Miscellaneous desk
< October 13	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 15 >

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.

October 14

Bracing for car accident

Assuming one is driving alone in a family sedan and an inevitable frontal impact crash is about to occur. How should one brace for the accident? Should the head be rested against the headrest? Should the neck muscles be tightened? etc... Similarly, how should one brace for side and rear impacts? Thanks. Acceptable 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales article it was displacement and tearing of internal organs which resulted in death of the occupants even though airbags were deployed for the driver and the front passenger. It is claimed by the attending medical personnel that no one would have died had they been wearing seat belts. Although this may or may not be true it does seem highly unlikely that bracing, one's self, airbags, seatbelts or anything else would be sufficient to prevent internal displacement and tearing of organs for any collision with sufficient G forces, also High Acceleration and the Human Body.Clem 02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall hearing that people who were asleep (with seat belt on) survived more often than those who were awake, the theory I heard said this was because the sleeping individual didn't tense/stress their body as they were unaware of the impending crash. So if that theory is true it would seem 'relax' is the best (if most difficult) approach to take. ny156uk 02:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also notable is the fact that persons who are drunk have a higher survival rate for crashes than people who aren't, due to the fact that they are more relaxed (in support of the previous statement). The position of the seatbelt is also important. If it is not across the hip bones, but across the stomach, for example, it can cause a lot of internal damage. From personal experience, however (bike vs. contruction vehicle at 55 m/h, believe it or not), I'd encourage anyone entering a crash situation to attempt to manuver their vehicle into the same direction as the other vehicle, and speed up to reduce the force of the impact. If possible, try to position something between the more vulnerable parts of your body and anything that could harm them (pulling you legs up between you and the steering wheel. You might break your legs, but you're probably less likely to crush vital organs). justice 04:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Honda CRV with ACC (Active Cruise Control), automatically tightens the seat belt and applies the brakes for you if it's radar anticipates an accident while giving a visual and audiable warning as well.--88.111.33.45 07:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Arrghh 4 got2 sin --88.111.61.118 19:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC) :-)[reply]

Seatbelt pre-tensioners are actually pretty common nowadays - usually they are set off at the same time as the airbag. My MINI Cooper'S has them. SteveBaker 15:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. same for drunk people. Problem with that is that you're more likely to get into an accident in the first place. And that also counts for sleepy people. Sleepy driving should be as illegal as drunken driving. DirkvdM 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about stupid driving? --88.111.61.118 20:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem unless it's dangerous. Of course one could say the same about drunken driving and sleepy driving. Actually, there should be a general test for the physical abilities required for driving. If old people tend to fail that, then maybe they should not be allowed to drive. DirkvdM 18:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My brother once crashed on a highway, so he was probably going about 100 km/h when he hit a bump in a curve. And he wasn't wearing a seat belt. I don't know too many details of how he hit what,but he said it certainly helped that he stretched his arms and braced himself against the steering wheel. After the crash he had a terrible muscle ache in his arms. But the pain in his head was even worse, because he crashed sideways into the railing, as a result of which his head crashed against the side window. Which broke, I believe. To illustrate the seriousness of the crash, when he tried to sell the car for scrap, he could only get some money for the tires, which were brand new. DirkvdM 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bracing his arms would generally be a bad idea - but since he wasn't wearing a seat belt (idiot!) I suppose it may have helped. Smashing the window with his head probably saved him actually. Hard though that impact must have been, it would have absorbed energy from the sideways movement of his head that would probably have broken his neck otherwise. The value of side-impact air-bags should never be underestimated. SteveBaker 14:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was in the early seventies, when seat belts were a new phenomenon, not yet obligatory for old cars like his. And he could barely afford the car, let alone having it fitted with seatbelts. DirkvdM 18:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin skyline

Are the UT buildings considered part of the Austin skyline? Æe tlr Cre ejl 02:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considered by whom? Are they in downtown Austin? How tall are they? If I could see them against the sky, from anywhere in or around Austin, then I would consider them to be part of the Austin skyline. However, no skylines are definitive; they all depend entirely on one's viewpoint. If I couldn't see them from where I was standing, they wouldn't form part of the skyline.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incas

