Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 February 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< February 6 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 8 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


Contents


[edit] February 7

[edit] Torque Creep

In automotive, what is defined by the term "torque creep"? I came across that term on a website that mentioned something about holding in the clutch a bit longer while shifting to experience more "torque creep". Acceptable (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard this term but to me it sounds like they're just talking about slipping the clutch while shifting to keep the RPMs from dropping down too far. This would help acceleration if you have an engine that lacks low-RPM torque. (I looked for an article on torque curve but we don't have it.) Slipping the clutch excessively will wear it out faster. Friday (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avaya Stock

Would like to know the price of Avaya stock when it spun off from Lucent I had a few shares, they sent me a check, but do not know the price when I got it so I can use for capital gains refaw67.140.3.8 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced method of starting uphill

What is a more advanced method of starting uphill in a car equipped with a manual transmission, other than using the parking brakes? Can one apply a "heel-and-toe" method to it by holding in the cluch with the left foot and fully depressing the brake with the right toes and slowly swinging the side of the right foot to blip engage the throttle while letting go of the brake and clutch? Acceptable (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You -can- do that, and when I was first learning how to drive stick, I did it just that way a few times -- but it's not practical or tremendously reliable, and in a machine you're not familiar with, it's even more dangerous. Ultimately, the best way to do it is to learn the catch point of the clutch and be at that point when you're letting your right foot off the brake. You can release the clutch on all but the steepest hills, even without giving it gas, and there is some amount of time, maybe almost a second, before it stalls where the engine is pushing the car forward. In that time, make the switch and give it some gas before the engine stalls.
I was blessed, growing up, by living in a house with a driveway that made me cuss every day, a STEEP hill, and it gave me plenty of practice. Flatter inclines give you more lag time to get that right foot over, and you don't have to let off the clutch nearly as much to hold yourself in position. You have to practice, though, and play with it a lot till you get the hang of it. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's unnecessary to be fancy here. Just being comfortable with the clutch is all you need. Friday (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
A good way to get comfortable with your clutch is to practice stopping on a hill without using your brakes at all: you'll find if you keep your clutch just on the biting point you won't move. That's the point you're trying to hit. Also good for temporary stops (eg at lights) to avoid the whole hill-start thing. Gwinva (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
...and a good way to wear out your clutch quickly and have to do an expensive clutch replacement that much sooner. --169.230.94.28 (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't recommend that either. I usually tell people a good way to practice is on a flat parking lot, moving the car forward only a few inches at a time. If you get good at doing that (and doing it quickly) a hill start will be no problem. Friday (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing to be said against fancy ways, of course, but when I know that the hill's steep or there's a car close behind me (e.g., in a garage), I quit all pretensions and simply use the parking brakes. Nothing wrong with that. And much cheaper than trying the fancy stuff and not getting it right... :o) --Thanks for answering (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Using the parking break is the best way, and in the UK the only way you can pass your driving test. If you live in a hilly city you would wear out the clutch in no time if you hold the car on the clutch - especially waiting at lights. Using a heel and toe risks stalling or rolling backwards. The one provision is that your parking break must be a proper hand break. Those "extra pedals" with release leavers and stuff like that won't do. In Europe where most cars are still manual, almost all cars have a proper handbreak. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This came up once before and another UK editor said the same thing. I've still not heard a convincing case of why using the hand brake is the best way to do this; it sounds like it's more tradition than anything. Obviously, no competent stick driver is going to slip the clutch to hold the car in place- this is why they invented brakes. But by the same token, a competent stick driver will have no problem getting off the (foot) brake and getting the car moving quickly enough to avoid rolling backward. So why the handbrake? The best argument I remember hearing was for safety- someone might hits you from behind during the split second you're not on the brake. But to me, this is an argument for keeping on the brake when the car is not moving, not an argument for using the brake to assist uphill starts. Friday (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It's the best way because it's the simplest way; it doesn't require split-second timing to avoid either a stall or rolling backwards, and it doesn't leave you dancing between the accelerator and the brake while riding the clutch if the car in front of you doesn't move or if something unexpected happens. Conversely, there are no advantages to alternative techniques; they're not faster, not better for the car, and not easier for the driver. The only possible reason not to use the handbrake is if you get satisfaction from making a very simple maneuver unneccesarily difficult. FiggyBee (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're from the UK? I think the handbrake is easier for people who learned to do it that way. When I discovered this was standard practice in parts of the world, I tried it a few times. I'm sure if I practiced I'd get used to it, but for me, using the handbrake is not the simplest way. The simple way is just to drive the car, using the same basic controls I've always used. In the US, the handbrake is not really a control you use while driving (unless you're intentionally trying to skid for fun.) I've asked other people to try it, and (being all Americans who were not taught to do it this way) they all agreed that the handbrake added an unnecessary extra step with no tangible benefit. I can't make a good case for either technique being better- that's why I wondered if this was just tradition. Friday (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the handbrake technique is probably easier to learn and also less likely to go wrong. I admit, I don't have any evidence for this but IMHO FiggyBee's summary is accurate. Obviously if you've learned one way then adapting to the other way is difficult, but this doesn't mean one way isn't easier to learn and less likely to go wrong. It might help to consider what is most likely to go wrong with either technique. With the commonwealth technique, what may go wrong is either 1) You stall the car, but you don't roll backwards because the handbrake is still on 2) You accelerate too fast before releasing the handbrake potentially damaging the brakes and tires somewhat. With the US technique either 1) You stall the car and potentially roll backwards if you don't get to the brake in time 2) You roll backwards because you take to long to accelerate. Either way with the US technique it seems to me you are much more likely to roll backwards if you get it wrong then with the Commonwealth technique. Also with the Commonwealth techique hill start of not once you stall the car you should always have the handbrake on since you are taught to apply the handbrake when stopped. For a panicking beginner driver this leaves one less thing to worry about when they've just stalled and they can concentrate on getting the car started again without forgetting to keep their foot on the brake. It's not quite clear to me whether US drivers are taught to apply the handbrake when stalled but either way, it seems to me even if they are taught, they are more likely to forget about it then a Commonwealth driver who would in their mind knows they should always apply the handbrake when stopped. P.S. It also seems to me that the Commonwealth technique, particularly for a novice drive makes it easier to start slowly on a hill then with the US technique where an individual is more likely to panic and accelerate way to fast because they are afraid of rolling back. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I can understand it varying from region to region, but is it cultural or geographical? In other words, does it depend on the gradient of the roads you generally use? I certainly find the handbrake the easiest/simplest method on particularly steep hills. Perhaps people are more inclined to use the handbrake if they learnt to drive in hilly areas.  ?? or perhaps we just do what we were taught by our instructors, who do what they were taught.... Gwinva (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, interesting question. The only other thing I can think of (this just occurred to me..) If it's a region where people more frequently drive small, underpowered cars, this may explain the popularity of the handbrake trick. I don't find it remotely difficult to start on a steep hill, but I'm driving a car with lots of low-RPM torque. Friday (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That would fit the UK theory...if one is allowed to generalise outrageously, there are a lot of small, low-powered cars there. But (OR here) NZ likes the hand brake too (or did, in the days before automatic Jap imports), and also large powerful cars. But it does have a lot of hills, and unsealed roads. ??? There must be someone who's researched all this, surely... Gwinva (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] busses to/from NYC airports

