power required to recycle oxygen is therefore about 200 W per person. This corresponds to an added power plant weight of 2 kg. Breakeven happens after 2 days for our plant specifications, or 20 days for a more conservative plant, so air recycling is desirable. Reclamation of hydrogen from the methane produced isn't perfect, but it's close enough that this figure isn't thrown off much by the need to store extra water for hydrogen production.

 * Recycling water takes a bit more than 2 MJ/kg (mostly the "heat of vaporization" of converting it to steam to distill). Humans consume about 2 kg/day on average (based on figures at Drinking on Wikipedia), or about 2e-5 kg/second. This includes water in food, but most foods in storage will be dry, so it's a good estimate. Power required to recycle water is therefore about 40 W/person. This corresponds to an added power plant weight of 0.4 kg. Breakeven happens in hours for our plant specifications, or about 2 days for a more conservative plant, so water recycling is desirable.

 * Producing food requires between 0.1 and 0.3 hectares per person, based on the best yields for crops given in Wikipedia's articles on agriculture in the first world. Power needed to light that crop area is an average of about 200 W per square metre (averaging over the day/night cycle and angle change for illumination on Earth), or 200 kW per person under the most productive possible conditions. This requires about 2000 kg of added power plant per person at 100 W/kg. Dried food consumed by a human is about 100 kg/year (0.3 kg/day), so breakeven against storage happens in 20 years for our power plant specifications, or 200 years with a conservative power plant, even if we ignore the weight of the crops and the hydroponics trays. Even the shortest breakeven time estimate is much longer than the estimated length of the trip, so producing food on the ship isn't practical.

You'd grow food on the ship if you were travelling between the stars, because the trip time is much longer than your breakeven time. You'd also grow food at a colony, because you get most of the weight of the power plant from local materials instead of materials you have to haul with you, making the breakeven (for transported materials vs. transported dried foods) much earlier. You wouldn't use it on an interplanetary ship, because carrying dried food is lighter.

It's important to be able to calculate this type of tradeoff, as it tells you what you can do under any given set of conditions, and what conditions you'd need to do any given thing.

It (a rotating colony) solves more problems than it generates.

I think you're underestimating the engineering problems it generates. A ship can do it, but a ship doesn't have to touch anything, and only has to do it for 10 years. A colony has lots of nonrotating infrastructure (for mining and power generation), which suffers the microgravity problems noted above and previously, and which your rotating colony has to interface with.

It's not impossible, but I don't see why we'd willingly do it.

Muscles atrophy probably in less than .4 G.

I don't see why muscle atrophy is a problem. Colonists would only have to move around at 0.1 G. I'd worry more about malfunctions of the body's internal organs or development problems for children born at the colony, and the numbers I'd heard cited for that said 0.1 G was acceptable. This lets us colonize all of the large gas giant moons, though unfortunately not Pluto or Ceres. It also provides enough gravity that heavy industry won't have insurmountable problems.

''I think that you are missing the point. I am a realist and a pragmatist. I know that there are serious problems to be solved. I am anxious for us to start working to solve them. If we don't have operational robots in time to lanch the first ships, then we will have other things to do wha they might have.''

My point is that you should assume that you're _not_ going to have operational autonomous general-purpose robots by launch time. The NASA study's estimate for a self-maintaining autonomous general-purpose facility was that it would be complex enough to require 1e+11 bits to describe the design. A human being, on the other hand, has a design stored in about 1e+10 bits. So, please realize that you're proposing to design from scratch a system ten times more complicated than a human being, when we can't even design a self-replicating single celled organism from scratch right now. It'll _eventually_ be something we know how to do, but if you want colonization in full swing in 50 years, you'll need to work with things we know how to build _now_. Going from "design idea using known parts" to "fully functional spaceship ready to move colonists" takes multiple decades. Going from "first colony ship launched" to "multiple colonies established and mostly self-sufficient" also takes multiple decades. Taking any technology from "first experimental demonstration" to "something that can be reliably used" takes at least a decade for things that are fundamentally _simple_. A system as complex as the robots you propose would take vastly longer, for reasons mentioned in my previous post (design difficulty and debugging difficulty go up worse-than-linearly with complexity). Any book on systems engineering or software design can explain why this is the case in far more detail than I am doing here, if you don't want to take my word for it.

In summary, to be realistic and pragmatic, you have to have tools that let you assess what approaches work best for moving your colony ship and keeping it habitable, and you have to assume that you'll be working with technology that's either widely available now or that has fully working prototypes now if you want colonization to occur in your intended timeframe.

--Christopher Thomas 00:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks christopher, i am sure you are right, and i am a dolt, and that this entire project is in violation of WB:Not.

You may be interested in the vote for deletion. thanks for your time and interest. Prometheuspan 20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * If I thought you were a dolt, I wouldn't have bothered replying to you. I'm trying to _help_ you. Take it or leave it. --Christopher Thomas 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

THINKSTARSHIP
May I just check whether you have taken a personal copy of the content on THINKSTARSHIP? The way the VfD is heading, it may be that the book is deleted as not being consistent with wikibooks' inclusion criteria, and I don't want to risk you losing your work as a result. All the best, Jguk 23:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

