Miscellaneous desk
< July 8	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 10 >

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 9

Any speaker-builders out there?

Hi, all. My kid is attempting to build a couple of speaker cabinets for bass guitar work; I'm involved due to the need to use power tools from time to time :-)}. He's done much research, we have purchased a couple of books, and read a couple of others; while there's a great deal of science in parts of the process, there's a glaring lack of it in one area. Perhaps we have experts on insulation here?

We are struggling with how much or how little insulation to add to the box, and of what type.

One author said he had lined his cabinet with leftover asphalt shingles, which in my opinion is as good as no insulation at all -- they're dense and rigid, and expecting that surface to soften or eliminate interior echoing is flat-out counterintuitive.
Some authors say a couple of inches of fiberglass (or its non-fiberglass equivalent) is sufficient. This implies to me that the goal is to reduce but not eliminate interior sound.
One book shows a picture of low-density egg-crate style foam. This stuff absorbs a lot of sound energy (I think) -- and implies (to me, at least) that the goal is the opposite of what I concluded in the previous bullet!

So, is there ANY science here? What are we REALLY trying to accomplish with insulating the box? How much? How little? Or does it not really matter that much? Many thanks, --Danh (and his kid), 67.40.169.42 (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the intent is to dampen standing waves found at resonant frequencies, for which purpose both of the last two techniques - fibreglass, or foam - seem appropriate. And I think it's reasonable to say that there will be better or worse egg-crate profile foams; I'd think some would be inferior to fibreglass. How much or how little is, I think, mainly a tuning issue which is best accomplished by experimentation. You can work out the resonant frequencies of your box since wavelength equals the velocity of sound divided by the frequency, and standing wave lengths will be the whole or fractions of the distance between parallel surfaces ... but I don't think that knowledge will help in determining how much insulator to stuff into the thing. My limited experience: the bigger the cabinet, the more is stuffed into it. See also Loudspeaker enclosure#Closed-box enclosures--Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: you dont need two cabs; one will be quite sufficient because 2 cabs will only give you 3 dB increase (which is almost inaudible).

Second, the wadding inside is to reduce the cabinet resonances (not the panel resonance). BAF wadding is commonly recommended. It also increases the apparent volume of the cab (which is a good thing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.144.199 (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Bass instrument amplification for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.144.199 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that reference, I hadn't run across it yet. Could you elaborate slightly on those two red terms, the types of resonances? (I'd read the articles, but they don't exist yet!)

That said, though, I don't see anything in the referenced article (or your response) that answers the two primary questions: how much wadding is actually needed, and is there any science behind it -- anything as formalized as the myriad Thiele/Small variables? --Danh, 67.40.169.42 (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet resonances are the "standing waves" inside the cabinet - and so depend on the dimensions of the cabinet - and lead people to build weird pentagonal shaped speakers etc...

Panel resonances are the vibrations of the stuff the walls are made out of eg wobble board - use stiff enough material and these shouldn't be a problem.87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additing asphalt or gluing heavy rubber sheets to the walls can damp panel resonances. I'd still use something else in addition to stop box resonances.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense; thanks. Does anyone have an opinion on chipped-foam carpet underlayment? It's only half an inch thick, and maybe too dense for sound absorbtion -- but I can get a lot of it for free! --Danh, 67.40.169.36 (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find a lot of it is just determined by experimentation. And it's pretty easy to add or remove stuffing or even foam on the interior walls and run another round of experiments. The hard part is determining subtle differences and whether they sound "better" or "worse". By the way, if we're talking about wall resonance, Dynamat ([1]) is a good material to consider. Many other techniques have been tried through the ages as well; Wharfedale once built speakers that had an outer box and an inner box with sand packed between the two. That was one pretty acoustically-dead enclosure!

Atlant (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead panels? Probably. No cabinet resonances? Who knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.184.112 (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course; that's what I meant.

Atlant (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hornets&wasps when do they?

