It is well known that when you wash red clothes together with white clothes, sometimes the colored paint from the red fabric can get solved out and it colors the white clothes pink, all but ruining the white clothes. For this reason, we are advised to wash different colored clothes separately.

My question is what factors make it more likely that this kind of color transfer happens? Assume that I'm washing cotton clothes in a washing machine, and please stick to variables I can observe or affect before washing. For example, does it matter whether

• the clothes are new rather than old,
• I wash at 60°C rather than 40°C (provided the instructions for the clothes permit this),
• I tumble dry at higher speed rather than lower speed?

– b_jonas 14:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first two make a difference, sometimes a very big difference, as does the type die used and how well it has been fixed. The third makes negligible difference, the only possible mechanism being that if the dye is still coming out as the clothes are tumbled then they are pressed ever so slightly closer together. Dbfirs 15:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The type of dye used and how well it has been fixed might matter, but these aren't observable to me. Is there some simple way I could see whether the dye is of the kind that will stain? Is one of the icons in the washing instructions tag trying to tell me this? Should I feel something by touch on the fabric? – b_jonas 15:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New jeans are one of the worst offenders. If they are labelled "pre-washed", then the problem won't be as bad. (BTW, those that haven't been pre-washed can be washed with old jeans of the same color, to somewhat refresh the colors on those.)

Clothes labeled "Hand wash only" might be so labeled because they will bleed color in hot water, or for other reasons, like containing delicate fabric that can't handle machine washing.

Also, man-made fabrics tend to absorb color less than cotton, so you might consider a cotton blend, rather than 100% cotton (they will also wrinkle less).

As for temperature, you only mentioned hot and warm temps. You might also consider cold water. It will transfer less dye and use less energy/money. (It may not wash clothes as well, especially if there is oil on them, but I suggest you try it and see if it washes your clothes acceptably.)

I wash all my clothes together (except my socks, which seem unable to handle bleach), and use bleach rather than detergent, in cold water. Most of them seem to survive that OK. I do occasionally have a shirt that absorbs some color, and then I demote that just wear around the house. I have many shirts that resist deposition of dye, and those I wear when going out.

I do share your frustration on not knowing what I am getting when buying clothes (shirts in particular). That is, will it wrinkle, shrink, fade, and absorb other colors ? I even had one that tore in the wash. I actually buy my shirts used, since, if they will suffer any of those problems, I can see the evidence. Also, they are much cheaper that way, so I can buy more and not worry about the few that are ruined in the wash. (I have nothing but for contempt for shirts sold folded, wrapped up in a plastic package, with lots of starch, so they look nice in the package.) StuRat (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that blacks bleed red when they wash, I wash my blacks with my reds, my whites alone with bleach, if I have enough for a large load, or my jeans with my whites (see bluing (fabric)) in hot water with detergent, and my other coloreds in cold water with detergent. Or, I just hand it all to the lady at the laundromat with a $20, and then it comes back not only perfectly undiscolored, but also folded as well! μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the answers so far. That jeans can bleed color is certainly a useful info. I'll be careful with new non-white jeans then.

I am not too proficient in washing, so I certainly don't try to wash clothes that say “hand wash only”, and I'm mostly asking about clothes that are easy to handle and wash. I'm not comfortable with washing fabric with bleach (rather than detergent) in a washing machine, and I seem to remember the instructions of my washing machine specifically forbid that anyway.

Asking other people nicely to wash is a good trick of course, but I'm reserving that to clothes that are difficult to wash. This could include new jeans I guess. I don't have much such clothes, and the few I have don't have to be washed often. The most difficult are of course hand-knitted wool sweaters and caps of course, which shrink and become rigid if you wash them no matter how carefully. – b_jonas 00:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Washing at 60C is a massive waste of energy. For most clothes that have just been worn and not particularly dirty, 30C is more than enough. Also, adding bleach is very bad for both fabric and washing machine durability (if done often). Fgf10 (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, bleach seems fine for most of my clothes (cotton/poly blends), provided you dilute it sufficiently by adding it to the water, once the machine is in motion, rather than pouring it in earlier, while the clothes are still. The only exception I've found is black socks, for some reason, which fade dramatically. StuRat (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could try color catching sheets, or make our own.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also marketed as "dye magnets". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What/Where is the main media industry for music, animation, movies and games? -- Space Ghost (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For video games: San Francisco, Austin, Seattle. (I'm a video game software engineer - here in Austin, there are between 40 and 50 video games studios in an area of about 10 square miles!) SteveBaker (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the US the music industry is centered on two cities: Nashville and Los Angeles, though it is highly distributed, you'll probably find some music studios in almost any major city. The film industry, on the other hand, is still highly concentrated in the US in Los Angeles, though recently smaller hubs like Wilmington, North Carolina have sprung up in a few places. Television is centered in Los Angeles and took a lesser degree New York City.--Jayron32 21:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animation is increasingly a world-wide activity - even a single production will be distributed across many locations. SteveBaker (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Many US animated shows are drawn in Korea. The show Family Guy once made reference to it in one of their episodes, if I remember correctly. See List of animation studios and "Homer's Phobia" which mentions the animation coming back to the US from Korea. Dismas|^(talk) 14:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.

