Miscellaneous desk
< May 22	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 24 >

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.

May 23

Junichi Masuda

e-mail address? --70.129.186.243 (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the address is publicly available, but he may have an email address for media or for the press etc. but I doubt you would be able to find it - people like that would get so much mail from fans and haters that they usually don't bother announcing any contact information to the public. Chevy monte carlo 05:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Junichi Masuda is one of the applicants for this patent and could be contacted via the patent agents in the US shown at [1] the link. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "BIAXIALLY ORIENTED WHITE POLYPROPYLENE FILM, REFLECTION PLATE AND RECEIVING SHEET FOR THERMAL TRANSFER RECORDING"? It doesn't sound like it has anything to do with video games. --70.129.186.243 (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's another Junichi Masuda. Maybe this Junichi Masuda knows the Junichi Masuda that you really want. After all, they have at least one thing in common. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ace status

Is it possible to become a flying ace without actually piloting the aircraft? Say for example if a tail gunner on a Flying Fortress shot down five or more enemy fighters, would he be considered an ace? 67.170.215.166 (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Air Force says yes. Col. Charles DeBellevue was a non-pilot ace with six victories in the Vietnam War as a weapons systems officer. Not only that, he was the top American ace of the conflict. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. 67.170.215.166 (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Plus I learned something new and interesting. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who build the McDonald's franchise restaurants?

God, I hate fast food companies... Anyway, who exactly builds all the McDonald's franchises? Here in the UK the ones at junctions and roundabouts look exactly the same - low and rectangular with a roof that is a slight trapezium shape. Is it just the franchisee or multiple companies? Chevy monte carlo 06:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a delicious bit of irony, I've heard that the French McDonald's stores sell escargot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McDonalds is relevant. From that article, "A McDonald's restaurant is operated by either a franchisee, an affiliate, or the corporation itself." Shadowjams (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is whether they all use the same firm of architects (and I'm sure they do). (No doubt different local builders are employed.) One way you might find out is to look up the planning applications of these buildings at the websites of the relevant local councils. You will find the architect's details among the supporting documents.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago MacDonalds had their own team of in-house architects, but I doubt that they do now in the current culture by most large companies of out sourcing EVERYTHING!--Artjo (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Around 10 years ago the McDonalds building near me was owned by some private person and they designed the inside entirely themselves. I think the owner was married to someone from Japan so everything had an old style Japanese theme, with special chairs and plants near the windows, and a custom built ceiling decoration. Then at some point it changed and now it's just a generic McDonalds interior. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your replies everyone. Chevy monte carlo 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you changed your question to 'built' -- that'd be the late Ray Kroc. However, presently each franchise will be operated by a local franchisee, except in special cases, like the one in the Louvre (I imagine). Vranak (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer but they must not check local building ordinances very well. When one went in near where I live, the franchisee was fined some stupid amount of money because they had the standard tall lighted McD's sign. Signs are pretty regulated here in Vermont (we don't have a single billboard in the entire state), so they eventually had to take the sign down and put up a much more sedate version. Dismas|^(talk) 14:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The people who actually build the restaurants are likely to be local construction companies, who spend most of their time building a wide range of local, commercial buildings. However, the look of a building is not decided by the construction company, but by the architect. I would imagine that McDonalds and other such franchise companies have commissioned standardized blueprints for their iconic buildings, which they then pull off the shelf and license to their franchisees, the same way they license the recipes, tableware, furniture, decor, etc. (A local architect may also be involved in siting the building and arranging things like the parking and landscaping on the available space.) As far as who funds the construction, it's probably a combination of the central company building some, and then trying to find a franchisee for the site later, and a franchisee obtaining a license, and then funding construction of a building to house their business. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All of your replies have been great. Chevy monte carlo 19:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, OK, were you in fact talking about the buildings themselves, as opposed to the corporation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically in North America there are usually several architects, distributed regionally, who do most work on chain restaurants (I used to know somebody who did a lot of Burger Kings), conforming to the franchise's design guidelines. There's actually a lot of individual variation, but the franchise must adhere to the overall requirements. I've worked on several automobile dealerships, which have similar requirements, but which are generally designed by local architects and reviewed by somebody in Detroit for compliance. Acroterion _(talk) 20:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a classic book on the design and architecture of fast food restaurants in the USA: "Orange Roofs, Golden Arches: The Architecture of American Chain Restaurants" by Philip Langdon. It dates from the mid-1980s but is still in print and is written for the general public. It was also exerpted in The Atlantic Monthly around 1986 or so, if you don't want to read the whole book. Worth checking out. --Xuxl (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left Handed Knot Tying

