Miscellaneous desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 13

Fly identification

Please identify the type of fly in this photo. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an entomologist but I looked around and am reasonably certain that it's call a Face Fly (Musca Autumnalis). There are apparently several flies that are similar in appearance to the House Fly and this is one of them. I made up my own mind about it because it's the one that looks to me to be most similar to your picture and it's also the one that's by a camel's eye, which fits the m.o. because the tendency to pester livestock eyes is how it got it's name. See for yourself whether I'm right or it's another one. I'm glad they put that site together. -LambaJan (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you take the photo? Astronaut (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern California at a farm. GregManninLB (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I "bulletproof" my mind?

How do I lock it so no one gets in there? An intellectual island with the mental weaponry of a nuclear viper! How do I get to know everything and ALWAYS be right? Is there a CIA type school out there that teaches the mental skills necessary to adapt to this chaotic, dangerous world?--Dr. Carefree (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the first question, some people swear by these. Good luck with that. - Eron^Talk 02:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely question your carefree credentials. Vipers do not carry weapons. Nobody knows everything. Nobody is always right. If you don't want anyone in your mind then be careful about what you say so that you only let on what you intend to let on and maintain a sense of justice in evaluating the things people say to you so that you can fairly judge the merit or lack thereof in their arguments. I'm unaware of any such school but if you value your mind stay away from the US military. They don't value your mind, they value their agenda. They are the borg, not the jedi. -LambaJan (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be like Sherlock Holmes—know what is relevant to your world, and know that well. And know what you don't know much about—everyone has blind spots, and knowing where they are counts for a lot. You'll never "always be right". We're all wrong sometimes. Being right is easy—almost everyone thinks they are right. Knowing and admitting when you are wrong, and making good on it—that's actually the hardest part. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "know everything" are you asking us how you can become omnipotent? Last I checked we weren't the Q Continuum... 24.76.161.28 (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are people...that walk around. And they know. It radiates from thier presence. Once you meet someone like this, you'll never forget it. I aspire to achieve intellectual undark enlightenment.--Dr. Carefree (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are full of crap, and are simply lying with confidence. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You don't know what they know and what they don't know. They exude charisma, confidence. That's not the same ting as knowing things. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Kevlar helmet? Astronaut (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you request is very difficult. On the one hand, your mind might possess God's Truth, and be absolutely correct in its beliefs. On the other, you might be wrong and deluded, and people are only trying to relieve you of brainwashing you have received. If you adopt the philosophy"My mind is made up. Do not attempt to confuse me with facts" then no amount of reasoning and scientific demonstration should be able to change your beliefs. That is not a good outcome in many such cases. Edison (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spend enough time on Wikipedia and you will soon know everything. That's how I did it. Plasticup ^T/C 12:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of Socrates, particularly Plasticup's comment above. Just watch the History Channel for three years and you'll get it. Don't talk unless it's academic; even if you're of average intelligence, it'll work. ;) · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Become a religious fundamentalist. You will think you know everything and are always right. You will be totally immune from influence by logic, competing ideas or compassion. Take lessons from this guy. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Pratchett creates a character called Vorbis, an ambitious, intelligent, utterly self-assured fundamentalist described as having a mind "like a steel ball" (ie nothing gets in, nothing gets out). When Vorbis actually encounters the god in whose name his every action is performed, the god (who happens to be trapped in the form of a small and rather shabby tortoise, for reasons it is not necessary to go into here), reacts with horror:

"Him! ... Kill him! ... Find something sharp! ... Push him overboard! ... Look at his mind!" -- Ka renjc 18:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

