Miscellaneous desk
< March 14	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 16 >

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.

March 15

Fastest-paced sports in the world.

Can anyone tell me what sports are the fastest paced in the world? Thanks in advance. Ann Caitlyn Johnson (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean speed? Human-powered or vehicular? Motorsports are extremely fast. Ice hockey, or simply hockey as I prefer, is quicker than basketball speed-wise, but the back-and forth of a tense basketball game can have a great pace. Soccer, too, has fast-paced moments. Aaronite (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Do you have a gauge to measure pace? Some contenders might be basketball, ice hockey, or lacrosse though all can have lulls where the ball/puck doesn't move for a few seconds at a time. Dismas|^(talk) 06:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jai alai, according to our article, promotes itself as the fastest sport in the world. Dismas|^(talk) 06:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Squash is fast-paced; as our article notes, "one hour of squash, a player may expend approximately 600 to 1000 calories (3,000 to 4,000 kJ), which is significantly more than most other sports and over 70% more than either general tennis or racquetball", mainly due to the fast pace of the game. The ball, too, travels quickly: "typically [reaching] speeds exceeding 200 km/h (125 mph). In the 2004 Canary Wharf Squash Classic, John White was recorded driving balls at speeds over 270 km/h (170 mph)", which is considerably faster, for example, than the fastest tennis serve of 155mph. Gwinva (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jai alai is promoted as "the fastest sport in the world", with ball speeds of up to 188mph. The article notes that badminton and golf have both seen faster peak ball speeds, although I can't imagine anyone describing golf as a particularly fast-paced sport. Warofdreams talk 13:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Jai alai claims "fast" because the projectile moves fast - but rifle shooting is by far the fastest sport by that measure. You might complain that the bullet isn't being propelled by human muscle power - and I'd retort that in archery the arrow can fly over 200 mph - and with crossbows, even faster. So Jai alai's claim is completely bogus. If you are asking about the speed that the human body moves - then probably the fastest "unaided" speed comes in parachute jumping which gets you up to 120 mph - or with the aid of a machine, then air racing gets you to 200 mph plus and formation aerobatic contests reach speeds close to the speed of sound. If you call that cheating then the 100 yard dash has human bodies moving faster than they do around the Jai alai court - and that's easily beaten by the speeds in speed-skating and downhill skiing. I can't think of a single measure (however contrived) by which Jai alai could reasonably be called "the fastest". SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, in certain environments is the clear winner. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one considers Chess to be a sport perhaps. Googlemeister (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I declare Dweller the winner! I was trying to one-up that by suggesting Golf, in certain environments at 1 km per second, but that lightning fast game of chess reaches 7.7 km/s and therefore wins handily. SteveBaker (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One could make a case for Sumo, whose matches can last a matter of seconds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can one-up that one by suggesting Diving. There is a fair amount of 'posturing' and psyching yourself up for the event in both diving and sumo - but the actual dive is much shorter than even the briefest of sumo contests. But then we get back to rifle shooting again. There is really no basis for rational comparison here. SteveBaker (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also overlooked a rather obvious one: Roller Derby. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's slower than downhill skiing and speed skating. SteveBaker (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sumo is downright slow compared to some forms of fencing where the action happens faster than the eye can easily follow, and points are often decided in under a second. APL (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me offer an alternative definition of "fastest pace": the game where the ball (or puck or whatever) is in ~~play~~motion for the largest percent of the time. Note that this isn't the same as when the clock is running, as some games have times when the clock runs but nothing is happening. By this def, I don't know the fastest paced, but American football has to be among the slowest paced, as the ball is in ~~play~~motion for only a tiny fraction of the total time. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would once again inflate the pace of golf, as the ball is often "in play", but just sitting motionless in the grass. —Akrabbim^talk 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. I mean the ball (or puck, etc.) is in motion. Under that def golf would be one of the slowest paced games. I've modified my def accordingly. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In basketball, the ball has to move pretty much 100% of the time. I can not think of many instances where it is just sitting still. Of course, the ball is not moving at 100+ mph either and a fair bit of that motion is simply bouncing. Ping pong or tennis might fit the requirements better. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High Speed, Low Drag at up to 0.54 m/s if we expand past humans. 68.28.104.234 (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 100-meter dash, Usain Bolt can attain speeds of more than 25 miles per hour. If you go to a track meet, though, it's a lot of sitting around waiting for races to start. Soccer is mostly continuous action for 90+ minutes, save halftime, but the action can be agonizingly slow. So it depends on what you mean by "fastest-paced." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's qualifier "in the world" puts any outer space sport out of the running, so I'd go with Formula One racing. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read earlier posts before replying. I already pointed out that Air Racing is much faster than Formula I and formation aerobatics (of the Red Arrows/Blue Angels variety) even faster than that. SteveBaker (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "air racing" is conducted above the world, so might well be classified with something done in space. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skiing, golf and even badminton involve fairly fast speeds as well. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global gerrymandering

