Miscellaneous desk
< December 18	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

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.

December 19

DEFINITION OF "MOLESTING"

I NOTICED that under this subject, you do not have the lighter form of molesting mentioned, which is unusual for Wiki. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/molest Please check out this link and see the definition not referring to sexual conduct.

Thank you, dropdeadfair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropdeadfair (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dropdeadfair, that's because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Jayron32 00:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See our sister project, Wiktionary for the dictionary definition: Wikt:molest. StuRat (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated in EO,[1] it originally meant merely to bother, vex, annoy, etc. EO says the connotation of abuse originated around the 1950s. My guess is that it was a euphemism. And like many euphemisms, that once-marginal usage has become the dominant usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK, "molest" is still sometimes used in a non sexual context. But I echo the comments of the others that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Dweller (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I always hear them say "harass", instead, only they don't pronounce it "hair-ass", as Americans do, but rather like the last name, Harris. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like "to HAIRess" stressed on the first syllable? That's common in the Midwest and the West where they have the Mary marry merry merger. In the East and the South the word is pronounced "Harris" as in Britain when stressed on the first syllable. But since it's a disyllabic verb, the final stress form "to herASS" has become common. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To harass her ass would be one way of molesting her. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:o μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's her? A heiress? Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polonius got stabbed behind an arras. Does that count? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, if yer, an, er...ass. But Polonius was only a Lord Chamberlain, and at best the parody of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, himself a baron, not a count. μηδείς (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL had its own molester back in the day. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What % of body mass are you lifting during pull-ups?

Assuming one is a healthy, average male, what percentage of one's body weight is one pulling when doing pull-ups? For example, if one weights 170 lbs, are the pull-ups equivalent to lifting 170 lbs on a pull-down lat bar exercise? Are you also lifting the weight of your arms when doing pulls ups? Acceptable (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind you're using your arms for both activities. So to make the activities more equivalent, it would seem reasonable to subtract the weight of your arms from the weight you're lifing on that pull-down bar. How much your arms might weigh, that's a separate question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the weight of your body below the elbows, your pulling force must include a force to accelerate that mass, calculable as F = ma. DreadRed (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting — I'd never thought of it before, but it's true, as you pull up, your forearms are not going up (maybe even going slightly down?) and your upper arms are tethered to your elbow, which is more or less stationary, so their center of mass is going up by only about half the distance that your shoulders are moving. So at a quick-and-dirty approximation, I'd say subtract the weight of your forearms and half the weight of your upper arms. --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you want to define lifting or pulling, but you have to expend effort countering the mass of your entire body, even your arms, just not that portion of your fingers above the bar, so you are lifting a good 99% of your total mass and the remainder is still held up by the bar, so 100% of your mass is pulling down on the bar. Since your fingers would slip off you're exerting even more effort than you would if your hands were lashed to the bar and you were only flexing your arm muscles, but didn't need to grip. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, see my point above. Your forearms are not moving upwards so you don't have to expend any effort to move them upwards (it is true, as you say, that you need to expend a tiny bit more effort to hold on to the bar than you would if the weight of your forearms were not there, but that's trivial). Your upper arms do move upwards, but their center of mass moves only about half as far as your shoulders move, so they count only about half. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You expend less effort lifting them through a smaller distance, but they aren't massless and couldn't hang by themselves without effort from the bar in any case. That's why I said it depends how one defines lifting. The entire weight is relevant, but only the trunk and legs (if you don't swing them) are dead weight. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holding on to the bar is trivial and should be left out of the discussion to first order. The energy that you need to supply is equal to mgΔz_cm, where m is your mass, g is the acceleration of gravity, and Δz is the vertical distance your center of mass moves. It's also equal to FΔz_s, where F is the force you need to generate (measured at the shoulder), and Δz_s is the vertical distance your shoulders move.

But the point is that Δz_cm is smaller than Δz_s, because, while (to first order) the rest of your body moves with your shoulders, the arms don't.