 * He appears to have been on sabbatical since May 10th. If you have a way of contacting him by email, I'd suggest doing so. I'm tempted to spider a copy of the TSS material on general principles, but it'd be time-consuming enough that I think I'll refrain (my primary interest was in implementation of colonization technologies, which wasn't the main focus of the material presented). --Christopher Thomas 06:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have copies of the materials that got development from me more than the outline level. The material presented was setup material, obviously the idea here was to explore colonization specifically. If you were trying to help, then you should have worked on the "help" part a little more. Prometheuspan 21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

possibly related wiki
I think you may enjoy reading and editing Space Transport and Engineering Methods, Futurology, and the future wikia. --DavidCary (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Prometheuspan. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Prometheuspan~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Prometheuspan~enwikibooks


text:
Talk:Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Gold Coins

This needs to be clarified some more. In particular, it is not clear whether the pirate that proposed the solution gets to vote on it, due to the ambiguous nature of the phrase "remaining pirates." -- Dan131m

 * Indeed, there are a number of possible variations:
 * Does the proposer get a vote? (Y/N)
 * In order for the game to end and the money be divided, must the division be voted for by more than 50% of the electorate (M), or merely at least 50% of the electorate (L)?
 * What are the pirates' priorities exactly? Thinking about it, since a pirate who is thrown overboard doesn't get any gold, "greedy, and do not want to die" gives a total ordering of outcomes - death at the bottom, followed by survival albeit going away emptyhanded, followed by winning progressively larger amounts of gold.  But what if the score is tied in this respect?  I can see a few possible ways they might break the tie:
 * (A) Vote for, so as to save the other pirates
 * (B) Vote against, so as to kill as many as possible of the other pirates
 * (C) Choose the option that minimises the largest amount of gold any other pirate takes away
 * (D) There's no predicting how they'd vote, and so the proposer must be prepared for each pirate to vote either way

 * The way it's written at the moment, it's ambiguous on question 1, takes the M answer to 2, and doesn't address 3 at all. The solution given appears to be the case YMD.  (YM and NL are equivalent, as the proposer would always vote for his own split if given the vote, but since the puzzle statement is explicit about M it must be YMD.)

 * There's yet another complication, which makes a difference only in case NM. If there is only one pirate left on the ship, can he just take the gold, or must he still play by the rules?  In the latter case, there is nobody to vote for him, so there's no way he will get more than 50% of the votes, and so he must throw himself overboard.  This would mean that the youngest pirate is guaranteed to vote for whatever the other one proposes when there are only two of them left.

 * Brilliant has two versions of this puzzle, with combinations NLB and YLB. But I'm thinking what would be ideal is if we could cover each of the possible combinations of parameters in some way.  Probably by posting each as a separate puzzle.... Smjg (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Gold Coins


text:
Bartending/Cocktails/Adios Motherfucker

The Adios Motherfucker (often abbreviated AMF and also known as a "Blue Motorcycle") is a strong "multi-liquor" cocktail, similar and comparable to the Long Island Ice Tea.

Ingredients

 * 1/2 oz. vodka
 * 1/2 oz. rum
 * 1/2 oz. tequila
 * 1/2 oz. gin
 * 1/2 oz. blue Curaçao
 * 2 oz. of sour mix
 * 2 oz. 7-Up or ginger ale

Garnish
cherry

Glass
pint glass

Procedure

 * 1) Fill glass with ice,and add the vodka, rum, tequila,blue curacao, and gin.
 * 2) Fill up with sour mix.
 * 3) Add a splash of 7-up soda.
 * 4) Garnish with a cherry and stir.

Reference

title: Bartending/Cocktails/Adios Motherfucker


text:
Accountancy/Cash Flow Statement

This is a part of the financial statement required by law or the accounting standard.

A cash flows statement provides information beyond that available from other financial statement such as the Income Statement and the Balance Sheet. It is an important information because cash flow is essential to the continued operation of a business. The main purpose of the statement, according to the Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) is to provide:

 * Information about the changes of an entity cash or cash equivalents in the accounting period.
 * Information about a company borrowing and debts repayment activities.
 * The company sale and repurchase of its ownership securities.
 * Other factors affecting the company's liquidity and solvency.

The normal format of The Cash Flow Statement is:

Statement of Cash Flows for the period 1/1/2005 to 31/12/2005.

Each of the above headings will have further details, such as Cash flow from operations with increase in account receivables, accounts payables, cash receipts from customers, payment for goods sold and operating expenses. The investing cash flow includes capital expenditures for long-term assets, sales of assets and investing in joint ventures etc. Financing cash flow includes debts financing, dispensing ownership funds and borrowings.

When activities that do not involve cash they are not normally disclosed on the statement, BUT the Standard requires such transactions to be disclosed by way of footnotes or on a separate schedule.

The importance of the Cash Flow Statement for investment decision making includes:
 * Regular operations is sustainable or not.
 * Sufficient cash generated to pay debts or not.
 * The likelihood that the company needs further financing.
 * Can unexpected obligations or opportunities be taken up by the company without difficulty.

cash-flow determination from two year's balance sheets, change in equity, and a detailed income statement
Using a divide-and-conquer technique, it may be possible to determine a cash flow statement from knowing a beginning balance sheet, an ending balance sheet, a change in equity statement, and a detailed income statement. Even if there is not enough detail to calculate exactly, it helps to correlate that the statements are consistent.

The first division is to divide cash flow into operating, investing and financing activities. Cash flow from :-
 * operating activities - this can be seen by calculating changes in the current assets and current liabilities, and from operating income and expenses in the income statement. Payment of interest on borrowings is regarded as an operating activity, as interest is a current liability arising out of a non-current liability.
 * investing activities - these deal with changes in non-current assets, such as property and equipment, and investment of cash , such as shares, foreign currency, government bonds - and return on investment such as dividends from invested other entities and gains from sale of non-current assets , which can be seen in the investing income part of the income statement.
 * financing activities - cash may be generated from creation of company shares, and used in buybacks of company shares, payment of dividends on company shares, borrowing cash, and repayment of cash, and these can be seen in changes in non-current liabilities, and in changes in equity in the change-in-equity statement. e.g. Repayment of a long-term debt from retained profits is a outgoing cashflow; dividends is a form of drawings and is a equity distribution cash flow; issuing discounts is regarded as a finance expense, but there is no cash flow.

