Miscellaneous desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

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.

June 10

Jackofoz

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Jack_OfOz_-_moved_from_misc_desk_by_Anchoress. Anchoress 01:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

boarding pass printing

I have just used easy check in online on united airlines website, However i have no printer avaliable and cannot print out the pass. I already confirmed my check in online but did not print out the pass. Am i able to go to the airport and use the kiosk to print out the pass.--logger 01:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never flown on United, but I've never had any problems with checking in online and then printing out a boarding pass at a kiosk. The airlines know a certain percentage of people will lose their e-boarding passes anyway. And if you have problems at the kiosk, the attendants at the ticket counter can almost definitely print it out for you anyway. So no worries! –Pakman044 02:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all right just wanted to be sure.--logger 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do birds catch worms

How do common garden birds such as thrushes and blackbirds locate worms? Is it sight of hole, smell, sound, vibration...? Mhicaoidh 05:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This study suggests that in Robins, it is mainly the sound. ›mysid (☎∆) 08:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a ggod reference, its the head-cocking that prompted my interest. Surprising how few studies have been done on the subject, and the previous major study favoured sight, but it does seem sound is crucial. Who would have thought worms made that much noise and birds certainly arent known for their big ears. Mhicaoidh 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've ever played Samorost, you know that worms make a ridiculous amount of noise. V-Man - ^T/_C 02:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speakers. vs. Beatles

I have an old set of computer speakers (4.1/quadraphonic; 4 speakers, 1 sub) in my room. I also have an iPod. Last night I noticed that a certain Beatles song, Day Tripper sounded odd. Then, checking through other songs, I noticed the same with We Can Work It Out. Both were ripped to MP3 from the 1 CD.

The issue is with the vocals. They're still present, but they're very quiet and have an odd reverberation. All other songs are fine, and these songs are fine played through an other speakers. Can anyone explain this? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a problem with the stereo speration through the speakers. The Beatles did a lot of playing around with the vocals coming from one side of the speakers with the music coming from either both or just the other side. Dismas|^(talk) 09:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely sounds like a stereo versus mono problem. Is it possible that your iPod is connected up so that only one side of the stereo is connected and it's going to both speakers? Check the cables connecting them. How does your 4.1 speaker setup decode four channels from two anyway?

It's just sending one channel to each side. That reason makes sense; the speakers and the cables themselves are pretty cheap, and it would make sense that both channels might not be getting through to the subwoofer. I'll try to verify the connection with a test track later. Thanks. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarette-cowboy Engrish sign.

I'm trying to track down a photo I saw a while ago. It was of an engrish sign in Japan that went something like "Warning: do not put your cigarettes on the ground! The cowboy does but he is a character in an old film!". Can anyone remember where it was posted, or link me to it? Froglars the frog 05:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://iconglobe.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/smokingmanner.jpg ›mysid (☎∆) 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like Engrish to me, just common sense. Corvus cornix 20:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the text from the sign via link provided my mysid. "The cool cowboy flicks his cigarette butt into the street. But he lives in an old movie." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally saw the Japan Tobacco smoking manners signs featured on a Boing Boing post. They're not really Engrish, as the English is correct. But some of them are funny. --Bavi H 00:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "Engrish" also has a broader meaning, to include cultural misunderstandings of Americans, such as thinking we are all cowboys wearing six-shooters and spurs. StuRat 02:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business

who are the main exporter of Red Table wine?

France obviously. I know that Australia is now a huge wine exporter of all types. Some other major exporters include Italy, Spain, the USA, and Chile. Did you bother to look at the wine article, where you would have seen this table? The information there is starting to get a little out of date and note that it's not specifically about red wine; I believe that China is now starting to strongly get into the game too. --jjron 12:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think by the title "Business", he wanted the main company that exported it. JoshHolloway 13:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Foster's Group became the world's largest exporter of Red Table wine when they acquired Southcorp Wines (Australia's largest wine maker).[1] -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bodies in a car's trunk/boot?

