Miscellaneous desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

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 27

Holy Land information

I have just launched a website on sacred sites in the Holy Land (Israel, Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Egypt). The URL is www.seetheholyland.net. Could this link please be passed on to editors working in this area, in case the content is of use? Thank you. Pat McCarthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seetheholyland (talk • contribs) 05:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely the site will be useful for Wikipedia's purposes. Per Wikipedia:External links, we generally only use external links to a) official websites of the subject of the article or b) As references to reliable sources which can be used to cite information contained in articles. --Jayron32 05:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make and model of truck

Does anyone know the make and model of this truck? I'm trying to add a description to it. I think it's a Mack 'semi' or whatever Americans call it... Chevy monte carlo 05:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we call them semis and it's not a Mack, it's a Freightliner. Though you probably knew that last bit since it's used in the Freightliner article. Unless you thought "Mack" was a generic trademark, which it isn't. Dismas|^(talk) 05:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the make is Freightliner, but the model is still unknown. Freightliner likely make many different Tractor units and Semi-trailers, and may even offer them in a mix-and-match capacity. The article doesn't contain any information on the specific model of either the tractor or the trailer. --Jayron32 05:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you're going to tell the make of the trailer unless that red circle in the top corner is a company logo of the maker. It may not be a FL trailer. Dismas|^(talk) 11:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo on the trailer could be that of Peterbilt. I know they make the truck parts, but I'm not sure if they make trailers. Anyway, here is a list of trailer manufacturers in the United States. I didn't go through it; maybe you could check them to see if anything is recognizable. — Michael J 13:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks guys. I'll add the description now. Chevy monte carlo 15:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, some very new OR here. Peterbilt does indeed make trailers. I was stuck behind one today creeping along for nearly 30 km! — Michael J 16:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

property

Were do i look for for when persons build on your owned property? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.91.97.131 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is a little unclear. In Florida your local government department that deals with planning and building should be able to help you. Indeed must help you because it is very likely that building on someone else's land is illegal. However Wikipedia rules do not permit us to give you legal advice on this matter. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the state of Washington I'd recommend contacting your county's Planning Department. They should be able to point you to various resources at least. Elsewhere in the country and world things may be different. Still, contacting one's local government for advice is probably a reasonable course of action. In Washington it is possible for a property owner to legally claim part of an adjoining property, via Adverse possession, if I have the term right. The process and hoops that must be jumped through are long and difficult though. Anyway, before contacting a lawyer I'd contact the local government--particularly agencies that focus on parcels and boundaries (planning dept, maybe surveying or GIS--the local county's GIS Department, where I worked for a while, was very good about directing public questions on matters like this to the appropriate place). Also, the legal boundaries do not always conform to natural features like fences, hedges, etc. Sometimes these disputes can only be settled by bringing in surveyors, and even that does not always settle the matter. Pfly (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the IP's address resolves to somewhere in Colorado. Dismas|^(talk) 11:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the IP means what the text seems to indicate, I'd say trespass. Shadowjams (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repatriation rules

