Miscellaneous desk
< September 6	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 8 >

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.

September 7

fatal auto accidents

I am trying to find a comparison of the percentage of national motor cycle fatal accidents compared to the total number of motor cycle accidents and the percentage of national auto fatal accidents compared to the total number of auto accidents. can you help? thank you for your time and consideration. (e-mail address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.66.240 (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - from Motorcycle_safety#Accident_rates - "Motorcycles have a higher fatality rate per unit of distance travelled when compared with automobiles. According to the NHTSA, in 2006 18.06 cars out of 100,000 ended up in fatal crashes. The rate for motorcycles is 55.82 per 100,000.[1] In 2004, figures from the UK Department for Transport indicated that motorcycles have 16 times the rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle kilometers compared to cars, and double the rate of bicycles.[2]" Exxolon (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check that link - Motorcycle_safety#Accident_rates - more useful info there. Exxolon (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edition of this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd/episodes/player radio programme - the 03/09/10 one - includes discussion of some pitfalls about interpreting transport accident statistics and would be worth listening to. 92.15.12.116 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to identify a documentary I once saw as a child

I am looking for help identifying a nature documentary I saw when I was a child (mid-'90s). It follows the communal life of a particular group of orangutans in the wild (but maybe gorillas or chimps??).

Unfortunately, I can only remember one scene -- but if you saw it, you too would never forget it:

One of the orangutans is an infant, and he is being raised by his mother or perhaps his aunt. She carries him around piggy-back style, like most orangutans do. But the weird thing is, he never outgrows this, even as he grows into a large adolescent. He never permits her to put him down -- in fact, now he can force her to carry him. Then she gets polio. Carrying him saps her of her strength, and she dies. Without her, he too dies.

Thank you for your help. I've also asked this question on www.vark.com, and also at National Geographic and orangutan and nature documentary (I know that the reference desk frowns on re-posting, but I figure this is different since it's multiple article talk pages rather than multiple reference desks). Thanks. 160.39.220.66 (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Goodall was filming chimps with her husband in Gombe around 1966 when polio struck. She kept her own child in a cage so that the chimps would not eat him. Maybe its on youtube.--Aspro (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like Flint, maybe? Wikiscient (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't help with your question, but for future reference, you should note that individual talk pages are intended solely for discussing their articles, not for discussion or questions about the topic. Good luck with finding your answer. Rojomoke (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching on youtube for keywords, its likely someone has uploaded it Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remember anything more to narrow it down? Was there a presenter on-screen? Was the presenter or voice-over male or female? Did they have a British accent? Was it David Attenborough? I'm not sure if British nature documentaries are re-dubbed in American accents for that audience. 92.15.12.116 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, they aren't- we Americans associate British accents with high intelligence, so we like them in our documentaries. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your help. It was so long ago. I can only remember that the presenter was not on-screen. Nothing else! 160.39.220.66 (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't have been orangs because they don't live communally. Other than that I don't know. The idea of a mother gorilla carrying around a full-grown adult male creates a pretty ridiculous image in my mind, though. Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you live? In most of the world humans do live communally Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Oh, I get it. Orang = man in Malay. 81.131.42.80 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see in Orangutan Island they "are raised to go against their normal nature to form a society and live together in a cooperative society". There are three other orangutan documentaries or TV shows listed in the "see also" section. The Disenchanted Forest claims that they have culture, and "a rich and complex society of elders and peers provides the young with critical knowledge that is necessary for their survival". This would seem to contradict Orangutan Island's claim that they don't naturally cooperate. I'm not sure which bunch of nature-fetishists is lying, quite possibly both. 81.131.42.80 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maritime flags

can you tell me if a Scotish ensign flag is legal witch has a St Andrews flag in the corner of a red background as apost to the Red Ensign witch has a Union Jack in the corner with a red background —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lornforth (talk • contribs) 09:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article the flag shown here - which I assume is what you mean - was used by the Royal Scots Navy prior to the Acts of Union 1707. According to this site, which sells them, "it is still used unofficially by private citizens for use on water". So, its use is presumably not illegal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that one of the major reasons why the Scottish Red Ensign has been (recently) adopted is that the Scottish flag (just the white diagonal cross/saltire on a blue field) is virtually identical to the letter 'M' flag in the International maritime signal flags. The alternate meaning of the flag is "My vessel is stopped and making no way through the water", which is very confusing (and illegal in many waters) when flown from a vessel underway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking up a conversation sitting / standing up

