Revision as of 01:20, 26 December 2012

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/M

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 19

DEFINITION OF "MOLESTING"

I NOTICED that under this subject, you do not have the lighter form of molesting mentioned, which is unusual for Wiki. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/molest Please check out this link and see the definition not referring to sexual conduct.

Thank you, dropdeadfair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropdeadfair (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, Dropdeadfair, that's because Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. --Jayron32 00:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

See our sister project, Wiktionary for the dictionary definition: Wikt:molest. StuRat (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As indicated in EO, it originally meant merely to bother, vex, annoy, etc. EO says the connotation of abuse originated around the 1950s. My guess is that it was a euphemism. And like many euphemisms, that once-marginal usage has become the dominant usage. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Here in the UK, "molest" is still sometimes used in a non sexual context. But I echo the comments of the others that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. --Dweller (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I always hear them say "harass", instead, only they don't pronounce it "hair-ass", as Americans do, but rather like the last name, Harris. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean something like "to HAIRess" stressed on the first syllable? That's common in the Midwest and the West where they have the Mary marry merry merger. In the East and the South the word is pronounced "Harris" as in Britain when stressed on the first syllable. But since it's a disyllabic verb, the final stress form "to herASS" has become common. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To harass her ass would be one way of molesting her. -- Jack of Oz 19:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

:o μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Who's her? A heiress? Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Polonius got stabbed behind an arras. Does that count? -- Jack of Oz 19:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, if yer, an, er...ass. But Polonius was only a Lord Chamberlain, and at best the parody of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, himself a baron, not a count. μηδείς (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The NFL had its own molester back in the day. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What % of body mass are you lifting during pull-ups?

Assuming one is a healthy, average male, what percentage of one's body weight is one pulling when doing pull-ups? For example, if one weights 170 lbs, are the pull-ups equivalent to lifting 170 lbs on a pull-down lat bar exercise? Are you also lifting the weight of your arms when doing pulls ups? Acceptable (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind you're using your arms for both activities. So to make the activities more equivalent, it would seem reasonable to subtract the weight of your arms from the weight you're lifing on that pull-down bar. How much your arms might weigh, that's a separate question. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the weight of your body below the elbows, your pulling force must include a force to accelerate that mass, calculable as F = ma. DreadRed (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting — I'd never thought of it before, but it's true, as you pull up, your forearms are not going up (maybe even going slightly down?) and your upper arms are tethered to your elbow, which is more or less stationary, so their center of mass is going up by only about half the distance that your shoulders are moving. So at a quick-and-dirty approximation, I'd say subtract the weight of your forearms and half the weight of your upper arms. --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• It depends on how you want to define lifting or pulling, but you have to expend effort countering the mass of your entire body, even your arms, just not that portion of your fingers above the bar, so you are lifting a good 99% of your total mass and the remainder is still held up by the bar, so 100% of your mass is pulling down on the bar. Since your fingers would slip off you're exerting even more effort than you would if your hands were lashed to the bar and you were only flexing your arm muscles, but didn't need to grip. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  Well, no, see my point above. Your forearms are not moving upwards so you don't have to expend any effort to move them upwards (it is true, as you say, that you need to expend a tiny bit more effort to hold on to the bar than you would if the weight of your forearms were not there, but that's trivial). Your upper arms do move upwards, but their center of mass moves only about half as far as your shoulders move, so they count only about half. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You expend less effort lifting them through a smaller distance, but they aren't massless and couldn't hang by themselves without effort from the bar in any case. That's why I said it depends how one defines lifting. The entire weight is relevant, but only the trunk and legs (if you don't swing them) are dead weight. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Holding on to the bar is trivial and should be left out of the discussion to first order. The energy that you need to supply is equal to mgΔz_cm, where m is your mass, g is the acceleration of gravity, and Δz is the vertical distance your center of mass moves. It's also equal to FΔz_s, where F is the force you need to generate (measured at the shoulder), and Δz_s is the vertical distance your shoulders move.

But the point is that Δz_cm is smaller than Δz_s, because, while (to first order) the rest of your body moves with your shoulders, the arms don't.

So at a quick approximation, we can divide the body into three pieces: (1) hands and forearms, which don't move, (2), upper arms, which move half as much as the shoulders, and (3) the rest of the body, which moves with the shoulders.

