Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 January 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< January 20 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 22 >
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] January 21

[edit] Recent BA crash

In the recent British Airways Flight 38 that narrowly averted a catastrophic crash during landing, the captain was quoted saying that the Co-pilot, John Coward, was able to bring the plane to land and was flying the plane. Where was he, the captain, during the landing? Why was the captain not flying the plane? Acceptable (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He would have been in the Captain's seat. The co=pilot will normally carry out take-off and landing. This is so that, in the event of pilot error, the senior officer is in a position to over-rule the junior. If teh Captain performed take-off and landing, and made an error, there would be a psychological barrier to the co-pilot over-ruling his superior officer. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you know if this was a result of the Tenerife disaster? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This reasoning could apply to any decision needing to be taken by the captain during the flight. In which case, does the co-pilot do everything during the flight as well? And if so, what does the captain do? Make those reassuring announcements you hear? --Richardrj talk email 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe Duncan is wrong above. The First officer article says that the pilot ("captain") and co-pilot ("first officer") typically share the role of "pilot flying" equally. I also remember reading this sometime in Patrick Smith's "Ask the Pilot" column at salon.com. As I recall, he said that typically each one would take one half of the flight, but not always the same half. This makes sense because it means they both stay in practice at takeoffs and landings, which are normally the only times when they get very busy. Of course, the trading-off might depend on the length of the flight.
In an emergency situation, the captain might choose to take control, but this one developed so fast that that wasn't a practical choice even if he otherwise might have preferred to. --Anonymous, 06:51 UTC, January 21, 2008.
Per the anonymous response above, both pilot and copilot are fully qualified to fly the plane, and both will fly the plane at various times. (You wouldn't want to fly with an airline where the senior pilots rarely practiced landing the plane, would you?) It's purely chance that the copilot happened to be the one flying that particular landing. In a rapidly-developing emergency, it would be very unusual for either pilot or copilot to try to hand off the plane to the other without a very good reason. In a more protracted emergency with a long lead-up to a risky landing, the senior, more experienced pilot will often take the stick; see for example the Gimli Glider. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Either pilot can take control (called Pilot in command) for the flight while the other supervises, the captain is probably letting the co-pilot to get some more hours flying for him/her to get up to captain rank. --antilivedT | C | G 23:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It was not as a result of tenerife, but I cannot bring to mind which aircrash informed this policy ... I think it was a Korean plane which missed the airport by about 5 miles and hit a mountain. The first officer lands & takes off. The captain assists & observes. The rationale: if the captain was flying and started to screw up, the first officer by virtue of rank might be feel unable to challange his/her authority. By contrast, the captain will always feel able to challange the first officer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And I think the crash in question was Korean Air Flight 801 --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poison Sumac

How long does a simi-severe case of poison sumac last? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.130.141 (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"One to two weeks, and in some cases up to five weeks", according to the Urushiol-induced contact dermatitis article. FiggyBee (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mob question

Here's a hypothetical situation; lets say there are two majority races living in the same city, in different sections, one rich and one poor. Someone from the poor race kills a young child or symbol of the rich society. As a result, tensions rise and then one night a mob forms and they go start looting all the poor people of their possessions... and then violence starts to occur... people from the poor race start getting gang-beaten... homes get burned etc... basically the rich race is destroying the poor race's livelihood. All because this psychological Us vs. Them mentality, which originally thought to be not there, gets brought out. Now my two-part question is this... What percentage of the rich people do who had the chance to join the mob choose not to? And secondly, what percentage of these people actually say something and speak against it or actually go to the looting and start doing something to try and stop the madness? Now of course there are variable, such as the volatility or history of the situation, but taking those out of the equation, try to answer the question. Its probably the same in every situation of mass amounts of people, as there have been riots and mobs everywhere since the beginning of time. Croat Canuck Talk 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption is imho flawed, as the 'rich' people wouldn't form a mob, but would rather have someone else do the dirty job for them; it's (I know this sounds stereotypically) usually the poorer members of society that usually form mobs like you described. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh sorry when I said "rich" people I meant something more of middle class... those who don't scratch and claw to get by. I wasn't meaning to say that rich people like those who sit in their high horses and have butlers give them their every need. I probably should have been more clear. But you could also flip the example around and say that the poor people started the mob and the rich people were the victims, it still doesn't change the actual question. Croat Canuck Talk 16:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ouro wasn't talking about rich people hiring a group of butlers to form a mob and beat people for their rich masters. (Though that'd be a great plot for a comedy film.) He was referring to the fact that the better off a group people are, the more pull they tend to have with the government and the local authorities. When folk get tired of poor people they don't resort to violence that would land them in jail (where there are lots of poor people!) they get zoning regulations changed, they make services harder to come by, in extreme cases they may even get their city to support demolishing of the poor people's (rented) homes to make way for some new, classier housing. See Redlining and Gentrification. APL (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
...which would lead to more more riots, looting and those kinds of things. They call this escalation of violence or violent clashes with the police on the BBC. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalisim detected......

