Miscellaneous desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 29 >

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 28

Unknown 4-Mast Wood Sailing Ship Identification Help Please (photo)

Ship in Philadelphia --is their George Washington Bridge in background. See here: http://itemofinterest.blogspot.com/2011/09/test.html Any ship ID ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramyourspam (talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

arr oops. asked by CramYourSpam. thank you, SineBot. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there's no George Washington Bridge in Philadelphia. Looks like the Benjamin Franklin Bridge to me. Deor (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a schooner, all four masts are rigged fore-and-aft, maybe around 1000 ton. Looks like it is tied to Philadelphia's Municipal Pier #11. Any idea on the date of the photos? Are you sure it is wood and not iron?—eric 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oops about the bridge. well done user deor. its benjamin franklin bridge. the photos seem to be mid-1920's to mid 1930's. not much later than that i'd guess just from the look of the filmstock. Cramyourspam (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the USS Robert H. McCurdy. The article says she was towed to Philadelphia in 1919. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. well done. many thanks Cramyourspam (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn V Testing

I'm looking for basically a citation for the following; Lloyd Emerson (Moen) Knain, tested (vibrated specifically) the Saturn V vehicle. He put the vehicle together and the vibrated it for testing, all I am looking for is any information that is cit-able. Thanks. Jlk18000 (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was his last name? Moen or Knain? Why did you write it with a name in parentheses? I found nothing at Google Scholar or Google books linking such a person with the Saturn V, and no scholarly journal articles by him. What is the basis for your belief that such a person was involved in testing the rocket? The closest I could find for any reference at all was a 1935 "Who's who in American Education" which lists JE Knain of North Dakota and Ida Moen of ND, with apparently Lloyd Emerson Knain as their child (it is hard to be sure what the snippet represents, with the omissions): "KNAIN, JE, Supt. of Schls., Milnor. ND; b. Northwood, ND, May 18, 1890; s. Mr. and Mrs. Edward NOK; BA, Univ. of ND, ... O. Ida Moen of Gales- burg, ND, Dec. 31, 1916; c. Ione Marion, Lloyd Emerson: Member; Phi Beta Kappa, Pi Gamma Mu. ...." Failure to find documents does not at all prove that he did not do the testing mentioned. I did find a publication on education, a 1933 Masters thesis by Joseph Edwards Knain of North Dakota, likely Lloyd's father: [1]. Many thousands of unheralded individuals worked for contractors and subcontractors all over the country involved in getting the US to the Moon. Edison (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not making that more clear, his last name was Knain, and yes this seems to be the issue I am having... is simply put, theres nothing to say that he actually did anything, however I know he did. (I am a Knain myself, and closely related to him with personal writings in our Family Tree book with him stating he worked on that project, as well as many others, with many other family members (including myself) to back this up as personal record, however I, and it seems you as well, cannot find information regarding this. In fact, I'm actually surprised that you found ANYTHING about the Knain surname, seeing as how if their last name is Knain, I personally know them. If theres anything that you think could help find a reference, I have limited, but a size-able portion of information that might be helpful.Jlk18000 (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might check to see where he worked. The more precise the information you start with, the more likely you are to strike gold in archives that are not available online, at the archives of NASA or at their contractors, in local newspaper archives, or in local historical societies. If he said he did that job, he probably did. I would have expected the job of "putting it together" to be assembly at the launch site, but vibration testing would likely have been done on non-launched test samples at a contractor/subcontractor. Look up which contractor produced the Saturn V. The article lists Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas, and IBM as "lead contractors," but NASA politics dictated spreading out the contracting to as many congressional districts as possible. Here is a description of a "Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand" in Huntsville Alabama, which was used for vibration testing of the rocket in 1966 and 1967. Here is more genealogical information on this (your?) family. Edison (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He worked at Boeing, was the Chairman in 1964. The link you gave Is actually mostly my work as it is, also sadly is just a dead-end for any information I'm looking for at the moment... Yes, the "Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand" is exactly what he worked on, the question at hand is finding something that ties him and the tests. I'll dig around online for a little longer, if all else fails its only a 2-3 hour drive to Huntsville, and if they don't have it I don't think anyone will. Jlk18000 (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a newsreel which might have had this. The rocket assembly was horizontal and some kind of mechanical vibration was used with various sensors and inspections, but that's all I remember. 69.171.160.229 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of thieves

I had a valuable bike stolen from me a few weeks ago and I've been bothered by it ever since. I can't really wrap my head around the selfishness of someone who thinks it's ok to cut a lock and ride off with somebody else's bike. I mean, there can't really be any empathy or decency there can there?