Hi I was wondering when do Hornets&Wasps go to sleep,how long do they sleep for and when do they come out? I'm up at 5:00am and I've seen them flying around and in my pool(alive) I didn;t think that they were "up" at that hour. So what I can;t find on Google,Yahoo and in your artticles is ther sleeping habits. Does temp. affect there sleeping or what? THANK YOU FOR UR TIME AND FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ANSWER ALL OF MY ABOVE Q'S Sincerly:§IrishPhantom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.116.26 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can give you, quickly, is from Signatures Of Sleep In A Paper Wasp by B.A. Klein, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, who states: "Polistes flavus paper wasps spent extended periods from dusk until several hours after sunrise in a relatively motionless state, with bodies usually contacting the substrate, antennae lowered, and with occasional limb-dangling in the direction of gravity." You did not say when sunrise is, wherever it is you live. I suspect other wasps, or even other colonies of paper wasps, might have slightly different sleep patterns. Oh - and this looks good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/10 of a cent on gas prices

When are they going to stop with that ridiculous 9/10 of a cent on a gallon of gas? The difference between 3.979 and 3.98 is 1 cent per $40. About 1-1/2 cents on a 15-gallon fillup. They started that when gas was less than 20 cents per gallon. This is too small to worry about. Why not make the price a whole cent? Bubba73 (talk), 03:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, you don't want to get them started. First it'll be one cent, then two, then ten, then... best leave things how they are! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't know what the OP is referring to (i.e. everyone who hasn't visited the U.S.), we have a system that adds $0.009 to the price of a gallon of gas. I think it's just the U.S. that does this, my apologies if I'm pointing out the obvious and other countries do this as well. Dismas|^(talk) 03:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clear that this is about the pricing of gasoline in the U.S. Bubba73 (talk), 03:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it possibly be part of a complex plot to make the United States of America look like an idiocracy? "Ooh! Instead of buying my gas here where it's $4.20, I'll drive over there where they are selling it for a mere $4.199 per gallon!" Edison (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every price I've seen for many years has the 9/10 of a cent. I don't think it makes sense to have it anymore. Bubba73 (talk), 05:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It happens elsewhere too. UK prices are along the lines of 121.9 pence per litre (e.g. See the min and max prices here), and this site shows similar in Germany. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When are the Americans going to join the rest of the world and give up fractions ?86.200.6.219 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

Well, as far as history goes, when it first started, when 1 cent was a HUGE difference, people didnt want to raise it a whole cent, but wanted to still raise the prices. So it worked its way up to 9/10 of a cent. Now, its just tradition, albeit a stupid one that should end, but still it goes on. --omnipotence407 (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But now 1-1/2 cents on a tank of gas is practically nothing. 1.5 cents of gas will carry you approximately 400 feet. Bubba73 (talk), 15:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I just calculated that with my 12mpg in town and gas at $3.90, it costs me 32.5 cents to go a mile or 244 feet on 1.5 cents of gas. That's depressing. At least it's a lot better on the freeway. Useight (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should link to Psychological pricing. I guess I just did. Rmhermen (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That mentions the problem. But as far as I know, nothing else in the US sold to consumers has a fraction of a cent on it. If you buy a pound of beef, for instance, it never has a 9/10 of a cent on it. I can't think of anything that does, except gasoline. It seems like an anachronism. Bubba73 (talk), 02:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's like that in Canada too. This morning I was excited to find that gas was "only" $1.315 per litre. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half a cent per liter is far more significant than a tenth of a cent per gallon. The half cent per liter works out to around 2 cents a gallon, or some 20 times more. In a 30 gallon gas tank that would be $0.60, which is well worth crossing the street to the cheaper station. StuRat (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Douglas Adams and John Lloyd's The Meaning of Liff, wherein one finds the following definition:

"Kibblesworth (n). The footling amount of money by which the price of a given article in a shop is less than a sensible number, in a vain hope that at least one idiot will think it cheap. For instance, the kibblesworth on a pair of shoespriced at £19.99 is 1p."