This is a serious question, as it is research for a novel. How many bodies could one fit into the trunk of a Chrysler 300C compared to the trunk of a Lincoln Navaigator? --125.238.24.115 14:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only obvious solution here is to rent or test drive them, and pile some friends on in. It would be impossible to tell from a size standpoint, since a larger trunk in cubic space could be much less capable of holding bodies, due to the design of it. If you don't have friends that would let you stack them on top of one another, you could try using golf bags as an analog... -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 15:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the bodies have to be whole? Or can arms and legs be cut off in order to economize on space? Dismas|^(talk) 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or a giant blender. A lot of people is just air. Dehydrating them would help too, then you would just have dust. You could probably fit dozens of dehydrated bodies into a car.

Are you allowed to run over them a few times to flatten them before loading the trunk? [2] says the 2007 Lincoln Navigator L has "Luggage Capacity: 42.7 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 128 cu. ft." The same source [3] says the 2007 Chrysler 300c has "Luggage Capacity: 15.6 cu. ft. " I could only find one estimate of human body volume on Google, and it is admitedly a rough one [4] of 2.8 cubic feet for an individual of unspecified age, weight, and gender (sounds small). This would yield 5.57 bodies in the Chrysler 300c and 15.25 bodies in the Navigator. assuming they were intact and that you crammed them in to fill all volume. I assume the protagonist of your novel would not want to fill all the cargo space on the Navigator unless it had heavily tinted windows, in which case he could get in 45.7. The vehicle would be sagging, since the maximum payload is only 1650 lbs for the Navigator. In some vehicles, wedges can be used to "block the springs" to prevent it riding too low when heavily loaded, but that might adversely affect, handling, ride, and safety. Edison 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you try reading "Mob boss for dummies". Nil Einne 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In soviet russia, stalemate gives up you!

I was watching WarGames last night, and at one point it was mentioned that the US had deployed bombers because of the simulation, and Russia responded in kind, and the US didn't want to recall their bombers until the USSR did. How did real life situations like this play out during the cold war? Which side usually gave in and retracted their forces first? It really doesn't seem like either of them would ever give up, logically. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 15:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the backing off was done incrementally and piecemeal. Given the huge overkill both sides enjoyed, it's possible to back-down small sections of one's force without materially changing one's actual strength. You'd probably start by freezing further escalatory deployments - ships that have been making ready for sea stay in port, troop formations on the move stop at an intermediate point. Then you'd deescalate existing deployments - when their fuel runs out bombers orbiting at aggressive forward points are replaced by aircraft flying a less provocative patrol. Finally units would be returned to their barracks, fueled missiles defueled, aircraft returned to their normal patterns, etc. Incidentally, there's a school of thought among some historians that contends the rapid escalation of hostilities at the start of WW1 was due to the inflexibility of the railway-based deployment schedules of the continental powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, and Russia) - i.e. the complexity and fragility of the railway deployment timetable meant that units couldn't be meaningfully stopped, slowed, or reversed without jamming up the whole complex deployment horribly. So, these historians contend, there was no means for the continental belligerents to show their willingness and capacity to fight without going the whole hog and actually committing a huge force to the field (forcing their adversary to do likewise, and thus making conflict very likely). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont Stakes?

Who sung "New York, New York" at the start of the Belmont Stakes?--172.131.84.175 16:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Tynan -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

View from Continental Aircraft flying from San Diego to Newark New Jersey?

In April when returning to Scotland after visiting San Diego, our flight, as described in the Subject Line, which took about 5+ hours, flew over vast tracts of land with no recognisable features (to the naked eyes and from that height). But I was amazed to see many enormous perfect circles on the earth and couldn't begin to imagine what they might be other than, say, for agricultural purposes. They seemed too large to be buildings, and they weren't bodies of water, so, does anyone here have any clues please? I know, I know, I should have asked someone on the 'plane at the time, but we Brits are an extremely polite and restrained race and I didn't like to disturb my fellow passengers. Thanks in anticipation.

