Miscellaneous desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 3 >

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.

May 2

US collectibles: puzzle "key ring"

Does anyone remember key ring "puzzles" with several plastic interlocking pieces in various colors that fit together to form animals? They are about the size of a nickel. They date from at least the '50s, and I wonder how to locate them, if still extant and available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragglecat (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An ebay search on "animal puzzle key ring" didn't turn up anything but "puzzle key ring" produced RARE VINTAGE TOY PLASTIC PUZZLE KEYRING TOYS...no animals, but clearly something like that. SteveBaker (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the current swine flu epidemic not spreading much throughout Africa and Asia?

It seems not to be making much impact in those areas. Sure, there are isolated cases, but as a whole it seems to be confined to the Americas and the rest of the Western/developed world.

I imagine it shall spread further; India and China should get it soon given their massive populations. Nigeria maybe soon as well due to huge population, along with some Middle East countries.--Yo Dawg! What's Going On Today? (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably will, but the cases seem to be isolated to a) Mexico and b) Countries that get lots of people traveling to and from Mexico. There is lots of U.S.-Mexico travel, as well as Spain-Mexico travel, and as such, those are the places outside of Mexico where the current flu has spread. There is not a lot of India-Mexico or China-Mexico or Nigeria-Mexico travel, so it hasn't gotten there yet. And in countries outside of Mexico, the cases are still very isolated to a few areas, and not widespread at all. Even in the U.S. there are only a few small pockets of what might be called "outbreaks" along with one or two isolated cases here or there, and all of those cases involved people traveling back to the U.S. from Mexico. In order to be effectivle transferred from one of these "secondary stops" to other countries, there would have to be a much more widespread outbreak, in say either the U.S. or Spain, and there just has not been any of that as yet. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the answer but suspect it has much to do with large tracts of Africa and Asia being Muslim oriented in religion and therefore scant evidence of a pig population? 92.10.188.52 (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current Swine Flu variant is not spread by contact between pigs and humans. It is is a standard type of Influenza Type A known as the H1N1 type. It is only called Swine Flu because it contains some genetic material which has been transferred between pig versions of the Influenza Virus and the human version. When two different types of influenza virus inhabit the same organism, there is a chance that the two may swap genetic information, and create a new third version of the flu. This happened sometime in the past, maybe even years ago, in the case of the current Swine Flu outbreak. This flu is passed from human to human just like every other outbreak of the flu that happens every few months. What makes this flu different is a few unique characteristics:

It has some genetic characteristics that make it a cousin of the Spanish Flu that to date is still the deadliest flu outbreak on record (both were H1N1 subtypes of Influenza A).
In the early parts of the outbreak, it also behaved like the Spanish Flu in the sense that it hit those in the 20-40 year old age bracket unsually hard. Normally, this age range is the LEAST susceptible to the flu, and that this flu seemed to be hitting that age group hard is unusual. However, it should be noted that later results seem to refute the earlier ones, and this is beginning to look more and more like a regular (albeit rather strong) flu in terms of its affect across demographic groups.
The flu is unusual for having genetic material from THREE known flu variants (swine, human, and avian flus). When there is mixing of genetic material as I describe above, it often only happens with two types of virus. To have a virus with THREE such parents is quite unusual.