Cheers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple solution would be a law stating "all gasoline prices must be given to the exact cent as of the following date: xx-xx-xx; and any stations which fail to comply will be charged a fine of $1000 per day". This would bypass the problem of no gas station wanting to try to sell gasoline for $4.00 a gallon when the station across the street is selling it for $3.999. I'd think any legislature that ended this idiotic practice would be almost universally applauded, although comics might miss this opportunity for humor, like when the Simpson's went to Bob's Discount Gas (because their prices always end in 8/10 of a cent instead of the usual 9/10). StuRat (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the men's hair color product called "touch of gray" actually work?

Touch of Gray made by the same company that makes Just for Men hair color dyes some of the hair but leaves other parts gray. It does not work with ammonia or peroxide. How does it know where to leave the gray? how can it color only part of the hair even though it is applied all over? Just how does it work? Thank you very much.

Jonny (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Walls

EGGS

Why when i boil an egg (chicken) and leave it in the hot water does the yellow inside go black, unlike when if I put it in cold water it stays yellow? What reacting takes place to cause this? 86.159.56.251 (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The colour is caused by iron sulphide formation. See http://www.biochemj.org/bj/014/0114/0140114.pdf for details. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish History

A friend was trying to tell me about a war or series of wars that occured in Poland a few hundred years ago, he said that the common folk, farmers and peasent and such like took up arms and fought with pitchforks and syths from thier fields and fought armies who were rather scared of them. After this or these events Poland was disbanded or ceesed to exist for a hundred years or so. Does this ring a bell with any of out resident historians? If so please provide me with a link or two so I can go back and have an intelectual debate with my learned friend. Thank guys and keep on learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several hundred years ago, those weapons would have been common in many countries' conscript armies, not unique to Poland. You will probably want to look at History of Poland (1569-1795) and partitions of Poland. The history is quite complex. Rmhermen (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be the January Uprising? or Kościuszko Uprising see List of Polish wars

It was the Partitions of Poland that erased poland from the map.87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kościuszko Uprising Thats it!!! Thanks people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sports

Why are most baseball and basketball players African Americans? 208.76.245.162 (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't - at least not in baseball where they make up only 8%.[2] Rmhermen (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They did make up 67% of NHL football players as of 1997[3]. Perhaps that is what the questioner meant. They do make up 80% of basketball players.[4] This source probably also has information on the why's. Rmhermen (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were (at least) 3 football players in the National Hockey League in 1997?! -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For basketball, at least, it's for the same reason that East Africans dominate some running sports and Eastern Europeans often dominate chess: they're extremely popular in that culture, and many kids in that culture want to excel at them and are encouraged to do so. Any other explanation is a just-so story, in my opinion. --Sean 13:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People from West Africa tend to be faster than people from other countries. At the level of the average person, the difference is too slight to be important, but at the extreme ends of the bell curve, the difference is exaggerated. Thus, the fastest 0.01% of people in the world are disproportionately likely to be of West African descent, just as the best marathon runners tend to be from East Africa. Most African-Americans are of West African descent. In the case of basketball, the sport's great popularity in urban areas probably explains more than any biological factor. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of adding a slightly controversial note, it's worth mentioning that there are slight (when averaged overall) skeletal differences in body shape between different ethnic groups. The waist tends to be proportionately higher in many African races and proportionately lower in Polynesian races, for instance (the difference is minute, but enough to help pathologists and the like in their work). High waist = longer legs = faster; Low waist = lower centre of gravity = greater pushing strength. Therefore, Polynesians are more likely to take to sports like Rugby or American football, and African-Ameriucans are more likely to take up sprinting and basketball (there are exceptions, of course, and these are general average trends only). Grutness...wha? 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of offending those who believe that every population on the planet is exactly equal in every aspect, hasn't there been scientific documentation of differences in the muscle types of different populations with respect to the ability to jump or to win a 100 meter race, i.e. "fast twitch muscle"? See [5] Science, 30 July 2004, Vol 305, pages 637-639. Edison (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Entine's Taboo : Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It discusses many of these ideas.--droptone (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mwalcoff has it really. There are slight differences, but they are more specific than 'black' and 'white', and they only really have a significant effect at the extremes. If you're looking at olympic athletes and records, these things will come out. If you're looking at general basketball, cultural factors are going to be more significant. 79.66.67.219 (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What type of duck is this?