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. They could've been Crop Circles, although without some sort of reference as to it's size it's hard to say. They could've also been sports stadiums, but having one out in the middle of nowhere would be odd. They could've also been hills (shadows can play some devious tricks on your eyes) or roadways. Do you have any description other than "circles"? If they were off the ground, they might very well have been silos, if it looked like a natural feature it could be very odd -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 16:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Center pivot irrigation. anonymous6494 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the right answer. Complete circles are fairly well suited to the square lots that land was surveyed into much of the US and Canada; in some places you will also see partial circles. --Anonymous, June 10, 2007: 17:27 (UTC).

Thanks Anonymous. I followed your lead and saw immediately that what you describe above was exactly what I saw from the aircraft. Interesting though, as an aside, is the pattern that is emerging as I periodically pose a question here on Wikipedia. I usually get 2 answers these days, one from respondents such as yourself that proves to be well-informed and correct. And the other from Phoeba Wright that is usually an uninformed shot-in-the-dark that proves to be howlingly WRONG. Thanks again Anonymous, I am most grateful to you.

What was this about you being polite and restrained? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION!

Being right is quite overestimated here at the reference desk. A.Z. 20:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I believe Phoeba Wright deserves a "good try", even if the answer provided is not the correct one, since it did appear to be a good faith effort. StuRat 02:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still wondering how much of an accurate answer they expected from their entire description being "circles". Even 'circles of vegetation" would've been much more helpful -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 11:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a look through our little friend who won't sign his posts contribs clears things up nicely. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 11:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your answers, Phoeba. As for the signatures, User:HagermanBot signature bot has been added to the help desk (but I don't think its working at the moment. We may want to add HagermanBot's signature bot to this page so that when the bot is up and running again, the signatures will be added automatically. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much would it cost to sell electricity?

I've heard that people with solar/wind power to their house can make a bit of extra income by selling their excess electricity back to the grid. Assuming average US energy costs, how much would a single average solar panel save (or in the case of excess) per month? And how much for an average turbine? And would it be possible, assuming you had a large enough amount of wind/solar power, to profit off this? Such as, if a solar panel makes 30$ worth of electricity a month, and you had 100, would it be possible to sell the electricity for 3000$ (of course, after your usage, this could be a bit lower, but you understand my point), and thus basically live off money from the electric company? Ignoring the cost of the panels/turbines themselves, of course...

Unfortunately the answer to this is contingent on the circumstances of your local power supplier and the prevailing public utility regulator. So few individuals sell power back to the grid that the price is determined by the fiat of the PUC not by the market. In some places the PUC forces the utility to buy the power at several times the market value (forcing the power company to essentially subsidise new deployments of renewable microgeneration). Such a regulatory environment will inevitably evaporate as adoption increases. Even now the economics don't really make for really much profit - this guy makes $3000 annually on a capital outlay of $50,000 - a 6% return, and most of his capital cost was paid by the PUC. Home microgeneration makes a bit of sense for supplying your own needs (but only after you've taken care of the lower hanging fruit like better insulation and more efficient appliances). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently in some locales [5] [6][7] the ordinary electric meter will slow when your grid-connected photovoltaic system generates some of your needs, and will turn backward when your usage is less that the solar power produced. The utility would be buying power at the same rate they bill it. Sometimes they have made the argument that the buyback rate should be less than the retail rate, because their avoided cost is less than the retail. Some utilities ratchet the meter so it only goes forward. Others install 2 meters: one to record the power they supply, and the other to record the power you supply them. If a photovoltaic or other cogeneration system is above a certain (fairly large) size which could energize the power line after the utility breaker had opened, a very expensive relay system may be required to sense a fault on the utility and trip the system, to prevent electricuting utility workmen. Edison 20:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not going to be able to make a profit this way. If you could, everyone would already be doing it. However, in locations where you can sell back electricity to the power company, this is very important to those considering installing solar cells, windmills, etc., as the power company essentially acts as a battery system, with you selling them excess electricity when it's sunny or windy and them selling it back to you when it's dark or calm. Since installing a household battery system would otherwise be a major expense, this is critical in making alternative home energy sources cost-effective. However, this does still leave you partially dependent on the power company, and true "off the grid" enthusiasts will cringe at this. StuRat 01:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards stars and stripes on U.S military uniforms

