Miscellaneous desk
< December 14	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 15

loss prevention at sea

Would the cost to build submersible ocean going vessels to go deep enough to escape the ravages of surface storms (variable but say around 30 to 50 feet) be worth the savings of ships that sink at sea from an insurance provider point of view? 71.100.6.152 18:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt storms sink many ships, but see the article Rogue wave (oceanography). A submersible ship would be more expensive than a conventional one. IMHO, it wouldn't be worth it: the one that was sunk would be replaced ten times over before it surpasses the price of the submersible one. A good idea, but very impractical. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern ocean-going vessels of any significant size simply don't sink because of the weather (bar a tiny number of freak incidents, and even then not entirely). They sink because of poor maintenance (fire breaks out and fire suppression system broken, engines fail and ship driven onto rocks, structural members rust through) and bad seamanship (hatches left open in storm, captain drunk, first officer steers ship on sandbank because owner too cheap to buy up-to-date charts). Making ships submersible (or somehow semisubmersible) just adds lots of expensive complicated bits for the bad sailors and crooked shipowners to abuse and neglect. If you want to make the seas safer then have decent standards for your own ships (most developed countries do) and ban from your ports the ships registered in poverty-stricken landlocked countries and crewed by illiterate guava harvesters from Upper Zamboni (which most developed countries should, but don't). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true. See List of RORO vessel accidents which includes a couple several weather related sinkings, not to mention the Edmund Fitzgerald. I also seem to recall container ships have a poor record although our article doesn't mention it. For an old semi-submarine style, look at whaleback freighters built with rounded hulls above and below water. Rmhermen 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Edmund Fitzgerald sank over 30 years ago, leaving Gordon Lightfoot with nothing to sing about ever since. :-) StuRat 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for a literary account of an unsafe ship, see B. Traven's Death Ship. Dr Zak 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A boat has one major advantage over a submarine: it's inherently stable. Left to itself, a boat on the surface will stay on the surface, with the keel down and the hatches up. A submerged submarine, on the other hand, will tend to tumble, and will either rise to the surface, or sink to the ocean floor. --Carnildo 01:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One proposal for the US military is a semi-submersible missile boat. Unlike a traditional missile boat, this one would ride very low in the water, giving it a low radar profile, with the majority of the boat below the waterline. The deck would be waterproof, with sealed covers at the end of each missile tube and would lack the mast, guns, conning tower, and other equipment normally on deck. Waves would also break across the deck in high seas. However, it wouldn't be a full submarine, as it would not be intended to fully submerge. It would not be deployed alone, but as part of a major task force, as a platform for cruise missiles and other weapons systems. Other ships in the task force would provide for communications, ship defense, etc.:

             +-^^-----------^^-+
 -------------\ \\ missle  // /--------------- water line
               \ \\ tubes // /
                \ -      -  / missile boat
                 \  crew   /
                  +-------+

StuRat 16:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make that design by yourself, or did you get it somewhere? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw/read about a proposal, and reproduced it above, as best as I could, from memory. The proposal was an attempt to increase the missile capacity of a task force at minimal cost and risk. StuRat 05:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricep curls and other dumbbell tricep exercises

I am doing two tricep exercises using dumbbells, and I'm wondering if they are both necessary, or if one is better? One is an overhead reverse tricep curl (French curl, letting the free weight (which I hold in both hands) drop (controlled) down behind my shoulders while supine, and curling it to above my forehead (a standard exercise). The other is like the exercise people do in aerobics, pushing my parallel straight arms back and up behind my back, except I use free weights. Anchoress 03:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better to do different exercises - rather than concentrate on just one (unless you are a body builder and want to create muscles that look a specific way). I don't actually recognise the second exercise. The more exercise you do the better right? And it doesn't all have to be 'power stuff'87.102.8.6 14:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had my Strength Training Anatomy (ISBN 0736063684) handy - it shows specifically which parts of which muscles are worked with each exercise.. I'm certain that the two exercises will exercise different parts of the triceps, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the info, jpg, and thanks to user87... for the reply. Anchoress 01:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricep exercises are not called curls (those are for biceps), they are typically called extensions. From the way you describe the exercises you are doing, neither of them sound especially good for triceps - the first sounds like pullovers which will affect more delts, lats and pecs, the second I can't picture having seen anyone do with weights, but sounds like it would mainly work the posterior delts if I'm picturing it right. I recommend three better basic exercises:

Standing tricep extensions: raise the weight fully above your head with straight arms, then lower behind your head bending only at the elbows, then extend your arms to fully straight. Can be done with bar or dumbell/s.
Lying tricep extensions: lay on a bench, hold a bar (or dumbell, but it's not as good) with fully extended arms with a close grip above your face, then bending only at the elbows lower to your forehead, and lift again in same manner. These are sometimes called skull-crushers in common terms (I think this is what you're trying to do with your French curls, but from what you describe, it's not what you are doing, as I said above it sounds like you're doing pullovers).
Pulley pushdowns (or pulley tricep extensions): assuming you have access to a pulley system like a lat-pulldown, take a close grip, hands at shoulder level, elbows tight at your side, then extend arms fully straight to waist level, elbows remaining tightly at side throughout.

These exercises have slightly different focuses, but all are good for overall tricep development. Vary them one or two at a time, depends on what you are looking for. --jjron 14:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, I found the book I was looking for. (Actually, I bought a new one -- there's an expanded edition now.) Anyway, the first version depends on whether you lower the weight behind your head or over your face (hence the term "skullcrusher"); it emphasizes either the long head or the medial and lateral heads, respectively. The other version stretches the long head. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wales as a keynote speaker

I am inquiring about the possibility of having Mr. Wales as a keynote speaker. Who within Wikipeadia should be contacted?24.163.62.32Debra Singleton

Check THIS PAGE, or leave a message on Mr Wales' talk page. Actually, the userpage I linked you to has the info you need. Anchoress 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a moment there I thought you were referring to one of Princess Diana's sons, Princes William and Harry, both of whom were referred to as Mr. Wales during their officer training at Sandhurst. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.100 (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

A fall

Wikipedia states that Vesna Vulović “holds the Guinness Book of Records world record for surviving the highest fall without a parachute: 10,160 meters (6.31 miles, or 33,000 feet).” Although it is implied that she was saved by the fact that she was still strapped onto part of the plane (and that this cushioned her fall), I have heard other stories of parachutist who survived falls when their parachutes failed open. What would be the best position to be in order to maximize ones chances of survival from such a fall? Also is it even possible to change ones position as related to the ground when in free fall? Thanks! S.dedalus 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might help. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 05:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly use aerodynamic forces to change your orientation relative to the ground during free fall - freefall style skydivers are experts at this. Also, see Cat righting reflex. Gandalf61 11:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to control your fall so you land in deep, soft snow :) --⁪froth^{T C} 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might think that landing in water would be best, but there is the problem of being knocked out and drowning immediately. So, landing in other soft areas, like freshly fallen snow, tree branches, peat, etc. may actually be better. StuRat 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a documentary about Jimmy Edwards, who won the DFC in World War II for surviving a crashlanding in a Douglas Dakota. He said that he was lucky to hit 'small trees' when he came down: no vegetation and he would have just hit the ground; large trees and he would have hit a branch and cartwheeled; but small trees just broke with the impact and slowed the aircraft down. I imagine it's the same for people. Sam Blacketer 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to StuRat: water is useless at breaking falls from a great height. There are probably three height ranges that can be characterised by the impact on the faller. (1) No damage to faller - faller remains conscious and swims to safety (typically this is the diving board sort of height, though diving from high diving boards (such as 10-metre ones) can easily knock people unconscious if they hit the water incorrectly). (2) Impact is sufficient to cause bruising/loss of consciousness - drowning becomes a real danger (probably 5-20 metres). (3) Impact speed is so great that the effect is like hitting concrete, with effects ranging from broken bones to splat (probably anything above 20 metres). I first realised water was useless for breaking falls from a great height when watching a James Bond film where some poor guy got trapdoored out of an airship. Anyone know which film that was. I think it was the one with Grace Jones. Carcharoth 01:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A View to a Kill. "So, does anybody else want to drop out?" Another Bond film that comes into this question is Moonraker; if you're falling without a parachute, it's useful if there's a bad guy beneath you with a parachute; just free-fall over towards him and take his 'chute.