The telepathy users who've been disturbing my life and emotions using telepathy for the last 5-6 years, who could see my visions and dreams, who also mentally torture me using telepathy everyday just to create/make visions and scenes (most of the times trying to cover their satanic activities of the past, in the present by performing more satanic activities using telepathy – upon all they fail[ed] of course, and will as long as they'll try cause they were all thrown in the dungeon of fire without a discussion just for daring) have made some movies, animation movies, cartoons, and television serials - some of what I've seen...the hierarchy started from the social media websites then went to the media industry. These telepathy users wanted me to go to New York so that they could publicise me but I rejected their offer due to 666 issue – What is in New York? What kind of industry?

Important: I read a biblical verse some time ago, can't recall it now though, it states something about how the hell-raisers on earth take people to hell with them... - I've covered this by diverting their blasphemous deeds upon them and their present living and future living generations, because I thought it was injustice upon the naive people, who did not know, regardless of whether they were believers or disbelievers of the God Almighty, who would've burnt in Hell (some for eternity) due to these idiots.

Q: Am I right in doing so, or should I just let it go as its prophesised? The reason for asking/thinking this is because, now that, as I’m seeking knowledge through education and since I bought a video game recently i.e relative to what the telepathy users are doing/done, I’m having two states of mind…

Space Ghost (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your verse is from the bible, and you probably know that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for telepathy. Sorry you've got a split mind, but perhaps you will feel better tomorrow. Happy Christmas! Dbfirs 23:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- Space Ghost (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We explicitly don't give legal advice; perhaps that ought to be extended to theological and/or ethical advice. —Tamfang (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. -- Space Ghost (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more asking for medical advice . KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like both Casablanca and Citizen Kane were released during WWII - 1941 and 1942, respectively. Didn't the US have a mandatory draft for all men during WWII? How was it possible that the male actors could stay behind in the US and film a movie, while at the same time how was it possible that the films could generate enough of an audience when the entire country was at war? Acceptable (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The USA didn't enter WW2 until during December 1941, so it is quite possible that both films were made before the declaration of war and released afterwards. At least in the UK, people were encouraged to visit the cinema during wartime. Cinemas, theatres and pubs thrived during wartime as they provided a communal platform for propaganda and public information, and also they provided a warm place for people to go at nighttime (and save on heating bills!). --TammyMoet (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Casablanca (film), "[p]rincipal photography began on May 25, 1942". For the tedious and overrated Citizen Kane, it was apparently in 1940. --Trovatore (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• About as teious and overrated as War and Peace, that is, not at all. Takes patience.170.170.59.138 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the single most overrated film in history. --Trovatore (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It certainly was never all men, not even all men of fighting age. How would you feed them? According to a table at Selective Service System#1940_to_1947, approximately 10M men were drafted from November 1940 to October 1946. At the time I think the US population was around 150M maybe? Someone else can find more exact numbers. So it was certainly never even half of the men of fighting age. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Conscription in the United States article gives these numbers: "In the massive draft of World War II, 50 million men from 18 to 45 were registered, 36 million classified, and 10 million inducted." FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So that leaves 40M who were not inducted. If you assume half of that remnant volunteered, you still have 20M left behind from which to cast your movie. Seems like it should be enough; I don't see any mystery here. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on second thought, no mystery about casting the films, but maybe a bit of one as to how you find 50M men age 18–45 out of a population of 132M. I would expect at most 30M. Of course it's a rolling window so new men are aging into it all the time, but still it seems a bit strange. Maybe someone should check those refs. --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. The reference given for the 50 million number is a 1993 book The Draft, 1940–1973 by George Q. Flynn. Google Books will only show me snippets of that, but the key passage appears to be on page 85 and reads "During the war the nation had peacefully registered 49 million men, selected 19 million, and inducted 10 million."

