Miscellaneous desk
< October 12	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 14 >

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.

October 13

Question (NSFW?)

Do you know where is an article about a woman's moaning while having sex? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.5.206.236 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd've thought this [1] would cover it, but no. In fact, they make the subject rather bland. My next stop was the Human voice article, which you could follow and see where it takes you. Ironically, the illustration of the vocal cords in that article could probably be added to the initial one I pointed you to, and it might fool some viewers. A better place to start might be Masters and Johnson. They did actual scientific study about human sexuality, and it's possible they get into the vocalizations angle. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Comfort in "The Joy of Sex" calls it "birdsong at morning". --TammyMoet (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if it's afternoon delight? Fittingly, there's a section farther down, about skyrockets in flight. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Speculum gave this address to the International Sexology Congress. 'Delegates, I have recordings that prove my theory that there are 3 kinds of female orgasm, namely the negative, positive and neutral. Firstly I play the negative (click) "On no! no! n-oooh!!". Now I play the positive: (click)"Oh yes, more, more, just like that, y-e-s oooh!". Finally here is the neutral: "Baseball it will take 9 months so why the hurry?"' ' Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know of three kinds: Positive (Oh yes, yes), Religious (Oh God, oh God), and Fake (Oh Cuddlyable3). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amor wins. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're all forgetting the inimitable "It's your turn to sleep on the wet patch". SteveBaker (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry - I forgot to be macho..."...those four wet patches". SteveBaker (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the LORD sayeth, "Maketh it so good, that they will cryeth out My Name!" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a scholarly example of the OP's phenomenon, scan the film Porky's for the "Lassie" sequence. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falling sensation while closing eyes by standing on one leg

Sir, If I stand on one leg and close the eyes, I cannot stand for more time than I stand while my eyes are open. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryamadduri (talk • contribs) 09:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you lose your sense of sight, which is important to balance. Equilibrioception#In_humans mentions this explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seems to report two perceptions: the loss of balance noted above, and the sensation of falling in the title, that may be symptomatic of Acrophobia. Wikipedia does not have much content on balance in Acrobatics. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Giants Stadium

Giants Stadium in New Jersey is to be demolished and a new stadium, Meadowlands, will be built in its place. However, neither of these articles say why this is happening. What's so wrong with Giants Stadium in the first place? And if it has to be improved, why couldn't the existing structure just be upgraded, like Wembley Stadium in London was, rather than building a whole new stadium from scratch? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about the Giants Stadium, but just to note that Wembley Stadium was not just upgraded - the original 1923 Wembley Stadium was demolished in 2003 and a completely new stadium with the same name was built on the same site over the next 4 years. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I've taken the liberty of removing the small tags, since I think your post is pertinent to the discussion. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New stadiums get built to replace structurally sound previous stadiums because there's money to be generated by construction projects. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, in most cases the new stadium comes at such a deep discount to the sports teams that it is essentially free. The local governments (state, county, and municipality) front HUGE sums of money to build these stadiums, basically because NOT having a major sports franchise means that your city is "second class", and that perception tends to, more than anything, drive the desire to keep and maintain huge new stadiums every 20-30 years. So there are two reasons why they are built:

Team owners want new stadiums with luxury boxes, which for their square footage, generate MUCH more income than good old seats do. Plus, the NFL revenue sharing agreement only covers standard seating, exempting luxury boxes. Thus, if an owner hypothetically built a luxury-box only stadium, they could keep 100% of their ticket revenue.
Cities want to keep their sports teams at all costs, and so are willing to bend over backwards to give the owners what they want, because there is another city willing to build that stadium anyways. --Jayron32 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they find Jimmy Hoffa's body when they dig up the old stadium. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They need to check the "coffin corner". (Hey, that was Sports Illustrated's line, not mine.) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, from what I'm hearing, there doesn't seem to be anything actually wrong with the current stadium, except that it doesn't have enough revenue-raising opportunities. Would that be fair to say? I was actually hoping to hear from someone who knew the stadium and could comment on its general state of (dis)repair – which might, perhaps, be a legitimate reason for getting rid of it. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 20:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the empirical evidence that large, concrete stadiums can be safe and viable decades and decades (see Fenway Park, Wrigley Stadium, Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum) with proper maintence and occasional overhauls, then there really cannot be a claim that Giants Stadium is somehow falling apart after 30 years. It is most certainly due to wanting a better stadium than merely that the old stadium is somehow in disrepair. --Jayron32 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New stadiums get built because someone wants to build them. They do deteriorate over time if not properly cared for. But given that the average lifetime of a stadium nowadays is less than 40 years, that's not really an issue anyway. The closest a major league park ever came to being condemned for legitimate reasons would be incidents at Baker Bowl. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how you spell Olympic Stadium where you come from? ;) Matt Deres (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the ten most famous people in the world?