Recently, on my holiday I visited two countries. I left my home country and reached country A first by flight and from there by another flight country B. I returned to my home country from B via A. I had multiple entry visa to enter A and B was offering visa on arrival. What if I did not have a multiple entry visa for A. Immigration at my home country would have permitted to leave ( as I had a visa and return ticket and where not seeing my tickets to B). Would the airline deny me boarding pass for my ( B to A) return journey? What would have happened in that case( that is if the airlines leave me at a third country)? If they had not noticed it, would I be permitted to land in A? Would I be detained there? I have seen that, in such situations, they will send the passenger to his/her home country at the cost of the airlines. (does that mean I need not have taken a multiple entry visa and even a return ticket). I am just interested in knowing the relevant legal provisions here. I am interested in the general rules and that’s why I am not naming the countries (If there are no general rules, A= Malaysia, B = Indonesia and I am from 203.200.35.32 (talk) ). I am in particular interested in the legal provisions applicable to the situation when a passenger lands in a foreign country without proper entry permit or is denied entry by the authorities. Whose liability is to take him / her back? What if he/she refuses to pay for the return ticket? What if he/she declares to the pilot that he will not obey his directions if he/she is taken against his/her will?--203.200.35.32 (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arriving in any country without the proper documentation renders the person liable to be regarded and treated as an illegal immigrant - with all the subsequent consequences applicable to the country concerned. And rightly so! 92.30.45.217 (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually they don't return you to your home country, they return you to the country that you just left. If the airline let you on in B without a visa for A (which they would get in trouble for doing) then the authorities in A would return you to B. More likely, the airline wouldn't let you on in B and you would need to either find an alternative way home, get a visa for A or contact your consulate for assistance (one of the thing consulates do is get people home when they're stranded - they sometimes invoice you once you get home, though). --Tango (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many countries that require visas for visitors to that country do not require visas for people who merely change planes in that country without leaving the airport. According to this document, whose reliability I can't assess, this is the case for Malaysia. So if you landed in, say, Kuala Lumpur on your way home from Indonesia and changed to a different plane for your flight home without leaving the international departure area of the airport, you would not need a visa to enter Malaysia. (If you had a few hours between flights, however, and wanted to leave the airport to look around the city, you would need a visa.) To be certain whether this rule applies in your case, you would need to contact your nearest Malaysia embassy or consulate. Marco polo (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had checked this. It is applicable to "Foreign Nationals on transit without leaving the airport precincts and who continue their journey to the next destination with the same flight does not require a transit visa. " I had contacted the consulate and they clearly stated that they wouldn't even issue a transit visa on arrival. 220.227.207.32 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tired so didn't read the whole discussion but I would note in many cases you may be preventing from boarding the plane in the first place if you lack a suitable visa. I believe agreements between airlines and governments means they do often check this and in fact I think airlines may sometimes be charged with sending you back if you lack a visa, so they have an incentive to ensure you actually have a suitable visa. Also I think it is unlikely you'd be sent back to a country which won't accept you. I believe one of the requirements for deportations is the receiving country needs to accept the person. However if flights are arranged the country may allow it to be used as a transit point. Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Petersburg

I remember seeing a documentary a number of years ago concerning how St. Petersburg was build on swamp land and so was interested to day to read more about this and the processes involved, however the above mentioned article does not mention this at all, can some one please illuminate this for me, is it true, and what were the prosseses involved. Further to this, the article mentions that no bridges were allowed to be build over the river Neva until 1850, but does not mention why, please help with this. Finally, the article also mentions that there was a prohibition on the spacing of buildings, please can this too be expanded upon for me, I have never been to Russia (though I would sorely love to) but it would appear in pictures I have seen that the buildings are generally very well spaced and far from each other, is this the case in reality? What was this prohibition the article mentions, are how was it enforced, what were the regulation and when, why and was it stopped. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question is being answered on the Humanities Desk. We ask that you not double-post. Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide rates at the Foxconn factory

There has been news recently about the fact that at the Foxconn factory in China, lots of people commit suicide. I have a question about this. The article says that so far this year, ten people have killed themselves, in a factory of 450,000. Assuming the rates of suicide doesn't change, that would mean that approximately 20 people will kill themselves this year (a little more, but I'm using round numbers). That works out to a suicide rate of about 4.4 people per 100,000 people per year. Right? But according to the article on suicide rates, in all of China, the suicide rate per 100,000 people per year is 13.9, which is three times higher. Is that right? Am I misusing statistics here? Someone check my math.

I'm absolutely not trying to downplay the horribleness of people killing themselves, it is absolutely tragic that people working in this factory are killing themselves. And I'm not trying to say that it's not a horrible place to work either, I'm sure it's an absolute nightmare. But the numbers seem fishy to me. 83.250.239.198 (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was pointed out in the news sources I read (Slashdot being one, I believe) was that the figure was for the number of people who have killed themselves while actually in the company's premises, ie. at the factory. It doesn't include employees of the company who have committed suicide at home or in other places, which would increase the suicide rate of company employees. Having said that, none of the sources I came across gave a figure for total suicides by Foxconn employees, so I don't know if it is above or below the national average. --Kateshortforbob _talk 13:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The company-premises Vs. home distinction is blurred for Foxconn employees, as for many employees in China's manufacturing sector, because they live in dormitories owned by the company (ref). So incidents there would count as "company premises". A cynic might suggest that if Foxconn were to sell its dormitories to management company (while keeping the same conditions) then the "company premises" incident rate would go down, whereas the actual wellbeing of employees wasn't improved. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] mentions this. However a key point is these are averages. I haven't yet come across anyone comparing Foxconn's statistics with other Chinese factories which would be a better comparison. Or even any real analysis of who's committing suicide. Our Suicide in the People's Republic of China mentions the unusual fact that suicides among Chinese women is higher then men, which is something no? other country has, many having a significantly lower rate for men. (Although the suicide rate for men is still higher then the Foxconn rate quoted above.) These articles from before the FoxConn controversy both discuss the fact many Chinese rural women commit suicide [2] [3]. This discusses [4] how many graduates commit suicide after failing to find a job (feeling they've failed their parents). This discusses students [5] for somewhat similar reasons. The earlier blog post suggested suicide rates for elderly people may be higher, which wouldn't (this was always what I intended to say but made a mistake correct now in an edit) surprise me, although as I believe Chinese population is currently still quite skewed to the young, it may not mean the youth suicide rate is that much lower. In addition some of the earlier links mentioned a rate which seemed to be higher then the WHO figure from our article, whether this is just an older figure or different parties with different figures I don't know. But all this does mean that while someone working at Foxconn is potentially less likely to commit suicide then someone who has no job, or a rural woman, or a student who feels they aren't living up to their parents expectations, (none of which are that surprising) whether someone working at FoxConn is less likely to commit suicide then someone working at another factory in China is unclear (but IMHO a more relevant comparison). Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meaning

