Miscellaneous desk
< August 16	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 18 >

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.

August 17

Proposed UK responce to nuclear attack after Trident

What is the proposed responce of the UK if a rogue state (and in time all or nearly all states could have the technology) explodes a nuclear missile in or over London, if Trident was no longer available? Write them a very stiff letter of complaint? 92.28.247.204 (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed by whom? The UK has the third largest military expenditure of any state in the world, so it would have a large number of potential responses to any attack. If the question is intended rhetorically, bear in mind that, to date, the only state to have exploded a nuclear weapon agressively is the United States, that most states, including Western European ones, do not maintain a nuclear capacity, and that in an actual event of this type, it may be far from clear who is responsible for an attack or, if it is an organisation, where would be an appropriate target for a nuclear response. Warofdreams talk 09:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It would have a large number of potential responses to any attack" - could you be more specific please. 92.28.241.20 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(If I may) Might I suggest air strikes, naval bombardment, targeted air drops, full-scale invasion. Just what comes to mind. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of solely nuclear response, the idea would be, I think, to rely on the nuclear powers still left in Britain's military alliances (NATO comes to mind). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main proposers of not renewing Trident are the Lib Dems, and I don't think they are proposing having no nuclear deterrent at all. They are just proposing a thorough review of the options. --Tango (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is worth noting that at the moment, the only UK nuclear weapons system is Trident, and introducing a new (or old) system would be non-trivial. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trident is reaching the end of its operational lifetime, though, and renewing it is also non-trivial. --Tango (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, true. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even with Trident, it's not clear what would happen. If Pyongyang slipped a nuke into London and sets it off today, what happens? Well, first you'll want to make sure it actually came from Pyongyang. This can be done without too much difficulty (isotopic analysis) but will take a little time to check the results, assuming they are straightforward (and not some kind of elaborate Tom Clancy scenario involving stolen HEU and a false flag operation or something). Then what? Do you just nuke back? Or do you laboriously go through the UN or NATO? What if China and Russia say, "please don't nuke back, we wouldn't like it if you nuked back"? Do you risk escalation and involvement of two other (very nuclear) superpowers? Or do you try to do some kind of coalition invasion force thing? I don't know. I'm sure this kind of thing keeps people up at night at high levels. It's not straightforward. The best part about nuclear deterrents is that you hope you never have to use them — put on a tough face and hope that works to deter. Actually contemplating what you'd do with or without them is a little tough.

