Miscellaneous desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 15

Craggy Island

Resolved

Where was Father Ted actually shot? I have friend from Germany who would love to visit the place. Where actually was it shot? Our article doesn't say anything. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does Father Ted#Location. He iro 02:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[bangs head on table] - Sorry, I missed that. Thanks :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeming obsession with the rich and famous

So, I have always wondered. Why do people, particularly in the US, seem to have this fixation on the lives of the rich and famous? Also, is this obsession confined to a certain part of the social spectrum or is it prevalent in all of them? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Tishrei 5772 02:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the same reason that people are so fascinated by people particularly in the US? μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, the R&F don't bomb poor and middle-class people... yet. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Tishrei 5772 02:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie indeed! So, are you rich an famous? hydnjo (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, just the name a long-deceased, but very good archaeologist. Rich? Idk what counts as rich in the US tbh. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Tishrei 5772 03:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's confined to certain social spectrums, the spectrums that read People magazine and follow news of the Cardishian wedding and Paris Hilton. Oh, and liberals like to focus on the rich and how unfair it is.AerobicFox (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do magazines like People, US Weekly and National Enquirer (and others like them) conduct surveys of their readers' backgrounds? (in this case we are looking at household income) It seems to be widespread from the lower middle to the upper middle classes from what I have seen. Why so much interest in these people though? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Tishrei 5772 04:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, how about more popular magazines. like Bound & Gagged and Black Inches? μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Roman Catholics consider gossip a deadly sin. Is there some sort of Jewish/Old Testament parallel to this? The Decalogue doesn't quite seem to cover it. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure, though in some of the Yom Kippur meditations there was talk of gossip as being something evil. Yom Kippur is about repenting for evils against others. You'd have to ask a biblical scholar though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Tishrei 5772 04:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip from a Catholic perspective is generally considered as an offense against truth, and hence covered by the 8th commandment (try Googling the Catechism paragraph 2477, as my computer is playing up and I cannot include the link), although it can also be constructed as an offense against the dignity of the person, and so be covered by the 5th commandment (as Catholics count them), both commandments being part of the wider commandment "Love your neighbour as yourself". I too would be interested in the Rabbinical discussion of where gossip fits in the general scheme of law, as I expect there would be something more specific than simply applying the golden rule. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait! We actually have an interesting article on gossip which discusses this, linking to lashon hara. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"particularly in the US"? It's the UK that has gossip rags which try to pass themselves off as serious newspapers. At least in the US, we recognize that the National Enquirer and the Globe are trash. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to make generalisations about other countries I'm afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Tishrei 5772 05:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true about the National Enquirer. Sadly, I'm sure there are some people who take it seriously, but mainly, as far as I have seen, it is an obvious parody of other tabloids. Pfly (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Boorstin's book, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America (1962) is an excellent meditation on the American obsession with celebrity, gossip, polling, photo ops, and advertising. Chapter 2 is all about the question of celebrity and its origins, and its distinction from "heroes" of yore. It's worth checking out if you're near a library. It's a deeper answer than you'll find in a Ref Desk discussion. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I don't have time to read it. :( What are the conclusions he reaches? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Tishrei 5772 19:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on gossip is indeed fascinating. I find it very interesting that the Jewish view of gossip (that unconstructive negative comments are an offensse against truth and the dignity of man) is the one that an informant whom I greatly respect has explained to me is taught by the Jesuits. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where have all the moors gone?

I think this question is a crossover between English literature (e.g., Hardy, Charlotte Brontë), language, and geography so I'm putting it into Miscellaneous.

My impression from English literature is that the English landscape is awash in moors. Yet I do not hear of moors in Canada or the USA.

Is this because there are no such things as moors in North America or because there are but they are called something other than moors? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has quite a bit of moorland but very few people live in those places. The only parts of the US that have the right climate are some alpine or hilly areas. Our article on moorland might clarify this for you. Looie496 (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the ecology section of the moorland article briefly notes, some of the "typical" form of British moorland is far from a natural landform. Especially in the Scottish Highlands, the Pennines, and the North York Moors the landscape is heavily overgrazed by red deer and to a lesser extent by rabbits and sheep. These preferentially graze on young trees, thus selecting for the low, course vegetation that now characterises these locations. Without this overgrazing the landscape of much of these areas would feature stands of trees or whole forests, and in general a wider variety of plant (and thus animal) habitats. Britain is a particularly acute example of this because, due to its being an island and being on the forefront of the agricultural industrial revolution, the British managed to drive to complete extinction the wolf and brown bear (and earlier the eurasian lynx). While wild and feral canids and felids were also suppressed in continental Europe, Australia, and North America, the vast nature of these meant there was usually a wild redoubt where the predators could remain, meaning they're present (in limited numbers and limited areas) there; when wild herbivores overgraze and overbreed, this means there's still a population of predators to take advantage of the banquet. The UK also saw the heavy suppression of other predators, including the fox, marten, wildcat, and various raptors (some to the verge of extinction); these are effective at controlling the smaller grazers, particularly rabbits. The use of upland Britain for game shooting let to the wholesale trapping and poisoning of these smaller predators by gamekeepers, despite their diet being mostly pest animals like rabbits rather than the game birds from which the keepers derived their income. Some of the smaller predators (particularly the raptors) are doing better, due to laws preventing their being targeted (laws which are nevertheless still frequently broken [1] [2] [3]). There are very tentative moves afoot to reintroduce the indigenous apex land predators ([4],[5]) - if this was done wholesale (which, realistically, is very unlikely) you'd presumably see a dropoff in the grazers' numbers, and then (over the course of a century or more) a return to the more natural (and less Brontesquely-bleak) upland biome. 87.114.81.111 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I keep thinking, back to Mauretania. μηδείς (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, oddly enough, they sailed there on the Mauretania. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

