Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 December 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< December 11 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 13 >
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.


Contents


[edit] December 12

[edit] Driving in slippery conditions

Suppose if one is driving on a slippery, winter road and is aiming to be as safe as possible. Is it in one's best interest to shift as early as possible and therefore reduce output torque, which in turn will reduce wheel slip? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes - although in a modern car, preventing too much torque from being supplied to the wheels is what traction control aims to do. SteveBaker (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, Nellie! I think we need to prohibit driving advice. Someone could get hurt and sue us! —Nricardo (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes Steve, as per the previous question, you should probably be a little more diplomatic in the wording of your answer :) Strictly speaking that is. Rfwoolf (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I've always started from the line in second, when the car could manage it, for just that reason. I can't source it on anything except twelve years of driving stick, but I would say: On ice, always stay at least one gear higher than you ought to be, and when you run out of gears, you're probably going fast enough. I also would recommend that you take your car out to an ice-covered empty parking lot, if one is available, and spin around half out of control for a while where you know you won't hit anything. It will help you get used to the feeling, teach you how to react to gain control, and help you not to panic when panic is clearly in order. (Not advised in SUV's, though, or at least not unless you're really careful not to flip it over.) Good luck. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, anything that helps you give the car gentle inputs should help. Also, if you're willing to spend money, a decent set of winter tires can make a HUGE difference. Friday (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Having many years of experience driving on winter roads, I have learned that what works a lot of time FOR ME (I'm not saying it will work for anyone else, so don't sue me) is when I am going downhill on a road that is slippery, I put the car's transmission into neutral - especially if it has an automatic transmission. This allows me to have a lot more control over the braking, and it also prevents the car's transmission from having any effect on the rotation of the tires. I find also that if I get into a skid on level roads that are covered in ice, that if I slip the car out of gear while braking that I have a lot better result in being able to come to a controlled stop sooner than if the car had remained in gear the whole time. Saukkomies 16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The Isuzu VehiCROSS (and probably other Isusu SUVs) had a Winter Mode button that, when activated, would cause the automatic transmission to start in 3rd gear instead of 1st. Also, for what it is worth, I generally agree with everything above, EXCEPT for the putting the car into neutral... FWD and AWD cars often need power to recover from skids. Still, don't take my word for it -- take some time in a big open parking lot to learn the capabilities and behaviors of your own vehicle. --Mdwyer (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NTSC -> ATSC

I've been looking into TV accessories recently and thinking about the upcoming switch from NTSC to ATSC (here mainly in North America). Now, my question is essentially what will happen to those devices with only NTSC tuners. Now, I know all about the $40 subsidy program for ATSC tuners, but I'm having trouble understanding what this purpose-specific ATSC tuner will do.

So, for sake of comparison, take the current system. I have a TV and I connect my coax cable from the wall (coming from the cable company) to the TV, turn on the TV and all my channels are there (I switch channels using the TV's channel changer). Now, what happens when I have the ATSC tuner? Will it be like a digital box (coax from wall goes to ATSC tuner, cable runs to old TV, TV is set on channel 3 or on TV/Video, I use the ATSC tuner's remote to change channels) or will it do some type of conversion from ATSC to NTSC (and that's all)? --Colonel Cow (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(You mentioned cable TV in your example above, but just so no one is confused: The US DTV switchover on Feb 17, 2009 will only affect free over-the-air TV. Analog-only TVs will need ATSC tuner boxes -- so called "converter boxes" -- to get free over-the-air TV via an antenna after the switchover.)
To answer your question, the ATSC converter boxes are really separate tuners: antenna plugs in to the box, box outputs audio and video via coax or composite cables to TV, TV remains on channel 3 or video input, and you use the ATSC tuner's remote to change channels.
It's not feasible to convert all the channels at once so your NTSC TV can receive them using its tuner. The equipment required would be similar to installing a mini cable company in your own home. You would need a separate dedicated ATSC tuner set to each input channel, a separate RF modulator set to each output channel, and equipment to properly mix the output signals into one cable you feed to your TV. --Bavi H (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Well then, what exactly will be happening to cable (if anything) when this switchover occurs? I mean, from what I know, cable is an analog service (when it goes straight from the wall to TV -- cable box is digital) so I would think this switchover would impact it as well. Will I continue to be able to watch (cable) TV post-switchover on my NTSC TV directly from the wall with no new hardware? --Colonel Cow (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Essentially, yes. At least, my cable company says that I will be able to. Cable companies tend to be private organizations, so your mileage may vary -- right now, mine offers a dozen or two channels of HD (through digital cable), and the rest of the channels are all ATSC. They will continue to do that through the switchover, so my old relic of an NTSC set will continue to work... Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, alright. Thanks for your help Bavi and Deltopia. --Colonel Cow (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
According to Must-carry#Digital must-carry, if your cable company uses analog transmission (that is, so you can plug your coax cable directly to your TV and change channels on the TV), then it must continue to send local "must-carry" channels in analog for three years after the DTV switch over date. But that page also mentions that small cable operators can apply for a waiver. And that page also explains the difference between a must-carry channel and a channel that chooses retransmission consent.
I don't have cable, so I haven't learned more details about how the DTV switch affects cable. The official answers on sites like dtv.gov are along the lines of "ask your cable company." The must-carry information above seems to suggest that cable companies will provide analog channels for three years after the DTV switchover, but with some possible exceptions that I'm not quite clear about. --Bavi H (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aperture of Human eye