Atlant 18:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that's for pure freefall. If we assume a partially opened parachute, then maybe the person remains in your stage (2) from any height, hence the worry about drowning. StuRat 05:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you hit broken water like at the bottom of a waterfall or the center of a whirlpool/maelstrom, then it dramatically improves your chances of survival. If you don't drown a few seconds after. --⁪froth^{T C} 07:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

youngsters

Why is it that youngsters think that because their world is based on their consideration of only a few obvious variables that the rest of the world is based on only a few obvious variables as well and that adults who have had much more time to consider additional variables having many more states in addition to many more combinations are somehow inferior? 71.100.6.152 05:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because to be young is to be all-knowing and all-wise. In growing older one begins to understand the limits of both knowledge and wisdom. And that is the beginning of true understanding. Clio the Muse 05:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question suffers from the fallacy of many questions. It presupposed that the following are true:

that "youngsters think" in those ways,
that "their world is based on their consideration of only a few obvious variables",
that adults "had much more time to consider additional variables", and
that those variables have "many more states in addition to many more combinations"

These are disputable and very subjective. --Spoon! 09:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before feeding the troll, please see User_talk:Wooty#What_does_it_have_to_do_with_anything. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 10:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link... 68.39.174.238 06:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess

Anyone know where to find a persuasive article that relates to chess? --JDitto 05:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess may be of assistance. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant a persuasive article. That one's all information. Thanks for answering so quickly, though. --JDitto 05:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persuasive in what way? Anchoress 06:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you told us what you needed one for. Are you trying to persuade people to play chess? Neon Merlin 06:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a letter by Paul Morphy, the greatest chess player of the 19th century, who wrote:

I am more strongly confirmed than ever in the belief that the time devoted to chess is literally frittered away. It is, to be sure, a most exhilarating sport, but it is only a sport; and it is not to be wondered at that such as have been passionately addicted to the charming pastime should one day ask themselves whether sober reason does not advise its utter dereliction. I have, for my own part, resolved not to be moved from my purpose of not engaging in chess hereafter.

Does that persuade you? Skarioffszky 10:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Chess? ---Sluzzelin 14:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or this gives it A- but this is credited with limiting its success. meltBanana 16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In absence of a persuasive article I can offer a persuasive comment... In high school the game of Chess helped me to think ahead and anticipate the consequences of my actions. 71.100.6.152 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of article I was looking for was a persuasive article that A)stated the problem B) expresses the opinion C)Offers solution to the problem and D) emphasizes the main issue. After searching archived issues of Chess Life and Review and a useless search engine I am very tired. --JDitto 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you've really clarified what is you're after. What "problem"?

I'll take a guess at what you mean... are you looking for an article about chess theory, exposing a possible flaw in, say, an opening system and then either refuting the flaw or proving it (and therefore refuting that line of play)? --Dweller 14:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hunch the answer may be 42. In reply to the original poster, however: you have given us no clue what 'the problem' is, but in any case, Wikipedia is not supposed to be persuasive. It is supposed to be neutral. --ColinFine 22:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia. It's a school project that got me looking for any persuasive-style chess article I could find. I merely needed the help of people smarter than I to assist me in this quest...

Kudos to your funny replies Sluzzelin and ColinFine. It was very funny. I'm still laughing from the Kasparov-Brain Dead monkey game.(But the uncyclopedia article did make fun of Jesus...) --JDitto 04:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for helping everyone. I finally found what I was looking for in this blog. --JDitto 19:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open-source d20?