what is the meaning of toing in a undergarment advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshknit (talk • contribs) 10:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps cameltoe. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means that the undergarment is supposed to give the wearer a more flattering look by making flabby body parts appear less so. See the article on toning exercises for the meaning of "toning". --98.114.98.195 (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If toning is what was meant in the undergarment ad, you might also look at shapewear, which I see redirects to the article on foundation garments. (As 98.114.98.195 said, the purpose of this clothing is to make you look as though your body is more fit (more toned) than it is. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internal UK money transfers.

Hello there,

I need to send money to my landlady - we both live in the UK (in the same house!) but by extreme bad luck, my card got damaged earlier today. She needs this money now, but I have no internet banking facility and it will take weeks for a new card to arrive, and days for things like paypal transfer followed by a withdrawal. Do you have any advice on an alternative means to send her this money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.198.62 (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you live in the same house, cash would seem to be the best option.--Artjo (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failing that, why not go to the bank and transfer the money into her account? This usually takes three working days. You could just take the money out, though, and bring it to her. Even if your card is damaged and the machine won't take it you can still use it in the bank over the counter. In fact, I've taken money out over the counter even without a card. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on which banks you use and the amount to pay, you could find that transfer is by Faster Payments Service. This is guaranteed to be within two hours (under normal circumstances), and often if virtually instant. I have transferred from Nationwide to Co-op, and checked the online balance 5 minutes later and it was there. Certainly check whether your bank and hers support this before paying a £25 chaps fee for instant transfer! -- Q Chris (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can go to you bank and pay for an instant transfer, it will cost more but will be instantly in her acc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postal order? you can buy one straight away.hotclaws 20:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dress shirt tabs

When I buy a new dress shirt they often have these little sewed in pockets on the ends of the collar and inside of them is a plastic tab about an inch long. I know these shirts come with all manner of things to keep the product in place while its displayed (and I'd like to go back in time to the first person who decided every shirt was going to get thirteen pins and slap them) but I was wondering regarding these tabs whether these are supposed to be left in while you wear the shirt to keep the collar stiff or something.--162.84.135.225 (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Collar stays. Yes, you're supposed to leave them in (although I usually lose mine when I forget to take them out before washing the shirts). Deor (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, that was fast. Deor, that was amazing! Thanks.--162.84.135.225 (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also buy replacement collar stays if the original, removable ones get damaged or lost. I've seen less expensive shirts with sewn-in stays. That's not always a good idea; if they get bent, you have a permanent kink in the collar. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having more than one kink in a collar still sounds okay[6] (video). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constellations

I appologise for wording one of the above questions badly, but I would like to know why it is said that with various conselations, it is hard to perceive the patterns that they are meant to make as I find this very easy. Thank you and sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, because interpretation is subjective. What some find easy others find hard, and there is very little value in pursuing why that is the case. As for why it is said (is it said?) that it's hard to see constellations -- presumably because whoever made the statement found it to be generally true. Or because they had some hidden agenda. Or because the Illuminati secretly controls all printed word (fnord). Again, when it's this subjective and arbitrary, "why?" has little value. But if you can easily recognize the constellations, and gain value from recognizing and interpreting them, great! I hope you live where it's dark enough to see them regularly. — Lomn 13:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's easy to recognise the outline of a man in Orion, who would believe that the asterism we know as the Plough or the Big Dipper is meant to represent the Great Bear (Ursa Major)? Or that a line of faint stars is really a Whale (Cetus)? And who on earth knows what a Centaur is these days (Sagittarius)? Or a sea-goat (Capricornus)? You need both a vivid imagination to see these things, and a knowledge of classical Greek mythology! Various attempts have been made over the centuries to introduce new constellations, with mixed results. I sometimes wonder what constellations would emerge today, were we to create them from fresh? The iPod, perhaps? Mobilis Telephonus? --TammyMoet (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"See, that's the Apple. And that little line of dim stars beside it is Bill Gates, weeping in despair." — Lomn 19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill's tears are Micrometeroids. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we started naming constellations today they'd all be trademarked characters, because those are the stories that our modern culture is made of.

Disney and Time Warner would own the sky.APL (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not a bad marketing stunt for a big media company; Publish a bunch of star charts with your own new constellations on them. Maybe some of them would stick. APL (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title for clarity. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these private residences?

Are these private residences on this island at the extreme northwestern tip of the United States? http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Lake+Cushman,+WA&sll=46.596619,-123.684082&sspn=2.208033,4.235229&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lake+Cushman&ll=48.39132,-124.735803&spn=0.002084,0.004136&t=h&z=18 Switch to satellite view if it's not already on that. And does that island have a name? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's Tatoosh Island and the buildings are probably associated with the lighthouse. Mikenorton (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acme mapper shows a few graves in addition to the lighthouse. I'd guess they are Makah graves. The island is theirs in any case. Pfly (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice photo of the island - perhaps it helps? SteveBaker (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GOL football

What does GOL stand for in GOL Football ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.75.181 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be GOL TV or Gol Gohar F.C. or a welsh football charity [7] - what context? Mikenorton (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or could it be Spanish for goal? (See "gol" in Spanish Wikipedia.) — Michael J 17:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largest University Cafeteria

Who has the largest University Cafeteria in North America? Air Di (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the size of a University's campus may have an effect on it's cafeteria size, so this may be of help. Apart from that I don't think there are any other categories or lists, at least on Wikipedia anyway. Chevy monte carlo 19:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Larger universities could just have more cafeterias. I attended a medium-sized University in the mid-Atlantic U.S. region (15000 undergrads). We had 4 cafeterias and two food courts, and probably another half-dozen or so smaller food venues (sandwich shops, coffee shops). A larger school could have had 8-10 cafeterias rather than larger ones... --Jayron32 04:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not North America, but for comparison, the UniMensa (central and largest cafeteria) of the University of Cologne, Germany, is a sizeable three-storey building with lots of separate areas for different kinds of food and is probably able to serve upwards of a thousand people at the same time. Can't find a good photograph, though. It's the central building under this link, right between the trees, the sports field, the parking lot and Zuelpicher Strasse. HTH. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia Cafeteria article, Michigan State University's Brody Complex has the world's largest non-military cafeteria CosmicJake (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Driving simulator instead of breathalyzer

(1) Whereas police officers in many jurisdictions use breathalyzers to test drivers for evidence of driving under the influence of alcohol, and (2) whereas individual drivers differ in regard to how their driving is influenced by the consumption of alcohol, and (3) whereas other substances and factors besides alcohol can influence driving ability, and (4) whereas driving simulators can be used to test driving ability directly and in various dimensions (vision, hearing, judgement, and reflexes), is there a motor vehicle equipped with a driving simulator for testing driving ability (either at random moments, or after a specified interval of driving time, or at the discretion of a police officer), and which responds to a failed test by automatically disabling the motor for a specified period of time? -- Wavelength (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. That kind of test would take quite a while. A breathalyser test can be done in a minute. I don't think anyone would like to replace a one minute test with a 30 minute one. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you think there should be one, who would be responsible for the inevitable false positives and false negatives? The legal standard is the driver's alcohol:blood ratio. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breathalyzers can give false readings. See Breathalyzer#Common sources of error. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing to search for an online driving simulator test, but, meanwhile, I found Globe Drive writer fails driving test - The Globe and Mail. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every conceivable form of testing has room for error in it. The question is which is most reliable, and whether you combine multiple forms of testing at once (i.e., in the US a Field Sobriety Test is quite common before the breathalyzer—you'd need two false positives then to be in legal trouble. There's always a possibility of error, but that's because there is no perfect way to do it, and the goal is to balance out fairness with feasibility. Your proposed plan is not a good balance for all of the many reasons described below—the false positive and negative rates would be so high as to probably overwhelm any useful "signal", and the cost in terms of time and implementation are off the scale when compared to existing methods. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page Virtual Driving Simulator | Online Driving Simulator has a link to Amazon.com: Use of a virtual reality driving simulator as an alcohol abuse prevention approach ($9.95), indicating that someone else has had similar thoughts. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally in many jurisdictions the crime is driving with a particular blood alcohol concentration so the ability to actually drive a car may be of little interest to the policeJabberwalkee (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is that as people become mildly intoxicated, their rate of making poor decisions gets only gradually worse. While a totally, crazily drunk individual might show serious impairment within just a few minutes of driving, it might be that a sober person could drive for (let's say) an average of 200,000 miles without causing an accident. But let us suppose that someone who is just over the legal limit might cause an accident (say) every 2,000 miles. That's 100 times more dangerous than a sober person - which would be ample reason for the law to require people not to drive with that amount of alcohol in their systems. However, you might have to sit such a person in a realistic car simulator, keeping them at that level of intoxication for DAYS as you watch them drive for 2,000 miles before they'd make such an error! Even then, one error isn't statistically significant. You'd probably have to have them drive maybe 20,000 miles at that same level of intoxication(!) before you'd have enough statistical evidence to say that they were significantly impaired. You could (and people have) use simulators to experimentally estimate the level of blood-alcohol at which the accident rate becomes unacceptable - but to use it to test every single person who is accused of drunk driving is utterly impossible. I used to know a guy who worked for the University of Minnesota's car simulator group - and I know they did all kinds of testing for those kinds of thing (also cellphone distraction, radio show distraction, talking passenger distraction, etc). A car simulator with enough fidelity to do that is an expensive toy - we're talking millions of dollars. You can't afford to use such machines for routine testing - but only for establishing a statistical basis for cheaper tests such as the breath-analyser and blood analysers. SteveBaker (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be too expensive for workers and/or robots at a motor vehicle assembly line to equip each motor vehicle with such a driving simulator? -- Wavelength (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve just said they would cost millions of dollars each (and he has a lot of experience with such simulators, so I'm inclined to trust his estimate). I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be happy paying millions of dollars for my car just so it can include a impairment test! (Yes, economies of scale would reduce the cost a bit from Steve's estimate, but they would still cost thousands of dollars, I'd guess.) You also haven't addressed the issue of the tests taking far too long. --Tango (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I visualize a driver parking the vehicle and then lowering the driving simulator from its place of attachment under the roof above the driver's seat. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean that every single new vehicle would not only, as discussed above, cost substantially more by virtue of including this quite elaborate equipment (as well as by virtue of having to amortise the costs of substantially redesigning every model of vehicle currently on the market), but would also consume additional fuel by having to carry its weight: it would probably be next to impossible to retrofit such equipment to existing vehicles. Presumably, too, the simulator would have to be regularly tested at the vehicle owner's expense. Since it would have to interact intimately with the car's real-life controls, who is going to take responsibility when the inevitable sortware glitches cause real-life crashes?

A slightly more realistic scenario would be to have one such simulator at every police station. Though other jurisdictions may differ, in the UK one is not charged on the evidence of a roadside breathaliser test - which is only used as grounds for arrest on suspicion of the offence - but on the evidence of a second test performed post-arrest at a police station, which may involve either giving a blood sample for later analysis, or taking another breath test using a much larger (around 4 cubic meter) and more accurate machine. The simulator could be substituted for these, but suffers from requiring a much more elaborate and time-consuming procedure, and from not giving an obviously clear-cut numerical answer as to whether the suspect has actually broken the law. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I visualize a device resembling a laptop computer with a program, and being no more elaborate, weighty, glitch-prone, or expensive. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In drunk driving offences, people are not prosecuted for their inability to drive, but for their blood-alcohol level (or breath alcohol level) breaching a set, legal limit. Thus, a simulator result is irrelevant (especially an imaginary not-yet-invented laptop-sized one). Inaccuracies in breathalysers are recognised, hence the tolerances given in most jurisdictions. In addition, most jurisdictions allow a driver to request a blood test instead (or require one for evidence), which are much more accurate (and more likely to convict you, since the accepted tolerances are lower.) Gwinva (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked, at the beginning of this discussion, whether there was a motor vehicle equipped with such a device, I had in mind that it might be used instead of a breathalyzer, and that, in some jurisdictions, the cumulative result of a driving simulator test instead of the result of a breathalyzer test might be a criterion for deciding the legality or illegality of driving by the driver being tested. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a computer game, not a driving simulator. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@OP you have not answered my question and continue to visualize a cheap laptop-size mass produced in-car driving simulator that objectively and comprehensively quantifies a wide range of human abilities AND can interfere with a driver's control of their vehicle by disabling it AND somehow interprets and condenses all the data it collects into a single legally mandated number that can substitute for a blood test. I believe you knew that no such device exists before you posted your question. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas a driving test in real road traffic involves the circumstances available at that particular time, a driving simulator test can be designed with all of the essential challenges (except maybe road rage) condensed into a minimal amount of time, possibly five minutes, which might be equivalent to the time spent for a typical visit to a gasoline station.

