Miscellaneous desk
< August 22	<< Jul | August | Sep >>	August 24 >

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.

Whats the major difference between a rock guitarist and a jazz guitarist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcoBass (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The type of music they play? This is a trick question, right? ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You can make do in rock with a small handful of chords, and they tend to be relatively simple; jazz, on the other hand, delights in things like Ebm7b5 and B7b9 which give lesser trained rock guitarist conniption fits. There are of course other differences in technique. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

conniption fits? Is that a fingering problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcoBass (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You try playing a d-flat-demented-ninth chord when you're connipping all over the place. It's quite embarassing. (It's even harder on uke.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bielle nailed it. The difference is really just the music they play. Some chords may be associated more with one genre than another, but a skilled jazz guitarist could probably get away with playing only a few simple chords, and a rock guitarist could implement more complex chords into rock music. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya think? Jazz guitar has a pretty decent writeup of the discipline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I (and possibly Bielle) was responding to the question as it was asked, rather than interpreting the question as "What's the major difference between a rock style of guitar and a jazz style of guitar?" — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you get to the craft of soloing there is a very significant difference in the approach. In jazz you look at the changes and you pick a scale to play over it, such as G over Am7 or F melodic minor over E7#5. Even when you have those chords in rock and happen to be playing them with similar voicings, you still generally opt for more of a bluesy pentatonic sound. This changes your entire mindset of how you approach soloing. That's why in jazz you learn scales in one octave in 8 different places but in rock you learn to extend the same scale all over the neck, and in jazz you learn little fills to play over a standard set of changes but in rock you learn fills just for ideas. I've tried using jazz techniques in my rock stuff and it didn't work for what I was going for. It just didn't sound grounded enough. I think it only works if you're going for some a Jeff Beck sort of a sound, which most rockers aren't. That said, learning scales (like the pentatonic ones) in one octave sections is still a good idea. -LambaJan (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The major diff is that the rock guitarist plays three chords to thousands of people, whereas the jazz guitarist..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrouNoir (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why when you are doing something boring (a perfect example school) the time appears to pass slower and why you are making something very cool the time appear to pass very fast?? Has someone made scientific studies on this??? There is a wikipedia article about this?? Has someone found a way to make this not happen??? 201.78.239.4 (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not covering the subject in-depth, but Perception of duration might help. Astronaut (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A similar question was asked on the science reference desk. This New Scientist article implies that a bored person pays more attention to time, while its passage seems almost irrelevant to a person with many tasks at hand. As for scientific research, there are many scientific papers on the methods human use to measure the passage of time as well as how perceived duration changes. The fact that New Scientist described the research means there's more than one dubious scientist working on the issue.

The article mentions altering the dopamine system using drugs to change one's general perception of time, but this method shouldn't change the effect you're interested in. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper katanas and some other types of sword are made of folded steel. That is, during the forging process, the pliable steel is literally folded lengthways, hammered flat, and folded again. The initial reason was to try to melt together the low quality bits of steel into a cohesive unit, but it has superior material properties that have made it popular to the present day. My question is simply: can you tell whether a sword has been made in this way just by examining the blade? Do you see the evidence of the folds or are they obliterated in the later stages of smithing? Matt Deres (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they fold the steel lots of times. If they made 20 folds - then there would be a million layers of steel. You're not going to see that. Even with 10 folds there would be a thousand layers. SteveBaker (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damascus steel has a visible pattern and has something to do with folded steel. I don't know whether this applies to katanas. Just thought it worth mentioning. Pfly (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen folded steel katanas and you can see a lot of lines running through it, but I'm not 100% convinced that it was a genuine folded steel katana (it was only about $300 USD, when most other places that sell them charge $700-$1000 for the cheapest). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folded steel redirects to Katana construction which only has "The finishing process brings out and enhances all details of a blade so that they are readily-visible for observation and analysis, which entails results that must be free of any visual imperfections." I'm not sure whether folds would count as an imperfection, or a detail. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The direct answer is that if you see the lines it's been folded, but if you don't see them it probably hasn't. The blade made from pattern welded steel (the generic term covering Damascus steel and similar processes) may be polished so as not to reveal the lines or it may be treated with agents such as nitric acid to reveal the lines. When folding steels for blade making, steels of different alloys are used, specifically differing nickel content, stacked alternately. The acid reacts with the nickel, turning the steel darker. Microscopic examination of the cutting edge might reveal evidence of layering. Generally a bladesmith going through the trouble of pattern welding blade stock would want to reveal the results of the labor required to repeatedly draw out (hammer to make thinner) and fold over the steel. In fact, quite complex patterns are obtained by different techniques of forging the layered steel.

