Miscellaneous desk
< November 12	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 14 >

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.

November 13

Perpetual impact

Has there been any study or logical argument concerning what sorts of actions can make an impact -- positive or negative -- on the world that will be felt forever, even after everyone who knew anyone who was alive at the time is dead? Neon Merlin 03:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:SIG's suggestion that signatures should not be distracting will, if acted on, live down through the years. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to see the article on Thomas Midgley, Jr. who, according to his article (^ McNeill, J.R. Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World (2001) New York: Norton, xxvi, 421 pp. (as reviewed in the Journal of Political Ecology)) "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth history." Lanfear's Bane | t 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was on QI last night. Poor sod. Strangled to death by his own invention. DuncanHill 22:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase the question: If after this life I am reincarnated infinitely many times to this same world, how can I make sure I spend those infinite future lives in a better world than if I never did anything? And if on the other hand I go to an eternal afterlife, how can I ensure that I will always rest with the knowledge that I still matter? (And while we're at it, has there been any study into how to handle the other possibilities, such as losing my memories of this life in the afterlife, or spending all my future lives in a world independent of this one?) Neon Merlin 06:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAS*Hes

In the M*A*S*H television show as well as in the film, Radar can hear the helicopters coming before anyone else and therefore knows that wounded soldiers are on the way. But I was watching an episode today where it starts with scenes from an aid station and there is a voice over of a medic calling Radar for the med-evac helicopters to come to the aid station. So were the helicopters and their pilots stationed at the MASHes and therefore Radar would have known far ahead of any incoming casualties? Or were they stationed at the aid stations and most of the series is more correct in showing that the MASH unit didn't know until shortly before the wounded started coming in that they had wounded coming in the first place? Dismas|^(talk) 03:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medevac helicopters were attached to a particular MASH, but all helicopters need a lot of maintenance (even small piston-powered ones like the Bell H-13) and are high-value targets, so I imagine they were actually based at airfields or other specialised maintenance facilities well away from the front lines. FiggyBee 04:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought re the MASH episode; is it possible that the choppers had just left the aid station with casualties? Thus the medic knows the choppers are heading for the MASH, and wants Radar to send them back for another sortie rather than letting them return to base. FiggyBee 07:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the novel, Radar was extensively described as having a number of attributes that made him a natural for the Signal Corps, including large ears set nearly perpendicular to his head and a slight degree of ESP. (I'm working from memory here; I lost my copy of the (excellent) novel years ago.) The description given to the character in the book didn't match up very well with the actor that played Radar in both the movie and TV show, but his ESP stayed intact. It expanded at a few points, I remember, to where he answered questions from commanding officers either before or simultaneous to the asking. Don't know if that is very material to your question, but thought it was worth mentioning. Faithfully, Deltopia 12:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength

Invisible rays of the spectrum with wavelengths shorter than violet are called.......? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraviolet! --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or X-rays or gamma rays, depending or how much shorter than violet we're talking. Algebraist 13:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical reaction

The smallest part of an element that can take part in a chemical reaction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of Chemical reaction should shed some light on this. 152.16.16.75 10:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry thankyou for trying but it didn't really help!!

Elements are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of three basic parts, neutrons, protons, and electrons. Now, re-read the first paragraph of the chemical reaction article with that in mind and you will have the answer to your homework. Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to flip that around... -80.229.152.246 11:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was late, I was at work... I'm a failure as a teacher. Good thing I'm not one. Dismas|^(talk) 13:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eye abnormality

An abnormality of the eye characterised by opaque lenses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cataracts? Dismas|^(talk) 10:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS DUDE YOU REALLY HELPED ME OUT BIG TIME!!!!!! I'LL DO ANYTHING FOR YOU THATS DOABLE FOR ME!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only all our enquirers were so grateful when we gave answers... ponders what exactly 'doable' would be?.. ;) Lemon martini 12:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means that which can be done. in short he'll do anything that he can for you. Cryo921 17:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still pondering what "doable" might mean . . . Bielle 05:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doable adjective, "that can be done", Chambers Dictionary, 1983 edition, page 367. DuncanHill 05:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the part that was bothering me... he'll do ANYTHING that he can for you... :) Lemon martini 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licking your elbow isn't "doable". Unless you detach it first, of course. --Dweller 16:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to shrink a synthetic watch strap?

