Miscellaneous desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

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.

February 12

A tsunami off Java island in 2007 killed nearly 5,000.

The subject is a quote from the last sentence in an AP release about today's earthquake. Google News shows 406 online articles seem to have duplicated this "fact".

Can anyone find a reference to this (in Wikipedia or elsewhere)?

The list of Historic tsunamis shows two 2007 tsunamis and the first "displaced" 5000 people, but only killed 52. My guess is this is where the discrepancy has come from.

Mark Hurd (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fanning yourself is making you hotter?

I recall in elementary school my teachers told me that wielding a hand-made paper-fan and utilizing it to cool oneself is less effective than just sitting still and let oneself cool by itself. They claim that the reciprocating motion of the arms generate more heat than the generated breeze's ability to cool the person off. Is this true? Acceptable (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. StuRat (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is true in some very specific circumstances. For example, if the air temperature is equal to body temperature with very high humidity, the net cooling effect would be (approximately) zero, meaning *any* expenditure of energy would result in negative cooling. But, for most (all?) realistic conditions StuRat's concise answer would be correct—after all, there must be a reason why hand fans have been around for ages. – 74 06:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if the air temperature is higher than body temperature then you are effectively increasing the heat burden; a larger amount of high-temperature air is moving over the skin and increasing its temperature - the same reason a fan oven cooks things quicker, I suppose! This can be partially offset by sweat evaporation, but fanning yourself in high-temperature, high-humidity conditions will make things worse. ~ mazca ^t|c 08:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a particular hobby-horse of mine. I'll semi-agree with the above comments except that they exclude the extra heat generated in the arm muscles that wave the fan - nothing comes for free. The heat (ATP->ADP transformation through myosin-actin interaction) of hand-waving is generated and distributed through the body. So where is the balance point? It's somewhere less than 98.6F/100%, right? Franamax (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'd expect this effect to be quite minimal, perhaps a degree or two. The reasons:

1) Hand fans are designed to require a minimal effort to move, just a flick of the wrist, not moving the entire arm.

2) This will slightly raise the temp in the wrist, but a hot wrist has ample time to cool off in the eddies of air currents around the fan before the heat is transferred all the way up the arm to the body.

3) As in the reverse case during winter, it's the core body temp which is important, as legs and arms can overheat quite a bit before they fail to function, while even a slight overheating of the brain can be disastrous. So, for this reason and reason 2, just saying that the amount of heat added to the wrist is more than that lost from the head, even when true, isn't very relevant. StuRat (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hobby horse of mine is wondering how people manage to keep their temperature down when the temperature is well over blood heat and water is streaming down the walls in rivulets with the humidity? It is extremely unpleasant and I wouldn't have the energy to wave a fan and I don't feel it would help. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, they don't. That's the sort of situation that leads to death from heat stroke. --Carnildo (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it humidity, rather than air temperature, that matters? A fan works via evaporative cooling, the fact that it's moving cooler air near you is a pretty minor factor. The air temperature can be pretty much as high as you like (within reason) as long as the humidity is low, and the fan will still work. --Tango (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fan works primarily via evaporative cooling, but with large enough temperature differences the flow of air can indeed become a significant factor; consider wind chill. – 74 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1] anything much above body temperature is a bit iffy although obviously it depends on humidity Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that reference. Yes I've not found a fan to be helpful. And yes lots of people have to be shipped back quickly because they start to develop heat exhaustion. At 105°F and the air supersaturated you just lie oozing sweat onto sweat soaked sheets, stop thinking about anything much and wait for it to rain. Dmcq (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One good thing that I found about living in Malaysia (or more specifically Kuala Lumpur) I guess. Yet it's hot and humid pretty much all of the time, but it's very rare that it get's so hot a fan (or wind) doesn't help Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the possibility that the teachers knew all of that, but found the use of hand fans distracting from their lessons to themselves and to other students, and so needed a reason to tell you to stop. 10 year olds are suprisingly resistant to the "Because I said so" explanation, so this little bit of bullshit may be just what they need to actually stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very compelling rationale. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this being the first time I realized that teachers weren't infallible. If it actually made me hotter, then why did I feel so much better when I did it? Wouldn't I have to eventually reach a point where I was less comfortable than when I started doing it? I never took a teacher's word for anything from 2nd grade on. (Which in the long run was a good thing)-- Mad031683 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A wise man once told me (seriously, he was wise, and he really told me this) "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.” - Albert Einstein. manya (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

riddle help

riddle 'it's content will bring it to its end' what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.225.252 (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ejaculation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have misspelled "its", and "content" is unusual in that position (I'd expect "contents"), so I'm inclined to doubt that you are giving us the riddle exactly as it appeared wherever you got it. It would be a waste of my time to try to solve it as it stands, because riddles often depend on wordplay. Please double-check your riddle and provide us with the exact form, and I'll be more than happy to try to solve it. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the riddle about "the world silence" or is that another one? — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 13:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP typed the riddle 100% correctly. The answer is "an apostrophy". That way, there is no grammar/punctuation error in the question. Let's put some emphasis in there:

"it's" content will bring "it" to "its" end.

