Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 October 12

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 12

Fastest Dog Running Times

I've heard rumors about dogs running sub-4 miles and 1:20 marathons, but are there actually official dog world records for normal running distances like the mile, two mile, 5K, 10K, Half-marathon, Marathon, etc.? If so, what are they and where can they be found? I'm not interested in the theoretically fastest dog breed based on max speed in miles per hour; I'm interested in what has already been done and recorded. I'm aware of sled races like the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race but I was looking for more normal dog running times.

The best I could find was this list of times, but unfortunately the article isn't sourced and I couldn't find anything by simply looking up those times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habstinat (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Habstinat, I fixed the spacing for you on this post by 2 rv (it seems that somehow your posting effected the entire page's spacing). There is no need to line break or hit enter & please remember to complete your posts with ~~~~ which signs your username & date stamp so we may see who is posting what etc. Thank you. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You can found some British track records here. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In greyhound racing, the dogs are trained to chase a lure over a few hundred metres. I'm curious how you think you can get a dog to run a marathon distance unsupervised without it wandering off at interesting smells or to chase cats - you would have to keep the dog on a leash to keep it on the course, though I suppose you could pace the dog with a (motor)cycle. Astronaut (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

HOA

Does a HOA have to have a management company?

bmuzzey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.65.80 (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That would depend on the regulations within a given jurisdiction (state, nation, or whatever). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

For the curious, the OP is likely referring to a home owners association. Dismas|^(talk) 03:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A question in adjusting the calendar

The mnemonic I learned for days in a year: "30 days have Sept, April, June, & Nov.; all the rest have 31, save Feb. 28, save for every four has 29, save for ever hundred has 30, save for every thousand has 31." At the turn of the millennium, I had expected to see February with 31 days -- what a disappointment when it didn't happen. I understand that if we had applied that mnemonic, December 25th would still be the darkest day of the year. To add confusion, I don't know where I got that complete version of that old mnemonic. Question: What happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.193.210.29 (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of a legitimate 2/31 but if it exists perhaps it should be added to Wikipedia's February 31. Also if there is any truth in the "save for every thousand has 31" it doesn't mean that it coincides with the changing of a millennium, just that if it hits on 1562 then perhaps on 2561 or 2563 etc. This may have just been a riddle or joke about the 31st day. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The bit you learned is not quite right. It's more like, "all the rest have 31, except for February, 28; and in Leap Year 29." Years divisible by 100 are not leap years unless they are also divisible by 400. Hence 1900 was not a Leap Year, while 2000 was. Hard to work all that stuff into the rhyme, but it's only an issue three times every 400 years. There actually are or have been February 30 and February 31 in some obscure calendars, but those dates are used mostly as jokes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec):Thirty days hath September gives numerous versions of the rhyme, but none of them say anything about 30 or 31 days in February. Don't know where your teacher got that from. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Teachers sometimes get random facts dead wrong, and since kids aren't supposed to challenge their teachers, those types of error tend to continue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

But I find it more likely that the poster misremembered. A teacher thinking the length of a year varies by more than one day would be sad. Incorrectly replacing every 400 by every 1000 would be more understandable. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I once worked with a teacher who admitted to randomly slipping in falsehoods to see if any of the kids were listening! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that, assuming she eventually corrected herself? μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Not until after he'd marked the exams and had seen whether the mistakes were in them or not! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Reminds me of a practice session we had for a grammar exam in high school. I suggested several verbs, such as "dive, dove, diven". Came test time the class did extremely poorly. I was able to get her to retest the lass after I convinced the teacher it was my fault for hoaxing everyone so believably. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Luckily you don't do that kind of thing anymore. 0:) The teacher in question apparently had little concern about his own credibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

An editor on these desks brought up "Those who can't do, teach" earlier in the week, to that editor you are more & more right. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome! (Saturday rules I don't look things up lol). ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The extended version is, "And those who can't teach, teach others how to teach." Also, "Those who can't do any of that, teach Gym class." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Leading up to 2000 there were many books, articles and online pieces published about the history of our calendar. (I even thought of doing one myself, called A Not-so-brief History of Time.) These were often connected to the interminable (and unwinnable) debates about when the 3rd Millennium and the 21st Century really started (2000 or 2001), and whether 2000 was a Leap Year or not. In amongst all that stuff was a lot of detail, and authors tried in various ways to make the story palatable by minimising the detail in their telling of the story. Some were successful, others were not. Many contained inaccuracies (half-truths, or zero-truths). I can well imagine someone getting some details confused and believing that February has 30 days in centenary years and 31 days in millennium years; and passing that "information" on to others in good faith. When we consider the colossal cock-up (that's really the kindest way I can put it) with Sweden's protracted conversion from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, which, instead of happening literally overnight, took 53 years!, anything's possible. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