Then if you work it all out, you see that you figure out the necessary force by counting the upper arms at half their weight, and the forearms and hands not at all. --Trovatore (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As to the second sentence of your question: is pulling down a given weight the same as doing a pullup when one weighs that? Even neglecting the mass of the arms, the two exercises are surprisingly different, for biomechanical reasons. This fact sometimes disappoints exercisers who can pull down their body weight through say 10 reps and then are surprised that they can't do 10 clean pullups. Pullups are, for most people, quite a bit more difficult, because the way forces are transferred around the body differs between the two, and the additional core stabilisation the pullup requires. A pullup (or a chinup) is a closed chain exercise; a machine pulldown (rope or lever) is is open chain. This article discusses the differences between the two. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Finlay is correct. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a further complication, certainly. --Trovatore (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Searching for bio of H Lee Wainwright

When I type his name, H Lee Wainwright, into my search engine (Google), the first 3-4 pages are all about him, but I can't find his background history and Misplaced Pages has no information on him when I execute a search. Why is that? I read that he recently won an award from NASA, but still no historical or any information about him in Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.182.66 (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The usual answer to this kind of question is either "because he is not notable" or "because nobody has written an article yet". If you think he is notable (and I observe that most of the first page of Google results I get are closely associated with him, and so not acceptable to establish notability), then by all means request an article at WP:RA, or try writing one yourself (but read WP:YFA before you start). --ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:YFA is the clickable link for that second link.

Secondly, a note that most articles requested at WP:RA never get written. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Proper socks for 7EEE feet

So if I have 7 EEE (EEE is part of a width system we use in the States) feet with a very boxed forefoot what is the best sock sizing for me? I think they all go by regular widths. Anyone here good with this kind of thing? 184.152.17.125 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an unusually shaped foot (short and wide). I suggest tube socks. Since they have no heel, you can get them wide enough for your feet without having the heel up by your ankle. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, there are many situations where tube socks aren't always appropriate. More formal situations may call for more formal hosiery. --Jayron32 21:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of those white gym socks with colored stripes at the top. You can also get solid black tube socks, although they are hard to find. Sockbroker.com seems to have them in black, grey, or white (do a find on "tube" on this page: ). Pics: . I wear their black tube socks exclusively, including formal occasions. Nobody has ever complained (although you do have to avoid bleach, or they discolor). StuRat (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's the sort of thing that's easy enough to address if you have a sewing machine. Buy socks that are wide enough to fit well, pull the collar up to the length you want. pin or staple the extra toe space shut, invert the socks, and sew a new toe-stitching. If you, your mom, or your lover can't help you, you can buy a couple bags of socks you like and have a drycleaner with a taylor do this for you at about a dollar a sock, (NYC rate), but try to haggle for less if you do this in bulk. Have a test sock done while you are at the shop. Then tip well. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of my socks fit well enough for normal use. I'm just worried about socks for running. I was looking at the socks on this site and am not sure which size is best. Medium or Large.

Edit: Which part of NYC, ma'am? You and I both know that prices vary greatly all over the City. :p 184.152.17.125 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The rate was a guesstimate based on work I've had done at a Chinese launderer in the 10021 zip code on other clothes items. I'd've done the work myself but didn't have a machine. For 12 socks, which should certainly be well under 15 minutes' work if I did it, I'd offer $12 and settle for $20, but then not tip so well. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Err... That rate is actually quite helpful then, lol. A bit off topic, but you wouldn't happen to know how much they charged for hemming pants would you? The name of the place too? 184.152.17.125 (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha. Okay, given you do geolocate to Manhattan, I believe this was on the south side of 71st, between 1st and 2nd, but it may have been on the south side of 70th, tween 2nd and 3rd. In either case, on the south side and closer to east end of the block than the west, and with Chinese characters in the sign. Take the M72 to 1st Ave, which you can get at the 68th St stop on the 6 or any of the 72nd St. stops on the West Side. I haven't had need to go there in at least five years, so I can't promise they are still in business, but I do think they were on the south side of 71 or 70 just west of 1st ave. (I'd have to assume similar rates anywhere, as the Upper East Side is not going to be the cheapest of places.) I did have pants hemmed there for an extra $5 on top when I got the laundry done for $15-25. I wouldn't expect them to want to take a $5 job by itself though, since one always tipped, and small jobs are annoying. Unless you are in the neighbourhood or have an unlimited metrocard and enjoy the travel you might want to look locally. Consider how long the job will actually cost per hour and the fact that a job under $10 will not be inviting when you haggle. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's actually rather cheap (compared to elsewhere outside the City) and very close by though I don't spend much time on 1st. If it's around that for cost plus keeping the original hem on jeans hat would be awesome. Thanks! :D 184.152.17.125 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I always had work done in addition to a $20 load of laundry, and she knew I tipped well. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Or you old just knit your own to fit. Shocking idea, I know. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"old" = 'could', Nellie? -- Jack of Oz 02:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"I don't darn my socks when they get holes, I use considerably stronger language, as I toss them in the trash." StuRat (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Dead woman's clothes

