Miscellaneous desk
< September 19	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 21 >

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.

September 20

Why are rowers Caucasian?

Why are most international/Olympic level rowers all Caucasian? How come there are little to none black, hispanic or asian rowers? Acceptable (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would pretty much guarantee the rowers from Nigeria are black, the ones from Mexico are hispanic and those from China are asian. Do you perhaps mean Olympic level rowers from one country in particular? Nanonic (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's because rowing is a relatively expensive sport. You need a boat, a boathouse to store it in, and in the Third World, probably a guard to see it doesn't get stolen from the boathouse. It's also basically a European sport (see History of rowing). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, looking at past results of World Championships and Olympics, most of the crew of podium finishers are Caucasian. Acceptable (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 report, "Looks like China’s plan to beef up its rowing program to win gold medals in Beijing is coming together smoothly.

At last weekend’s World Cup regatta in Lucerne, Switzerland, Chinese rowers won five gold medals in the 14 events, and seven medals overall. Those five golds equaled the number of golds they won last year in Amsterdam, when they stunned the world with their recent surge in the sport." Fightingthemall (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing what 10-year-olds can do these days, isn't it? :) --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? --Tango (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just a reference to the last Olympic games. No offence intended. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Indonesians and Scandinavians good at Badminton? Why is Pakistan so good at Field Hockey? Why do the Chinese (and one Swedish guy) dominate ping-pong? It's just a matter of tradition. And success breeds success. Top players become top trainers who produce top players.. etc. I don't know that Caucasus is particularily good at rowing, either? --Pykk (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting bigger

I know it's a bit silly asking here, because all the information is out there (on the nets), and it's unlikely that anything will actually help, but I'm asking about ways to increase body weight for very high-metabolism individuals.

The obvious answer is just to eat more, and then the obvious response to that is that eating more just forces your body to digest quicker, but the truth is that everyone thinks they know some separate solution, and everyone seems to respond differently to different diets.

I've personally been trying pretty hard for the last 4 years, which gives quite a bit of time to try each described method and see which work and which don't. Being a glutton didn't work for me at all; at my most extreme I was on a high carbohydrate diet (eggs, rice, red meat, etc.) at four meals a day in combination with "weight gain" protein, and I couldn't keep up with that for more than a few weeks because it made me feel sick every day; I just couldn't put that much food into my body. Never mind that I actually lost weight; I'd be sweating buckets overnight and taking extra long in the toilet.

The diet that worked best involved two high-carbohydrate meals a day heavy protein shakes 2 or 3 times after/before eating (tried both) and after working out. That again didn't really work though because my body can't take that much protein. The weight gain was minimal anyway, only about 2-3 kgs.

I have a friend that is a marathon runner, similar body type, and he walks and talks in like slow-motion, says he's keeping his energy use down (lowering his metabolism) and he's always eating carbohydrates; it doesn't seem to make much of a difference with him either though.

Is there anything else that I might not have tried? Is "lowering" my metabolism an option? Note: I'm not looking for supplements, moreso because I'm not in the US and I wouldn't be able to find most available anyway. 210.254.117.186 (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the stupid question - but do you want to get fat, or grow more muscle - if it's muscle there are plenty of resources on the internet, as well as local organisations (eg gyms) - that will be able to help you. The basic principle is that you lift or move heavy weights or forces (above what you normally do) coupled with a suitable diet.

however to give any more information would be in the realms of medical type advice, and I am not a health professional...

Even the 'barbels' you can buy from shops suggests "consult your doctor before beginning a program of weightlifting" - in case you have any underlying medical condition, and also to make sure you don't overdo it etc..

