Miscellaneous desk
< October 24	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 26 >

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.

October 25

Twin Beech Airplane

Can a Twin Beech Airplane (model 18) be flown safely with just one pilot? I know that it has controls for a crew of two, but if I were to buy a Twin Beech for myself and my family can it be safely flown with just one pilot?

Wobrien419 (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wobrien, please do not make your decision whether to purchase and operate a light aircraft for yourself and your family based on what you learn at Wikipedia's reference desk. Wikipedia cannot give medical advice, and one might doubt whether it's qualified to give advice on such a potentially dangerous activity as flying a light aircraft. This isn't a criticism of Wikipedia. --Dpr

Yes, it can. A lot of the jobs that Twin Beeches were used for wouldn't have been economically feasible with two pilots - crop dusting, mosquito dusting, etc. As long as the pilot has a multi-engine rating, there's no problem.

There used to be a Twin Beech up in Yellowknife (edit: and it was flown solo all the time). It was a coin flip as to whether it or the Beaver (CF-WWV, aka World War Five) made more noise. When they both started up at the same time you could hear it from the other end of town. --NellieBly (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you flown multiengines before? Because if not, I'd recommend really doing your homework on this plane, and, of course, getting a multiengine rating. Falconus^{p t c} 02:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up what the Twin Beech model 18 actually is, and I have to say that that does look like it would be fun to fly (just wish I was qualified to fly it) :-). Falconus^{p t c} 02:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're gonna want to have deep pockets for fuelling and maintaining those twin radials, though. Not to mention the high maintance cost/times that come with an airframe of that age and size. FiggyBee (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it's perfectly safe to fly with a single pilot - no less safe than flying a single-engined plane single-handed. If you haven't flown twins before, you need that twin engine rating - and if you have one but haven't flown twins in a while, you REALLY need to get an instructor to run you through the basics for an hour. Handling what happens when one engine dies, and getting a feel for RPM matching is something you need to be taught properly and to be very 'current' on. Obviously, it's a bigger, heavier plane - so more fuel is needed. Obviously, if you have two engines instead of one - with twice the number of engine instruments, etc, so it's gonna be more expensive to maintain. It's probably safer to fly overall - I'd much rather be stuck with one engine running in a twin than dead-stick with a single engine plane. You can also carry more weight in a plane like this - which might make it more comfortable for flying with your family. As with any used plane - you are taking on potentially massive maintenance bills if the thing isn't in A1 condition - so get the heck inspected out of it before you sign on the dotted line. How many hours of engine and airframe life does it have? SteveBaker (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Arnold

Back years ago, I remember hearing Eddy Arnold sing Dixie and it was the best yet. I have looked and looked and I can not find a recording anywhere of it. Does any one know where I can get a copy of this song "dixie" by Eddy Arnold?

Please send me a reply to my email [contact information removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.133.184 (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. RefDesk replies are made here, not by email. Email addresses left here are removed because this page is highly visible on the internet and spammers are likely to collect and use addresses to send unwanted emails.

This page is a full LP discography of Eddy Arnold, complete with track listings, and this one lists all his singles. I can't find Dixie anywhere on either, so it looks likely that Arnold did not release a commercial recording of that song, even if it featured in his live repertoire. Even so it is conceivable that a recording does exist, perhaps a bootleg or a video of a TV appearance. I would suggest you try asking on specialist forums or fansites, where someone may be able to help you track a version down if it exists. Ka renjc 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skin color

I know Mexicans and Latinos' skin is dark because of interbreeding with native populations during colonization. But then how come Spaniards' skin is sort of dark too? They couldn't have interbred that much with their colonies, could theu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.195.8 (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts. Spaniards are not dark because of mixing with their Latin American Colonies. They are dark because of their proximity to Africa, and mixing with the Moors (as in Mauritania and Morocco), who were a dark skinned Berber people of northern Africa. Early in Spanish history, the Moors fought a war with the Visigoths, who were Germanic and therefore pale. The expression "blue blood" comes from this period, when a Spanish noble was said to have bared his pale white arm to show the pure "blue blood" (i.e., venous blood) which lay underneath, untainted by the dark-skinned Moors, to prove his nobility. Eventually, Spain was retaken for the Christian world (Reconquista). By that time, however, the Moors and European Spanish had all but mixed, leading to the expression "dark as a Spaniard". Though Spaniards are not as dark as Latin Americans, some of them still have some colour to their skin. Intelligentsium^review 02:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post nonsense. Moors in Spain where a tiny population compared to the millions of mostly Celtic and Iberian (with a little Visigoth (nordic)) descent living there. Also during the Reconquista massive repopulation took place, so that the Andalusi population in conquered places was systematically sold as slaves and their cities occupied by Christians from northern Hispania. The moriscos (people of Muslim descent still living in Spain after the Reconquista) were expelled in 1609. And finally, many Berbers look almost or completely European so I doubt that one could easily tell whether someone has a Berber ancestor or not just by their looks.

