Miscellaneous desk
< April 16	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 18 >

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.

April 17[edit]

Technology - most important factor in determining the outcome of war?[edit]

This is a homework question but the guidelines say I can ask for help with a specific point I'm unsure of. Well basically I'd like to know what was more important for determining the outcome of world war one; science, medicine and technology such as tanks and penicillin - or something else like strategy or morale of the soldiers. Thanks for your help

That's a pretty broad point, not a specific one, and in effect you are asking us to speculate on your behalf, because obviously many factors played a role. Have you at least read World War I and a few articles branching off from there? BrainyBabe (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read that and some of the links in the "see also" section. I really just asking if you think it would be best to argue that technology was the most important factor or not. I guess it doesn't really matter since I can argue either way and still get the grade, though I'd like to select the side that has the most secondary resources that I can use to back up my argument.

Suggest you can make a good argument based on morale (civilians, servicemen and politicans) but backed up with the economic strength to provide the needed hardware. But the one ingredient that can never be ignored is luck. There are numerous examples of how an expected outcome has been negated by sheer good/bad fortune.86.194.123.148 (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

By the way, there was no penicillin during World War I, so I wouldn't make much mention of it in your homework. Deor (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much time you have before your paper is due, but I would strongly recommend Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August if you want to get a very thorough (but still quite accessible) narrative introduction to the outbreak of World War I. The book picked up a Pulitzer prize, and I would say it's an absolutely essential read for anyone with an interest in military history.

It would certainly offer a great deal of grist for your mill, whichever side of the technology/human factors divide you choose to take. The Germans won the Battle of Liège in twelve days after attacking fortresses previously assumed virtually unassailable using their new 'Big Bertha' artillery pieces. Russian mobilization and opening of the second, Eastern front of the war was delayed by limitations of the Russian railway and logisitical systems. French military doctrine presumed that the best defense was a strong offense, and thousands of French casualties resulted from ill-advised infantry assaults on entrenched German machine guns. (The Germans started the war with far more, and heavier, artillery and mchine guns than did the French.) French troops wore red uniform trousers, while the Germans had adoped the much harder to see gray uniforms. Meanwhile, the British Expeditionary Force was both smaller than promised and late to the party for an assortment of political reasons. Poor communications all across Europe hindered both sides' forces. You've pretty much got your pick of technological and human factors if you'd like to take either side (or a combination thereof). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the American Civil War, for example, I think you'll find that the factors there were resources, competence, and commitment. The North had plenty of the first one and a shortage of the other two. The South was like the reverse. Once the North fully committed, and found some competent leadership, the South was doomed. The far trickier problem, though, is maintaining once "major combat operations" are done. We did it the right way once - in Europe following WWII. We've done it the wrong way all too often. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also argue that "outcome" was a lot more than who won and who lost...which makes this answer doubly difficult. Invention of penicillin may be as much an outcome as a cause - and (arguably) with more long-lasting consequences. SteveBaker (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette on use of letters after your name[edit]

Hi, Can anyone advise on the proper business etiquette regarding the use of professional qualifications/professional bodies letters after your name (eg ACII, FIA, etc). Specifically in relation to use in the UK and in the order you display them (eg university qualifications 1st, professional qualifications, highest to lowest) and whether it is ok to use 2 professional qualifications from the same body where one is at a higher level than the other (eg Dip CII & ACII) or whether this is frowned upon. The letters I'm trying to find the correct way to use are: MA (hons), ACII, Dip CII, CITIP. Thanks AllanHainey (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at our article on Post-nominal letters? It appears to address at least some of the questions you've raised. Ka renjc 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever grants the qualifications that entitle you to those letters will probably specify conditions of how to use them, especially how to use multiple from the same organisation. --Tango (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't check 'post-nomial letters' as I couldn't think what they could be called other than letters after your name. AllanHainey (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entire office in a PDA?[edit]

In a business video I saw recently, one guy claimed that he ran his business from PDA. He went so far to say that the PDA is his office. Is it really possible?. If yes, what sort of PDA can do that trick?. 131.220.46.25 (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC) dattenfe[reply]

What sort of business was the man in? Some forms of business are conducted almost entirely on the phone, in that case your computer needs might be completely satisfied even by an old Palm Pilot.

Even if your business is a little more typical, you could conceivably do a lot with a PDA. I know that there are office suites available for PalmOS[1], I assume that WindowsCE also has similar offerings. For many businessmen an office suite and an email program would be enough.

I'm not sure why anyone would do this, however. PDAs are great for jotting down quick notes or reminding you of appointments, and managing ToDo lists, but doing serious work on them seems like it would be uncomfortable.

