Miscellaneous desk
< April 14	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 16 >

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

April 15

Do I have cancer?

(question and answers removed)

RefDesk doesn't give medical advice, anyway. Doctors do that, rather than someone you have never met and can 'give advice' whilst hiding behind total anonymity, like in the first answer to your question. The only medical advice we can give is to recommend you see a doctor, if it is something that really concerns you. Good luck. --KageTora (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

Discussion here. --Scray (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest martial art

Which is the world's greatest and most powerful martial art?Can a kickboxer really defeat a Kung Fu master? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.174.130 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering archery is also a martial art, I would say that being able to stick an arrow between your opponent's eyes before he got within 100 metres of you would make it a pretty powerful martial art. --KageTora (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously he's asking about unarmed combat, and I think it's a fair question. Who would win in a fight, an expert in karate or an expert in kung fu, for example? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did understand, that, Richard, but his facetious comment in the previous post led me to be pedantic.--KageTora (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the skills of the practitioners. The actual "art" is just a tool. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from watching MMA matches, who wins a given fight is a matter of combining any number of components - depth of training in a particular style, breadth of training over a number of disciplines, innate balance, cardio training, strength, resilience, flexibility, mental attitude, preparation for or studying of your opponent, and of course, good old luck. Back in the old days before everyone cross-trained in multiple disciplines, the winners of those matches were almost always Brazilian ju-jitsu guys (i.e. Royce Gracie). If I had to pick a particular martial art to face off against any other art, and cross-training wasn't involved, that is the one I would pick based solely on the historical record. Oddly enough, the disciplines Westerners often think of when it comes to "martial arts" (karate, kung fu, ninjas, etc) did very poorly in those competitions; the biggest Gracie fighter of all, Kazushi Sakuraba, although Japanese didn't use those techniques at all - he also was a wrestler. Matt Deres (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A saw a TV program (no, I don't remember it, sorry) that firmly stated there was no best martial art. I think Ninjitsu got pretty highly rated, though. Not sure why. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was National Geographic; they have done two such specials, though I haven't seen the second one. They did indeed rate the ninja as the highest, mainly due to the techniques they learn to maintain balance, but also for the literally heart-stopping punch they can perform on a downed opponent. It was an interesting episode, and it was nice to actually get some data on the strength of various punches and kicks, etc., but all that stuff was literally taken out of context; like saying so-and-so must be the best soldier because he was the best skeet-shooter or something. Matt Deres (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from watching MMA matches, it depends on the rules. If you're not allowed to kill or cripple your opponent, the most effective blows of most styles have been eliminated. --Carnildo (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to people actually fighting for real, a lot of the time the winner is the person who hesitates less and is more willing to do serious damage to their opponent. Most of the time, I don't think the actual martial art in question is the deciding factor between two skilled fighters. Which is not to say that it doesn't matter at all -- obviously, if someone is trained as a classical boxer and he goes up against someone with a far more versatile skill set, the other guy is probably going to have the advantage. But in most cases, I think discussions about the "best" martial art aren't really about an objective appraisal, they're generally about ego and bravado. I don't think the belief that one martial art is objectively better and more powerful than any other has a lot of basis in reality -- the combatant's physical condition, training regime, experience, drive and willingness to be a complete bastard probably count for a lot more than the choice between, say, kickboxing and kung fu. Being lucky probably doesn't hurt, either. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would disagree with any of that. I do think there are a couple of ways to answer the question properly, though. If you're talking about a literal streetfight, the question of martial arts is largely moot, simply because the guy with the semiautomatic is the one who's going to win most of the time. As soon as you decide there are going to be limitations (i.e. no weapons or no killing or whatever), then there are going to be martial arts that reach those limitations to varying degrees. Matt Deres (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a practioner of various martial arts for 30 years, my opinion matches one of the responders above: it is more about the individual fighter than the actual art form. I have met many street fighters who have had no formal martial arts training that were simply as tough as nails and could probably beat most martial artists I have ever seen (even the great Bruce Lee!). Also, it is important to remember that the various martial arts were each developed over time within specific cultural environments (e.g. in ancient Okinawa, peasants were not permitted to carry weapons so needed to utilize modified farm impliments leading to the development of the bo staff, tonfa, sai and, most famously, the nanchuku; likewise, aikido (a recent martial art) grew out of ju jutisu and so on).

