Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 December 5

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.

December 5

Answer to this brainteaser?

Geno leaves Montreal on a train at four minutes past the hour. After boarding, he sticks his lil head out the window and yelled at the ticket man, "How far are we from Toronto?" "Trains take 5 hours either way," he screeched back. "How many trains will I meet on the way?" asked Geno bravely. "Trains leave Toronto at five minutes past the hour, each hour" He squawked back. How many trains will Geno meet? 131.123.112.1 (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's 10. The five trains that have departed Toronto in the last five hours and are still en route, plus the five trains that will depart Toronto during Geno's five hour journey. APL (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's ten. Heck froze over (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the 10th train departs Toronto 1 minute after Geno arrives. So it should be 9. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 04:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought this, but having done some working I think 10 is correct. If we imagine, for the sake of argument, that Geno departs at 12.04, he will meet trains that departed Toronto at 07.05, 08.05, 09.05, 10.05, 11.05, 12.05, 13.05, 14.05, 15.05 and 16.05, before he arrives there at 17.04. The train that departs at 17.05 would be the 11th train. Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea 10 is correct. I miscounted. :) ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

One. Unless he pulls his stupid head back inside. Zero, if there's a tunnel on the route. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Polearm tactic name

I seem to remember that there was a specific name for keeping a polearm between yourself and your enemy to keep them advancing -- perhaps something like 'posting' -- but after quite a bit of quality time with a search engine I can't seem to find that word, or at least any confirmation that 'posting' is the correct one. Hopefully someone here might know the answer. Recon Etc (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you be misremembering "grounding", where the butt of a pike or lance is grounded to better resist impacts, as in a pike square or shiltron? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, or at least I don't think so; the technique specifically referred to defending against other foot soldiers. However, I did find a section at [1] discussing the use of polearms, where it seems to be referred to simply as "The Field or Middle Guard". Thanks for giving me the searching lead I needed. Recon Etc (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Scandal-ism

Hi. I recently posted a similar topic on WT:ITN, but received no responses. My question concerns why the media, and people in general, are often so focused on scandals, which people often claim discredits a group of people or evidence. Is this potentially based on an illusion that the reputation of professional and corporate groups is generally secure and that people always practice the expected expertise? It seems, though, that most groups regardless of high-standing and individuals are drawn toward financial gain, which often leads to scandals. For example, the clamour over the climategate incident occurred when laypersons and mostly-conservative media expounded apparently revealing conversations in hacked emails, when they were in fact taken out of context. As the suggested intent in some letters did not appear to confrom to principles of scientific conduct, some concluded that the emails showed fraudulent activity, or that climate change was in its entirety a money-seeking "scam". However, I remember concluding years ago that it was a 'myth' that most scientists always demonstrated high-level expertise and would not make mistakes similar to that of the average layperson, nor communicate in such a manner. In almost any profession, incidences occur when people act un-professionally or have double standards and this sometimes leads to a decline in reputation or public outcry. Is this an informed description surrounding media focus over scandals, or am I missing something? Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a long-established fact that scandals are more interesting than the mundane, i.e. they sell more newspapers or enhance TV ratings. It's not for nothing that newspapers have often been called "scandal sheets". The article on Yellow journalism might talk about this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There's undoubtedly a form of double standards in media where public figures are attacked if they misbehave at all (English rugby players got drunk! How shocking![2]). But this isn't necessarily because public figures are idolised - the way politicians were dragged through the muck on the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal, the victimisation of Chris Jefferies, or the wave of untrue allegations about the McCanns shows that journalists are as likely to pile in on somebody with an already low reputation, adding to an ever-growing pile of bad stories, as to attack somebody with a high reputation. The media likes to attack people, but the way it chooses who to attack is complex.