Have there yet been any projects to create fully stand-alone pen-and-paper RPGs based on the SRD or MSRD and released under open source licenses? Neon Merlin 06:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer and wikipedia does not give legal advice. However a cursory glance over the open gaming license on d20srd.org indicates to me that it would not be compatible with "traditional" open source licenses, and a full redistributed d20 system based on it might well violate United States copyright laws. Again, I'm not a lawyer and this is not trustworth legal advice, but it IS something you may want to investigate if you're going to make one. i kan reed 08:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Game Content (such as the SRD) can be combined with closed content, so why couldn't it be combined with cc-by-sa or GFDL content? The SRD and the new content could just be rendered in different fonts to show which text was whose. And the GFDL certainly doesn't demand that the whole book be under the same license, else how would we be able to use cc-by-sa images on Wikipedia without fair use templates? Neon Merlin 12:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.A. de C.V. and S.A.B. de C.V.

What do these abbreviations stand for? I know that basically they're Spanish for a Mexican corporation. I've encountered the second one just recently. Cemex had the first designation, but is now using the second one, according to its web site (but yet to be reflected in our article). Thank you. --Nelson Ricardo 11:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.A. de C.V. means "Sociedad anonima de Capital Variable". It describes a company where the partners are anonymous. Most foreign investments in Mexico are SA de CV, I think. It's kinda like the French Société Anonyme. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everything taste like chicken?

With the Christmas holidays upon us and the dwindling attention span of our physics class, we were asked to do a presentation on a few "science conundrums".

With other crackers such as "how many people does it really take to change a light bulb", we came up with the title of this question.

So, what's that about, and any personal opinions, it is really true, is the Matrix telling us this or have we all got such crappy taste buds we honestly can't tell the difference?

Cheers

-Benbread 12:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it feels stringy, and (IMHO) has bad texture? A tastier food with similar texture might be transmitted to the brain in with a similar chemical message. Of course, I'm just making this up, but... | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know something? In Britain where I live, unless you go to the farm and buy (and then cook) the freerange chicken that you see pecking away in the farmyard, you simply cannot buy a chicken that tastes like chicken. That's why our supermarkets do such a roaring trade in bottled cook-in sauces that set out to add some flavour. So I will freely interpret your question as really meaning, "Why does everything, including chicken, taste of nothing, unless it is marinaded in a flavour intensifier?"

See Tastes like chicken. C'mon, you knew it had to be here on the Wikipedia! :-) Dismas|^(talk) 13:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas - I knew it was around someware! Unfortunately "why does everything taste like chicken" didn't send me to that page, maybe it should..? Benbread 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babies taste of chicken. (Is there encyclopedic source relative to Izzard's claim that cannibals say that?) 64.90.198.6 00:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've tried rattlesnake and alligator and squab and they don't taste particularly like chicken to me. Alligator reminds me more of octopus and rattlesnake is very gamey. Pigeon is darker than chicken and fatty, more like duck. And in case anyone is wondering, oppossum resembles mild ham. Durova^Charge! 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because every massed-produced meat product you'll ever eat has been fed enough beef spinal column and sat in enough animal crap to be riddled with enough bacteria that it has to be cooked to enough of a crisp that it just tastes like plain denatured protein that never saw the sun while it was living.

Nightclubs to the extreme!!!!11!!