John Herschel proposed a correction to the Gregorian calendar, making years which are multiples of 4000 not leap years, thus reducing the average length of the calendar year from 365.2425 days to 365.24225. Although this is closer to the mean tropical year of 365.24219 days, his proposal has never been adopted, and never will be, because the Gregorian calendar is based on the mean time between vernal equinoxes (currently 365.2424 days) and because these observed values are currently increasing. Yes, I know that's not what you asked about, but I thought you might be interested. Dbfirs 22:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Round numbers are for people weak at calculations. Let's drop the 100 and 400 rules and instead skip a leap year every 132 years. That gives 32 leap days in 132 years for an average year of 365 + 32/132 = 365.242424... days. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. We'll get right on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Has anybody come across an adult who has not heard the 30 days mnemonic? One of my co-workers, in his late 30s, was having trouble with the number of days in a month. I mentioned to him about using the old rhyme but he had no idea what I was talking about. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I know of it but never bothered to remember it and instead use my knuckles to remember which months have 31 days. To use the knuckle method, you make a fist. Using the knuckles where your fingers (ignore your thumb) join the back of your hand, start by assigning the knuckle of your index finger as January. Then count off the months going across those knuckles using the depression between the knuckles as the short months. So February would be the depression between the knuckle of your index finger and your middle finger. When you reach then pinky knuckle (July), come back to the index knuckle and repeat. July and August both have 31 days, so they're both knuckles. September has 30 and you're back at the depression that you used for February. Dismas|^(talk) 08:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There's even a tune that goes with the "30 days hath September..." The knuckle method works too, though less often cited, maybe because it doesn't have a song. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What it lacks in spirit, it makes up for in not having to remember some rhyme. Dismas|^(talk) 02:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Rhymes can be helpful in learning something, but if you're not into it, it won't. In contrast, maybe you recall an episode of Happy Days where one of the guys needed to understand the blood stream in order to pass a test, so he wrote a song about it and committed it to memory. At some point in one's life, hopefully one just knows which months have 30 and which have 31, without having to resort to any particular device. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Similarly to the knuckle method, if you happen to have a piano keyboard handy you can start counting F as January, and going up chromatically with F♯=February etc the white notes correspond to the months with 31 days. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I never realised that. Thanks, Andrew. There are various pieces written about the months and the seasons. The one I'm thinking of is The Seasons (Tchaikovsky), which, perversely, is a set of 12 pieces named after each of the months. I wonder if old Pete knew this mnemonic, and whether he set each piece in the relevant key - nope, I just checked. Anyway, that would be a close cousin to Music written in all 24 major and minor keys. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Neat trick. And the knuckle method will do if you forgot and left your grand piano at home. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(Charles-Valentin Alkan's Les Mois, Op. 74, is a more accurately titled example of the same idea.) Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Completely unrelated side question

Now, I would like to branch off into something that I know virtually nothing about while you probably know a great deal: What is the purpose of the key signature? A song written in the key of C, which has no sharps or flats, can actually be played in any key; and conversely a song in any key can be redefined in terms of the key of C. Right? So why isn't all music defined in terms of the key of C, with sharps or flats added throughout the piece as needed, rather than defining them at the front of the song, and then having to remember them when you see them later on? I realize this is probably Music Theory 101, but it never made sense to me. Probably didn't have a teacher who could explain it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I'm with you @ "A song written in the key of C, which has no sharps or flats, can actually be played in any key". I agree that any piece of music can be transposed into another key, but that involves raising or lowering the pitch. It's still essentially the same tune, in terms of how the melody proceeds from one note to the next etc, but it sounds higher or lower than the version in C.

A piece that is written in B major, say, which has 5 sharps, could be written without a key signature at the front. But then, to compensate you'd have to have a whole pile of accidental sharps sprinkled liberally throughout the score, and that would make it a purgatory for the eye and a chore for the brain. Even worse for a piece in E-flat minor or G-flat major (6 flats). Far, far better to state up front, once, which notes are to be raised or lowered throughout the entirety of the piece (unless countermanded by a natural sign), than to hard code each and every instance of a sharp or flat.