Granny Smith apples

Just wondering whether Granny Smith apples are commonly available and known as "granny smiths" outside Australia and New Zealand --203.22.236.14 (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are pretty ubiquitous in the UK under that name. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in France as <Grannies>.86.197.46.24 (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

According to the article Granny Smith, the Beatles used it as their symbol for Apple Records.--KageTora (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always heard them referred to as "Granny Smith" apples in a small rural town in Northeastern North Carolina, in the US.--droptone (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also commonly known by that name, and planted in my back yard, in Alabama (US). — Lomn 13:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Canada (well, Ontario at least). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, that's a Yes! then. Richard Avery (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've bought them in Illinois and California. Woodchuck Cider (from Vermont) has a GS version. —Tamfang (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many grannies could a Granny Smith grant if a Granny Smith could grant grannies?--KageTora (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen apples labelled "Granny Smith" in Texas too - they are probably everywhere these days. SteveBaker (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very commonplace variety here in Finland as well, and probably one of the most popular ones, at least judging by how well-represented they are in stores. "Granny Smith" is the name of the cultivar, and therefore it's what they're called here. Love 'em myself. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Detroit. StuRat (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking apples

When I was a kid, my Mum would often send me out to buy some groceries (and no, we didn't have child slavery. It wasn't a fortnight's worth for a family of 10, but just a few things light enough for a little kid to carry home in a string bag - remember them?). More than once, I came home with what looked to me like Granny Smiths, but was told they weren't GSs but "cooking apples". The distinction in her mind was that GSs are for eating directly, but cooking apples are used solely in pies etc. I was later shown an alleged "cooking apple". It was indistinguishable in appearance from a GS and, to me, they're both as uneatably tart as each other. I do have a fairly sweet tooth, though, and apples in particular have to be sweet, sweet, sweet; tart ones are OK in pies, but never on their own - I go all shuddery even thinking about it. So maybe my ability to discern scrotum-shrinkingly tart from even more extreme tartness is not well developed. Not that such a skill would be of any use in telling them apart on appearance alone. I cannot remember the last time I ever saw "cooking apples" on display in any shop or market; certainly not in the last 35 years. Do such things actually exist as something distinct from GSs, or was this a figment of my mother's imagination? Do Americans use any special variety of apple in their stereotypical apple pies, or just whatever comes out of the can? (No offence; we have canned "pie apple" in Australia too). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Granny Smith and Cooking apple note that Granny Smiths are often used for cooking. I too recall seeing things that looked like large Granny Smiths described as 'cooking apples'. Algebraist 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not America, but where I'm from (Northern Ireland), the Bramley seems to be considered the definitive "cooking apple" and is often labelled as such in greengrocers. While I would happily eat a Granny Smith, I wouldn't even consider eating a Bramley raw (some people I know even find them inedibly tart when cooked and sugar added). There also seems to be less emphasis on the fruit having a uniform shape/colour, presumably because it's going to end up in a crumble, rather than in the fruit bowl. --Kateshort forbob 21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The all-green Nottinghamshire Bramley in the photo looks exactly what I mistook for a Granny Smith. They'd be very easy to confuse if they weren't labelled. I rest my case. (Vindication at last! I hope you're reading this, Mum. :) Thanks, folks. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My grandmother called the apples she used for cooking "greenings". In our case, they were small, hard and very bright green. Then she would add a snow apple [1] or two to add a bit of pink to the colour. The crimson near the skin would bleed into the apple mixture.) A ripe Granny Smith is also a bright green, but nowhere near as hard as a unripe green apple of any variety, and you don't have to squeeze much (not enough to bruise the fruit) to be aware of the difference in feel. I am amazed that there are people who think Granny Smith apples are tart. Greenings may give you a belly ache if eaten in quantity, and, to be edible raw, should be sprinkled with salt. I didn't see a Granny Smith in Toronto greengrocers until I was a young adult. // BL \\ (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a Rhode Island Greening. Rmhermen (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granny Smiths not tart? Do we live on the same planet, Bielle? I dunno, maybe the original Australian variety is tarter than the varieties available elsewhere. To me, a GS is the quintessential tart apple, which is why I never, but never, eat them. They have much the same effect on my mouth as an onion, a lemon or a raw potato. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No - Bielle's right. Granny Smiths are tart compared to most 'eating apples' - but the Bramleys are MUCH more tart than that. My mother also liked to add wild Crab-apples into her apple pies. The idea is that the sharper the apple you use, the more sugar you can add to make the pie more glutinous without making it so sugary as to be fairly inedible. Raw wild crab apples make even Bramleys seem edible! SteveBaker (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I baked my first apple pie when my then inlaws came to our apartment for dinner for the first time in the early 70s. The greenings were hard to find, but I was successful and then used the pastry recipe of my aunt (from Manchester) with the golden touch for pastry. My pastry came out like sheets of leather and I forgot the sugar in the apple mix. My father-in-law asked for seconds. It was either the only kind act in his entire curmudgeonly life or he had materially damaged taste buds. I love tart; I even eat lemon slices just sprinkled with a little sugar, but I couldn't eat that pie. // BL \\ (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bielle's right, but so is Jack; when apples get more tart than GS's, they're not typically eaten out of hand. I note, for example, that a link to sour apple is a redirect to Jack's least-favourite eating fruit. GS's are my favourite apple (and, yeah, I also eat lemon straight up, as does my daughter), but they're not purely sour, they also have quite a bit of sugar in them. In fact, I'm not sure (WP:OR, but it seems to me that apples much more sour than GS's aren't actually "more sour", but rather, "less sweet" (i.e. simply have less sugar in them).

