Miscellaneous desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

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 9

What is "WANTYNU"?

I've seen the word WANTYNU used in some EMS blogs, but have no idea what is stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYPATROL (talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are, among other things, a company that makes oxygen tank keys, from what I can tell. See [1]. It appears to derive from the phrase "We ain't nothing till you need us" (according to the website I linked). It appears to be an acronym derived from a bit of EMS culture, implying that EMS people tend to be poorly regarded up until they actually save one's life. --Jayron32 04:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find the print date for a dollar bill by its serial number?

Well, basically what the title says: Is it possible to determine when a dollar bill was issued based on its serial number? I know you can find out where its printed, but I'd like to know as exactly as possible when a certain bill was issued. Asav (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Bureau of Engraving and Printing has some links to other places that might provide an answer, unless there's some security issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't destroyed bills get their serial numbers re-used? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BB, sent the BEP an email a couple of days ago, but haven't received an answer yet. I was hoping there were some collectors or such out there who could point me in the right direction. As for serial numbers being reused, as in EP's question, I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen, at least not within the same series. Asav (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue drum

Tongue drum is a redirect to slit drum, but that article contains no reference to tongue drums. Is a tongue drum actually a kind of slit drum, or is it a different beast? See here for a brief description of the tongue drum. --Viennese Waltz 08:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~They're synonymous.~~ "Slit drum" is used more often in scholarly literature of musicology or music anthropology. Functionally, "tongue drum" is perhaps more descriptive, as the tongues are the resonating parts (while "slit" refers to the removed material). The tongues are also called "lips" sometimes, but I've never encountered the usage of "lip drum". Traditionally the term "slit drum" is more frequent than "tongue drum". ---Sluzzelin talk 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, they might not be completely synonymous. Tongue drum might be a subset of slit drum, as you already hinted at. Instruments with only one slit, such as this example from Vanuatu, don't really have tongues at all, so it would be misleading to call them 'tongue drums'. Technically, a wood block is a slit drum too, but not a tongue drum. Hmm ... ---Sluzzelin talk 11:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking around a bit more, I stand by my claim that slit drum is found far more frequently in literature than "tongue drum", even when discussing multi-pitched, multi-tongued instruments such as the teponaztli. The term tongue drum is more specific (excluding uni-slits) but despite its potential usefulness just hasn't gained traction in academia. The term is often found in the context of DIY instrument-making, music therapy, new-age spiritualism, and to a lesser extent in marketing of percussion instrument manufacturers. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you quite finished? ;) Seriously, thanks very much for the most helpful answers. --Viennese Waltz 11:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-air collisions over major cities

The news of a near miss over London last year got me thinking. Has there ever been a mid-air collision over a major city; one that resulted in flaming debris raining down into the streets below? I know the September 11 attacks might qualify, but that was a deliberate act of terrorism and not the kind of accident/air traffic control error I am asking about. Astronaut (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See our article 1993 Auckland mid-air collision for one example that also shut down a major motorway at rush hour Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroméxico Flight 498 hit a Piper Archer and fell into a residential neighbourhood in Cerritos, California, killing 15 people and injuring a further 8. Golden West Airlines Flight 261 scattered debris over a residential area, but no-one on the ground was injured. Lastly (I think that's all, at least for commercial airliners) there's the 1960 New York air disaster, in which a DC-8 struck a Super Constellation over New York, killing six people (and I assume a dog) in Park Slope, Brooklyn. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If barrage balloons count, I would expect at least a couple of German fighters during the early 1940s to have qualified for this, but our article does not actually mention if these balloons actually downed any aircraft at all, so perhaps they were only a psychological ploy. Also, as part of an act of warfare, it might not exactly meet your accident/error criteria. Googlemeister (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Depends on what is a major city, but there is the Stockport air disaster in the 1960s although nobody on the ground was killed.~~ MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding barrage balloons, I'm trying to find a good source, but I have found numbers like 24 piloted enemy aircraft and 278 missiles destroyed by barrage balloons, and at least 40 Allied aircraft as well. This is just WWII; I've not seen numbers for WWI yet. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mid-air collision, but Pan Am Flight 103 made a mess of Lockerbie, where eleven residents were killed.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2007 Phoenix news helicopter collision occurred over a park downtown. 68.104.175.130 (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stockport wasn't a mid-air collision; Lockerbie wasn't and isn't a major city. --John (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mid-air collision, but the B-25 Empire State Building crash killed 11 people in the Empire State Building. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the question was about collisions that were mid-airs. --Anon, 15:20 UTC, September 10, 2010.