83.100.251.196 (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stupid question but you have to realize that it's not really a "work out and get big" kind of issue. I am physically active, and I've been on hard weights routines before (trying out many different intervals) but even with that I don't gain any weight, I put on a little muscle here and there but I often end up looking skinnier than I already am; I lose the little fat I have on my face and shoulders and I turn into a slightly-muscly skeleton! So the only thing I want to do is "get big": I can adjust how much of that is fat and how much of that is muscle after I get there heh. 210.254.117.186 (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well lucky you - you seem to be one of those who can eat fatty foods! Seriously, if you want to gain weight, eat fats. I agree with 83.100: if you want to grow muscle, find a gym and get someone trained in nutrition to help you, rather than rely on a bunch of unqualified jerks on t'internet. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a nutritionist a couple years ago; he probably had a lot of knowledge and knew a lot about getting certain people into shape, and building muscle, and keeping people healthy, but nothing he said really worked (he was especially insistent on certain supplements and minerals that just ended up costing me way too much money), so I guess he didn't really know how to handle people with really high metabolism. 210.254.117.186 (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not medical advice, just an anecdote. I used to be similar in my eating habits and inability to gain any weight. About the time I hit 23, something magically changed, and suddenly I found it was pretty easy to pack on pounds and pretty hard to get them off! I then came to the realization that while being a "bigger" guy at age 18 had some appeal, being a thin guy with a pot belly at 25 was pretty gross. I've since managed to take some of that off, desperately wanting to be the thin guy I was at 18. So I might recommend you just enjoy what you have to offer and not worry so much about it. Eating healthily will make you feel better and that's mostly what matters. If it's trouble with getting girls, just wait a little while and pretty soon most of your "bigger" contemporaries will have turned into little fatties and you'll be looking pretty acceptable in comparison. ;-) And you can do it knowing that one of the main factors for longevity is a low caloric intake. Anyway, anecdote done, proceed how you wish! --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 26, and feeling it like you say, and my father probably has the same body type as me so he's dealt with it too, but even if I can get a "pot belly" now by eating unhealthy foods, I do think I live pretty healthy and I don't see why I can't get "big" in a healthy sense. Still, I haven't actually gained any weight since I was 18, so I might not change that much. 210.254.117.186 (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thread really is getting too close to medical advice, but I would advise asking a doctor about your thyroid level and other things that might affect your metabolism. When I was hyperthyroid (producing too much thyroid hormone), it was essentially impossible for me to get fat and hard to avoid getting dangerously thin (apart from many other dangers of hyperthyroidism). Those who are hypothyroid (too little hormone) have the opposite problem, among many others: not only can they be lethargic; it's hard for them to avoid gaining weight. An endocrinologist or a good general practitioner could also examine other things that might affect your metabolism. While this is probably less true today, it was common for general practitioners to miss thyroid disorders (mine wasn't diagnosed until a week after I had a stroke at 47.) And, to repeat, I'm no doctor, so it's quite likely that none of this applies; it's just one possibility. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree with the person above about "muscle turns to flab" - here's my anecdote too - I used to be a thin type, and I did a lot of walking and cycling. Around 20something I started doing weights and eating a lot of meat.. Result I got a lot more musclely due to the extra effort. ok. Problem was that I couldn't keep the extra effort up long term (over more than 10 years) - which left me slightly fatty (or just plain old fat) - and as a result - I couldn't enjoy walking or cycling as much as I used to (especially in the summer months where the very slight extra fat I had innevitably gained meant I was finding it just to hot, where before i was find doing exercise. Like the poster above - it look me a long while to get back to 'natural me'.