I recently went through a dead woman's clothes to determine which could be donated to charity. One shirt was rather odd, in that it had no buttons, button holes, or other closures in the front, so hangs open. It also looks more like a man's shirt, in general. One other oddity is the cuffs on the short sleeves, which are sewn in a strange way:

NORMAL CUFF (unsewn):

 |    |
++----++
||    ||
||    ||
++----++

NORMAL CUFF (sewn areas shown by X's):

 |    |
XXXXXXXX
||    ||
||    ||
++----++ 

THESE CUFFS (sewn areas shown by X's):

 |    |
XX----++
XX    ||
XX    ||
XX----++

So, here are my theories:

1) It's made to be worn with an apron, which covers the area open in front, and supplements coverage by the apron, to prevent food from spilling on your clothes.

2) Some type of lingerie or sleep-ware, to allow less restricted movements.

3) Just a defective clothing item bought cheap.

Any ideas ? StuRat (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

4) A shirt she was working on making, but never got finished. --Jayron32 21:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Could be, but this woman wasn't known to sew. She was, however, known to cook, hence #1. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Could the cuffs have been unsewn, turned and resewn, to spread the wear? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful. It has no signs of ever having been worn. StuRat (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it might have been a light covering,like the modern shrug. You don't say what material it was but I had something similar in printed silk from the twenties which was lighter than a cardigan and have seen cotton versions used over swimwear.I can't find anything much on line to back this up because I get bogged down in shrugs and beach wraps. Hotclaws (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait until later then ask her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.223.122 (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE. Necromancy. DreadRed (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I know it as a waterfall cardigan, designed to be worn as an extra layer over clothing and easily removable (in case of hot flushes). If you google "waterfall cardigan" you'll find plenty of images that you can match against. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Just to clarify, having re-read the OP, it's probably an edge-to-edge cardigan, but it depends on the shape of the front. If regular shirt front - then edge-to-edge cardigan. If front falls in festoons - then waterfall cardigan. If front comes to two points - then tie-front shrug or cardigan (you can tie the two sides into a knot to produce shaping). --TammyMoet (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that it's made of thin material, like a summer shirt, and is short-sleeved. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I've got one of those, it's idea for summer layers. With short sleeves then, it may be called a shrug. Are there slits up the sides at all? Otherwise, it's an edge-to-edge shirt or cardigan. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No slits. I think of a cardigan as a knit sweater. This is neither. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be knitted, it just has to have two halves to the front. You could call it a shrug if cardigan doesn't ring true. Or just an "edge-to-edge shirt". --TammyMoet (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a hospital gown? They are usually worn with the opening at the back, there-by showing off your ass as you waddle down the hall to the toilet? Astronaut (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps an artist's smock, again with the opening at the back, worn to protect the clothes from paint. Astronaut (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, this opening is definitely in front. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

December 21

Why is there Evil

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If God is so Almighty, why does evil still exist? Did He intentionally let the Devil and such exist?? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem of evil, a well-known theological and philosophical question with no universally agreed solution. Things you may wish to take into account: (1) Not all sources of suffering are the result of wilful evil action; there are plenty of things in the natural world which can harm us. These lack moral character, but presumably have the same ultimate origin as human actions, whether good or evil. (2) Belief in a personal devil is not necessary for the existence of evil (see point 3); there is no personal devil mentioned in the Torah, for example, and in Isaiah 45:7, God is represented as saying "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (3) Evil is generally understood as the wilful misuse of our free will; without the opportunity to choose good, we do not meaningfully choose evil either. (Theologians debate the extent to which divine grace affects the meaningfulness of this decision.) So perhaps the answer is "Evil exists because we are able to choose between good and evil, and we choose poorly". But who knows? These things are all a matter of human perception. If there is a God, then that God may see things very differently to us; if there is no God, then terms like 'good', 'evil', and even 'free will' may have no intrinsic meaning at all, but only what we ascribe to them. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

God? Almighty? evil?, Devil? those are all words that are just act as a convenient help for people to talk to one another as far as I'm concerned. I don't need to think of a person as evil to be happy they go to jail for something they did. God and Devil, well I'll pass on those except to ask why one person's 'God' should be any better than another's or their lack of it or Buddha or Krishna or whatever.. Almighty? how can anything be almighty - can it overcome itself or do we just say cases where a contradiction might occur don't exist Dmcq (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Paradox and Fallacy Questions

• 1. What is the paradox called when your future self gives you the design for a new invention, and then when you're older you back in time and give the design to your younger self and so on, in a never-ending loop? The question here is--where did the design for this new invention originally come from?
• 2. What is the name of the fallacy which states that you're doing something morally unjustifiable/morally impermissible if you're not using something for its designed function/purpose? For instance, you using a hat to drink water from instead of covering your head with it, or a woman getting an abortion instead of letting her uterus sustain a fetus like it was designed to?

Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I call the second one a woman's right to choose. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not the fallacy name and this fallacy applies to men owning hats, for instance, as well as women owning uteruses. Another example of this fallacy would be saying that (I apologize for the graphic details) anal sex, oral sex, mammary sex, et cetera are morally unjustifiable because these body parts are not designed for a penis to be put inside them. Futurist110 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The first isn't a paradox but you might be interested in predestination paradox. I would call the second an appeal to nature. Dmcq (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. How can a design like the new invention in my scenario be created if no one creates it, but just keeps on receiving it and then passing it down? As for the appeal to nature, that might work for some of these things but I'm not sure if it will apply to the function/purpose of things like hats, since hats are not natural and they don't exist in nature. Futurist110 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I would call your item 2 "obsessiveness". Specifically, obsessed with absolute rules. Like the movie character played by Kathleen Turner, who murdered a woman because she was wearing white after Labor Day. (I forget the title - a comedy, of sorts.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Serial Mom. —Tamfang (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, like the character Sheldon Cooper, who says things like "We can't eat anything besides pizza on Fridays, because Friday is pizza night". StuRat (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The first one is a form of the Grandfather paradox. The answer to your question "How can a design ... be created" is the answer that as far as we know, it can't. --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Perhaps the Bootstrap paradox? -=# Amos E Wolfe  #=- 00:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think that the bootstrap paradox is the paradox that I am looking for here. Futurist110 (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's an obvious POV claim to say that anuses, mouths, tits and uteruses were designed at all, let alone that they were designed with a single purpose in mind (whose mind?), so to discuss their use for other than that claimed single purpose as a fallacy is not appropriate here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP made no such claim, they simply asked what such a claim would be called. Just because someone asks about something doesn't mean they believe it. I must admit I get a bit annoyed by some in Misplaced Pages who want to remove all mention of weird ideas on the basis that we're promoting them by reporting what's written about them. Dmcq (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. So maybe the fallacy is Intelligent design, i.e. the thought that anuses, mouths, tits and uteruses were designed at all. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent design is not a fallacy per se, except perhaps of begging the question in fact. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I second what Dmcq has previously said. I acknowledge the existence of evolution, and I don't think that God/gods (if he/she/it/they even exist) had any role in evolution. I'm an atheist, so I don't think that God exists in the first place. I was merely asking about fallacy names for people who say these statements. Medeis, I think that begging the question might be the correct answer for the second one, since they assume that an object/item being used for its designed/purposeful function is good/morally justifiable and that using it for a different function than its designed/purposeful function is bad/morally unjustifiable. They assume that this premise is correct without elaborating why, even though I and many other people don't agree with this premise. Futurist110 (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

They also assume that things ARE designed. Once you move away from that idea, there is no "designed/purposeful function" to worry about. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the case of man-made objects, like hats, they clearly were designed. In the case of biology, you can say that a certain organ has a primary purpose, but, of course, many organs or body parts have multiple purposes (some of which we may not yet have discovered). StuRat (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to search too long to find the novel uses some people have found for their various bodily orifices. Astronaut (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

See exaptation, btw. —Tamfang (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

December 22

Nature novelette, Rabit is eaten by snake, is eaten by bird....

Before junior high, in the late 70's, I was assigned to read a novelette that began with the birth of a rabbit clutch, one of whom was then eaten by a snake, which was run over by a car, and eaten by a badger, and so on, and so forth, with the exact series unclear to me given the length of time, except for the certainty that it began with a rabbit clutch. Can anyone identify the book? I have searched google to no avail. It was one of the first things I ever read in school that grabbed my interest, although it also disturbed me at the time. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about that, but I know an old lady who swallowed a fly. I don't know why she swallowed the fly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Same theme, yes. But more like the kiddie horror version. I remember becoming quite disturbed that just as you were sympathizing with the next animal it would be killed. Could have called the book Road Kill. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OMG there is even a wikipedia article on the old lady who swallowed a fly! Now I know where my uncle got that song from! Sandman30s (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

We we taught that song in elementary school as part of the curriculum. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

When's the next end of the world?