However, the most important thing is this flu is NOT caught from pigs. It is caught from other people and other than being noted for producing a particularly strong strain of the flu (more severe symptoms for longer periods of time) its not that much unlike the flu that runs around the world every year. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As we learn more about it, the disease seems to be just like the common flu in terms of symptoms, transmission and death rates. The initial reports from Mexico have been reevaluated as more tests have been done.[1] Initially Mexico had to ship samples off to Canada and the U.S. for testing and it took several days for results. And it is more likely to have had (or given priority to) samples from young men who died with suspicious flu-like symptoms than of workers still on the job with a cough or the old lady who died of pneumonia. As the disease was recognized, Mexico accumulated a huge backlog of tens of thousands of samples that it is only beginning to work through.[2] Rmhermen (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO is still insisting that people cannot catch the flu from pigs, but the fact [3] that pigs can catch it from humans makes that insistence somewhat on the bubble. Matt Deres (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting that in isolated cases, a person could catch a flu from a pig. The deal is, that taking that into saying that "people" can catch flu from "pigs"; that is that the primary means of causing the pandemic is swine-human transmission, seems patently rediculous. If its to become a pandemic, the primary means of transmission in this case would have to be person-to-person transmission. There's just not enough pig-person contact to make such a mechanism for transmission reasonable. That's why people slaughtering pigs to avoid getting the flu is patently rediculous... Certainly, there ARE some diseases which depend on non-human carriers as the main form of transmission (plague or malaria for example), but in those cases the transmission only occurs because the critter that acts as the carrier is in near constant contact with large populations of people (rats-carrying-fleas for plague or mosquitoes for malaria). There's just not enough people-pig contact to make that sort of mechanism reasonable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that pigs are responsible for the epidemic in any but the most round about way, just pointing out that your bolded statement that, the disease is "not spread by contact between pigs and humans" is no longer nearly as airtight as it was a week ago. If (and it is still completely hypothetical, so far as I know) the disease can be spread from pigs to humans, it would likely have very little effect on folks living in urban areas (i.e. city dwellers who rarely live near pigs), but it could have a very real effect on the vast numbers of folks who live a great deal closer to livestock. There's no reason to go around slaughtering pigs indiscriminately, but the situation obviously needs watching and is hardly ridiculous - we do, after all, slaughter countless millions of chickens in an effort to stave off avian flu. Matt Deres (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never implied that was a wise policy either... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt slaughters farm pigs

What are farm pigs doing in that country in the first place? Clashbash (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're probably slaughtered for food (for non-Muslims, for export, or for non-observant Muslims) or for other pig products. I don't know if this is a nationally organised, government backed culling or if its just a mob reaction (not that they're necessarily mutually exclusive) but its a stupid reaction to an innacurate name rather than a rational response to Influenza A, see the answer to the above question by Jayron32for more info on this. AllanHainey (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt is a secular country. While it does have a Muslim-majority population, it is NOT a muslim theocracy, but a fully secular republic. There are many non-muslims in Egypt, such as the Coptic christians who likely eat pork, as they have no religious objections to it, as well as any number of non-religious Egyptians who may not have any objections to pork either. Not every nation in the middle east is an oppressive theocratic government who bases their national legal system on Muslim laws. Many are secular governments, and Egypt, while not being a U.S. or U.K. style democracy, is probably closer to nations like Turkey with regard to being a secular government in a Muslim world. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, "pigs are mainly raised by the country's Christian minority". Adam Bishop (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this?

I just found this video on YouTube, and I am keen to find out exactly who the person is an what happened (as you can see the broadcast seems to be from an Indian new channel). I wondered if anybody could identify who the person was, and perhaps provide any further information on what happened. Just a quick warning before you view the video, it does appear to show somebody dying (or at least falling unconcious).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHhX4roeEco&feature=related

Thanks in advance. BlankyFranky (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The man in question is M. N. Vijayan, an Indian writer, orator, and academic. He had a cardiac arrest on October 3, 2007, at 77 years of age -- so he had a pretty good run, at least in terms of years.