Why separate current and non-current, and separate non-current asset cash flow from non-current liability cash flow ? Separating current from non-current helps to see if there is enough easily accessible cash for day-to-day operations : separating long-term assets from long-term liabilities may help to predict longer term cash flow problems. However, cash flow statements are more useful when seen in the entire series: for instance, the first cash flow statement of the company may show a large incoming cash flow from borrowing in the financial section; then subsequent cash flow statements show the company purchasing non-current assets with outgoing cash flow; not knowing about the first borrowing cash flow makes the company look good.

title: Accountancy/Cash Flow Statement


text:
Talk:Finnish/Aakkoset

IPA
There is no way that le and or and a can be the same sound, why is this Wikibook missing IPA transcriptions? I got the gist of Ö from the table underneath but the sentence provided at the top of the article completely baffles me, People is not the same sound as Curled, not in RP, nor in American English, nor in Australian or NZ English. +Hexagon1 (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just stumbled across this book, and indeed some of the pronunciations are incorrect. I fixed the obvious ones I found by a quick look, and added IPA pronunciations. I didn't have time to check the whole article yet, so there still might be some inaccuracies. I'll see if I can do that later. --Jarkko Piiroinen 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

electricity
perhaps a better example than "electricity" should be given for "e" since it is pronounced quite differently by speakers of american and british english.

Erroneous examples
I don't know how things work in Finnish, but I was under the impression that ö is not at all the same sound as the vowel in "girl" and "burn". They sound a bit similar, I suppose, but one is a front rounded vowel and the other a rhotic schwa (or something to that effect) and it may be rather misleading to explain the pronunciation that way. Also, Finnish has a length distinction, right?

The example "oval" given for Åå sound cannot be right, I would have thought "awe" or "raw" a better choice 78.64.81.222 (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

V and W
I was wondering why the pronunciation example for W gives "[v]ery", while the audio example pronounces Waltari with an English W? 195.54.253.27 (discuss) 00:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Finnish/Aakkoset


text:
User talk:Zeldamaster123

Copyright violation
I have marked your Animal Crossing page as a copyright violation of http://faqs.ign.com/articles/681/681130p1.html, because "This guide is the sole property of Freyashawk and permission to publish it in whole or in part must be given expressly by her. Permission to publish this guide has been granted solely to IGN." The page will probably be deleted. --Kernigh 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zeldamaster123


text:
User talk:Deathdevil80

Please read Naming policy
Please read Naming policy.

The pages that you are creating will need to be moved, please read Naming policy. If you do move any pages, please use the "move" tab between the "edit this page" and "history" tabs. Thanks, --Kernigh 05:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Empire
Hello. What is this book about? It doesn't make it clear from the first page. Thanks Ad --AdRiley 06:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deathdevil80


text:
Bartending/Cocktails/Sidecar

The sidecar serves as the foundation for many of the most popular cocktails of the last century: the Margarita, the Daiquiri, the Cosmopolitan, and the Kamikaze, to name a few. The cocktail originated in Paris shortly after the first World War.

Ingredients

 * Brandy
 * Triple sec
 * Lemon Juice

(For the measurements, see "Variations" below)

Garnishes

 * Sugar rim
 * Lemon twist

Glass

 * Cocktail Glass

Instructions

 * 1) (optional) Apply sugar rim to cocktail glass
 * 2) Combine ingredients over ice
 * 3) Shake and strain into glass
 * 4) Add lemon twist

Variations

 * Office IBA calls for 5 cl Cognac, 2cl Triple Sec, 2 cl Fresh Lemon juice; pour all ingredients into cocktail shaker filled with ice. Shake well and strain into cocktail glass -- they did not specify rimming glass with sugar.
 * The "French School", a simple combination involves 1 oz cognac, 1 oz lemon juice, 1 oz Cointreau/triple sec.
 * The "English school", as found in the Savoy Cocktail Book (1930), call for 2 parts cognac, 1 part each of Cointreau, and 1 part lemon juice
 * David Embury, who wrote in his "The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks", claims to know the drink's inventor, suggests an 8:2:1 ratio
 * Robert Hess suggests a ratio of 4:2:1, and insists on Cognac and Cointreau
 * In practice, most customers apparently expect a brandy-based Margarita
 * Steve Jaffe offers a K.I.S.S. approach by simply exchanging the brandy and sugar rim for the tequila and salt rim in your favorite Margarita recipe to maintain a parallel flavor profile when introducing your Margarita drinkers to the Sidecar (magicbar@sbcglobal.net).

Related Drinks

 * The Daiquiri
 * The Margarita
 * The Cosmopolitan

History
The Sidecar was originally invented at a bar in Paris for one of the patrons who was fond of arriving driven in a motorcycle sidecar. David A. Embury (The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks, 1948) credits the invention to an American Army captain during World War I "and named after the motorcycle sidecar in which the good captain was driven to and from the little bistro where the drink was born and christened." According to Embury, the original Sidecar had several more ingredients, which were refined away. A Sidecar according to Embury, a connoisseur of cocktails rather than a bartender, is simply a Daquiri with brandy as its base rather than rum, and with Cointreau as the sweetening agent rather than sugar syrup. He recommends the same proportions (8:2:1) for both, making a much less sweet Sidecar.