So at a quick approximation, we can divide the body into three pieces: (1) hands and forearms, which don't move, (2), upper arms, which move half as much as the shoulders, and (3) the rest of the body, which moves with the shoulders.

Then if you work it all out, you see that you figure out the necessary force by counting the upper arms at half their weight, and the forearms and hands not at all. --Trovatore (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to the second sentence of your question: is pulling down a given weight the same as doing a pullup when one weighs that? Even neglecting the mass of the arms, the two exercises are surprisingly different, for biomechanical reasons. This fact sometimes disappoints exercisers who can pull down their body weight through say 10 reps and then are surprised that they can't do 10 clean pullups. Pullups are, for most people, quite a bit more difficult, because the way forces are transferred around the body differs between the two, and the additional core stabilisation the pullup requires. A pullup (or a chinup) is a closed chain exercise; a machine pulldown (rope or lever) is is open chain. This article discusses the differences between the two. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay is correct. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a further complication, certainly. --Trovatore (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for bio of H Lee Wainwright

When I type his name, H Lee Wainwright, into my search engine (Google), the first 3-4 pages are all about him, but I can't find his background history and Wikipedia has no information on him when I execute a search. Why is that? I read that he recently won an award from NASA, but still no historical or any information about him in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.182.66 (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The usual answer to this kind of question is either "because he is not notable" or "because nobody has written an article yet". If you think he is notable (and I observe that most of the first page of Google results I get are closely associated with him, and so not acceptable to establish notability), then by all means request an article at WP:RA, or try writing one yourself (but read WP:YFA before you start). --ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YFA is the clickable link for that second link.

Secondly, a note that most articles requested at WP:RA never get written. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proper socks for 7EEE feet

So if I have 7 EEE (EEE is part of a width system we use in the States) feet with a very boxed forefoot what is the best sock sizing for me? I think they all go by regular widths. Anyone here good with this kind of thing? 184.152.17.125 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unusually shaped foot (short and wide). I suggest tube socks. Since they have no heel, you can get them wide enough for your feet without having the heel up by your ankle. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are many situations where tube socks aren't always appropriate. More formal situations may call for more formal hosiery. --Jayron32 21:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably thinking of those white gym socks with colored stripes at the top. You can also get solid black tube socks, although they are hard to find. Sockbroker.com seems to have them in black, grey, or white (do a find on "tube" on this page: [2]). Pics: [3]. I wear their black tube socks exclusively, including formal occasions. Nobody has ever complained (although you do have to avoid bleach, or they discolor). StuRat (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the sort of thing that's easy enough to address if you have a sewing machine. Buy socks that are wide enough to fit well, pull the collar up to the length you want. pin or staple the extra toe space shut, invert the socks, and sew a new toe-stitching. If you, your mom, or your lover can't help you, you can buy a couple bags of socks you like and have a drycleaner with a taylor do this for you at about a dollar a sock, (NYC rate), but try to haggle for less if you do this in bulk. Have a test sock done while you are at the shop. Then tip well. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my socks fit well enough for normal use. I'm just worried about socks for running. I was looking at the socks on this site [4] and am not sure which size is best. Medium or Large.

