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.
I have added a new source to the wiki page of Thornton Willis. I noticed an error message at the bottom of the page and am not sure if this was there before I made the addition--if I somehow caused this. Is there any way to find out? I am especially concerned that I may have caused some references that were already on the page to be lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliekarabenick (talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you accidentally deleted the entire "references" section. If you're ever in doubt as to what you've done wrong, click on the "View history" tab and click the buttons to compare the last edit made by someone else to the last edit that you made. Doing that here reveals your error. I'll fix it for you now so things aren't screwed up until you read this. SteveBaker (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A rather common mistake by the way. Suggest use of the Show preview button just to the right of the Save page button on the editing screen. That frequently allows you to see and correct any mistake like this before saving.--220ofBorg01:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deor's Law (because it always happens to me): Whenever one confidently saves without previewing, that's sure to be an edit in which one has committed an egregious blunder. Deor (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime! (Do you have 'that' David's big hands too?) Back to the subject, my Previews are taking at 30+ seconds right now, If others have that happening it partly explains lack of preview use. My PC has been running for ≈54 hours (I use hibernate) so re-boot time methinks.-д-220ofBorg04:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to notice that in 90% of all action movies, there is bound to be a car chase between the baddies and the good guys. And during this chase, there is bound to be some wild shooting. The windscreen will shatter, the side windows will crack, and the rest of the car becomes a wreck too. Now, in real life how many gun shots to the windscreen would it take to hit the driver inside? I've watched some pretty ridiculous movies (like the Die Hard series) where the driver never dies although his windscreen is shot at innumerable times. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact it's a cool effect to see a windshield spider-crack, and there's a whole host of articles and patents on this topic when it comes to bullet proof/resistant laminated glass, the answer is 1. It just takes 1 unlucky round to hit someone. Even normal glass provides some deflection, but that's not protection. True bulletproof cars in warzones have lots of stories of bullets hitting the seams in side windows of "bulletproof" cars and entering the passenger compartment, which is part of why bulletproofing a vehicle that will be used in a dangerous area is so hard (and expensive). Shadowjams (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Mythbusters episode about this demonstrated that bullets penetrate cars far better than shown in the movies. Even a round from a handgun is able to pass right through a typical car and out the other side in almost any place except the engine block. Non-bulletproof glass is no protection at all unless the bullet is at the very limit of it's range and travelling much more slowly. SteveBaker (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add tyres and wheels to part of the car that offer you protection, not just the engine block. Hiding behind them seems to be safer than nothing. Obviously doors, which are made of really thin tin, won't protect you, unless a 22' bullet hits a lock. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wheels yes, but tires no (or even tyres). A couple thin layers of rubber offer little protection, unless we're talking about a condom. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the same category as people flying backwards when shot, cars frequently exploding spectacularly when they crash, and Imperial Stormtroopers never hitting Luke and Han with their blasters (while the good guys aim is 'always' accurate, unless the writer says otherwise!) 'Dramatic license' for 'dramatic effect'.∞ 220ofBorg18:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bullets will often go straight through the windshield on the first shot - depending on the angles. Police worry above bouncing bullets of the hood into the windshield or of bullets bouncing off the windshield into their cover beside the car. [1]Rmhermen (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the cops that attended that “Advanced Patrol Officer Combat Tactics Instructor Course.”(APOCTIC?) you linked do, now : " ... began to ricochet bullets into the kill zone of the target off the hood and off the windshield. Jaws dropped. Comments were made that this is where we have been trained to fight from for years." Which answers my earlier query, projectiles (or fragments of) can ricochet off the windshield. ≈220ofBorg02:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you've seen the antepenultimate episode of Breaking Bad, Walt survives a hundred rounds being shot through a car in which he's cuffed in the back seat. Made me laugh and think of this thread. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the drawings are from an actually issued comic book that will give you a limit for the earliest date. But I suspect it's from the 70's/80's, due to the colorization and perhaps in conjunction with the movie reviving interest. That's just intuition, though. μηδείς (talk)
Yeah, seventies sounds about right (in my personal experience regarding animation styles and the technology required to do what was done here). Thanks for spotting the really fine font as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The style looks like colourised 1930s photographs. Perhaps it is a limited edition 1930s artwork, subsequently made into a poster in the 1970s. Or it could be poster of a later artwork simply in the style of a 1930 poster. Astronaut (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, medical instruments are not made of silver plate. It was in with a bunch of tableware a friend bought at an auction. Bielle (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly, though the split(forked?) ends are reminiscent of a cheese knife, perhaps for breaking up a cube of sugar (or cheese), cheese tongs? No, I think 'sugar tongs' too. Those 'Washington tongs' (1st link) are just below "Dressing table made for Martha" (more like 1/4 way down!). Now they look a bit 'surgical', but are identified "Silver sugar tongs with Custis symbol". ∞ 220ofBorg02:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously sugar tongs for dieters. Make 'em work a bit for their sugar fix. They go with the soup spoons with holes in the bottom and really dull steak knives. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a china shop nearby that could help you out? I'm thinking that anyone who sells fine china would also have some knowledge about various silverware. Dismas|(talk)02:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tips look like completely the wrong thing for gripping sugar. Unfortunately I can't make out the exact shape of the tips -- that would be really helpful. They look like they are oriented to hold things apart rather than together. Looie496 (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They look like some specialised implement for opening a tricky-to-handle food - perhaps some shellfish like oysters, or for opening a crab's carapace. The decoration suggests to me something over 100 years old. I can imagine upper class victorians not wanting to wrestle with a sauce covered shell, so have a fancy pair of tongs to hold it open while they extract the meat with a (small) fork. Compare with these modern crab tongs for example. Astronaut (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It probably doesn't take a lot of force to open a shell, so opening the tongs would do the job. I think it is more about not having to handle a sauce covered shell. ¬¬¬¬
Maybe your conclusion is correct, but the way you got there makes no sense. If they were disassembled and reassembled the other way round, the finger holes would be facing inwards and the arms would be splayed outwards because of the room required for the finger holes, making it impossible to (a) hold the implement except with two hands, (b) close the ends in order to grip anything, and hence (c) use the implement for any useful purpose at all. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]18:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The closest matches (which are not that close) come from image searches for crucible tongs, since they also bow outward and back in as these do, but nothing matches those tips. To me, those tips look like they're made to accommodate something else, like an extension, rather than to grasp anything directly themselves. Matt Deres (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and get the owner to give me some photographs of the tips. Thanks to those of you who have tried to guess. The instrument is not sugar tongs, and it has not been put together backwards. While the tips are split, they are also smooth on what would otherwise be expected to be a gripping surface. The owner and I have looked at hundreds of images on line, but nothing comes close. Bielle (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty clear that there was once something slotted into those tips. Lots of sugar tongs of that sort of age used little hands, bird-claws or shells to grasp the sugar cube. It's very possible that those parts were cast separately - because casting such complicated shapes is difficult and it would be much easier to make the main part of the tongs separately from the hands. I'd bet that someone removed the tips to use for some other purpose - they would make great charm-bracelet trinkets for example. SteveBaker (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, Jack ... hang on, I didn't think Borg could blush! David on the other hand ... 220 of Borg 16:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
) Back to the subject, my Previews are taking at 30+ seconds right now, If others have that happening it partly explains lack of preview use. My PC has been running for ≈54 hours (I use hibernate) so re-boot time methinks.-д-220 of Borg 04:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