Well, we survived yesterday. Phew. So when is the next one predicted? By whom? And do we have an article on it? HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Apocalypticism and Eschatology might provide some good bed-time reading. -- Jack of Oz 04:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events. Shadowjams (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Apocalypse came and went, and I didn't even get a T-shirt? "I'm with Stupid" seems appropriate for the 1 in 10 who thought something might actually happen. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Where are the studies that explain why so many people believe this stuff? HiLo48 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are people interested in disasters in general? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Boredom and anticipation (emotion)? 88.112.41.6 (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Purely anecdotal, but a lot of folks I know interested in the apocalypse either do not want to take responsibility for future generations (except maybe their own descendants), or they want a regime change of some sort (which is the standard explanation). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To answer the OP's specific question: May 19, 2013, by Ronald Weinland. Tevildo (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's what I was after. And I can remember the radio broadcasts from the Worldwide Church of God from my youth. Thank you. I guess the end of the world will be his get out of jail free card. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• You will all be dead first. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase 'End of the World". It cannot actually end. It's like saying my computer table will end. How can that happen? It's a physical object, and physical objects don't just end. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Not just vanishing in the twinkling of an eye, no. But If I took your table and threw it into a furnace and watched it burn to ashes, you could say the table has ceased to exist, even if all the molecules and atoms survive. The table has lost its internal integrity. That will one day happen to the Earth, and to all celestial bodies. - Jack of Oz 08:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I think this is a linguistic problem (and could be asked on the language desk). I think "Destruction of the World" would be a better phrase. "End of Civilisation" or "End of Life" would work, because both are processes, which have (inevitably) an end. Physical objects do not, even though they can be destroyed and cease to exist in their original form, but they don't 'end'. "My computer table just ended" just sounds ridiculous. This is just me. And Happy Christmas, Jack. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yuletide felicitations to you too, Kage Tora. -- Jack of Oz 08:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Light rail costs in Ireland and England

I want like to find out the cost or price of each light rail tram car or set for public transport in Ireland or england--176.61.87.228 (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)tom newton

Do you mean Great Britain as oppsed to the Republic of Ireland? England is much more densely populated, and hence the cost of transit much cheaper. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the OP is asking about light rail trams (the type of vehicles which would generally be called streetcars in the US) which generally only run in urban areas so the population density of countries as a whole is of little relevance to the cost of journeys on such vehicles. In any case, Britain is widely claimed to have the most expensive train fares in Europe - though this mainly refers to mainline/heavy rail rather than trams - so I'm not sure any conclusions can be drawn on transport costs based on population density. There aren't currently any light rail systems operating in Scotland or Wales (though one is in the very long process of being built in Edinburgh, so the question was correctly formulated as far as naming geographical areas too.

I also believe the question is not about the cost of fares, but about the cost of the vehicles ("the cost or price of each light rail tram car or set"). Perhaps the OP could clarify this. Dublin's Luas system uses a similar type of vehicle to those used in various English cities (and indeed many other European cities) so I think the OP is asking for the purchase price of the tram vehicles of the type used in England or Ireland rather than a comparison.

To attempt to answer the question I'd point to the article on the Midland Metro which includes the information that a new fleet of 20 Urbos 3 trams was ordered this year at a cost of £40 million. (These are a different design to those that run currently but not radically different). The same make of tram was ordered for the Belgrade tram system in Serbia at a cost of 70 million euros for a fleet of 30 in 2009, and for the Nantes Tramway in France at a cost of 22 million euros for a fleet of 8. This would give a unit cost of around £2 million / 2.5 million euros. I am assuming this is not a straightforward cost per vehicle, but also includes some element of a long-term maintenance contract. Valiantis (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, density is important, all other things being equal. But overhead, union costs, regulation, etc., will vary by jurisdiction, and with stateo monopolies there's no need to pass on real economies to the customer. (It's also curious whether you mean British rail is actually more expensive to run, or less subsidized for the individual rider.) In the US you get subways in large cities, and more successful passenger rail in the east coast, with passenger rail running at a huge perennial subsidized loss everywhere else. Even then these systems, from Amtrak to NJ Transit to the subways run by the NYMTA, all regularly run at losses. The losses are just less in the northeast corridor than compared to elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is: both. See Rail transport in Great Britain for an introduction to the complex woes of the world's first railway network. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Medeis, I think you're wrong on this. The customers are typically local government transport operators, while the suppliers are private companies - European trams are largely a competitive market between companies in France, Germany, and Italy (Alstom, Siemens, and Ansaldo). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In 2007 the Irish Rail Procurement Agency ordered 26 trams for the Luas at a cost of €73 million, giving an average costof just over €2.8 million . It's not clear whether those were for the 3-car trams for the Red Line or 4-car ones for the Green Line, or a mixture. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

December 23

1000+ : 0 ?

