Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 October 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 13 <<Sep | October | Nov>> October 15 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.


Contents


[edit] HOFFSTEDE STUDY

What is "Hoffstede Study"? What is its importance in International Business?

It is to do with national culture. See Geert Hofstede. BenC7 07:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] news headlines in present continuous

why news headlines are written in present continous form instead of past tense? I think it's because news stories are often still happening. There are commonly headlines saying things like "Local Woman Wins First Prize in Pumpkin Growing Contest" stating things that have already happened. Ask Anchoress for her opinion.AMP'd 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Spanish language newspapers use past tense in their headlines. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be largely an English-speaking phenomena. I haven't seen any Scandinavian newspapers use such headlines. Indeed, I've come to hate short, attention-begging headlines that drag things out of context. But that's O/T. :) 81.93.102.3 11:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
In English-language headlines I see mainly the present simple: The New York Times: "U.S. Hits Obstacle" • "Leader of a Georgia Mosque Pleads Guilty"; The Times: "Army throws weight behind chief" • "Ministers say general was out of order". Looking at today's headlines of the German newspaper Die Welt, I see likewise mainly the present indicative for things that already happened: USA messen Radioaktivität • Aachen genießt den Moment • Agenten führen Mädchen aus Schulunterricht ab. In Le Monde, on the contrary, I find mainly (but not exclusively) the perfect tense. Apparently there is no simple rule like English versus the rest or Germanic versus Latin.  --LambiamTalk 12:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it's done intentionally to make the news seem more current. That is, people would rather know what is happening now that what has happened in the past. BTW, this question belongs on the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 16:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Just a nit: They don't ordinarily use the present continuous, aka present progressive, tense, but just the plain old present tense. The present continuous would be where the verbs end in "ing". --Trovatore 16:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the Average Weight?

hey I was just wondering what would be the average weight for someone in the U.S. about 5'6"-5'7"?

According to this CDC study, the average body mass index for males 20 years and older for 1999–2002 was 27.8, which for a height of 5'6" corresponds to 172 pounds. —Keenan Pepper 07:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I am only European, and have problems with the unit lbs, but.... isn't that very fat? 81.93.102.3 11:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
BMIs over 25 are considered overweight, so yes 27.8 is. At 30, they are considered 'obese'. --Mnemeson 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think thats just under 80Kg, which for someone 5'6" is rather overweight. That would be a suitable mass for someone around 6' possibly taller. Englishnerd 13:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

what about like 15 and u weigh like 120lbs i dunno how much that is in like kg or ne thing just 120 lbs??

Depends on your height. Hyenaste (tell) 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

5'7" hows that?

[edit] What is the Meaning of Life?

What is the meaning of life? THL 07:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of life. I believe in the view that we're just around because we havn't figured out a way to destroy ourselves yet. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Some great philosopher once opined that it is: "Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations" and also, that people aren't wearing enough hats.--Fuhghettaboutit 08:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And who told you that it has a meaning? B00P 10:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder about the seriousness of questions like this. But I will (naively?) assume that there is some degree of actual desire to know behind it. If you ask me the meaning/purpose of life is to live in relationship with God. Not God as defined by an individual ("I think God is like this"), but God as he has revealed himself through the Bible. BenC7 10:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