Which body decides which country encompasses which mass of land, in respect to a portion of a country seceding from another portion. If the inhabitants of a particular region want to self-rule, is it within their right to secede, and who is there to tell them that they cannot? Obviously, the larger portion that disagrees will tell them they cannot, but is that anything more than bullying? Taiwan, Quebec and Chechnya some to mind, but I suppose a mock example could even be the State of Florida. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the question has to do with gerrymandering. That's where the boundaries of a certain electoral district are deliberately drawn so as to make its voting population very different (say, 50% or 200%) from the average population of electoral districts in that jurisdiction, to give a particular party or group an advantage or disadvantage. Secession is a very detailed article; it should contain some of the details you're after, which will no doubt differ from country to country. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the term loosely to describe cutting up regions as one would like -- perhaps too loosely. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Confederate States of America? An entire block of states decided to form a separate nation, and the Union fought a 4-year war to advise them they couldn't do that. I don't know that the issue was ever decided constitutionally. The Constitution requires Congressional approval for states to join, so at best it's implied that approval is also needed for states to withdraw. In cases where both parties actually agree and/or have had enough warfare, typically a treaty will be negotiated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though boundaries are redrawn less often now than they were 100+ years ago, the same principle applies: might makes right. In other words, if you can adequately defend yourself, you can make it happen. To quote Richard Chamberlain from the miniseries version of James Clavell's Shogun, when responding to the Toshiro Mifune's comment that rebellion is treason, "not if you win." 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "might makes right" is the key principle. The main way to determine national borders is through military action or the threat of military action. There is no global body that determines these things, although the United Nations does something similar when it decides whether who to admit as members (it decides based on who has de facto control of the territory, usually). --Tango (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A region might declare its independence, but it doesn't mean a lot unless other countries are willing to recognise it. Northern Cyprus is treated as occupied territory and has restrictions on direct trade or travel with countries not recognising it.

Recognition of declarations of independence depends a lot on politics and international relations. For example, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognised by few countries except Russia, which has tense relations with Georgia. Russia's declaration of South Ossetia's independence was in response to (an original researcher might say it was tit for tat) the recognition of Kosovo's independence from Serbia (a Russian ally).