Thehammer472 (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which North American retail store can I find a 2.5mm to 2.5mm cable [[1]] that will allow me to connect a TI-83 with another TI-83 graphing calculator? I lost the one that came with the calculator and would prefer not to order one online. Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're difficult to find. It's important that they be stereo or three conductor cables. I can't even find them on TI's web site!

You've got a couple of options here. First, try calling TI (1-800-TI-CARES) they may know where you could buy one, or perhaps they still sell them. Another option is to go to Radio Shack (or similar) and pick up a 3.5mm cable [2] and two adapters[3]. Make sure you get "stereo", three conductor componants. That's a pretty expensive option as those adapters are not cheap. The cheapest option, would be to purchase the two plugs yourself [4], and solder your own cable. Obviously, this solution requires some soldering.

(If you don't know how to solder - or if you don't have a soldering iron - you could probably get away with twisting the wires together tightly and wrapping them with electrical tape. It might be a bit "fragile" - but it'll work.) SteveBaker (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. APL (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure standard cables would work? They might not be straight. Check if they are crossover before you buy. F (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I hadn't actualy tried that option, but further research makes me think it might be a cross-over.

better answer : These people seem to have them in-stock. | CTI-Texas.com APL (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://pinouts.ru/PortableDevices/ti_calc_cable_pinout.shtml the TI cable is not a crossover (i.e. each connector connects to the same position connector on the opposite plug.) I don't think stereo audio cables are crossover, but I'm not sure. --Random832 (contribs) 17:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stepped outside a moment ago and noticed something strange: there was a swarm of ants in the lower threshold of our back door (not sure how to describe it... Y'know, the part where the door meets the ground and there's a little gap?) who were congregating around the buildup of leaves and dirt and what have you that had accumulated there over the years. It's not as though we hadn't cleaned the area before; it was just that it was one of those stubborn spots where lots of stuff gets piled up in a tiny space, and it's hard to notice, let alone fix (it blends in). Ants annoy me as is, but there were also tons of what seemed to be ants with wings. I know that's not really out of the ordinary, but the sheer number of them was unbelievable... Normally I see one for every twenty normal ants, but there had to have been a 50/50 ratio of the little monsters. Not having access to ant traps or the means to get any within the next few hours, and being the red-blooded American that I am, I decided to bleach them. Obviously I was careful in doing this (I'm not that stupid)... Afterwords I blasted the whole thing with the hose to remove and dilute the bleach and so I could get rid of all the crap that was stuck in the little cranny where the ants seemed to be hiding. Looking over the havoc that I had recked, I noticed a little red-ish thing that looked almost like a pill capsule. I picked it up and cracked it open (it broke open almost identically to how a pill would), and inside was what seemed to be a cream-colored larva... I've seen ant eggs before, but this didn't look quite right. And what in God's name is with the shell, dare I ask?

Anyway... I've no idea what it was and am pretty well stumped. Am I dealing with some sort of alien species here, or just something that has to do with ants that I'm unaware of? We are, of course, going to put up ant traps tomorrow and possibly talk to the bug people if it's not ants and if it persists, but I find myself morbidly curious as to what I found. Any ideas? --(Flying Ninja Monkey) ^(Banana!) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Ant discusses the flying ant thing pretty well. Start there! SteveBaker (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the Ant article. Do you have any pixes of these things? Where I'm at, there are the Fire ants and Harvester ants. BOTH of these will literally eat you alive. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:United States one dollar bill, obverse,upper right.JPG

