Miscellaneous desk
< August 12	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 14 >

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.

August 13

Shaking head to mean yes

Anthropology question here: Does anyone know if Tswana really shake their heads to mean yes like in this movie clip here? I've heard that certain Indians, Turks, etc. do this, but what I'm really interested is whether the movie is factually accurate on this particular. Wiccan Quagga (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the very last line of that tedious clip; fast forward to 2:55. I don't know the answer, but it is supposed to be comedy, and it seems as unlikely to me as "rhinoceroses always stamp out a fire".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do ducks have flat feet? To stamp out bush fires. Why do rhinoceroses have flat feet? To stamp out burning ducks. (A well known bit of juvenile silliness from South Africa.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Tedious? That film is a classic! Mingmingla (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Shantavira must be crazy; I would prescribe a Coke bottle applied to the noggin. smh or nmh, whichever. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the rhinoceroses, there is a Malay legend about a rhinoceros ("badak api") who puts out fires, which is the probably the source of this story. There are multiple people on the internet who swear that it is true, as well, but as far as I know, there is no actual evidence for this behavior. Maybe the Mythbusters could test this one like they did the one with this elephant-related myth. Wiccan Quagga (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nod (gesture) says that it can mean acceptance or refusal, depending on culture. Head_shake doesn't have any specific mention of places where it might mean acceptance. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That same article mentions explicitly that the meanings of nodding and head-shaking are swapped (that is, a single nod for 'no', and a head shake for 'yes') in some places, offering Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria and Albania as examples. While the article's statement isn't footnoted, I will aver based on personal experience that at least one of those is true. (And can be confusing as hell for travellers and immigrants.) I can't speak to the Tswana, however.

This 2012 column from Botswana's Sunday Standard and titled "A Motswana girl in the Orient" in part recounts a visit by the titular woman to a fish market (emphasis added):

"...To this day, the fishmonger at that particular market gets his weekly chuckle at my expense by offering me fresh fish heads. I nod no; and pass as far away from the sea snakes as possible."

We are not told explicitly whether the nod in this instance is intended to be a refusal or simply an acknowledgement of an acquaintance. Though not conclusive, I find the specific construction "I nod no" very suggestive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find, TenOfAllTrades. I agree it's not conclusive, but does seem to lend credibility. I would have thanked you for you earlier, but I completely forgot I had asked this question. Wiccan Quagga (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Developing world poverty - 1990 v. 2010

Some variation of the following is often stated to describe the steep fall in poverty rates (as defined by the World Bank) in the developing world over the last few decades:

"In 1990, 43% of the population of developing countries lived in extreme poverty (then defined as subsisting on $1 a day); the absolute number was 1.9 billion people. By 2000 the proportion was down to a third. By 2010 it was 21% (or 1.2 billion; the poverty line was then $1.25, the average of the 15 poorest countries’ own poverty lines in 2005 prices, adjusted for differences in purchasing power). The global poverty rate had been cut in half in 20 years." [h?ttp://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21578643-world-has-astonishing-chance-take-billion-people-out-extreme-poverty-2030-not]

But I don't get it. Isn't the $1.25 (PPP) that a person has in 2010 capable of buying a lot of less food and other goods than compared to that $1.25 (PPP) in the same country in 1990?

Or am I missing the fact that these comparisons take into account inflation in some way?

Runupanddown (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some prices might have actually gone down. For example, if cheap factory items are now imported from China that had to be hand-made locally before, those might be cheaper. Clothes are an example. (Of course, sending the money to China instead of keeping it at home is bad for the local economy.) StuRat (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 1990 number is already adjusted for inflation. "The 1990 extreme poverty rate – $1.25 a day in 2005 prices – was halved in 2010, according to estimates."[1] The vast majority of economic articles use inflation adjusted prices, so next time you see a price comparison that doesn't explicitly mention inflation-adjustment, it's pretty much safe to assume that it's already inflation-adjusted. WinterWall (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course, there isn't just one inflation. There's different inflation rates on different items and in different places. Also, some items exist now that didn't in 1990, so there's no meaningful way to compare inflation of those items. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sewing machine question

My wife get's the sewing bug every couple years and actually uses her machine. It's a plastic Singer model that she can pick up and move around to whatever table she wants to use to sew on. I don't know what model it is but it has a few different "pretty" stitches programmed into it which she can select.

My mother is dead. My father is getting up in years and has discussed the possibility of moving out of his house. That leaves me suddenly wondering what would happen to my mother's old Singer sewing machine. It is metal and at least ~40 years old. It's built into a table that it can be collapsed into. I don't know the model of that machine either and it would be difficult to find out as it's half way across the country.

My question is this: Would it be possible for that older machine to make the pretty stitches that my wife likes about this newer machine? Possibly by changing some mechanical part out? I know little to nothing about sewing machines, so I'm not sure where else I'd go with this question. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither our articles on sewing machines nor the Singer web page seem to have details about when various styles of stitches were introduced. If I were you, I would send them an e-mail and pose this question. There's also the possibility that your father still has the sewing machine's instruction book somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty years ago I had a recurring dream in which my grandparents' dog's head lay at mom's feet, snapping at me, while she (seemingly unaware of the dog) sewed on a Singer such as you describe. It knew only straight stitch, I believe. —Tamfang (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Older sewing machines often came with (or could be supplied with) a range of different "feet" (I think that's the right word - the bit that holds the material flat and through which the needle pokes) for different purposes. I believe that there are a number of online fora for old sewing machine enthusiasts where you might get a better response. DuncanHill (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Singer have a page where you can look up serial numbers to identify a model. Also google 'old singer sewing machines' (no quotes) and you should find some helpful sites. DuncanHill (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I am not the most reliable source, not being a professional in the field, but my mother had a machine similar to the one you describe your mother owning, and it was entirely mechanical; any fancy stitching needed a change in the attachment around the needle (the "feet"), in order to bend the fabric and move it in a different pattern. The needle itself did not move. Those machines were quite limited in the types of stitches they could make; the fancier stuff had to be done by hand. Modern machines (like the one your wife likely uses) use computer chips to program the needle to move in different patterns to do the stitching. It is a completely different technological approach, similar to the difference between a rotary phone and a touch-tone. I would very much doubt that your wife could do half of what she can do presently with your mother's old machine. --Xuxl (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it, your wife already has the ideal machine for her - if she's only an occasional seamstress, having a sewing table seems like a lot of wasted space. It's pretty much a unitasker. The plastic one does what's needed and can be stowed away. Is this just a sentimentality thing? None of my business, of course, but if you can be clearer about what you hope to accomplish, it's possible we could give better answers. Matt Deres (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No - it's too old. The pretty stiches are formed by using a cam that moves the needle in a particular pattern. See http://www.singersewinginfo.co.uk/pattern_cam_list/ They are very seldom interchangable between models and I'm sure the metal one does not use pattern cams. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dismas:My WP:OR completely contradicts the IP above. My late mother had a 1960-1970 era Kenmore, and it has tons of cams that can create different fancy stitches. It is also metal, and it was originally housed in a table setup like you describe (not sure if the table stand was original or aftermarket). One of the cams even makes a stitch that looks like linked chickens! My main point is, being ~40 years old does not rule out several fancy stitches, although I cannot speak for your specific model. I do agree with the IP above that it is fairly unlikely that the cams would be interchangeable between machines, but not totally impossible. Several cams in the link above work with a range of different model numbers. As for the advantages, I know at several avid sewers that would lust after that old Singer. As the saying goes, they don't make them like they used to. The old ones can be serviced much more easily, and have some degree of replaceable parts. They old ones also tend to be stronger, e.g. going through several layers of denim was normal for a good old model, but is reserved for specialty high end machines today. Another point is that in the old machines, the gears are largely metal, meaning they won't wear and break as fast as the newer plastic-geared ones will. The old ones are, to my aesthetic, way cooler with their mechanical patterns than their modern-day high-end digital counterparts. I actually somewhat regret I couldn't take the hideaway table too. It's nice old wooden furniture, and can be used for other things too. At a glance, I think mine is rather similar to this video, which demonstrates different pattern stitches [2]. I currently have the machine and cams, If you are interested, I can look up the model info and other specs later today. Just leave a note at my talk page or ping me here. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for all the replies.

To answer the questions about my intentions... I don't really have a concrete answer for that. My wife is a photographer and gets great satisfaction with having and using old cameras that her grandfather used when he used to shoot weddings circa the 1950s. She doesn't use them for client work but enjoys using them for her own photo fun. I thought she might appreciate having an old sewing machine that still worked. If it can additionally do things that her modern machine can, so much the better.

As for having a sewing machine taking up space and being a unitasker: As I said, it folds down into the table. So it can still be used as a table when not sewing. In fact, that's what my father uses it for now, a telephone table with a houseplant.

Thank you for giving me some terms to search for and use if I go to a local sewing store to ask them for more information about cams, feet, and things like cleaning up the mechanical parts which haven't moved in at least 20 years.

And lastly, @SemanticMantis:, I'm not sure what having the model number of a Kenmore machine would get me. Both of these that I'm talking about are Singers.

Thanks again, everyone! Dismas|^(talk) 23:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We bought an ancient Singer machine recently - it sounds just like the one you're looking into - but they made a LOT of different models that were like that. Ours has a stool that came with it and was motorized sometime after it was first sold in the 1950's. My wife loves it for its simplicity and utter, bomb-proof reliability. If you look on Craigslist, you can find amazingly fancy computer-controlled sewing machines that can even embroider pictures from photos you download from your computer...they are frequently very cheap - and say "Only used once!". There is a reason for that. The guy who sold us the antique Singer restores these machines for a living. He said that the astounding reliability and customer-love of those old Singer machines has been the downfall of Singer...if your machines are incredibly reliable, don't wear out and nobody much wants the fancier features - then pretty soon you saturate the market and it's much harder to stay in business.

At any rate, I doubt very much that the singer can be adapted to do fancy stitching - most of those things require that the needle can be swung from side-to-side using either a shaped cam or some kind of motorized electronics. Since those older machines didn't do any of those things, there is no way to move the needle sideways - and a heck of a lot of mechanism would need to be changed to make that happen.

If your wife enjoys sewing, I strongly suggest that you grab the old machine for her...don't replace the newer, fancier machine - have both. The old singer is a beautiful piece of furniture, and (from what I know of my wife, my sister and my mother), it'll be loved and used whenever simple stitching is all you need. When the newer, fancier machine wears out or breaks - then the old workhorse will be around to pick up the slack. My sister uses an even older Singer that has no motor and uses a foot-operated treadle instead. She loves that one because it gives her so much control over the speed and a more personal connection to the work she's doing.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SteveBaker:, did you even google around before you answered? Here's a 1960 Singer with several cams for fancy stitching [3] seven different stitch patterns are demonstrated, clearly visible at 5:30, and no adaptation required, other than switching the cam and perhaps the tension settings. This is a reference desk, why are people just guessing? ~40 years is not at all "too old" to do this sort of thing. Of course we can't say for sure without the model number, but as early as 1960 it was common for mechanical Singer machines to come with a set of swappable cams for "embroidery" and fancy stitching. As for "motorized electronics" - I'm not sure what Steve is getting at. Most machines of the era were powered by electric motors. No fancy circuitry is needed to move the needle, that's the whole point of the cam (how do you think cars of the era managed to time their valves without electronic control systems)! Since OP's model is probably younger (1960 is now 54 years ago, right?), I personally expect it to have fancy cams, as every machine of the era I've seen has such. Also, it sounds like it was a big investment at the time, low-end units wouldn't usually come with the hideaway table. Oh, and @Dismas: different feet are not used to control different stitches. There are a few different types that 'float' differently, and are can be used for special things like quilting. But for most common things like making bags or clothes out of denim, cotton, or other 'regular' weight/loft fabrics, the standard foot should suffice. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're being asked whether the machine can be ADAPTED to do fancy stitching...implying that it can't already do it. If it already has the swing-needle and the cams - then there isn't a question here. Even machines from the 1960's didn't always have those fancy features. If it doesn't, then I don't believe there is going to be a way to adapt it...if it does, then we don't have a question to answer. SteveBaker (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood/misread your post above, I probably didn't need to snark at you. I was spending my attention on this question "Would it be possible for that older machine to make the pretty stitches that my wife likes about this newer machine" -- and my research shows the answer is a qualified "yes", it is very likely that the machine was built to do just that. I agree with you that an old single stitch machine could not be readily adapted to make a variety of stitches. There is even a chance that if the old machine accepts cams, it might even be possible to buy additional new or used cams to extend its repertoire. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, all sewing machines should be destroyed, for the good of the realm. But if you don't live in a realm, carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the earworm. Remember to keep calm, too. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]