If we switched it from London to, say, Berlin, it becomes a little more clear: Germany limps over to UN/NATO, says "help," and then the US and everyone else tries to whip up a war party to go (conventionally) bomb or invade under a UN police action (again). It seems unlikely on the face of it to me that the US, for example, would respond with a nuke in such a situation, but this is just speculation on my part. I don't think the US wants to start nuking people (again) if it can help it. Presumably a similar situation would unfold if the UK got rid of its deterrents. (Or the US, for that matter.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt N. Korea would be nuked in retaliation. While it has an enormous army, it is outdated. NATO wouldn't have any difficulty defeating N. Korea by conventional means. The only thing stopping them at the moment is China and if N. Korea did launch an nuclear attack on Britain (or anywhere else, for that matter) I doubt China would be able to do much to help them. --Tango (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though I don't think China would be very happy if the response was nuclear, which was more my point. (I don't think China would risk nuclear war over North Korea, mind you.) My general point is that once you really start contemplating this beyond the slogans, it gets really murky and problematic. Once you expand the "nuclear war" timeline from "we have 30 seconds to make a decision" to "let's ponder what to do for a few weeks", the decisions actually get a lot harder. It's easier to say, "well, if they're going all out, we'll go all out too!" than it is to say, "well, what exactly does this horrible but not all-out attack warrant?" --Mr.98 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The civilian response would be to Duck and cover and might have looked like this (45-year old film that was banned by the BBC). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that North Korea can barely put together one working test, Iran seems adamant (for now) that their nuclear ambitions are limited to civilian power stations, and neither nation has a history of threating the UK, what possible reason would either nation have attack a nuclear-free UK? A much more likely scernario is a dirty bomb detonated by a home-grown suicide bomber, against which Trident is absolutely useless. Astronaut (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that even the "dud" North Korean bomb was significantly more powerful than a conventional bomb. .5-1kt is still a deterrent if you consider tens of thousands of deaths to be undesirable. I'm not sure too many people really feel that Iran is trustworthy in reporting their ambitions. But in either case, I do agree it's hard to figure, exactly, why they would want to attack the UK, nuclear free or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too worried about Iran. They won't use nukes for the same reason the existing nuclear powers don't - mutually assured destruction. North Korea, on the other hand, isn't exactly a rational regime. They could easily decide that going out with a bang is better than making a few concessions but keeping your country. I agree, they wouldn't target the UK, though. We're not in range of their delivery systems and a suitcase-bomb style attack doesn't seem likely (missiles can be launched at short notice, suitcase-bombs can't). --Tango (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it — and this is getting into soap box territory, I admit — the main problem with a nuclear Iran is not so much that Iran will use them (I don't think they will — their hard-liners have issues to be sure but they are not suicidal or millenarian), but that it will spur other countries in the region to develop weapons as well. If Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, and Egypt get bombs, that's an awful lot of nukes clustered in a very volatile region (along with Israel). It would be certainly going the wrong direction when it came to making a "safer world." That being said, I don't think it's worth overreacting to, either. The world will not end if Iran gets the bomb, nor do I think nuclear war will suddenly break out. But it would not be a very good thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A suitcase bomb could be smuggled into the country. The time it takes to get here is not important. Over the next few decades ICBM technology, or even just an aircraft with a hidden bomb, could become easily buildable in any country. The technology that launched the first satellites is fifty years old. 92.28.255.157 (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but ICBM tech is still pretty hard. The North Koreans are basically just augmenting old Soviet technology (and the Iranians are augmenting North Korean technology based on Soviet technology). "Rocket science" is actually a lot harder than building nuclear weapons, as it turns out. It is a non-trivial problem to move a large amount of mass to a given place with any accuracy. I don't want to make it sound impossible — it's clearly not — but I don't think it's going to become "easily build-able in any country" anytime soon. Nuclear weapons, by contrast, especially crude ones, are "easily build-able" if you have the fissile materials.

Separately, the transit time does matter if one is actually trying to use it for specific ends, and it is not a trivial thing if you actually care about it making it there and not getting caught. (You can be sloppier about things like smuggling counterfeit money or even drugs because it's not quite as hard to cover one's tracks and the consequences at a state level are pretty low, especially with regards to North Korea, who is already pretty much a pariah. But nukes are expensive, both in terms of real dollars and in terms of what would happen if you got caught smuggling one, and they are traceable — through isotopic analysis — to specific countries.) The more realistic scenario, if the North Koreans wanted to target the UK (for whatever reason), would be to smuggle in the bomb some time before you thought you might have to use it, and just have it hidden away and "available" if necessary. This was the old US fear about the Russians in the 1950s, before the USSR had means to deliver its bombs to the US with any reliability. There was even some concern that one could, given enough time and will, smuggle in nuclear weapons parts by means of diplomatic pouch! --Mr.98 (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, a "diplomatic pouch" can be a giant crate with a nuke in it. It isn't literally a courier's purse. It would not be necessary to ship over 100 parts and assemble them in the target country. The serious concern on the US side was that the USSR would just ship over whole nukes in crates which were marked "diplomatic pouch" and which were therefore unsearchable. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were also afraid of them shipping the parts in literal pouches, incidentally. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real?

Is this image real ? Jon Ascton (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. And if it is, it sure gets around. Dismas|^(talk) 12:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dismas. It's probably a naturally-occuring formation. Chevy monte carlo - alt 13:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow ! never knew such cool search engine exists (and actually works) ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Ascton (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of trees in the world, I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one that looks similar to that, so it's probably real. --Tango (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what about this one? My question is : Is the image a)Real b)Fake c)Photoshopped —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Ascton (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that's real. The spinal damage caused by carrying that much weight would be enormous. --Tango (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously fake/photoshoped, just like this :) --Galactic Traveller (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's almost certainly photoshopped (which is pretty much the same as fake). Chevy monte carlo 16:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fake (though not in the usual sense that breasts containing implants are considered "fake"), but it's not photoshopped. There are videos out there with a similar (or the same) model. Not my cup of tea, but it's some kind of prosthetic. Videos involving the male version are also out there. Whatever floats your boat, as they say. Matt Deres (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