Did you know that the USA Dollar Bill has a spider in it? It also has other symbols, such as symbols claiming Masonic origins and even New World Order Symbols. There is similar symbols on the $5, $10, even on the $20 and the $50, $100 as well. The spider on the $1 is located near the 1 on the left side of that, on the $1's upper right corner. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? APL (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the question is "did you know" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.139.77 (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did know. Thank you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States one-dollar bill mentions this, but says it may be an owl. Personally, it looks like just a bit of the general linework. Pfly (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it looks just like the loop of sinusoidal squiggles below and to the right of it. It looks more like an octopus than anything else. SteveBaker (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, guys and gals, I think it's pretty damn obvious who that is peaking at us from his eternal slumber behind the One. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the symbolism there. That would be "...his eternal slumber behind the One". This goes deeper than I thought. Look at the very bottom edge of the design on the front of the uni-buck - halfway between the "1" and the text in the middle on each side...zoom in...more...yeah Cthylla peeking out from her lair...forever waiting to rebirth the sleeping god at need. I think we've uncovered a secret government plot to promote Lovecraftian worship. Quick - write an article! SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had a rule against starting threads just for discussion (did you know... is not a question). --Random832 (contribs) 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Wikipedia has an article on pareidolia? (And I agree with 98.217—the 'spider' does look more like Cthulhu.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When heads of state/government go on a visit to a foreign country, do they pass through the usual immigration controls and have to show a passport, declare the purpose of their visit, say how long they intend to stay, and so on? Astronaut (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they have to go through immigration controls, but probably not the usual ones - there will be a VIP section for such people. --Tango (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heathrow deals with all visiting heads of states at the Royal Suite, as shown on the tv show Airport. The suite has it's own stand so that the incoming planes can make their way directly to the suite for the red carpet, band and handshakes. Once landed, various flunkeys emerge with the correct documents and deal with Customs officers on the ground. Generally, as a visit is rarely a surprise, all of the paperwork has been dealt with before the plane took off from it's point of origin and the receiving customs officers only need to give a cursory glance to check that everyone is accounted for. Nanonic (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true in the UK - but I'm sure the standards vary WIDELY around the world. SteveBaker (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. What country wouldn't lay on VIP treatment for a visiting head of state? Kind of defeats the point of a state visit. Security concerns alone would make it impossible for a head of state to queue up with everyone else. --Tango (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know that how do the boxer get points in boxing. can anyone help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.240.151 (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try here (Professional_boxing#Scoring) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-point_must_system). Hope it helps ny156uk (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP was referring to amateur boxing, the type of boxing in the Olympics, the scoring system is different from pro. You get a point for every punch that lands the white part of the glove on the front of your opponent's head or torso. You can also get points if the referee warns your opponent for breaking the rules and the judges agree. Please note also that this current Olympic-boxing scoring style is under much scrutiny for not accurately measuring the success of a boxer in a fight.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia editors and contributors,

I would like you to answer a simple question regarding energy and stamina, if that is possible. Are there any reliable methods and/or techniques to significantly increase them? If so, could you please tell me what they are? I would sincerely and greatly appreciate it.

Many thanks in advance,

― Ann _{( user | talk )} 08:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good diet, exercise and rest. When your body is used to exerting extra effort for exercise on a regular basis (assuming you're healthy enough to exercise), then just getting through the day is not such a big deal. When you're well rested and filled up, that helps too. Caffeine is ok as long as you don't rely on it and sugar is ok as long as you don't have enough to get a buzz. If none of that works then see a physician because you might have some kind of blood sugar/thyroid/disease or some other kind of health issue to deal with. -LambaJan (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical exercise links to Aerobic exercise. From Caffeine - "Because caffeine is primarily an antagonist of the central nervous system's receptors for the neurotransmitter adenosine, the bodies of individuals who regularly consume caffeine adapt to the continual presence of the drug by substantially increasing the number of adenosine receptors in the central nervous system. This increase in the number of the adenosine receptors makes the body much more sensitive to adenosine, with two primary consequences. First, the stimulatory effects of caffeine are substantially reduced, a phenomenon known as a tolerance adaptation. Second, because these adaptive responses to caffeine make individuals much more sensitive to adenosine, a reduction in caffeine intake will effectively increase the normal physiological effects of adenosine, resulting in unwelcome withdrawal symptoms in tolerant users." - At the risk of going OR, caffeine can be likened to sprinting - you go faster for a little bit, but in the long run, you end up behind. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

