Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 November 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.

November 8

What is Virgin Galactic complaining about?

See this news item: [1] So far as I can make out, they wish that the Outer Space Act was more restrictive: they are saying that spaceflight in the UK is currently uneconomical because any commercial space operator has too much freedom, making insurance too expensive. Until they are prevented from doing more things, their hands are tied. Is that the right way to read the article? 213.122.41.68 (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, kinda. If you're an insurance agency, you'd want to ensure that the people you're insuring (Virgin Galactic in this case) are obeying safety regulations, etc. However, if there are no regulations - how can they measure that Virgin are being "responsible"? Since Virgin will certainly need insurance, it's in their best interests to have government regulations which they can point to and say "Look - we're being responsible - we're following all of the government regulations - we've been inspected - you can insure us at a reasonable rate." SteveBaker (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't the insurance company set rules as part of the insurance policy? They need to assess the risks in order to work out what premiums to charge, so it doesn't seem that much extra work to write the rules. I think what that article is saying (it really isn't clear) is that the regulation just isn't suited to private space travel. It's not to do with being too restrictive or not restrictive enough, it's about having the right restrictions. --Tango (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, the first part of your answer seems to contradict the second part, so now I'm confused. Do you mean to say that they (VG) require there to be different legal restrictions, that is, some added and some removed - but also that you can't see why the additional restrictions would be necessary since the the insurance company could just set those rules itself? Meaning that removing restrictions is really all that's vital? (Though I suppose regulations enforced by government inspectors save insurance companies money and act like a spaceflight subsidy.) 213.122.41.68 (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any actual references on getting insurance for spacecraft? I would assume that it is such an unusual and exotic activity that the only insurer, other than possibly a government agency with a stimulus agenda, would be Lloyd's of London, which will supposedly insure anything, so they're the only ones who need to be impressed with your safety procedures. In practice, Lloyd's policies are not exactly discount priced, so self-insurance (that is, "no insurance purchased") would be what I would expect most spacecraft companies would do. Tempshill (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I expect legislation will require good quality insurance so self-insurance would require an enormous amount in the bank. I doubt companies would have that much capital and they wouldn't want to take on that much risk - that is the whole point of insurance, passing the risk to someone else. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, they would probably prefer no restrictions at all but they know that isn't an option. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't go into too much detail. This article says that they want changes to Britain's "1986 Outer Space Act". APL (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No the extra work to write the rules of safety is huge. That's why insurance companies want someone else to do it. Unfortunately also until we have a substantial number of flights, we won't know what is safe anyway. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Cranberry juice in a cosmo

Hi Misc Ref Deskers,

My mum visited New York recently and the trip got her hooked on Cosmopolitans - the drink. Every recipe out there calls for 30mL of cranberry juice to give the drink colour, and it obviously also contributes to the flavour.

My mum and I are Australian, and the juice we find in the local shops is always 25% juice + water + sugar. Given that cranberry juice is pretty strongly flavoured, I wouldn't be surprised if the "cranberry juice" used in the US is the same as the "cranberry drink" we get here, but could someone confirm that for me?

In short to make a genuine New York Cosmo, do we need pure cranberry juice, or is the watered down, sugared stuff okay? And more importantly, with which was the cosmo my mum drank at Mickey Mantle's near Central Park made? --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, cranberry juice in the U.S. is usually actual full-strength cranberry juice. Most is concentrated for storage and transport and then rediluted back to near natural strength, although some is of the "not from concentrate" variety. The industry standard for cranberry juice in the U.S., and the one most bars will use in a cosmopolitan, is Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice Cocktail, which is pretty much just cranberry juice concentrate, sugar, and water. Some bars may use a different, but equivalent, name brand of cranberry juice. There are some "powdered cranberry drinks" like cranberry flavored Kool-aid, but you would never use that in a cosmopolitan. Cosmos are made with real, honest-to-God, cranberry juice. --Jayron32 02:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Cosmopolitan hotel web site doesn't even admit that they have a bar - let alone provide information about the cocktail.