I) JFK... 1) Which regular busses go to JFK? ... and
2) where can you transfer from the A, C or (preferably) E subway to these busses?
3) Our article talks about "Q3, Q6, Q7, Q10 (Local/Limited), and B15" and even about free transfers to the subways. How much are the bus fares regularly? 4) How do free transfers work? 5) And do these busses go 24/7 (or when don't they go)? 6) I've heard about some "H bus" that's supposed to be a good connection to JFK, but the article doesn't list it. Anyone's ever heard about that bus line?

II) La Guardia... 1.) The article says that "# M60 (All terminals), Q33 (All except Marine Air Terminal), Q48 (All terminals), Q72 (Central Terminal only), and # Q47" depart from La Guardia. Which one is the best to transfer to the subway to go to Manhattan? 2.) Do they go 24/7?

Thanks for all patient answers! I've tried to find answers on the MTA website, but didn't have much luck there... --Thanks for answering (talk • contribs) 03:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The best way to reach Midtown or Lower Manhattan from LaGuardia via public transportation is to take the M60 bus to the Astoria Blvd. subway station and take the N or W lines into town. The schedule is here. Some would advise against using public transportation in the wee hours of the night. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
From JFK airport, your best option would be to take the AirTrain (click here for info), which connects to the A train to Manhattan at Howard Beach. The AirTrain stops right at each terminal, whereas the buses go only to a central bus station at Terminal 4, from which you would have to connect to other terminals via the AirTrain, which is free within the airport. If for some reason you must take a bus, you can take the B15 (schedule) to the A train at Aqueduct, North Conduit Ave. or the Q10 (schedule) to the A train at Ozone Park/Lefferts Blvd. To pay your fares, you should get a Metrocard at a vending machine. The AirTrain fare (to leave JFK) is $5. The bus fare is $2, and the subway fare (for the A train) is $2. If put more than $10 of value onto your Metrocard (which you can use on subsequent trips within the city), you will get a discount of about 10% on the bus and subway (but not the AirTrain) fares. The same fares apply to the bus/subway trip from La Guardia: $2 for the bus and another $2 for the subway. You may not be able to buy a Metrocard at La Guardia airport, so you might need to pay a cash fare (exact change only) and get the Metrocard when you reach the N train station in Astoria. To my knowledge, and based on what I've read on the MTA's website, there are no free transfers between the bus and the subway (only between two buses). The free bus-to-bus transfer works by using the Metrocard. Your fare is deducted from your card when you enter the first bus, but not when you enter the second one during a set time period (sorry that I don't know the length of that period). Marco polo (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Newark is another option. However, NJ Transit services from Newark Airport to Penn Station run somewhat less frequently (every 15–20 minutes from morning to evening) than the MTA Subway connections to La Guardia and JFK (more like every 10 minutes). (Amtrak runs even less frequently, roughly once an hour.) Also, the subway and connecting buses or AirTrain run all night from La Guardia and JFK, but there is no NJTransit or Amtrak service from the Newark Airport station between 2:00 a.m. and 4:45 a.m. Marco polo (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all! That's been very helpful!!
Just a follow-up regarding safety in the "wee hours of the night" - is that true for all public transport or would you advise against some of the options you've mentioned more than against others? And maybe even more important: What would you call the "wee hours"? :o) Are we talking already about 1-2 am, and/or 4-6 am? (I have to get to/from an airport to Manhattan, and I'd rather stay the remaining time at the airport... unless it's safer to go at about 1-2 am... Thanks a lot! Thanks for answering (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
One reason I recommended NJ Transit/Amtrak is that those trains have roving conductors that dissuade most unsavory types. The NYC subway also has transit police, although they tend to make their presence felt mostly at the major stations. I know I feel safer on trains & subways than I do on late-night buses, but I don't know whether the statistics back me up. --M@rēino 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There is some risk in taking the subway late at night, but it is not an overwhelming risk. It depends partly on who you are and how you are traveling. If you are a small woman traveling alone, then the risk may be prohibitive. If you are a large, young man traveling with others, then your risk is relatively small. On weekdays, I might hesitate to take the subway after about 11 p.m. On Friday and Saturday nights, I'd feel fairly safe until around 1 or 2 a.m. (For context, I am a relatively small, 40something man.) Things start to feel safer again around 5 a.m. You can increase your safety at late hours by standing near other reputable-looking people on the platform. If you do not see anyone else entering the station or waiting on the platform and you are traveling alone at night, then I would leave the station, make for a busy intersection or an open business, and call for a taxi. (You will need to have phone numbers of taxi companies and a cell phone handy.) Alternatively, just take a taxi to/from the airport if you are traveling late at night. Marco polo (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
While the NYC subway may be safer than it used to be, it's still not as safe as it is in some cities. They have ads warning people not to listen to their iPod headphones while in the cars lest they get mugged for the device. I'd echo Marco's advice about taking a taxi after 11. Then at least you'll be robbed legally. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