Anyway clearly you are physically active - but gaining 'muscle bulk' is not the same as doing exercise - it's a completely different way. I recommend talking to someone at a gym or whatever (a book or something) about it - partly because we can't give medical advice and this is getting periously close - but as I at hinted above - the trick to gain muscle is not any sort of carb burning exercise - but trying to lift stuff you simply cant lift more than 5 times... And a lot of steak.. (But don't overeat which is what you were doing) By the way this method will make your face fat with muscle too - so don't worry about that - the gurning effect when busting a nut trying to lift big rocks makes even the face musclely. If you want fat later on just stop exercising...83.100.251.196 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little more - I know it's impossible to put you off - but try walking around with a sack that weighs 3 stone on your back for a bit and see if it really appeals - that's where most people who gain weight end up. It just ends up being a burden.. Chances are you'll actually reduce your overall health level from what it is now - which in all probability is a perfect balance.83.100.251.196 (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way why not see a doctor or similar about it - see if they can detect any problems, also have you measured your Body Mass Index - just to get a feel of actually how thin you are - you might be feeling thinner than you actually are (which a lot of people get)83.100.251.196 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally you should first consult a doctor to ensure that there is nothing wrong with you. Have a full medical check-up, and once you have discussed the results, and everything is (hopefully) fine, go and see a nutritionist. It's not a question of quantity, it's a question of getting the right composition of the meals you eat. You should also not undertake any strict diets without advice, as you can easily end up not getting enough vitamins and minerals essential to good health. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in regular contact with a doctor, and there's nothing "wrong", my BMI a month or two ago was -22% I think which is at the lower end of "normal", and as I said above, I had a nutritionist a couple years ago, and nothing he did actually helped, and instead he just made me lose money! 210.254.117.186 (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate weight loss OR weight gain is best managed by a professional of some kind.

That's a good one about the nutrionalist. He helped you lose weight, alright - from your wallet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple fatty weight gain is easy: Eat lots of unhealthy food. Drink lots of beer. Take no exercise. Sit around in front of your TV. Drive everywhere. Astronaut (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a healthy weight then to be blunt, I suggest don't worry about it, putting on weight is not necessarily going to make you any healthier then you are now and it could make you worse off. Also I noticed your IP looks up to Japan. If by chance your are Japanese or some other Asian descent then remember that your body type is likely to be different from that more typical of people of European or African descent. Yes, this is a generalisation and it's not to say people of Asian descent can't get fat or muscular but I couldn't think of any better way to make the point. I presume you mean your BMI is in the low end of the 'normal' range recommended for people of your ethnicity and your weight and body type is the low range for people of the same ethnicity however again, if it's in the healthy range and your doctor and nutritionist didn't see anything wrong with your current weight, there's likely no need to worry about it. Instead just eat a healthy diet (by this I mean one that is generally healthy e.g. ample fruit and vegetables), exercise regularly and live a healthy live. Perhaps you'll one day find it easier to put on weight, perhaps not, either way there's no need to worry now. I concur with the posters above that if it does happen you'll probably wish for your current situation. Definitely you're the envy of many a fat guy Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An car in a Music Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFavW0bfbZc&NR=1 , What car is the white car , that Don drives?

I think it's a Fiat Uno. SteveBaker (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a Kia Pride. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't fly over Chinese airspace?

Recently I flew from Kuala Lumpur to Seoul on Malaysian Airlines. The most direct route would have been right over China, but instead the plane flew to the northeast and then north, via Taiwanese airspace. I thought that was odd. Then a few months later, I flew from Seoul to Hong Kong, and the plane again avoided flying over the Chinese mainland by going south across the strait, then west to Hong Kong. And this was on Cathay Pacific, a Chinese (well, Hong Kong) airline. What's the deal? 58.161.196.113 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Cathay Pacific VR-HEU - you really don't want to fly into chinese airspace unless you have to. Exxolon (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is, you might not have wanted to in 1954. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, flying over ocean has some benefits - there are no (or fewer) taxes, fees, or permits, required from the country you might overfly; there are fewer concerns about airspeed and its impact on noise; and changes to the route require little negotiation. I doubt the present concern is being shot down by Chinese air defense; but old, cautious mindsets die hard in aviation. Nimur (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering many international airlines fly in and out of China these days, I should think that 50-year-old shootdowns have very little to do with it. The direct line between KL and Seoul goes directly over the second busiest airport in the world. That's airspace that you don't fly through unless you have to. FiggyBee (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A map is a flat representation of a spherical surface. Therefore the closest distance between two far points on a flat map actually looks like a curve. Our article on great circle has a good illustration of a flight path. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the great circle path between Kuala Lumpur to Seoul goes straight over Guangzhou, Hangzhou and Shanghai, among others. It'd probably save time to take a small detour to stay out of what must be some fairly packed flight corridors over that airspace. --Pykk (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was pressure from Hong Kong on China to open up more airspace entry/exit points a few years back - IIRC there was only one close to Hong Kong, in the vicinity of Shenzhen and that was heavily congested. That'd be quite a good reason to avoid entering Chinese airspace. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

45, and 49 horsepower... top speed?

okay , I own two cars FIAT Uno, with 45 horsepower and a Skoda 120 L, with a 49 horsepower, what are their top speeds?