Cuddlyable3, you asked "who would be responsible for the inevitable false positives and false negatives?" I do not know who would be responsible for false results, but it might be equivalent to the same people who are responsible for false results from breathalyzers. I do not visualize "a single legally mandated number", unless you consider a positive or negative result as a number, in the way that computers use zeroes and ones. I do not know with certainty that such a device exists or does not exist, and therefore I asked whether it does. I believe that my question qualifies as much as the question posed in the heading of the next section. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you condense it all into five minutes, even someone blind drunk could pass. It isn't hard to notice the hazards when you know they'll be coming up every 10 seconds. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - there is a VAST difference between a "driving game" and a "driving simulator" (trust me - I've worked on both!). If you are merely suggesting that there might be some kind of interactive test of how drunk someone is - then it probably shouldn't be anything like a car driving game - it would be more likely to be something much more predicable and evidence-based. Imagine maybe a row of colored lights flashing on and off at random - when exactly three green lights light up (not two, not four, not red, not blue) you have to push a button as quickly as possible - the elapsed time says whether you're allowed to drive or not. That might work as a 'reaction test' - but the problem with drunk drivers isn't just reaction time - it's impaired judgement ("Sure I can make it through this amber light before it turns red!"..."I can't see past that truck but it's going really slowly so I'll overtake it anyway"). You can't test for that in a game because the player doesn't have enough feeling of "being there" to invest the care they need to complete a realistic task. Everyone drives without a care in the world for "dying" when they play computer games.

A car simulator that would be realistic enough to catch problems on a full driving experience would have to have ALL of the controls working, a working radio, rear and door mirrors - a way to see out to the sides - a way for you to feel bumps and g-forces in turns - realistic engine sounds that respond to road conditions, steering with proper force-feedback for "road feel". That means taking a real car, modifying the heck out of it, mounting it on a gigantic hydraulic motion-platform, enclosing it in some kind of a dome and projecting high-resolution graphics with sufficient brightness to be convincing. That, right there, is a ten million dollar machine! Anything less than a full-up realistic simulation is no better guarantee than a row of lights and a button for reaction time testing...and if you're going with that kind of approach then you might as well stick with breath and blood analysis to get a direct blood-alcohol reading.

But even if what you're imagining that a computer game could somehow work - you didn't address the serious concern from my previous post that you might have to have the person being tested drive for hundreds or thousands of simulated miles before they'd make that serious mistake that would label them as unfit to drive. If a typical driver goes for 200,000 miles without causing a serious accident - and a drunk driver is 100 times worse than a sober driver - then unless you're prepared to test them for 2,000 miles of simulated driving - you won't know whether they might make a serious mistake. That, right there, is the last nail in the coffin for this concept. If you're merely hoping to detect whether the person weaves slightly as they drive - or maybe fails a "kid jumps out into the road" emergency stop - then you aren't directly testing all aspects of driving ability and you might as well test blood-alcohol instead...it's every bit as arbitary.

Worse still, you'd have to take this test every single time you sat in the car - even if you are a teetotaler. Having to pass a 10 minute driving test every time I need to drop my kid off to school - AND every time I stop for gas or get out of the car for any other reason - would be an unbelievable pain in the ass!

SteveBaker (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually an even deeper legal problem. You can tell someone that they must not drink more than two units of alcohol before driving. That's a rule that everyone can obey if they choose to do so. People who drink more than that and then drive KNOW that they are breaking the law. With a performance-based test, everyone can kid themselves that they are a good enough driver when slightly tipsy to chance that extra drink...and they might be right...but the trouble is that we know that people who drink and drive don't believe they'll cause an accident - if they did, they wouldn't do it. So you know for 100% certain that all drunk drivers would continue to believe they can drive safely after what they drank...so this test would be ineffective at preventing people from driving drunk. Worse still, it risks having honest, law-abiding citizens who wouldn't consider having that third drink think that they can. Most likely then, this idea would actually INCREASE the amount of drunk driving...not decrease it. SteveBaker (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker, I do not have responses ready for all of your points, but I do have a few things to say. The device would not measure drunkenness; it would test driving ability. Also, I did not say that the driver would have to take the test each time he or she sat down into the motor vehicle; I mentioned in my opening post three different ways in which the tests might be "scheduled".

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my searches on the World Wide Web, I found the following documents about sleep-deprived driving.