Wrist watch I posses is too big for my too slender arm. The watch strap is made of translucent rubber like material. All that needs to be done is new hole for the buckle. please tell me how to drill this hole?. I do not have any special equipments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.27 (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A hammer, a nail, and a piece of scrap wood to work on. Just punch a hole. — Lomn 14:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A drill bit will probably chew it up, and if you poke a hole it will be too tight for the pin. To cut a hole with an X-acto knife would be difficult. I would call around to hobby shops and craft stores for a small enough hole punch. Or just walk into a jeweler's and they'll probably make a new hole for you on the spot for free. --Milkbreath 14:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best way would be to melt a hole using a very fine-tipped soldering iron - or perhaps (if you are VERY careful) a nail heated up on a stove and pressed in with a pair of pliers...this sounds dangerous though - and if you drop the nail, you'll make a mess of your watchstrap and/or burn yourself and/or set fire to your kitchen. SteveBaker 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, behave yourself, no more semi-Rube Goldbergian suggestions please. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh c'mon, if you want to go Goldberg, you have to start like this - Heavy steel marble rests at one end of plastic tube which is resting on a fulcrum. Ice cube hold end of tube level; as it melts, the tube tilts so that the marble runs out and drops onto a push-button to turn on power to the heating element . . . --LarryMac | Talk 17:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! Rube Goldburg wasn't a PROPER mad inventor - for that you need you need a Brit: Heath Robinson of course! SteveBaker 00:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Dremel Moto-Tool with a fine high-speed-steel cutter will do the job, and isn't too exotic. I'd use a ball-shaped cutter.

Atlant 18:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use the melting technique. Any cutting technique will leave weak spots around the edge of the cut where a tear can start. --Carnildo 21:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - that was my thought too. SteveBaker 00:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dremel will likely melt the thermoplastic slightly as it cuts, especially if it's run at high speed.

Atlant 02:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of Cartoonist for publishing in Readers Digest around 1940's and 1950's

The cartoonist in question may be named Sylverson or something like that. His/Her style: With just a few strokes of a pen he/she draws a laughing face. Many of the cartoons depict two or three little men running, tumbling over each other, or other action, with each face showing very clearly, excitement, happiness, etc.

I have visited several cartoon exhibits in museums; I have contacted a large cartoon museum by mail in the midwest, I forgot where; I have written to Readers Digest two times. All to no avail.

My goal: to Identify the cartoonist; to read the biography of the cartonist, if there is one; to learn, if possible, how he/she could make such happy faces seemingly so quickly glow on paper75.213.54.90 16:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a one of the pictures drawn by the Cartoonist they may have signed the picture. Cryo921 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Henry Syverson. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him yet, but there's a little bit of biographical information here. You can find out more about his body of work by Googling him. MrRedact 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Jazz/Swing Lady

I am trying to find music similar to that of Ruth Etting, (see youtube) but with more of a little girl sound to her voice, she sang early in the previous century, I can see her face and hear her voice, in my head. She had short curly, dark hair. her music was more upbeat that Ruth Ettings, and her voice was not as(for wont of a better term)whining. I think she was in the 1920's or maybe 30's, interwar period anyway. I have painted a picture of her, and people keep asking me, whats it called, or whos she. well she is not Ruth Etting, though she did do some lovely work. Any help would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Holliday had that kind of quality in her voice. Although not a singer, I think the classic example of the little-girly voice is Butterfly McQueen, who played Prissy in Gone With the Wind - "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies!". -- JackofOz 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Kane is the singer you are looking for. Listen to a song on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVc1lB-YLXk&feature=related See sang the songs in Betty Boop films.