People who were aged 18–45 at some time from December 1941 to August 1945 would have been 14–45 at the time of the 1940 United States Census. Wikipedia says the total US population according to this census was 132,164,569, but that number does not apepar in this Census Department PDF, which shows the total on page 156 as 131,669,275. (Perhaps the Wikipedia figure includes Alaska and Hawaii, which were not states in 1940?) Anyway, the chart on page 57 of the same PDF says that 18.2% of people were aged 15–24 and 30.1% aged 25–44 in the 1940 census, so combining these numbers give almost exactly the correct age range and it indicates 63.8 million people, or presumably about 32 million of man and boys. I don't know where Flynn's figure of 49 million comes from; there could not have been 17 million immigrants between 1940 and 1945. If it is correct, all I can think is that a significant number of people registered who were outside of the indicated age range or did not live in the US. I've changed the number in the article to 49 million and will add a note to its talk page. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the article talk page, the problem is probably the restriction to 45 which doesn't seem to make much sense since the age limit seems to have been 64 for most of the period the US was in the war. It sounds like people aged above 45 were never liable for immediate induction but the source simply says registred, not registered and liable. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the article to better reflect the source. Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website ancestry.com, a pay site, has draft registration records for World Wars I and II. I can think of a number of relatives who were well over 45 who nonetheless turn up in the WWII records. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming they were 64 or under at some stage from 1942, since they were legally required to, it isn't that surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you were drafted (or enlisted), the powers that be usually kept you working on patriotic movies anyway. If you were a star, you had to kick and scream and hold your breath to be allowed to go in harm's way (e.g. Clark Gable and James Stewart). Also, Bogie was in his 40s, not the prime age for soldering. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cagney was a few months older than Bogie, both born in 1899; as you say, not the best candidates for soldiering (or soldering). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Welles was sent on a good-will tour of Latin America by the FDR administration, and some of his filming during that period showed up in The Lady from Shanghai. Apparently well-connected propagandists were valued as propagandists. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am wondering how useful a Kindle Fire tablet would be for a science major in college. Next year (Fall 2016) or the year after (Fall 2017) I will be back in college working on a graduate degree (master's) in geology and a second bachelor's degree in chemistry. Can most graduate level geology textbooks be found as e-textbooks that can be accessed on a Kindle Fire tablet? What about upper-level undergraduate chemistry textbooks? I already have a minor in chemistry so I will only be taking upper level chemistry classes. I already took most or all of the Freshman and Sophomore level chemistry classes such as Organic Chemistry and General Chemistry. I have a smartphone (Samsung Galaxy SIII mini) and a laptop. Can I already access most e-textbooks available for graduate-level geology and junior/senior level chemistry classes on my smartphone or my laptop? Is it worth it to have a tablet if I have a smartphone and a laptop? Any opinions or advice is welcome. If you have personal experience using a tablet in either graduate or undergraduate science or engineering classes any input would be even more welcome. Thank you. A tablet may be very useful for me as a student because I would not have to carry around bulky paper books, and e-textbooks are usually cheaper than paper textbooks.

PS: I may be going to Europe (Germany or Norway)for my schooling. I live in the United States. Are textbooks used in Europe less likely to be found on a tablet than textbooks primarily used in the United States? Would it be worth it to bring an extra gadget overseas? I know I will not be able to bring all of my belongings with me, and will have to pick and choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D65:D2F0:C8D9:15B0:FF0E:1B3C (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[The same question was posted at science, whence i have deleted it, redirecting here. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)][reply]

The tablet holds a spot midway between phone and laptop. Screen size is halfway, battery life is halfway, ease-of-data-entry - about midway...and so on. Things like reading an online book seem to work better on the tablet than a phone because of the larger screen...easier than a laptop because it's less bulky and can be held in one hand and used much like a paper book. So, yeaaah tablet! But if you're writing an essay - a tablet is a terrible input device - and unless you have a Bluetooth keyboard or something, it'll be vastly easier to use a laptop. Any application program that has a ton of menu options and/or needs precise positioning will be tough to use on a tablet.

Tablets and phones are a disaster when you need multiple application open at once - I frequently write and do illustrations for documents at the same time - which I can do with two windows open at once on a laptop - but that's only just barely possible on a tablet.

Watching videos is another thing where a tablet can win - portability and ease of holding it with very little user-input makes that a good fit.

Whether there is sufficient overlap between phone and laptop that you can ignore the tablet depends a lot on just how much you need to slim down the amount of 'stuff' you have - and just how picky you are about the user experience.

What I don't believe is that the tablet can eliminate either the phone or the laptop. You still need both of those devices when you have a tablet.

That said, there are efforts at "overlap" devices - the "phablet" - which is a very large phone that's almost a tablet - then the somewhat unsuccessful efforts by Microsoft to make tablets that have temporary attachments for a keyboard to make a tablet/laptop hybrid (I think that fails because they utterly screwed up how they did the software...but that's another story).