They seem to be discussing the same study, but I am providing both links anyway. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references are to the same study. It describes a test where a 'computer game-like' simulator (p.1067) was used that displays a speedometer in the top left corner of the computer screen (p.1064).

It is disingenuous of the OP suppose that responsibility for the visualised device automatically disabling wrongly a vehicle is analagous to a faulty breathalyzer because breathalyzers merely provide evidence to a human policeman given authority with responsibility for any further action. A vehicle cannot be half imobilised therefore that action must be a binary i.e. one or zero, and that interference in a person's freedom can happen legally only if there is a legislated threshold. To continue to insist that their fantasy device that cannot be found in any road safety legislation anywhere "might exist" is the obduracy of an OP refusing to understand the unanimously negative answers given here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddlyable3, I have never supposed the analogy which you describe, and I never wished or anticipated that anyone would infer that from my plain expressions. Also, when I responded to comments and questions about the practicality of such a device, I did not wish or anticipate that anyone would infer an insistence on its possible existence. Still, I concede that it is easier to prove that something exists than that it does not exist. (I am just defending my comments as politely as I can; I do not want to argue.) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP's statement "I do not know who would be responsible for false results, but it might be equivalent to the same people who are responsible for false results from breathalyzers" is not drawing an analogy between faults in the OP's fantasy device and faults in breathalyzers then what does it mean? If their statement "I do not know with certainty that such a device exists or does not exist" is not an insistence on its possible existence then why say that?

The OP's idea is unfortunately a regression to the past before breathalysing followed by blood tests for alcohol were legislated. A traffic policeman would then typically estimate a driver's motor coordination by asking the driver to walk a straight line, or to say the Tongue-twister The Leith police dismisseth us. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement (without mention of the disabling feature) does make an analogy. My reason for making the second statement was to correct your contrary statement. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem our OP has is the misunderstanding of the statistical nature of accidents. It is perfectly possible for someone to drive for years while over the legal blood-alcohol limit and never have an accident. However, in general - statistically - people who are over the limit are many, many times more likely to cause an accident than sober people...and that's enough to justify preventing them from driving. You can't measure the reduction in driving ability directly because despite their vastly higher risk - it's still highly improbable that the person will cause a simulated accident while in the simulator for just a few minutes. If a sober person causes a serious accident just once in their lives - a few hundred thousand miles (a pretty fair average, I'd say) - then even if the intoxicated person is thousands of times more dangerous, the probability of an accident happening while driving just a few miles in the simulator is near zero. Hence we need a standard for intoxication that is based on what they drank rather than how they perform after drinking because that's a measurable (if imperfect) thing...and that's what the blood-alcohol limits used in most countries are doing. Sure, it's not a great way to do it - but at least it produces test results that correlate well with statistical danger. SteveBaker (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but Steve, your remarks here and above also indicate why hazard ratio is not a very good statistic for informing policy decisions, like who should be allowed to drive and when. If someone completely sober caused an accident once every quadrillion miles, and someone with BAC of 0.001% caused one every trillion miles, that would be a hazard ratio of 1000, but I hardly think it would be justification to ban driving at 0.001% !

There is no question that driving while impaired by alcohol or other substances is an ongoing problem that causes great harm. But I think that there is a risk of going too far, and imposing harsh consequences on drivers relatively at random for relatively harmless behavior. I can live with the current 0.08% standard, but I would resist attempts to push it further. Already at the current standard, I think you're talking about levels of elevated risk comparable to driving while tired or emotionally upset. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing the archived discussion to add two points.

At 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC), Tango said "It isn't hard to notice the hazards when you know they'll be coming up every 10 seconds." A computer program can randomize the combination and permutation of challenges selected from a previously determined set. By means of combinatorics, the number of possible sequences can make predicting a particular randomly generated sequence very difficult.
An ignition interlock device interprets breathalyzer readings and can prevent the engine of a motor vehicle from starting.

(I am adding this archive page to my watchlist.)
—Wavelength (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there autonomous/"self-charging" (small, unmanned) submarines?

I imagine you could anchor to the bottom of a strong stream and get the water power, or maybe something else? --194.197.235.240 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly that - but this autonomous underwater 'glider' can travel 30,000 miles on the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline! It uses small bouyancy changes to allow it to 'glide' through the water for long distances. If you imagine an airplane gliding down from a great height - then you can imagine a heavier-than-water submarine with "wings" doing the same thing, gliding through water from the surface to some great depth. Conversely, a lighter-than-water sub could "glide upwards" from deep water to the surface. By pumping water into and out of ballast tanks, this little submarine can alternate between being lighter and heavier than water - and thereby glide over immense distances with teeny-tiny amounts of energy. SteveBaker (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could one be made large enough to carry a standard cargo container, do you suppose? Is there any money in shipping things extremely slowly around the world at almost no cost? 213.122.35.20 (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Popular Science is to be trusted, Work is actually underway[8] to make "self-charging" unmanned submarines for deep ocean dives. They may soon increase the endurance of the kind of bots Steve just linked into a the years without a recharge range.