[2] says that sweetened cranberry juice should be used - with 3.8 grams of sugar per 1 oz serving (my head is spinning at the mix of metric and imperial units!) - it doesn't say anything about water content though. [3] says to use more cranberry juice - and to add syrup...that suggests that the sugar is important. hubpages.com/hub/Cosmopolitan-Drink-Recipes says specifically that "Cranberry juice cocktail" is required - so that one definitely wants the sweetened/watered-down version. But then www.associatedcontent.com/article/2190019/premium_cosmo_cocktail_recipes.html specifically tells you to use the unsweetened kind. So the jury is out. The obvious answer is to try it and see...if it tastes like your mum remembers - then you're good to go...you may need to do an extensive statistical study! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

...27% real, honest-to-God, cranberry juice, apparently. [4][5] 213.122.41.68 (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to reiterate and clarify, in the US, it is called a "Cranberry Juice Cocktail" when it is with water and sugar. You can get straight juice in the US pretty easily though, so recipes might call for that. Recipes will no doubt vary, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You can get it, but a lot of places charge a lot for it — you might pay nine bucks for a quart. Trader Joe's is where I buy it; they often have it at five or so. --Trovatore (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks everyone, and Steve, I assure you a proper statistical sample will be taken. Ocean Spray is what we've got and if it's good enough for most US bars it's good enough for my mum and I :) --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What is my chinese name ?

I tried google, but no appropriate answers. I just want to write my name in Chinese. My name is Vijayakumar. I can give you meaning of this name if that could be helpful. jay - victory; "vi" prefix makes it (victory) special; kumar - son ( as in Wilson, Anderson, etc. :) ) --V4vijayakumar (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is probably more of a WP:RD/L question that for here. Chinese versions of non-Chinese names don't tend to translate the actual meaning, they just use the appropriate sound characters. I can't answer definitely what your Chinese name would be, and a confusing factor is that - if I remember correctly - there are different variations used for the same names in Mandarin and Cantonese. One possibility is to check Wikipedia articles for famous people called Vijay and Kumar and see whether they have articles on the Chinese Wikipedia. If they do, you can check the titles on those articles. The Chinese article on Vijayawada suggests that "Vijaya" is 维杰亚. The article on golfer Vijay Singh also uses the same first two characters, so it seems to be constant for Vijay. Similarly, "庫馬" seems to be used for Kumar. From that - though I'd like confirmation from someone who has a better grasp of Chinese than I do - I'd say that 维杰亚庫馬 would be Vijayakumar. Grutness...wha? 10:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

nice suggestion. do they use sound, not meaning ? I thought if victory, son can be written in 10 ways then my name can also be written in 10 * 10 different ways. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, 维杰亚庫馬 would be way too long, as Chinese generally uses two or three syllables for names. Names are usually 'one syllable for family name' + 'one or two for given names'. In my experience, however, while famous people may be given Chinese phonetic equivalents for their names, the general public can also receive names which are completely unrelated to how their name sounds in their language of origin. My Chinese name, for example, bears no resemblance to my actual name. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily "too long." As you, KageTora, non-Chinese (you're right, typically famous people) do sometimes receive lengthier names that are not really "Chinese names" but "Chinese transliterations" of their names. So if the original poster is happy with having a "Chinese transliteration" of his (correct gender?) name, then unless a native speaker -- which I'm not -- says it's absolutely ridiculous, then the longer version is a reasonable choice so long as he realizes it's not a "Chinese name" that a native-born Han Chinese would receive. By the way, names given to non-Chinese can factor in both sound and meaning. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The general usage rules for transliterating the names of non-Han Chinese people is to transliterate by sound - in which case the above suggestion is perfectly fine. Separate names (surname, first name, etc) are separated by a dot.