Okay, a question from my mum, who is currently abroad. She's taken img187.imageshack.us/img187/6606/031hq3.jpg a photo of a duck. She says she took the photo in a campsite near Bordeaux, in France. Any ideas what type of duck it might be? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A white crested duck? Like the picture at the bottom of Domestic duck. Fribbler (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. It appears we have an article on Crested Duck (domestic breed), which appears to be it. The external link in the article seems to have photos that match up to the one she took. Thanks for the help. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last European Question, I swear!

What would one need to do to enable an emmigration from UK, with no qualifications other than finishing high school, to Eastern Europe, eg Poland, Ukraine, Russia. How would one find work? would this be possible? Any relavent info would be greatly appreciated thanks a bunch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your question, but note that migrating to Poland is a very different proposition from the other two, as Poland is in the European Union. Algebraist 15:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) yes, effectively you can go and live/work in poland if you are an EU citizen, will very little extra paperwork..87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's "no qualfications other than finishing high school" in a UK context? Do you have no GCSEs at all? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so lets concentrate on Poland, yes, I have A level equivalent. Please help me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, if you're a British citizen, it's not that difficult, really, provided the Eastern European country you want to live and work in is a member of the European Union, as the United Kingdom is. Citizens of EU member states can move about freely and work in other EU countries without visas, work permits or whatnot, thanks to the Four Freedoms. As Poland is an EU member, that would work just fine. Russia and Ukraine are likely to be a little more difficult, though by no means impossible. This means essentially that you can just about jump on a plane to Poland right now and get a job there, if you can find one. Of course, it's not really that simple -- if you don't know the local customs and don't speak the language, that's going to be challenging, for example. There may be other hurdles, and certainly there's a degree of bureaucracy involved. But these aren't so much obstacles as they are things you have to take care of; if you bother to learn enough of the language to get by and put in the paperwork (which I understand to be fairly simple), you can do it. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want passport/proof of identity - that's really all you need, plus a train/boat/plain ticket. Enjoy your stay in Poland!87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, but i dont speak the language, and thus what sort of job could I get, and what are the chances of acctually getting one? and what would the pay be like? could I acctually live in a decent way? how much of a barrier would the language be? what sort of paperwork would be required? I have been there several times and appsolutley love it! Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to our article on Demographics of Poland, 97.8% of the population speaks Polish. That might mean that there are fewer support structures for people not speaking the language. Since you've already been there several times you've probably got a good idea what it's like to get around in that area. Do you have a hard time ordering food, following directions, asking questions, etc? If so, you're going to have a really tough time trying to be a productive member of that society. If you were a skilled worker or had some other demonstrable assets, companies would probably be more willing to overlook language issues (or foot the bill for some classes), but a guy that offers little will get offered little. That's no different anywhere you go. Matt Deres (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your qualifications are vocational that might help you to get a job. In some EU countries you would need translations of your certificates by a registered translator in order to be allowed to practice a trade. If you have City & Guilds or BTEC then they should be able to supply an explanation of what your certificates cover. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article on the only Englishman who works for the Polish Fire service, and how he came to get that job. -- Arwel (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is (was?) an RD regular user:Ouro from Poland. He has been inactive for about 2 months. Try his page for local advice. Good luck. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodworking - how to make a long thin wedge

In need to make some long, thin wedges of wood. Much like a standard wooden shim, but at least 2x longer. I have most of the common power and hand tools. I think that somehow this could be done with a table saw, but I'm not sure how. ike9898 (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would instantly have though of using a plane for that (or a power-plane if you have one). Get your wood, mark it, plane it. Maybe I'm missing something though (haven't been woodworking for about ten years). Fribbler (talk)