SteveBaker (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some phones are a disaster when you need multiple applications open at once, SteveBaker, but not modern Android smart phones, which dominate the market. I use an HTC One (M8) smartphone running Android 5.0.1, and I can have about six applications open at once, and one click displays them all. I use it for 95% of my Wikipedia editing. This technology is not at all uncommon. About two billion Android phones have been sold worldwide in 2014 and 2015. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure SteveBaker was refering to Android devices. Definitely I am, and while I wouldn't go so far as to say they are a disaster, but they are no where as effective for efficient multi tasking as laptops or desktops. In fact, since we're discussing phones, even with a 6.5" phablet (which is about the limit for when you can still call the device a phone), working simultaneously with 2 windows side by side doesn't necessarily work well, depending on how much content you need to fit in to each window including stuff such as text size or the size of any graphics, your eyesight, how close the phone is etc. If you have some sort of fixed layout content like a PDF, even 1 window doesn't always work well. (While you may blame the content, ultimately you have to work with what you have or is desired by however you are producing it for). After all, even a single 24" monitor isn't the most effective solution for certain workloads, hence why dual or even triple monitor configs are common for certain use-cases.

Incidentally it's a bit weird to mention 2 billion devices if you're using a HTC One M8, which is, in worldwide terms, an extremely high end device. I used to use a Huawei Ascend Y330 purchased in late 2014. In worldwide terms, this is probably upper low end phone. (In NZ, it's extremely low end.) But the phone was barely good enough for one application, let alone 2 simultaneosly. (Admitedly I probably should have switched off the predictive typing.) It was using Android 4.2, which was before Google started to try to really push to get things working well for low end devices in Android 5, but that isn't exactly uncommon. Of course the screen size and resolution also meant 2 side by side windows was never going to work well for most stuff, so it's a bit of a moot point.

Now people in the developing world or who otherwise have no choice or for some reason prefer to have such low end devices can accomplish a lot of stuff on them. Still we shouldn't pretend like all Android phones are magical devices and that if these people did have a decent laptop or desktop, they wouldn't perform significantly better once they've learnt to use these devices with certain workloads (well presuming they are ever likely to have a need for that workload).

Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When are white people in United states expected to become a minority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by This is one lucky guy (talk • contribs) 03:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read this.--Jayron32 04:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Census Department says 2044, but this is problematic because those of white/Asian ancestry and white/Latino ancestry tend to self-identify as white, usually, while the census categorizes them as minority. This opinion piece from the New York Times presents a contrary view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the census department say 2044? — Preceding unsigned comment added by This is one lucky guy (talk • contribs) 04:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from Medical Daily that summarizes the Census Department report, with a link to their data. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some summary tables, with Table 11^[XLS] Percent Distribution of the Projected Population by Hispanic Origin and Race for the United States: 2015 to 2060 (at 5 year intervals). It projects that the percentage of the US population identified as "white" will drop from 77.28% in 2015, to 74.42% in 2030, 71.43% in 2045, and 68.45% in 2060. However the "Non-Hispanic white" (seems a rather arbitrary distinction) percentage will drop from 61.72% in 2015, to 55.48% in 2030, 49.29% in 2045, and 43.65% in 2060. So taking the original question literally, the US Census Bureau is not projecting such an event at least through 2060, and I don't know if they have published any longer ranged projections. -- ToE 17:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "white"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For definitions used by the US Census Bureau, see here. -- ToE 22:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I want to know how the OP defines "white", not necessarily how the Census Bureau does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non Hispanic whites — Preceding unsigned comment added by This is one lucky guy (talk • contribs) 03:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about mixed races? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not mixed racesThis is one lucky guy (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama's mother is generally considered "white". Yet research a couple of years ago showed that she had a black ancestor from two or three centuries ago. Does she still count as white? If so, where are you drawing the line? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's 2-3 centuries back. Of course she's white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by This is one lucky guy (talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back enough centuries, we all have black ancestry, and some Africans have European and Asian ancestry because there was a migration back into Africa. Dbfirs 10:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why to place the plot of Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman specifically in 1867 Colorado Springs if the city wasn't even exist at that time? Gridge (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Colorado Springs was incorporated in 1886, but that doesn't mean there was no settlement there before that. The Colorado Springs, Colorado "In 1859 after the first local settlement was established...". -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 17:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting in 2011, she commenced a 5-year re-fit contract with BAE. In 2012 she was transferred to a trust. Between the two, there has been approx. $100 million (USD) committed. Does anyone know if, with all this funding, if it's possible this re-fit will see her sail again? - ^theWOLFchild 06:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC) (see Talk:HMS_Victory#Current_re-fit)[reply]

No, there are no plans to sail her again. The HMS Victory article explains what the 2011 re-fit entails:The restoration is worth £16 million over the life of the contract and will include work to the masts and rigging, replacement side planking, and the addition of fire control measures. --Ykraps (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]