Correct, that crash would be classified as controlled flight into terrain I expect. Googlemeister (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a vague recollection of a news story about two planes colliding over New York City, and the one I was probably thinking of was in December of 1960. List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft has a lot of entries, and if you look for "collide" you can probably isolate some crashes that would be of interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of the 1960 New York air disaster. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one that popped into my head was the 1978 PSA Flight 182 collision over San Diego. Ratmangxa (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EST

I read the EST but I am confused. When do the clocks change again? Do they go forward or back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by No money back, no guarantee (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC) This editor has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Franamax (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Spring forward, fall back" is the old reminder saying. It varies between North America and Europe. See Daylight saving time for more info, but in the U.S. it's currently the first Saturday night / Sunday morning in November. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by EST you mean the same timezone of New York City, then that date is Nov 7 this year. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By EST do you mean European Summer Time? The information given there is quite clear: the clocks go back on 31 October. The dates of clock adjustments vary from one country to another.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Eastern Standard Time (but not the American and I don't only mean US one) then from Time in Australia the answer appears to be first Sunday of October, in those places that actually observe Daylight Saving Time. The clocks go forward on that date Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just ask most posters to topics like this to think a little more globally. Many large countries have EST. I still don't know which one our questioner was referring to. Most countries DON'T have fall. I DO know where Baseball Bugs is from. ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All countries have fall. Not all of them call it that. The majority of native English speakers, however, do call it that. --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of native English speakers = the USA, most others call it Autumn and think fall is an Americanism! MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the majority of native English speakers are from the US. Therefore it would behoove Commonwealth speakers to desist from referring to their specific usages as "international". You can't have "international" without the majority. --Trovatore (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. What percentage of US residents would have Spanish as their native language? HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, a (not overwhelming) majority who live in a single country are more "international" than a (substantial) minority who come from ~~several~~ many countries? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say that. My point is certainly not that American English counts as "international". It's that the term is too often used to mean specifically "other than American", and this is incorrect and unjust. Commonwealth English is also not "international English"; it's just the English used in some nations. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the OP won't be back, at least not under that user ID, because he's been indef'd for block evasion. But if anyone wants to know when their clocks roll back, there is no shortage of sources of that info. If all else fails, watch the Saturday evening news as you get into October, because they nearly always say, "Don't forget, turn your clocks forward/back." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm defending the use of international (which you appear to have been the first to bring up in this discussion) but who gives a damn about native speakers? They have no more rights then non native speakers. I would also note that for a number of countries, even though they may technically have autumn/fall/whatever, it's largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the first one to bring up "international". HiLo48 said "think a little more globally". This admonition always seems to be directed at Americans, even though British posters are easily as often guilty of not doing so. Probably more so in my experience.

Native speakers is an important thing to measure because second-language speakers frequently don't use the language all that much. It's not (usually) a living thing to them; it's a subject they've studied in school. Of course this is not always true, but it suffices for a general statistical sense to see that you can't leave Americans out of "global" English usage.