Can the opening of a human eye be compared to the aperture opening of a photographic lens? If so, what is the f-number of the human eyes in terms of lenses? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See F-number#Human eye. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I must have missed that. Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ????!!!!

Can this be explained ?

  • theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
  • theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/page2.html

Wikipedia involved in Cabal/ArbCom Exposé.

I really love this site to see it fall apart like this. Can this be placed in any articles ? Really do appreciate your assisstance with this one. Someone is raising a hell of a stink. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

IF I did'nt ask this, someone else would have, and may have done so in a most offensive manner.

One other thing, how does one praise WIKIPEDIA, because it has been of valued assisstance to me ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My investigation reveals that a "!!" is the locus of what I've found. I've found this on my way here concerning another, unrelated matter. MY computer is rigged to go to Google first AFTER I input, for example, Wikipedia in the Icon Box, thus I've seen the mess outlined here. I really do appreciate your assisstance. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


PLEASE read our responses to your previous two questions. NO!!! Nothing you read in any of these places will "placed in articles" - not now, not ever - this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper.
But since this clearly excites you - this "news" has been known for several days now and aside from a few high-up Wikipedian political types, none of the rest of us really give a damn about fights between admins and news of "secret" mailing lists. Communications between editors frequently happens by email when we don't want our words spread everywhere and recorded here for all time. Hardly a day goes by when I don't get an email from someone or other here. Usually it's just chit-chat that doesn't particularly concern the community at large - but sometimes when there is a vandal or a sockpuppeteer on the loose - and you really need to discuss what to do about that person in a place where you aren't going to inflame the situation by discussing them in the public eye. This is really no news - and it's CERTAINLY not going to cause it to fall apart.
If you want to thank Wikipedia - go to the very top of any page and make a donation to help pay for it.
SteveBaker (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats not entirely true. At the time of writing, that article has been added to Criticism of Wikipedia#Administrator actions. Its the subject of much reverting and re-reverting though, so I wouldn't get involved if I were you. Rockpocket 19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The story is also featured in its appropriate location. Wikipedia:Press coverage#December --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that the line between "private" and "secret" is, of course, largely in the eye of the beholder (or, more specifically, the expectations for transparency—a government organization is held to different standards than a private company, for example). Jimbo replied that the list was "private", not "secret". Really depends how you want to see it. I think it is unreasonable to expect administrators to be 100% transparent (what's wrong with a little private chat amongst equals to figure out a good course of action?), though their reasoning should be legible, if that makes sense. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh, equals. Heloooo down there! --ffroth 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outsourcing converting VHS to DVD

I have many home videos that I would like to convert from VHS to DVD. I know how to do this on my own but would rather just pay someone else to do it because it would take so much time. I have found a company that will scan all your old pictures/slides but can't find anyone that would convert VHS to DVD. What are my options? 72.8.91.163 (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The most simple google search appears to list many firms in the VHS to DVD business. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The most simple Google search did not work for me. It just pulled up a lot of how to articles. I know how to do it. I just can't find a company willing to do it for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Here in the States, Walgreens offers this service, as does the Ritz/Wolf Camera store chain. I'm sure there are more. This is, of course, only for "home videos", they won't convert your VHS copy of Star Wars. --LarryMac | Talk 21:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neumann

