Miscellaneous desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

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.

September 9

I know that the most helicopter flights and the most private helicopters are in São Paulo. Could you tell me which city is on place 2,

with the second most helicopter flights and private helicopters? Thank you--Japanischindonesien (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

where can I find the instruction of the Game Mississippi from Mattel?

--Japanischindonesien (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found them here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMG ! thank you! it seems like a self made text instruction, regular instructions show pictures and more but it is nice to know how to play --Japanischindonesien (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When in a survival situation wearing soaking wet clothes, should you keep them on or take them off?

I've read that if you have blankets on hand, you should take your clothes off and wrap up in insulation. If insulation is unavailable should you keep your wet clothes on or still take them off? (Note that this is obviously not for some real life scenario, I'm an author and trying to decide which choice a character in my short story should make) --Aabicus (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what they're made from. If it's wool, keeping them on would probably be the better choice since wet wool is able to keep you warm better than, say, wet cotton. Dismas|^(talk) 02:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dry clothing keeps you warm by trapping a layer of air which (because it's a good insulator) rapidly warms to body heat. Wet clothing conducts heat away rapidly - but also, the evaporation of the water within it as it slowly dries out actively cools the body. Hence, naked and dry is probably better than clothed and wet - because in the latter case, there is no more evaporation going on. SteveBaker (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I'll go with. Even if a survivalist later disagrees with us, at minimum it'll let me show I did enough research to know the problem in the first place! --Aabicus (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite correct though -- Dismas is more nearly right. If you are wearing wool or artificial fibers, which are non-absorbent, they will help keep you warm even when soaking wet. Dry is better, but wet still works. If you have blankets on hand and are wearing wet cotton, you should definitely take it off. If you don't have blankets and you're out in the rain wearing wet cotton, you're screwed either way. It is also worth noting that people who are familiar with survival principles will never choose to wear cotton clothing if there is any chance of encountering cold wet conditions. Looie496 (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this depend on the precise situation? For example, if you're soaking wet in the lower altitudes of Taman Negara, cold can be a problem but won't necessarily be the biggest one even at night and I don't think the risk of hypothermia is really that high except in extreme situations (elderly and children during a very long rainy night perhaps). Clothes, wet or dry may provide some protection against scrapes and cuts as well as mosquito bites and leech stings although if it isn't raining and it's during the day, I wonder if it will be worth taking them off to dry. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The standard advice is that you leave wet clothes on until you're in some kind of shelter, as removing wet clothes in an exposed environment can lead to a severe loss of body heat. I found these two refs after a very quick search: [1] [2] but I'm a qualified British Canoe Union coach, and the teaching is that you stay in your wet clothes until you find somewhere out of the weather. I certainly wouldn't take any clothes off if you didn't have dry clothes to put on afterwards. If possible, put as much waterproof clothing as you have on top of the wet stuff to reduce heat loss by evaporation and convection (wind chill). Alansplodge (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that source. As far as why, wet clothing still traps in heat, especially with multiple layers, just not as effectively as dry clothing. Also, a hidden benefit is that clothes you wear are warmer than those sitting around (in cold weather), and hence dry off faster. I've found if I get clothes out of the dryer still damp, it's best to put them on, as then they quickly dry. (Of course, I stay inside while they dry.) StuRat (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently discarded clothes from a wet kayaker will often steam in cold air, showing that they are much warmer than the ambient temperature. All that heat is lost when you undress. Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wet cotton clothes would dry (eventually) from body heat. Wet clothes which were removed would freeze and likely could not be put back on until they had been dried by a fire or by the sun. Edison (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on how wet the clothes are and how many layers you're wearing of which materials. If the clothes are soaking wet and you are out of the rain or water, then you probably want to take them off briefly just to wring them out thoroughly in order to increase their insulating power, then put them back on. Otherwise, if you are wearing multiple layers including materials other than cotton, move the damp cotton to an external layer away from the skin, so that it helps insulate rather than cool the body surface. If all of your layers are cotton, I guess I would wring them out and then wear them. Marco polo (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard in a documentary that it was forbidden until 1990 for quiet all international airlines to fly over indian territory