THats oK if he exists. But if not...?--Light current 10:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
And if It exists, how do we know It revealed Itself through the Bible, and not through the works of H. P. Lovecraft? As to the original question: I'd say, the meaning of your life is what you choose it to be. So choose well.  --LambiamTalk 12:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything to make you think that God has revealed himself through said person's books? Has he made numerous prophecies which have subsequently been fulfulled literally and accurately? Has he performed miracles? Has his work changed billions of people's lives significantly? In fact, what book has ever done this, besides the Bible? BenC7 01:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Obvious answer. 42! Englishnerd 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well if it takes 7.5 million years for the computer to come up with 42... and we are probably about 7.5 million years away from building a computer of that magnitude... i would say you have to come back and ask that question in 15 million years. Good Luck in your quest! Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 17:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Man doesn't have much of a purpose unless you bring religion into the mix. Many many philosophers (theistic and atheistic alike) have commented that life is pretty bleak without a god, though of course it takes some wading through philosophical red tape (more like red concrete thanks to voltaire and nietzsche) to come to such a position --frothT C 18:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice how the previous post shifts the point of the question in three ways. (1) It goes from "meaning" to "purpose." The latter implies a goal, while the former does not. (2) "Man" is being substituted for "Life." Obviously written by a believer that "Man is the measure of all things." (3) Nobody asked whether things might be "bleak." Our Poster, however, constructs his reality so that he gets his desired outcome, and answers on that basis.
Notice how the parent post tries to look smart and intelligent while belittling the previous poster. His arguments have no merit. I will demonstrate why in three ways: (1) "What is the meaning of life" is often asked in the context of purpose. Also "meaning" is a concept very closely tied to "purpose". Meaning is often described in terms of purpose. For example "What is the meaning of spatula?" "Spatula is a word representing an object that flips eggs and pancakes". Asking what is literally the meaning of life (in a biological concept for example) is a more specialized meaning.. not to mention that this is historically an attractive place to post mystifying questions. The biological definition of life isn't considered nearly as mystifying as the purpose of life and reality. In other words, almost every time someone asks "what is the meaning of life" they really mean "describe the cosmology of the universe" though they might know that exact term. (2) I wasn't necessarily answering his question; rather I was providing follow up information that was related to the topic. Look around on this page; you'll see it's a common practice, especially with more general or controversial questions. (3) When Protagoras wrote that "man is a measure of all things," he was saying that man is ultimately the only thing in the world of value. How can you say that I obviously believe that when I just said that in fact man has little value or purpose without a god to serve? Our good Flamer therefore constructs his reality so that he gets his desired outcome, and replies on that basis. I wish I could end this with something funny but I can't think of anything that's not directly insulting... --frothT C 04:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Englishnerd has, of course, come up with the most viable answer. But for you, 41.95.
B00P 21:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
"Many many philosophers (theistic and atheistic alike) have commented that life is pretty bleak" Yeah. It has been said that life is like a restaurant where every day you have to eat a chicken sandwich for lunch. But some days it is chicken salad, and other days it is chicken shit, and you have to eat it all the same. Then you get old, then you die. Or there is a God, and he likes you, and you get pie in the sky, bye and bye, and live happily ever after. Cheers.Edison 05:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Life is mean? Clarityfiend 06:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does religion have to wreck everything? This was a joke, and I was hoping to get some BS answers that I could have a good laugh about, but what do I find when I return, a theological debate. The best answer I got was 41.95. Dang it religion, wasn't causing almost every war in human history enough? I'm very depressed now, I'm going to go and slit my wrists. THL 07:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A-ha, I was right! "not to mention that this is historically an attractive place to post mystifying questions [that they don't really want an answer to]" By the way if you're God how can you kill yourself? --frothT C 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't die. I was just so depressed that I inflicted pain on myself. Also remember when I posted this comment I still had amnesia from Darwin's chair shot. That hurt, he was way stronger than he looked. THL 19:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhh..I don't get Englishnerd's answer...is that a wikipedia inside joke? Oh well, just to add to the conversation, the Bible outdates Lovecraft's writings.--JDitto 05:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

See wikt:life. Confusing Manifestation 11:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

what about like 15 and u weigh like 120?


THATS NOT FAIR....I ASKED THIS QUESTION BEFORE AND I GOT A 1 SENTANCE ANSWER AND THATS ALL LOL!

[edit] a band with no original members

I'm scearching the answer to the following question: which band had already no original members, when releasing the first album? that means that no original member of the band participated in the creation of the first album, they all left before the releasing, but the name of the band stayed the same. i would appreciate any help thank you in advance kat

[edit] riddle

1.what has to be false to be true?

  • Q. "Are you going to answer NO to this question?" JackofOz 07:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

2.what is the capability of a nuke?whats all the hype bout n.korea having them.can it really destroy the world?how?