The articles linked from Declaration of independence generally state who recognised each declaration and when. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related article: Micronation ... entities that claim to be independent nations or states but which are unrecognized by world governments or major international organizations. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, see also Sovereign state and Diplomatic recognition. To the OP's question, the general priniple recognized by most countries and the UN includes the notion that if a government claims sovereignty over a patch of dirt, they must be able to establish the ability to defend and control that patch of dirt; i.e. so that if someone else claims you can stop them from taking it. A somewhat recent example of a situation where two countries claimed sovereign control over the same patch of dirt would be the Falkland Islands War. The same generally holds true for independence movements as well; a subnational unit that claims independence generally has to establish that it has control over its territory, and not the former government. This can be accomplished peacefully, where the former sovereign government grants independence, see responsible government for how this worked in the British Empire, or by force; such as the situation with places like Israel, which was established by military action. --Jayron32 13:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the State of Israel was itself "established by military action"? --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was. The region of Palestine was conquered by the British (during WWI), occupied (under mandate from the League of Nations) and then (after WWII) turned into the state of Israel. (I am massively simplifying the sequence of events, of course, but that's the gist of it.) --Tango (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was established by a vote. --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A vote of who? --Tango (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps by vote he means "A vote of the people who carried the guns and fought the 1948 Arab–Israeli War." There was the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, but that didn't really establish the modern state of Israel, there was no way it could have been put into force without military action. Israel was clearly established by military action. --Jayron32 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little disingenuous to say that the State of Israel was established by military action. The British took possession by military action, but the actual creation of the state was not military. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with DJClayworth. The vote, in reply to Tango, is discussed at some length here. --Dweller (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, there was a vote of the UN General Assembly, I forgot that. The UN wouldn't have been able to vote on it if it hadn't been for the British military, though. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(If we're going down that line, the UN wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for the Allied forces in WW2, etc. Everything is connected to everything else, and pursuing such questions too far makes the legitimacy of everything dubious!) ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict> You can apply "if" arguments like that to justify pretty much every country's existence being based on pretty much any premise. If it wasn't for plate tectonics, we'd all be living on a big ol' island. Easy on the "ifs" when looking at historic causality. (If it hadn't been for the British military, there wouldn't have been many Jews left to have a country.) --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned Québec, here's on the Canadian electoral system. In Canada, Elections Canada is the non-partisan agnecy that monitors and reviews all federal electoral district boundaries, among other things. See Electoral district (Canada) on how number of seats and delimitation of boundaries are determined. Generally, boundaries are adjusted to reflect population changes after a census. Provincial and territorial boundaries, on the other hand, are historical and are rarely changed unless there's a dispute between provinces and territories (Québec vs. Labrador)or in the case of Nunavut a land claim agreement. The Canadian system allows the population to launch referenda for issues like Québec seccession without gerrymandering. See Quebec_sovereignty_referendum,_1980 and Quebec_sovereignty_referendum,_1995. Neither were successful, obviously.

On Taiwan, since the People's Republic government does not have administrative control over the island (plus a few other chains on China's coast), it has no say over Taiwan's electoral districts. And since Taiwan is governed by a different government than that of the People's Republic, whatever decided in a Taiwanese election has no direct legislative effect on the Mainland. But whatever the views put forth by the ruling party or its president has a huge effect on the Taiwan-China relationship. See Political status of Taiwan. --Kvasir (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Montevideo Convention takes an astonishingly loose view, suggesting that anything can declare itself an independent country, provided that it has:

A permanent population;
A defined territory;
Government; and
Capacity to enter into relations with the other states (ie. people + money).

On such a basis, people can technically go around declaring their own homes sovereign states – indeed, Sealand and other micronations do. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For fiction-based ideas on the concept of micronations, see The Mouse That Roared and Moosylvania. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question depends on whether you are referring to de facto independence or independence recognized by the international community. For the former, yes, it may be about who wins on the battlefield, but that doesn't mean the secessionist state will be recognized internationally. See List of states with limited recognition for some examples of places that are de facto independent but not internationally recognized, such as Transnistria and the above mentioned Northern Cyprus. There are no hard-and-fast rules to this. Kosovo, for example, has attained recognition as an independent state from 65 countries, including the U.S. and most of the EU, but remains unrecognized by most countries. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cell phone failure