when a women is on her period can she be pregnant79.68.40.177 (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be pregnant or get pregnant? A woman can appear to have her period even when she is pregnant, as it's not uncommon for there to be a little bleeding in early pregnancy. And yes, there are a number of calendar-based methods of birth control, famed throughout the world as wonderful solutions for getting someone unexpectedly pregnant and then feeling really, really stupid afterwards. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must be added that haemorrhaging (bleeding) in early pregnancy MAY be a sign for a serious complication. As WP must not give any medical advice, I strongly suggest the person in question to seek the advice of a physician / gynaecologist. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's assuming that this is about an actual person rather than a generic question, though. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard vastly unsubstantiated rumours that it occasionally occurs that a woman continues ovulating during pregnancy, but that it is uncommon. Citation needed. Steewi (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See superfetation and superfecundation. --Sean 00:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi People, When a wire transfer is made from a bank,does the RECEIVING bank know where the transfer originated from?? I understand that the sending bank can request the bank name that the wire transfer is made to,and to what account number,but I was just wondering if the RECIEVING bank knew where it came from?or does it just turn up in the persons account unknown of origin. Thanks, Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.9.46 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only ever received one transfer and it came with lots of identification, though mostly in the form of numbers that only another bank could read. Given the world's general state of paranoia, it is difficult to transfer funds anonymously. In Canada, if one uses small-denomination postal orders (under $50.00, I think) that are paid in cash, neither sender nor reeiver has to be identified to the post office, but that is not a bank-to-bank transfer. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't specify what country you're referring to. And do you mean a domestic wire transfer or international? I suspect in the vast majority of cases, the receiving bank will know which bank it came from and have a reference for the transaction which they could use to follow up with the sending bank even if they don't know the person's name or account number. BTW, here in NZ fastcheques (basically a wiretransfer done online) between ASB Bank accounts show the sender's name. It's been a long while if I've ever received one from another bank so I'm not sure if it's the same if it's from a different bank nor do I know if it's the same if sent to a different bank. P.S. I asked someone who'd received an international money transfer, and he says it shows the name as well Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having translated some documentation about anti-money laundering procedures and related matters for an international bank, I speak with a degree of factual knowledge when I say that while it may not be required for a bank to know where a money transfer originates, from a purely technological point of view, most banks definitely make it their business to know. I mean, big banks are going to want to know where your money is coming from if you have a lot of it -- you can't just show up with a million bucks in cash and deposit it, they're going to want to know how you came by it, and you're going to have to provide paperwork for it. It's not that they care all that much, but organizations like the FATF do, and no bank wants to be on the receiving end of sanctions from them. Indeed -- and now we're getting back to wire transfers -- the FATF has issued forty recommendations on how to combat money laundering, as well as another nine since 9/11, and it's recommendation number seven of this latter set that addresses wire transfers specifically:

VII. Wire Transfers

"Countries should take measures to require financial institutions, including money remitters, to include accurate and meaningful originator information (name, address and account number) on funds transfers and related messages that are sent, and the information should remain with the transfer or related message through the payment chain.

"Countries should take measures to ensure that financial institutions, including money remitters, conduct enhanced scrutiny of and monitor for suspicious activity funds transfers which do not contain complete originator information (name, address and account number)."