It is said that a proper Sidecar should be made with Cognac (at least a VSOP - Very Superior Old Pale) rather than just ordinary brandy. Cognac is technically brandy but it is easier to find a quality Cognac than a quality unflavored brandy. Also, since the Sidecar is a French creation, it is appropriate to use a distinctly French liquor.

First Listed Recipes for the Side-Car
The first recipes for the Side-car appear in 1922, in Harry MacElhone's Harry's ABC of Cocktails and Robert Vermiere's Cocktails: How to Mix Them.

Side-Car

Fill the shaker half full of broken ice and add:

1/6 gill of fresh Lemon Juice. 1/6 gill of Cointreau. 1/6 gill of Cognac Brandy.

Shake well and strain into a cocktail-glass.

This cocktail is very popular in France. It was first introduced in London by MacGarry, the celebrated bar-tender of Buck's Club

After giving his formula, MacElhone writes, "Recipe by MacGarry, the Popular bar-tender at Buck's Club, London." Vermiere provides a little more detail: "This cocktail is very popular in France. It was first introduced in London by MacGarry, the celebrated bar-tender of Buck's Club." MacGarry--I haven't been able to dig up his first name--was still tending bar at Buck's in 1940, so he must've been doing something right. Whether he invented the recipe or found it (Fernando Castellon, based upon what evidence I do not know, states in his recent Larousse des cocktails that he encountered it at a villa in the South of France), MacGarry's formula (as reported by both MacElhone and Vermiere) called for equal parts cognac, Cointreau and lemon juice, and made no mention of the sugar-frosted rim.

Later, an "English School" of Sidecars emerged, as found in the Savoy Cocktail Book (1930): one-half cognac, one-quarter each lemon juice and Cointreau. I prefer this one, myself.

David Embury Quote on the Side-Car
"The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks" (1948) by David Embury

"This cocktail is the most perfect example I know of a magnificent drink gone wrong. It was invented by a friend of mine at a bar in Paris during World War I and was named after the motorcycle sidecar in which the good captain customarily was driven to and from the little bistro where the drink was born and christened. As originally concocted it contained some six or seven ingredients in place of the three now set forth in practically all recipe books."

The Side-Car was developed from...
As for the drink's Prehistory: Certainly the Brandy Crusta is in there. Also in there, though, is the Brandy Daisy. While this began its life as a Brandy Fizz--brandy, juice of half a lemon, dashes of gum syrup--with orange cordial in place of some of the sugar, by the 1880s it was served in a cocktail glass rather than a fizz glass, and had only a little fizz water in it. By 1900, one even finds an English recipe omitting the fizz water altogether (although, truth be told, it also omits the orange cordial, substituting Yellow Chartreuse). Somewhere out of all this, the Sidecar emerged. Its proportions of lemon juice and orange cordial are much more like those of the Daisy, while it loses the bubbles and swipes the Crusta's sugar rim.

The Sugar rim on the Side-Car
The earliest mention for the sugar rim on the Sidecar glass is 1934, in three different books:

Burke's Complete Cocktail & Drinking Recipes,

Gordon's Cocktail & Food Recipes,

Drinks As They Are Mixed (a reprint of Paul E. Lowe's 1904 book, with a couple of pages of "Popular Specials" spliced it).

Links

 * Epicurous.com
 * Drinkboy.com Side-Car Article
 * Sidecar Video on Small Screen Network

Birth of the Sidecar By Stan Grayson

Out in front of the Ritz Bar, where the opulent Hispano-Suizas and Rolls-Royces lined the Rue Cambon, there appeared one day a young American and a tiny two seat French automobile. “You call that thing a car” asked the Ritz’s famous bartender, Frank. “That’s a child’s toy; that’s more like the size of a sidecar than a regular car.” The scene was repeated frequently. “You here again, Mr. Side Car? What will it be this time?” Eventually the young man, a twenty-one-year-old Floridian-in-Paris named Horace Chase – nephew of Palm Beach architect Addison Mizner – decided to have Frank mix a special drink. “What will it be?” he answered the loquacious bartender’s inevitable question. “Well in Florida, I used to mix Bacardi and lemon juice and a little Cointreau. Let’s try that but use brandy instead.” Horace pronounced his brainchild a tasty concoction indeed and those at the bar who eagerly sampled it agreed. Frank, as the drink’s craftsman, was pleased too and he christened the new cocktail at once. He called it a Side Car, thinking of Horace’s distinctive little vehicle in the street out front. That machine was an Amilcar.

Sidecar

title: Bartending/Cocktails/Sidecar


text:
User talk:63.147.152.210

Transwiki:Rene
This is a transwiki from an unknown source. This page is probably too tiny to be useful, but since you transwiki'd it, you should identify which page on which Wikimedia project this is from.

I suggest that you review the Transwiki page again. --Kernigh 05:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:63.147.152.210


text:
Cookbook:Bibimbap

| Korean Cuisine

Bibimbap (also called Bibimba or Bibimbop) is a typical Korean meal that literally means "mixed rice". The meal consists of a bowl of steamed white rice topped with vegetables, beef (sometimes tofu or chicken to suit tastes), a whole egg, and gochujang (Korean chili pepper paste). Gochujang is usually served separately to control the spiciness of the dish. It is often made vegetarian by substituting tofu for beef. Dolsot Bibimbap is a variation where the dish is served in a very hot stoneware bowl, crisping the rice and cooking the egg.

The ingredients below are the most typical of the dish although many other ingredients are often served on the side depending on the cooks preferences. The quantity shown serves 3. If your bowls are large, you can pack more into each and share them.