You can just run the stock through the table saw at a small angle. If you have an adjustable angle pushblock it's simple. Rmhermen (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? I don't understand what holds the board at an angle. ike9898 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pushblock. Or you can clamp a wedge to the fence - it wouldn't need to be as long as the one you were trying to make. Rmhermen (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. We do not have a picture of a table saw. If we did, we'd be able to show the pushblock - a raised section of metal or plastic used as a guide for the wood - set at an angle such that the wood can be presented to the blade at an angle suited to making long thin wedges. But we cannot. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand now at least enough to look for more specific instructions in my owner's manual. Thanks! I'd take a picture of my saw for the article but my basement is dark and cluttered and it's too hard to pull the saw out. ike9898 (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child porn

The Child porn article says that it is illegal to take or possess a naked image of a child, and that a child is a person who has not reached the age of 18. But what if my 17 year old girlfriend sent me a picture of her naked? At 16 in the UK we can have sex legally, so why would a pic of her be illegal? I am also 17. 86.159.56.251 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably written from American POV. Generally there's some level of common sense applied, for instance it is unlikely someone would be charged if they had photos of their children naked. Similarly, there's a level of common sense applied to sex with minors - edit: in the UK, a 16 year old is not likely to be charged with statutory rape for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the last statement is true in some jurisdictions and not others. Age of consent can vary greatly. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in some jurisdictions, the girlfriend is violating laws to take pictures of herself naked. Also, I always wondered why there's American movies where 17 year olds are naked on camera (American Beauty (film) comes to mind). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Mena Suvari may have been portraying a 17-year-old, I believe she was older than that when the filming was taking place. Joyous! | Talk 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was Thora Birch who appeared naked (or topless, at least) - and yes she was 17 at the time. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the US, the words "common sense" and "child pornography" don't go together. --Carnildo (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity is not the same as pornography. Naked pictures are not necessarily pornographic. Plasticup ^T/C 01:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some truly insane cases where teenagers have photographed themselves and been prosecuted for having pictures of their own bodies. Exxolon (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current controversy in Australia over the work of photographer Bill Henson may be informative on this, by the way. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Did the robots want her brain because the ship was named after her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glsoone (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yes. The Girl in the Fireplace was an excellent episode. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you decide Dr. Who was the subject here? Rmhermen (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't think what else it might be referring to. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'd bet money that Mattbuck is right. It wasn't at all obvious to me until he said it though. There should be some sort of award for answering the most non-specific question of the week. APL (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to think I was originally just going to delete it as trolling. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iran/Isreal

With the current sabre-rattling by both Iran and Israel, it seems ever more likely that with a couple of years we're going to come to a crunch point. Now i'm going assume that Israel will launch a first airstrike as that tends to be their normal strategy, but after this airstike how will events likely play out with regards to Iran's inevitable counterattack and any possible escalation to involve other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.19.150 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is not a discussion forum. We're no more in a position to speculate on this than your average pub bore. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are. We can point out some facts, like that Israel has nuclear weapons and presumably any strike would occur before Iran had them, thus giving Israel a critical advantage. This wouldn't mean no counter-strike from Iran, but rather would only limit such a counter-strike to something not likely to threaten Israel's existence and thus put the use of their nuclear weapons on the table. StuRat (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Shahab-3 may also be relavent in this case. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia accuracy philosophies

N.B. I am not attempting to be insulting or controversial. I am simply asking for clarification. If anything here offends you, please know I mean no harm, and I am just using examples extracted from the relevant articles and drawing logical conclusions. If I have offended you, feel free to let me know. However, whether you were offended or not, do NOT post biased drivel as a response to my inquiry!

I've read the appropriate articles on MediaWiki, I've read their respective talk pages, and I've browsed through users in their related categories, and still I wonder…what is the fundamental difference between eventualism and immediatism????

I recognize that there are differences in what they stand for, such as the allowance of non-registered edits and of stubs, but these seem to only be examples added to further contrast the two philosophies without ever defining them...

My original post was almost essay-sized, but I've decided against placing that here for now. Instead, I'll ask a smaller question, one that could prove to be controversial and offensive if taken at face-value.

