Miscellaneous desk
< June 28	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 30 >

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.

June 29

Nintendo DS game repair

Is there any way that a Nintendo DS game card which has been rusted can be repaired? If so, how, and which organizations would do it? 99.251.239.89 (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble picturing where and how a DS card could rust being made mostly of plastic with only a few gold plated contacts exposed. neither of those things normally rust, if you somehow managed to damage the connectors bad enough to reove the gold plating then the card is beyond repair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the gold-plated connectors that are rusted. At least I think it's rust - although it does appear to be partially green.--99.251.239.89 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copper oxidises to become greenish. See patina. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. . or even verdigris 86.4.183.90 (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can fix it. The connectors on things like small circuit boards are always made of copper - and in some applications they are then flashed with a super-thin layer of gold to improve the connection between circuit board and whatever you plug it into. Looking at the picture of a Metroid cartridge over on the right here, it doesn't look to me like they are gold plated. But even if they were, it would be very likely that the gold would wear off of an NDS cartridge after a lot of insert/extract cycles. But that's not enough to stop it working - copper-on-copper connections are still perfectly OK so long as they are clean. In this case, either there was no gold there in the first place - or it's all worn off - and that's enough to expose the underlying copper - which has then corroded ("rust" isn't quite the normal word...but yes, corroded copper is green - so that's definitely what you're seeing). You should be able to get the thing to work again by lightly scraping, or sand-papering the green stuff off of the copper until it's bright and shiney again. Don't over-do it though because if you wear right through the copper, you've permenantly wrecked the thing beyond reasonable repair.

If you do get it working again, you might consider buying some spray-on "contact cleaner" from an electronics store (Fry's stock it if you live in the USA) and give your cartridges a very light squirt once in a while. Don't over-do it though - one very quick squirt is plenty. It helps to remove corrosion - stops it re-corroding in the future - and lubricates them so the cartridge will slide in and out more smoothly - and thus wear less. You can also get contact cleaner 'pencils' - which get rid of the corrosion - but don't confer the other benefits.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Court Art

In some film court scences we see people sitting in court rooms drawing what they see, i.e. the judge, juries, lawyers etc. Why is that ? Is it because they don't allow camera there ? Jon Ascton (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, exactly so. See Courtroom sketch, not that it adds much. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to Google News and you'll see examples of this. For instance, this story from the Washington Post. Dismas|^(talk) 09:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's because they don't allow filming or photography in some courts. Chevy monte carlo 15:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore's awareness of various people and their work

Has Al Gore heard about Bjørn Lomborg? Has he heard about Penn & Teller? Has he heard about Penn Jillette? Has he heard about Teller? Has he heard about The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World? Has he heard about Penn & Teller: Bullshit!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.60.151 (talk) 7:57 pm, Yesterday (UTC+12)

This question was originally added to the science desk but I removed it as it seemed to be a shorter duplicate of the question above. However the OP has informed me I was mistaken as it's asking about Al Gore having heard of these people rather then them hearing of Al Gore so I apologise to the OP and am adding it back. As it concerns whether someone has heard of other people and their work, it is largely off-topic to the science desk so moved it here adding it to the bottom due to the length of time since I removed it Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per responses to your earlier question, Al Gore is clearly aware of Bjørn Lomborg as Bjørn Lomborg challenged Al Gore directly. I haven't listened to that source, but even if the topic of his book never came up it seems unlike Al Gore isn't aware of it, in fact I would say it's unlikely Al Gore isn't aware of most prominent sceptics. Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has Al Gore ever been challenged by Bjorn Lomborg in a mask? Would it be illegal for Bjorn Lomborg to challenge Al Gore in a mask? Has Al Gore heard of Penn and Teller wearing masks?Has Al Gore heard of Penn and Teller doing anything illegal?Has Al Gore heard of Penn and Teller doing anything illegal in a mask? ;) *chortle chortle* Lemon martini (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing Penn and Teller with the Masked Magician. Now, is Al Gore aware of him? Warofdreams talk 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, can you please just quickly answer my questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.24.42 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've already answered part of this question. The most likely reason why no one has answered the rest is because none of us knows Al Gore and therefore we have no real idea who and what Al Gore does and doesn't know, and we also aren't particularly interested in finding out so have no interest in researching it for you. Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, it appears the earlier video link doesn't include the Lomborg part but [1] (try viewing it in the Google or some other cache to get the full text) has what appears to be the entire exchange and no mention of Lomborg's book (but yes of the Copenhagen consensus altho that was established in the previous source) however I still doubt Al Gore isn't at least vaguely aware of it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