As the Leveson inquiry is showing, the media often has pre-defined targets and devotes all their energies to bring them down (generally they seem to pile on whoever everyone else is attacking, perhaps to go with public opinion, perhaps because they think that person won't sue). Meanwhile serious corporate crimes are often ignored (e.g. tabloid phone hacking was ignored by the media for years, or in the more distant past Robert Maxwell's crimes, and scandals over government financial errors like the NHS IT project were less exciting than MP's expenses) possibly in part because of libel laws. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the wrong Chris Jefferies. You're looking for Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates#First_arrest_and_release. Buddy431 (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The media also hype success stories. A good summary of this is what the sportswriter Max Mercy says to Roy Hobbs in The Natural: "Whether you win or lose, you'll give me a great story!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's another "Is there a name for this fallacy?" question

"The CEO of Joe's Garage on 12th Street is more important than the executive vice president of exploration at ExxonMobil because a CEO ranks higher than an executive vice president."

or

"The commissioners of Loving County, Texas (population 82) are more important than the mayor of Houston because counties rank higher than cities."

Is there a name for this fallacy? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Credentialism? --Jayron32 04:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A type of Accident (fallacy)? PrimeHunter (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Define "more important". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You could also go with False premise, as this both assumes the type of generalization Accident generally covers as mentioned below, except those generalizations haven't been demonstrated either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recon Etc (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily a fallacy. There is an element of accuracy to each statement. As Baseball Bugs suggested, it depends on the definition of "more important." For example, the CEO of Joe's Garage is able to make decisions about that business which a vice president at ExxonMobil is not for that business. Relating to the internal workings of each business, the CEO of Joe's Garage does indeed have more power. But when extrapolating to the effect of that decision on rest of society, the status changes. Similarly, the status of county commissioner vs. mayor is largely a function of the geography of the questioner. I live in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania, and the decisions of its commissioners have far more effect on me than those of the mayor of Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh decisions may have some transcendent effect in that they can influence the state government. The Houston mayor and Loving County officials have little to no effect on me. So there is no general answer to this. — Michael J 17:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hiearchy wise, the CEO is ahead of the Vie Pesident. However, it's not so much whether the decision made affects any one person, it's about how many different people are affected, so even if Michael J is not affected, I and millions of other people would be. The CEO of the garage would affect dozens of workers and hundreds or thousands of customers. Vice President would affect thousands of workers, and possibly millions of customers. Heck froze over (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, define "more important." Is it more important to me, or more important to the world. Either is a valid parameter, depending on context. — Michael J 18:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends how you look at it. Within the company, the CEO wields more power. In the company hiearchy the CEO is higher up. However, the Vice President would affect far more people. Heck froze over (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If the CEO switched jobs and went to ExxonMobil, I think he'd pretty quickly discover he'd become less important. As many above have said, this is a matter of perspective. --Dweller (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(In response to what Dweller said, it depends what kinda job the CEO got, anyone of any importance would diminish in importance when they take up a job as a janitor. To someone within both companies, the CEO would be more important than the Vice President.) I'll put it this way. To any one person, something/someone is more important if it/they affects them more. Looking at it from a world wide perspective, something/someone is more important if it/they affect a significant number of people. Heck froze over (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me give the context -- I've found myself in debates on Wikipedia in which people try to set hard-and-fast rules for what is OK for inclusion or deletion in various spaces. For example, in In The News, we get people who say that an election for the prime minister of Nauru must be posted, because it's a country, but we can never have an election for governor of California, because it's sub-national entity, and countries are more important than sub-national entities. To focus strictly on the hierarchy while ignoring things like population, article quality, reader interest, etc. sounds like some kind of fallacy. A similar argument could be that Wikipedia should have articles on all professional athletes and no amateur athletes (thus including a rookie league baseball player but excluding Andrew Luck). Whether these policies are good or bad is not something I want to get into here; I just want to know if there's a name for this kind of reasoning. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Complete year in review