I live in a small town between a mountain and the water. We have one cell tower that belongs to my carrier Z. It works as long as we don't go around a corner . The other night we had a power outage. I was in a restaurant with twenty people and many candles. Their phones with many different carriers worked. Mine said for each call, "call failed". The power came back on. My phone worked on some numbers but not others. Then when I tried again some numbers that had worked failed and vice versa- It seemed to be random...twenty hours later it worked for all numbers. My phone was fully charged all this time. What happened ? How could it be random ?? Why did no one else's fail. Several people tried to contact me and got a no longer in service message. Some calls did come through. How could it be random?? 71.183.80.186 (talk)Sesquipedalia —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It sounds like the cell phone tower wasn't fully protected from electrical damage during the power outage and possible spikes. You might want to contact your provider and let them know about them problem. Also, does your cell phone work correctly when you are in other towns ? StuRat (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I drove west fifteen miles the next day and the randomness still happened 71.183.80.186 (talk) Sesquipedalia —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think that each provider builds its own cell tower network; our cell tower article is silent on this (but I've now asked on the talk page that it be answered in the article). If you use, say, AT&T and the other people in the restaurant use, say, T-Mobile, perhaps that was the issue; the closest AT&T tower may have been right at the edge of the usable space, whereas the closest T-Mobile tower may have been right next door. (You mentioned there were many different carriers, but you weren't specific about whether any of them were the same as yours.) Also there are several different cell phone radio technologies, with acronyms like 3G and CDMA and GSM. It may be that even if all of you were using the same cell tower, and you all used carrier Z, your phone had worse reception because there was some characteristic about your phone's radio technology that made your reception worse, in that time and in that place, than the other phones' — for example, maybe your phone receives and transmits on a different wavelength than the other phones, and there was a local generator of radio interference that interfered on your phone's wavelength but not the other phones'. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colocation (business) occurs in some countries, sometimes even mandated in law, no idea if it does in the US. If the providers are using completely different technologies or significantly different frequencies, then it's probably only used in a few cases if at all. Also referring to your talk page question domestic roaming occurs in some countries, some providers may set up a network in urban areas and have a contract with another mobile network operator for more rural areas (e.g. 2 Degrees here in NZ) and IIRC domestic roaming was common in the early days of GSM in Malaysia and I presume this also happens a lot in other countries where the networks are still developing so you end up with multiple networks and fairly varying degrees of coverage. There may be completely automatic with no extra costs, obvious in cases like 2 Degrees, or may cost extra when roaming (in which case the customer may often turn it off) or even require activation (similar to the way some require activiation for international roaming). I believe I recall one provider in Australia, may have been 3 who I think operate a 3G network and allow roaming on some other providers 2G network for rural areas but will cut you off if you are continually roaming, which isn't that surprising. Obviously some network may allow you to roam on any tower of whoever they agree with, but I expect more likely (and particularly in the case where they use it to boost coverage) they'll only allow you to roam on towers located in areas where they have poor coverage. Of course there are often mobile virtual network operators who don't run any network of their own with varying degrees of success depending on country (they exist here in NZ but haven't been particularly successful and have primarily concentrated on the single billing/service integration angle). However domestic roaming is only likely if using the same network type and frequencies ranges the providers require for their service, otherwise many customers won't be able to roam somewhat defeating the purpose. (Somewhat true with international roaming but some providers have advocated multinetwork phones or provided alternative phones for business customers who need international roaming.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your later problems sound like they would be related to the local switch having to reboot. A lot of the back-end infrastructure is internet protocol-based rather than using older mobile pbx-based switches. IP switches have to update their routing table, sometimes on a fixed schedule.NByz (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Map.

Does anyone know where I can find the map of Durdane from the Durdane series of books written by Jack Vance ? Scotius (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this any good[1]? Scroll down to page 7. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainment Desk would be a better place for this type of Q. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The Humanities desk covers literature. Gwinva (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then Humanities might also be a better place than Misc. StuRat (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) Gwinva (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any others, like the one I found on www.integralarchive.org/vie-books.htm, about the VIE (Vance Integral Edition) Books ? Scotius (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein graduation picture

In this article on Einstein, it states "In the photograph of his graduating class, while all his classmates are sitting up straight and proper, Einstein is lounging back, legs crossed, staring off into the distance as though he had better places to be". Where can I find this picture? --Mark PEA (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this appears to be the picture of his graduating class at Aarau Canton School in Switzerland, which would have been his high school. I found the picture both here: [2] and here: [3]. --Jayron32 20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem to be staring off into different directions. Woogee (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the author's description isn't accurate at all. It looks to me as though the photographer has said to them "look thoughtful", and so they decided the classic "stare into the distance" pose. --Mark PEA (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the fashion of the time, I believe. --Tango (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The type of stare described appears to be a thousand mile stare. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

I have longish light brown hair and a beard, lots of people call me jesus, is it just me or do all guys get called this when they have the same sort of hairstyle as the messiah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fairly common nickname for people with the hairstyle you describe, Chris Ferguson the professional poker player is commonly called "Jesus" for the same reason. The article Depiction of Jesus may be interesting for a history of how and why Jesus has a "standard" image including hairstyle and beard associated with him. --Jayron32 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WW II Map

I am looking for a world map that shows the allegences of every country in the world during WWII, either Allied, Axis or neutral. Thankx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article titled Participants in World War II has a description and a map of exactly what you are looking for. --Jayron32 20:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that map is going to change during the course of the war. Was there a specific date you were interested in? Googlemeister (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]