The apostrophy is the 'content' of "it's" and adding an apostrophy will bring "it" to "its'" end. This also explains why the riddle doesn't start with a capital letter. SteveBaker (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's apostrophe. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - so I score no wikipoints at all for that one? Darn - harsh audience tonight! SteveBaker (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Un-gluing old photographs

I was recently given some old family photgraphs of my grandparents and great-grandparents. Unfortunately, they arrived in one of those horrible "multi-aperture" frames with the photos all glued to a single piece of backing paper. I would really like to separate the ancient photos from modern backing paper which is quite stiff and almost like thin card. I've tried a razor blade and removed a couple of the newer photos, but the really old photos seem pretty well stuck. I believe the glue used is a modern paper glue - possibly something like Pritt Stick. What would be the best way to remove the backing paper without damaging the photos? Astronaut (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try something like nail polish remover (or maybe white spirit) - get a cotton bud, lift up one corner of the photo (somehow) and then slowly wipe away at the glue. Be careful not to get any on the front of the photo (to be honest, I don't know what would happen, but it could well be bad!). It's possible it would damage the photos even from the back (although I think it's unlikely) so you should probably test it on a photo you don't care too much about first. --Tango (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around the web, there seem to be three methods:

Chemical - products such as "un-do" (allegedly available in the US) or other solvents.
Physical - saw away at them
Heat - get your hairdryer out & see if a bit of heat melts the glue somewhat (cf. [2])

Other advice is to take good quality digital snaps of the paper photos before you start, as some sort of backup against an accident. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above -- that is excellent advice. Maybe a good scanner would be the best way to get those digital copies as backup, just in case the un-gluing doesn't work out without any mishaps. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently bought some stuff from a hardware shop called 'Sticky Stuff Remover' which very effectively cleaned off the sticky residue from those adhesive stationery labels. I guess if you removed as much backing card as possible and then let this stuff soak in from the back it may loosen the glue, timing might be critical. Richard Avery (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what you want to do with the pictures afterwards, you might be able to just trim the backing down to the photograph size and leave it attached. If the pictures will be individually framed, for instance, a little additional backing should cause no problems. – 74 15:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a scanner yourself you can go to an office store like Staples, Office Depot, Kinko's and have them put a high resolution scan on an SD card or some such. I would not go with chemicals on old pictures. (OR the fumes tend to cause damage.) Try feeding non-waxed dental floss or thread between the picture and the backing, keep it as close to the backing paper as possible and use sawing movements to detach the photo. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning (at high resolution, with a good-quality scanner) is an excellent first step, regardlesss of the approach that you choose to take here. Specialty photo shops may have better equipment or more experienced staff than your local Staples or Kinko's, though you'll often pay more for that expertise.

A photography shop will usually also be will to retouch spots and scratches, and correct fading or color balance issues that tend to affect old prints. Instead of trying to disassemble the old prints, it may be easier to simply scan and reprint new ones. Finally, a specialty shop may be able to put you in touch with a restorer who can advise or assist you in ungluing your prints — but those services are usually costly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really answer the question, but I did look into the matter a couple of years ago when I wanted to restore a baby picture of my wife's. The stuff on the front of the photograph is gelatine. Water in any amount will dissolve it, so you can't use water at all. What I did was decide not to mess with it, because I'd almost certainly make it worse. I took a high-res scan and photoshopped it. It came out great. If you are determined to get the backing off, I recommend doing it physically, with a goose-neck magnifier and a set of hobby knives and tweezers, going verrrrry slow and picking away a molecule at a time. I mean slow—expect it to take a couple of weeks or even months of evenings. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skirt type

Hi. Can anyone tell me what type of skirt is shown in the image uploaded here? I guess it's just a flap on the front and back connected to some sort of undergarment/swimwear underneath. Or perhaps the entire thing is attached to her top. If I could figure out what it's called, it would be easier for me to find one while shopping. Thanks. 76.8.208.7 (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a dress, rather than a skirt, to me. I don't know what it's called, if anything. --Tango (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a swimsuit. That style isn't necessarily common, but I have seen swimming costumes like it. Maedin\^talk 17:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some sort of Skort? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check Sarong#Western_World, I think it can cover any non-specific, light piece of fabric worn over a bathing suit. Lanfear's Bane | t 20:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a swimdress. More specifically, a halter-neck swimdress with side-split skirt. See these images for similar styles. Gwinva (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, check out the burkini and modest swimwear as well! BrainyBabe (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audience participation question