want to know

Why do the people who live amongst limelight and glitter (like models/actors),have a lot of fun, outgoing,outspoken and so on,with all the wealth and desires would one fine day be depressed and comit suicide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before delving into philosophical possibilities (of which I'm sure there are many), we should first ask: do models/actors suffer depression or commit suicide at a rate significantly greater than the population at large? Or do we just hear about it more? — Lomn 13:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lomn's question should really be, do models/actors suffer depression at the same rate as the population at large? Given the factors outlined by the OP, one would naturally expect these people to commit suicide less than the norm, not at the norm. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 13:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A separate and related question would be whether the people involved in such a profession self-select themselves. I seem to recall Drew Pinsky performing a study which suggested that a significantly higher percentage of "celebrities" are pathological narcissists. Obviously there's a correlation/causation question there—do they become narcissists because they are celebrities, or are narcissists driven to be celebrities? If the latter, it could easily be a self-selection sort of thing, a factor of who is driven into the profession more than what the profession does to one. (And of course, in practice, these things are probably complementary.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering these problems don't generally happen overnight. For most people, celebrities or not the problems tend to develop gradually over a long time frame. They don't just suddenly "one fine day be depressed and comit suicide". I also think it's a fallacy to presume people are less likely to be depressed because they are wealthy and among all the limelight and glitter. Particularly since we are seemingly talking about the extreme end of wealth etc vs everyone else rather then the very poor who can barely survive vs those who have enough to live a resonably comfortable live or whatever. Many studies and plenty of anecdotal evidence suggests things are far from so clear cut and really I'm hardly surprised (in other words, IMHO if you think about it carefully, no I don't think one would naturally expect those people to commit suicide less). Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Epidemiology of suicide article, in the section Social factors and suicide, claims, "Suicide levels are highest among the retired, unemployed, impoverished, divorced, the childless, urbanites, empty nesters, and other people who live alone", and says poverty contributes to suicide risk, though all these statements are unreferenced in the article. As to the direct question of why wealthy and seemingly happy people kill themselves, people despair because of many, many things; a lack of wealth is just one of them; and everyone has an inner life that others don't get to see — outwardly happy people may be despairing inside, too. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bankrupcy

This question has been removed as it may be a request for legal advice. Wikipedia does not give legal advice or opinions because there is no guarantee that our advice would be accurate or relate to your situation and location. We simply cannot be an alternative to visiting your legal professional, so we implore you to try them instead. If this is not a request for legal advice, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or at the talk page discussion (if a link was provided).

Whipped Cream

Context: I've noticed that American recipes online for whipped cream always specify adding sugar and vanilla. To my British eyes, this is surprising, since to me whipped cream is an unsweetened, unflavoured thing. For a while, the only squirty cream you could buy was sweetened, but for years now even that is available unsweetened, and it seems to sell well. So, my question is...

Question: Why are all these recipes sweetened and flavoured? My theories are:

a) That there is a cultural difference, such that Americans expect something called whipped cream to be sweetened and flavoured.

b) That, because these are recipes, the writers feel a need to include more than one ingredient. This seems unlikely, since some of these were instructions for people who had no idea how to whip cream.

c) That there is some different property of American cream, perhaps the lower fat content, which makes it more necessary to sweeten it for stability. The higher fat content of British double cream (which seems to be the main cream used for whipping these days) made me wonder this. But seems unlikely because British whipping cream (though less available than it once was) has a similar fat content to American whipping cream, and doesn't need sugar to whip up.