In my opinion, Spaniards are "sort of dark" because the Iberians may have been somewhat swarthy; the Celts, despite common stereotypes, not that pale — just look at the French, who are almost 100% of Celtic (Gaulish) descent — and the pale Visigoths were too few. But mainly because almost all Spain is hot, so people there are tanned throughout the year (and heavily tanned in summer, especially if they go to the beach as most people there do).

Have a look at our article White people, Physical Appearance->Light skin section. --Belchman (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse others of posting nonsense just because you disagree. According to our article on the Moors, one expert said "Berbers were about 900,000 and the Arabs about 90,000 in Iberia", compared to a total population of about 8 million. Thus, they were around 1/8th the total population, and stayed for centuries (and some stayed permanently). This is an ample proportion and time to effect the total gene pool, and specifically those in the South. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you completely ignored what I said above about repopulation (which was as important as conquest during the so-called Reconquista) and the expulsion of the moriscos, but I guess that some people just can't learn. Some people think that the native Iberians may have had some link with northern African Berbers, but that's another story. --Belchman (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I said that he posted nonsense because he answered by guessing, and in this particular case was simply wrong. Also, in my own personal opinion, the numbers given by Aline Angoustures (whose article in the French Wikipedia was removed due to lack of notability and doesn't have an article in ours) look somewhat inflated if you take into account that the Arab rulers needed almost 800 years to completely Arabize the former kingdom of Granada despite the fact that the native Hispano-Roman-Visigoth people more or less welcomed the Islamic invasion. And finally, check this too: Limpieza de sangre. --Belchman (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this probably was more appropriate for the Humanities section of the Reference Desk, but then again, if you had known why, you need not have asked this question! Intelligentsium^review 02:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, from a more biological POV, skin tone is strongly correlated with latitude. This is largely due to the natural selection for photo-protective, darker skin in areas the have high levels sun exposure. If you have every been to Spain, you would know that it is pretty warm there, with plenty of sunlight. Combine that with, as Intelligentsium notes, their rich history of contact with African ethnicities and you have a population with darker skin tone. Rockpocket 05:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are Spaniards really dark-skinned? Maybe you're of northern European descent and just really pasty and so white that you're pink. Maybe that's just my Portugueseness talking. --Nricardo (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a hundred years ago there was racial prejudice (from some Northern Europeans) against Spaniards because of their dark skin. Dbfirs 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have an article somewhere that states that sometime in the United States the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, the Greeks and I don't know who else weren't considered "white", so I guess that often it has more to do with prejudice against massive migration rather than skin color. --Belchman (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC) --Belchman (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"White" as in Caucasian. That includes those with the darker-skinner Mediterrean look. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee filter re-usage

Is it recommended or even sanitary to re-use the day before coffee grounds and disposable coffee filter?janiceJanice alderman (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janice alderman (talk • contribs) 04:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds that have been sitting wet in an enclosed container for a day? Uhhhggg. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are grounds for divorce. Bus stop (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mold will grow on coffee grounds left for several days in a drip coffee maker.–RHolton ≡– 12:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not recommended. Just buy the filters in bulk! They are quite cheap when purchased that way. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, buy reusable cloth filters (sometimes branded "coffee socks" or "coffee sleeves"). They need to be washed between uses. They're much more environmentally friendly than disposable filters. I don't recommend reusing the grounds if you want decent coffee. Compost the used grounds. Marco polo (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you guys, but coffee grounds that have been left for a while tend to smell pretty unpleasant. Not something that recommends re-use. Vranak (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sometimes reusing the filters to boil an egg. Just put the egg into the filter and let the machine run hot water over it. Depending on your preferences, the amount of water (and of old coffee grounds) gives you fine control over how thoroughly the egg is boiled. --95.223.207.169 (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't sanitary. It may take two or three days for visible mold to be detectable, but in 24 hours there'll be enough mold and bacteria and the like to be unsafe and unpleasantly bad-smelling. Your big danger is when you go to throw it out - that's when mold spores will end up in the air and when you'll breathe them in. And all the supposed "care" in the world - throwing them out quickly, keeping your arms extended so it doesn't reach your face - won't prevent the spread of airborne molds and bacteria - as long as it's sitting there on your counter, it's releasing these things into the air.