....in the Stephenville, Texas article.

Someone removed all references to the UFO sighting there, yet left the UFO catagory there.

Just heard on the news that MUFON and other UFO orgs are heading there now, and they'll even analyze the evidence, incl. the viodeotape and still pixes of the UFO.

On a related note, What will wikipedia do IF there is alien contact ? Will it become "Galactapedia" ? 65.163.113.170 (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone removed some text from an article doesn't make it vandalism. They may have felt it wasn't appropriate for the article, or wasn't sourced or neutral. In this case, I see you've added some more text to the article, with a reference or two, which is good. However, the language and referencing style need more work. But this is for the article's talk page, so...
I'm afraid I don't understand your second question. --Richardrj talk email 09:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If we make contact with aliens and they are nice enough not to eradicate us, I'm sure they will be nice enough to share with us their own version of Wikipedia. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I heard there are plans of making a http://gal.wikipedia.org/ specially for beings from other galaxies. Editing will be possible by telepathy.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 09:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I heard it will be much less ambitious. Apparently, it will be written in English, but in the Standard Galactic Alphabet. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There'll be no need for a name change. "Wiki" is Hawaiian for "quick", and it'll still be quick. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Not with the lightspeed delay. Seriously, what's with all these people asking what wikipedia (and Jimbo Wales, specifically) will do if aliens showed up? I don't understand what they're driving at, but seems like there's a question like that once a week. APL (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe they're finally coming... --Ouro (blah blah) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This makes me doubt the usage of plural "people" is appropriate. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we get questions on nuclear war, aliens, destruction of the ozone layer, huge asteroid impact and other apocalyptic sutff a lot.--Phoenix-wiki 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] canned jokes

I would be very much appreciated if someone could explain "canned jokes" to me, what kind of jokes that is?

Thanks in advance for your kindness.61.60.242.186 (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Jenny

Are you perhaps referring to canned laughter, which is the sound of fake laughter added to the soundtrack of many TV comedy shows (usually the least funny)? --Richardrj talk email 11:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The archetype would be the Pince Albert in a can joke, right?
Atlant (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am a Chinese, I heard there are: canned joke, situation joke, practical joke. The last two are easier for me to understand.61.60.242.186 (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Jenny

In that list, a canned joke is probably what normally is simply called "a joke". A funny story with a punchline that was invented by someone else and has been preserved (canned) in a book of jokes or by oral tradition. It's the kind of joke you will get when you ask someone: "Tell us a joke".83.78.148.75 (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
A canned joke is one that does not require a situation to use. It means that it is a joke you have remembered (stored, "canned") for use in any occasion. Usually the term "canned joke" would imply some dislike of the joke—if I complained that a lecturer had lots of "canned jokes" I'd be implying that they told a lot of jokes that probably had nothing to do with what they were lecturing about and that they seemed to just walk around with a lot of jokes in their head to try and entertain people. If I said a comedian's routine featured a lot of canned jokes it would not be positive. The classic "canned jokes" are the ones used by lounge entertainers—"I just flew in from Hong Kong... and boy, are my arms tired!" Now note that probably all jokes other than situation jokes and practical jokes are technically "canned jokes" but as the user above me noted, if you weren't criticizing them you'd probably just call them a "joke". --24.147.69.31 (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Very clear, thank you so much.61.60.242.186 (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Jenny

One extra note: if a comedian or speaker had a really undynamic, rehearsed but unemotional and unenthusiastic routine (like they were just doing something they've done a million times before), you'd say it was "canned". --24.147.69.31 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Annoying adhesive strips on CD packaging