Are there any Incas still left today? 65.33.220.127 14:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Incas in the world today, in the same way there are no Prussians in the world today; the empire which gave them their name no longer exists. However, there are certainly decendants of the Quechua and Aymara peoples who lived in the Incan empire; see Demographics of Peru, Demographics of Bolivia, Demographics of Ecuador. FiggyBee 14:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two unrelated questions

First, what percent of Americans vote? Second, what percent of Amercans are mentally retarded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.21.225 (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Around 50-60%, depending on the type of election. It's generally around 50% for local (i.e. House, mayor, town council) elections, and higher for presidential elections. 2. A quick google search on "percent of americans who are mentally retarded" turns up an essay from 2000 that claims 12% of all Americans. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the second percentage is (theoretically at least) independent from anything in the real world. It is basically the definition of mental retardation that the bottom p% of the population is mentally retarded. IQ is defined such that 100 is average and 95.8 percent of the population falls between 70 and 130. (ie. if everybody gets smarter, the average IQ stays exactly the same, if the difference between smart and dumb increases, IQ values won't change). Mental retardation is defined as an IQ of 70 or lower, or more specifically a value below two standard deviations below the mean. This means that by definition, 2.2% percent of the population is mentally retarded. No matter how smart everyone gets, or how the distribution changes, that value stays the same. That makes the value of 12% (as measured statistically, I guess) very interesting. I guess that most diagnoses are based on more that IQ alone and that accounts for the bulk of the discrepancy, but it's a large gap. risk 18:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on mental retardation there are two more criteria beyond the IQ thing required before someone is diagnosed as mentally retarded, so the definition is less strict than I made it seem, but really that should only serve to decrease the percentage, not increase it. risk 18:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Elections in the United States. Last time, for the president it was 59%, for the senate 29% and for the house of representatives 38%. (Usually good for a smirk in the Netherlands - hey, aren't those the guys who think they have to force democracy down other people's throats? :) .) Often, the figures given are for the ones who registered to vote, not for the entire electorate, so be careful when you read such figures. Not included in the given figures are people who are not allowed to vote, such as retarded people (is that the reason for the second question?) and people in prison. If you include those in the electorate, the percentages would be even lower. Especially the amount of people in prison in the US is quite high, I've heard, but I have no figures on that. DirkvdM 19:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Prisons in the United States, 2.2 million are incarcerated, with another 4.8 million on probation or parole. Algebraist 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can Americans be barred from voting for incompetence? I haven't heard of it. —Tamfang 16:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that would be just over 1% of the electorate, so not such a big factor. Still not good, though. this table (in Dutch) shows the number of incarcerated people over time in various countries per 100.000 inhabitants. For the US that's in the hundreds, and almost tripled from 275 in 1982 to 690 in 1999. The table stops there, but according to your figure, it should have risen a staggering 1000 by now. Most other figures are well below 100. So the numbers of prisoners per capita in the US is more than ten times what it is elsewhere. It used to be bad, but since Reagan it's been rising very sharply. I wonder how many of those are in prison for smoking a joint. From a joint to the joint. :) No, not funny. DirkvdM 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dallas and Houston"