I'm not sure if you're asking a standard riddle with a set answer, but for a lie to indeed be a lie it must be false for it to be true that it's a lie. Something like that?. As for the second, I suggest reading the articles Nuclear weapon, Nuclear warfare, Nuclear winter, etc. In short though, a nuclear bomb can have a capacity of 50 megatons, meaning that the explosion is equivalent to 50 million tons of TNT exploding and yes, enough nuclear bombs exploding can destroy the world. As for North Korea, please see 2006 North Korean nuclear test.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
One nuke won't destroy the world, but it could do pretty serious damage to a city: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only cities ever to be attacked by nuclear bomb, were almost completely flattened by the blast, although isolated buildings did survive, and those bombs (Little Boy and Fat Man) were tiny by today's standards (but not by North Korean standards; the DPRK bomb was ~ 1 kiloton, which is 1/20 of the Fat Man bomb). Laïka 13:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One nuke could destroy Tokyo or Seoul or Los Angeles, which sounds bad enough to me. StuRat 16:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be a very high-yield weapon.. are you sure about that? Think of a nuke as an unusually powerful bomb- they don't have any strange power to "destroy the world" but while a normal bomb might destroy a building, a nuke could destroy much of a city. Also there's nuclear fallout, which inhibits rebuilding and may affect surrounding areas --frothT C 19:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The center of the Greater Los Angeles is more than 100km from any point on the border of the area. The most powerful nuke the US has ever detonated is Castle Bravo, a 15 megaton yield. This page says that for a 20mt yield the maximum range for any damage at all (first degree burns on exposed skin) is 50km. --frothT C 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, StuRat didn't say "Greater LA", but LA. Speaking as a former Angeleno, Greater LA is definitely not LA. In fact not all of LA is LA (for example, the Valley is not LA). --Trovatore 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe the biggest nuke ever detonated was the Tsar Bomba. As long as the LA suburb of Woodland Hills survives (where they make porno movies), then I'm OK. :-) StuRat 23:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Tsar Bomba doesn't count it's too big for actual warfare. --frothT C 04:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Any nuke could destroy the world once fired, because MAD would occur. --JDitto 05:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Or at least cause significant damage to the surface dwelling flora and fauna. Rich Farmbrough, 12:47 19 October 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Car's main shaft producing power

Why should a car's battery EVER run flat? Can't one simply fit a sort of magnet onto the shaft somewhere between the gearbox and the rear wheelshaft? (Not sure about the nomenclature for these parts)

Even if that would lessen the structural integrity of such a shaft, which is quite important of course, can't one just duplicate the solution which makes the engine shaft run the shaft of the cooling prop? Surely a lot of the potential for energy from a car can be used by fitting magnets/coils of wiring onto a part of the shaft (ANY moving shaft), and harvest the energy that 3,000-5,000 RPMs can produce? 81.93.102.3 11:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Batteries run flat when you leave the headlights on. Newer cars all have things to prevent that, which is good for me! Also, batteries more than 6 years old lose their capacity to hold charge, and many people notice that when winter starts to bite. The final problem is that the alternator rusts out (for Detroit cars) at 7 years. --Zeizmic 11:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Most cars do have generators attached to the axles, and some have regenerative brakes. However, the big problem is that any dynamo will generate massive resistance when a current is flowing. This is fine for braking, where you want to slow the wheels down, but a pain when trying to drive. Laïka 14:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't any problem generating electricity when the car is running (unless the charging system fails, that is). The problem is losing charge when the car is off. This happens slowly over time, which can be a problem for a car in storage. It can happen more quickly if there is an electrical short somewhere, which converts the charge into heat. StuRat 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, if trying to generate electricity from some new source, try a source of energy which is currently wasted, like braking (in most cars) or excess heat from the radiator and exhaust. StuRat 15:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In a dynamo like you're suggesting, energy is taken from the shaft and converted into electrical energy. You don't want energy taken from the drive shaft while you're trying to drive. --frothT C 18:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of interesting responses here, but not a single one mentioning the increased fuel consumption associated with placing ANY additional energy draining device to the propulsion system??????