Saving a few pennies only to make yourself sick or have your kitchen smell awful (and make you look like a slob to anyone who happens to show up) is a prime example of false economy. If you can't afford to use a brand new filter and brand new grounds every single day, don't make coffee. It's not an essential. --NellieBly (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you're getting a solid "No" from the crew. What's not clear is why you are asking.

Scenatio 1: You're 'thrifty' and want to stretch what you've got as far as it will go. Answer (as per everyone else): buy new suppies.
Scenario 2: You've just awakened, r-e-a-l-l-y need your java fix, but you're out of filters. Should you re-use? Answer: No. Substitute a section of paper towel for now, then after breakfast go buy filters.
Scenario 3: You're out of coffee, but have yesterday's used grinds left over and are considering reusing them. Should you? Answer: Unless you feel you have a personal need to experience the questionable flavor of day-old coffee, I strongly recommend zipping out and getting some new. B00P (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like 3M should get into the re-usable filters business, and see if anyone gets the subliminal joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pyramid

How many sides does a pyramid have?Burildav (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See pyramid. If you're referring to the Egyptian pyramids, they had/have four sides. Dismas|^(talk) 06:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't, they have five sides. Four triangular sides and a square base. A pyramid with four sides is called a tetrahedron, and are generally not used for when you're actually building a pyramid. Pyramids that you build have five sides. 83.250.228.169 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Egyptian pyramids do have five faces, one of which is the base. The term side in geometry typically refers to an edge, and this is typically used of two-dimensional polygons. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! This reminds me of a problem in a Hell's Kitchen article that referenced an episode in season 6. Ramsey set up a craps table and the contestants were throwing dice to determine which letter they had to use to begin the name of the next ingredient they were to add to a dish. The article, as most people would, stated that "they rolled the die and picked a food starting with the letter that it landed on." In reality, though, they didn't use the letter that the die landed on, but rather, the letter opposite the letter that the die landed on. Colloquially, though, we say that dice landed on snake-eyes when double ones are shown, not when boxcars (double sixes)are shown, and the dice have landed on (i.e. are actually in contact with the playing surface with) their number-1 surfaces. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not excessively nitpicky? You can't pick up the Giza pyramids to inspect each face. They're not like those little wooden models you get in math class. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can be precise and also maintain mathematical accuracy by saying the square-base pyramids have four sloping triangular faces. They also have four sloping edges. Only the four horizontal edges round the base should be described as sides. Dbfirs 17:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So a true pyramid would have 5 faces and 8 edges or "sides" as you're calling them. The catch with the Egyptian pyramids, if I recall correctly, is that they have an underground component, so if you could magically pick one up, I don't think its bottom is an actual square. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and also the sides are not currently flat, they are more like steps, so it is accurate to say they have thousands of faces? (Or that they are not mathematically pyramidal at all?) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were once covered with limestone to make them reasonbly flat. But mathematically speaking, there is no such thing as a "perfect" geometric figure in the real world anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll bite. How many sides does a pyramid have? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Always with the jokes. Every damn thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.2 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least he didn't ask how many sides a quadrilateral has. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's easy. It has two, an inside and and outside. I suspect that is true of pyramids too.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the boy gets a cigar! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalms* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.2 (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea! Here we go again, over-complicating an otherwise simple question with semantics and nit-pickery...