Has any Misplaced Pages Reference Desk user answered a thousand or more questions ever and asked themselves zero questions ever? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't keep dossiers on individual refdesk questioners and answerers. Well, I don't, anyway.

Also, not all responses to a question qualify as an "answer". Some threads have 20 or more people involved, and there's a long palaver, then the OP says "That's all nice but nobody has answered my question". In other cases, an answer is given by one editor, then others come along and provide more detail. They have all contributed to the answer. So, there is far from a one-to-one relationship between questions asked and questions answered. -- Jack of Oz 19:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Another, more interesting pair of questions, would be, how many user accounts asking questions are sock puppets, and how many user accounts are created solely for the purpose of asking questions. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm more intrigued by people who are all answers and no questions. Specifically, whether it's because they neither need nor want information beyond what they themselves have the power to obtain on their own, they don't have any more questions, or something else. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew gematria

The Hebrew gematria article states that the gematria (Mispar gadol) value for the Hebrew word for "one" adds up to thirteen.

Is there any number which adds up to itself / leads to itself by this method? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.96.229 (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Among the one- and two-word designators for numbers which are seen here, none add up to their value. I suspect that if it exists, it's over 400 (probably by a good margin) as most Hebrew numbers, expressed as words, contain either a resh (200), shin (300) or tav (400). Echad (the masculine Hebrew word for "one") is an exception to that and does equal 13, but the feminine form, achat, adds up to 409 as it contains a tav. Mea, "one hundred", adds up to 46, so there is some hope, though I think it unlikely as matayim, two hundred, adds up to 491. As to "leads to itself", anyone who has read The Chosen knows that gematria is limited only by the imagination of the person doing it, so I'm sure a way could be found.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixing a zipper

I have a jacket that has a zipper as its main fastener (according to our article, it is an open-ended coil zipper). It pulls from bottom to top like most jacket zippers. The teeth won't close, however — I think there is a slight deformation of the bottom three teeth on the zipper's right side, and it stops it from meshing at all, so the zipper pull doesn't actually close the teeth (though it can still slide up them some ways). (I have sometimes been able to carefully coax it to mesh, but it isn't very easy.) (The teeth are nylon, the pull is metal.)

I've been Googling around for how to fix zippers, and most of them seem to be for non-jacket-like setups (e.g. setups where you don't actually have to have it fully open to be functional), or are for issues where a single tooth is missing somewhere mid-zip.

Is there any way to fix something like what I've surprised, or must I replace the whole zipper? (The problem is, I think, a manufacturing defect — the jacket zipper has never worked, though I've had it for years, intending to fix it.) I was contemplating just cutting off the offending bottom teeth with the idea that perhaps without them, the zipper will magically decide to mesh the other teeth, but this seems based more on optimism than any knowledge about these things. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What you've "surprised" ? StuRat (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm doubtful it can be fixed without replacing the zipper. I would have returned it immediately. Metal zippers work better, but are icy cold on a jacket. Also, if a jacket has buttons/snaps/hooks/Velcro in addition to the zipper, then you can still use it without zipping. I actually avoid using the zipper on my coat in favor of those other fasteners, unless it's really cold, since those other fasteners aren't as likely to get stuck. StuRat (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Depending on where you are, there could be a shop that does repair work to zippers and shoes and such stuff as that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Bugs, my local dry cleaners have either repaired or replaced my hubby's leather jacket zip, for which I am eternally grateful cos we can't afford to replace the jacket! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Tammy, your local dry cleaners is your best shot. I would NOT cut off the bottom part of the zipper, let them take care of it. Over the years, I have found various dry cleaners very good at emergency repair, alterations, resewing buttons and zippers, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