Carrot namul

 * 2 small carrots
 * 2 tbsp sesame oil
 * 2 tbsp ground sesame seeds
 * ¼ tsp grated garlic
 * 1–2 pinches salt

Spinach namul

 * 10 oz fresh spinach
 * 1 tbsp sesame oil
 * 2 tsp ground sesame seeds
 * ¼ tsp grated garlic

Bean sprout namul

 * 8 oz bean sprouts, with beans attached
 * 2 tsp sesame oil
 * 1 tsp ground sesame seeds
 * ¼ tsp grated garlic
 * 1 pinch salt

Beef soboro

 * 1 tbsp olive or other oil
 * 1 lb steak
 * ¼ cup soy sauce
 * 1 tbsp sesame oil
 * 1 tbsp ground sesame seeds
 * ¼ tsp grated garlic

Assembly

 * ¾–1 ½ cup white rice, steamed
 * 3 eggs, cooked over easy
 * ¾ cup kimchi
 * 1 cucumber, cut into strips
 * Gochujang
 * 1 tbsp vegetable oil

Carrot namul

 * 1) Cut the carrots into matchsticks.
 * 2) Boil matchsticks in a covered pot of salted water for a few minutes. Drain.
 * 3) Rinse carrots with cold water until cool. Drain again, then put in a bowl.
 * 4) Add the sesame oil, ground sesame seeds, grated garlic, and salt. Toss together with your fingers.

Spinach namul

 * 1) Put the spinach in a large covered pot with 1 inch of water.
 * 2) Bring to a boil and cook as usual. Stir occasionally to keep the spinach from sticking to the pot. The spinach is done when it's dark green and reduced to a small fraction of its original volume.
 * 3) Drain the cooked spinach. Cool by adding cold water to the pot and drain again. Squeeze the spinach in your hands to remove the water.
 * 4) Slice the cooked spinach into 1-inch pieces.
 * 5) Put the cooked spinach in a bowl with the sesame oil, ground sesame seeds, and grated garlic. Mix with your fingers.

Bean sprout namul

 * 1) Blanch the bean sprouts in a pot of salted water until they become clear.
 * 2) Drain the cooked sprouts, and transfer to a bowl.
 * 3) Toss with sesame oil, ground sesame seeds, grated garlic, and salt.

Beef soboro

 * 1) Slice the steak thinly, but not paper-thin.
 * 2) Heat the oil in a large frying pan on high heat. When the oil is hot, but not smoking, add the beef. Stir-fry.
 * 3) While the beef is cooking, add the sesame oil, ground sesame seeds, and grated garlic. Cook until the meat is well browned.
 * 4) Add the soy sauce. Continue cooking until the liquid has boiled off.

Simple variation

 * 1) Place rice in each bowl.
 * 2) Arrange the prepared namuls, beef soboro, cucumbers, and egg on top of the rice. They should be arranged separately and attractively. The egg sits in the middle. Gochujang, kimchi, and any other root or leafy vegetable is served on the side in small individual bowls for the table to help themselves.

Dolsot bibimbap Variation
If using dolsots (Korean stoneware bowls) to serve your bibimbap, the preparation is slightly different:

 * 1) Rub the inside of the dolsots with sesame oil.
 * 2) Spread the cooked rice evenly over the bottom of the dolsots and part way up the sides. Place the namurus and the beef soboro on top of the rice, each in its own area.
 * 3) Cover the dolsots and cook over medium-high heat. Watch carefully near the end to avoid burning the rice on the bottom. To test, use a spoon to scrape the rice from the side. Remember that the bottom cooks more than the sides and that the rice keeps cooking after you remove it from the heat. Do not preheat the dolsots.
 * 4) Add an uncooked egg to the middle of each dolsot.
 * 5) Serve dolsots on small pieces of wood to keep the heat from damaging the table.

Serving

 * 1) To eat, start by scraping the rice from the bottom and stirring the ingredients together with a metal spoon. The egg will cook as it breaks up. The rice on the bottom will be crunchy and sometimes hard to remove unless you continue stirring as you eat.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * Sesame seeds expand when ground; 2 or 3 tablespoons of sesame seeds will make ¼ cup of ground sesame seeds.
 * Vegetables that can be served on the side (in small individual bowls) include lettuce, shiitake mushrooms, doraji namul, kong namul, gaji namul, sukju namul, gosari namul, and hobak namul. Other ingredients like dried sesame seeds and gim (seaweed) are added to the mix at varying times, depending on personal taste.

title: Cookbook:Bibimbap


text:
User talk:Dan131m

Dan. Welcome to Wikibooks. I hope you enjoy your time here.

Can I just check whether you are aware of Bartending/Cocktails/Glossary. Generally cocktails should only appear on the glossary unless there is something too long for the glossary that can usefully be said about them (indeed, some of your new additions (from Wikipedia?) are duplicates for pages that have already been merged into the glossary and deleted.

As I note, where a cocktail is genuinely worthy of its own page, it should indeed have one, and it should be linked from the Glossary too.

Finally, if you have ideas on how to improve the Glossary, they would be appreciated too, Jguk 07:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with your comments on my talk page. My point really is that the glossary should be just that, and that there should be separate pages for many of the cocktails, but this should be done only where we have more content on a particular drink than would reasonably be covered in the glossary.