Do these philosophies imply that the immediatist takes an active role in editing, while the eventualist just sits back and waits for someone else to do the appropriate edits? A great portion of the articles lead to this conclusion. Yet, it also seems that immediatists would rather delete stubs than improve them, which argues against the "active role in editing" I suggested.

P.S. (well, is it really a P.S. if I haven't signed yet?) If this is not the appropriate venue for this question, please redirect me. If you want to know why I chose to post here, just ask me; there was a loooong deliberation process involved! -- Skittleys (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is deleting stubs not an active role in editing? Unless immediatists delete all articles labeled as stubs instead of just the ones with little or no content, they're still sorting through and deciding what's keepable and what's not, and that's an active role in editing, imo. But yes, the immediatists seem to be the ones who take an active role in editing because they want everything to look the best as soon as possible, and it seems like the eventualists ignore it because it'll eventually get fixed (or go to hell). Since it's raining here, first analogy I can think of is that the immediatists will wash their car after it rains because it looks bad, while the eventualists waits till either someone else washes it, or it rains again and makes it look cleaner, or it rains again and makes the point of washing it moot. Why is this that controversial? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, deleting stubs is a very active role. I should have said it's not an "active role in article improvement" or something—it does play a active role the improvement of Wikipedia in general, but not for that specific article. Skittleys (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An eventualist says, "don't worry if that article doesn't have much in it yet, it'll get there someday." The immediatist says, "until it's in a certain form of good shape, it shouldn't be here." The immediatist is more concerned with the appearance of Wikipedia right now, whereas the eventualist is more concerned with it over the long term. An eventualist is not going to worry too much about any given current state of Wikipedia, the immediatist does. Obviously there's something of a spectrum between the two positions in practice, and both approaches have things going for them. Perhaps one way of summing it up could be that the eventualist has faith that people will still want to use Wikipedia in the future even if it is not very good in the present; the immediatist is worried that how Wikipedia is judged today will affect whether it will be vibrant and active tomorrow. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that eventualists are more "relaxed" about how Wikipedia appears at the moment, but does this mean they don't edit? If so, is the general consensus that eventualists are, in layman's terms, lazy and/or don't care? Does that make pretty much every editor an immediatist of some degree? Does the immediatist expect the entire article to be "featured article"-quality before it ever hits a Wikipedia page, and therefore dislike collaboratism? Skittleys (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't read it yet, you may find Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies#Eventualism vs. immediatism useful. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to do with everyday editing. It has to do with egregious examples of crap or lack of content—whether it should be kept and built upon, or just gotten rid of until someone decides to do it right. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunflowers

I have a few sunflower plants growing in the backyard. It is common knowledge that sunflower seeds are edible and very popular all over the world, but I want to know if the rest of the plant can be eaten as well. Our article doesn't really address this question and neither do the other sites I have visited. I know it sounds a bit silly, but it started out as a joke when I told someone I was going to eat the plants...and now I am wondering if I really can? thanks and cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing a thing about sunflowers, may I offer up the little heuristic that if something is not commonly eaten, even though it is readily available and there are no, say, moral reasons against eating it, then it is probably either inedible or simply not that tasty. There are no doubt exceptions to this approach, but it's probably basically accurate. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunflowers are milled to make animal feeds for cattle and poultry. Don't know 'bout you, but that doesn't whet my appetite. Fribbler (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is corn. You don't like corn either? Cuz I have a plate of hot cornbread slathered in butter that says you love it ;) 161.222.160.8 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. :-) What I meant was that the only sign of consumption of whole sunflowers I could find was as animal feed. Fribbler (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the corn grown for cattle is not the same thing that we eat. Feed corn (aka dent corn) is mostly tasteless and starchy. Matt Deres (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem artichokes are a species of sunflower grown for their edible tubers. Corvus cornix_talk 23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard people using sunflower petals in salads, and in fact I found at least one recipe that mentions it. I also seem to recall someone talking about using young sunflower leaves in salad, but I can't find any recipes that mention doing so, so I may be wrong. Oh, and from what I understand, sunflower tea has also been used to treat diarrhea, but most of the links I found with reference to that are with alternative medicine enthusiasts, so perhaps you want to take that with a grain of salt. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way to strawman. -LambaJan (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed myself badly, I apologize. Let me clarify: I didn't meant to doubt that it's used as a tea (I'm sure it is; I've heard it mentioned a bunch of times), or that it works as a diarrhea treatment. What I meant is that the links I could find for it during my admittedly short Google search are from message boards and comparable sites where people who appear to be very enthusiastic laymen share their experiences or beliefs. In general, I don't consider sources like this particularly trustworthy unless I happen to have enough knowledge about the topic at hand to evaluate them. (The key word here was not so much "alternative medicine" as "enthusiasts"; it's a little like wondering whether Star Trek is any good and checking a Star Trek fansite to find out. I tend to take that kind of information with certain reservations.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. The scientists in this field are particularly victimized by quacks, and guilt-by-association and strawman attacks. I agree with your position about enthusiasts. -LambaJan (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the responses. I'll probably just stick to eating the seeds unless I have too many drafts in the backyard one evening and decide to make myself a sunny salad. :-) cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Alien War