Which models? and if you have that information you could search yourself for "fiat uno model top speed" on the internet.83.100.251.196 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that there isn't an exact relationship between power and top speed. Even taking the idealization that the transmission losses are zero and the engine is able to operate at full power at the car's top speed (depending on gearing, it may not), air resistance still differs between cars. Also, the book figures for horsepower AND top speed are likely inaccurate, and only refer to new cars.--Leon (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you have enough horsepower - if you car doesn't have the right gear ratios, it may run out of RPM's before it can reach its top speed. For example, the first few years of manufacture of the MINI Cooper'S had that problem - when they changed the gear ratios - the car would go 10mph faster. Air resistance is incredibly important in determining top speed because the power you need to overcome it increases as the CUBE of the speed! It takes eight times as much power to go twice as fast. That's why almost any car can get up to 100mph - even pretty cheap cars can make 140mph - but it takes a hugely carefully engineered supercar to get much higher than 200mph. At lower speeds, you hardly notice the effects of drag - but it makes such a critical difference to top speed that the horsepower ends up being a small factor. For example, if your FIAT Uno could go (say) 100mph with it's 45hp engine - and you somehow did something to push the horsepower up to 49hp - it still wouldn't reach even 103mph because it takes 10% more engine power to get just 3% more speed. This extreme sensitivity to wind resistance means that whether you have a tail-wind or a head-wind has a huge impact on your car's top speed. Oddly - the weight of the car has almost no effect on its' top speed...keeping a car light improves acceleration and handling - but does almost nothing to the speed it'll go. The other thing to bear in mind is that horsepower isn't everything - the amount of torque the engine can produce at a particular RPM is also important. The 2003 MINI Cooper'S goes faster in 5th gear than it does in 6th because it has more torque at the higher RPM's in 5th gear than the lower RPM's in 6th. Again, this is a matter of gearbox design. Typically, those high gears are designed for maximum fuel economy at lower speeds - so you tend to get stuck with inappropriate gear ratios for hitting the top speeds. SteveBaker (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst Steve is "right" on the gearing issue, power is power. That is, assuming optimal gearing throughout, one needn't concern oneself with torque and RPMs. But we don't usually have such gearing...--Leon (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are these bugs/creatures? Mosquitoes?

I had a bucket of plain water sitting in my backyard and I emptied it out by spilling it onto the ground. When I did, there was a bit of buzzing/chirping sound and some bubbles in the water. What's causing this? Could it be mosquitoes? How long does a mosquito need standing water before it becomes an adult mosquito? 24.6.46.106 (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For information on mosquito larvae see mosquito - you can see the larvae if they are in there.

What was the buzzing/chirping sound - did this have anything to do with pouring it onto the ground?83.100.251.196 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a sort of high pitched squeal/continuous chirp. After I poured it, I bent down to listen and it was definitely coming from the water.. 24.6.46.106 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pouring water onto dry (possibly hot) pavement/soil/concrete etc can generate a chirping noise - as the water soaks in. Does this match what you did?83.100.251.196 (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a possibility. I'll try pouring some tap water on the ground next time I hear the chirping. Thanks for the idea! 24.6.46.106 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my first thought (with the bubbles) is that it's air bubbling out of a porous surface as the water flows in and replaces it. FiggyBee (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought is that there was something on the ground that objected to being soaked in water. StuRat (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

audio visual media

Does anyone here know roughly how many video clips, gifs, and soundbites are on Wikipedia either by being uploaded here or by being added from the commons repository? 75.31.26.123 (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

859,639 files have been uploaded here, according to Special:Statistics. I have no clue how many links there are to files in Commons though. Commons just hit 5 million files... SteveBaker (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

collectible value

How much is a T-shirt autographed by Dale Earnhardt Sr. worth?