Can someone tell me what this is at these coordinates? 32.267218,-107.817469. It's in New Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.136.197 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It just looks like a house West of Deming, New Mexico and slightly north of Interstate 10--ChesterMarcol (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a house? I looks more like some kind of tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.136.197 (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a few outbuildings around it and some farm fields to the east. The exact spot looks like a hole in the ground--ChesterMarcol (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon Looking at Google maps, I can zoom in pretty close, it does look like a hole or a mine of some sort. Any ideas as to what it's for or what was mined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.136.197 (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at 32.141529, -107.483992 it's a irrigation pond with some trees around it with mounded dirt on the sides. I think your original location is probably a dry irrigation pond.--ChesterMarcol (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The intro for Donkey Kong Country for SNES

A very good intro, but through some insane design decision, it apparently stop just as it is about to get good, and loops all over. At least it does in all the YouTube clips I can find, and when played in an emulator. I believe this is the case with the original game as well. Yet I know I have heard it fully on the real SNES, attached to a TV. So my question is: WHY would they loop it all over from the beginning just as it is about to blossom into the main part of the wonderful melody? I remember them showing the title screen with effects rolling over it repeatedly while the music was playing, but I no longer own the original cartridge so I can check in my original SNES to see if this is indeed an emulator bug or something (which is very unlikely).

Please answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No bug, it's in the original too. It shows "© 1994 Nintendo" the first time through and loops early, then on the repeats it shows the rolling. --jh51681 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Also it makes sense to loop the music as well because it goes with what's on screen, the transition from Cranky Kong to Donkey Kong. Of course, you can hear the whole song if you press Start to get to the menu. --jh51681 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin Mobile Voicemail Message

What is the number to call in Australia to change my Virgin Mobile voicemail message? --Candy-Panda (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this "it's as easy as dialling 212". Think outside the box 13:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I changed my voicemail message to a Rick Roll hehe... --Candy-Panda (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Think outside the box 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time travel

Assuming that one can travel through time, can one prevent a mishap, assasination and come back to the present.Will history be changed? Or will it change only for the time traveller?Can anyone answer me/ I hope my question is clear to all sumal (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

See grandfather paradox. If you prevent the assassination, then what will prompt you to go back and prevent it (since it never happened)? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Since people have not managed to travel back in time yet, to my knowledge, it's a bit hard to know definitely what would happen and what would be possible. Some speculate that, if time travel is possible, it isn't possible to change anything other than in a way you already have; so you could save someone's life, but only if their life had been saved at that point by you travelling back in time. This assumes a single, coherent space-time that you travel around, a single timeline that you jump in and out of. In that case, killing your own grandfather or preventing an assassination that you know happened would be impossible.
Others speculate that you could change things in the past and that this would affect the future you returned to. This is often based on the idea of multiple timelines, or parallel universes. In that case, you are not so much changing the past in your universe as shifting yourself onto a different timeline with a different future. In that case, you could indeed prevent a mishap, but only in the sense that you would be living in a universe in which it had been prevented. The mishap would still happen in the universe you left, which was why you timetravelled in that universe. I would imagine a potential problem with this is that you would have no reason to timetravel in this new universe, so there could be two versions of 'you' if you travelled to the future. Of course, it might be that 'you' were never born in this universe, so it wouldn't be a problem. Or, it could be that your existance is incompatible with this universe and you fade away, but I think that's more fantasy than scifi :) 130.88.140.121 (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
BY MY OPINION, the person will only be a spectator and won't be able to do anything to change history. Visit me at Ftbhrygvn(Talk|Contribs|Log) 15:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the uncertainty principle say that the mere act of observing something changes it. If that's true, you'd change history by just being there and doing nothing but observing. But you can't limit your impact to just observing, because the air you breathe is disturbed by your presence; that's a change. Therefore you'd change history just by being there, when originally you weren't. ("History" in this sense is not just events that have been recorded by historians, but what actually happens to physical matter from moment to moment.) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, right, but quantum effects rarely have played a direct role in history. At the human scale you can do it pretty much classically. So UP doesn't really matter a whole lot. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Philosophically, it could be considered as a free will / predestination type paradox, whereby going back to the past you would still have total free will to act as you wish (in as much as we can determine our choices now) and yet things would not ultimately change in the big picture just as fate somehow determines the present and future. In fact, time travel is an interesting construct for imagining various philosophies like that. Gwinva (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fire + thunder