or to land in an airport inside of India. Can someone tell me why? --185.51.85.16 (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true, how could anyone fly to India? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How? just if you take a regular indian Airway to fly to india. I said every airline except the indian airlines themselves were aloud to land or to fly over india--185.51.85.16 (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the OP meant a non Indian airline when they said international. In that case, they technically could have via Indian airlines. However as per our article Freedoms of the air#Third and fourth freedom, I'm fairly sure it's very rare that a country would grant landing rights for a foreign airline without some degree of reciprocity for their airlines. So it's fairly unlikely Indian airlines would be able to land in other countries if airlines from these countries couldn't land in India (if they wanted to). Also, this source [3] seems to imply that India accepted the IASTA on 2 May 1945 which as per our article and [4] grants the first and second freedoms, so it would also seem that airlines could fly over India on approved routes (also land in India without taking on or letting of passengers) although it's possible India charged such high fees that airlines avoided it if possible. Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The government of India nationalized the airlines in 1953, creating a single state-run domestic carrier "Indian Airlines" and subsequently a state-run international carrier "Air India International". State-run and owned airlines had the exclusive right to sell scheduled fares in India until 1990. I don't know about landing or overflight, but I would be surprised if either of those things were absolutely forbidden. However, if only "Air India" could sell outgoing international tickets from within India, that probably limited the interest of other carriers in operating routes to and from India. Dragons flight (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly our article doesn't seem to cover that middle bit very well, but the info is here [5]. Also I found British Airways Flight 9 stopped in two Indian airports, although I don't know if passengers were able to get off or on the flight at either airport. Then again I'm not sure if there would be an obvious reason to stop at both Indian airports if there wasn't the possibility passengers may get on or off, unless there was some other requirement. I would have expected fuel wasn't an issue, if the flight can get to Mumbai from London, it would seem likely it could get to KL from Mumbai without stopping. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Nil Einne and Dragon flight have already indicated, while no non-state owned domestic airlines were allowed to operate in India between 1953-1990, there was no universal restriction on international flights flying into or over the country. Hard to document that such flights were operating as a normal course (just as it would be difficult to show that all Indians were not on a country-wide fast in Jan 1983), but wikipedia has some articles on such flights to, via, or over India crashing or being hijacked. Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, were they from the Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in India? I thought there were probably some, but the best I found was the BA one via searching. For some reason I didn't think of looking for that category. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary what I saw was called Crash Course (Head-on Collision; Sight unseen; Collision Course) Charkhi Dadri it is S07E04 of air craft disasters (Alarm im Cockpit). In the first 5 minutes they are saying that Airplanes were not allowed to land in india except the Indian Airlines --185.51.85.16 (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you can watch this said scene at 2 minutes 18 seconds http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18vgzm_mayday-s07e04-head-on-collision-sight-unseen_shortfilms In the german audio there are saying directly that it was forbidden to land for other airlines in the english audio it sounds like there were yet allowed international airlines but not every airline in the world and india has open 1990 itself also for the last airlines.. The english audio doesn´t sound so strong as the german one, were is clearly said, that there was no international airline aloud --185.51.85.16 (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Is is still true, or was it ever true, that planes are not allowed to fly over the Taj Mahal?)Hayttom (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was common in the 1980s for flights from Europe to eastern Asia to stop at Mumbai/Bombay for refuelling. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

maybe this documentary is just wrong? or it was allowed to land but not to leave the plane and do a check out because the airlines haven´t carried about your visa?--Hijodetenerife (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hello Ref Desk team. I was looking at an Ordnance Survey map from 1912, and I was wondering what 'B.H' meant? Thank you. --Forfraaaiskop (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to The OS website, it meant "Beer House". Dbfirs 08:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A public house.
Sleigh (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Beer House was originally only licensed to sell beer and cider, nothing stronger. They were introduced by the 1830 Beer Act [6]. Mikenorton (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article at Beerhouse Act 1830. Rojomoke (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why McDonalds haven´t stopped yet this auction?

http://www.ebay.de/itm/MOSCHINO-X-JEREMY-SCOTT-GLUCKLICHE-MAHLZEIT-TASCHE-LTD-EDT-VERFUGBARKEIT-MC-/181812218862 is there no copyright on this product? --185.51.85.16 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely McDonald's isn't trying to stop these kind of sales for 2 possible reasons: 1 they don't know about it or 2 it's not financially viable to pursue claims against this product/sale. When a well known individual like President Obama or a large company like McDonald's becomes successful other people will try to use their imagery in products for sale. There is also the possibility that the ebay seller is not in violation of any copyright infringement law(s). Obama and McDonald's have other things to worry about and filling a copyright infringement lawsuit takes money, time, etc. So people will continue to manufacture Obama bobble heads and other memorabilia with or without his permission. If the happy meal look-a-like ebay seller starts making millions perhaps McDonald's would pursue a lawsuit only if it is financially viable, and only if copyright infringement is actually occurring. 11 12 Void burn (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, this would probably be covered by trademark law, not copyright law. Second, this isn't a cheap knockoff but rather a creation of a prominent fashion designer, part of a whole line of items that explicitly poke fun at McDonald's (see here for more). So it may be protected as parody/commentary. Since it's a prominent company it's also possible they have some kind of deal with McDonald's. I didn't investigate. -- BenRG (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into the media coverage of this fashion line, and no one seems to know if McDonald's has endorsed it. Attempts by reporters to get statements from either McDonald's or Moschino have gone unanswered. So who knows. But I consider it highly unlikely McDonald's is unawares. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the IPKat (a blog, but a reputable one in the IP field), McDonalds have given permission to use the relevant IP, in return for a donation to their charitable foundation. MChesterMC (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: Chester is talking about this sort of IP. Meaning trademarks, copyrighted logos, whatever is applicable; and not some other sort. --65.95.178.150 (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]