Out of all people ever to live, who are the ten most famous people today. I assume that Jesus is number one and Muhammad is probably number 2, but who else? Does someone like Obama make the top 10 overall? Reference to actual data of some kind (e.g., surveys) would of course be most interesting, but I suppose in the absence of that, your justified opinions are of use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk does not tend to answer questions of opinion, per the rubric at the top of the page. neither do I think there is any objective or near objective measure for the question you're asking. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly an objective measure, this is an empirical question. Out of the 6.7 billion people currently living, who are the individuals that the most have heard of? This is clearly a question of fact. There is something of what might be termed an epistemological problem; in the absence of very good data, how can we know? But certainly, there is an objectively "right" answer and there is room for informed speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... why is it that so many ref desk regulars answer "we don't answer this" when they just don't know the answer? It's incredibly irritating. This is an entirely answerable question and surveys of this sort are done at national levels all the time. Why assume that nobody has done surveys on name recognition? Why assume that this entirely answerable question is asking for nothing more than "opinion"? --Mr.98 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to define "most famous" and "people" first. --Tango (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of good data, we are left with opinion, which as I say, we do not do. Please take the hint. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure some magazine (Time perhaps?) has made such a list before, although they call it the list of most influential people of the time period. I don't recall if they made one for all of human history, or if it was limited to 20th century or whatever. I will look around to see if I can find that article. Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century Googlemeister (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time annually publishes a list of the 100 most influential people of the year. It's not really the same thing at all, and sometimes the people on it are in fact quite obscure.

Alright, I'll get the ball rolling then. According to reliable sources, the following people make the list: Barack Obama ("perhaps the most famous man on the planet" according to the New York Times. [2]), according to the Joshua Project [3], just under 4 billion people have heard of Jesus, or roughly 60% of the world population, this would seem to place him on the list. Other sources include [4], the methodology of which is somewhat suspicious. Nonetheless, it places Shakespeare, George Washington, Einstein, Da Vinci, Lincoln, Walt Disney, Elvis, Michael Jackson, Martin Luther King, and Christopher Columbus on top. This, however, seems to be a highly amero-centric list.

"Most famous man on the planet" suggests they are restricting it to men alive today, the OP clearly means to include the dead. --Tango (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the data on this, but I'm sure this data exists and someone with slightly more initiative could fill this out. First, I suggest a good start would be to restrict our group to adults, we'll use it in the "able to understand" sense and not really the legal sense. I'll make an estimate at 13+ for this?

I assume the size of the population in each country, large religious group, and culture over 13 can be estimated with reasonable accuracy.
I imagine that probably 80-100% of the people in our population know at least the name of the leader of their country. I imagine it's possible some countries are lower, but not substantially lower. I doubt any country has less then 80% of it's population not even knowing the name (or close to it) of their nation's leader. This gives us a good start I'd guess.
- We'd have to add in popularity in other countries, some leaders are more known abroad then others, Obama being an example of a well known foreign leader.
I imagine that probably 90-100% of the people in our population know at least the name of the/a central figure of their religion. Jesus/Mohammad/Buddha/Moses. Eastern cultures in China/India due to their quality of life probably aren't educated as well, but I'd guess that they have extremely basic religious education, at least most of them do, or they wouldn't be put in the count of adherents of that religion. These are some more figures.
- We'd have to note that Jesus is a well known figure in Muslim cultures (he's a prophet in their religion) so he is probably known by a large portion of muslims.