Was Neumann very rude and ill mannered?I am very much interested in knowing about his personality.Aren't great intellectuals like him supposed to be humble and well mannered?Did he fail in any of his scientific attempts?Was he so perfect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.2.51 (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're inquiring about Johann von Neumann (and not this person). I remember reading somewhere that he made the women secretaries at Los Alamos very uncomfortable by trying to look at their legs. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
So not this person either then.--Shantavira|feed me 11:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Why would you think that great intellectuals are humble and well-mannered? Have you actually met any? I've met quite a few rude and condescending ones! Was John von Neumann (Johnny to his friends) so perfect? No—he was human! He had a great mathematical mind, but that is only part of what makes someone a person. (As an aside, Ulam said he was a lousy physicist because he had no ability to visualize things whatsoever; he thought only in terms of mathematics and numbers. There are a lot of candid opinions on Von Neumann—of whom Ulam counted a great friend and ally—in Ulam's autobiography.) There is no doubt that Von Neumann was a great genius—he awed even other geniuses, who joked that none of his computers could ever compete with his own brain—but as a person he seems to have been prickly, condescending, cruel, a pure hawk, etc. He was, however, not at all unique among his companions or contemporaries for those qualities (Oppenheimer, Teller, Ulam—the whole lot of them except maybe Fermi and Bethe—were prickly, arrogant, troubled, you name it). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, a more measured response might question how we are encouraged these "scientific heros" into "scientific saints". This usually happens by stripping out anything about them that might be objectionable. Einstein was a politically-active socialist, pacifist, and supported Negro rights? Make him a cuddly old man who can't tie his shoes! (Note that neither of these things are at all shameful today, but when Einstein passed away they were extremely controversial). Oppenheimer ratted out his students and friends in an attempt to appease the government? Make him a saintly martyr of modern science, dreaming about peace and morality! Feynman's a hopeless sexist who can't come to terms with his own emotional fragility? Ho ho, look at him cracking all those safes, what a card! (That one's for you, Steve!) Anyway, my point is only that these people are all human beings, and the need to balance their exceptional gifts with the idea that they were also exceptionally perfect people is perfectly natural (viz. hagiography). At the same time, when we find out that, for shame!, they are actually human beings—with flaws, frailties, etc.—it doesn't discount their abilities, nor does it make them figures of fun, nor does it mean we can't admire them for some things more than others; we shouldn't rush to denounce them (viz. iconoclasm). Despite rumors to the contrary, no scientist yet has ever been a brain-in-a-jar, a genius devoid of context, devoid of their own bodies. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitting the Wall

what is meant by the term "hitting the wall". it is a business term and indicates a particular stage reached in a business entity. what exatly is it? Any examples would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.169.98 (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an allusion to hitting the wall in long-distance running. Whether it's an appropriate analogy, or whether like so much business theory it's a load of marsh gas, is another question. Googling "hitting the wall" in business may turn up some useful essays. FiggyBee (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Think of those videos of crash test dummies in cars that are smashed into brick walls. I think that if you carry that image into other aspects of life you can get the idea of what "hitting the wall" is supposed to mean. Saukkomies 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet reference I don't understand

Atypically urbandictonary isn't being very useful, what is meant by

.
.
.
.
5. ???
6. PROFIT!!!!

Baffling. AlmostCrimes (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a meme from Futurama. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
From which episode? I don't remember seeing it and I can say that I HAVE watched every single episode... --antilivedT | C | G 07:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This is from the Gnomes episode of South Park. The underpants gnomes have a three-phase business plan:
  1. Collect Underpants
  2.  ?
  3. PROFIT!
And people repeating it are usually making a joke about poorly thought-out plans or ideas. --Bob Mellish (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's much older than either Futurama or South Park - but our article on Slashdot (which is severely infected by this meme) claims that it was from South Park. Wasn't it in one of those god-awful inspirational speaker/business method books? The idea is that it's easy enough to have the initial idea for a business - and you know your goal is PROFIT! - but the steps in getting from the first to the last are the problem for aspiring businessmen - and was supposedly the topic of the book...the only problem being, I don't recall the name of the book! SteveBaker (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, it is from South Park, my mistake. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 04:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It could be considered akin to this classic panel gag by Sidney Harris. —Tamfang (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it definitely started in south park --ffroth 22:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soap bubbles