Energy produced by burning fuel is turned into electrical energy to re-charge the battery, by the alternator. This happens whenever the car engine is running. There's three main reasons for a "flat battery", battery failure (often due to drying out or age), electical drain when not running the engine, and failure of the charging system (alternator burn out, diode failure). I've had all three. Also I had one car where the alternator/battery did not provide enough power for radio+heater+wipers+lights. Energy is conserved, so when you turn on your radio the car slows down, or burns more fuel, albeit not noticeably. Rich Farmbrough, 12:54 19 October 2006 (GMT).

Turning on the A/C can cause a noticeable drop in power, especially in small cars. StuRat 13:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scarborough

local address

I think there are several places called Scarborough across the world. I know about one in South Africa, for instance... 惑乱 分からん 13:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Are vague questions about Scarborough Fair ? StuRat 15:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Scarborough, Ontario Ontario? --The Dark Side 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where Joe Scarborough lives. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] space, empty?

is space really empty or is that a matter of opinion 205.188.117.68 14:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Intergalactic space is really the closest we know of to a perfect free space, and even that contains a few hydrogen atoms. Even in a perfect free space, some virtual particles might pop in and out of existance and, if too close to a large source of gravitation, become real particles. Laïka 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who the source was – if someone knows, I'd appreciate hearing about it – but it was once said that the Universe is made of five things:
  1. nothing;
  2. nothing;
  3. nothing;
  4. a bit of energy; and
  5. a little dirty hydrogen.
Forget the hydrogen atoms; there are gobs of neutrinos everywhere. The current estimate in our article is that there should be a few more than fifty neutrinos per cubic centimetre of space left over from the Big Bang. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because there's a lower concentration of mass doesn't mean we should call it nothing. What if a hydrogen atom out in interstellar space was talking to his friend and said "I heard the earth was made of Solid matter, Solid matter, Solid matter, Solid matter, and a little bit of empty space. He would be equally wrong --frothT C 19:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
He might be wrong, but as a gendered hydrogen atom that could talk, he would be very, very valuable;-) --Mnemeson 00:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
In this context the value of a hydrogen atom is assumed to be irrelevant >:| --frothT C 04:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I echo the neutrino thing. So, no space is not empty, just the things taking it up are not stuck together and are so small they are transparent. THL 11:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And then there's the seething sea of quantum foam, the vacuum fluctuation that (in the absence of aether) keeps space from not existing.  --LambiamTalk 19:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I had a lengthy argument with one of my sciennce teachers about this. I was kicked out of class for a week. Funny thing was, I was right. Яussiaп F 11:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this illegal?

A man bumped into me on the street and caused my coffee to spill. So I followed him to his apartment, and beat his skull in with a baseball bat. I want to know if it is legal for me to do this, since he violated my rights first.

Yeah, turn yourself into the police; they can't touch you. --Zeizmic 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well it probably depends on where you live. The law will probably exist in almost any place, but may not be enforced in some countries. In the US it would almost definately be prosecuted and you would probably lose for the gross over-reaction. If it was, say, tthe other way around, the man came to you to bash your skull in and you threw coffee in his face and the coffee had some infectious disease in that infected an open wound and he died, you would probably get off on self-defense. schyler 15:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't kill him though.

I sure hope this is all theoretical. If it really happened, you are seriously out of control and need some anger management training immediately, and possibly some meds, too. If you won't get those things on your own, hopefully the courts will order them as a condition of your parole, once you are released from prison. StuRat 15:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you not think that the baseball bat thing was a trifle disproportionate to the initial minor mistake? Anyway, do you always walk down the street carrying a baseball bat? You could be arrested: its probably seen as a weapon of man destruction! 8-)--Light current 18:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's illegal in the United States and many european countries. See you in 5 years --frothT C 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Try 15 to 25 for felony assault. Martial Law 05:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Rich white kid who's lived most of his life in a gated community.... what do you want? --frothT C 17:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the size of the baseball bat, and what brand it is. THL 11:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And whether it's wood or aluminum, and what type of wood. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
A few words of advice - Don't drop the soap. Night, Night. Keep ya' butthole tight. -- Sturgeonman 19:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fastest spring