(On the other hand, in College I did a lot of class work and note-taking on my PalmIII.) APL (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One might assume that there's a bit of hyperbole in his statement, as well. Tomdobb (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One might also assume that his business involves selling PDA's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that he could print receipts or contracts on it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Only e-mail. A truly paperless office. With shredding at the touch of a button, in case you get audited. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible to use your PDA with a network printer. APL (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - and you also can't run your company website off a PDA - your corporate email has to arrive at some server before it goes to your PDA...there are all sorts of other things you absolutely can't do. If you have a small/simple business and are prepared to kinda ignore "external" things like printers and web servers...then yes, you can slowly and inefficiently use your PDA. But is that a GOOD way to run your business? Probably not. You can't type as fast on a PDA as on a laptop - so you're wasting more time responding to emails/whatever than you otherwise would. The PDA's memory has to be backed up onto external storage or else your entire company records will be lost if your PDA is stolen/broken/misplaced - that requires an external computer of some kind (I bet the guy in the video doesn't do that!). So, while (with careful ignoring of reality) you might CLAIM to be able to do this...whether you SHOULD do this is much more problematic. SteveBaker (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice answers. I now suspect that the guy actually sells PDAs for a living. Because he refered to the brand instead of referring to it as PDA. For the sake of my curiosity, can you please list all business tasks that a laptop can do that a PDA cannot?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.24 (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think in most cases, it's not that a PDA can't do it, it's just that a laptop may be faster. The full size keyboard and larger memory are two advantages of a laptop which allows you to answer email faster and store more info. I've found that writing spreadsheet formulas is a much, much faster on a laptop. On the other side, a laptop also has to be backed up and can't print (without an external printer) just like a PDA. The only things that I can think of that a laptop does that a PDA can't is burn CD's/DVD's and use a wired internet connection.Tobyc75 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly come up with tasks that need a terabyte of disk space and two gigs of RAM that a PDA can't touch - and some businesses need that. But I agree with Tobyc75, in the vast majority of cases, it's not that the PDA can or can't do it - it's that it can't do it fast enough. Something as simple a typing in an email is painfully slow on those teeny-tiny keyboards or with handwriting recognition. If you spend an hour a day writing emails on your laptop - then that could easily grow to three hours a day on a PDA - and at that point, you should say that realistically: "The PDA can't do email"...although it clearly can in the situation where you have to ask someone a quick question while you're waiting at the airport or something. Writing a detailed 50 page report with pictures on a PDA would be exceedingly hard - but trotting off a quick 5 line memo is no big deal. When you get to your customer, you can hook up your laptop to a video projector and give him a powerpoint presentation - try doing that with a PDA! But it all depends on what your business is. If you're a used car salesman - then, yeah - a PDA would certainly do the job. If you're me...even a laptop won't do. I need my 8Gbyte quad-core dual nVidia 9900 with two flat panel displays and a Goldtouch ergonomic keyboard that they don't make anymore - a PDA would be a total joke! SteveBaker (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

car speed[edit]

Which car in production has the highest top speed? Not looking for concept cars or cars people install a jet engine into. Just something from the factory with no special aftermarket modifications. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_automotive_superlatives#Performance has an alleged answer. Don't know if it's still accurate- this is the kind of thing that could easily change when some new supercar comes out. Friday (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That listed the SSC Ultimate Aero TT, however as the "production run" was 25 it only technically makes it. How about I more specifically define the question in that the car must have production of 1,000 or more. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll to the bottom of SSC Aero, you'll see it's listed as the incumbent speed holder; it also lists the previous holder as the Bugatti Veyron. If that doesn't satisfy you for whatever reason, just keep going back (all top-speed-holders have this template) until you find one that does. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest production car Livewireo (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest in a straight line is a lot different from fastest around a track - which is a lot different from fastest on in a standing quarter-mile drag race. The Bugatti Veyron is usually awarded the title - but it gets a little tricky when you try to delimit what is a legal street car that's actually in reasonably large-scale production because there a lot of tiny little companies who turn out just a handful of cars each year - maybe mainly for track use - maybe just borderline street-legal. I've always lusted after an Ariel Atom (by no means the fastest car on the planet - but perhaps the most fun of the borderline-affordable cars) - and they are street-legal in many countries - but not here in Texas. Would something like that count? That's why this is always a topic for debate. SteveBaker (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atom...*drools* Vimescarrot (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Can I get a list of ACTUAL American made/designed military aircraft?[edit]

Can I get a list of ACTUAL American made/designed military aircraft? Nothing that was designed nor made from other countries, such as England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.4.87 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much shorter to list US military planes that were not designed and built in the US. Frankly only the AV8B springs to mind. Most are US born and bred. The United Kingdom (the sovereign state of which England is a part) has built maybe three military planes in the last twenty years, all in coooperation with other European countries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of military aircraft of the United States is the place to start. In most cases, that article clearly designates when a craft came from another nation. Most aircraft listed there have their own articles where you can read about the history of design and production. If you want the exhaustive reference, try Jane's All the World's Aircraft. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much harder to find a military plane where none of its parts were made outside the US. But if you discount that, I'd pretty much agree - the AV8B (Known as the "Harrier" in the UK, where it was designed and originally built) is really the only one I can recall that wasn't US made - and even then, the design was licensed for manufacture in the US. There has been talk of using Airbus for the next generation of in-flight refuelling tankers...but it's just talk right now. The politics of military spending makes it virtually impossible to buy stuff from overseas - no matter the merits. When I worked in flight simulation, the company I worked for ("Rediffusion" - a UK company) had to set up a US-based subsidiary to make simulators for the US military market because there was simply no way to sell them otherwise. There are half-hearted justifications related to the risk of not being able to get spare parts in time of war if a foreign country were sourcing those parts - but that's a pretty unrealistic concern in the case of British planes. In the end, it has nothing to do with the technical merits and everything to do with the way US politicians get votes. SteveBaker (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar up for grabs![edit]

I'll give a barnstar to anyone who can name the spider in the photograph on the right-hand side. Jolly Ω Janner 23:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is a Daddy long legs spider (Pholcus phalangioides). See also here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I name him Octavius. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Hmm.. seems he's been wounded in battle - missing a leg. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Septavius as he only has seven (sept) legs? Jolly Ω Janner 00:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar is up for grabs if you can name the next photograph! Jolly Ω Janner 00:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be Tegenaria domestica, hard to tell at this resolution. --Dr Dima (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, followed the link to the high-res version. Still looks like Tegenaria domestica ::) --Dr Dima (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second thought: Tegenaria atrica is a more likely identification. Sorry about that. --Dr Dima (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, I think it's the first one, the "common" house spider. I've seen many of them in my lifetime, so I think they are indeed "common" spiders. Thank you very much! Jolly Ω Janner 01:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]