Does anyone have any insight as to the likelihood of these theories, or pertinent knowledge of the American cream industry? 86.164.57.20 (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an American, and my first response to your question was, "Ew! English whipped cream isn't sweet?" This makes me think that (a) is probably one possible answer to your question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americans generally have a sweeter tooth than Brits. I remember having some coleslaw on an American Airlines flight that was so sweet it took me a few mouthfuls before I was sure it really was coleslaw and wasn't a desert. --Tango (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whipped Cream is usually used, at least within my family (I'm American) as a topping for dessert, or in some other dessert/sweet recipes. I don't have a clue what unsweetened whipped cream would taste like. Kind of like how I can't imagine unsweetened ice cream. What is unsweetened whipped cream used for in the UK? Falconus^{p t c} 16:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unreferenced generalization. If Brits have less of a sweet tooth than Americans, does it follow that they have less tooth decay? A reference says tooth decay in Britain was less during WW2 when less sugar was available, but is higher now than in African countries where sugar (and presumably dental care) are in short supply. Another reference says that tooth decay was much more common after the 1400's when sugar became more available in Europe, and that when Brits ate less than 10kg of sugar per year in the 1820's, tooth decay was still uncommon, but by the early 20th century when consumption was up to 40kg per person tooth decay was "rampant." That ref says folks in the US also eat 40kg per person per year. What do official sources say about actual amounts of sugar and other caloric sweetners in the US versus the UK? Edison (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's an unreferenced generalisation. Anyone that has eaten food in both countries will be able to confirm it, though. --Tango (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The stereotype I'm familiar with is that the Americans have way more sugar and salt in their food than the Brits; but this sugar company's stats page has a nice per capita consumption graph showing that EU consumption is about 34 kg/year, while in the US it's a "mere" 30 kg/year. This isn't an absolute proof, because of artificial sweeteners, and it unfortunately blends the entire EU into one big swamp of sugar consumption; but it may mean the two aren't much different. And, hey, Australia, geez, you're at 45 kg/year, and I think I want to move to Brazil, which is at around 58 kg/year. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And saturated fat as well. 92.29.119.46 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming this is including sugar in processed foods (and only sugar), it seems the comparison is flawed because of the different use of other sweetners (whether 'artificial' or 'natural'), for example HFCS in the US which AFAIK is far less common in much of the EU or for that matter a lot of the world. The ref notes a lot of the sugar is consumed in the countries that produce it, Brazil's high sugar consumption may be partially explained by the fact there is likely little cost incentive to use other sweetners there (for reasons of taste, health etc may be). BTW I have to agree with the idea of 'ew' for sweetned whipped cream. And I like my coleslaw more tangy then sweet. Nil Einne (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HFCS#United States and File:Usda sweeteners.png somewhat support my theory Nil Einne (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, sweetened whipped cream is called creme chantilly (and in France, I guess). TammyMoet (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends where in the UK you are. Have you ever gone shopping in northern Ireland? During the summer of 1995, when I lived there, the larger stores would typically have an entire aisle of biscuits. Wherever we went, there were always tons of sugary foods offered. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there is plenty of sugary food and drink in the UK, just as there is in the US. The US tends to add sugar to things Brits wouldn't, though. Whipped cream, coleslaw, salad, etc.. --Tango (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't put sugar in your coleslaw, either? You do at least put it in your iced tea, don't you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeeewwww! :P Nope, no sugar in my whipped cream, or my coleslaw. I use whipped cream on cakes, in trifle, Pavlova, to make fruit fool, Eton mess, etc. In the last two, there'll be some sweetening if the fruit isn't sweet enough, but it's unsweetened in other contexts. It tastes of cream :) I gather from this blog] that the taste of cream might be considered more desirable on this side of the Atlantic, since it is apparently far more common to add it to sweet food over here.