what's the fastest spring ever?205.188.117.68 15:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

this page says about 800 cubic feet per second, though that's only in florida. See Spring (hydrosphere) or possibly Spring (device) or even Spring (season), which did you mean? --frothT C 18:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The big bang was pretty fast--Light current 02:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No, too hot. Definitely summer. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 02:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I was going to suggest 1752, but turns out the Gregorian calendar reforms took place in early September, making this the fastest summer. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That was in the UK and its dominions, which were relative latecomers to the Gregorian calendar. The calendar was first adopted in Italy, Spain, Poland and Portugal in October 1582, making it the fastest fall. JackofOz 07:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Somebody vandalised Britney Spears article.

Did they add false info, like that she has any talent ? :-) StuRat 15:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Do not upset yourself too much. Our policy concerning such acts are lengthily explained here : Wikipedia:Vandalism. And I imagine that, while we answer, some reacted and reverted to the truth : The amount of her talent, according to (1), is ... -- DLL .. T 18:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longest Professional Wrestling Match

What is the longest professional wrestling match ever? Also, what is the longest WWE Match ever? Thanks.

Look here for some information but be aware that they are not talking about the type of wrestling that you see at the WWE or Olympic style wrestling. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as thw WWE goes, I know it was a ladder match, Shawn Michaels was in it, and it was at a Wrestlemania. See Shawn Michaels, it should be in there. THL 15:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] girl in whale rider.

whats she up to? --Cursa 16:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Internet Movie Database Keisha Castle-Hughes is currently filming "Hey, Hey, It's Esther Blueburger". She's also pregnant. -- Arwel (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
She's PREGNANT? SHE'S 16! -- Toytoy 12:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That's the biological reason why people enter puberty, you know... It's rather young, but we shouldn't judge her beforehand, I'd guess... 惑乱 分からん 13:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding, she's 16! --frothT C 19:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The age of consent in New Zealand is 16 (and many other places). In many US states it would be legal as well. Don't get so huffy. --Fastfission 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Huff huff! --frothT C 03:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The age of consent in Sweden is 15, by the way... 惑乱 分からん 04:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
And in Spain, 13. --GTubio 07:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost

I saw the first half of season 1 and all of season 2, but I don't own a TV so could someone tell me what's going on in the 3rd season? Or at least direct me to a website with a synopsis? --frothT C 18:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Try Lostpedia. Laïka 19:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You can watch season 3 episodes online, I think on the show's website.

[edit] Two rugby union questions from an American

1. Since you get more points for a try than for a kicked goal, and there's no equivalent to "fourth down," why would a team ever kick instead of keeping the ball and going for a try?-- Mwalcoff 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because kicking for goal is often an easier and more certain way of scoring points than always going for a try. Many games between even sides are won by goal kicks. When you are playing for a try you risk losing possession and scoring no points. BlueValour 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, but how does a team decide on a given possession whether to kick it or go for a try? -- Mwalcoff 04:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no equivalent to downs at all - play runs until the ball goes dead and a scrum, lineout, penalty or points are awarded. As Blue Valour points out it's often in the teams interest to take the 'sure' three point penalty rather than gamble on a try. Lisiate 21:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, let me rephrase. Let's say my team has the ball 30 yards from the goal line. How do I know whether to keep running or to drop-kick it? -- Mwalcoff 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it would depend on how many opposing players are between you and the goal line (or just behind you). If there are few or none, you'd keep running, since your chances of scoring a try are pretty good. If there are plenty of opposing players in the way, you'd likely go for the kick. --Richardrj talk email 11:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


2. Some rugby union competitions, such as the Super 14 and Air New Zealand Cup, seem to have teams assigned to territorial areas, such as provinces or regions. Does that mean that players have to play for their home territory (like in national-team competitions)? Or can teams sign players from anywhere, as with other sports? -- Mwalcoff 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In New Zealand players can and do move around. The provinvial system is basically an historical thing and predates the National union by a decade or so. Lisiate 21:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)