 * Before the glossary was created by merging articles we had over 200 of them, the overwhelming majority of which were stubby, giving little more than the ingredients and very basic instructions and were poorly formatted (though there were exceptions to this). No-one in their right mind would want to read them. If we end up with a glossary and 40, say, full, good-looking, informative articles about the more popular and/or tricky cocktails, that would be great, Jguk 11:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * By all means format the glossary better. Do bear in mind, of course, that the glossary is really a throwback to the (sometimes quite poor) articles mass transferred here from wikipedia, rather than to lots of well thought out, specially designed pages made with this wikibook in mind. I also think it will still be of interest to those who drink cocktails and amateur bartenders at home, although I accept that it has little or no value to the professional. The glossary is also a good place to chuck any future poor articles that come here from wikipedia:). As long as you're committed to making sure all your pages look good and complete before moving onto the next series of cocktails, I can see this book soon becoming a "Book of the Month", Jguk 19:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Templates
Hey, awhile ago I made some templates for ingredients, for example vodka tequila gin. Any opinions on their usefulness or any changes you think should be made? Discordance 20:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Measure was an attempt an internationalising the recipes although it needs linking to the measurements and conversions page explaining that U.S. recipes use 1 fl. oz (us customary) and the rest of the world use 25ml. the difference is only about 3ml and the ratios are the same. A simplier and perhaps more familiar word would be parts, but that still needs some explaining as to the recommended volumes for glass sizes etc. Discordance 12:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I did think it might be too rigid to include measures in the templates, I was experimenting with things at the time. For things like the martinis with widely ranging ratios they should be listed as variations on the martinis page, a lot of the different ratios are distinct enough to have their own names after all.

As for categorising by base-spirit, I can see how its not going to be very useful at the moment (a bloody mary would have gin and tequila listed from its variations), In the long term i'd like to see variations with unique names moved to their own pages to help improve indexing of the recipes etc in which case it might become slightly more useful but leaving the categorisation in templates means we can remove it or add it back later easily without having to change hundreds of pages. I did intend there to be a template for every ingredient eventually which while it would take awhile to set up makes changing links and categories later a whole lot easier, and while base spirit isnt that useful at the moment a category such as cocktails with Green Chartreuse certainly would be.

As far as internationalisation is concerned the british reference books i have seen so far all use measures or parts as the majority have come from imperial measurements in some form but have taken advantage of the fact that 1 fl.oz~25ml in order to make it more accessable to everyone. In most cocktail chains here also they use in-house recipes given only in metric, while im sure the more professional bars are familiar with jiggers and ponies etc the more casual bars and the average uk reader is not. I see nothing wrong with fluid ounzes being used as thats pretty simple for everyone but i'd like to avoid jiggers, ponies, cups etc. I would still prefer to see parts or measures being used however to have consistency across the recipes as the actual difference in volume between imperial and metric recipes is sufficiently small that they are effectively the same recipe, in which case it makes no sense to use a mixture of units across the book. Discordance 01:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing the measure thing from the template is fine by me, I'll do that later today.

Consistency is important across a book which is why i think we should ideally be using only one set of measurements. This is more important in my eyes than making it easy to contribute, and converting to and from ratios should be something any reader can do quickly, I think its overly-optomistic to cater this book towards professional bartenders, especially in its current state. We should list all known measurements on the measures page so it is there if people need it but i dont think they should go beyond that. Anyway we should get some more opinions I'll ask Jguk after this. Discordance 15:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dan131m


text:
User:Pfctdayelise

Hello. I'm a Wikimedian with accounts on en.wp, zh.wp, meta and commons (where I'm an admin).

 * TiddlyWiki is cool :)

My subpages:

WIIIIIIIIIIIIGA
I am currently trying, very slowly, to write a Wikibook to learn Uyghur.

TODO.
 * Write a Write Arabic book, specifically concerned with only how to read (that is, parse) and write Arabi scripts. So not just Arabic. Will probably adopt some of the approaches of ReadWrite Arabic, since it seems very good. Animated gifs for all!!
 * The Arabic alphabet: how to read and write it by Nicholas Awde & Petros (? can't read my own handwriting) Samano, 1986.
 * Um... go back to Uyghur...

Cookbook stuff
I'm Australian and did a bunch of editing under my IP before finally succumbing to yet another wikimedia project. Argh!

I'll probably mostly be interested in the Cookbook I think. I think there's a lot to be done! I like adding pictures because I personally almost never cook a recipe if it doesn't have a picture.

If you want some photos for a recipe feel free to suggest it to me. But the ingredients should be understandable to me and it should be vegetarian. Eggs & dairy products OK.

I find the whole concept of copyright in relation to recipes pretty suss. Someone once told me you can't copyright the method, just the particular way you've described it. So it's perfectly fine to rewrite the method in your own description, and voila, your copyright. Really???

Photo tutorials

 * Cookbook:1-2-3-4 Cake
 * Cookbook:Chocolate Sour-Cream Icing
 * Cookbook:Melting chocolate
 * Cookbook:Creaming

To investigate

 * Category:Australia bookshelf
 * Collaboration of the Month
 * Requests for adminship
 * Collaboration of the Month
 * Category:Recipes with images
 * Category:Australian recipes
 * Cookbook:Cuisine of Australia

title: User:Pfctdayelise


text:
Cookbook:Chocolate Sour-Cream Icing

| Dessert

Chocolate sour-cream icing is an icing or frosting with a bit of tang to take the edge off the sugar overload. It can be icing or frosting depending on what you want.

Ingredients

 * 1 cup (240 g) chocolate chips
 * ¼ cup (60 g) butter
 * ½ cup (120 g) sour cream
 * 1 tsp vanilla extract
 * ¼ tsp salt
 * 1–3 cup (240–700 g) icing sugar

Procedure

 * 1) Melt the chocolate and butter together in a double boiler.
 * 2) Remove mixture from the heat, then stir in the sour cream, vanilla extract, and salt.
 * 3) Slowly beat or stir in the icing sugar until the mixture has the desired consistency. An icing will be thinner and require less icing sugar than a thicker frosting.
 * 4) Spread mixture on the cake of your choice.

title: Cookbook:Chocolate Sour-Cream Icing


text:
Cookbook:Melting chocolate

Melting chocolate, for example for icing, is not always easy. When it goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong. There are several methods.