In December, some (perhaps many) news organizations (newspapers, radio stations, websites, and so forth) review the highlights of the calendar year (January to December). However, it seems that they cover only about the first eleven months (January to November) of the calendar year, and omit December of the current year as well as December of the preceding year. Which news organizations wait until January of the following year, before reviewing the complete calendar year?
–Wavelength (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The (British) Guardian does a lot of reviews of the year but their interactive review of 2009 goes up to the 31st; it was last updated the following January 12th.[3] The Toronto Globe And Mail published in late December but updated in January.[4] Dave Barry's was published on January 1.[5] The Wandsworth Guardian does one day a month starting on Xmas eve - this means they don't reach December till about January 4.[6]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the reason for doing a review of the year in late December is partly because very little happens in Western Christian countries between Christmas and New Year. News-wise, most parliaments are closed and businesses are on holiday. Films/music/etc will be made available to critics well in advance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of news can happen during that period, like the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. However, since such news will still be on the front page, there's little need to also include it in the "year in review" part of the newspaper. Admittedly, this is annoying if you look at previous "year in review" sections and they miss big stories like this. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all the replies, especially but not exclusively the ones which answered my question.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Auto parts

The guy who changed the oil on my car said there is a small part missing on the cooling system that should be replaced. But he wasn't sure what it was called, so I can't go to the auto parts store and order one. It is a small tube just a few inches long that connects the plastic coolant reservoir with the radiator, just below the radiator cap. (The car is a 1995 Mazda MX-6 LS.) Does anyone know what this tube is called? Thank you. — Michael J 19:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If the counter assistant can't tell you what the part is, then ask to speak to their supervisor. This sort of query should be within their skill level. Also, someone here will then point out, that you can get a piece of the same sort of tube at a fraction of the price from somewhere else. Then someone else will say “Ah but it is not a warranty part", etc., etc., etc.--Aspro (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you've been running without that part, I bet you've lost radiator fluid, due to it spilling out the hole when it heats up. You may have smelled this. You may need to add more fluid as soon as you replace the tube. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe I will go to the parts store and ask an employee to come outside and see where the part should go, so that he/she will know what I am referring to. — Michael J 20:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the official name but I've often heard it called either the overflow hose or the return hose. Ditto to just going to the parts store and asking for a new one while providing a description. They should know what it's called. Dismas|^(talk) 20:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Parts stores I've used generally have access to car & engine diagrams which enable them to identify parts for which summoning up a reliable name is difficult or impossible. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Business expansion-looking for product supplier

I have recently decided to expand my business venture in a direction I believe is developing into a potentially valuable gap in the market, and so have been making arrangements, researching, investing in equpiment and so on, but yet, though everything seemed to be going so well before, I have hit a problem with a single vitally important part of the puzzle. You see, i need to buy from somewhere a sheet of PVC plastic of certain specifications, it has to be in the region of 6' * 9', or perhaps slightly larger, 0.3mm thick, light yellow, gold or pale brown in colour, and I just cannot find anything remotely close to this anywhere. I would be willing now to compromise on some of these, but everywhere I look on the internet, and I have been searching for days, I find rigid, corrugated transparent blocks, brightly coloured A4 sheets, and companies willing to sell me rolls of the stuff only by the mile.

So, I have finally come back here to this site, hoping that someone on here has at least the vaguest idea where I could go to find someone willing to sell this material in this quantity. If not, truth is the whole thing falls apart and I might as well go back to what I was doing before, just for such a simple thing, that surely someone somewhere must be selling.

HS7 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give us more info on why you need this and why your business will fail without it ? Perhaps we can recommend alternatives if we can't find it for you. StuRat (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like these guys can make what you want, but I don't know what their minimum order size/amount is: [7]. Tell them what you need on the form and get a quote. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your mixture of units seems odd. Do you really mean 9 feet by 6 feet by 0.3 mm ? That's more of a "film" than a "sheet". StuRat (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this is far too thin for usable PVC at that length and width. If this is an error and 3 mm is meant, then rolls of plastic film are sold for construction purposes, making buildings airtight. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, 0.3mm was the intended size, I have seen the stuff available for even less. 0.4 might be acceptable if necessary, I guess. The link given above is not of much help, I am afraid, what they sell seems to be thick solid blocks of the stuff, I am looking, as remarked above, more for a thin film of the material. HS7 (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There are various types of PVC, depending on flexibility and other properties. Is it PVC fabric you're looking for, the sort used for alternative fashion and fetish clothes? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds similar, though I am not intending to make clothes from it, that would be the sort of style and flexibility I would be after. As well, it would have to be waterproof, I am led to believe now that many PVC sheets have lots of tiny holes in them, some remnant of the manufactring process... HS7 (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Bad lesbians