The probability that a complete stranger strikes a conversation with you in a café or pub is much higher if you are standing that if you are seating, Why? Is it everywhere like that?--Quest09 (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, and yes. In Australian pubs, you'll certainly have strangers talk to you if you're alone (unless you're putting out "fuck off" vibes, which people often do without being aware of it). I agree that it's more likely to happen to standing people than to sitting people - although that depends on whether you're sitting at the bar or at a table. A person sitting at a bar is more likely to attract another single person for interlocutory purposes (and, who knows, if the conditions are right, maybe other purposes), than a person sitting at a table away from the bar. A standing person looking like they need to be taken home and looked after will probably be offered exactly that sooner or later (we are a very hospitable people). It also depends to a degree on what type of pub it is.

But I can't recall such conversations happening in cafes at all, no matter whether you're standing waiting to be served, or sitting waiting to be served, or sitting eating. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a personal space issue. Conversations between standing and sitting people can be awkward and it's considered rude to sit down with someone without an invite. If you are standing, people will move past and around you and this gives more opportunities for casual conversation. Exxolon (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During my travels, some of my best and most memorable encounters have come from sitting/standing at the bar (or the counter of a diner). It is a great way to meet people whether locals or fellow travellers. Astronaut (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your sitting your likely eating or reading or doing something and don't want to be disturbed. If your standing your just loitering and doing nothing, so people feel better for disturbing you. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Social Anthropologist Kate Fox has studied such behavioural phenomena extensively, particularly in the context of British pubs, and mentions this particular one in (at least) two of her works; Watching the English and the more concise and directly relevant (to this topic) Passport to the Pub. There is (she has observed) an extensive unwritten etiquette to behaviour in pubs, which most regular pub-goers unconsciously follow without being consciously aware of most of it most of the time. One element is that a person standing at or near the bar is signalling openness to uninvited conversational approaches, particularly if alone, and standing couples (in the relationship sense) or larger groupings are approachable if not obviously engaged in close personal conversation; however, sitting at a table, particularly as a couple, indicates a desire not to be so approached unless a clear signal (such as themselves addressing someone else) is made. Obviously there is a good deal more to this and many other similar matters in the books. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can highly reccommend Watching the English. A great read and not the dry academic text you might expect from an anthropologist. Astronaut (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Staragte

When is Stargate Universe comming back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Half charged (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate Universe says September 28, 2010 for America. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim prayer room in World Trade Center

Was there a Muslim Prayer room in the destroyed WTC tower 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.194.169 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be common knowledge that there were something like a half dozen chapels and prayer rooms in WTC, one of which was a Muslim prayer room, but I've not been able to find any definitive evidence or good sources about it. I'd think it quite likely, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, they possibly also destroyed some Coran left in the Muslim prayer room? --Quest09 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they would have no problem justifying having caused that "collateral damage". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's that seemingly non-human "they" being associated with mainstream Islam again. Before Hitler, most of Europe's wars (and there were lots of them) involved almost everybody on both sides praying for and doing things in the name of the Christian God while fighting and killing one another and destroying each others' property. I can guarantee that millions of Bibles would have been destroyed in the process. Those who overtly choose the path of killing others in war are usually quite irrational, and don't really care whose religious icons become collateral damage. The other side, "they", are sub-human, so it doesn't matter. HiLo48 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think "they" in the above referred to the perpetrators of 9/11, whom I for one do not associate with "mainstream Islam". Rojomoke (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "they" means the perpetrators. I have known a number of Muslims, and in general I find them to be kind and gentle. The 9/11 guys did nothing but give Islam a bad name, or a big black eye, to put it mildly. Every religion gets embraced by evil people from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that was hyperbole, but really? Millions of Bibles? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many do you think were destroyed in the Bombing of Hamburg in World War II? It looks like about a quarter million houses were destroyed, plus who knows how many apartments. Add a few bookstores, libraries, churches, and maybe the odd Bible storage warehouse, and you can probably get up to a million pretty easily, just from the firebombing of a few major metropolitan areas. It's a pretty common book in Europe, after all. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, but Hilo did specify "before Hitler". Adam Bishop (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I was also wondering about the mechanism through which war destroyed so many bibles. There would really only be a 300-400 year window where there were enough bibles to destroy without destroying all of them. That's about 5,000 war-destroyed bibles per year for four hundred years.