To me, "cooking apple" is simply a term to describe any apple used for cooking, as opposed to "baking apples" and "out-of-hand apples"; I can't speak for Jack's maternal unit, but I wonder if she was calling them cooking apples simply because that's what they were bought for, just as I might buy a half-bushel of GS's and refer to some as eating apples and some as baking apples. Matt Deres (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pippins are "cooking apples" in my part of the US. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mother used to use cooking apples that she bought from the shops - huge ones that if you eat raw would give you a stomachache simply because of how sour they are. She stopped doing that after our next-door neighbours (on two sides) planted apple trees and she now gets them from the branches that overhang into her garden (this, by the way, is legal in the UK!).--KageTora (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At a slight tangent: the feature which distinguishes cooking from eating apples is tartness. The feature which makes Bramleys desirable as cooking apples is the way they quickly go to mush. This is great if you want to make applesauce or fruit crumble, but not if you need cohesive pieces for visual appeal, as in open-faced tarts. So "cooking apple" is not always interchangeable with "Bramley". BrainyBabe (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US they sell maybe a half-dozen varieties of apples at the typical grocery store. Unfortunately, they give the name of each, but don't say whether it's for cooking. Not being able to keep them all straight, I just go with the bright, shiny red apples I know to be directly edible (without any witchcraft required). I also have learned to NEVER buy apples that come in plastic bags, as they are always year-old mush not even suitable for horses. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, I (as a person with rather poorly-trained tastebuds, but still...) can't tell the difference between apples which come loose, apples which come in bags and apples which come in punnets. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't tell? Either our apple baggers here are awful, or you should see a... oh wait. The Ref Desk doesn't give medical advice... 99.224.117.66 (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a "</small>" tag to the end of the preceding post; it made a lot more things small than it was supposed to. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. a popular apple for making aple pie is the Rome beauty. It is a tart and firm red apple. Its firmness means that it works well in an apple peeler-corer-slicer. If a restaurant wishes to bake 12 apple pies, it would be tedious to peel and core and slice the apples by hand, and soft apples just do not work in the machines, because the peeler would take off 1/2 inch of apple with the peel. The Rome is tasty but dos not turn to mush. Granny Smith originally sold her apples as "cooking apples" and only secondarily were they marked originally for eating.Edison (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F1 in Books by Sven Hassel

A poster above was mentioning a mark in his passport called an 'F1', and although entirely unrelated but for the name, this reminded me of the usage of the term 'F1' in books by Sven Hassel. I believe it is meant for 'condom', as it is almost entirely used in the context of bedding women on some raucous night out either on leave or taking a break during a mission. Can anyone confirm this? Also, as I read these books in translation into English from the original Danish or German, can anyone confirm if this was Danish, German, or English slang of the period? --KageTora (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My internet is running crazy slow so can't verify but my instant assumption would be that 'F1' was a reference to 'pulling a fast one' which would be shortened to F1 as a reference to the motor-sport Formula One. The saying pulling a fast one is used to describe someone trying to hook-up with somebody for a short amount of time (not really used hugely today though) and so would fit with the above description. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I doubt it is that. These books are about German soldiers in WW2. The phrases used are 'I asked [character] for an F1 because I didn't bring one,' and such like. Good guess, though.--KageTora (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be the F1 grenade? Tempshill (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! If it is, then I've been reading the books upside down! It seems plausible, though, being a WW2 weapon, but he only mentions it during these scenes where they are 'getting down to business' with women. This is bizarre.... --KageTora (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, this is the only terminology in the whole series of books that I have not been able to understand. It's not a fixation with the sex scenes. Believe me! :)--KageTora (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side-note, it's interesting to see from the Wikipedia article, that you can only throw that grenade to a distance which would still include yourself in the blast-radius. No wonder it was discontinued.--KageTora (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grenades aren't really open-battlefield weapons though - you chuck them over walls and into buildings where the structure offers you some protection from the blast. SteveBaker (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an interesting side-side-note (OK - it's off-topic - I admit it) - I was talking to some army guys about the performance of various weapons - and the distance a typical soldier can throw a grenade came up in conversation. They claim that if you take a dummy grenade and ask a soldier to throw it as far as he can - it only goes about 90% of the distance he can throw a live grenade...even though they have the same casings and are carefully weighted exactly the same way! I guess fear and determination equals 10% more range! SteveBaker (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm a bit late, but I'd like to defend the "condom" reading: the colloquial name for condoms in Germany up until WWII was "Fromm", after the biggest manufacturer. It's a pretty short distance from "Fromm" to something like "F1", as a jocular "army issue" designation.--Rallette (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so my suspicions were correct! For a moment then, I wondered what all this grenade business in 'bedding-scenes' was all about. Thanks!!! That has cleared up an age-old mystery for me!--KageTora (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Julius Fromm. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad schedules