Incidentally, reading the comments, from the YouTube page is depressing as hell. There are a thousand people screaming about how he was obviously murdered because he took a sip of water just before the symptoms showed up. Lack of knowledge just doesn't enter into it; it never slows anyone down at all. This is, of course, pretty much standard behavior for YouTube users, but still. My own fault for reading 'em, I guess... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Captain! Just to let you know taht I have raised a follow up question at the Science desk [4]. Thanks again. BlankyFranky (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Fictional TV heart attacks are so much more dramatic! —Tamfang (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punning is no laughing matter

Why are puns considered so bad? The "lowest form of humour"? I don't know of any other kind of wordplay (intended for humour, mind you) where the desired outcome is not laughter, but groaning. What makes them so bad and is the low opinion of them confined or more prevalent in English? If you have a really good answer, you may also want to work it into our article, which is a bit of a mess. Matt Deres (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC) And, yes, I'm also curious to see if the regulars here can ignore such a blatant opening for humour and only give straight answers. I wanna know![reply]

Puns are a 'pun'-ishing form of humour. There's no 'pun' in them - you keep waiting for the 'pun'chline. You need a 'pun'dit to help you here. Exxolon (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the problem isn't so much that puns are bad in themselves, but that in practice most puns are just unimaginative and dull, as Exxolon here valiantly (and hopefully intentionally!) demonstrates. Genuinely good puns are a rare but worthwhile treat. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the foggiest, but Isaac Asimov who has a real interest in jokes and their workings wrote a short story Jokester where puns weren't real jokes which is why they caused people to groan instead of laugh, if the reason is anything like in the story I wouldn't enquire too deeply! Dmcq (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unimaginative, I'm not sure. Some require a good deal of imagination - the really good ones, anyway. But, it's true that to most people, if they look at ten puns and then they are asked if any struck them as funny, they'll say no pun intended. (No pun in ten did.)

I think it's more the repetition factor. (Admit it, you want to go out and tell a pun right after you hear it yourself - I do, at least.) It's like when a child hears a joke for the first time, and they may repeat it 2,532 times because they finally figured out what a joke was. Now, my pun above may have been done in a new way, but after hearing it - or any joke - hundreds of times (like I've heard the "pun-ishmen" one quite often), I think it gets too tiring. Whereas a new pun might make you laugh the first few times you hear it.Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In UK media, especially on the back pages of tabloid newspapers, which contain sports articles, puns are almost compulsory - not for humour, but just for the sake of "I wonder what puns they've come up with" or "I bet they've punned ...". See here (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/) for example:

"Saint Nick", "It's gonna get Messi" and "Juande can be a Real help [5]" --Mark PEA (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian media would have to completely close down if they couldn't use a pun on every conceivable occasion (OK, that's a slight exaggeration). The weekend papers are the worst offenders. The various liftouts and special sections often contain interesting articles, some light-hearted, some deadly serious. But virtually all the titles use a form of pun; in the latter cases, I usually feel this is rather insensitive. Sure, they're eye-catching, and that's what titles and headlines are supposed to be - but hey, sub-editors, do you not have anything else in your journalistic armoury than puns? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is something to this question. People who enjoy other kinds of jokes will often express pain when they hear a pun, even a fairly good one. Ahem,...

So, I was helping the rest of the band load up the van for tour, a few years ago in Portland. The drummer was borrowing some equipment from another drummer, and when the other drummer handed him one bag, he remarked that it felt heavy. The other drummer said, "yeah, there are more cymbals in there than you really need." Hearing this, I observed, "oh, it's like a David Lynch movie."

I think this was a good pun — we all LOL'd at the time — and I've repeated it several times over the years. Many people laugh, but the occasional soul will react as if they've just accidentally swallowed a mouthful of sour milk, and ask me to stop, please. Very strange. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good story and an excellent response, but that is not a pun. It is a literary joke which relies on the hearer's knowledge of films to work. Richard Avery (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's always seemed to me that humour must have originally developed to identify and correct social deviance in early human hunter-gatherer groups. When a member of the group displays irregular or ungrouplike behaviour, other (often more dominant or trend-setting) members would identify this by pointing and making a simple noise (rapid inhalation/exhalation). Naturally this hit the behaviour-correctors with a nice little 'feel-good' chemical to reflect that individual's improving position in the group and to encourage this sort of behaviour modification in the future. The 'butt' of the 'joke' feels bad and either changes behaviour or recedes from the social arena. By correcting deviant behaviour, the group is made better off in terms of co-ordination.