My girlfriend and I were telling one another how wonderful we are (we're still in the excessively schmoopy phase of our relationship), and we realized that neither of us could think of any lesbians who are bad people. No evil dictators or criminals or mad scientists or anything. But it's possible that, in our infatuation with each other, we're forgetting someone. Can anyone who isn't in love at the moment think of a notable lesbian who is a bad or evil person? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Do they have to be famous ? The problem is that there are so few famous "out" lesbians that we may not know of any evil ones. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

How about Aileen Wuornos, the subject of the movie Monster (2003 film) ? I suppose it could be argued that she was bisexual, though. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I just did a Google search using the words lesbian and convicted. It produced lots of hits. You have every right to ignore the first one, which is about a "bad" lesbian who was evil enough to conduct a same-sex wedding. But it looks like there's a lot of other juicy stories there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with StuRat: there just aren't enough historical "out" lesbians to give a meaningful sample size. I would hazard to guess, though, that the rate is the same for everyone else. People are people, regardless of orientation, race, religion, etc. Bad people will simply be bad, and good will be good. Mingmingla (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be almost impossible for an "out" lesbian to get in a position to become an evil dictator (It'd be hard enough for any female!), and the most recent "mad scientist" I'm really aware of is maybe Tesla in his later years. The era of that sort of solo tinkering scientist is pretty much over, mad or otherwise. Again, in that era female scientists we rare, and the concept of "lesbian" barely existed in the public mind back then, except perhaps as a shameful mental disorder.

But if you just want "bad" try Gwendolyn Graham and Cathy Wood. Serial killers.

APL (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just remembered that there are rumors that notorious accused murderer Lizzie Borden was a lesbian. That may have the level of intrigue that you're looking for. However the rumors seem to be based on the absolute thinnest of historical evidence. (She never married, and she was friends with another woman who may have been a lesbian, and that's it. ) APL (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Was going to say a similar thing. While I'm guessing most people here could name some 'evil women', the number would generally be sigificantly less then 'evil men'. The percentage of women who are lesbians is small so even mathematically if everything is equal it follows it's going to be harder to find an evil lesbian. And when we consider that the concept itself is fairly recent and that to this day lesbians would often face even more difficulties getting in to a position where they can be any of the things mentioned then women, it's easy to see the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How about the woman who shot Andy Warhol? I'm sure there are plenty of evil lesbians, it's just that it's only been recently that there have been a lot of "out" lesbians in society. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

According to our article, Valerie Solanas (author of the SCUM manifesto, the person who shot Andy Warhol) was a lesbian, although it seems she also identifed as asexual sometimes, and from the sounds of it (the article could do with tidying up) she also had relationships with men at least at some point in her life. Smurrayinchester 00:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry Mwalcoff, looks like we both had the same idea at the same time! Smurrayinchester 00:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• If we assume that lesbianism is the modern cultural construction of a way of living of women who have sex with women, which involves being "out" even if in a small insular circle, then I suspect it would be difficult to find instances of lesbians who have been politically "bad." If we assume you're asking if women-who-have-sex-with-women have been politically bad, then we can start examining historical texts of major female political figures known to have had sex with women, and engage their politics against a view of normative morality. Elizabeth Bathory appears to have sadistically abused other women in a sexual context; the political implications of this sadistic abuse were that her conduct was atypical for political figures of her time, and this (given the structure of feudalism as interpersonal fealty and liege responsibility) was politically abhorrent within the normative conduct codes of her time. I am assuming, here, that a "Prince," such as Bathory was in Machiavelli's construction of Princedom, may be abhorrently cruel in the service of the state. Bathory's cruelty does not appear to have been in the service of the state, ie: in the service of her function of Prince, but rather does as ostentation and feudal display without serving her Princely rights. Bathory was a bad woman who related to women in clearly sexual manners. (We may here compare her to Elizabeth I of England, or Catherine de' Medici who were both "Princes," but did not conduct abhorrent acts for personal sexual pleasure; rather their acts served their responsibility to the State). In modern moral terms, of course Bathory is a monster, breaking any number of rules of safe, sane and consensual BDSM; permissable actions for a political leader; and, codes of assault. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Now we know why FQ has been so scarce lately. Don't think I hadn't noticed!. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A few notable bad lesbians:

• Tracey Wigginton
• Valerie Page Parashumti and Jessica Ellen Stasinowsky
• Enslin Cupido and Magdalene Marthinus

Wigginton, Parashumti, Stasinowsky were convicted of murder. Cupido confessed to murder and accused Marthinus of helping, but I can't find a specific reference that says they were convicted. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Rosa Klebb was pretty bad. LANTZY^TALK 06:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I guess there are a few bad lesbians after all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Then there's the sub-category of Lesbians who are bad at being Lesbians. Ann Heche comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

From our article lesbian, a 1970 definition: "A lesbian is the rage of all women condensed to the point of explosion." Given human nature, it seems likely that some of these lesbians used their explosive rage less than constructively. If they did bad things with their anger, they might be argued to come into one category of "bad lesbian". BrainyBabe (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A baked good with a full-day's nutrition on it?

Greetings! (I pray that this question be somewhat less controversial than my previous one.)

A few years ago—when I was living in Phoenix, Arizona, USA—I remember reading about a rather unusual punishment given to certain unruly detainees in the Maricopa County jail. The sheriff, Joseph Arpaio, announced that inmates who abuse, batter, or throw feces at his deputies would be given nothing to eat all day except two wafers (of sorts) and tap water. The "wafers" in question reportedly contained a full day's recommended allowance of vitamins and minerals, and 3,000 calories of energy (combined). They didn't taste very pleasant, however.

I'm curious as to whether one may buy this unique product anywhere. I've tried for more than a year to find it on the Internet or in a nutrition store to no avail. Admittedly, it is not very marketable.

Does anybody know who manufactures it, however, and if one may legally acquire it somewhere for personal use? Thank You!

Pine (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look at some popular breakfast cereals that have lots of added vitamins and minerals. Still, it is better to get the nutrients from eating a varied diet of fresh food. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Forming a breakfast cereal with lots of fiber into cakes might work. Total Raisin Bran has 20% of your fiber per cup: [8]. It's low in fat, so perhaps it could all be stuck together with lard, to make sure the prisoners don't enjoy it too much. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a "Hardtack". Are you sure they didn't get three? As then, they'd be getting their 3 square meals a day -which is where the term comes from.--Aspro (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't sound such an unusual punishment. I seem to remember that a common ration for inmates put in the 'can' for a few days, was a mug of water and three slices of bread. The smarter inmates discarded the bread and just drank the water – for obvious reasons. I believes that they had a worse punishment in UK prison, where they fed them roast beef and yorkshire pudding with two veg, but made them listen to Donny Osmond all day. They still eat hardtack (or pilot bread) in Alaska, so it is probably still legal – as you put it. [9]--Aspro (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many emergency food bars advertised, and many that can be ordered just through Amazon. If there is a problem, it is that none of them are supported for use (as a sole source of food) for a period beyond 15 days. One of the major drawbacks is the high calorie/low fibre ratio. If the prison was threatening such rations, I would have to assume this was for a (relatively) short punishment period. Bielle (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you may not have heard of Joe Arpaio. --Trovatore (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The food in question was almost certainly some variation of Nutraloaf. The recipe seems to vary from state to state, and even prison to prison. APL (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, AKA "Confinement loaf." One of my personal heroes did a song about it [10]. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)