Who will be the first to make a "nose-pickery" joke? Let's watch... Dismas|^(talk) 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could go ask User:NoseNuggets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article Pyramid says "The base of a pyramid can be trilateral, quadrilateral, or any polygon shape, meaning that a pyramid has at least four faces (base plus at least three triangular faces)." (my emphasis) The OP said nothing about Egypt. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The root cause of the difficulty of answering this question simply is that the word "sides" doesn't generally apply to polyhedra (3D objects) - only 2D objects like triangles, squares and so on. In 3D we generally talk about "faces", "edges" and "vertices". We can (I hope) all agree that a square pyramid (of the Egyptian variety) has 5 faces, 8 edges and 5 vertices. But you can also have pyramids with bases that have more than 4 sides - and with pyramids with N-sided bases, you get N+1 faces, 2N edges and N+1 vertices. A three sided pyramid is more properly called a "tetrahedron" - and it has 4 faces, 6 edges and 4 vertices. You can call a tetrahedron a "pyramid" if you like - but it's kinda like calling a square a "rectangle" - not strictly incorrect - but just a bit confusing! SteveBaker (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I recall from high school geometry, "sides" is properly used only with polygons, not polyhedrons. The broader definition of "pyramid" that you're using would theoretically include the Trylon, which had four faces, three of which were long ones (as befitted the national mood of the 1930s, I suppose). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intercaste marriage

"what is intercaste marriage?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.14.135 (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is marriage between people of different castes. Dismas|^(talk) 10:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

architecture website

can anyone give me a website where i can know all the latest news about architecture? i tried to search on google, but everyone of them seems to ask me of my "company" and qualifications. man! i'm just a 16-year old student!! i dont have any company. please tell me some student-friendly site!! thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.131.129 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at [[1]]. It seems to be fairly international and has sections on projects (plus pictures), books and jobs. There is also a newsletter service which allows students to log in. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make sure you used Google properly. Try following these steps:

1) Go to www.google.com.

2) Pick "News" at the top.

3) Type in "architecture" and hit enter.

This method gave me some decent results: [2]. StuRat (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come fair trade tea has got cheaper?

Me and my wife were just enjoying a nice cup of tea, and we were wondering about this little quandry. We've always bought fair trade tea since it became available, as we've got a deep concern for the wellfare of those poor exploited tea pickers. Lord, it brings a tear to my eye when I think of those poor ol' boys not getting anything from their tea picking whilst the plump westerners grow yet fatter. But I couldn't help noticing that the price of the old fair trade has dropped over the past few years. How can they drop the price of fairtrade tea whilst still paying their workers a decent wage? Many thanks in advance, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The start-up expenses are likely recovered. --NellieBly (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the Retail pricing debate section of the Fair trade debate article. Retailers are just reducing their mark-up to be more competative. I read an economics paperback a few months ago (forgotten title) that said the amount of money per Fair-Trade coffee cup sent to the producers by a well-known coffee chain was minute, and that in the past the greater price of Fair Trade coffee was nearly all pocketed by the company and not sent to the producers, although that company was now selling Fair Trade and non-Fair Trade at the same price. Your retailer may now be doing the same - not out of altruism but because consumers may be less willing to pay the premium. Update: the book I read was The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford 89.243.197.90 (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather skeptical of any company claiming to be more fair, etc., unless they list concrete claims, like that they pay twice as much per pound as the average. If they made such a claim and it was exposed as a lie, then they would be liable for false advertising claims. However, if they don't make any specific claims, then they can never be held accountable and thus have no reason to do the right thing (assuming they are completely amoral, which is what I always do when businesses are concerned). StuRat (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the product has Fairtrade certification, then the claims are concrete. You can dispute whether the aims are correct or whether they are sufficiently well enforced, but the main point of the scheme is to have a single recognisable and consistent standard for many different products. The scheme guarantees a minimum price to producers, and will also pay a small premium above the market price, when this approaches the guaranteed minimum. This means that the price differential between fairtrade and non-fairtrade tea may be smaller when the market price is high, as the gap between the amount fairtrade and non-fairtrade manufacturers pay to growers is smaller (although, as the anon user above says, this may well only be a very small proportion of the store price). Warofdreams talk 23:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cost of a cup of tea / coffee is more than the cost of the raw-materials used to make it. It is that simple. That's why some places you can easily pay 50p (or your local currency) more for a coffee than another place even if they use the exact same coffee supplier. As a side point - because something is not 'fair trade certificated' does not mean it is not fairly traded (the above from Warofdreams is a good answer but cann kinda be read as if there is a 'fair trade' price and a 'non fair trade' price - reality is there are different 'grades' etc. so there will be many 'non fair trade' coffee beans available at a prices far in excess of that of Fair-trade). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]