I have Googled the matter about the Andromedan aliens comming to Earth to throw out other aliens. Here is what I've found:

There is more of these that describe the Amdromedan aliens, the alleged enemy aliens, such as the reptile aliens, aka, "the lizards" "Dracs", the Greys as well. Can someone with more experience create a article on this matter? I have "Googled" the Andromedan aliens, the other aliens, and this and related matters is what I've found. For some reason, IPs cannot create articles at all.

Summarily, this indicates that a alleged alien race, who is extremely powerful militarily has told the (alleged) other aliens to leave Earth and the Sol star system voluntarily or involuntarily, they are leaving. However, the lizards and their allies are'nt leaving at all, since they have claimed Earth as their own, so this means that there will be war. It means that "Earth humanity" will be caught in a war and there is nowhere to run to. UFO Casebook.com , Re.: SEARCH: Alien Races/ Alien Species has claimed that the lizards have a warship disguised as a asteroid that is already here (See Cruithne Talk, Re.: UFO rumors), or is on the way here. Rumor also has it that 2012 is when these aliens arrive here.65.173.105.27 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are going to pass the Wikipedia regulations on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You are wasting your time if you think that you are going to get Wikipedia articles written on the so-called "Alien war". It's not the sort of thing that's appropriate for Wikipedia, whether you think it is true or not. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to return to base I think [17] Richard Avery (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPs cannot create articles but aliens can. We have a long entry on such an alien creating the universe, but He has been blocked indefinitely for vandalising the article on atheism. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was also blocked for page blanking, edit warring, Biting Newcomers and harassing other editors... Fribbler (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good old psychoceramica. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the Robertson Panel guidelines are still enforced. Kidding aside, I have 1,000s of these that I have found while Googling. Do these pass WP muster?65.173.105.27 (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not as sources on something factual, they won't. An article on the phenomenon of people believing this kind of stuff might be a different story -- but then, we already have articles on topics like ufology, UFO conspiracy theory, reptilian humanoids and all sorts of crazy ooga booga crap. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right, it doesn't matter if its really true or not. Wikipedia is not about being "correct". It's about being "reliable." None of the sources about this sort of thing, at least judging from your many listed ones above, comes anywhere close to being "reliable sources" by Wikipedia standards. There are other places on the internet for this sort of thing—Wikipedia is just not one of them. If it ends up on CNN tomorrow, though, you can happily be the first one to add it to an article. Until then... best not. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds familiar. And also this. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

trawler nets

could anyone tell me what the diablo shaped net at the front of fishing boats are called and for what purpose. thanksBimbopat (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything on diablo that relates to a shape. What kind of fishing boat? Are they not fishing nets? Any chance you can show us an image? Rmhermen (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean shaped like a diabolo? What size are the boats and nets? Could they be lobster pots? Gwinva (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And which country. I'm thinking we might be talking about some sort of netting buffer on either side of the pointy end of the bow, but I can't find a photo of said thing on flickr yet. A pointer to a photo would be invaluable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this? --Anon 12:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.88.141 (talk)