But I assumed it was hyperbole and resisted the urge to be the first person to bring it up. APL (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it quite likely that the 9/11 terrorists destroyed at least one Koran, but they also killed quite a few Muslim Americans. You see, they were bad people. By the way- as a bonus answer to the question you didn't ask- this year, a major Muslim holiday happens to fall on September 11. When you see your Muslim neighbors gathering with their families and friends for a big celebration, they actually aren't celebrating the fact that 9 bad people murdered their co-religionists and their countrymen. But I'll bet someone will claim that they are. Watch your favorite politician, and see if he or she tries to misrepresent these celebrations, and then ask yourself whether you're buying into an anti-Muslim hysteria that's just some cynical politician's vote grab. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution to counter that kind of hysteria is to educate oneself; for example, to ask a Muslim to talk about his/her religion, about what Ramadan is about, etc. Not to argue back about things, but just to listen and try to understand where they're coming from. Muslims believe just as strongly in their faith as Christians and Jews and so forth do in theirs, and no religion has a monopoly on the truth. Good relations involve considering the possibility that others might be onto something that you've overlooked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Ramadan end on the 10th? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe for those who rely on calculated moon phases generally Ramadan will end at sunset of September 8 or September 9 depending on location (or if they use Mecca or their home country as their reference). Muslims will therefore celebrate on the night of September 8/9 and the day of September 9/10. However Eid ul-Fitr celebrations may last more then a day although some may scale back their celebrations this year in the US [1]. For those who rely on sighting of the moon I think it's possible Ramadan may end at sunset of September 10 and therefore the first full day of celebrations will be September 11 but I suspect it's not particularly likely in the US given it's geographical location Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the moon is over 31 hours old by now. It was sighted in South Africa this evening so we are celebrating Eid tomorrow 10 September as is most of the world. I don't think anyone is having it on the 11th; the moon phase is such that Eid would either be today or tomorrow in any part of the world. But this is getting seriously off-topic. Eid Mubarak to all, I'll catch up with all things WP on Saturday. Zunaid 17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More detail: the prayer room was on the 17th floor of WTC2. There were about 60 Muslim victims. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on my screen sometimes it says radio is logged in /available.

Does that mean that anyone can log in on my emails or use my laptop . As you may gather I know very little about IT but this is a niggle in the back of my mind @btinternet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.139.101 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC) email address removed to prevent possible spamming - responses will appear on this page. Richard Avery (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly not (though it's hard to be sure with so little information about what the message is and what is producing it). You can think of logging into a system like unlocking a door: if your car is unlocked that doesn't mean that people can get into your house. But I have no idea what it would mean to say "radio is logged in". --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That message is probably referring to a wireless Internet card in your computer. HP computers often display little popups with similar messages when they start up. If the message bothers you and you want to be sure you are immune from intrusion, turn on Windows Firewall, or disable your network wireless card in the Windows Device Manager. If you need followup information, please tell us what version of Windows you are running, and the manufacturer and model number of the computer you have. Also, for future computer questions you should probably utilize the Computing Reference Desk — this is the Miscellaneous desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heat

I want to make a small heating element. Would a 9v battery and flat piece of metal be good enough? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are aiming at a high operating temperature you need something like Nichrome. Using a resistor of the value that will give you the Watt per second that you need, is probably easier for low temperature -see section "wire wound". If the 9 v you're thinking of is a PP3 it wont have much puff. Try a high drain alkalines like these.[2]. What are you trying to do?--Aspro (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "flat piece of metal" would indeed create heat, but all at once when it short-circuits the battery. As Aspro points out, you need a material of sufficiently high resistance that the energy is not all dissipated at once (which might have an unfortunate effect on the battery and those in the immediate neighborhood). Acroterion _(talk) 22:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"style"