There are two main exceptions to this: 1. where the name is from a language which either uses Chinese characters or can or in the past has been written in Chinese characters - mainly Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese - in which case the Chinese character representation is used, regardless of sound; this is the equivalent of writing your name in "English" as Vijayakumar. 2. where the person chooses to adopt a separate Chinese name, which may be related in either meaning or sound to the original name, but does not have to bear any relations, e.g. Chris PattonChris Patten, Kevin Rudd. This would be the equivalent of you, Vijayakumar, adopting an English name, say "Victor". As might be expected, with most names it's impossible to find "the" or even a reasonably numbered set of "correct" Chinese names in this latter case. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Chris Patten (one of my personal heroes), not Patton. I've added a hatnote at the latter's article. --Trovatore (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction - that's what I meant! - will also correct above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you want to ask, but I would point out that technically, you don't have a Chinese name, just a Chinese version of your name. There is no equivalence like Juan/John/Johann. 70.79.246.134 (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

sound leds

What's the LED thing on retro hi fis that jumps about when sound plays called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.85 (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

'Graphic Equalizer? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

An Equalizer looks similar but is very different. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

VU meter. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It scares me a bit that something with LEDs is old enough to be "retro." Edison (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How about an LED calculator ? I haven't seen one of those in 30 years now. StuRat (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A Marchant rotary mechanical calculator is "retro" to me. An LED four banger is obsolete but somehow not so retro. A vacuum tube amp is retro to me, one with integrated circuits not so much so. Edison (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's one LED meter for the overall sound level, or two for left and right channels, I'd probably call it a level meter.

If it's several LED meters for various frequency bands, I'd call it a spectrum analyzer.

A graphic equalizer is the set of sliders that alter the sound level of each particular frequency range. Graphic equalizer refers to the set of sliders, whether or not it has a corresponding set of LED meters. Apparently, it's called "graphic" because the sliders form a "graph" of the frequency response: Audio Video Glossary - Graphic Equalizer --Bavi H (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr.98 is correct that it was the LED equivalent of a VU meter, but did it have a different name (or just LED meter)? Dbfirs 17:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Airports: abbreviation "PR"

The article is titled List of airports in the United States Under "Primary airports" the term "ROLE" is defined as:

• P-L = Primary - Large Hub
• P-M = Primary - Medium Hub
• P-S = Primary - Small Hub
• P-N = Promary - Non-Hub

Then under the heading "ROLE" the designation "PR" is used and is undefined. What does "PR" mean in this context?Danwargo (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Added header, removed duplicate posting. From the context I guess it means primary, but even lower in traffic than a P-N / non-hub airport. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The response that "PR" means lower in traffic does not square with the presented data. For example, Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (MHT) enplanements are listed as 1,931,563 and the airport is classified "PR". North Las Vegas Airport (VGT) enplanements are listed as 85,900 and that airport is classified as P-N.--Danwargo (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Further roles are:

PR: Commercial Service - Primary are publicly owned airports which receive scheduled passenger service and have more than 10,000 passenger boardings each year.

CS: Commercial Service - Non-Primary are publicly owned airports which receive scheduled passenger service and have at least 2,500 passenger boardings each year.

RL: Reliever airports are designated by the FAA to relieve congestion at a large commercial service airport and to provide more general aviation access to the overall community.

GA: General Aviation airports are the largest single group of airports in the U.S. airport system. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning inside a microwave oven