A small enough soap bubble is more or less a perfect sphere, right? And this means that if I photograph it, no matter the angle, it will appear in the photograph as more or less a perfect circle? How useful is a digital photograph of a soap bubble of a sample of a circle? JIP | Talk 07:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and depends on how visually distinct the edges of the bubble are. If it not readily apparent where the edges of the bubble are, it prevents the photo from being useful to clearly illustrate the point. A mathematically generated circle would be more exact, but for quick and dirty "this is a circle", I see no fault in your soap bubble picture idea. EvilCouch (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Suggest that gravity will distort the bubble86.219.166.169 (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)petitmichel
Per the anon, gravity will tend to slightly distort the bubble (as will any air currents or other external forces). As well, liquid may tend to settle toward the bottom of the bubble, again depending on its size and composition; this will introduce additional distortion. Smaller bubbles will suffer less from all of these effects than larger bubbles, so the answer to your question depends on how much 'more or less' you can tolerate in your 'perfect'. You can get around this by making sure you photograph the bubble from directly above or below; the horizontal cross-section of the bubble ought to be perfectly circular.
Another strategy is to photograph a half-bubble stuck to a flat surface; the contact ring of the bubble wall with the surface will be a perfect circle. (This requires that the camera be placed directly over the center of the bubble, on a line drawn perpendicular to the surface—otherwise you'll get an ellipse: a projection of a tilted circle.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
An individual bubble is close to a circle. A group of bubbles will approximate hexagonal closest packing. Rmhermen (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In an ideal world, the surface tension of the liquid is combatting the pressure of the air inside the bubble - the 'least energy' surface has the smallest possible surface area (to minimise the surface tension) and the largest possible volume (to keep the air pressure as low as possible). Since the 3D object with the smallest ratio of surface area to volume is a sphere, that's the shape a soap bubble would ideally take in perfectly still air with zero gravity. Since the bubble is falling - it ought not to feel the effects of gravity - but sadly, it's so light that air resistance is not negligable and gravity and slipstream will indeed distort it. Small bubbles have thicker side-walls proportionate to their volume - so they fall more freely and are therefore more spherical than larger ones. Turbulance is also less of a problem for smaller bubbles. SteveBaker (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking eggs

I have trouble breaking open eggs. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganB (talk • contribs) 12:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tap them in the center of their long axis with something hard prior to trying to open them with your hands. Kitchen counters work fairly well, but really anything should be fine as long as it's hard enough to crack the shell slightly, thus defeating the strength of the circular shape. EvilCouch (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
When I'm beating eggs in a jug to make my nice spinach-and-egg stuff on Sunday nights, I tap the egg firmly (and not too quickly), in the way EvilCouch mentions, on the rim of the jug. Twice should do it: then you can pull the two pieces of the shell apart quite easily with your hands. If you're frying the eggs, for example, the edge of the frying pan would be good enough. I invariably find that if I don't tap firmly enough and then try to open the egg with my fingers, it gets very messy! Watch out for stray flakes of shell coming off and landing in the jug/pan, though. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That's why I always break eggs into a measuring cup -- I find a 3/4 cup measure good for this, since it's an odd size that is almost never useful for measuring. I'm sure a metric measuring cup set has a similarly odd-sized cup. --Carnildo (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to break eggs that are open ?86.219.166.169 (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)dt I find a smart tap with the blade of a sharp knife is effective..hotclaws 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Skilled egg breakers (my dad was one) could open an egg with one hand by holding it in the palm of the hand over the bowl, palm down, and pressing inward with the fingers while pulling the egg open, ending with the the egg in the bowl or skillet, and the cracked open egg in the hand. Some could do two eggs at a time in one hand. I expect it took practice. Edison (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Shirley Corriher recommends breaking an egg on a flat surface - not a corner. (I also found a book about How To Break An Egg) Jon513 (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Delia Smith on her TV programme showed people how to boil an egg ! Not relevant, but interesting.86.197.146.76 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

Incidently, this is because of salmonella paranoia. If you use a sharp point or edge to crack your eggs, you can force 'dirty' pieces of shell into the 'clean' egg. --Mdwyer (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I fancy the Salmonella can be already inside the egg.[1] The usual advice is to thoroughly cook all fresh eggs. Richard Avery (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pronunciation

how is meme pronounced? (as in 'internet meme')

is it 'meeem' or 'mee mee'? the latter makes more sense to me because it sounds a bit like someone might be saying 'me, me... look at me - look what I found on the internet..."

thanks 83.104.131.135 (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The IPA code at the start of the Meme article indicates "meem" with one syllable. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It is intentionally meant to rhyme with "gene". It's a biological metaphor, created long before there was an internet. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Meme was only invented in 1976 -- after the Internet started. Rmhermen (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant, "before there was an internet of any note." Anyway it hardly matters; the word meme has nothing originally to do with the internet. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It really depends on what you consider to be the start of "the Internet". See History of the Internet. In any case it's clear that "meme" was indeed derived from "gene" and meant to be pronounced similarly. --Anon, 22:43 UTC, December 12.
What the heck are you talking about? There's no way that meme rhymes with gene. meem, geen. Not even close, you lose. --ffroth 22:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
From Rhyme - "oblique (or slant): a rhyme with an imperfect match in sound. (green, fiend)." --LarryMac | Talk 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for those answers. I shall now try to remember to pronounce it correctly. 83.104.131.135 (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The cost of the USPS eagle logo redesign effort