I visited the Helsinki Burlesque Festival for the first time in my life a week ago, and they asked for a male volunteer. I desperately wanted not to be picked, but ended up picked anyway. I was asked to sit down on a chair and watch the female performer, which I did. Afterwards, I heard from my friends who were there that I had acted way too stiff, almost as I if was scared of the performer. What was I supposed to do? I was only told to sit down and watch. I don't think I could have actually touched the performer or talked to her or anything. JIP | Talk 20:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you smile ? They might also laugh if you hammed it up a bit, like covering your eyes during the naughty bits, then taking a little peek between your fingers. Pretending to fall out of the chair when something shocking happens is also good. StuRat (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were there to enjoy yourself. You had no obligation to do anything you weren't comfortable with - if you want to sit stiffly, then sit stiffly. You could have turned down their request, simply shaking your head with probably work. If anyone tries to physically drag you onto a stage, just look them calmly in the eye with a straight face and quietly but firmly say "No". I doubt anyone would carry on dragging you after that. --Tango (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently handling snakes and had a number of pictures taken with them. At the time I felt like I was enjoying it, but the pictures revealed a stoic and unchanging expression. I think it's just human nature. NByz (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Handling snakes. NByz (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"All persons there seem to say, what a young English nobleman said to his governor, Am I as joyous as I should be?" M. Grosely, Tour to London (1772) --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the context of course, but that just sounds like some good-natured ribbing from your friends. I wouldn't worry about it; if the situation were to someday re-present itself you would naturally handle it more smoothly since you now know what to expect. – 74 07:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can locate the performer's contact details, why not drop them an email - apologise for your stiffness (say you were nervous) and ask them what they would like you to have done. Then you'll know if the situation represents itself. Exxolon (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the performer's contact details, but I do have the festival staff's contact details. However I don't think it's worth the bother to ask them to relay my question to the performer. JIP | Talk 20:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanes

Suppose there are more than 26 hurricanes/cyclones in one season. How is the 27th one named? JCI (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article:[3] The "National Hurricane Center will turn to the Greek alphabet and we'll have Hurricanes Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, etc." cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to hurricane naming, the greek alphabet would actually start after hurricane number 21, since Q, U, X, Y and Z arent used for regular names. Livewireo (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for a practical example, see the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season with named storms Arlene through Zeta. — Lomn 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the only year that they have ever run out of letters for tropical cyclones in the Atlantic. Dragons flight (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And they actually did get into Greek letters -- six of them, up to Zeta. Hurricane Beta became the first Greek-letter hurricane, and Hurricane Epsilon the last so far. --Anonymous, 07:00 UTC, February 14, 2009.

As a side note, if a Greek-letter storm is retired, the name is retired as Name-Year. So, had Beta been retired, it would have been listed as such under Beta-2005. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 07:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what would such a name be replaced with? Also, the Atlantic only has 21 names in each annual list, but many other basins have more names available. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek letters themselves can't be replaced after a retirement, so the name is going to be used again. So, if, for example, Hurricane Alpha in 2009 were to be retired, it would go in the retirement books as "Retired: Hurricane Alpha, 2009". In 2010, however, if the Atlantic list were to run out again, the first storm would still be named Alpha. --Ericdn (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitles

Why don't English subtitles in Japanese films have full stops? JCI (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean at the end of a line of dialogue? Come to think of it, most subtitled films I've watched don't bother with full stops. I don't think they're really required – they're a punctuation mark, the function of which is to signal the end of a sentence in writing. But with a film, you're listening to the original spoken dialogue as well as reading the subtitles, so you don't need that signal. Plus, they might be distracting. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What bugs me about most subtitles is that they do not replicate the script exactly. Understand there is sometimes a need to precis, but often one perfectly good word is substituted by another that has almost the same meaning.90.9.213.228 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

In cases like that I often suspect that they do replicate the script exactly, but that the movie or TV show deviated from it. There was a Star Trek: TNG episode where Beverly Crusher hummed a tune on screen, but the lyrics were listed in the subtitles. I would guess the script called for her to sing it, but they decided to have her just hum it instead. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Richardrj. Good subtitles don't require full stops, as people don't generally talk in sentences. As for accuracy, in my experience most subtitles only replicate the script approximately - unless one assumes that most productions generally deviate wildly from their scripts. I suspect that the problem is that subtitling is an under-rated art, and generally one (possibly under-skilled, under-paid) person is carrying out the task, which is in effect a re-edit of the dialogue. Not only does the subtitler often have to decide between the literal translation of dialogue or the equivalent translation in the second language, but also they are tempted to shorten the dialogue either because: too many words are spoken to be shown/read before a cut-away; or simply to make their task easier.

Good subtitles require a person or persons with command of both languages to mother-tongue standard, and that doesn't often seem to be available. I have enough command of several languages to notice some discrepancies, and I can confirm that whenever I have asked, mother-tongue speakers have agreed that the subtitles are not very accurate. Perhaps there should be a Best Subtitling Academy Award.

Here in the UK, even the English TV subtitles for the hard of hearing can sometimes be below standard. The best thing that can be said about much foreign language subtitling is that it preserves the original feel of the movie much better than a new voice track of inappropriate voices and avoids the distraction of watching mouths make shapes completely different to the sounds that seem to be coming out of them. Centrepull (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]