what do u get when u put fire and thunder together?am not sure if its a powerbomb coz on googling that what i got.or maybe its a trick question?please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.99.62 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A more fierce fire. Visit me at Ftbhrygvn(Talk|Contribs|Log) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thunder (an atmospheric shockwave) has the potential to extinguish a (very small) fire. Other than that, there's no non-metaphorical consequence of having the two together. That said, there are secondary effects -- thunder is always accompanied by lightning (which could cause a fire) and frequently by rain (which could extinguish a fire) -- but thunder itself is a virtual non-issue. A "powerbomb" appears to be a wrestling move, so I don't see how that's at all related. — Lomn 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If it is a trick question or riddle, and it does smell like one, it would help us to know the exact wording and the setting it was asked in. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
<joke>You get on fire and deafened at the same time! Yay!</joke>. Ilikefood (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You can combine fire and energy in Gunstar Heroes for a pretty good gun IIRC. And you can combine them in Kirby 64 The Crystal Shards, to set yourself on fire :D\=< (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mothering sunday

have you any poetry or sermons on this subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.159.26 (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No. We'd recommend googling mothering sunday poem or mothering sunday sermon --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd recommended using an advanced worldcat search like this, and buy the used book at ebay. --Rwst (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If one were to own land...

...would one own that bit of land to the center of the earth? Bellum et Pax (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, since you are allowed to dig down on your own land, what would keep you from digging down to the core? (despite the immense difficulties, of course) 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • National law need not give the land-owner that right. Some land in the United States has separate surface rights and mineral rights, for example. --M@rēino 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I'd guess that unless there are mineral rights to consider, the property is yours all the way down to the center. --Onorem♠Dil 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Although that doesn't necessarily mean you can do whatever you like under the ground any more than owning the land means you can do whatever you like on the surface or above. FiggyBee (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Traditionally (at least in the US and--I assume--in other common law jurisdictions) you also owned your land upwards indefinitely, into the stratosphere. (This is called cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum.) This created a lot of complications when air travel started occurring (i.e. do planes need permission to fly above your house?). Courts basically adapted to this by saying airplanes have a special right to fly through your property, which is justified by the needs of the public. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The latin maxim is also sometimes followed by et ad inferos, which indicates that your (common law) rights extend to the center of the earth. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we have an article about this! See Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand that in Bulgaria one can own a space from height x to y above a certain plot of land: that is the space occupied by a particular office or apartment. (I think it was Bulgaria: may have been Romania). SaundersW (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In the UK you can get "flying freeholds", most notable in the terrace house in Hebden Bridge. Gwinva (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
See air rights. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Aren't there also regulations in some US jurisdictions concerning whether or not your neighbor's buildings, etc. can cast a shadow on your property? Corvus cornixtalk 19:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I once read an article that postulated that if you could somehow force the Moon into a geostationary orbit whereby it remained directly over your (rather large) plot of land, you'd theoretically own the Moon. The implications for the apocalyptically colossal effect on tides and the fate of humanity (and therefore the actual point of the exercise) was not gone into in any depth, though, as I recall. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
On this last question, The Man Who Sold the Moon by Robert A. Heinlein explored this idea, not by fixing the Moon's location, but by the fact that the Moon's orbit is mostly above the tropics, where the book's hero could easily convince the impoverished national governments of the early post-colonial era sell their speculative rights. Of course, even back in the 40s when Heinlein wrote that book, the idea that the world's governments would let someone get away with such a purchase was only true in his own little liberatarian universe. --M@rēino 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
To reinforce what has been said already on this, here's the straight dope. [1] —BradV 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What are those things you see in cartoons?