It's not impossible for a bank to receive a wire transfer without knowing where it's coming from, or for it to simply shrug and go about its other business when it happens, but these days it's very unlikely, because that way lies inconvenient extra work, possible sanctions and bad public perception, and any one of those things is something banks really want to avoid. In fact, just doing perfectly legal and diligent business with another bank that consistently demonstrates negligence (never mind criminal behavior) in matters like this can get a financial institution in trouble PR-wise -- there were a couple of real-world examples of this in the material I translated, but what with my brain being what it is, I've long forgotten the details. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a Water Moccasin and a Cottonmouth the same thing or are they two different types of snakes ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.12.6 (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Agkistrodon piscivorus, they're the same thing. Algebraist 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very aggressive little beasts, too, IMHO. Edison2 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When on the track is there a way to avoid the flying blue spiked shell from hitting you and exploding? 69.210.123.28 (talk)Bowser —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer - but (as the ref.desks' tame video game programmer) I'd say that it's very unusual indeed for game designers to put you into a situation you can't escape from - so there is almost certainly a way to do it. Either that information is in the little booklet that came with the game - or (more likely) the game designers decided that the process of figuring that out is a part of the skill of game...in which case it would be wrong of us to tell you! Good players will figure it out and do better as a result. I'd recommend trying different things. Is there some other collectable that'll protect you? Maybe swerving violently as it comes towards you? Speeding up? Slowing down? Hitting a "zipper"? Doing two of those things at once? Finding that out is part of the game. SteveBaker (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google, you can avoid a blue shell by not being in the lead when it's fired, by having just been hit by something else and thus immune, or by just plain dodging (this is tricky). Algebraist 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably be interested to know that you can dodge a POW block by jerking the controller (which I didn't figure out until well into the game), but the whole point of the blue spiked shell is to be unavoidable. Just like the lightning bolt—you can't avoid it. Now, there is the rare exception that you are invincible (by using a star) when the blue spiked shell hits you, but you can't get a star if you're first.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WikiHow claims that you can dodge it. Algebraist 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to be very, very lucky to dodge it. If I remember, the spiky shell has a 99.99% chance of hitting first place. bibliomaniac15 00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult, as it (and a great deal of other attacks) seemed designed to moderate the deviation from the middle of the race. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--24.188.247.12 (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're going to get an answer. They don't ask you for your voter's card when you buy a car, and I can't imagine any way to gather a reliable statistic on this.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are these things called "polls". The one listed here doesn't sort by political party, but rather by self-labeled liberal vs. conservative, and the correlation is going the other way -- 15% of conservative men own SUVs, vs 7% of liberal men (19 and 5 respectively for women). I'm sure with more research I could find a survey that matches political party to SUV ownership. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That read like a problem out of a probability course. I can use bayes theorem to find the answer here. p(_r_epublican|_s_uv owner) = p(s|r)*p(r)/p(s) = (p(s|r,_m_ale)*p(m)+p(s|r,_f_emale)*p(f))*p(r)/p(s) = (.15*.5+.19*.5)*.5/p(s) = .17*.5/p(s) = .085/p(s). lets say a quarter of the automobiles in my neighborhood are suvs then the probability of suv owners being republicans is 34%. wait sorry, that cant be right, im expecting something more than 50%. my maths is flawed. --24.188.247.12 (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer's wrong because one of your inputs is false. Given the data we have, it can't be the case that 25% of people own an SUV (unless there's a massive non-conservative non-liberal SUV-owning faction). Maybe 25% of vehicles are SUVs, but that's not the point at issue. Algebraist 23:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok if i assume that the person driving the suv is either a republican or democrat I can use: p(s) = p(s|r)*p(r)+p(s|_d_emocrat)*p(d) = .17*.5+.06*.5 = .115. so the probability of being a republican given that he/she is driving an suv is .085/.115 = 74%. I think this is somewhere on the right track. but still polling data would be nice for this configuration. --24.188.247.12 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also I forgot to use liberal/conservative than democrat/republican in the above comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.247.12 (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read in various magazines that the most fuel-efficient method of driving a car outfitted with a traditional manual transmission is the "Pedal-to-the-metal, short-shifting" technique, whereby the driver shifts as early as safely possible, but drives with the throttle fully open while on gear. My question is, does driving full-throttled increase the stress on the car in any way? If so, does the fuel saved by employing this method outweigh the increased stress on the car? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your premise.

The most fuel efficient technique is to be in the highest gear you can as soon as possible consistent with not "lugging" the engine and not pushing the RPM beyond the efficient range of the engine. Lugging is when you are running with an RPM that's too low...below maybe 1500 rpm (depending on the car). But "pedal to the metal"?! Hell no! Accelerate as gently as possible and as soon as your car hits maybe 2000 to 2500 rpm (depending on the car) you shift - as smoothly as possible. You certainly don't run with the throttle wide open - that's crazy. Anytime you're running over maybe 3000 rpm - you're wasting gas.

Running the car at high RPM or very low RPM does harm to it. Running at high RPM burns gas faster than low RPM. Hence, keep the RPM as low as possible at all times...but not so low as to lug the engine.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road & Track magazines claims that by driving full-throttle, the engine intake manifold is fully open and is at its peak efficiency. You would only put the "pedal to the metal" while accelerating, without reaching a high RPM. If the RPM's start to get to high, shift up and if you can't, then level off on the gas pedal. Like you said, it is always in one's best interest to keep the RPM's as low as possible to maximize fuel efficiency and this technique is indeed keeping the RPM's low by shifting. Perhaps another thing to point out if that this could only be used while accelerating, as again, like you stated, your RPM's will eventually get too high without any more gears to shift. Acceptable (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it depends on your car - but if you literally stand on the gas in my MINI Cooper turbo, its RPM will rocket up above 2500 faster than you could shift! But the idea that the engine is at peak FUEL efficiency when the when the manifold is fully open doesn't make sense. If it was true why wouldn't you want it to be fully open that when driving at a steady speed? That would suggest that you should stay in a lower gear - and we KNOW that's not true.