When did the USPS redesign the eagle logo? How much did it cost? Was there a controversy regarding the similarity with the Seatle Seahawks NFL logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.238.250 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the United States Postal Service logo was redesigned in 1993, and I really can't see much similarity with the Seattle Seahawks logo apart from their both being birds, nor do I find any evidence on Google of a controversy. — Lomn 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Similarly the current USPS logo, though it is just a head, is clearly just taken from their original "full bird" logo which they had in the 1970s. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Sat-Nav

I had an idea for how to improve in car sat-nav. Essentially my idea was that the sat-nav would turn on the indicator at the junction/roundabout exit you required to take. Now I understand there may be technological issues with this (mis-indication could be dangerous), and accuracy issues etc. but considering other technologies being developed I can't see how this wouldn't be plausible. The question? Well does anybody know of anything like this being piloted/developed etc.? I expect it must have been considered, seeing as it would be A) an audio/visual indicator to the driver and B) would (if accurate) help other road users. ny156uk (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this would have a computer indicating the driver's behavior with no idea as to whether or not that actually will be the driver's behavior, I'd have to call it a bad idea. There are plenty of ways to signal the driver without falsely signaling other traffic. As for development, though, I'm sure it's part of work on fully-automated highways. — Lomn 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You make the rash assumption that the driver intends to do what the nav system says he should do. I quite often ignore the turning my TomTom says I should take and let it route me around to my destination via another path. The things on my wish list for Nav systems are:
  1. Better precision so it can adjust it's upcoming turn notification according to the number of lanes you'll have to cross.
  2. A means to have it add missing roads to it's database as you drive down them. There is one road missing from my machine's database and it ALWAYS wants to take me around the long way rather than using it...however, it could quite easily notice that I drove "cross-country" and offer me the option to create that as a new road (either one-way or two-way) when I finally rejoin a road it knows about.
  3. If there is a diversion around a blocked road, there is no way to tell it "I CAN'T GO THAT WAY YOU STOOPID MACHINE" - so after I don't take the turn, it'll keep trying to direct me back onto that road until I'm far enough away that another route becomes faster. This can be exceedingly annoying.
SteveBaker (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I can tell my Tomtom when a road is blocked (right in front of me, 250yds, 500yds, 1 mile, 3 miles, 5 miles) and it provides an alternate route. Quite a few of the newer sat navs do that. You might fidn that missing road appears if you update your map, Steve, although that usually costs more than it probably ought to. As far as the original questions goes, auto indicators are a very bad idea. Neıl ☎ 13:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm - interesting, which Tomtom version do you have? I don't see anything like that on mine...or my wife's either. They are both over a year old though. When I moved down to Austin, I found that a lot of the new freeways weren't on the map - so I spend the money to upgrade...only to find that the "new" maps had less information than the ones that were on my Tomtom to start with! I was very angry over that - not only because they didn't have the latest maps on their web site - but also that their fancy online upgrade gadget actually allowed me to buy and upload crappier maps on top of good ones. I'm still arguing with them to try to get my money back. SteveBaker (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A videogame series called The Getaway had navigation like this. Instead of a map or a radar as most driving games do, the indicators flash to show you which way to go to get to your destination. Though it was clever, it was poorly implemented - you were never quite sure which way to go. In real life, I could imagine satnav like this would be very bad unless there was also voice directions as well - which would probably make the indicator feature useless anyway. Not all cars tell you which indicator is on, they usually just have a generic light on the dashboard flash and the clicking sound. The point of indicators is to tell other drivers and pedistrians which way you intend to go - if indicators turned themselves on automatically then they are not doing what they're supposed to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new(?) kind of site

Hi. Is anyone familiar with any web-based project with goals reminiscent of those of Wikimedia's projects, but with a crucial difference - instead of giving equal editing power to anyone, differentiating the authority and influence based on peer evaluation of each individual's capability to contribute to the project?

Thanks. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Citizendium does something like that, although I only skimmed the article. --LarryMac | Talk 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I figured someone would mention it, and I too once thought it might satisfy the above criterion. However, it only has 2 levels of editorial authority, "author" and "editor", and these are based on credentials rather than peer evaluation. Thanks anyway. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it will help if I explain my motivation a bit. I am fascinated by the power the ideas behind Wikipedia have, and impressed by what it has achieved in practice. However, I am concerned that some of its key philosophies are flawed, which will prevent it from ever achieving true greatness. I have given some thought to an alternative model for projects of this kind, and I think I have a few ideas which might work. Now my options are either to start a project on my own the way I envision it (as soon as I have an idea how to do that, which will probably be some 50 years in the future), or to seek an existing project which is close enough to work. This question is an effort toward this last approach.