Ok, OK, I DO actually clean the inside of my micro oven - but is it actually necessary? Surely any splashed food particles that might encourage the growth of bacteria will be zapped by the very nature of the oven itself such that the food I cook thereafter will be utterly safe to eat. Only asking. Don't imagine I am a slut - or want to be. 92.21.39.171 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(Slut? What?) I don't think you clean it because it is a health risk, I think you clean it because it looks pretty gross to have gunk on the inside of your microwave. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Words have different meanings in different dialects. While the 'whore' meaning of 'slut' is widely known in the UK, the 'lazy/messy/slovenly/slutternly' meaning is still in use. The detritus can also become quite smelly, and can pose a fire risk (I speak from shared-house experience). Plus, you can't recover spilt food from a dirty microwave, whereas you can get away with scooping some of it back up (immediately) if you keep the thing clean. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In the US, slattern kept this meaning at least until pretty recently, but is now archaic. - Jmabel | Talk 02:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A microwave oven that is filthy is a microwave oven that's inefficient. All that spatter is being heated up and all of that represents microwaves that are not heating your food. Also, I imagine that unless your filthy splatter is perfectly equal throughout the microwave, you're getting less even heating because particular sections are redirecting more microwaves away than others.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So the logical conclusion is that if something spills on one side of the microwave, you should be sure to spill some on the other side, too, just to even things out. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more important to note is that microwaves are very inefficient at heating very small objects. Food particles that are more than an order of magnitude smaller than the wavelength of the microwaves are very poorly heated, if at all. I'm about to go out the door so I can't dig for the definitive paper on the topic, but it's been demonstrated that fruit flies flitting about in a microwave oven don't get heated and don't die. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Totally unrelated to the OP, but isn't this because the fruit flies (or ants as I've heard elsewhere) can move around the microwave and find the coolest parts that don't receive much radiation? Smartse (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought microwaves work by causing charges/polar molecules to rotate/oscillate very rapidly, thereby producing micro-friction and thus heat. How could anything with water not be affected? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Standing waves due to reflections from the sides of the oven cause uneven heating. That is why microwave ovens have rotating platforms to cook food evenly.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Found this with a quick google search (Q: I nuked the fruit flies on the food, but they survived!). Not sure if it can be trusted but it sort of make sense. Royor (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazing that this subject is here. I just heated stuff in the microwave. The container cover popped off, and now I have splatter mess to clean up. But I'm too hungry to do it first, so I am sitting before my computational device, and this is the question I am reading about. Pretty amazing. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Related question/comment/musing: what makes some clear plastic containers that one can get take out food in microwavable and some not? They can seem pretty sillier similar. The one that says on it that you can microwave heat on it seems to be thinner plastic, more clear, maybe slightly more rigid. What is the distinguishing factor that makes one OK for the microwave and the other not? Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Inclination to melt: Thermoplastics melt, thermosetting polymers burn (at generally higher temperatures). I guess. I microwaved a non-microwavable plastic once - it was...amusing. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, Vimescarrot. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have mentioned that spilt food on the microwave may taint new food with its odour or taste. You don't want to be heating milk and have it smell of the chilli you spilt in there the night before. --Lesleyhood (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

lol...slut... <-- Disregard this please ;) Letter ⁷ 13:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dirty microwaves can be a fire risk, especially with the grease. And the smell of old food taints new cooking. They're easy to clean: just heat a cut lemon (for a short time), then wipe interior with a paper towel. If there's any grease/dirt remaining, squeeze the hot lemon juice over it and wipe again. Gwinva (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm late to this party, but the insides of microwaves definitely harbor bacteria. There is nothing implicitly sterilizing about the microwaves, and in any event they don't often interact with individual, especially dried, bacteria cells. I know this from experience--doing cultures from microwaves. I'm sure there's independent research out there saying the same. Shadowjams (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

NHS health and Safety protocols

Hi I've spent ages fruitlessly looking for NHS health and safety protocols for healthcare professionals regarding the likes of handwashing etc. but have so far found nothing. Are there any health and safety protocols that exist applying to all who work in the NHS or do health and safety protocols vary from trust to trust? I hope someone can help! Thanks RichYPE (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I work for an NHS Foundation Trust and we have our own Trust protocols for things like infection control. I believe other Trusts will have similar arrangements. I am not aware that there are general NHS protocols - there may be, but I've never heard of them. Richard Avery (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

His Dark Materials

In His Dark Materials, a person said that children have difficulty separating fact from fiction. Really? It clearly says in one of the first pages in each novel of His Dark Materials that it is fiction. It says:

This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, incidents and dialogues are products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual people, living or dead, events or locales is entirely coincidential.