You know those great big pounding things you see on construction sites, for the purpose of flattening cartoon characters? Do they exist, what are they really for, and do we have an article on them? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrecking balls? Anvils? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No. Vertical cylinders, like pistons with no casing. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Pile driver--Eriastrum (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. In the context of cartoons I'd never figured out that was what they were. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course, most of the world is switching to vibratory pile drivers so soon, no one will know "what those things {were}".
Atlant (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pear Sorbet Recipes

I would like some good recipes for the pear sorbet I had at a Japanese restaurant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.29.237 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A google search is your best option. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You would be surprised; lots of restaurant chefs are willing to share their recipes, knowing that you would probably not get it perfectly right anyway. Sandman30s (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
From the shock experience of a friend, if it's an upmarket place, keep it light when you ask if there's a fee. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Is it too late to register to vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.175.202 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on where you live and the election in which you want to vote. Are you in the United States? If so, which state? Were you hoping to vote in a primary? If so, for which party? Marco polo (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Your IP address suggests that you are in California. If so, it is too late to register to vote in California's presidential primary, since it took place day before yesterday. However, California will have another primary on June 3 for non-presidential candidates (such as members of Congress), and you have plenty of time to register for that primary. The deadline to register is May 19. To vote in the general election on November 4, the deadline to register is October 20. See this California Elections web site. Here are voter registration instructions for Los Angeles County. Marco polo (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So even if you wanted to register as Independent you still could not register and take part in the general election, that is too late? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.175.202 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? No, as Marco said, you can take part in the General Election if you register before late October. FiggyBee (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romney delegates

Will Romney have control of how the delegates now in his camp will be reapportioned? I realize that - as of now - he has merely suspendd, not ended his campaign. But if he does end the campaign, I'm interested in knowing what will happen to the delegates already controlled by the candidate.

169.137.206.92 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It was my understanding that if a candidate releases their delegates, the delegates are free to vote for whomever they want. I could, of course, be wrong... Corvus cornixtalk 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Legally, as I understand it, delegates at the party level are always free to do whatever the heck they want. Even in the November elections, faithless electors rarely face legal punishment. The punishment, rather, is social -- they get ostracized from party events since they've proven themselves not trustworthy. Now on to Romney. He and Edwards did not formally concede -- they suspended their campaigns. The main reason for the difference is that it allows the campaign to keep raising money, since both campaigns were in debt. But it also means that Romney and Edwards can exert some influence over "their" delegates. Once you get to a brokered convention, it's a free-for-all, and the delegates don't have to listen to anyone, but these delegates are supposed to be true believers, so they'll likely continue to let Romney and Edwards tell them what to do, even after it would be socially acceptable for them to go their own way. --M@rēino 20:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
CNN's article notes that (as a Republican) Romney will have his delegates redistributed at a state party level. Procedures for the Democrats are also explained there. — Lomn 20:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, looks like I stand corrected! As CNN says, "On the Democratic side, a candidate who "suspends" is technically still a candidate", but my analysis is wrong on the Republican side. I guess the RNC decided that they don't want failed candidates acting as kingmakers. --M@rēino 21:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pennsylvania driver's licenses

I know you say you can't give legal information, but just help me please. If you are 18 years old in Pennsylvania, how do you go about getting your driver's license, and is there really a mandatory 6 month period, and is there really a mandatory 50 hour minimum of learning how.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.122.129 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure that even if you're over 18, you still need to start with a learner's permit. the PA DMV website explains how to get one. --M@rēino 21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The mandatory periods apply to under eighteens only. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supermassive Black Hole

Why hasn't the supermassive black hole 'consumed' the Milky Way? Has anyone estimated when this will happen, if at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.35.196 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not enough time has elapsed. Consider how opening a bathtub drain does not result in all of the water immediately draining. As for estimates, there are probably many floating around out there. My rough survey suggests that the Milky Way, through various galactic collisions, will cease to independently exist long before the black hole could consume it. Our timeline of the universe (see more detail at heat death) suggests that stars will burn out long before black holes can possibly consume them all. So it's a long way off. — Lomn 22:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, black holes don't necessarily "consume" things orbiting them any more than a sun "consumes" planets. It's very massive and has a very powerful gravitational field but there can still be stable orbits. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the one here in this galaxy isn't active currently, either. It'll probably fire up in the Andromeda-Milky Way collision though. · AndonicO Hail! 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think gravity works that way.. :D\=< (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a case of how gravity works, but whether or not matter is currently actively infalling the galactic center. The black hole does not have any greater gravitational impact on a given star than did the stars that preceeded it. Consequently, it's quite reasonable for the black hole to absorb the nearby stars that were already infalling yet remain stable with respect to everything else. — Lomn 14:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to practice your duck and cover drills before then. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwinva (talk • contribs)