Given some random town in the U.S. that does not have a railroad stop, but has railroad lines going through it, is there an online listing of times that will allow you to estimate when trains will be passing through the town? Assuming that you must estimate by looking at times for stops on each side of the town, is there anything similar to flight times for trains (including cargo trains)? -- kainaw ™ 13:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For passenger trains, Amtrak has all of its schedules on its website, including some handy interactive maps. You might be able to extrapolate from that. As far as freight railroads, from WP:OR I can tell you they do have schedules, but they are very fluid and can change from day to day, depending on the cargo manifests. And railroad officials are reluctant to release these to the public. — Michael J 13:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean interpolate. —Tamfang (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the following is original research.

Having used Amtrak, I have never seen a train run on time (delays running from 1 hour to 13 hours), so take their printed schedules with a couple of tons of salt. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few years back I went to the station in Atlanta to catch the train to Miami. Actually I got on to yesterday's train running 22 hours late. Have things improved, I wonder?86.197.46.24 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

I suspect many people have similar stories. I know I do. My train was about 18-24 hours late. One of my friends missed the first night game at Wrigley Field due to the delay. Dismas|^(talk) 05:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo train schedules may be hard to find due to reasons covered in this article: [2]. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an oldie: A guy lives in a rural house not far from a railroad track. Every night at midnight a train roars by, but he always sleeps through it. One night the train doesn't come. He awakens at midnight and says, "What was that?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

Open Source and Piracy Keywords

What search terms should I use on Google to find info about open source community's opinion on piracy of closed source software and whether they believe in it or condemn. Not lloking for anything that would say "don't do piracy just use open source" or something like that? --Melab±1 ☎ 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you have termed as 'closed source' is also generally called 'proprietary' so see if that helps.--KageTora (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article is here.--KageTora (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Stallman wrote that the term "piracy" should not be used in this meaning [3]. I do not remember exactly where he wrote that illegal copying of software is morally right although should not be done since it is illegal. MTM (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think most people in the OpenSource community are much more attentive to licensing issues than (for example) typical Windows users. Part of the reason for that is that we can afford to be! When everything is free - why would you steal stuff? But the other part of it is that only the terms of the various OpenSource licenses actually keep this stuff "Open". When someone violates the GPL - OpenSource fanatics howl like scalded cats and set the lawyers loose with just as much vigor as (say) Microsoft would. Whilst the software is free (as in zero cost) and free (in that you can copy it and give it to people legally) - it's not "free of restrictions". One major restriction with many OpenSource license is that people who give away binary copies of software MUST offer to provide the source code that goes along with it. This prevents unscrupulous companies from using the embrace/extend/extinguish approach to beating OpenSource by first adopting some package - then providing some nice closed source extensions to the original package such that everyone wants to use it - then, when their version of the package has market dominance - locking away the source code and charging a fortune for it. The requirement that they ALSO publish their extensions as OpenSource under the same license as the original code means that this is a much tougher thing to accomplish. Hence OpenSource advocates are VERY attuned to the terms of licenses. SteveBaker (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second what Steve says. I'd also point out that if you're trying to search for stuff you might want to try alternatives to the word "piracy". Piracy is the crime of armed robbery on the high seas, and only its metaphorical use in a letter Bill Gates wrote in the '70s links it to the illicit copying of software. Open Source people are usually technical people, and hence often somewhat precise in their use of language. You might get further looking for copyright infringement than piracy. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Piracy" in the sense of stealing intellectual property goes back much further than the 1970s. The OED gives references for piracy describing such activity in the printing trade going back to 1700. --79.71.235.22 (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Yankee Stadium Satellite Photo