As for countries that don't have fall, you're right, I wasn't really thinking about places like where you live, where I suppose there aren't really seasons to speak of? Or maybe two rainy seasons a year or something like that? I was responding to the apparent claim that there's no fall where they call it "autumn". --Trovatore (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "fall" vs. "autumn", EO states that "fall" is indeed primarily an American usage.[2][3] "Autumn" is still used in the USA, but perhaps more often in a poetic sense, although "spring forward, autumn back" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But don't forget that "fall" as a word for autumn was first used in the UK in the 16th century. Ref: Oxford Dictionary of Etymology (not entymology!). Richard Avery (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except there was no UK then... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Increasingly off topic I know, but then where would the pleasure be in a Ref Desk discussion? I recommend a glance at our not entirely satisfactory article on Season to see how even the notion of fall/autumn and spring aren't global Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

soccer world cup shots on goal

What is the highest number of shots on goal for both teams combined that resulted in a 0-0 tie during a world cup game? Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That question is unanswerable. Football is not like some other sports in that it is not obsessed with statistics. No official records for numbers of shots on goal are kept, they are the domain of TV broadcasters, who obviously have details of only a tiny percentage of the thousands of World Cup games that have been played since 1930. --Viennese Waltz 13:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do they record saves by the GK? Googlemeister (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, afraid not. The only officially recorded statistics are on things like the score (obviously), the scorers, bookings, sendings off and so on. By the way, and just for your information, the term GK is never used, only "goalkeeper". --Viennese Waltz 15:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Guardian ([4]), shots on goal have been officially recorded at the World Cup since 2002. The Guardian figures pre-2002 are generally just the number of goals scored, and it's not obvious why in a few instances they've given a higher - or even a lower - figure for shots on goal. Warofdreams talk 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Higher - some of the shots on goal were saved. Lower - one or more goals were scored not from a shot on goal: e.g. from shots off-target but deflected into the goal, from non-shot own-goals by defenders, possibly even from the goalkeeper accidentally throwing the ball into his own net (see Gary Sprake). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The FIFA statistics on the 2010 World Cup finals are here - showing that there were seven 0-0 draws in the finals - and the information on shots is here. They suggest that, of those seven, the match between Paraguay and Japan had the most shots on goal - 20 - the next highest being the match between Portugal and Brazil which had 8. There's a report on the game here, which certainly doesn't suggest a game of high drama. The wealth of statistics on the FIFA site suggests that football is rapidly catching up with other sports in terms of the number of useless statistics collected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not useless for sports gamblers... Googlemeister (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Opta Sports keep statistics like this going back quite some way, but they're not available to anyone. One of their staff was dispensing various historical World Cup statistics on Twitter throughout the 2010 finals. If you sign up and ask he might be able to tell you. His username is OptaJoe. --Iae (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