first of all you have to have a researchy/skepticy kind of mindset. when somebody tells you something don't take it at face value. additionally, be curious. read everything you can. back of a cereal box at breakfast. evaluate the validity of all this evidence you have accumulated with regard to the conclusions you have reached; there are things you are absolutely sure about, things you don't have any clue about, and things in between to various degrees. don't upgrade your conclusions; if you've seen something somewhere on the internet that says something, don't put it in the same category as something which you have seen proved many times by sources usually taken as reliable and is taken as fact by 99.99% of humanity. now: when you are in a discussion don't bring up one of the maybe things as a "for sure". but when you do bring up a "for sure" thing, you will have no doubt. when bringing up something that you're not sure about or have no clue about, make it quite clear that you're not staking your reputation on it. on the other hand, don't make it a big point when you bring up something you are sure about. eventually people (including you) will realize that when you make just a flat statement about something, it is reliable. also: the best way to prevail in a discussion/argument is to be on the correct side. don't find yourself defending the undefendable or arguing something silly just to save face. if you do find yourself proved to be on the wrong side, admit it ASAP. if necessary, apologize. don't get annoyed at somebody who just taught you something, even if he/she is a sore winner. again, people (including you) will get used to you being reliable. of course, not all arguments have a factual basis at bottom; politics, religion, etc. but usually you get involved in subarguments about who did what at what date or such, and you want to be the person who can state it with authority and, if necessary, when challenged dig up the reliable source you got that from; you don't want to be the guy who's stuck with "i saw on the internet or tv or somewhere that some guy said something like this......" and not only can't back it up, isn't even 100% sure it's correct. Gzuckier (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n-alarm fire

I've often heard, almost exclusively in American contexts, references to 'three-alarm' fires or the like. What exactly are the 'alarms' referred to, and what is the significance of the number that means it needs to be specified? Does it mean the number of different fire stations whose services are summoned? Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 13:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's literally how many times they ring the alarm at a given fire station, and measures the severity of the fire and the type of response needed, with 1 alarm being the least severe and 5 alarms being the most severe (although this might vary by location). There would be a tendency for those on the high end to require additional fire stations to respond, but it's not directly related to the number of alarms. Other factors, like how near the next fire station is to the fire and the capabilities of their own station, will also play into if other stations are called. StuRat (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks! :-) Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 14:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the ringing of the alarm - have you ever heard an alarm ringing at a fire station? It's the same as an alarm at any other building, like during a fire drill at school, just one long continuous ringing. The number refers to the number and type of trucks they send, which probably come from two or more fire stations (although "two alarm" does not necessarily mean only two stations sent trucks). Here is an example from Toronto, which goes up to seven. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It varies by jurisdiction; each fire department will have its own internal definitions. A particular 'alarm' level is linked to the mobilization of a particular quantity of men and materiel to the fire site. There's a good – and readably short – answer here, it also includes historical context for the term. For the New York Fire Department, a two-alarm response includes 25 vehicles and 106 firefighters. In Washington DC (info here) a two-alarm response involves ten fire engines, four ladder trucks, assorted ancillary rescue and support vehicles, and about 110 firefighters.

Other communities (particularly smaller ones) are apt to define a smaller response for a given 'alarm' level, allowing them to more precisely allocate their resources in response to a fire. Obviously, the number of fire stations from which equipment or men are drawn is correlated with, but is not necessarily equal to, the number of 'alarms' at a fire. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more note—we seem to have an article on multiple-alarm fire, but it needs some work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wealth of information, and to TenOfAllTrades for the friendly message alerting me to the further replies. It was mostly a curiosity question, but the history was interesting to know. So, even if it's not necessarily set in stone, I get the idea. Cheers! Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 17:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a bit of a rush, so I just scanned through the responses. A similar question was asked a few months back. You might try a search of the archives for other responses. Dismas|^(talk) 00:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Chicago, I understand they use the term "box" rather than "alarm." The idea is that if a highly combustible highrise building occupied by a huge number of people and which is the headquarters of several major businesses catches fire, sending one fire engine with 4 firefighters would be inadequate, The fire requirs multiple ladder trucks, multiple pumpers, multiple search and rescue teams, multiple paramedic squads, etc. In the country, is an isolated cabin catches fire, one truck and four firefighters can save the foundation and prevent the spread of the fire into a general conflagration. Common sense. In large cities, there may be pre-planned responses dictating how many engines, supervisors, etc. are sent for a fire in specified structures, such as the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower or other towering infernos. In rural areas (and some cities) "mutual response" is a strategy by which fire engines and crews from neighoring towns respond to large fires in any one town. The neighboring engines may help in fighting the fire, or they may just pull into the vacant fire station and be prepared to respond to the next fire. In the 1871 Chicago fire engines from other towns were dispatched to Chicago by express train to assist(not covered in the article). Edison (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that "n" meant the number of stations responding to the fire, so a 2-alarm fire means that the fire captain has called another station to send more crews, and 3-alarm means that everyone is getting involved. By my logic, one-alarm is handled by the first station, two-alarm is when a call goes out for more help; three-alarm is when the call goes out that we've got a big problem here. I'll defer to the actual example links given though. Franamax (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but i will bet a silk pajama there isn't any 3-l llama Gzuckier (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the UK fire services classify fire severity by the number of "pumps" (fire engines) that are needed to deal with the incident. See London_Fire_Brigade#Determining_the_size_of_an_incident. Exxolon (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The n-alarm system comes from the old tradition of using pull stations to alert the local departments to a fire in their area. The box would send a message to all local stations by telegraph that there was a fire, indicating the location as a number: (station area) - (box number), e.g. 11-2. Fires are still dispatched as "box alarms," following this tradition, with maps broken up into a grid of "box areas."