87.114 should move red deer to the back of his list and put SHEEP at the front. I've never seen a deer on Dartmoor but sheep stand about in the road and try to steal the sandwiches of unwary tourists by leaning over their shoulders[6]. Wool production has always been a British speciality (see Woolsack) but the thing really took off towards the end of the Agrarian Revolution in the 19th century, when railways facilitated the movement of large quantities of wool to the new mechanised mills. The owners of upland areas evicted the small-scale mixed-economy farmers and installed huge flocks of sheep, for a much greater return; most dramatically in the Highland Clearances. Unlike cattle, who can graze in Wood pasture, sheep graze everything to the nub including tree seedlings, thus clearing woodland within a couple of (human) generations. An added bonus for the land owners was Red Grouse shooting. Grouse live from the heather shoots that grow in moorland habitats - grouse moors are periodically burned to ensure a ready supply of new shoots. There have been efforts to return some moorland to indiginous woodland by restricting grazing and re-planting - see Caledonian Forest#Conservation. Alansplodge (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Medeis — my first thought was that Canadians and Americans use the term "Muslim" instead of "Moor" :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal question again

what is your favorite question here in ref desk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at the top of this page, the reference desk is not to answer requests for opinions. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, this question would be most welcome on the reference desk discussion page. 208.54.38.200 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how do i do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.2 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the discussion tab at the top of the screen. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, i mean how do i transfer the question there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This requires manual input. You can repost your question there yourself by clicking on the link provided above and clicking on "New section". Then simply re-enter the same question as you originally asked here. JIP | Talk 19:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some [very] old favourites of mine: User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

marine electrical engineering

In a ship, where do we get the ground/earth is connected to?In a 3 phase supply, where does the neutral is connected to in a ship normally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.157.104 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

This has also been posted, more appropriately, at the science desk. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Orchestra scores

Where can I download Chinese Orchestra scores for free (preferably converted to Western noatation)? --75.50.55.27 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brinks Armored Truck Ballistic protection

How much ballistic protection does a Brinks' armored truck have? Acceptable (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the distinct feeling that Brinks probably has not made such information public, for obvious reasons. However, this article might give you some ideas, too. --McDoob AU 93 00:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, the armor will stop all legal firearms. It might stop heavier stuff like anti-tank rifles. It won't stop military-grade anti-armor weapons. --Carnildo (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I once saw an armored truck such as this which had a cone-shaped convex projection of about a half inch max on the side of the back compartment. I expect that a pistol discharged accidentally inside at some point. I was on a commuter train in a large US city one time when there was a loud noise and a similar feature appeared in the metal wall of the train above the window, likely from a bullet of unknown calibre striking the train. My impression was that "armored" trucks are not a whole lot more bullet-proof than train cars. Edison (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite the original research and meaningless conclusion you got there Edison, lol. I think Brinks would like to keep that information private, also the vehicle designs seem to change a fair bit by nation. Public awareness (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "nonmeaningless" part is that the mercantile truck armor seems enough to prevent full penetration by a small calibre bullet, but with an impressive dent. I would not expect it to be proof against, say concentrated fire from a 50 calibre machinegun. Edison (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how long that was going to take. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well. the attack then loses some of its sting. I found little info at Google Book search, except that a shotgun was able in one attack to blast through the "bulletproof" windshield, and that World War 2 military "armored trucks" had armor as thin as 1/4 inch of steel. It makes sense to keep'em guessing as to whether 30 calibre armor piercing rounds would slice through a present-day bank armored truck armor. Edison (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_National_Parks_of_the_Republic_of_China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Parks_of_the_Republic_of_China

'The total area of these seven National Parks is more than 322,870 square kilometres (79,780,000 acres), approximately 9.0% of the total area of territories currently under ROC administration.'

Wouldn't 322,870 square kilomters of national park be incorrect, given that Taiwan itself has an area of about 36,000 square kilometers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGStevens (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The error has been present since the very first version of the article. And recopied and reworked many tiems since then without anyone noticing that it doesn't compute. Now we need to find the right number. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple enough to add up the given area (land and water) for each park. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original version[7] gave the figure as "more than 239,407,000 hectares (about 227,336 acres), approximately 8.43 percent of Taiwan's total area." The Republic of China article gives its area as 36,191 square kilometers or 13,974 square miles. There are 640 acres in a square mile. That works out to 3,619,100 hectares or 8,943,360 acres, which are consistent with each other. 8.43 percent of those figures are 305,090 hectares or 753,925 acres, neither of which is anywhere close to the specific numbers given. The original article creator is Menchi (talk · contribs). It might be interesting to ask him what he had in mind on that day 8 years ago. The revised article says "7,159 square kilometres (2,764 sq mi)" total area and "3,127 square kilometres (1,207 sq mi)" total land area. Also, is adding up the numbers valid? Do we have confirmation of the areas of each of the major parks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find them on the national park site, but the Taroko site has all of the areas (silly Taiwanese wabbits). Some of the figures are slightly different, so I'll recalculate. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What can someone do with an surreptitiously obtained ESN or MEID?

Related to my above story about the strange woman with the tennis racket using my phone, what can someone do if they obtain either of these serial numbers from my phone? What should I look out for? --Daniel 22:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fear would be Phone cloning. The idea being that they could then make expensive calls charged to your account. However, I'm not sure if that's still possible nowadays. APL (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]