If you are not using chocolate chips or "melts", be sure to cut/break up the chocolate into smaller pieces.

Stove-top method
You will need a saucepan and an oven-proof bowl that can sit on top of the pan without falling in it and without dipping in too low.

It is crucial to not let any water come in contact with the chocolate. If this happens, the chocolate will "seize up" and this method won't work: you will have to start all over again. This is why the bowl must fit well over the saucepan. The bowl must be absolutely dry as must any stirring implement used.

title: Cookbook:Melting chocolate


text:
Category:Hominy recipes

Recipes involving hominy.

title: Category:Hominy recipes


text:
Category:Mustard recipes

Recipes involving mustard.

title: Category:Mustard recipes


text:
Cookbook talk:Fiddlehead-Portobello Linguine

Garlic
I changed the mention of cloves of garlic to toes (cloves) of garlic. I'm partially a Kiwi but I grew up in Malaysia. I have always referred to them as cloves. However the original author of this recipe referred to them as toes. While this is a slightly strange name for me, unless there is any specific style policy that requires us to refer to them as cloves, I don't see any reason not to respect the original authors name in this case. It would help if the person who changed the name from toes to cloves had a more respectable history. However Eadmund history shows he/she embarked on a thankfully short-lived crusade to change recipes to a style he/she preferred. While some of these changes we helpful or didn't really create any difference, his/her most disruptive changes included removing or replacing any metric measurements and removing the F for Fahrenheit from temperatures. He/she also changed Tablespoon etc to Tbsp. Although this was also a style change, I feel it was fairly neutral and didn't make any significant difference. But since the original author apparently preferred toes of garlic, I feel this is a style we should respect. BTW, is toes the common way to refer to cloves of garlic by Americans? Nil Einne 13:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, a little late to this discussion, but toes of garlic instead of cloves is common in the part of Louisiana where I grew up. Not sure if it's local just to New Orleans, Louisiana, or the broader Southern U.S. That said, as the original author, I'm okay with the use of cloves instead of toes in the recipe. tcr25 (discuss • contribs) 17:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


text:
WebObjects/Web Applications/Deployment/Apache

Overview
In a deployment scenario on Mac OS X, Linux, or Solaris, your applications will most likely be deployed on Apache. Additionally, if you develop with WODirectConnectEnabled=false (you should, see the Direct Connect section for details), you will be running your application locally through Apache as well. Apache is a very extensible web server that provides a huge number of capabilities, some of which we will detail here.

Split Install
WebObjects applications are deployed in a "split install". A split install means that your application code, components, and resources are deployed in one location to be served from your WebObjects application (on OS X, /Library/WebObjects/Applications/YourApp.woa), while your WebServerResources are installed in another location (on OS X, /Library/WebServer/Documents/WebObjects/YourApp.woa/Contents/WebServerResources) to be served directly by Apache. This provides the optimal performance scenario, as Apache is specifically tuned for serving static content, and it does not make sense to send requests for large binary files through WebObjects if it is not necessary.

mod_expires
To get the most performance out of Apache, you should make sure that you have mod_expires enabled. mod_expires controls the caching headers that are applied to static resource requests. Depending on your installation, Apache may default to mod_expires disabled, which would cause your end-users' browser to re-request every resource on your site on every page, even if it's a common header graphic.

An example mod_expires configuration might look like:

   ExpiresActive On    ExpiresDefault A60 ExpiresByType image/bmp A3600 ExpiresByType image/gif A3600 ExpiresByType image/ief A3600 ExpiresByType image/jpeg A3600 ExpiresByType image/png A3600

You will also need the corresponding type-extension mappings:

   AddType image/bmp bmp AddType image/gif gif AddType image/ief ief AddType image/jpeg jpeg AddType image/jpeg jpg AddType image/jpeg jpe ...

This tells Apache that when a request is made for a type image/gif, the requesting browser will be told not to request the image again for an hour (A3600 = 3600 seconds).

mod_rewrite
Anyone who has used WebObjects has likely noticed that WebObjects URLs are long (http://yoursite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/AppName.woa/wa/something). It is a common request to make these URLs nicer for end-users who are used to just requesting "http://yoursite.com". Fortunately Apache provides an amazingly extensive module called "mod_rewrite" that allows you to rewrite the URL requests of your site based on a series of regular expressions and rules.

Aaron Rosenzweig has a very thorough article about using mod_rewrite with Apache.

mod_rewite with mod_webobjects
I ran into a problem with mod_rewrite when using mod_WebObjects where mod_WebObjects had be loaded first or it just wouldn't work properly (it would work fine with cgi-bin adaptor).

So in http.conf, search for mod_rewrite and change it to:

LoadModule WebObjects_module   /System/Library/WebObjects/Adaptors/Apache/mod_WebObjects.so  LoadModule rewrite_module         libexec/httpd/mod_rewrite.so

, find again:

AddModule mod_WebObjects.c AddModule mod_rewrite.c

There's still a load module in /System/Library/WebObjects/Adaptors/Apache/apache.conf, but you can just ignore it -- it produces a warning about being loaded twice.