There is a lot more too this, and I haven't went into other historic figures (Einstein/Colombus/Da Vinchi) and I don't know enough eastern historical figures, which probably are on par with those. But I think this is a list that COULD be estimated with some amount of confidence. The fact that we add Jesus to the list with some confidence, and dismiss Millard Fillmore isn't completly opinionated I believe. Chris M. (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this may be worthless subjective opinion but I will dare a list: 1. Madonna 2. Fergie 3. Paris Hilton 4. The Queen 4. Bono 5. Bill Gates 6. Shakira 7. Sasha Baron Cohen 8. Steven Tyler 9. Oprah 10. Kylie Minogue. Sorry if this offends anyone. Vranak (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "offensive", but it is an entirely worthless and no doubt inaccurate opinion. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.98, your characterisation of another's post is less than civil. It is unlikely that you can justify calling their opinion inaccurate. Vranak said the opinion was subjective. It is not worthless because it gives an interesting snapshot of media celebrities at, I estimate, the turn of the last century. ~~You should take care not to be "offensive" yourself.~~ Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's the one that suggested that it was worthless; I agreed. As for accuracy, that's another question, but Sasha Baron Cohen is probably not even widely known in the Western world, much less the rest of the world. The rest of the list suffers from such problems. I think we're allowed to comment on how useful others' answers are. Giving a random list of entertainers is not helpful. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.98 thank you for explaining. I have strikken my last comment that I now feel was unnecessary. I don't think Vranak's list is random; it is ordered and not only entertainers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Sasha Baron Cohen is rather well known among the 15-35 year old age bracket. For more mature people I'm sure he's a bit of an obscure lunatic if the name rings any bell at all. Vranak (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A measure of the notability, or even fame, of Sacha Baron Cohen is that he rates four - 4 - Wikipedia articles including those devoted to Sacha's character creations Ali G, Borat and Bruno. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Benny. Here[5] is a pretty good version of his story. PhGustaf (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the dead are included in such a list, Michael Jackson has to be in there somewhere. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a top ten list, as suggested by the original poster, I'd be doubtful about Michael. Obviously he's well known in the West, but how deep does he fan base really run in the East? I suspect the top ten list would be heavily populated by names that are well-known in both the English speaking world and in China/India given their collective 2.5B people. So Ghandi, Mao Zedong, Confucius, Buddha for examples. Obviously Michael is famous, just not so sure he is top-ten famous. Dragons flight (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, a sorted list of the top 166. Bill Hicks is #164, so that's your grain of salt to take this list with. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the most famous person is Australopithecus. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we accept proto-humans (and a long way proto at that) as people, I doubt many people have even heard of the genus and certainly not any individual members (Lucy is the only one I've heard of and I'm reasonably well read on the subject). --Tango (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's NOT a "sorted list of the top 166". If you actually look at the voting page, it asks people to rank the pre-existing list. The source of the list is not given (I suspect the source is the website owner made it up). I doubt more people worldwide, or even in the United States, have heard of Marilyn Vos Savant and Charles Everett Koop than have heard of, say, Adolf Hitler or Jesus. FiggyBee (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on some of the above: Providing a link to a published survey is one thing; editors providing their own personal, subjective opinions is quite another, and contrary to the rules of the ref desk. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be too prescriptive. No one wants to see the Reference Desks degrade into a mere forum, but I don't think it should be as narrowly focused as Google Answers was either. The activity level of the RDs right now is more than manageable. And of course, in the interest of prescriptivism this comment should be on the talk page :) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, it says, right there at the top of the page, The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions... Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the proper response could be to delete the request. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please keep the meta-debate on the 'discussion' page. Thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia "famous people" links to an article with an appropriate talk page about improvement. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a subjective, but well known list of the 100 most influential people, please see our article about Michael H. Hart's book "The 100". The top ten there, are

--NorwegianBlue^talk 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken car, get rid of it without a loss

So I have a car I paid $1.5k for about a year ago.

Yesterday I was driving home in Charlotte, NC and the brakes failed. I had missed my insepection date so I figured I might as well pull in somewhere and have them take care of everything.

An hour later I have a $1k bill just to pass inspection, and an additional 4-5 hundred for the rest (including the brakes, which hadn't technically failed me on my inspection because they haven't fully failed... yet.)

I left the car in their parking lot but there is no way I'm paying that much, or even close to that much for this car. It's a 1998 Ford Countour.