I am researching the above subject matter - not having a left handed person to perform this task I thought there may be help here. The issue is: when a left handed person ties a knot, such as a reef knot; can it be determined that, that knot was tied by a left handed person as opposed to a right handed person? The difference may be very slight, but in a situation of utmost importance can it be done (detected forensically if necessary)? And if so, would there be any references of this having been done (I've tried querying a variety of worded descriptors without success)? Thanks. TouLeGit TouLeGit (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm knot sure that it would be possible. I teach knotting to my Cubs and Scouts, and have taught myself to tie the commoner knots both right-handedly (my natural preference) and left-handedly (to help left-handed children). Left-handers may tend to tie a mirror-image of an asymmetric knot, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule, and for a reef knot it just depends if you go left-over-right first or right-over-left - which anyone of either handedness may switch between without thinking about it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that many people don't know the difference and would tie a granny knot in a way that correlates strongly with whether they are left or right handed. If they tie a reef knot though my guess is the correlation with the order of the two ways would be slight but I might be wrong there too, perhaps people do the first bit in the more natural way for their handedness. It sounds possible someone has studied this so have you tried Google? Dmcq (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reef knot is probably one of the least likely knots to display handedness, as both hands work equally when tying it. A sheetbend may display handedness, as one hand does most of the work and the other basically just holds the loop. Sheepshanks wouldn't be handed, a clove hitch or a round-turn and two half-hitches might. A bowline also could. However, many left-handers will have learnt knotting either from diagrams or from right-handed teachers, so may not display any tendency to switch. The reason I have taught myself to tie either way is that I've noticed an increasing number of children with little awareness of left or right, and an inability to recognise the difference between holding something in their left hand or their right hand. I just go with how they pick up a rope and adapt my style accordingly. DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OR)When I tie shoelaces my left hand holds passively the laces crossed right lace over left lace while my right hand fingers pick up the end of left lace and push it down behind the crossing. It seems less natural to begin with laces crossed left over right because then the right hand fingers have to reach further to catch the end of the right lace and pull it to the gap behind the crossing. Assuming that shoelace tying is a uniform daily routine, my right-handed experience suggests that a left-handed person would begin with their right hand passively holding the laces crossed left over right. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - I tie my left shoe as the mirror image of the right. This makes the pressure on my feet from the laces symmetrical (I should probably also mention that I can tell which sock has been worn on which foot, and put them on the same foot each time. I suspect I may have slightly odd habits in things like this.) DuncanHill (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that these habits are unusual. I expect you store your CDs alphabetically too (a common and sensible habit). :-) -- SGBailey (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. I also can't bear to wear odd socks, and find it painful to see them on others (actual physical discomfort). DuncanHill (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm the only person I know who's ever accidentally/absentmindedly worn mismatched shoes. (Odd socks are too simple for me!) --Psud (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a left-handed person and an Eagle Scout, the bowline always presented problems for me and it occasionally looks a bit odd when I do tie it. The other scout knots - reef knot, tautline, two half hitches, even the lashing hitches clove hitch and timber hitch - I have never had a problem with these knots due to my left-handedness. The sheetbend...I only know how to tie that with a shortcut starting with the reef knot, so I don't know about that one. Hope I helped, The Reader who Writes (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, which way you tie your shoes is not really dependant of left or right handedness, but is dependant on how you were taught. If your parents always tied your laces from the front, your method of tying is usually reversed to your parent's (though some children might mentally reverse the procedure). However, some parents reach from behind their child so the child learns the "correct" way to tie the knot. Of course, there is no "correct" way when both ways are equally good at keeping the shoes on. I doubt many people's feet are as sensitive as DuncanHill's are. Astronaut (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I tie shoelaces for a child, I can only do it from behind. You're probably right about my feet - they are extraordinarily sensitive, and I do wonder at what other people do to theirs. DuncanHill (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisinart food processor problem

So we have a two-decade old Cuisinart food processor, I think a ~~DLC-5~~ DLC-10C. We've had to swap out parts over the years as they crack and etc., but it's generally been pretty rugged. But we've had one big problem the other day that I thought I'd ask about on here.

Basically these things work by rotating a little stick that then can be hooked up to a blade and that mashes up your food, right? So at the base of the rotating stick a bunch of gluey substance has come out the last time we used it. It looks to me like it's some kind of plastic seal that is meant to make sure that any food or liquid substance wouldn't be able to get inside the overall mechaism (which would not necessarily be a terribly common thing—the liquid would have to go in between a number of pieces of plastic to do so).

My question is: 1. how worried should I be that this has come out? Is my guess about its purpose probably correct? 2. does this sound like the sort of thing I could repair on my own? How would someone more used to repairing appliances go about fixing such a thing—is there a standard plastic gluey material that is used for this sort of thing? --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisinartr is a Canadian manufacturer with customer support address, telephone and e-mail here for your question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the gluely stuff is an issue because it could contaminate whatever food you put in there (I apologise if this is massively obvious, I am still in the new/inexpereienced/dumb user help mode!) Sometimes with electricals it's cheaper to buy a completely new product that try and repair it, although that's not very environmentally friendly. As it's a fairly old model I would think the company that sold it would have plenty of spare parts available. Cuddlyable3's link is a good one to follow - the company itself would probably be the best people to contact. Chevy monte carlo 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time Zone

Just now, at the bottom of the page was "This page was last modified on May 23, 2010, at 21:21" why does it not say which time zone please?--Artjo (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artjo (talk • contribs)

It's the 0 UTC time zone, the time of the United Kingdom. --TylerDurdenn (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the UK is on UTC+1 at the moment, due to daylight saving time. --Tango (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it should say the timezone, however the standard timezone on Wikipedia is UTC, so we can safely assume it is UTC. --Tango (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an option in your "User preferences" under "Gadgets" that says "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time." --ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "last modified" line ought to be changed to include (UTC), to conform to its use elsewhere. Although it's fairly clear that, for talk pages anyway, it's liable to match the most recent entry (this one). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. "This page was last modified on 23 May 2010 at 22:21". I bet that will change, though. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bug 19002. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It's labeled, which is a start. The downside is that they are only just now working on bug number 27. All these hot young amateur programmers keeping turning pro early, and going to work for Microsoft. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, and since we're in the business of providing factual information rather than facetious misinformation, bugs are not tackled in numeric order. See also Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that question seemed to wake up a few people regardless of the time...thanks.--Artjo (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]