December 24

Freeway driving phenomenon

I've always noticed this phenomenon, in my country anyway. Most drivers on a multi-lane freeway will pass on the right and then move obediently to the left and stay there. Even if there are few cars on the right lane, and lots of trucks on the left, they will do this. Is there any obvious advantage to stay on the left as stubbornly as possible? Sandman30s (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandman's talk page suggests that he hails from South Africa, where they drive on the left (as do the UK and Australia). Alansplodge (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Here in the UK, it's what the official advice from the government (The Highway Code) tells you to do. The lanes in the centre are for passing, not regular driving. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've driven in most Western European countries, and the UK is strongest on this point, with Germany not far behind. I'm not certain word of this has gotten to Italy yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Same here in Australia. On some freeways, you can be booked for using the middle or right lanes when not overtaking. -- Jack of Oz 09:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The law in Australia basically says that, on a multi-lane road where the speed limit is greater than 80 kilometres per hour, you must move left after overtaking unless traffic congestion makes that impractical, or you are preparing to make a right hand turn. A frequently misunderstood part of that is the 80kph. If the speed limit is 80 or less, there is no legal requirement to move left. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"The law in Australia ..." - which law exactly? And in which state? My understanding is that the road rules are per-state. Example: Western Australian Consolidated Regulations - ROAD TRAFFIC CODE 2000, of which Regulation 113 says that (in general) you must keep left if the speed limit is 90 or more (not 80). It also says, at the bottom, "Regulation 113 amended in Gazette 13 Nov 2009 p. 4586‑8", but that amendment doesn't appear to mention the speed. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Since I've never seen a speed limit of 85 and I really doubt if one exists, the laws we're describing are effectively the same. 90 or more is the same as greater than 80. Yes, I know there are some weird differences between states, but that one seems to work at a national level. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Point of curiosity, are speed limits in Australia never over 85 km/h (52.8 mph)? Shadowjams (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Speed limits in Australia do exceed 85 km/h. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I think Shadowjams is missing HiLo48's point. There's no such thing as a 85 km/h speed limit in Australia, as I expect in a number of countries (definitely here in NZ I'm pretty sure such a speed limit doesn't exist) since there's no need to have such a strange number as 10 km/h differences give sufficient granuality at that level. This doesn't mean there's no speed limit over 85 km/h. The speed limit will either be 80 km/h or lower or 90 km/h or higher. That being the case, anything only applying to a speed limit over 80 km/h (greater than 80km/h) will basically have the same effect as anything only applying to a speed limit 90 km/h or over (greater or equal to 90 km/h). Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, correctly moving back after overtaking is called Lane discipline. There is a significant minority here that like to cruise obstructively in the centre lane, they are known collectively as the "Middle Lane Owner's Club". "Quite often the so-called middle lane owners club are driving at speeds below the national limit – which would be fine if they moved over to the nearside lane. As it is, they tend to cause a mini tailback in their wake. Other drivers don’t 'undertake' to get past them – and so have to wait for lane three in order that they can overtake them properly. This leads to the situation where lane one may be empty for approaching a mile, with vehicles bunching in lanes two, waiting to get into lane three. Worse still, it encourages 'weaving' – cars changing lanes to get past the vehicle in lane two, then cutting into lane two or even one in order to 'teach them a lesson'."

I drove in France a few years ago, and found them a little too keen to pull back in after overtaking; the concept of a safe braking distance between vehicles doesn't seem to be well understood there. Alansplodge (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is an existing article, Passing lane, which generally covers this subject. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas present

Hi, I need urgent advice.

I have bought my wife a nice dress for Christmas. When I purchased the dress the shop employee assured me I could take it back should it be the wrong size. Herein lies the problems.

1. If it proves to be too small will she accuse me of suggesting she needs to lose weight? 2. If it proves too big will she accuse me of suggesting she will eventually fit into it as she is putting on weight? I have looked up List of paradoxes to see if there are any answers the but alas, to no avail. Maybe I can write an article on Boxing Day about it.

Also, I am worried that if she has bought me a far more expensive present she will think I am being cheap and hit me over the head with her frying pan, or worse still forbid me to have any of the trifle that is hidden at the back of the fridge?

I do hope you treat this case as urgent as I live in Australia and Christmas Day is just hours away! Rocketrod1960 (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, and we are not able to give advice. However, if you think you are in genuine danger of being hit with a frying pan, you should seek support from police and other services which exist to prevent domestic abuse. If, on the other hand, you are jesting about the subject of domestic abuse, kindly stop. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't say how long you and your wife have been together, but I think there's a better-than-even-money chance that you know her just ever so slightly better than some anonymous jerks on the internet do. You're in a far better position to gauge her possible reactions than we will ever be. Maybe you could trust that she'll receive the gift in the true spirit of Christmas. Or maybe you know her too well.  :) -- Jack of Oz 09:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry everyone, this is what happens when I leave my computer on when my son is visiting for Christms. :( Rocketrod1960 (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Her frying pan? Either your son needs some advice from Dr Germaine Greer or he is a trifle to skilled in gender-(t)rolling sarcasm? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, women have jobs now and can buy stuff for themselves, like shoes and frying pans. I'd say it's more sexist to assume the man bought it and owns it RudolfRed (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I took Cookatoo's remark to mean that it's jointly owned marital property, no matter who may have bought it, or whose money was used. -- Jack of Oz 23:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Name of the Advertising Agency