age

Why do some small animals live ages like parrots 60 years or queen ants 30 years, but big animals like dogs only 15 years, when humans live 100 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bffmff34 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because 30 years in humans is different to 30 years in dogs. See Aging in dogs. Chevy monte carlo - alt 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question-asker understands that dogs age faster, he is asking why. APL (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because a creature's longevity is not dependent upon its size or mass.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is it dependent on, then? --Viennese Waltz 15:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though there does seem on the surface anyways, to be at least some correlation between longevity and average size in mammals anyways. I don't know if these correlations apply with birds or insects though. Googlemeister (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Actually, that's not entirely true: within a given class, larger creatures do tend to have longer lives. speaking in terms of evolution, though, there are a few related theories. I think r/K selection theory might be an appropriate place to begin. that theory says that longevity and birthrate are inversely related, based on whether parents pour all of their energies into producing huge quantities of offspring (the 'breed and die' behavior of salmon or the large brood sizes of field mice), or pour all their energy into raising, teaching, and caring for a small number of offspring (as in Elephants, dolphins, and humans). the former species tend to be short-lived and the latter long-lived. Dogs are somewhere in the middle on that scale - social animals with medium sized broods that do some care and training of offspring. --Ludwigs2 15:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit mis-guided in my opinion to compare humans to, for example, ants. Humans have the ability to control much of their surroundings. We also have people devoted to improving and maintaining our health. Ants don't have that. Dismas|^(talk) 19:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to de-rail too much, but ants DO control their environments quite a bit, probably more than any other non-human animal. They can modify heat and humidity of the nest, and also have workers that maintain sanitation. They store food, grow fungus, and tend aphids. They have division of labor, and specialists for certain tasks. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so maybe ants aren't the best example. But you get my point. They can't control things as much as we can. No animal can. We have advantages that other animals do not. Dismas|^(talk) 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Control" is not really the right variable here. What you mean is, "humans have found ways to stay alive longer." Which is probably true, and why humans are not a great example to compare to wild animals. Humans living in "wild" conditions do not live as long as humans with steady food supplies, freedom from predators, good habitats, medical care, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig is onto it. The simple answer is that "Mother Nature", i.e. evolution, made these creatures the way they are, for a variety of reasons. Someone brought up whales. A lot of whales consume tiny creatures called krill. You'd think krill would be extinct, at the rate the whales gobble them up. But they aren't, presumably because nearly all their energy goes towards reproduction - kind of like the tribbles of the ocean. So a lot of them get eaten, but enough of them survive to reproduce and replenish or expand their net population. Longevity is not really an issue for krill - perpetuation of the species is the issue. This rule applies in general to prey and predators. There are a number of endangered species of whales, because evolution did not require whales to be prolific, so more of their energy could go towards size and longevity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural selection can favor different life-spans in different contexts. However, the general physiology of an organism places constraints on what a species can do. Species cannot generally be long-lived, and still produce many offspring with high survival rates (see Darwinian_Demon). The general concepts at play outlined by Ludwig and Baseball Bugs are discussed by Life_history_theory, though our article could use some expansion. Also, prolific species with short life-spans are not any less susceptible to being endangered; see all the insects and spiders listed here: IUCN_Red_List_endangered_species_(Animalia), SemanticMantis (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do various mammals (perhaps excluding humans) live roughly the same number of heartbeats? I believe Isaac Asimov once wrote about this. It may be a measure of their metabolic rate. A mouse (500-700 beats per minute) might live a short span of time (perhaps 2 years as a pet) compared to an elephant (perhaps 28 beats per minute, perhaps 60-70 years in captivity) . (Milage may vary). The mouse would have about 6 x 10<exp> 8</exp> heartbeats, while the elephant would have about 9 x 10<exp>8</exp> heartbeats in a lifetime. Edison (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But humans live roughly as long as elephants and usually have a resting heart rate of 60-70 bpm. Cats have a heart rate of 120-140 and only live 12-14 years. It is probably a rough correlation, but probably not anything to bet the farm on. Googlemeister (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov apparently addressed this comparison in at least three books, "Asimov's Guide to science" (1972):"A rabbit may live up to 15 years, a dog up to 18, a pig up to 20, a horse up to 40, and an elephant up to 70. To be sure, the smaller the animal ... There is no question but that man's heart outperforms all other hearts in existence. ...," "The human body: its structure and operation" (1963): "Animals larger than man naturally have slower heartbeats than we do. An ox has a heartbeat of 25 per minute, an elephant has one of 20. The heart rate will also vary in a given creature with his level of activity. ...," and "Asimov's New guide to science" (1984):"Though considerably smaller than a horse and far smaller than an elephant, the human being can live longer than any mammal can. ... There is no question but that the human heart outperforms all other hearts in existence. ...". Edison (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ingredient in a receipe

I would like to know the name of the ingredient Rachael Ray used im place of honey. It was in an episode last week. It is like honey, but does not cause an effect on blood sugars and I think she waid it was produced in Mexico. Can you help me with that. Thank you, Patreicia Bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.192.38 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen that episode, but from your description, it sounds like she was talking about agave nectar. It's sweeter than sugar, but it can still influence your blood sugar content - just less because you use less (if that makes sense). Matt Deres (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here's a discussion from WebMD about the use of diabetes and agave - apparently also in response to a Rachel Ray show. The stuff on there is mostly opinion, but it seems that some folks are sceptical about agave's good reputation. If you're concerned from a diabetes perspective, the ADA, has this page regarding it, which implies that it's better than sugar, but still something of a concern (it suggests using sugar substitutes like Splenda instead). Matt Deres (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like avage nectar's low glycemic index and high sweetness are just results of it being high in fructose. I doubt it's much different than high fructose corn syrup. Paul (Stansifer) 04:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]