Even if you were to write out each and every sharp or flat, the fact that the piece no longer has a key signature as such, does NOT mean that the piece is now in C major (or A minor). It is still in whatever key it was written in to begin with. Don't confuse the representation of a piece of music on a score, with the essence or inherent attributes of the music itself. And don't confuse the playing of all the right notes, which a robot or synthesiser can be easily made to do, with the playing of the music in the music, which is where the artistry is and is impossible to reproduce. Every performance of a piece, even by the same performer, is uniquely different. Which one is the way it was "really" written? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I begin to see the point. To one like me who does not read music, the presence of sharps and flats throughout the piece would seem helpful - and to one who does read music, it would be needless clutter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Try this for a Jackovozian analogy. Imagine you understand Maltese (maybe you really do). You sit down to read a Maltese translation of Lord of the Rings. You've already told your brain that the book you're about to open is written in Maltese, and it should interpret the text accordingly. Imagine if in front of every word is a small sign saying "Maltese" - you'd have that needless clutter you spoke of. You remember the "key" is Maltese, and you don't ever start thinking "What are these weird words? They look nothing like any English I know". Reading music is sorta like that, only the relationship between C major and whatever key the piece is in, is a lot closer than that.

This is where the early basic technical training comes in, and is part of the payoff for playing scales and other technical exercises (he says, nostalgically remembering, through the mists of time, the last time he played scales in any serious fashion). You learn your alphabet early, before you start reading; the alphabet of music is not just the names of the notes, but knowing which notes belong in which keys and scales. It's just a convention that the key signature is written at the start of a piece of music. They could just as easily have had a convention where the name of the key was written at the start (F-sharp minor, B-flat major, whatever), and it would be up to the player to know what this meant for sharpening or flattening notes instead of being explicitly told. In fact, that would have the advantage of the player knowing for sure what the composer had in mind; I can remember playing a piece written in E-flat major but thinking it was written in C minor, because they have the same key signature (3 flats), and I can remember the lights going on when my aunt told me it was E-flat, and saying to myself "So, that's why it always sounds too happy to be in a minor key - it isn't". I was about 15 at the time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The key signature helps the notation show if the notes are "in key" or "out of key": Putting the key signature up front helps make the steps of the scale use unadorned notes. Accidental signs in front of individual notes are then used to indicate the note is in between the normal steps of the scale. This is very helpful to a singer reading music. You just have to learn how to find where the first scale step is, and then you can begin to recognize patterns in any key.

When playing an instrument, the key signature can be an additional mental burden. On a piano, you may have to practice a scale in the correct key to get a feel for where the "in key" notes are on the keyboard. (Or have so much previous practice or experience that you know all the key scales by memory.) Then you can read the music a little bit more like a singer does and recognize patterns in terms of the key scale steps.

I can see how not using key signatures and just mapping each piano key to a specific staff line or space and accidental combination might be helpful. In fact, Hal Leonard prints a series of "E-Z Play Today" music that doesn't use key signatures, and uses accidentals in front of every note that needs them. (They also put the pitch letter inside the note head. You can do an image search for E-Z Play Today to see examples of what it looks like.) This makes it more accessible to players who don't want to remember the key signature as they play. --Bavi H (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, singers have an advantage over instrumentalists here. Whenever there's a need to transpose a song up or down a semitone (or more) to suit their voice, all they have to do is get the right starting note and the rest just follows automatically. For pianists etc, they have to either:

• transpose directly from the printed score, so that if it's being transposed up a semitone, wherever it says D, they have to instead play D♯, wherever it says E, they have to play F, and so on (that's tricky enough for people who are relying on the printed score; it takes an amazing amount of skill just to commit a complex piece to memory, let alone play it in a different key than the one in your memory, and I dips me lid to such people), or
• rewrite the score into the new key and play that. If all the sharps and flats were hard coded, raising/lowering the whole piece could mean having to introduce hundreds of new sharp or flat signs, and no player in possession of their faculties would ever want to do that. Having the key signature up front means that no new accidentals ever need to be introduced or removed because of a transposition, and the existing ones still operate the way the composer intended, regardless of how foreign the new key is to the original key.

They worked this out back in the day when musicians were regularly required to transpose at sight as part of their basic skill set. I know of a story (the details elude me for the moment) about a pianist touring some out of the way place where the piano was tuned a semitone too low. It wouldn't have mattered if he'd been doing a solo recital, but this was a concerto, with an orchestra. The problem was only discovered at the last minute, no time to retune it, so the pianist just transposed the concerto in his memory up from C major (no sharps) to C♯ major (7 sharps), and nobody was ever the wiser. Except people in the audience with perfect pitch, of course. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Local legends