To clarify what I have in mind, one of the core ideas will be "proposed edits", which means that anyone can propose an edit, with an interface similar to what MediaWiki currently offers for editing, but this will not be incorporated into the page unless it has been approved. Approval takes place by others voting on how good they think the edit is, and the calculation of a weighted average of votes. The edit must pass some threshold in order to be accepted. The weight of each voter will be based on the direct and indirect peer evaluation of his skills.

This sounds more complicated than it really is. A person who know what he is doing should have a weight high enough to pass edits on his own. People who are more prone to error will need a few reinforcing votes. This will make sure that while anyone can pinpoint mistakes and offer new text, only trusted individuals can make actually visible changes to the page.

This isn't the place to explain any other details of my ideas or to convince anyone of their virtue. I only hope I have said enough to describe what it is that I am looking for, and that someone is aware of any existing project which captures at least the spirit of those ideas. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it is very important that the system behind it won't be idiotic. A good negative example is Yahoo Answers, with its sorry excuse for a peer evaluation system which looks like something they made up at school one day. It should have genuine mathematical reasoning behind it, even if it is based on simplified assumptions. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that comes near to that that I'm aware of is the slashdot moderation system, though that merely evaluates forum postings. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the right track, but I am looking for something more ambitious. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the German Wikipedia testing something like that? Where changes do not go live immediately? I had a link on that . . . --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I, too, have heard some stuff about the German Wikipedia, but I'm not sure what it is exactly. If anyone knows a source which describes exactly what goes on there, it could be insightful. Of course, I don't speak German so it will be of little utility to me for the time being. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's important to remember Wikipedia's history. We started out as Nupedia which imposed all sorts of rules about how articles had to be peer reviewed and so on. Wikipedia:Nupedia_and_Wikipedia details the history. Here is the short version: Over three and a half years of activity, Nupedia only ever reached 25 publishable articles with about another 75 in progress...pathetic! Wikipedia was the reaction to the failure of Nupedia - and after a further 3 and a half years, we now have at least 1,700 articles that we would consider "finished" (our featured articles), 3,200 more that we'd say were "Good" and 2.1 million more in various states of editing. If you neglect the 2.1 million articles that may or may not be any good and just look at the ones that have been reviewed, we have still demonstrably produced 160 times more featured/good articles than Nupedia over more or less the same period of time. In reality, the number of articles of this quality is much higher than that - many wonderful articles have never been offered up for good/featured article status because of considerable amount of red-tape involved. (Hint: LESS red tape...not more!) The power of NOT doing what you advocate should be abundantly clear from this! SteveBaker (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern, but Nupedia really has very little to do with what I have in mind. Apparently, its articles "were written by experts" and "not publicly editable". Contrast this to my ideas that articles are written by everyone, with experts only having a greater say in the quality control. Add the idea that real-world credentials would not be a requirement (though they can be a bonus), trustworthiness can be determined by one's track record (sounds unreliable? There are many Wikipedia editors whose edits I would trust with my eyes closed, even if I have never seen a proof for their credentials. I just know they know their stuff. This is the same, but I wouldn't need to personally know each and every one). This simplifies some of the bureaucracy. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What about minor edits, such as changing a spelling mistake or grammatical error? That would be a pain the ass to have it peer reviewed especially if you were a noob editor! Just my two cents. The ideal of the system is nice though. --71.186.16.100 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
When an anon (no offense) fixes a spelling mistake on Wikipedia, you check your watchlist \ RC for the diff, and see that it was indeed intended to be a spelling correction (not vandalism or anything) and that it is correct (the person didn't accidentally take a correct spelling and make it incorrect). So does everyone else who stumbles upon this edit. We could easily have 10 different contributors all checking that this little edit is legitimate.