Bowei Huang (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a nearly universal disclaimer these days, mostly to head-off any potential libel suits caused by similarities to significant celebrities or groups. You can probably assume that no child bothered to read that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What does the existence of a legal disclaimer at the beginning have to do with children's perceptions? How many children read that disclaimer? --Tango (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)And even if they had, there's no guarantee they believed or understood it. Do children have difficulty separating facts from fiction? I believe Santa Claus would be an appropriate link here... Vimescarrot (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes really, User:Steewi posted "What many parents are worried about when they declaim [Pullman's] books are that his ideas will influence their children away from their parents' religion, because children sometimes have difficulty separating fact from fiction. That was part of a copious discussion that the OP launched with 3 question and persisted in driving. Nothing new is likely to be gained by again trying to prolong a debate about the subject here. For unknown reason the OP seems to neglect the qualifier sometimes in the sentence.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned about the cognitive functioning of an adult who claims that children can't distinguish fact from fiction, than the children being patronized by such a claim. It's very safe positing such ideas as an adult -- no one with any power can hold you to account. Vranak (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The infantile difficulty "separating fact from fiction" may "influence children away from their parents' religion"? What biting sarcasm is that? If children - by different literature - were influenced "towards their parents´religion", would that then prove a capacity to differentiate ficton from fact? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think what these commentators in the media are talking about is that children may begin to believe that the magic-like elements of the books (e.g. daemons -- yes I know there's not the same as demons) are real and cause them to doubt the religion of their family. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, what some commentators are worried about is the possibility that children may end up thinking for themselves, instead of swallowing whole the fairy-tales told to them by their priests or parents. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a post from a while ago! In the context of that statement, I suggested that parents who object to Phillip Pullman's writing may believe their children cannot distinguish fact from fiction. I was not saying that no child can separate the two. There are some adults that have trouble with the distinction, and some children. The context of my statement was in addressing why some parents were concerned by the series. Knowing some of the parents who object to them, it was one of the statements they made. In a less extreme manner, the fear was that the theological content of the series might be adopted by their children by analogy with Christianity. Steewi (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's true that very young children have trouble telling fact from fiction (although not generally by the time they are old enough to be able to independently read such books as the Dark Materials series). However, at that very young age, they are equally unable to tell fact presented by their parents from fiction presented by their parents. We could cite parental imposition of religious ideas as one of those things - but belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are less controversial and more obvious proof of that. SteveBaker (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the same complaints arose about the Harry Potter series. And you're right, kids old enough to read those books are old enough to understand that they're fiction. The age of the kids is a factor, but I remember reading stuff like The Cat in the Hat at a very young age, and we kids didn't think there really was such a creature. Some folks don't give kids enough credit for native intelligence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

When you said that that was a disclaimer, did you mean the all persons fictitious disclaimer?

Do any adults or parents who are against His Dark Materials, who don't like it, or who think that it is bad or wrong know that there is that disclaimer in those books? Do they know that? Have they read that? If so, then why do they still think that their children would difficulty separating fact from fiction or that their children would be influenced by the books away from their religion? If so, then why do they still don't like His Dark Materials, are still against it, or still think that it is bad or wrong?

Bowei Huang (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What I'm talking about isn't parents thinking that they're children can't tell whether there is a real girl called Lyra who has a daemon and travels between worlds or not. Instead it's parents thinking that the *ideas* in the book are dangerous, because children with "impressionable minds" will apply the things Lyra says and is told about her God and apply it to their real-world Christian God that their parents teach them about, causing them to question their faith. Given that Philip Pullman does talk about questioning faith being a good thing, it's not a completely unreasonable thing to consider when considering one's children's reading material. (Personally I wouldn't be banning any children I might ever (somehow) have from reading it, but I would discuss it with them). Steewi (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)