Writing in Accents

I was wondering if you could possibly direct me to a site or a book that would show how to write in different accents. I am writing a story and one of the characters is from Norway and another is from Africa but they speak english, I wanted to incorporate their dialects or how they would speak english with an accent because it is their second language. Is there something like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.103.2 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called eye dialect (see). Just listen to the accent you want to render, and spell it all wrong according to what you hear, trying to match the phonetics, with no regard for the regular spelling. If that takes it too far to even read, back off a tad. --Milkbreath 20:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please consider not doing it - it really puts me off a book to discover it's been written like that. SteveBaker 23:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Strunk and White say, Do not use dialect unless your ear is good. I would probably modify it to say very good. --24.147.86.187 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudyard Kipling was a master of this - but few can reach his standard. DuncanHill 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get it mixed up with what are considered by some to be 'proper' dialect spellings, such as Scots or Jamaican Patois. Consider using a single signal or two to be consistent (all 'w's become 'v's, for example), to show when someone is speaking in an accent, rather than trying to accurately represent the difference, which is more difficult than it seems. As SteveBaker says, it can be somewhat difficult to read dialogue when it uses non-standard spelling, so you need to consider whether it would detract from the content of what you're writing. To get around it, you can describe some of the dialect features adverbially ('...in his singsong accent' is a cliched version of this). Steewi 03:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of eye dialect gone horribly wrong, see The Two Ronnies in "Swedish Made Simple". --Milkbreath 18:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually describing the dialect at the first occurence and occasionally after that is enough for the reader to form their own idea of what you are trying to achieve and it will be a lot more readable. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That and tossing in phrases and odd words that are typical of that dialect. If your character says "Avast there ye land-lubbers!" a lot, you kinda get the idea that you have someone who is badly impersonating a pirate and if they say "Howdy Y'all, that's a whole nother thing" then you've probably got a Texan on your hands. You aren't spelling words for the sake of pronunciation - but simply writing what people actually say. Texans pronounce "thing" more like "thang" - but you don't need to misspell it if you caught hold of the idea that they do (annoyingly) confuse 'an-other' with 'a-nother'.

But there is a deeper problem with writing this way, which is that when someone who actually has that accent reads your work, she/he is going to be puzzled why one of your characters who plainly speaks with no accent at all is continually being mis-spelled! eg: It's easy to write misspellings to simulate a Texas drawl for your Texan character and to use standard spelling for the English guy...and it works just great if you are English - but if you are a Texan, you'll be utterly confused (and probably offended too)! So just don't do it...PLEASE!

SteveBaker 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "noo-kyu-lar" which, I gather, is a fairly widespread (some would say mis-)pronunciation in Texas and other southern parts (not to mention the current White House)? Or, if the character's a southerner, should the reader just assume that any of their words would be pronounced the southerner way, without the pronunciation needing to be spelled out? -- JackofOz 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that pronunciation of nuclear is actually used just about everywhere among people who are either not terribly educated on the subject or want to sound like they are not terribly well educated on the subject. Jimmy Carter said it that way too, and he was a noo-kyu-lar engineer at one point. But I digress.--24.147.86.187 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Everywhere" is a big word! I've only every heard it from people who are in the southern US. You'd never hear someone from the UK say it like that. Why would you? The spelling makes it pretty clear how it's pronounced NUCLEAR. NU-CLEAR there is no vowel between the C and the L - so why do so many southern Americans put it there? Weird. SteveBaker 02:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was done in a highly imaginative manner in the Asterix series of books, by using a combination of idiosyncratic typefaces (eg Gothic for Germans), name suffixes (-us for Romans) and other cultural idioms, like swearing by Jove for Britons. Genius. --Dweller 16:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analogously - but oppositely - the British TV series 'Allo Allo' used accent as a stand-in for language. So the French would speak in outrageous French accents and the Brits wouldn't understand them until they said the exact same words with a phoney British accent. It was extremely well done and a great running joke. SteveBaker 16:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]