duct cleaning regulations for restaurants in Oakland Cty, Michigan

I need to know how often hood and ducts in restaurants have to be cleaned per NFPA96 fire code —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.45.113 (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, Regulation 11.4.2 says: "Hoods, grease removal devices, fans, ducts, and other appurtenances shall be cleaned to bare metal prior to surfaces becoming heavily contaminated with grease or oily sludge." - so there is no definite interval. You just have to avoid them becoming "heavily contaminated"...which is a pretty vague rule (how much is "heavily"?). However, they do have an inspection schedule. You have to have the system inspected by a specially qualified professional at intervals depending on the type of cooking you do:

Systems serving solid fuel cooking operations -- Monthly
Systems serving high-volume cooking operations such as 24-hour cooking, charbroiling, or wok cooking. -- Quarterly
Systems serving moderate-volume cooking operations. -- Semiannually.
Systems serving low-volume cooking operations, such as churches, day camps, seasonal businesses, or senior centers. -- Annually

So what I think this means (and I'm not a lawyer - nor is Wikipedia allowed to give out legal advice - so read the document for yourself) is that you have to have the hoods & ducts inspected by a professional at these intervals - and you have clean then BEFORE they become heavily contaminated. That's a tricky standard! If you're coming up for a quarterly inspection - and right now they aren't heavily contaminated - you have to somehow guess whether they'd be classified as heavily contaminated sometime within the next quarter - and if so, clean them.

I think the bottom line is that to be on the safe side, you should clean everything to the bare metal before each inspection - but it's kinda tricky.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

++ Since NFPA is a collection of Fire Protection Codes and Standards that become enforcable when a government or insurer ("Authority Having Juristiction" "AHJ") requies their compliance, you could consider contacting the local fire marshall or building inspection official or your insurance company. Chas in BR (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last day of summer vacation

Hey guys. School starts tomorrow so this is my last day of vacation :( I have got all my stuff ready for tomorrow so today I'm free the whole day. What are some things I can do today to bring a spectacular end to my summer? BTW I cant leave the house. 76.229.199.177 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last bit kind of puts a dampener on things. If I couldn't leave the house, I would probably spend it playing all my favourite albums back to back while eating pizza and drinking beer. YMMV. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could write a Wikipedia article. --Tango (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 August 14#Tips for returning to school in a big exam year?.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely unrelated question. This OP is asking for ideas for something fun to do on the last day of vacation, that OP was asking for advice on how to study better during his final year. Please don't give people such pointless links. --Tango (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good preparation can help to relieve stress, and therefore it can contribute to fun.—Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are friends available to come over? Do they have friends of the opposite gender? A party may be afoot. (Of course this is not great timing because you will have to clean up when the party is over at 3AM.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off - then think carefully about whether "I can't leave the house" means "I shouldn't leave the house" or "If I leave the house it's essential that <person X> doesn't find out", etc. (PS, don't do the thing with the car at the end).
OK, OK, that's not gonna work, I can tell. How about you spend the day PLANNING what you're going to do at the end of the coming semester? Plan something utterly outrageous - something so stunningly awesomely huge - that you'll look forward to telling everyone about it when you get into school tomorrow. Make it so it's definitely going to happen - you have months to arrange whatever it takes. SteveBaker (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spend the day making up the most preposterous possible idea you can, and then spend the whole semester trying to convince your peers that you did this activity during the summer. Googlemeister (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not cook something extravagant, or that you've never cooked before? An enormous chocolate cake with 3 layers, filled and covered with chocolate fudge icing and raspberry jam. Pizza topped with fish and chips, or chicken nuggets and fries. Make the biggest sandwich you've ever seen, 10 layers, filled with the most over-the-top fillings. Chocolate brownie baked Alaska combo. There are loads of recipes online that you can use for inspiration, help, or to make the components of something awesome and ridiculous. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photographing the Perseids might interest you.—Wavelength (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet stuff? YouTube? Facebook? Chevy monte carlo 06:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MIght I recommend that you find a means to view the film American Graffiti? It is the definitive "Last day of Summer Vacation" movie. --Jayron32 07:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent film, although the viewer might want to refrain from the part about destroying a police car with the police in it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, actually. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crisps or Chips?