I was messing around with Google maps' satellite feature and zoomed in to Yankee Stadium and all there is next door is a big vacant spot. I guess it takes a while for Google to update their satellite images, so I started looking around for more up-to-date images but I haven't found any. Does anyone know where I can find an aerial view of the new stadium, preferrably one with the old stadium visable as well? Tex (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if someone can find such a photo of the OLD Old Yankee Stadium and/or the Polo Grounds, that would be something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Polo Grounds. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent photo. Not a straight-overhead view, though. :) And I can think of just one straight-overhead view of Yankee Stadium: one of the clips used in the prelude to the film version of West Side Story, which also had straight-overhead views of the Empire State Building and other New York landmarks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that most images from Google Earth are copyrighted and are thus unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning on using it on wikipedia, I just want to see what the new stadium looks like. Tex (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link, from WCBS in New York, has a lot of aerial photos of the new ballparks and the old Yankee Stadium: [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book Take Me Out to the Ballpark: An Illustrated Tour of Baseball Parks Past and Present contains a striking aerial photo of Yankee Stadium and The Polo Grounds in the same frame. The book is about 10 years old, but for fans of Ballparks it is a MUST OWN. That book may be one of the favorite books in my entire sports book collection, and that particular photo is indeed one of my favorite photos in it. I know its not directly related to the New Yankee stadium, but again, it seemed related to Baseball Bugs question, and given his username, I thought he should own it. Amazon is advertising new copies from $7.84 and used copies from $4.24. I can recommend no other book more than this one on this topic. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thinking of me. In fact, I do have it, or at least one edition of it. Mine says 2000, and the cover features St. Paul's Midway Stadium. The one on Amazon says it's a revised edition. In my copy, on page 24 is a small print of that aerial photo of the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium. If you look closely at the Stadium, it's in the late 1930s, after they rebuilt the bleachers, but before they extended the second and third decks into right field.
One thing I've been waiting patiently for, is for someone to ask me how one would manage to get a good satellite photo of the Polo Grounds, which was demolished in 1964. Some things are just too subtle. Or too obvious. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once we've perfected the flux capacitor, it should be trivial to obtain such a photo... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just have Capt Kirk get one the next time the future needs some whales. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. That Captain Kirk is a good guy. I might go so far as to say he's a prince. A prince of whales. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible there are high-altitude aerial photos somewhere. I was pleased recently to run across a series of such photos of San Franciso and Oakland, taken in 1931, in connection with surveying for the Bay Bridge. It was fortuitous, because it afforded straight-overhead views (albeit small ones) of the just-abandoned Recreation Park and the brand-new Seals Stadium [5] as well as Oaks Park across the bay [6]. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Any idea what the stadium in the upper left hand corner of the SF photo is? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation Park, as I had said above. Unless you're talking about something else that I'm not seeing. Recreation Park was the immediate predecessor to Seals Stadium. It was made of wood, so after 25 years of exposure to the elements it was probably about ready for someone's fireplace. It's worth pointing out that the orientation of the photo is misleading. The streets behind third base at Rec Park (15th), and right field at Seals Stadium (16th), were essentially straight east-west. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I can't read. Sorry about that. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I can't write. My secretary does all my work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need a paperless office on a PDA. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sticky situation

Sticky substance liquified marshmellow?)on cloth car seat--how to remove??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralfie3 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Marshmallow, they are made of sugar or corn syrup, water, gelatin and dextrose. Since all of those things dissolve in water - you should be able to simply dilute it with lots of warm, soapy water and lift off the liquid with kitchen towels or something as you go along. Sugar dissolves faster in warm water than cold - the detergent makes the water "wetter" and more able to get into the fibres of the cloth. It might take lots of goes to get it out altogether. The worst thing is possibly that perhaps that any coloring in the marshmallow might be insoluble in water and stain the cloth...but no matter what - the stickyness should go away. I think warm soapy water blotted up with lots and lots of kitchen towels so the seat doesn't get too sodden wet is your best/simplest chance. Good luck! SteveBaker (talk)

One concern using Steve's method: If some of the sugar-water produced soaks through to the padding, and it stays wet for a long time, you could get nasty stuff growing down there. If the cloth part of the seat is removable, you might want to remove it for cleaning. If not, just be sure to dry the seat after, by leaving the car windows down on a dry, hot day or by using a hair dryer, if it's cold or wet outside. StuRat (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]