And some people certainly do add sugar to their tea in Britain, but they wouldn't drink it cold! 86.164.57.20 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot to say: short of a cream expert, this looks answered. So, thanks all! 86.164.57.20 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually quite easy to get through the week with no sprinkling of sugar on food, so sugar in beverages, and minimal consumption of sugary cookies or desserts, without replacing them by equivalent amounts of artificial sweeteners. Just don't keep the stuff in the house, for starters. To the list of things that Americans sweeten that need no sugar to taste good I would add barbecue. A TV show about competitive barbecuing in the US included ridicule by one contestant of Japanese origin who noted that judges commented his sauce was not sweet enough. He said that it was surprising that judges wanted the meat basically coated with candy or sugar syrup. I tried adding up how many grams of sugar are found in milk, bread, unsweetened cereal, packaged turkey, cheese and vegetables, and one wcould easily consume 10 kg of "sugars" a year without consuming cookies, candy, sweetened beverages, sweetened coleslaw, or other foods with added sugar. Just one small apple a day would total 5.4 kg per year of sugar. One raw carrot a day would total 1.8 kg sugar /year. Four slices whole whole bread a day would total 1.5 kg sugar/year. 240ml or 8 oz skim milk a day would total 4.4 kg sugar/year. So far we are up to 13.1 kg of sugar per year on an "unsweetened" starvation diet. A normal "unsweetened" diet would have several times this. Edison (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, real BBQ does not need sauce, especially a sweet one. I don't know what those so called judges were smoking, but I bet it wasn't ribs. Googlemeister (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Brit who's spent the last 17 years in the USA. I can confirm that Americans do habitually sweeten their whipped cream - and we Brit's generally do not. It's mostly a matter of what you're used to though. I'm continually disappointed that something like a chocolate eclair (which to my taste is plenty sweet enough without sweetening the cream) ends up being so crazily over-sweetened as to be almost inedible...but then I heard from an American friend of mine who spent a couple of years in the UK having precisely the reverse reaction - buying chocolate eclairs in the UK and being horribly disappointed that they seemed so bland. I guess it's what you're used to. I've noticed similar things with custard also...British custard tastes deliciously vanilla-ish, US custard tastes of sugar and not much else - they have to mix an even stronger flavor (cinnamon, for example) to actually make it taste of anything. Dialling down the overpowering flavors is (IMHO) the best way to get the most from the more subtle/delicate flavors in food. As for the overall sugar consumption in the two countries, it seems possible to me that the British eat desserts and such more frequently than the Americans do - but with less sugar per serving - which may well account for the relative similarities in the overall sugar consumption when averaged over a year. SteveBaker (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve: it's helpful to get a strong confirmation of this from someone who's got personal experience! 86.164.57.20 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of British food in general, but I do have to admit that they do nice desserts. Scones with clotted cream and strawberries. Trifle. Trifle with lots of hooch. And pretty good coffee to go with it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about British custard, but I love the custard they had in Australia. Much better then what we get in the US. Googlemeister (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, don't know because I don't really like custard. To me anything with egg in it should be salty, not sweet. There are custard-like things that I much enjoy, such as panna cotta; I don't know whether the Brits have any equivalent. --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, "custard" usually refers to Bird's Custard (or another brand of the same thing, but that would like eating baked beans from a company other than Heinz!), which doesn't contain egg. We refer to the traditional type of custard as "egg custard". --Tango (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember as well a lot of the sugar may not be coming from desserts anyway. For example, perhaps Brits eat more sweets (including fudge), more chocolate, more whatever else that is sweet than Americans. Nil Einne (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, the thought of sugar in coleslaw is revolting. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also an American, and agree with the last three words in your sentence; no modification necessary. Basically I don't like raw cabbage in any form. Cooked or fermented it's OK, though nothing I'd go out of my way for. --Trovatore (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it might be more a European/US than just a UK/US thing. At least we do not usually add sugar to whipped cream here in Denmark either, and I do not remember tasting sugared whipped cream in any other of the European countries that I have visited. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in northern England it is not unusual to have sweetened whipped cream, though it is becoming less common. Perhaps we share a sweeter tooth with our friends in the USA? Dbfirs 20:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have a Nobel Prize for pointing out the link between sugery food and obesity? And America really is like a Homer Simpson cartoon? 92.29.119.46 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands (also in Europe), it is customary to add sugar (and optionally vanilla) to whipped cream. 83.81.60.233 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next thing is you'll be saying you put mayonnaise on chips/French fries. -- SGBailey (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have long refused to believe that rumour, despite all the evidence, because it would prevent me sleeping at night! Malt vinegar is all you need on chips. --Tango (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of disturbing Tango's sleep patterns, I can absolutely confirm that the French eat their fries with Mayo. My (french) wife does it at every opportunity. I've tried it - but I agree that Malt vinegar and ketchup are vastly superior. SteveBaker (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been a big fan of French fries, but steak fries are enjoyable with mustard (preferably not the fluorescent yellow stuff, though it'll do in a pinch). --Trovatore (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are our friends dogs at risk?