[edit] How do lute players play the lute without accidentely moving the frets?

I'm just wondering this, because the frets are movable and are tied onto the neck, so it seems likely that someone might accidentally move the frets while playing. I'm a guitarist so please excuse my ignorance. MalwareSmarts (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to lute, the frets were originally made from loops of gut tied around the neck. I imagine if they are tied very tightly around the neck they won't move. Lute players typically play notes, not chords, so they don't need to make the awkward hand positions that guitarists make. In playing guitar, these hand positions can put a lot of sideways pressure on the frets and strings, but the lute can be played with a much lighter touch. —BradV 03:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance

Thanks in advance for the answers. But back to my question. Is this special ops group kinda like the Rangers? I ask this becuase the only instances i hear of them doing are quite like missions rangers would do. I tried the article but that if you look is a peice of shit. BonesBrigade 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the "peice of shit," the group is roughly analogous to the U.S. Army Special Forces (i.e., "Green Berets"), not the United States Army Rangers. Perhaps if you tried reading all three articles, you'd get some idea of the differences. Deor (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The primary mission of USMC Force Recon is to provide the commander information about his operational area. Thus, they are primarily "eyes on the ground" or the"human sensor" the commander uses to develop his situational awareness / understanding and intelligence picture. This logically follows on with the task of targeting, which is another capability. That being said, they also can carry out "limited" direct action operations (generally for a Marine Amphibious Ready Group that is Special Operations Capable).

Some of the training USMC FC Marines undergo is Airborne (Static and Military Freefall), Pathfinder, Ranger, Scout-Sniper, Combat Diver (SCUBA), Mountain warfare & assault climber, Jungle operations, Urban tactics, Close Quarters Battle, demolitions, communications, photography, controlling aircraft landing operations, and directing air strikes, Naval Gunfire, and Artillery.

USMC Force Recon is like Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, and Air Force Combat Controllers as they share the ability to conduct reconnaissance and targeting.

For instance - SEALs - A tactical force with strategic impact, Navel Special Warfare mission areas include unconventional warfare, direct action, combating terrorism, special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, information warfare, security assistance, counter-drug operations, personnel recovery and hydrographic reconnaissance.

And Rangers - The cornerstone of Ranger missions is that of direct action. More specifically, Rangers are the premiere airfield seizure and raid unit in the Army. A typical Ranger Battalion or Regiment mission would involve seizing an airfield for use by follow-on general purpose forces and conducting raids on key targets of operational or strategic importance. Once secured, follow-on airland or airborne forces are introduced into theater and relieve the Ranger force so that it may conduct planning for future special operation force operations. Rangers rely heavily on external fire support. Ranger fire support personnel train extensively on the employment of Close Air Support, attack helicopters, Naval Gunfire (NGF), AC-130 Gunship and artillery. The close working relationships with units that habitually support the force ensures that the Ranger Force always has the required assets to perform its mission.


And Special Forces - A whole different beast... A few missions -

  • Unconventional Warfare (UW)
  • Special Reconnaissance (SR)
  • Direct Action (DA)
  • Foreign Internal Defense (FID)
  • Coalition Support (CS)
  • Counter Terrorism (CT)
  • Psychological Operations (PSYOP)
  • Civil Affairs (CA)
  • Coalition Warfare/Support (CWS)
  • Humanitarian and Civic Action (HCA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.118.134 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope that helps. Let me know if you need more. - SOF

So far im getting the picture that they primarily are just scouts for larger units of marines but at the same time can do most other missions of the other units under SOCOM. BonesBrigade 02:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)