With my system, you will still check the diff, but after spending 5 seconds verifying that it is okay, you spend another 2 seconds clicking the "this is okay button" or whatever (the interface needs to make this easy). After 3-4 people do so (or just one if he happens to be a spelling expert), the edit will be accepted and will no longer appear as a priority in watchlists (so nobody else will need to waste his time checking it). Not only does this prevent duplication of work, it makes sure that if indeed this is a bad edit, it will never appear to the public.
Most importantly, this is all transparent to the newb who just wants to fix spelling. He will only make the edit just as he would in MediaWiki. It is up to the more experienced editors to approve it. You might be concerned about the confusion that making an edit and not seeing it immediately might cause; There could be an option to show edits by oneself immediately to prevent it. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of problems with that. Firstly, it's widely believed that the immediacy of the acceptance of your changes is a strong motivator for editors. Delaying "for approval" (it is said) would result in a dramatic reduction in the rate of fixes - I have no clue whether it's true - but it sounds believable. Secondly, it all depends on the ratio of good edits to bad. If edits are overwhelmingly bad - then your approach is worthwhile. But if the vast majority of edits are good - then you are perpetuating incorrect information in the encyclopedia for longer than it needs to be there...which is clearly a bad thing. The sooner a problem is fixed, the sooner the readership are getting good info in stead of rubbish.
What would you do about an article for which no "expert" steps forward to handle it? We have 2.1 million articles - I doubt that many people would want to patrol more than a hundred articles on a regular basis - so you need perhaps 20,000 experts to step forward to do the work. Look at the List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_recent_edits and you'll see that only 1,600 people made over a dozen edits during that month. If you look at Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits, the number of people who have made more than (say) 5,000 edits in their entire time here - that's around than 4,000 people (many of whom have subsequently 'burned out' and left to do other things - and many of whom rack up this edit count in ways other than editing article - ref desk, help desk and admin folk for example). So the number of active long-term Wikipedians is tiny. The vast amount of work here is carried out by the hundreds of thousands of people who each do a tiny amount of work. Hence you won't find 20,000 people who are interested enough to do the regular work of approving edits - let alone 20,000 people who are both interested enough AND who have the necessary qualifications AND who are a good match to the set of articles they are expected to run. With maybe 2,000 such people here, they'd need to look after a THOUSAND articles each!!! With so few willing experts, there is no chance you can afford to have them waste their time checking spelling mistakes - anyone can do that! For this to be worthwhile, they would have to be doing nothing but fact checking. So every day they'd have to check the edits on their watchlist (my watchlist is a few hundred pages - I see at least a dozen changes per day - theirs would be a lot longer) - and there would probably be several dozen of them - and then they'd have to hit the books and start checking everything that was changed - because once they "approve" it, nobody but they can fix it later. This would be a solid day's work - even for someone with a comprehensive library at their fingertips! No - we just don't stand a hope in hell of making that system work.
Wikipedia works ONLY because anyone can edit it and everyone can spot mistakes. The OpenSource software community has a saying "Many eyes make all bugs shallow" - in other words, things get fixed quickly if a lot of people are looking for problems. With Wikipedia, every READER is able to fix problems - since we are the 8th most visited site on the web - we have more readers than you can shake a stick at! Serious, hard-working editors are important - but we're a drop in the bucket compared to the readership. We know the system works - we have better coverage of human knowledge than anything that humanity has ever produced and our error rate is comparable to the best encyclopedia that money can buy (slightly better by some surveys - slightly worse by others). This works. You change the system at your peril!
SteveBaker (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Look... We could calcualte pros and cons all day (it seems to me from your post that you didn't really understand what I am saying, though this could just as well be a result of my own misunderstanding). I am not prophetic and cannot foresee if "my" ideas will work. I am only saying it is worth trying (or maybe humanity needn't ever try anything new, now that we have the glorious Wikipedia?), and asking if such an attempt has been made. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's 7 feet tall, and 102 inches around the waist ?