So my question is for anyone who's stolen something personal, i.e. not just from a store: what's the deal? How can you rationalize your act? Is the person you're stealing it from just some chump, and to hell with him? What's the deal? Vranak (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once, many years ago, somebody stole one pedal off my bike. May seem trivial, but it makes it quite unrideable. I still can't really wrap my head around that one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose no one here will admit that he has stolen something personal, so no one should feel entitle to answer your question. Anyway, I've met people in exactly the same situation as you. It's incredible how much feelings people can attach to a bike. Maybe, you could explain to us why does it happen. I mean, the attachment, not the stealing. The latter is easier to explain, even if you don't feel like that: I doubt any theft thinks about the harm being done. He will only think about the huge opportunity to steal a valuable bike. 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I won the bike in a hockey pool, and I used it frequently as a basic means of transportation. How could I not be strongly attached to it? It's irreplaceable because its value was so high and I am not willing to spend that amount -- especially knowing there's a shameless thief around. Vranak (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'll fall somewhere on the scale from sociopathic behaviour through to simply being too stupid to appreciate the harm done to the victim. Being very stupid is a leading criminogenic factor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I've never stollen anything of value from anyone, but I think perspective is the key here. One factor here is desperation. People who have substance addiction often are in desperate need of money for a fix, they wont be thinking much about the consequences for themselves or the victim. Class can also lead to desperation. Many people have little opportunity for social advancement and will never be able to afford a bike like that, based solely on their circumstances, from their perspective you don't deserve the bike anymore than them so why shouldn't they take it from you? Property is theft! and all. From your perspective, you worked hard and made the right decisions to earn the bike. From the thief's perspective you received the bike due to your circumstances and don't really deserve it, you just feel entitled to it. --Daniel 22:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't afford that bike either though -- I won it as a prize in a Vancouver-area hockey pool with hundreds of entrants through careful consideration and ample thought. It was the year before the subprime market crash so they won't be putting up anymore as prizes. Vranak (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Vranaka, how can the thief know something like that? Winning a prize is not very common, what he/she may have thought was, more likely, that you are quite rich and could afford it. Unless you think that the thief knows you personally? I am sorry for your loss of property, but you have to understand that other people do not know what you know about your own life. A as said before here, some people are indeed very, very desperate (there have been drug addicts who have killed an old lady to be able steal 50 dollars from their handbag). --Lgriot (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, people who claim that property is theft are rarely from the lower classes. They are much more middle class and stupid (and normally not criminal). I don't believe thieves have any ideology, it's just plain opportunism. Quest09 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but if our positions were reversed (me and the thief) I'd be wracked with guilt and unable to sleep until I got it back to its rightful owner. I can only assume that the perp has severe emotional blockage or a dysfunctional ethical system to not feel similiarly. Vranak (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly have to be somehow different: less empathy at least is a necessary condition. Anyway. Try to think about it in a more positive light: you had the chance of riding it for free for some years. Now it's gone, but you've learned a lesson in impermanence. (Note: report the theft and exact description of the bike to the police and do search regularly for it on sites like ebay, it might appear). Quest09 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that the thief actually thought "property is theft," or bought into some kind of anarchist ideology. I was merely using a leftist lens to examine the situation. Feelings of desperations and alienation from other classes are very prevalent in lower classes and some definitely feel that higher classes do not deserve their wealth. Not all people have the same ethical system so the characterization of someone's as dysfunctional isn't always valid. On another note, I once had my bike stollen on my college campus. I found the guy riding it a few days later and chased him down he was likely from a higher social class than me, in this case I guess he was simply thrifty and didn't want to spend money on a bike so he stole mine. Quest's idea to look for it on eBay or craigslist is a good idea. I had another bike stolen from me. I went to replace it by looking for similar bikes on craigslist and found mine for sale. I just arranged a sale and when the guy showed up, I took my bike back. --Daniel 23:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, a wikipedia article on the profile of thieves could be interesting, I'm sure there are studies out there that break down the reasons people steal, and personal traits and upbringings which are linked to thievery. I once hungout with a group of 17year olds and some were thieves, including grand theft auto and house burgalary, many of them did abuse alcohol and various drugs, and many of them knew they had little prospect of a bright future as none of them would be attending university. There definitely is a lack of empathy, but there are other factors too. Some is a group mentality and peer pressure to also become a thief. If you hang out with thieves it makes it seem less worse, like it's normal. And than there are also some thieves who are just strung out crack fiends/base heads whatever you call them, they need money for drugs and that's all that is going through their heads. Public awareness (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a lack of empathy, or the presence of apathy. StuRat (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was in a rush, fixed now. Public awareness (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned previously, I'd say some portion of them are basically socialists, and feel they are just as entitled to your property as you are. Amazingly, though, this doesn't apply to others stealing from them. They feel that they are poor, so stealing from them is immoral, but not from you (yes, you may be poor, too, but they didn't think so, based on your bike). StuRat (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat shaky, not to say complete and utter bollocks, understanding of socialism there, Stu. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfectly sense Stu: the whole thing happened in Canada, and they are all socialists over there. That's why there is much less stealing in the US. Quest09 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, please don't troll the thread. Public awareness (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a truly bizarre understanding of the word "Socialist". You probably shouldn't try to get your understanding of political concepts from the right-wing extremists on talk radio. APL (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most revolutionary thought clearly distinguishes between personal possessions: things in more or less continuous individual use; and the means and tools of production that are property. Private property in the means and tools of production is considered "theft," the dividing line between the petits-bourgeois use of personal possessions to make profit, and the small capitalist making profit off means and tools is of course payment of wage labour to workers. Some past instances of working class responses to personal theft I've observed in the literature include beatings without reaching the point of wounding or maiming. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But thievery is not selfish, Vranak. Far from it. It is an immature and parasitic dependence on others, certainly not a form of self-reliance or a cause of self-respect. Be sure that if caught the thief would lie or make up some embarrassing excuse for his actions. You should be proud that you don't know how to get into the mind of this person. And I'd recommend you also closely examine the motives of some of the rather bizarre rationalizations and guilt trips others have made on this thread--not for your pleasure--but as an example of yet another and even worse sort of immorality to protect yourself from than simple physical theft. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the motivation may be not just the benefit the thief enjoys from selling the stolen goods, but the hurt the victim suffers. A comedian once talked about male rape in prison, and said "It's not just the pleasure he feels; It's the expression on your face!" Edison (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Edison is an administrator here. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is, μηδείς? Edison is, I think, making a very apposite point. Some people positively enjoy inflicting cruelty on others in one way or another, and a thief (just as a rapist) may derive additional satisfaction, beyond hir acquisition of items of value (or physical pleasure), in the mental (and/or physical) pain caused to hir victims. In the case of rape this is obvious to most people; in the case of theft it may be less obvious, and hence worth pointing out by the analogy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.236 (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has asked yet what the explanation for not stealing is. We're apparently all in this together and should love our fellow human beings, but for what reason exactly? User:Medeis observes that thieves tend to make up excuses - I heard somebody say "I see that guy at his window every night with his laptop, I'm going to steal it," and on asking him how this was OK he said that the laptop was sure to be insured and the owner was just looking at porn. However, the excuses for not stealing seem to be just as spurious, and typically circular, reducing to "it's bad because it's bad, and you shouldn't do it because you shouldn't, and because people don't and because of empathy and that's why you won't do it and shouldn't". The only time in my life I've heard a coherent explanation, I had to actively pursue the question for an hour with somebody who had ideas about moral philosophy, and even then I still wonder about the explanation and find it tenuous. The question of why we should bother to vote in elections is similar. Society seems to be protected from chaos only by vague goodwill and inexplicitly held moral theories. Also, I too hated it when my bike was nicked. Card Zero (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best explanation I've heard (apart from "I don't steal because God will send me to Hell for eternal punishment if I do") is the concept of a social contract. I agree that I won't steal from you, and in exchange you agree not to steal from me. It's not that I wouldn't be better off in the short term if I were to steal your fancy bike, it's just that if I do, then there's no reason keeping you from stealing something else I value. That's a bit of a precarious situation, and relies on both of us believing that long-term maintenance of the social order is worth more than short-term selfish gain. This obviously opens itself up to the free rider problem, where someone ("a thief") abrogates their end of the social contract, while you're still fulfilling yours (e.g. they steal your bike, even though you have no intention of stealing their flat screen TV). In those cases society tries to use punishment (fines and jail time and/or threats of eternal damnation) as a deterrent, but that relies on the thief believing that the chance of getting caught and the punishment likely to be received outweigh the chance of getting away with it and the benefit likely to be gained from the theft. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we consider the problem of not stealing from the standpoint of homo economicus then the cost (time, money, amortisation of anticipated gaol sentence) of stealing needs to be placed against the cost of an equivalent substitutable good. Bicycle theft has been heavily investigated for labour technique in the Netherlands: all bicycle locking systems can be easily defeated, the aim of buying a bicycle locking system is to buy one that makes defeating it not cost effective. (I think this kind of homo economicus view isn't particularly credible, given observed economic returns on bank robbing and drug dealing in the US. Also this only covers professional criminals, not amateurs or hobbyists.) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By far the majority of thieves are in poverty, basically they are life's losers. Very very few actually make decent money or are rich. People like me have no compunction about finding them and sticking them in prison whatever sympathy we might feel for their plight. I am an atheist and don't believe in any of that punishment by God or moral stuff but none of my family way back has gone in for wrongdoing that I know of so there's no earthly reason for me or my children to do so either if we don't want to be life's losers. Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to equate morality with God and superstition. This mistake is usually made by the opponents of atheists, and used as ammunition against us atheists. Puzzled though I am by the details, I'm sure morality has a rational basis. Following family tradition, on the other hand, is not very rational. Consistently doing as your ancestors did would mean you had to attend church, and perhaps take up a profession like farrier, fletcher, wainwright or cooper. Card Zero (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth has rational got to do with it? I am here because my parents were here because their parents were here and I wish my descendants to be here as well in the same way that I am here and wouldn't be if my ancestors had not also wished that. It is written in my genes or upbringing or whatever. Rational is how to achieve aims, not how to give aims in the first place. It has struck me that I might be harming my children by not going to church and making out that I believed in all that rubbish but the hypocrisy would just be another form of wrongdoing as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This promises to be a great discussion, but I think I have to respect the "don't start a debate" and "keep your answer within the scope of the question" rules, so I can't continue. Pity. Card Zero (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]