Can you please tell me the name of the advertising agency named after a british radio station which started in 1920s and existed till late 80s? Thanks for your help! Linkinfloyd (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, there was a state radio monopoly in the form of the British Broadcasting Corporation, until the Sound Broadcasting Act 1972 allowed local commercial stations under the Independent Broadcasting Authority. So there were no British radio stations in the 1920s except the BBC, who operated the BBC National Programme and the various regional output under the BBC Regional Programme. Commercial radio was popular from the 1930s but broadcast from outside the UK, Radio Luxembourg (English) is the best example. You may wish to look at Category:Advertising agencies of the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

ea sports nhl games for xbox 360

playing the nhl 09 game you have an option for team advantage. is this option also available for nhl 10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfdurand (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Chicago History - What happened on May 5th & 6th, 1911?

I have a guest badge from the 22nd Annual State Convention - Illinois division of the TPA. These letters are in a circle in the middle of the upper part of the badge with the date "May 5th &6th to the left and 1911 to the right of the circle. I don't think the letters mean PTA because the botton portion of the badge shows a street scene of Chicago and the slogans "Strength of Commerce" and "I Will" and the image of a man carrying what looks like a brief case. Does anyone know what this organization was and what it did? Dpshimkus (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be the "Travelers Protective Association". In other words, a trade association for traveling salesmen. According to an interesting note found here, it stopped issuing its magazine in 1920, so odds are it didn't last beyond that. Obviously they had a convention.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

December 25

Canada Ottawa region name change

Residing in Canada before the millenium change, I recall some press mentions of a " National or Federal District " type of classification/re-organization for the Ottawa-Hull area, presumably to follow the concept of " the District of Columbia USA.

In reading the article on Ottawa I see no mention of this. Did this proposal die and, if so, why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve8rox (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned in National Capital Region (Canada), with no sources. --jpgordon 17:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"Happy Holidays!"

Is this greeting common outside of the United States? I'm asking this since Hanukkah doesn't seem to be that mainstream in most countries (but then again, so is Judaism). Kwanzaa isn't also celebrated outside the US, and if I recall correctly is virtually unheard of in Africa (but then again, it was founded by an African-American). But is the greeting common only in the United States, or it is also used in countries like Canada or the United Kingdom? And if anyone's asking, I've read the article on it, but gives no mention of its use outside of the United States. Narutolovehinata5 11:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We're aware of it here in Australia, from our exposure to American movies/TV etc, but I've never heard an Australian use the expression. -- Jack of Oz 12:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, here in the UK we've heard Americans use it, but I've never heard someone local say it. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Influence from the US has cost Singaporeans here to act like Americans and I have heard this term being used innumerable times this year. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

UK here, we are familiar with the term but we don't like using it.--TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we understand the greeting when used by our American friends, but would never use it ourselves. Dbfirs 15:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Who exactly is "we" here? Do you two presume to speak for the entire population of the United Kingdom? If not, I suggest you keep your wild, borderline offensive generalizations to yourselves. --Viennese Waltz 21:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the Christmas spirit. Seems gemütlichkeit is wearing a tad thin these days. -- Jack of Oz 22:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It's rarely actually used by real Americans in spontaneous conversation. It's only corporate concerns that someone might be Jewish or a Marxist Black Nationalist that drives the usage in commercials and by salespeople whose greetings are scripted. I am an atheist with Jewish ancestry and a Roman Catholic upbringing, and I say Merry Christmas to everyone, including Hindus and Muslims, and add in Happy Hanukah if I know they are Jewish. Hristos Rozhdajetsja! Szczastliwyj Nowyj Rok! μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

-- your own experience does not indicate "rarely used"; your experience indicates "I've rarely heard it used". My experience is rather the opposite; it's interchangeable with any of the other greetings -- and by "real Americans". And anyone who strongly cares which salutation is used is missing the entire point of well-wishing; it's like sneezing and being bothered if someone automatically says "God bless you". --jpgordon 21:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Not just rarely used. An American said Happy Holidays to me yesterday. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, you can hear it on Christmas muzak: "Happy Holidays" by Irving Berlin, who was Jewish, and wrote the song for Holiday Inn, which also featured the song "White Christmas". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and were those people who wished you "happy holidays" people who knew you, or store clerks? μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

is 12p.m. noon or midnight?

drivers licence

In talking with my son we are unsure of what the requirements were for him to get his drivers licence in Missouri in 1985. What were the requirements at that time for a teen to get a drivers licence? My memory serves me very poorly as I age---thank you for your help on this! It is greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.3.51 (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums