Miscellaneous desk
< February 6	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 8 >

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.

February 7

Fighter jet missile detection

So how do modern era fighter jets display inbound missiles if detected. Does the internal computer draw an overlay of some sort on the MFD radar display or something. Like a white line towards the middle (plane) that subsequently gets shorter as it nears, or something.

I know older Russian fighters had a series of lights that lit up around a graphic of the plane to indicate the direction of radar threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.100.51 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wikipedia Help Desk's there are editors that currently love to Wikilawyer to make themselves feel important. So, they ban any replies that can be remotely considered medical or legal advice (regardless of whether the Wikipedia Policies really meant to include these types of questions and replies). That leads me to think “why not defenses industries too?” Therefore, I'm not going to tell you anything about Radar Warning Receivers. Period!--Aspro (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia have relevant - if somewhat barebone - articles on radar warning systems and Missile Warning Systems. You can also read more about more specific types of MWS here, and a fairly commom type of RWS here. The 'typical' western radar warning display in a Fourth-generation jet fighter looks similar to this image - compare to what google leads me to believe is a 'typical' Russian display here. WegianWarrior (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked in military flight simulation, I wrote and had do debug software relating that display in an F18's cockpit. (It's a separate circular display that's distinct from either of the square MFD's or the HUD in that aircraft). The actual graphics were classified beyond the grade of classification that I had - so I wasn't allowed to see the display that resulted from the software that I wrote. That was a very, very odd couple of weeks! SteveBaker (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the problem which I think will prevent the OP from getting the exact answer he wants. This post is very possible being read by people that know a lot about Radar Warning Receivers but one never leaves the armed forces completely -so they can't comment. This tech is something one does not talk about in detail. There are some cargo freighter anti-collision shipping systems that could be parallel but I decline from saying anymore about them either. Before posting the first time I did a quick google to see what was in the public domain on this subject. It was zilch.--Aspro (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trouser or Trousers: Which is the better term?

How many people say "Trouser" for pants, instead of "Trousers." For example, one may say "I put on my black trouser" or "I am taking my trouser to the cleaners." Thank you. Zombiesturm (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you ever seen it as "trouser"? In any case, it's incorrect usage unless you've only got one leg. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could join the 21st century and call them "pants" (not "pant", and certainly not "pantaloon/s"). StuRat (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, your argument is that the answer to the OP's question is "Neither." The term "trousers" does seem to be less used, at least in the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the century, "pants" means underwear here in the UK, [1] so it's not used here to mean an outer garment; "trousers" is the general rule (always plural except for the trouser press). Alansplodge (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was my Canadian answer, too. Pants, pants, pants! And panties, not knickers or bloomers. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Trousers" is still good if there's a need for two syllables, as in the song, "Donald, Where's Your Trousers?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trousers is less used than what? The claim is a relative one, and while trousers (113,000,000 ghits) is certainly less used than pants, it is not less used than trouser (21,800,000 ghits). μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. "Trouser" would be incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except in "trouser snake". I think. Maybe people actually do say "trousers snake", and we just never hear the S. Want some mice cream? Anyway, most of those "trouser" results use trouser as an adjective for things about trousers. A few on the first page aren't talking about pants at all. Context matters. Plenty of stories about dogs in the pants list, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the correct term is attributive noun. The plural ending is usually dropped, as in 'a ten-mile walk', for example. It is obvious that 'mile[s]' in this case is plural, because of the 'ten' before it, but the plural ending is dropped. Similarly with my example below of 'trouser pocket'. We know that all trousers have two legs and should be plural, but the plural ending is dropped when used as a modifier. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was a bit uncertain about "adjective". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Like "US Presidents have a four-year term", not a "four-years term". Or "This scissor blade is dull, but the other's ok". See also Plurale tantum#English usage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Alan, because 'ere oop norf, 'pants' and 'trousers' are interchangeable. We use 'undies' for 'underwear', along with plenty of other slang words, which I shall not divulge. In answer to the OP's question, it is possible to say "It's in your trouser pocket" when asked about the fiver you just gave someone. I don't know why we say that, but "trouser's pocket" just sounds odd, probably because of convention. But when you are talking about a pair of trousers, then it is always plural. Same as glasses (so Google got it wrong by naming its latest product 'Google Glass' because it's not a monocle! :) ). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a looking glass. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, as in "Alas, where are my funds in this land?". KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That, too. But the software also mirrors the world you look at. Or would, if it were on the market. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your disagreement KägeTorä. Last night I heard Northumbrian comedian Ross Noble use both "trousers" and "pants" in the usual British fashion on QI XL, so I suspect that your particular part of the North is using a dialectic peculiarity rather than following a generally held rule. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all northern English dialects that use "pants" for trousers, but KT is correct that the usage is common in some of the older dialects (and Scouse uses "keks" as KT will know). The use of "pants" to mean undergarments dates from 1880 (or before) in British English. Dbfirs 17:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Trousers, of course, were being worn by Nelson's Sailors when everybody else was wearing breeches. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Kecks' is certainly a word we use, and specifically means trousers, and not undergarments. 'Pants' also means 'trousers', but when referring to a lady's undergarment, the word 'pants' is also used (as in "Get yer pants off"). Normally, however, in a non-sexual context, 'pants' would mean the same as 'trousers'. This is also interesting, because 'kecks' is always plural. Unlike the attributive noun example I have given of 'trouser pocket', we never say 'keck pocket'. We'd just say "It's in yer kecks". KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 23:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have at least once had a haberdasher sing the praises of the "pant" that he was selling me. —Tamfang (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half off? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, Marks and Spencer's labelling pedantically uses the singular of all plural-named garments, so they will try to sell you one trouser, one pant, etc. No-one else bothers. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should retaliate by calling them "Mark & Spencer's" KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I've ever come across "trouser" is in the phrase "to trouser" which means to quickly hide your ill-gotten gains where you think they can't be seen. Oh and by the way, it was a Mr Marks who set up Marks and Spencer's. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also trouser press. Staecker (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say if it's still current, but thirty years ago I got used to hearing staff in menswear shops refer to "a trouser" where I would have said "A pair of trousers". I suspect that this jargon is what appears in the M&S label you mention. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that "trouser" was okay for anything specific to one trouser leg while "trousers" referred to the whole garment. Trouser snake - one side or the other, trouser press - one leg at a time, trouser (steal) - put in one pocket. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to be rude, Stalwart111}, that sounds very like one of the many just-so stories that people make up to try and account for an oddity of language. Have you any evidence for it? --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None, and it may well have that genesis. I just remember discussing it at University as exactly that; an oddity of the English language. In the same context as a pair of shorts. As such, that explanation became my understanding of how that oddity came about. Could well be the other way around. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about trouser suit? ---Sluzzelin talk 08:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the extra "s" would have been redundant even if included. Trousers suit? Much like trouser snake which could just as easily be both/either I suppose. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a really interesting question. When I was in Japan (which has a language with no plurals for inanimate objects), people would ask me why trousers are plural, even though the word refers to a single item of clothing. I would count to two on my fingers, and make a walking movement with them, to demonstrate why they are considered plural. But then they would ask why 'shirt' isn't plural, because you have two arms. Most interestingly, the Japanese word for 'shirt' is シャーツ (shaatsu), which is 'shirt' with the English plural 's' added. If the plural ending had not been added, it would have been シャート (shaato). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 13:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terms without the final ess or vowel mutation come from the Old English genitive of measure, like a ten-man team and a six-foot depth or a hundred trouser closet, for that matter:
There is also the "genitive of measure": forms such as "a five-mile journey" and "a ten-foot pole" use what is actually a remnant of the Old English genitive plural which, ending in /a/, had neither the final /s/ nor underwent the foot/feet vowel mutation of the nominative plural. In essence, the underlying forms are "a five of miles (O.E. gen. pl. mīla) journey" and "a ten of feet (O.E. gen. pl. fōta) pole".
μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say "potah-toe". --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Measles vaccine

call the pharmacy at (207) 797-3393, hit 3 for the pharmacy dept., and then 4 for a live person

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Does CVS Pharmacy offer the measles vaccines without a prescription. And do they offer it on a walk-in basis or do you need to make an appointment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.148.235 (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page [2] suggests that you should make an appointment (but you can do it online) - and no, you don't need a prescription for the vaccination. For very young children, you'll probably need proof of their age...a birth certificate, for example. I believe that the vaccine they use is called "MMR" which covers you for more than just Measles. SteveBaker (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the above information was contradicted by calling the OP's local CVS at (207) 797-3393.

Reading between the lines, I think that the OP wants to know about the availability of a single measles inoculation rather than the triple jab. There are things happening in Portland right now. As we do not offer medical advice nor recommendations, the OP (in the nicest possible way) will be better off googleing around elsewhere -if this is his quest. --Aspro (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely easy to address. Google your local CVS's phone number, wait for the automated system, press 3 for the pharmacy, wait for the prompt to begin and hit 4 for a live person. The person who answers will either be a pharmacist or standing next to her, and able to answer immediately and authoritatively. The other question is cost, which you may have to pay out of pocket. In the time it took me to type this you'd've had your answer, but I can't tell you what you might pay. There's also 1-888-607-4CVS, but calling the local number will be quicker and more effective. Also, don't limit yourself to CVS, I alternate between Walgreens and CVS and find costs for a prescription may vary by hundreds of dollars. Also, certain pharmacies in "underserved" (i.e., poor, urban) areas offer better rates. Shop around. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do they take insurance? Do they take MaineCare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.148.235 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the direct number for one of the Portland CVSeses: (207) 797-3393. Ask them about insurance, we can't speak on their behalf, nor tell you if they will require a scrip. My experience with other shots is that walk-in is fine, but they may not have the specific item in stock, so calling ahead is the best advice, and they can give you the numbers or transfer you to other local branches. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just called the pharmacy whose number I listed above and got the answers, including whether they give stand-alone shots. I won't repeat the answers, as it's WP:OR--you should call them yourself. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this to save space--the OP is aware he has to contact the pharmacy, we can't do it for him. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Window Envelopes

In the United States, bills are often sent by mail along with an envelope with a transparent "window" that displays the mailing address when the bill is inserted into the envelope with the address showing through the window. There are four ways that the bill can be inserted into the envelope, only one of which shows the address. My question is: What is the advantage of the window to the mailer? Does it really save that much money in terms of the cost of printing the envelope, over just printing a complete paper envelope with the address shown? Doesn't making the envelope composite (partly paper and partly transparent material) add something to the cost of the envelope? What is the saving to the mailer, and why do they do this? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My educated guess is that mass production of window envelopes is indeed much cheaper than mass printing (different) addresses that are already included in the bill/letter. Safes a lot of time. Also you don't have to match the right envelope with the right letter which simplifies the production line for the mailer.TMCk (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the question has been answered, and that it isn't to save money up front on the envelopes, but to force the customer to put the bill in the envelope, which saves money in the long run in terms of not having to figure out whose account to credit. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a way to ensure that the customer remembers to insert the bill in the envelope. Otherwise they end up with lots of envelopes with just checks, and spend a lot of money trying to figure out whose account those checks are for. If the name on the check happens to correspond exactly with one, and only one, customer name, it's not so bad. But you can have a maiden name/married name situation, or somebody other than the account holder signing the check, etc. They also tell you to write your account number on your check, just in case. BTW, sometimes there is no transparent covering, just an open space in the envelope for their address to peek through.

I've also thought that an improvement could be made by having all the relevant info printed directly on the inside of the envelope, so then the customer would only need to put the check inside. I assume they don't do this because it would be more expensive. Of course, mailing in checks is now quaint, and they may soon start charging more for that to persuade people to pay online, by ACH, etc. StuRat (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Forcing the customer to put the bill in the envelope is the reason, which avoids the work of figuring out whose check was sent to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that I misread the OP tho my response is still valid in part ;) TMCk (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are approaching the question in the wrong direction. We know it is the most profitable way to do it because companies are doing it that way. Businesses aren't in the habit of knowing about better, more efficient, ways to make money, and then deliberately pissing away cash just because. When millions of businesses do something a certain way, it's because it isn't terrible. If it were significantly more cost efficient to do it, they would do it the other way. If they don't, they become ex-businesses. --Jayron 32 23:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if they do an annual study on the relative costs and benefits of envelopes with windows each year. More likely they just keep doing things the same old way until somebody else takes a risk and tries something else and it pays off. There have been many companies that failed because they didn't adapt quickly enough, so just assuming that every company must be doing everything in the optimal way is not reasonable. Clearly, many are not. StuRat (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was answered, but it isn't that printing the envelope that way saves money on printing, but rather that forcing the customer to put the bill in the envelope saves the cost of trying to figure out whose account to credit. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing they're "forcing" you is mailing the payment slip with your check. You can use your own envelope if you wish (or if you lost the free one) and if you don't mind your payment to be applied late or to the wrong account you sure can just send a check with the billing account # on it.TMCk (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having both hand-mailed and explained such bills sent out mechanically, the issue is that the bill statement itself has to have the same (billing) address on it as the mailing envelope. That being the case, it's a lot easier to have that address show up through a "window" (which is often just a hole--less paper and no plastic) than to print it twice, or have it written out by hand, as I was paid $3.15/hr to do in the early 80's. μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that it also avoids the risk of the letter being inserted in the wrong envelope. Having worked in numerous offices, I can confirm that cock-ups of that nature are commonplace. Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is asking why the bill is sent to the customer in a window envelope, not why the company encloses a window envelope for the customer's use. The latter isn't very common in the UK IMHO. With regard to the former, there are two distinct advantages. Laser-printing personalised details is more expensive than the additional cost of a window. And, in my experience a lesser issue, but nonetheless one that exists, ensuring that envelopes and contents are correctly matched also adds a small degree of complexity to the operation, which does sometimes go awry (took me two seconds to find this).--Dweller (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dweller. I could easily understand the question, as I'm quite familiar with windowed envelopes, but I couldn't understand most of the answers above. Where I live, most people pay their bills with an electronic bank transfer they order on their bank's website. Checks are something they may have come accross in 19th-century novels – or if they happened to travel to the U.S. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The question isn't entirely clear, but Robert McClenon/the OP is the one who said "and that it isn't to save money up front on the envelopes, but to force the customer to put the bill in the envelope, which saves money in the long run in terms of not having to figure out whose account to credit". So it seems clear that the OP was in fact referring to envelopes being sent for the customer's use with windows, rather than envelopes with the bill enclosed having windows. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, Nil. Are cheques still so widely used in the USA then? Here, in Blighty, there have been various attempts to discontinue them altogether, so far to no avail, but I personally can't remember the last time I wrote one. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]