If your car can't gain RPM's very quickly (ie you have a low-torque engine) then you might well need to floor the gas pedal just to keep it in the 2000-3000 rpm band and avoid lugging the engine in those lower gears - but other cars (like my super-torquey MINI engine) need to be driven very gingerly indeed if you want to keep it in that rev range. So the correct advice is "Keep it in the low RPM range" because that works for all cars - not "Floor it" which only works for very low-torque engines.

I haven't done it with my present car - but I did (on a bet) try this "accellerate slowly, shift early" technique super-carefully and super-scientifically for an entire tankful of gas in my last car (which was a Supercharged MINI Cooper) - my gas mileage was spectacular - on a mixed urban/freeway cycle, I got better gas consumption than the manufacturer claimed for freeway driving! It was also the most boring two weeks of my life (made a lot worse because it took so much longer than usual to empty the tank)!

SteveBaker (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your later points, I would just like to point out that we probably do would want to be fully open while driving at a steady speed- but doing so would cause the RPM's (and therefore speed) to keep rising above the target speed. But if we were to keep it in a lower gear, the RPM's would be unnecessarily high and I'm assuming that the consequences of a higher RPM's outweigh the benefits of driving fully open when trying to save gas. Acceptable (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But RPM and throttle position are not independent variables! Let's simplify this a bit. Forget about the throttle position for a moment - the throttle is just a fuel/air metering device - it doesn't have an "efficiency". Assuming your car is less than 20 years old, the car's electronics can figure out the exactly correct amount of fuel and air to deliver no matter what. So let's just think about what's going on inside the cylinder:

• The amount of fuel the engine needs every minute is the amount that has to be combusted to produce enough gasses to push the piston from the top of the cylinder to the bottom multiplied by the number of cylinders multiplied the number of revolutions that each piston makes per minute...right?

• When you are accellerating, you need to get the piston from the top to the bottom in less time - and the way you do that is to use a little more fuel - that makes more gas - which makes for a higher pressure - which applies a greater force to the top of the piston - which accellerates the piston down the cylinder a bit faster - which makes the RPM climb and the car go faster.

• Even at constant speed: If the load on the engine is higher, it's harder to push the piston downwards - more force requires a higher pressure which requires more gasses which requires more fuel.

• To run the car at (say) 30mph and 2000rpm requires more down-force within the piston than driving at 30mph and 3000rpm.

The last two points are important. We have a dichotomy here: If you have to drive at a constant speed and constant RPM - but you have a choice of gears, should you pick the lower gear or the higher one? At first sight, it's not obvious:

1. If you opt for higher RPM the amount of down-force is less than at low rpm so you don't need so much fuel in each revolution of the engine.
2. But: The total amount of fuel you need is the amount of fuel per revolution MULTIPLIED by the number of revolutions so at higher RPM, you're multiplying by a bigger number.

The total energy delivered to the wheels is (naively) the amount of energy delivered per revolution of the engine multiplied by the number of revolutions per minute.

So from this naive viewpoint it's not obvious whether high or low RPM works best. Less fuel per revolution with more rpms or more fuel per revolution with less rpms? Well, the answer is lower RPM - and the reason is that frictional forces get worse at higher speeds so more of that energy is wasted.

Hence, for fuel economy, we want to be driving the car at the lowest RPM we possibly can. However, at some particular speed, the amount of force that has to be applied to the piston gets bigger at lower RPM. So at 30mph and 4000 rpm, the force you are applying to the piston (and the con rod and the bearings and the camshaft) is half what you are applying at 30mph and 2000 rpm. So in our efforts to save gas, we're driving at lower RPM and putting more stress on the engine. When the stress on the engine due to driving at very low RPM is more than it was designed to handle, you can damage it...certainly you'll wear out bearings and piston rings prematurely. This is called "lugging" - running the engine at lower RPM than it was designed to run.