The initial dispatch is referred to as the first alarm. Subsequent alarms are calls for additional units as needed, usually because the fire has grown or the incident is taking long enough that firefighters on scene need to be replaced. The number of alarms doesn't necessarily indicate the size or the severity of the blaze so much as the size of the incident and how long and hard the firefighters had to work to control it. Normally the first alarm dispatches the largest number of units, and each subsequent alarm deals out another handful. The units dispatched depends on available resources, and so changes from department to department. For more of the history, see TenOfAllTrades' link.

In response to franamax, even a single alarm normally pulls in units from multiple fire stations. In my county, the first alarm is 4 engines, 2 trucks, an ambulance and a rescue squad. on average, only 3 or 4 units are available from a single station in my area. Requests for mutual aid from outside jurisdictions (counties) doesn't usually happen until the 3rd or 4th alarms, but that really depends on the location of the incident and the resources of the county. --Shaggorama (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No IQ commercials

What is it with these commercials, and what is the most idiotic commercial around?! They're getting worse.65.173.105.27 (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What commercials are you talking about, on what network in what country, and do you have a factual question about them? The reference desk is not a place for debates; that's what most of the rest of the internet is for. Algebraist 22:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You name the network, etc. they're there. Burger King has some really idiotic ones, so does some insurance companies. I'm not trying to start a debate.65.173.105.27 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would nominate most U.S political commercials, and most commercials for medical "remedies" which do not even make claims of effectiveness, but just say where to apply the remedy, along with testimonials from persons who claim to have used the remedy with amazing effects. Edison (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I name the BBC's TV, which has no commercials at all. Will you at least admit what country you're in? Algebraist 09:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHOIS says the IP's from the US. But I don't see an answerable question here unless someone's done some sort of test to determine the most "idiotic commercial". Here's a google search for "dumbest commercial" - hope that helps. Perhaps if you gave us an example of a commercial you find silly, we might be able to help. Note that the purpose of adverts is to sell products, not to be clever. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it idiotic when commercials try to connect two unconnected statements as though they are an article. "We all want to protect our children, that's why I buy XXX soap powder".

those snickers "feasting" commercials are kind of silly, but I love them. and in fact they have raised my frequency of snickers purchases, if anyone from the company is reading this. Gzuckier (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HeadOn#Commercial is brilliantly idiotic, which is the whole point. Rockpocket 17:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

My maroon clownfish was eating a bunch of air bubbles and now she is floating to the top and struggling to stay down! What should I do?--76.176.124.169 (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you burp a fish ? I'd guess that the air will pass out of one end of the fish or the other. If she's eating bubbles that come from the airator, you may need to isolate her from it somehow, say with a divider with holes too small for her to pass through. StuRat (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that “eating” bubbles isn’t the cause of this problem. Sometimes fish get gas, especially if their diet is not optimal. Try to feed the fish some brine shrimp, this often acts as a laxative for fish. Then optimize your fishes diet. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]