(Moved here from the Science desk)

what is the "style" of the chair found here

http://www.amazon.com/Rio-Brands-BRN-Promo-Chair/dp/B000VQHR7W/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=garden&qid=1283888946&sr=1-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Folding chair. ny156uk (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a Folding Lawn Chair. Buddy431 (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a folding lawn chair. I've had these from time to time. They're pretty flimsy, but their light weight allows for easy transport to ball games and such. If the OP is looking for something more specific info, that might be a challenge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the title of the referenced page suggests, furniture like that is often called "web furniture" (in this case, a "web chair") because of the webbing used. Also "patio furniture". Which I can't say without thinking of an old joke: "What's Irish and stands around in your back yard?" "Paddy O'Furniture!" —Steve Summit (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3

Whats the deal with 3s? Like, people like things in 3s. And say "things come in 3s". Do they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evlwty (talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article 3 (number) might provide some insight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do. Two can be as bad as one; it's the loneliest number since the number one. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women, I hear, can come in threes, but men generally are only good for one at a time. --Jayron32 23:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that does come in threes a lot is boss fights in video games. Specifically, you'll have to destroy three vital parts, or hit the difficult-to-reach weak point three times, or...anyway, I'm sure this was commented on in an article somewhere on the Internet. I was going to link to it, but Googling just turns up a lot of video games with "3" in the title... Vimescarrot (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Rule of three (writing). It suggests to me that things coming in threes in real life are just more memorable than things coming in, say, ones (because everything comes in ones, how boring). Paul (Stansifer) 01:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Is a Magic Number: "Somewhere in the ancient, mystic trinity. You get three as a magic number. The past and the present and the future. Faith and Hope and Charity, The heart and the brain and the body Give you three as a magic number...A man and a woman had a little baby. Yes, they did. They had three in the family. That's a magic number." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Just Molly and me / And baby makes three / We're happy in My Blue Heaven." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, there's Trinity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The threes cluttered up our nursery rhymes and kids stories - blind mice, bears, little pigs, musketeers, stooges. And wise men seem to come in threes. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Happiness restaurant in Chicago's Chinatown district. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wedges are basically triangular and from splitting wood for clubs and canoos to rocks for obelisks and pyramids have been very useful for ages. Neither a square chip of rock nor a round pebble could achieve the same tasks. So there is a long tradition of interest in triangular objects. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Benford's law. Actually, there are more things in twos or ones than threes, but three is more unusual so you note and remember it. 92.28.242.240 (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good speech writers know the rule of three very well. Listen to your politicians. They'll often repeat similar things three times to add emphasis. Astronaut (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And good answers often come in three sentences. See above. Bye! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I can't find the article now, but we used to have one on the "comic triple", which is two straight lines followed by a joke. There is also the triple take, and I can't find that article either. And in lawsuits you can have treble damages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOing research for a Wikipedia article

I recently asked this at the help desk and received a rather unhelpful boilerplate response including a link to a page that didnt answer my question at all, so I'll ask it again here as an overall knowledge-question. I wish to contribute some content to an existing WIkipedia article. I have some books on the topic that I'd like to use as sources. Should I read all the way through the books (cover-to-cover) and then skim back to find the facts and put them where there supposed to be, or just skim the relevant paragraphs in the book and put the facts in with a citation. I know ideally I should do the former but these are rather long books and my time is limited. PS: I am not at all interested in creating an account, and have one (unused) should the need for one ever arise. 76.235.111.140 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the facts you add are useful to people's understanding of the article's subject, it does not matter whether you read and revisit, or merely pick out nuggets. Articles can, absolutely, be built piecemeal, sentence by sentence. Bottom line: whichever you prefer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand what you are writing about. If you are confident that you understand the topic adequately to be sure that you are putting valid information into the article, without reading the whole book, then okay. Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]