It seems that almost all successful modern humour reflects aspects of this today. Comedians find ways of pushing these developmental buttons without (until recently) disturbing later-developed social protocols like 'rudeness' (which would only have developed as improving technologies and systems allowed social groups to grow and, increasingly, members to lack direct personal relationships.)

Humour has since become increasingly complex. A sense of humour also began to signal a well-functioning, clever brain (not just social position). This was important for mate selection. Puns are one area of humour that seems to reflect the latter (more recent and nuanced), but not the former (more basic), developmental explanation for humour.

I can't help but notice that GTBacchus's pun above is extremely funny. And that it includes both the more basic 'identify and correct unwelcome behaviour by putting down another member of the group' as well as the 'clever indicator of social status and brain functioning' reproductive aspects of humour.

Unlike most humourous acts, language seems to be the only butt of a pun. No pun intended.NByz (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not clear from my choice of tense that what I wrote above was personal conjecture. Evolutionary theories on humour seem to suggest it's origination as a reward for discovering flawed thought processes. I have been using my own theory for the past several years as I observed humour though. So far it's held up pretty well. It has no significant logical flaws and helps explain most things that people find funny.NByz (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it's a great theory. It doesn't hurt that you've presented it so that an immediate corollary is my own reproductive success. ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd like that!NByz (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ideas although something I read suggested the opposite, that it was because puns, like slapstick humour, engage the senses rather than the brain. People falling over entertains the sight but is not mentally challenging and while puns might take intelligence to construct, they take little intelligence to understand they merely please the ear with the sound of two comparable words. Actually puns have quite a noble history, they were very popular in the classical world, Aristotle praised them in his Rhetoric although Quintilian disapproved, and this general approval continued right down to the Renaissance. They were certainly loved during the Elizabethan era, which is perhaps why they fell out of favour shortly after, over exposure made them unwelcome. It could be as trivial as the fact that in Latin or Greek they require much greater skill to construct than in a loser language like English with its large range of synonyms, pronunciations etc. meltBanana 00:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC

I also should point out that I meant that coming up with an applicable pun quickly might be a sign of cleverness. Not that the pun itself is usually particularly clever.NByz (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about overexposure ties in well with what I was saying, and Jack's comments about the Australian press reminded me of a very vamous punster in U.S. media, Chris Berman. He made puns out of almost every baseball player's name in the days when that might have been one thing that swayed people to the then-fledgling station. To hear him doing it during Sportscenter was very funny at first. But, you can only hear "Bert "Be Home" Blyseven pitches to John Maybery "R.F.C.," and there's a hard smash and a great play by Greg Gagne "with a spoon"" and laugh so many times.

Another thought I had, too, is that - because puns are relatively easy to come up with - perhaps the person groaning is trying to mask their displeasure at not coming up with it theemselves, which I have done at times. Another thought is that some could be groaning becuase, well, that's just the thing to do with puns, just like people are conditioned to laugh at other jokes.Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually funny pun: at one point Humbert Humbert makes his pet Lolita lie on the floor of his car, and he thinks of her as his "car pet". :) --76.182.94.172 (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some definitions of "funny"... ;) --Tango (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punning takes center stage in much of Spider Robinson's Callahan's' series. cf. Lady Slings the Booze. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Construction Industry

Not trying to get people to do my homework for me, just looking for some advice, someone to point me in the right direction, I suppose.

Basically I have to write and illustrate an essay of about 1000 words, by monday at the latest, have been working on it for hours and have found it very difficult.

For this essay I have to 'Describe the roles and responsibilities involved in designing and constructing a building. Discuss how and why verbal and visual communication is important.'

So far i have a few lines on the different people involved in the design and construction teams, and a bit about the different uses and forms of communication, and have totally run out of ideas in less that 400 words. This essay doesn't have to be particularly great, all the rest of the work seems quite simple and should make up for it, I just have to do everything in the right order, so can't start that until I have dealt with this.