In the US, we call them "Potato chips" and in the UK we call them "Crisps". So why does a packet of Baked Lays, sold in Texas, say "FLAVORED POTATO CRISPS" on the front? This bag says "65% less fat than regular potato chips" - and uses a US phone number for their "Questions or Comments" number - so these are clearly marked for US sales, not UK.

Weird. SteveBaker (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a marketing requirement thing. There may be a statutory definition of "potato chip", which Baked Lays may not meet. They might be legally prohibited from calling them "potato chips", so they settle on a term that gets the same point across, but is not legally encumbered. Another option is that it's a marketing ploy. They want to distinguish themselves from potato chips, so they use a different term so that they can say, effectively, "We know potato chips are unhealthy, but don't worry about it, because we're not chips!" -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lawsuit on this important topic, needless to say:

How are Pringles made and why do you call them crisps and not chips? Pringles aren't just any old potato chip, they're called potato crisps because of the ingredients we start with and the unique way they're made! To be called a chip you have to begin with whole potatoes. Pringles starts with dried potatoes which have been cooked, mashed and dehydrated.

Source. Same deal with your ~~chips~~ crisps, I imagine. --Sean 18:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just in the U.K. and saw a bag of "crisps" labeled... French Fries. Blew my mind. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually even more so with the Baked Lays. To get them crispy without frying they have to mix in a whole bunch of strange stuff with the cooked-mashed-dehyrdrated-ground-up potatoes. Looie496 (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was, the British call our french fries "chips" and our chips "crisps," but they have crisps called "French Fries." My head is spinning. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean freedom crisps? --Trovatore (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, Hula Hoops are not the same as hula hoops, Monster Munch are not made from monsters, and people eating packets of Skips are not eating skips. Walkers' "French Fries" is a brand name, and nothing more – it doesn't imply anything about what "the British" call snacks in general. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we Brits wouldn't call those long thin straight or curvy potato-based snack things sold in packets either "chips" (which are hot and sold freshly cooked) or "crisps" (which are basically roundish and thin and served in packets). So, "French fries" seems a perfectly sensible commercial name for them. :) Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In America, the things that Walkers are calling "French fries" are called "potato sticks". Potato_chip#Similar_foods actually discusses a brief history of potato sticks and mentions "Walker's French Fries" directly as well. --Jayron32 06:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm &mdah; this American never heard of "potato sticks" till just now. ---Trovatore (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can buy something called 'potato sticks' in the UK, but it's nothing like Walkers French Fries. Potato sticks, here, are thin sticks cut from actual potatoes and sold, usually under a supermarket own brand, with the other party snack crisps. French Fries (the crisp) are more extruded, puffed up a bit, and much larger. And I'd call all of these things 'crisps', like I'd call Monster Munch 'crisps'. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AH! Having never been to the UK to enjoy their snack food, then I didn't realize that's what Walker's French Fries were. Then they aren't really potato sticks. We have a product in the U.S., called "Fries" which are puffed/extruded potato paste. Two brands I can think of that make these are Tom's Fries and Andy Capp's Hot Fries. See [1] and [2]. It sounds like your potato sticks are exactly like OUR potato sticks: Crispy fried thin slices of potatoes. --Jayron32 01:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, truly, processed potato products are the great universal. ;) Someone should probably edit the article. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Andy Capp, the comic strip after which the crisps are named, even run in the US? If so, it makes me wonder what people make of it. Marnanel (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture: Victorian restoration of local churches