A while back I found an interesting site that basically pulls up random open directories on the net and shows you all the images within the directories. No surprise, most of them are porn with the remainder of them full of vacation photos of various NN people. Many times though, there are a series of photos in what appears to be a nightclub or bar with people milling about while some of the people are having sex in the middle of the crowd such as seen here (WARNING: Wikipedia isn't censored but that link is not safe for work in most places). Where are these clubs? Do the photographers just rent out the club for the night and invite a bunch of people to party along with porn actors? Dismas|^(talk) 13:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sex club? Skarioffszky 14:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well more mainstream clubs such as Privilege Ibiza and Manumission have in the past had live sex shows although I think mainly solo performances or simulation. You can do some research at http://partyhardcore.com/index2.html (CONTENT WARNING obviously) which claims they get male strippers and willing women off the street. meltBanana 16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I can do what I want" in law

What is the name for the legal concept that nobody can obligate anyone to do anything else without their permission? Is there an article about it? Thanks.--Keycard ^(talk) 13:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that might come under Human Rights. Freedom to do as you please?martianlostinspace 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds somewhat like Involuntary servitude to me but only if you have not agreed to do a certain thing or have a pretty good excuse like at the time you agreed you did not know that it was illegal. Adaptron 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music stuck in your head

Is there a name for getting music "stuck in your head?" What's the best way to keep it from happening? What's the best way to get it out of your head once it's stuck in there? When I was a little kid I had mild OCD and I got music stuck in my head a lot, to the point where now (even though my OCD is basically gone) I despise music and I cringe when I walk into a room where music is playing.. is there any hope for me? --⁪froth^{T C} 14:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found Earworm. In German, Ohrwurm is used frequently, but I didn't know it existed in English too. ---Sluzzelin 15:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, actually playing the offending piece of music often removes it from my head.--Shantavira 15:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distraction by something that requires your entire attentional ability is one way to stop a catchy tune from running through your mind. If you play , sing, or hum, or perhaps even think about a different tune, it will pretty much stop you from thinking about the annoying one. Memorizing a poem should also work, but see A Literary Nightmare for an example of a verse stuck in the mind. Warning! do not read it if you do not want it stuck in your mind as it was in Mark Twain's. Edison 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Most of the time, the trick is not minding. I kind of like having a jukebox in my head, even if I don't have full control over the playlist. One time when it was playing HEY MAMBO! Mambo Italiano for four straight days, it did get a bit excessive.

Anyway, I think Edison is on to something -- if you really can't stand it, substitute it with another song that you like better. --Trovatore 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that works for me is to switch gears into something nonmusical. I tend to be a verbal thinker so I may rehearse a conversation I intend to have later or compose a draft for something I intend to write. Durova^Charge! 21:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the news, i heard that chewing on a cinnamon stick helps. I don't know how, but it just does it. Also you could just get another song stuck in your head!

OBC

What is the curent Ontario Building Code for height of guards and handrails, picket spacing etc. in residential homes? Thanks 74.12.3.23 18:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably want to visit the official government site and see if it's up there - having someone who might not be familiar with the documentation try to interpret it for you here could be problematic (I've been trying to translate health and safety codes, and it made my brain cry). Looks like they have a good resource there to draw on. Good luck! Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got me burning, you got me burning

I've just got the terminator on the box while doing a bit of editing - what's the actual name of the song in the Tech Noir nightclub which goes "I feel the heat of your desire, you got me burning, you got buuuuring!" and who is it by?

--Charlesknight 23:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our The Terminator article answered your question until someone "cleaned it up". IMDb confirms it was "Burnin' In The Third Degree" by Tryanglz. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bebo Sign In

When I went to Bebo.com(Im a user)it asked me to sign in.I typed in my username and password.IT DID NOT RECOGNIZE MY PASSWORD.I asked to reset my password and even when I reset it,it still won't let me sign in!What should I do?No help topics on bebo will help me!

If you're sure that resetting the password won't work (also making sure to check capitalization, since it's probably case-sensitive), get in touch with the crew at bebo.com and whine loudly. If they don't help you out, you'd probably just want to make a new account. 64.90.198.6 00:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess you've been the victim of a hacker, who guessed your password, logged in, then changed your password. Was it something simple, like your username or an English word ? If so, once this issue is resolved, try a more complicated password, of mixed numbers and letters, and with mixed case. StuRat 05:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on your page there. If you have been hacked, whatever clampit kidnapped your password will probably start using your page.81.168.46.189 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]