Help please. Does anyone out there have a clue as to what this church Christmas Quiz question is all about? The church is Scotland based and it may be a 'local' question such as a statue or the like, but I can't think of one with a greater waist than its height, and I am puzzled why the question uses 2 different measuring units ie. feet and inches. A clue perhaps?? Thanks in anticipation. 81.145.242.130 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it is circular in section, then it has a 32.5" diameter (2' 7.5"), if that helps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that 2' 8.5"? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it a printed question and is that exactly what it is letter-for-letter and numeral-for numeral? --Milkbreath (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The use of different units is very likely meaningless, just referring to the way people are measured: heights in feet and inches, waist sizes in inches. The first thing that came to my mind was the Big Ben (the bell, not the clock). 7 feet is indeed about 2.2 m, but 102 inches is about 2.6 m -- thus nearer the diameter than the circumference (and of course, being a bell, it's measured at its widest point and doesn't have a "waist"). Still, my guess is that this is the intended answer and the question is badly worded. In other sources I see the diameter given as 2.7 m and as 9 feet 0 inches (108 inches or 2.74 m). --Anonymous, 22:52 UTC, December 12, 2007.

Considering that it's a Christmas question, I'd venture that the answer is a Christmas tree, though the numbers do seem a tad precise for such an answer *shrugs*. Also, bear in mind that a *lot* of objects have a waist greater than their height. I used to use this trick to score free drinks at University by betting against people on just how much greater the circumference of a beer glass was than its height. this video demonstrates the principle fairly well. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes these things are semantic: what is the exact question? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The exact wording of the written quiz question is...'I'm 7 feet tall and 102 waist'. Hope that helps. Thanks again.81.145.240.149 (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Shrek? [2] --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Shrek it is Gadget - but how on earth did you know that?? Never mind, I think you are wonderful and deserve an extra big helping of our Church Christmas pudding - and maybe a glass of Glenmorangie to take the taste away. Thanks again to Gadget and all other responders. 81.145.240.149 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've had both the pudding and the Glenmorangie, and I will heartily raise a glass of the latter (neat please). And Google deserves the credit–I finally searched for 7 feet "102 waist". Don't you folks have enough beasties over there without importing our American knockoffs? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah - but - oor beasties are 'Wee coo'erin an' timorous', aka mice as described by the Bard - Rabbie Burns, whereas your beastie in the present scenario is enormous - given the size of his kilt - but is blessed with a 'guid scots accent'. Hence our interest, and interestingly, since reading the article you referred me to, I am impressed that the Kilt Makers involved are based in Loch Carron, which is very near where I live in Scotland. But don't be too impressed - I am an ex-pat Englishman of some 35 years immigrant status here - or so my Scots 'friends' describe me. But then we reputedly have the other 'beastie', the Loch Ness Monster, which has never ever surfaced into view whenever I have driven by. And even if he/she had done, it would have been nigh impossible for poor wee me to see over the shoulders of the zillions of your US countryfolk who seem to permanently line the shores of said loch taking photographs and apparently never failing to get a couple of shots. But me? I will continue to rely on there being 26 shots of malt in a 75cl bottle. So we will welcome your Shrek and adopt him as 'oor ain'. And thanks again.81.145.240.149 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winter tires in summer

Will winter tires offer less grip than all-season or summer tires in the summertime? Acceptable (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't use winter tyres in the summer - or vice-versa. Winter tyres have a very soft compound and they get softer still in warm weather. This means that they wear out amazingly quickly in warm weather. I'm not sure that would be bad for grip - but definitely bad for your pocketbook. Summer tyres have the reverse problem - a hard compound that becomes rock-hard in winter - that will be terrible for grip in snow and ice...dangerously slow I would say. So either go with compromise all-season or switch out your tyres twice a year. SteveBaker (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The more rubber you can put on the road, the more grip you get, so tyres with more cutouts will give you less grip on a dry, clean road. This is why they use Slick tires in drag racing - no cutouts = maximum grip. FiggyBee (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That's true - but I don't see how it's relevent. Both summer and winter tyres have kinda similar tread patterns - they both have to be able to shed water. Slicks are used for a variety of things - Formula I racecars used to use them - I have friends who use them for track racing. They are absolutely DEADLY in wet weather though - and since it rains in the summer too...you pretty much have to have a tread pattern in any practical kind of a tyre. The tread pattern also gets you more grip in soft sand and dirt - so again, slicks are pretty much a useless kind of a tyre for anything other than dry pavement. The biggest difference between summer and winter tyres is the softness of the rubber. SteveBaker (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I know it's not really relevent, I was just throwing it out there as a factor that might affect grip. Living in the sub-tropics I don't know much about winter tyres... FiggyBee (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French volley gun mounted on a gun carriage

Volley gun in Les Invalides
Volley gun in Les Invalides

I saw a volley gun at the Les Invalides in Paris 2 years ago. Basically several thin barrels mounted horizontally in a single row on a gun carriage. If anyone has been there it's one of the 2 artillery pieces on the second floor balcony behind the large statue of Napoleon that overlooks the courtyard. It was not a mitrailleuse. Any idea what it might be called? --BrokenSphereMsg me 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a picture of a "Billinghurst Requa battery gun", a.k.a. "Billinghurst-Requa volley gun", or a "Requa battery gun". Is that it? --Milkbreath (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll check the pic I took of it to be sure, but that looks more like it. It can go on the article page if it is since that isn't illustrated yet. BrokenSphereMsg me 15:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It's the gun in the pic. It's not an exact match with the Billinghurst Requa battery. --BrokenSphereMsg me 04:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The generic term is "organ gun" from it's resemblance to the pipes of a church organ. The concept's advantage over parallel (mitrailleuse) or coaxial (gatling) type guns is that there is a fan-out spray of bullets, so aiming is not required; only elevation. The concept's disadvantage over parallel and coaxial guns is that you have no control over the fan's angle, so it only works well against enemies at a very specific range. In use, a parallel or coaxial gun built with the same technology can simply be swung from side to side, giving a controllable fan spray, or held on target as needed, so they are useful in many more circumstances than an organ gun. PLEASE don't ask me for references! -SandyJax (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've sent an e-mail to le musée de l'Armée asking what this is. Let's see if they write back. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)