this has been bugging me. The U.S army and marines have the american flag on their sleeves, however the flag is backwards. ie. the stars are at the top right corner, instead of the top left. WHY? Willy turner 18:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is known as the "Reverse Field Flag"; it gives the impression of a flag being carried, blowing backwards in the wind. Laïka 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The generals were afraid that someone looking at the right shoulder and seeing the stars at the top left would get the impression the soldier was retreating. I would love to see a parody of this design feature, where the uniform includes a little flagpole perhaps 5 inches high on each shoulder, so the flags flutter in the breeze as the soldier charges forward. Edison 20:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed Edison's answer which was repeated in prior question and belonged to it. Bielle 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice the same style of flags on U.S. military aircraft — the stripes always point toward the tail of the plane, as if it were blowing in flight. — Michael J 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Shield list

Can anyone please write down a large list of all the shield types they know {Example: Buckler, Kite shield} and at least try to have a good Simple english description and facts about them, this is for the simple english wikipedia's List of shields

Deflector shields? :) --⁪froth^t 19:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a lot of them mentioned in Shield. Clarityfiend 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, of you're worried about being attacked by bacterial enemies, don't leave home without your dress shield: [8]. (Looks like we lack an article.) StuRat 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Printing Costs

I've been sending off for loads of quotes, and I want to know if I'm expecting too much. What I want is a document printing, with the following specs. -Gloss cover (full colour) -52 pages inside, in B&W + 1 colour "OR' Full colour 'depending on price variation' -A4 size -150 to 250 copies

I'm prepared to, aside from these demands, be very flexible. Do you think it is possible to get what I want for abou £700, and if so could you point me in the right direction?

Many thanks!

--Fadders 19:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Pricegrabber.com is a good place to go to get price comparisons. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what are they supposed to be?

I mean, the small reflective bumps used, as well as the painted lines, to delineate lanes on roads. What are they called? Is there any one inventor? Does the inventor get any royalties? 68.101.123.219 22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cat's eyes? --Kurt Shaped Box 22:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they were invented by someone who was working for a company when they invented them, the company that they were working for likely hold the patent rights and the inventor(s) get nothing. Companies often have their employees sign contracts with the company saying that they forfeit rights to inventions and patents and such when doing work for the company itself. Dismas|^(talk) 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, after reading the cat's eye article, it seems the inventor didn't do it for a company that he was working for at the time. So I was a bit off in this case. Dismas|^(talk) 22:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I remember (I saw a documentary about him once), he made millions. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and also Raised pavement marker Mhicaoidh 22:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and Botts' dots Mhicaoidh 22:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dad calls them Girl scout cookies. Recury 18:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A self-help book by a male author

Hi,

A long time ago I found a book on Amazon about trying to avoid looking at your goals as projects to be conquered. Instead, the author recommended working slower, never looking the problem in the eye. The idea was that if you looked at the entire problem, you would become demoralized and unable to continue. I believe that the book had some green on the cover. I think it was based on some sort of Japanese philosophy which may have started with a 'k'. I have tried looking for this book using Amazon, dmoz.org, and wikipedia (for example, searching for articles about Japanese culture.) I also vaguely remember the author having a "Dr." prefix to his name.

Many thanks for any assistance.

I don't know what the book is you're talking about, but I believe the principle you refer to is probably kaizen which originated at Toyota and involves making continuous small improvements which eventually add up to big improvements, rather than trying to make occasional big leaps in improvement. Hope that helps get you started. --jjron 05:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]