no picture to download but type in trawlers in bridlinton in google then click on boatman.fotopic.net there is a picture of a trawler called NOVANTAE showing the diablo net if that helps.thanksBimbopat (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the Novantae picture. I don't know what the black hourglass/diabolo shaped object is, but someone else might. Gwinva (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed the owner of the NOVANTAE ([18] ... who knew?) and live in hope that he checks his email. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks too small to be a net but I am not sure what it is - or even if if it intended to go in the water at all. It may be some sort of guard for the cables on that part of this boat. Rmhermen (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the U.S. Naval Institute (bold emphasis mine): "Engaged in Fishing. This isn't your neighbor in his Grady-White with a Penn reel in hand. This is a working vessel, trawling lines or nets. The light sequence depends on whether they are fishing or trawling. The shape is constant – two inverted cones, tip to tip. If she is fishing, the light sequence is red-over-white (red over white; we be fishin' tonight). If she is trawling, the light sequence is green-over-white (green over white; we be shrimpin' tonight)." --Anon 19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.151.103 (talk)

Yup, it'll be a day-shape to show that the boat has nets in the water and you should keep clear. In theory, it should only be displayed while actually fishing, but I've never seen a fishing boat bother with running it up and down, rendering the whole thing rather pointless. It used to be (maybe is still?) a legitimate alternative to display "a basket" in the rigging, which explains the occasional plastic crate suspended aloft. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skipper Paul of the NOVANTAE got back to me and confirmed the same "it is a sign to say we are a fishing vessel and we are fishing". --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for all your help in solving this question92.17.68.31 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burned stained steel pot

Does Bar Keeper's Friend really work? Are there similar products out there? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagine Reason (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a polish isn't it? Brasso/Silvo spring to mind, but I'm sure your local DIY store would have advice. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Brasso/silvo are for brass/copper/silver I wouldn't recommend for steel - could get expensive)

The answer is yes (probably) - but what did you do? you've got a (stainless steel?) pot and food burnt in in? now you want to clean it?

Here's the steps I'd do

1 Clean as normal - get as much as you can off.

2 Try soaking in water (adding biological washing powder or just detergent) see if that helps any more.

3 Pot still dirty/burnt looking - try some steel cleaner eg what you mentioned, you could also try pure elbow grease and wire wool..87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it concerns a burned pot, and no, it's way too badly burned for elbow grease. I'lll have to try some commercial products--seems a waste to throw out the pots for one bad burn. Imagine Reason (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Keeper's Friend works well for me on stainless steel cookware, particularly for flat, brownish or black "staining". BKF is also good for enameled cast iron. Another good product is Dawn Power Dissolver, which you spray onto stuck-on bits (without water) and leave for a while. I mostly use that for burned bits that have a perceptible thickness. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's black carbon burnt on stuff? if so you could also try many other oven cleaners.. (make sure it says ok for stainless steel.. not all do

Maybe have someone sandblast it, or use fine crocus cloth/emery cloth/sandpaper on it. After soaking, scrubbing, and scouring with steel wool and cleanser, why not just live with the discoloration? What difference does it make? Edison (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been my impression that burned area on a stainless steel pot catalyzes further burning or other bad reactions when cooking. Having said that, almost any stainless steel pot can be restored to reasonable operating condition using abrasives, starting with mild ones like BKF/Bon Ami and moving up the scale as necessary to crocus cloth, emery cloth, sand paper, sand blasters, Dremel Mototools ;-), and the like, and then back down the scale to restore a reasonable polish to the surface. Or you could just loan it to a friend who lives in the desert and they could hang it up outside their tent for a few years worth of sandstorms...

Atlant (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you buy any expensive proprietary products, try Baking soda. Sprinkle liberally over the burnt areas, and cover with a little water (or mix to a paste with some water first). Leave for a while (eg overnight). You can also try boiling with baking soda. Then get to work witha pot scrubber. (I've also heard that vinegar can help after the baking soda.) Gwinva (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]