Edit: Which part of NYC, ma'am? You and I both know that prices vary greatly all over the City. :p 184.152.17.125 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rate was a guesstimate based on work I've had done at a Chinese launderer in the 10021 zip code on other clothes items. I'd've done the work myself but didn't have a machine. For 12 socks, which should certainly be well under 15 minutes' work if I did it, I'd offer $12 and settle for $20, but then not tip so well. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err... That rate is actually quite helpful then, lol. A bit off topic, but you wouldn't happen to know how much they charged for hemming pants would you? The name of the place too? 184.152.17.125 (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Okay, given you do geolocate to Manhattan, I believe this was on the south side of 71st, between 1st and 2nd, but it may have been on the south side of 70th, tween 2nd and 3rd. In either case, on the south side and closer to east end of the block than the west, and with Chinese characters in the sign. Take the M72 to 1st Ave, which you can get at the 68th St stop on the 6 or any of the 72nd St. stops on the West Side. I haven't had need to go there in at least five years, so I can't promise they are still in business, but I do think they were on the south side of 71 or 70 just west of 1st ave. (I'd have to assume similar rates anywhere, as the Upper East Side is not going to be the cheapest of places.) I did have pants hemmed there for an extra $5 on top when I got the laundry done for $15-25. I wouldn't expect them to want to take a $5 job by itself though, since one always tipped, and small jobs are annoying. Unless you are in the neighbourhood or have an unlimited metrocard and enjoy the travel you might want to look locally. Consider how long the job will actually cost per hour and the fact that a job under $10 will not be inviting when you haggle. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually rather cheap (compared to elsewhere outside the City) and very close by though I don't spend much time on 1st. If it's around that for cost plus keeping the original hem on jeans hat would be awesome. Thanks! :D 184.152.17.125 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always had work done in addition to a $20 load of laundry, and she knew I tipped well. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you old just knit your own to fit. Shocking idea, I know. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"old" = 'could', Nellie? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't darn my socks when they get holes, I use considerably stronger language, as I toss them in the trash." StuRat (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Dead woman's clothes

I recently went through a dead woman's clothes to determine which could be donated to charity. One shirt was rather odd, in that it had no buttons, button holes, or other closures in the front, so hangs open. It also looks more like a man's shirt, in general. One other oddity is the cuffs on the short sleeves, which are sewn in a strange way:

NORMAL CUFF (unsewn):

 |    |
++----++
||    ||
||    ||
++----++

NORMAL CUFF (sewn areas shown by X's):

 |    |
XXXXXXXX
||    ||
||    ||
++----++

THESE CUFFS (sewn areas shown by X's):

 |    |
XX----++
XX    ||
XX    ||
XX----++

So, here are my theories:

1) It's made to be worn with an apron, which covers the area open in front, and supplements coverage by the apron, to prevent food from spilling on your clothes.

2) Some type of lingerie or sleep-ware, to allow less restricted movements.

3) Just a defective clothing item bought cheap.

Any ideas ? StuRat (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4) A shirt she was working on making, but never got finished. --Jayron32 21:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but this woman wasn't known to sew. She was, however, known to cook, hence #1. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could the cuffs have been unsewn, turned and resewn, to spread the wear? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful. It has no signs of ever having been worn. StuRat (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might have been a light covering,like the modern shrug. You don't say what material it was but I had something similar in printed silk from the twenties which was lighter than a cardigan and have seen cotton versions used over swimwear.I can't find anything much on line to back this up because I get bogged down in shrugs and beach wraps. Hotclaws (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until later then ask her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.223.122 (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE. Necromancy. DreadRed (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it as a waterfall cardigan, designed to be worn as an extra layer over clothing and easily removable (in case of hot flushes). If you google "waterfall cardigan" you'll find plenty of images that you can match against. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Just to clarify, having re-read the OP, it's probably an edge-to-edge cardigan, but it depends on the shape of the front. If regular shirt front - then edge-to-edge cardigan. If front falls in festoons - then waterfall cardigan. If front comes to two points - then tie-front shrug or cardigan (you can tie the two sides into a knot to produce shaping). --TammyMoet (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's made of thin material, like a summer shirt, and is short-sleeved. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've got one of those, it's idea for summer layers. With short sleeves then, it may be called a shrug. Are there slits up the sides at all? Otherwise, it's an edge-to-edge shirt or cardigan. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No slits. I think of a cardigan as a knit sweater. This is neither. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have to be knitted, it just has to have two halves to the front. You could call it a shrug if cardigan doesn't ring true. Or just an "edge-to-edge shirt". --TammyMoet (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a hospital gown? They are usually worn with the opening at the back, there-by showing off your ass as you waddle down the hall to the toilet? Astronaut (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps an artist's smock, again with the opening at the back, worn to protect the clothes from paint. Astronaut (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this opening is definitely in front. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]