We have a couple of very good friends who we spend a lot of time with socially. They are keen dog lovers, and have a large number of pugs, of whom they are very proud (and very protective!). On one of our recent visits, we were having a barbeque in the garden. There's nothing like a hamburger slathered in mustard on a sunny afternoon, as well as plenty of Heineken! But I digress - the point of the question is that I saw what looks to me like an eagle owl roosting in the trees around our friends garden. I pointed it out to my friend's wife, and she showed little concern. "He's been up there a few days", she said. Now what we were wondering was - could an owl like that make off with one of our friends pugs? I'd hate to see one of the little scamps disappearing into an eagle owl's nest. All the best, Artie and Wanda (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I fixed the wikilink to the pugs. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your British written accent, I assume you are talking about the Eurasian Eagle-owl, which seems to be the only eagle-owl resident in Europe (apparently including Britain). Our article suggests that they are very capable of killing an animal the size of a pug, though the pug would be too heavy for them to lift off the ground. Instead, they would consume the poor dog on the ground. However, I think the owl would be unlikely to attack if people were out with the dogs, unless the garden is quite large and the dogs wandered away from the people. The real danger would be leaving the dogs out unattended. Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The owl is more interested in scraps and easy prey such as mice, rats, rabbits and other birds than in taking on a boisterous dog. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how you recognized a supposed British "written accent". Rimush (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess he picked up on the words keen, slather, and scamp, which are rarely used non-ironically left of the Pond. --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Garden" for "yard", as well. --Sean 21:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I was using "keen" and "slather" a lot. Guess I should stop. "scamp" seemed weird to me too, and I hadn't noticed the garden/yard thing. Rimush (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The eagle owl may fly south with the sun, and the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land. --M @r ē ino 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JFK in Dallas 22.11.1963

I added the views of Dealey Plaza to clarify the question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my mother tongue, so I hope that somebody could help me with the next text.

The Warren Commission Report says this about the route of JFK in Dallas:

"From Houston Street, which forms the base of the triangle, three streets--Commerce, Main, and Elm--trisect the plaza, converging at the apex of the triangle to form a triple underpass beneath a multiple railroad bridge almost 500 feet from Houston Street. Elm Street, the northernmost of the three, after intersecting Houston curves in a southwesterly arc through the underpass and leads into an access road, which branches off to the right and is used by traffic going to the Stemmons Freeway and the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike.

The Elm Street approach to the Stemmons Freeway is necessary in order to avoid the traffic hazards which would otherwise exist if right turns were permitted from both Main and Elm into the freeway. To create this traffic pattern, a concrete barrier between Main and Elm Streets presents an obstacle to a right turn from Main across Elm to the access road to Stemmons Freeway and the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike. This concrete barrier extends far enough beyond the access road to make it impracticable for vehicles to turn right from Main directly to the access road. A sign located on this barrier instructs Main Street traffic not to make any turns. In conformity with these arrangements, traffic proceeding west on Main is directed to turn right at Houston in order to reach the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike, which has the same access road from Elm Street as does the Stemmons Freeway."

I would like to know, would it have been technically possible to JFK to drive straight on Main Street after crossing Houston Street, go under the railroad bridge and then turn right to an access road that goes to the Stemmons Freeway.

It would be nice to have an answer to the next question too:

Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby in the Dallas Police Headquarters in Main Street. They took him by an ambulance to the Parkland Memorial Hospital - the same hospital where also JFK died. It is very possible that they drove with dying Oswald by the Stemmons Freeway. So did the ambulance driver drove the fastest and straight way from Main to the Stemmons or had he drove like JFK and make a curve (Main>Houston>Elm>Stemmons)? 85.156.62.17 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your first question, the text states that "a concrete barrier between Main and Elm Streets presents an obstacle to a right turn from Main across Elm to the access road to Stemmons Freeway and the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike. This concrete barrier extends far enough beyond the access road to make it impracticable for vehicles to turn right from Main directly to the access road." In other words, although it was possible to drive down Main Street and under the railroad bridge, there was a barrier preventing a right turn on to the access road. By the sound of it, the barrier does finish a little way further on, so it might have been possible for JFK to drive past the turn, and then ignore the signs and do a "u"-turn back on to Elm Street, and then back to the slip road - but, when the roads were not closed, this would be against regulations and probably dangerous. Warofdreams talk 09:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very similar question was asked just a few days ago. I provided a couple of links which you too might find useful.

In terms of breaking the law, the present day satellite image suggests to me the driver could have either gone past the end of the concrete barrier, backed-up elm street about 250 ft, then taken the freeway on-ramp; or they could have done a couple of difficult U-turns - I don't think either is a good thing for the presidental limo to do in full view of the public. There are alternative routes: via N Lamar St (as suggested by Google Maps directions), or passing under the freeway to take N Riverfront Bvld; though of course available routes could have changed in the past 50 years. Astronaut (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But apart from that Ms. Kennedy, did you enjoy your visit to Dallas? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]