Between the two cities in Texas which would be the best to live in? Houston or Dallas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.134.152 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really comes down to a matter of opinion. What are you specifically looking for in the two cities? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been living in Dallas (which is really two large cities: Dallas and Fort Worth with Arlington and a bunch of smaller communities surrounding them) - and recently moved to Austin. I havn't lived in Houston - but I know a lot of people who have. My impressions of Houston are mostly that the extra humidity makes the hot summers truly miserable - the heat in Dallas is much more bearable. Aside from that, there is little to choose between them. Austin on the other hand (which is the capital city of Texas) is entirely different - vastly more culturally diverse. Austin's unofficial motto is "Keep Austin Weird" - and it certainly lives up to that. So, given the choice, I'd rate Austin as #1, Dallas/Ft.Worth as #2 and Houston a rather distant #3. But a lot depends on your criteria. SteveBaker 21:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Steve, the humidity in houston is terrible. The DFW metroplex is so huge that you can find anything you need so Houston's size doesn't give it much of an advantage there. I think traffic in houston is worse than the metroplex too. I also hate houston for a host of irrational reasons... We'd all live in austin if we could. -- Diletante 23:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My biased opinion is that the drivers in Houston are worse than in DFW. They change lanes unpredictably, but won't let you change lanes if you give them any warning about it, and they drive way too close together. Infuriating and scary. But driving anywhere in Texas takes about six months to learn because of the very short merge zones -- you have to learn to start negotiating a spot to merge while you're still on the ramp, well before the merging actually starts. --Trovatore 23:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough original research, folks. Isn't there, like, a "most live-able cities"" index we could refer to?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Hmmm - so I checked: http://www.fortworth.com/ says that Ft.Worth is the 17th most livable city in the USA - and the most livable in Texas. Phah - nonsense! It goes on to extoll the virtues of "The Historic Stockyards". Well at one time (about 15 years ago), they truly were a historic site (well, the closest you ever get to history in Texas apart from "The Alamo"). However, they've turned the whole thing into a cheesy shopping mall. It's the only faintly historical thing for about 150 miles in any direction - and the best they could come up with was to fill it full of tacky gift shops and places where you can buy Texas-map-shaped belt buckles and fake Jackalopes. Pah! SteveBaker 04:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, the stockyards aren't the real Fort Worth. I actually find Fort Worth kind of charming; it feels much more genteel than Dallas. I very much enjoyed going to hear Buddy's Big Band once a month at the Southside Preservation Hall. On balance, yeah, I think I'd rather live there than Dallas. If you want to do something in Dallas, well, it isn't far. --Trovatore 04:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not visited Texas, but a friend told me Austin is pretty cool with some great live music venues and a good college town vibe. I hope to visit Texas someday. Astronaut 21:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

health websites

do u guys know any places that i could find things about how to find heart rate and good exercise programs??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.23.83 (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Google. Jonathan ^talk \ _{contribs — er} 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not insult questioners. If you do not know the answer, abstain from responding. --Taraborn 21:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an insult. Jonathan ^talk \ _{contribs — er} 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it was dismissive and unhelpful.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to try WebMD. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapest way to find your pulse (which gives you your current heart rate) is by feeling for it with two fingers of (say) your left hand pressed against the radial artery of your right wrist (that's just on the thumb side of the bones you can feel in your wrist with your palm facing up). Count the pulses for 15 seconds, and multiply the count by four. The more expensive way of finding your heart rate is by purchasing a heart rate monitor (look in sports stores or on e-bay) and using it as per directions. See Heart rate for information on what heart rates you should aim for when exercising.

Since you're asking here rather than going to a gym, I expect you're looking for the sort of exercises you can do at home. For reducing fat you want cardiovascular exercise like running, cycling or swimming. For increasing muscle or strength you want um... the other sort of exercising. I'd suggest googling for 5BX (or XBX if you're female). They're exercise programs created for the Canadian air force for staff and aircrews posted to remote areas with no access to gym equipment. --Psud 11:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conn family from Inverurie

Can someone help me please i was told if i come to wikipedia i would find inforation on the Conn Family from Inverurie/Huntly area, i have got lost and dont have a clue what to do next, please help. I am trying to trace this family as they are my Dad's birth family and he is in contact with them now and has some information, but we would like to go back in history if possibel how do i do this many thanks Dee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.78.124 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what you were told, Wikipedia isn't a genealogy reference, and there's really nothing we can do beyond pointing you to the usual suspects in that regard -- local libraries for historical periodicals, genealogy websites, and the like. Obviously, your father's contacts will provide the best possible starting point. — Lomn 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search produced this website: http://www.conn-clan.co.uk There is a history of the Conn Clan there: [1]. It says that 'Alec Conn' has been researching the family name for 27 years. A search for 'Alec Conn' (again, in Google) turned up this link that contains a family tree... http://www1.freewebs.com/connfamilytree/_sgg/f10000.htm they said they got their information from this site http://fp.ayrshireroots.plus.com/Genealogy/Surnames/Conn/Conn.htm which gives an email address of alecconn@teesdaleonline.co.uk - as the person who has been doing all of the family name research. Email him...now! SteveBaker 13:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]