I was wondering what the process would be to basically have it taken off my hands, and if there is any way I could do that so I can be free and clear and not have to pay anything at all (even towing expenses). Is this possible? What would you recommend? Thanks! Chris M. (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got a friend with a tow-rope? Tow the vehicle to a scrap-yard and they'll (usually) pay you some money for it. Alternatively call up a scrap-yard explain what you have and where it is, find out how much they'll give you for it and how much they'll charge to collect and if you're happy that's that. If you have the time put the car on e-bay (listing the issues honestly) and see if you can't find someone who wants to use it as a shell to nick the best bits from (I know people who've done this a few times as it can be cheaper than getting a number of spare parts from a scrappers). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will cost more to get back on the road than it will be worth when it is there, so its only value is as scrap. Look through the local phone book and find a scrap yard - they may well collect for free in exchange for the car, or possibly pay you for it (I don't know what scrap value cars typically have). --Tango (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it looks like I might get a little over 100 for it (craigs list), how bout that. Thanks for the advice, if this falls through I'll look into your alternatives. Chris M. (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about values, but wouldn't hundreds of pounds of good metal be worth substantially more than $100? --Falconus^{p t c} 23:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps - but only after you've gotten rid of the nasty fluids safely, stripped out the plastics, cloth, ceramics, then separated the metals out into aluminium, steel, copper, etc. The cost of doing all that is enough to wipe out most of the value the metal has. SteveBaker (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is to donate it to some charity in the area - they'll generally pick them up, take care of the paperwork and let you write it off as a donation for a tax rebate. If all you're going to get is $100 - that would probably be the best option, because they'll happily claim it was worth lots more than $100 for the purposes of your tax rebate. I know (for example) that our local NPR radio station does that. SteveBaker (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is probably the way to go. In my area, the name of the charity is Good News Garage (didn't think there would be an article...). They work on the car, get it in good shape, and then give it to a needy family. Dismas|^(talk) 00:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no source for this claim, but I heard that the IRS in the US is now more focused on this as an area of tax fraud; a person with a car worth $100 donates that car to a local charity, where the mechanic grins and gives the person a receipt for a $1000 donation. The person writes off $1000, and the IRS gets angry. Formerly they would not usually find out; these days, I have heard, they are more likely to apply scrutiny to the car-gift writeoff. Tempshill (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd heard that too - but it's hard to police because by the time the IRS come to investigate, the actual car is long gone. The person donating the car can reasonably claim that they have no idea what the value of the vehicle was. The charity accepting the donation are the ones taking the responsibility - but they can probably cite the green-book value of the car which is written on the assumption that the car at least runs and is in a saleable condition - which the wreck that was hauled away probably was not. SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a charity want to do that with a car that is worth less than it would cost to repair? They could just spend the money buying an already working similar car. --Tango (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them have volunteer/amateur mechanics who give their time to fix up the cars for the cost of parts alone - others give them to high-schools who run car repair classes for students - others go to scrap, which still nets the charity some money - yet others are genuinely working cars that just look a bit scruffy and maybe have expensive-to-fix but non-critical problems like non-working A/C or broken electric windows and such. It's amazing how many people will throw away a car when the effort required to fix it is minimal to someone with the right tools and expertise. Once the value of a car gets low enough, a lot of people would rather give it to a charity than have to go to the hassle of selling a really crappy car. SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not provided as legal advice, only as recent experience. I had a car I was considering junking, and asked several seemingly informed persons about the charitable donation route. I was told that all I could claim was what the charity sold it for. So no $1000 deduction for a $100 car. The car was fine except for the one major mechanical problem, so I paid close to the resale value of the car (were it in good condition) to have the repair made, rather than dishing out major money for a new car, or buying a used car with someone else's hidden problems. Edison (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockets in Physics

Is anyone else's class building rockets for Physics?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, please, this is the reference desk, not a chatroom. If you have a question about rockets, ask it on the Science desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Building water rockets is quite a common school physics project, is that what you're doing? If so, you may find that article useful. --Tango (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are make regular rockets with real engines.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 19:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must go to a rich school, or at least one that isn't worried about safety. The school system in my area let us use all sorts of heavy machinery in shop class, but we still were only allowed to build water rockets come springtime. I don't think rockets are built for physics, though. I can't imagine any public school being able to both afford the amount of rockets that would be required, and take the risk of injury or property damage. Xenon54 / talk / 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Even average, middle-class public schools can afford to do Model rocketry. Model rocket engines are for sale all over the place; this website is selling individual engines for $3.50 and full kits to build 12 rockets for $42.00. Schools can probably order bulk supplies for much cheaper from educational supply companies. --Jayron32 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Unless the OP is at university, it seems unlikely that they would be building real rockets. I can imagine a university physics or engineering project to build a sounding rocket. --Tango (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that unlikely at all. Model rocketry can be a hobby for virtually all ages. The engines are store-bought and removable.

The launch-pads are store-bought and come with an electrical launch controller on the end of a long wire. (They often require a key that a teacher could hang onto until seconds before launch.)

Really, it's a perfectly safe hobby. It's entirely reasonable that a single adult could supervise an class of middle-school model rocket enthusiasts. APL (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We got to make and launch model rockets with the real solid fuel engines when I was in Middle School. We even put a rocket engine into one of those CO2 cars and launched it. It goes a lot faster when running on solid rocket fuel. Googlemeister (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1969 Ford Ranchero

Are the doors on a 1969 Ford Ranchero the same doors on a 1969 Ford Torino? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcstman (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Ford Ranchero would seem to indicate some common design features between the Ranchero, the Torino, and the Fairlane in the 1968-1969 model years, but I don't know how interchangable parts from the three models are. If you look around online, you may find a "Ranchero Owner's Club" or something with a forum where you can ask and have a better shot of getting an answer. --Jayron32 20:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]