Neither Pevsner (1970) p. 471 nor Pugh (1953) VCH p. 157 tells me who restored St George's Church, Little Thetford, Cambridgeshire nor the nearby St James' Church, Stretham. VCH confirms "... drastic restoration [of St George's] in 1863, ..." and also "In 1876 the [St James'] church underwent a severed restoration". According to VCH, J P St Aubyn designed the two schools in 1872 at Little Thetford and Stretham. Is there any way of finding out who restored the churches? --Senra (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have always found the staff at Cambridgeshire Archives to be knowledgable and helpful, and I'm sure they will be able to lay their hands on useful information for you. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Following your reply I sent an email to Cambridgeshire archives. In the meantime, I thought there may have been an (digitised?) architectural tome that might have the answer --Senra (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference; according to Historic England. "Details from listed building database ({{{num}}})". National Heritage List for England. St James' Church, Stretham, was indeed J P St Aubyn although Historic England. "Details from listed building database ({{{num}}})". National Heritage List for England. does not say who did St George's Church. I hope IoE is a RS; I am not holding my breath—I know of at least two IoE records which have the wrong images attached to them --Senra (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

--Senra (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

longest straight section of rail(road) track

Since railroad track alignments are most often selected to minimize grade (steepness), the idea occurs that a straight run (section) of track is an oddity.

What is the longest straight run of track in the US? In Europe? in other locations?

Chas in BR (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This says it's on the Nullarbor Plain in Australia. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this verifies it, though there are no sources. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been on that track. A full day of travel with no hills or curves. Googlemeister (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. You have given the longest in the world. I am also interesteed in the topic by country or continent. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chas in BR (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This posting appears to reproduce information from Guinness World Records that names the longest straight rail section in several countries, including the USA and Britain. Ka renjc 21:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, that might not be current information; it says one section of route is "now" part of the Seaboard Coast Line, which, as everyone knows, hasn't existed under that name since 1982. (After several mergers, it's now part of the CSX system.) So it's possible that some sections of straight track have closed since then, or (less likely) that some new ones have been built. --Anonymous, 23:08 UTC, August 17, 2010.

Who you callin' "everyone", pardner? :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a long section of railroad track were literally straight (not following the Earth's curvature), then the train would tend to accelerate toward the midpoint due to gravity, then decelerate from there toward the end. Edison (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, these discussions are only about horizontal curvature. The Nullarbor Plain track is described as "dead straight although not level". --Anonymous, 21:20 UTC, August 18, 2010.

Technically nothing can be literally straight since things are made up of generally round atoms. Googlemeister (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A length of track could be made straight to a specified degree, regardless of the fact of it being made of atoms or molecules. How many "round atoms" do you suppose are in one cross section of railroad track of one atomic radius of iron (126 picometers), when the rail weighs at least 40 kg/meter per Rail profile? A gazillion times 10²³? There are doubtless many sections of pretty straight track many miles/kilometers long where there is a very slight dip between two small hills. Edison (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of a straight length would more correctly be the "great circle" route between any two points, or more simply, horizontally straight, and ignoring any "vertical" curves. --Chas in BR (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it should follow the geoid, which is nowhere near circular anywhere in the world. It's not even constant. Flatness utopian. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 15:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese or Japanese equivalent of Celtic Knotwork?

(could someone please move this to Humanities? That desk is currently blocked in China. I can view it with a proxy, but I can't edit it to ask a question because the proxy is blocked. So I ask here and kindly request that you transfer this question and remove this header... thank you!)

Is there a Chinese or Japanese equivalent to the Celtic Knotwork artform? 61.189.63.157 (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to Celtic knots--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Où puis-je acheter un beret?

Where in my area (Milwaukee WI, 53220) can I buy a plain black French-style men's beret? I've looked at the places where I frequently shop, and performed several searches to no avail. This store should be in the city or in the southern suburbs. I prefer not to buy it online because I don't wish to send my information across the internet, even though I know the chances of its being stolen are minuscule. 76.199.154.210 (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some searching, too, and I now very much doubt that any store in southeastern Wisconsin stocks French-style men's berets. However, there is a store in Milwaukee that may be willing and able to special-order a beret for you. Here is a link to its website. Marco polo (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Google for "hat shop Milwaukee" or "milliner Milwaukee" gave several options, although most look like they specialize in baseball caps. It may be worth phoning a few of the more likely shops, to see if they stock or can special order your desired beret style. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kangol used to make those exact berets.Googling found many outlets in Canada.Hope this helps..88.96.226.6 (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]