I've noticed that many new shop-bought CDs, particularly those from the US, have a long adhesive strip running along the entire length of the top edge of the jewel case, with the artist and title printed on it, folded over so that the case can't be opened. I'm guessing the purpose of these is twofold: to aid browsing in stores, and to prevent the case from being opened in the store, to possibly remove the CD or read the insert. I hate these strips. In the first place, they don't prevent theft of the CD, since the CD is invariably shrink-wrapped as well (with the shrinkwrap being placed over the strip). (Of course, they are not placed on digipaks, since to do so would likely ruin the card packaging when they come to be removed.) In the second place, they are seemingly designed to make their removal as difficult as humanly possible. They never peel off easily, they always flake off in tiny little pieces. So, why do manufacturers (a) put them on at all, and (b) make them so difficult to peel away? --Richardrj talk email 12:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As you observed, the strips help prevent (or at least indicate) the theft of the disc from within the ackaging. And yes, prior to the ubiquitous presence of these strips, I once bought a DVD from Amazon and it arrived in perfect condition except that there was no disc within the packaging.
As for removal, peel them carefully, then use the removed strip itself to "pick up" the bits of glue residue that are always left behind.
Me, I wish DVDs had simply continued the use of jewel boxes as were already in popular use for CDs. Unlike DVD cases, jewel boxes were standardized, ubiquitous, and about as small as they could be, allowing more compact stoage of a mess, err, mass of discs. And while somewhat fragile, it was easy to obtain replacement empty boxes and transfer the disc and printed materials to the new box.
And, of course, I must refer you to our optical disc packaging article.
Atlant (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
One method that I have found useful on CD cases is to - VERY gently - unhinge the top cover by pulling the bottom hinge away from the spine of the case, then lift the front cover. The label will stay attached, but you can A) get the CD out easily, and B) Peel the label by separating the front and back covers. Take care not to deform or crack the hinge, but it should be easy to pop back into place once the label is removed. This doesn't help with DVDs, of course - but it's great for CD's. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I bought a 99 cent piece of plastic with a sharp plastic blade inside it that cuts through all of the annoying CD wrappings. They're specially designed for that purpose. They also work for DVDs, if the case is about the same size as a CD case. Corvus cornixtalk 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If you peel them slowly and carefully and in just the right direction, you can get them off cleanly, in one piece, with no adhesive residue left behind. But it's one of the harder kinds of slow and careful, that nobody else can stand to watch, like Orr rebuilding the stove in his and Yossarian's tent in Catch-22. See also this message. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not true if the adhesive label has been stuck there long enough and/or exposed to heat; I can often tell that many of the DVDs that I buy are the "more obscure" DVDs because the adhesive labels on them have become quite, quite stuck on the keep case while the disc sat on the vendor's shelf waiting for me to come along and buy it.
Atlant (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The root of the problem is that making it very difficult to get into might prevent a theft or two, while making your life miserable after you've already handed over your money doesn't cost them anything. --Sean 13:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who hosts the largest Girls Hockey Tournament in Canada based on the number of teams registered?

Hello,

We are the organizers of the St-Hubert Jets Girls Hockey Tournament. This year we hosted 90 teams and we would like to know where we rank in Canada in terms of being the largest girls hockey tournament by number of registered teams.

Can you help me with my question?

Thanks Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.226.245 (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] monopoly

i was going to ask this on entertainment but that seems to be a lot more about film/music so here goes: in monopoly, what is the most profitable property to own? obviosuly the last two earn a lot but they cost loads and so does development, and there are only two squares to be landed on. i own the english version but i assume the prices are all the same on all versions thanks 81.96.160.6 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

According to [1], the orange ones are the most profitable. Hope that helps. --Taraborn (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that a very important factor for the value of a group is how often people land in it. Not only is the blue very bad, the green is also not so good because the "goto jail" square before it reduces by about 15% the chances of opponents reaching them. If I remember correctly, there are cards that send you to speicifc squares (red and green?) and make you pay rent, so this gives them a slight boost. I'll say that after orange (assuming it is agreed to be best), red and yellow are very good. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Also see here, which has exhaustive statistics on which squares are most likely to be landed on, which squares most likely to get the most money from, etc. 70.162.25.53 (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)