So, anyone want to offer some help, maybe a suggestion or two perhaps? Also, as I said, I have to illustrate it, so any help with finding diagrams or pictures that could fit with the subject would also be useful and appreciated.

Thanking you all in advance for helping with this last desperate attempt to get my work finished,

148.197.114.207 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have explored why visual and verbal communication are important, so that may be an avenue to check out. Constructing a building is an incredibly complicated process - why would you need to communicate verbally and visually when you're doing something like that? Every form of communication has its benefits and drawbacks - what kinds of situations would cause construction crews to use a particular kind of communication? As for the people involved, even a "box" building is a project requiring several different kinds of tradespeople. Each of those trades has a different responsibility and then there are people whose responsibility is to make sure they all get along. Thinking about how all those different groups need to interact could give you stuff to use both in listing the roles and in discussing how they need to communicate. Matt Deres (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "visual communication" cover -- fluorescent jackets and hardhats, or notices proclaiming their necessity? Maps and diagrams, or clearly understood hand signals for banksmen assisting large vehicles to back up? Define your terms! You might want to read Semiotics, the science of signs, or there again you might not want to. Bear in mind that verbal communication means "using words", and covers both written and oral instructions and discussions. One factor to consider might be the language skills of the construction workers: in many places in the world, they might have a low level of literacy, or might not be fluent in the language of their employers, and both of these can affect communication. One very public example of poor communication in the design phase was the wobbly opening of the Millennium Bridge (London); the engineers blamed the architects and vice versa, the media stoked up the mutual misunderstandings and grievances, and the taxpayers laughed and groaned. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, it's been rather useful, and I think I'm alomst done with it. However, still no ideas yet on any pictures/diagrams I could include. 148.197.114.207 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a safety sign or two? I don't know where you are, but the Health and Safety Executive in the UK has a website with pictures of signs on. And what about a simple Gantt chart for the project planning side of it?--TammyMoet (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of pictures/diagrams-- I would think a blueprint would be the basic example. Imagine how much harder it would be to describe how to construct something, particularly something as complex as a building, if you had to describe it in words rather than using a diagram? Also, as a suggestion of topics to mention is the increasing popularity of "Building Information Modeling" in constructing complicated buildings. Among other things, it allows everyone involved to better visualize how parts of the building are going to interact. This helps reduce the almost inevitable change orders that occur during construction because someone didn't realize that something conflicted with something else. This is helpful because different design teams might be responsible for different parts of the building and might not easily realize how the parts go together. Crypticfirefly (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

subliminal messaging - does it work?

With the help of a computer,it is rather easy to insert visual subliminal image on a movie. Let us say that you have a series of images. You insert a image of a luxury car with the caption "your car" on top of it and make it into a movie with the highest fps. According to the theory of subliminal images, this image must go straight into the subconsious mind. Whoever sees this movie repeatedly must possess that particular car. But it did not happen, atleast for me. Does subliminal messagin work at all?. If it does, how to actually make it work?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.70.125 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't help you. Read subliminal message. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be better off trying some form of Priming (psychology). Dmcq (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the day, assertions were made that messages flashed briefly on movie screens like "Buy popcorn" were too short to be seen, so they influenced the subconscious. A more careful analysis would show that some people saw the message and thought popcorn seemed like the perfect accompaniment to a movie. There was laughably poor assessment of whether the "subliminal" message was seen by some of the viewers in all subception studies I was. The methodology was poor. The theory of signal detectability holds that there is a varying likelihood as to whether a message will be seen when it is near threshold, varying across observers and varying with signal and noise intensity. This also applies to brief stimulus flashes. Once a message is flashed too briefly for eye movements to affect perception, the effect of decreasing duration is to decrease contrast. Some people will see it, some will not. I have seen no convincing evidence of any direct access to the subconscious. Edison (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Edison is immune to Clarityfiend's subliminal messaging. Tempshill (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not surprised. It has been proved that a subliminal message does not work at all Lemon martini (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]