Are there any places in and around Lille that are believed to be haunted (particularly those that have been "haunted" prior to 1945)? Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I found La maison Hantée de Hem ("The Haunted House of Hem") which is "several kilometres from Lille". According to this site, it's actually at Villeneuve-d'Ascq. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That's close enough for my purposes. What, exactly, was the legend associated with this house? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, between Google Translate and my schoolboy French, it seems that the 5 year-old son of the resident family died in mysterious circumstances "a few years ago". The family packed-up and left; all of the subsequent tenants have left after a few days complaining of sounds of footsteps, laughter and crying children. Some of the tenants have even hung themselves (if I'm translating this correctly). The local mayor ordered the house to be demolished, but the contractors machines broke down before they could get started, so the doors and windows were bricked-up, with the exception of the boy's bedroom. Lights are seen to come on in the room, and smoke will come from the chimney for a few seconds. It is also said that the police left four German shepherd dogs at the house to discourage sight-seers, only to find them all dead the next morning "bathed in their own blood". The house is in the care of an elderly and rather trigger-happy potato farmer and his dog (who seems to be immune to the supernatural) and has been acquired by an evangelical pastor who intends to turn it into a religious retreat. [1] [2] Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah -- this is fascinating, but not really suitable for my story. You see, I'm looking specifically for pre-1945 hauntings around Lille because my book is set toward the end of World War 2 (specifically, from July 1944 to January 1945) and one of the good guys' missions takes place in Lille, where they have to free some prisoners being held by the Gestapo. And I just thought that a haunting would be a perfect cover for a pre-battle nighttime reconnaissance (the attack takes place at night, for obvious reasons) -- even if someone sees or hears something, they're likely to think "ghosts" rather than "Allied spies" (especially if said spies are disguised as ghosts :-) ). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there must be some out there somewhere, but Google has page after page of results about the Maison de Hem, obscuring everything else. I'll have another bash tomorrow, unless anybody else would like to have a go? Alansplodge (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha! "In the 1890s, the Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould published in the Cornhill Magazine a “true ghost story” about a house in Lille..." See Poltergeist: A Classic Study in Destructive Hauntings By Colin Wilson (page 8). Let me know if you can't see the Google Books preview. Alansplodge (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No I can't -- but I'll look for it in the library. Thanks a million for your effort! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Companies declining to comment on news stories/documentaries

After reading the latest issue of the Signpost, a question that has been bothering me for several years came back to me. Frequently, especially in news stories or documentaries where a company is being discussed, especially when the news story or documentary is discussing a negative event related to the company, the company and/or its spokespeople decline to be interviewed (an example of this being a documentary on the Bhopal disaster that aired on the National Geographic Channel a while back). I assume this is for PR reasons, but if that's the case, in most cases, wouldn't the best move be to release a statement clarifying the circumstances behind the event or giving their position on the event? I understand that in several of these cases (usually when the company is sued or ordered to do something), they decline to comment because, at the time, they had not yet received a copy of the lawsuit or order, but in other cases (not lawsuits), they just decline to comment for no reason given. Why is this so? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That reminds me of the old Chicago axiom: "Don't say anything. But if you have to say something, don't say nothing." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The press, including NatGeo, which is far from objective anyway these days, is out to make money. Why give them free fodder when it can come back against you in court? μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As Deep Throat said to Bob Woodward (Robert Redford), "Follow the money." That's the answer to almost everything in this crazy world. I'm also reminded of what Max Mercy said to Roy Hobbs (also Robert Redford): "Whether you win or lose, you'll make me a great story!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

They don't want to face reporters. Rather they want to do their own press releases where they put their own positive spin on it: "Union Carbide finds way to fight overpopulation in Bhopal, India !". StuRat (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I just watched my recording of Frontline from Monday night. The NFL, as with the cigarette companies, when confronted directly, in a situation they can't manage, will follow the Chicago axiom I described earlier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Companies/organizations/institutions declining to comment on issues question

This question is related to the question about companies declining to comment on certain issues I asked earlier. I remember watching a news report several years ago, where a person was kicked out of a restaurant for reasons I can't remember. When asked for comment, the restaurant declined to comment, saying that it is their policy to never comment on issues regarding them. The question: is such a policy common among companies, organizations or institutions? And if so, what are the reasons why they adopt such a policy? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's very common for companies to have policies that they will not comment on potentially market-moving rumors. Suppose, for example, that there is a rumor that company X is in merger negotiations that, if successful, will result in a substantial increase in the value of its shares. This puts company X in a difficult position because, if the rumor is true, it may not be able to acknowledge that fact, as public confirmation could prevent the deal from going forward. However, if the company's practice is to deny all false rumors but refuse to comment on true rumors, the market will quickly realize that "no comment" means "it's true." To avoid this dilemma, many companies have adopted policies of refusing to comment on any such rumors, true or false.

Of course, maintaining confidentiality was probably not the motive in the case you describe. Generally companies want to be able to comment on their own business practices, albeit on their own terms. The restaurant's claim of a no-comment policy may have been pretextual. John M Baker (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe several companies have policies that all employees are supposed to refer questions from the media to their public relations department, again, so they may put their own positive spin on things. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

...or in some cases simply 'write the article for the reporter'. It should be noted that "organizations" in OPs question includes most of Washington, D.C. & sometimes even the Albany, Sacramento, Austin press corps. One could say that those areas elevate this type of thing to an art form. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)