Not much, I suspect. Firstly, these things are simple to fake and almost impossible to authenticate - secondly, if you want to know the value of something - a good way to find out is to take a look on eBay. After all, it's no use something being supposedly "valuable" if nobody will buy it! I couldn't find any autographed Dale Earnhardt T-shirts for sale - but do a search for "autographed t-shirt" and you'll find shirts that have been autographed by a whole bunch of other equally famous people for sale. Asking prices are from $9 to $130 - but I don't see ANY of them being bid on...suggesting that there really isn't much market for them. Your best chance (I suppose) would be to find some kind of Earnhardt fan site and post your shirt for sale there. SteveBaker (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

surnames

Please explain when you can use the title at the end of the name for example James H. SMith, I, II, III or IV and is it dropped at any time? Four Tildes

I don't understand the question. A title is something like "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Dr.", "Lord", "Sir", "Rev.", etc.. They go at the beginning of names. You may find Suffix (name)#Generational titles useful, though. For future references, you need to actually use four tildes to sign posts, not write the words "Four Tildes". A tilde is the wavy line: ~ --Tango (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’m born John Robert Doe. I name my son exactly the same, and he becomes John Robert Doe, Jr. and I become John Robert Doe Sr. He then names his son the same, and my grandson becomes John Robert Doe III (“the third”), and my son John Robert Doe II (“the second”). After I die, I might be referred to as John Robert Doe I (“the first”), but it isn’t that common while one is still alive. Some people, like President Barack Hussein Obama II and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. drop the suffix. Curious; has the US ever had a President-VP combo with generational titles before? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Clinton is a third and Gore is a junior. Dismas|^(talk) 08:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use it if you're an American.. :) At least, I've never seen anyone from any other culture putting ordinal numbers after their names. Except for royalty. (who'd only get their number after coronation). Where and when did this thing originate? (for non-royalty/popes/etc)? --Pykk (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Popes, as with Pope Benedict XVI, but those are slightly different as they choose their papal names, and it'd be rare to find an individual who is actually the XVIth to bear the name. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the Reuss family of Germany, who name every male child Henry with a numerical suffix relating to the number of male children born that year. This image [1] shows a suffix of XLV which I make 45! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC with above. What a coincidence!) Every male member of the princely family of the Reuss Junior Line is named Heinrich (Henry) and they are all numbered ordinally from birth to tell them apart. They "reset" the numbers every century or so, but there have been rediculously high numbers from them, the highest I have found is Heinrich XLVII (Henry the 47th) though there may have been higher numbers in earlier or later generations than him. --Jayron32 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, Henry LXXII, Prince of Reuss-Lobenstein-Ebersdorf (seventy-second) had the highest regnal number of any reigning monarch. Warofdreams talk 23:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The family-owned London book publishers John Murray (now taken over by a larger concern, Hodder Headline) were from their foundation in the mid-18th century headed by a succession of fathers and (mostly) sons all named John Murray, who used successional numbers. I worked there briefly under the last, John Murray VII, when John ("Jock") Murray VI still had an active emeritus position. Such usage, however, was/is very unusual even in such a business context in England: the Murray family of course originated in Scotland, where the old custom of naming eldest sons after their fathers persisted, I think, longer/more widely than elsewhere in the UK. In the John Murrays' case the numbering practice was, I suspect, always seen by Society as an amusing eccentricity, but otherwise use of such successional numbers outside of the Peerage and Baronetage (or of Royalty) would both formerly and even more so currently in the UK generally be considered presumptious, gauche and risable.

(Addendum: the Murrays' numbers were only referred to by themselves or others in contexts at least peripherally touching on their position with the publishing firm; they would not have used them for all everyday purposes, as part of their signatures, or when filling out forms, for example.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]