Mike Schrag
Here's an example mod_rewrite we use on one of our apps:

   RewriteEngine On    RewriteRule ^/$ /page/HomePage [R] RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^appNum=([-0-9]+)(.*)$ RewriteRule ^/page/(.*)$ /cgi-bin/WebObjects/AppName.woa/%1/wa/viewPage?pageName=$1%2 [L,PT] RewriteRule ^/page/(.*)$ /cgi-bin/WebObjects/AppName.woa/wa/viewPage?pageName=$1 [L,PT,QSA]

The WOA produces URLs in the format http://site.com/page/HomePage?appNum=2, which turns into http://site.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/AppName.woa/2/viewPage?pageName=HomePage.

Travis Cripps
A number of people have expressed interest in using the WebObjects adaptor with Apache 2.2.x. I finally gotten a chance to sit down and work on it today. I'm writing to let you know that it's available in the Project Wonder CVS repository.

The necessary changes turned out to be mostly minor updates to change calls to outdated/deprecated functions. The biggest (and non-trivial) change was for SSL support. It's been re-written to use Apache's mod_ssl module.

I've tested with MacOS X 10.4.7, Apache 2.2.2, with and without ssl support. It works in all of my tests.

Configuration of the web server to work with the adaptor turned out to be surprisingly challenging, due to the new, very strict default access rules that ship in Apache 2.2.x httpd.conf file. Once I discovered that, it was trivial to change the setting, but it's worth mentioning here to save some people a lot of frustration.

The new default configuration is:

 Options FollowSymLinks AllowOverride None Order deny,allow Deny from all

Your options are to comment out the last 2 lines of that block, or to override them in a VirtualHost block. Just setting the usual Location block didn't seem to work for me.

And, of course, either change the name of the WebObjectsAlias setting from /cgi-bin/WebObjects to /WebObjects or comment out the ScriptAlias definition for the /cgi-bin/ directory.

Other than these tips, it's pretty much the standard compilation and installation, and configuration.

 * 1) Alter the make.config file in the Adaptors directory of the Wonder repository to reflect your apache installation setup.*
 * 2) Run make to build the Adaptor
 * 3) Curse because of that one setting you forgot.  Fix it.
 * 4) make clean; make
 * 5) Install the mod_WebObjects module with apxs
 * 6) Configure your httpd.conf and either link or copy the WebObjects directory from the standard location (if on MacOS X) to your new htdocs directory.
 * 7) apachectl configtest; apachectl graceful
 * 8) Test.
 * 9) Curse again.  Change the httpd.conf file as necessary.
 * 10) apachectl graceful.  Go to 8 as necessary.
 * 11) Finally!  apachectl graceful

Enjoy your shiny new WO adaptor. :)

libtool: compile: unable to infer tagged configuration libtool: compile: specify a tag with `--tag' apxs:Error: Command failed with rc=65536
 * Note: if you are getting the error

Add to the end of your make.config the following: CC = gcc


text:
Georgia Water/Best Practices/Engineering

Water Engineering Infrastructure
Water Storage and Conveyance
 * dams
 * intakes
 * pipelines
 * pumping stations
 * reservoirs
 * canals
 * spillways
 * tunnels

Flood Damage Control
 * flood control channels
 * water detention facilities

Water distribution systems Water treatment
 * Network modeling
 * Leak detection
 * Leak control
 * Water loss reduction
 * Membrane treatment processes
 * Desalination
 * Advanced treatment processes


text:
Cookbook talk:Basic Pizza Sauce

My edits
I readded the mention to can of crushed tomatoes. The original author suggested can crushed tomatoes. This was replaced by Eadmund with spagehetti sauce without any discussion. While in this instance, Eadmund weren't really disruptive and are a useful addition, I don't see any reason why we should remove the originals author's suggestion of crushed tomoatoes (personally, that would be a bit bland). Also, I have made sugar optional since sugar wasn't in the original authors suggestion and the bit on Dominoes makes it clear that some people might not want to add sugar in any case.

I have also reworked the section on Domino's. Firstly, many people won't know what domino's is. Also, the taste is probably akin to most fast-food like pizza outlets. Nil Einne 13:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My Suggestions
This page needs to be totally reworked, or even deleted. While I appreciate the author's effort to share information, the page is disorganized and the info is somewhat suspect (This last is a totally subjective opinion from a long-time Itallian cook). I'm loathe to completely disect the original article, but I'd split it into three pages: (1) a quick-n-easy homemade pizza sauce; (2) additions to store-bought sauces; and (3) assembling a pizza.

William Peterson 08:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Personally, I'd prefer it if there were measures for fresh herbs instead of the dried kind, and I'd like it if it were more authentic.

Technically pizza sauce is a pretty vague term anyway. Are we talking margherita? If so, that's just plain tomato sauce and basil leaves. Is it the american style? If so, new york, chicago, or california style?

title: Cookbook talk:Basic Pizza Sauce


text:
IB Economics/Introduction

IB Economics

 * Economics is one of the most fascinating subjects available in the IB. Unlike other subjects, much of Economics is understanding key concepts and using logic-memorization is secondary.

There are three papers for HL students, and just two for those taking SL.
 * Paper One: One longer response essay question, broken into two parts (a) and (b) (HL and SL)
 * Paper Two: Three short answer questions (HL only)
 * Paper Three: Three Data Response questions (HL and SL)

title: IB Economics/Introduction


text:
Cookbook talk:Molasses Taffy

Hard crack
The recipe stated 256°F as the temperature. But the stage described sounds like hard crack which is not 256°F. Since this is taffy, we can expect it should be either soft crack or hard crack. Therefore, I have changed the temperature to the temperature range for hard crack. Nil Einne 14:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

title: Cookbook talk:Molasses Taffy