The theory is to exploit the temperature difference between different layers of the ocean to generate the tiny amount of energy required to blow the ballast tanks. APL (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These low-thrust drones could not maneuver at the bottom of a strong stream. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it does not have to be a sub, why couldn't you just have a robotic sailing vessel, or a solar powered ship? They might not be super fast and there could be some days where they do not move because it is cloudy or there is no wind, but the principal would be similar. Googlemeister (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wind-powered ships are not exactly new! Having one be robotically controlled is also not unreasonable - but the problem for cargo shipment is that time is money and being becalmed for days or weeks is not likely to be acceptable. Also, the capital cost of the ship is not small - and tying up such a valuable resource when it's becalmed or if it has to sail at slow speed - or perhaps sail around storm systems instead of piling right through them is problematic. Also, when you have a ship that's worth tens of millions with cargo worth about the same...the cost of having a handful of humans on board to resolve problems is not such a big deal and having a robotic system pilot the ship has few attractions. The nice thing about being underwater is that there is little or no weather problems down there - so a submarine trip could have a more predictable ride. SteveBaker (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was all new and interesting to me. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wave power is also practical - all you need is a suitable weight connected to the piston of a hydraulic or pneumatic pump - and every time the vessel bobs up and down, you get one cycle of the pump and a little more energy for propulsion. If the craft is small and you can be patient, you can have a ship with a virtually limitless range. SteveBaker (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children as sole survivors

Looking at the list of sole survivors of airline incidents, I, along with many others, notice a bias towards children; it is certainly well above what you'd expect. Have there been any theories as to why this is the case? I imagine physical size may play a part, but on the other hand, they'd faint more easily from pain, blood loss and smoke inhalation. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to be sure it was true before trying to explain it - a sole surviving child is likely to get more publicity than a sole surviving adult. If it is true, then I'd guess it is either their smaller size or them being protected by the adults (using their bodies to shield the children, for example). They might be able to survive great injuries too - children have a reputation for healing quickly, but I don't know if that is true or not. --Tango (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this list to be seen? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of sole survivors of airline accidents or incidents. As for the question, I would think that parents and/or guardians of the children would do their best to protect the child, putting their kids above themselves. How much and what kind of extra protection would be available, I don't know. The Reader who Writes (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC have also noticed this trend - a moderately interesting article in which they speak to various experts but conclude very little. Warofdreams talk 23:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The List of sole survivors of airline accidents or incidents shows 11 children under age 18 who survived crashes that had 788 fatalities. That's 72 adults killed for every child saved. Bias? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only 72 adults if all the 788 fatalities were adults, which is unlikely. These numbers could have some meaning if data were easily available stating how many of the dead were children vs. adults. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "trend" and "bias" claims are really weird because the sample size is small — we should be looking at "airline crashes with 2 survivors" and "airline crashes with 3 survivors", etc., if we want to draw any conclusions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine it's a combination of size and immaturity. First, kids being smaller means that the square-cube law works in their favor: their muscles, bones, and other tissues are stronger in proportion to their mass (and inertia) than for adults, so it takes a more forceful impact to cause damage. Second, since kids are still growing, their skeleton has a higher proportion of cartilege to bone, which tends to bend rather than break. --Carnildo (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sample isn't large enough to really note trends, and experts all have differing opinions. See this newspaper article on the Libyan crash:

William Voss, president of the Alexandria, Va.-based Flight Safety Foundation said sometimes children survive because of their small size. "As far as children are concerned, the only thing we can reasonably say is that some children survive because of their size, because it's easier for them to be protected during impact," he said. However, John Nance, an aviation safety expert and retired airline pilot, said that because commercial jet crashes are infrequent and each is different, there's not enough evidence to say children have an advantage. Although children weigh less and are more flexible, many infants and children die in crashes because they aren't properly restrained, he said.

Of the nine "sole survivors" listed at the conclusion of the article, 5 are children. Gwinva (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate the relevant undermining of such an observation (better reporting, etc.) but most sources say, with a small sample size, half were children. That's at least twice what you'd expect. Are there any more definite reults for perhaps all crashes, or all deadly crashes, out there? Indeed, can we find the percentage of people on flights who are children? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]