So - what does this say about acceleration? If you accelerate rapidly, you must burn more gas than accelerating gently because more piston-force is needed. If you accelerate at high rpm then you need more gas than accelerating at low rpm because we have to remember that we have to multiply the amount of gas per revolution by the number of revolutions.

But (I suspect) the argument is that by accelerating hard to get to the shift point, you are burning more gas - but for a shorter period of time - so there would be no penalty to accelerating hard - but no benefit either (except of course that you get where you're going a little sooner). But that misses some practicalities. One is that human frailty being what it is, you won't be able to shift as accurately on the target rpm (this is more of a concern with a high performance car) - and the other is that in fact the engine is more complicated than I previously described. One thing is that the efficiency with which fuel is converted to gas pressure is worse under high loads - less CO2 is produced and more CO at higher pressures and temperatures and that's bad because the incomplete combustion of the CO is a waste of energy. Another is that by revving harder, you'll produce the same amount of extra heat energy - but in a shorter period of time. This overwhelms the cooling system and will result in engine temperatures rising - so the thermostat kicks in and you waste more energy circulating water, running the electric fan...you name it. All of these details mean that it's DOES matter whether you accelerate harder or more gently...and accelerating gently wins.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently at a party when a secret was told about how I can speak "Foo", (or fu?).

It was funny how this silly, invented language was turned into an academic conversation, and truthfully, I've never researched the background on this until now.

i suppose it could be compared to the likes of PigLatin. Yet in all of my years I have never known anyone who can explain the history behind this. I have my story how I came to learn this, & few of my own assumptions.

I'm unable to find anything related to this on the internet and thought maybe Wiki could look into this for me.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.121.31 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of "Foo", could you describe it? Pig Latin is just a very simple code for English, is this "Foo" thing something like that, or is it an actual language? --Tango (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, and the article Language_game doesn't mention "foo" or "fu." Can you tell us more what this "foo" language is all about?--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that this is a meta for for a meta foo of liguistic morphology. --62.47.142.0 (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foo is often used as a metasyntactic variable - generally as in "foo" and "bar" (which come from fubar). It's also a common joke-ish suffix for "expertise in" - so Wiki-foo would be Wikipedia expertise - this derives from "Kungfu". But unless our OP will give us a few grains of information - I also have no clue. SteveBaker (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that its use as a metasyntactic variable and as a humorous implication of expertise have entirely separate etymologies. Expertise in wikipedia might be called be Wiki-fu (à la Kung-fu) and metawiki might be represented as Wikifoo (à la foobar). Plasticup ^T/C 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - they certainly have different etymologies - but a heck of lot of people don't know that. Both are "properly" spelled "Fu" rather than "Foo" - but I've seen both uses with both spellings. http://www.seattlewireless.net/WikiFoo uses 'Wikifoo' for example. Anyway - this is probably nothing to do with the OP's question - but since our OP seems to have gone quiet, we'll probably never know. SteveBaker (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a brief clip of a team sport being played at the Olympics. It looked a lot like handball, but I don't think it can have been, because the ball was no bigger than a tennis ball. In handball, I believe the ball is about the same size as a volleyball. So what was this sport? Olympic sports#Current program is no help. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have been mistaken in what you saw, as Handball as you describe it is being played at the olympics and has been for over 50 years with volleyball sized balls. Nanonic (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, and I know what I saw - this ball was the size of a tennis ball. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 06:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ball used in what we Americans call handball is a good bit smaller than a tennis ball. But it's a one-on-one sport, not a team sport -- like racquetball without the rackets. --Trovatore (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they had sticks, you may have been watching field hockey. Rmhermen (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handball is played with a ball roughly the size of a size 3 football (19cm dia.). A volleyball is at the upper limit of a size 4 football (21cm dia.). -LambaJan (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To help: An image that shows the size of a handball in play. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at Olympic_sports#Discontinued_sports and Olympic_sports#Demonstration_sports? If the clip you saw was old, then it could be one of the sports no longer practiced at the Olympics. I've been following this year's Olympics pretty well, and have watched a little of every sport they have played, and none of this year's sports fit your description.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you have seen this on the orf channel, you may as well give them a call and ask. After all, you are paying for the privilege of watching TV in this country. --62.47.142.0 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I sugggest Kaatsen? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]