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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miscellaneous desk
< September 11 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 13 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


September 12[edit]

Sexual attraction to fictional characters[edit]

What is the term for being sexually attracted to fictional characters, to the exclusion of real people? How frequent is it? Does it qualify as a paraphilia? NeonMerlin 04:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While not exactly what you were looking for, Schediaphilia is the sexual attraction to cartoon and anime characters. And according to our article on paraphilia, Plushophilia is the attraction to costumed sorts of theme park characters. Dismas|(talk) 08:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who didn't have a crush on Penelope Pitstop? I think it's fairly normal however I'm not sure if "to the exclusion of real people" puts it into a different box. Capuchin 08:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds almost like some sort of fetish to me (which is a type of paraphilia). When you say fictional, do you mean as in just fiction books, or any fictional characters? I personally would regard most celebrities as 'fictional' (the people themselves, not just the characters they play in movies or TV), as we as a general public really only see a manufactured 'front' to them, not the real person. Now given the obsession in our society with the cult of celebrity and the number of people that become highly 'attracted' to one or more celebs, my feeling would be that this is a very frequent thing - not necessarily to the extent of excluding real people in most cases, but I'm sure that happens in some. Sorry I can't help with an actual term for it. --jjron 08:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you'll find many people attracted to like disney cartoon characters (I'd agree that's a fetish), but a lot of the popularity in anime is teh wimmens and fanservice. See otaku. --frothth|t]] 13:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attraction to Disney cartoon characters is just Dopey.
Atlant 14:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned Betty Rubble from the Flintsones. She was a babe. Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.166.234 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but Jessica Rabbit was an über babe. Gandalf61 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with Betty... But I'd be thinking of Wilma... FiggyBee 14:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partial to the Little Mermaid. Adam Bishop 18:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Willow Rosenberg, second series, first episode, with the ice-cream on her nose. I melt when I think of that scene. Xander doesn't notice and I want to jump in to take his place. Sigh .... DirkvdM 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jessica does it, but gotta have Faith! (Love those leather pants...) Barnabas Collins 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, then what about Doppelgangland? Willow in leather pants! Licking the neck of her other self! (Photo of that scene in the article.) DirkvdM 06:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and no one mentioned Trunks,Vegeta,or Goku.Trunks Briefs is hot and no one can say he isn't. There I end your discussion 23:21, 27 July 2012

What about a real attraction to those characters that are in movies or on TV? Not the actors? The fantasy of living in their world, being with the perfect person you see on the screen? This can't be paraphilia, and it's not confined to anime or cartoon characters. It's almost an inability to discern reality from movies, and live your life as though involved with this fictional character (or characters). I have done this in secret for most of my life. There has to be a name for it.

but like I CANT LOVE ANYONE DHCJNXCMOKLAJDKS

Ideal Height for a Soldier[edit]

I know the Pentagon studies all kind's of stuff so I was wondering if they ever determined the ideal size for an infantry soldier. I imagine this would be the minimum height necessary to effectively deal with the equipment and missions of combat. I figure minimum because the bigger you are the better your chances of getting hit by a bullet or shrapnel. 4.242.24.110 04:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, remember that there are many different roles for soldiers on a battlefield. I doubt there is a single ideal "soldier" size, though one could imagine there being a good "generalist" size. --72.83.173.248 04:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there are a lot of different jobs in the army which is why I specified infantry. 207.69.139.141 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the intent of the question, but in reality the size that matters most is internal. How much "heart" a person has is extremely more important than their physical size, especially in the infantry. The old saying goes "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog that matters." That was never truer than in the infantry. I would expect that the inner-strength factor so greatly outweighs the physical-size factor that no one is likely to ever do a study on ideal physical size. 152.16.59.190 06:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment reminds me of a study where they determined that around 25% of soldiers (in WWI, I think) would deliberately miss when firing their rifles. They just didn't want to kill another human being, and deduced that it would generally not be noticed in the heat of battle. Putting those guys in some other role would seem to far outweigh any advantage-seeking based on height. --Sean 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was way more than 25% for WWI; I think by Korea it was down to only 40%. The Pavlovian-style training developed during the Vietnam War reduced the number of non-firers to almost nothing, though — with some serious psychological effects. For details, see Grossman's On Killing' — it's a pretty interesting book. --24.147.86.187 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There exist fixed requirements for U.S. pilots. http://www.csus.edu/afrotc/pilot.html The physical envelope is used in engineering combat aircraft. Lazyquasar 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Army has 37 active combat brigades, but 500k active manpower so where is everyone else?[edit]

According to a NYT article on the overstretched military, the number of active combat brigades is 37, but doesn't a brigade have a maximum of 5000 soldiers? So the active combat brigades represent less than half of the active army? What kind of units are the other hundreds of thousands of active soldiers in?

67.170.241.199 12:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "soldiers" is fine, there's no other specific unit. --frotht 13:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the term 'active' means 'at war' or 'in combat' or 'ready to be attacked' - the rest are reserves or resting - the soldiers aren't expected to fight war 365 days a year...87.102.16.32 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the previous comment, a large number of troops who may be trained for combat may not be in the line of fire. Soldiers assigned to Iraq, for instance, will serve for a period of time there and then return to someplace (relatively) safer for additional training, vacation, or other duties.
The definition of 'active' is also important. The United States Army maintains facilities all over the world; even during peacetime these facilities require significant manpower to maintain. As well, there are a number of administrative and support personnel who are rarely (if ever) involved in active combat but who are nevertheless essential to a functioning army. Some of these include:
All of the above commands employ hundreds or thousands of Army personnel; most of their duties won't involve active combat. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks tenofall that was very helpful to my understanding. Froth, your foolish insistence on consistency destroys the richness of English. 24.7.47.36 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK - we think it's funny. SteveBaker 11:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you. Yes I went there. --frotht 18:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry F/X[edit]

I just received an email from a associate. In this email he stated that one of his employees is his "Jerry F/X".
I can't see what he means from the context. Since I'm no native speaker and can't find any related info on the net or in my dictionaries it would be great if anyone could explain what this term is referring to. --Nemissimo 14:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know what business is your associate is in. SteveBaker 15:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask him? — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 15:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it is slang then this urban dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Jerry) for Jerry has a few entries, unfortunately nothing for Jerry F/X though. No idea what it means myself, unless F/X is a department/acronym for a job title (likes say shorthand for Finances Executive) ny156uk 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in movies, TV and computer games, "F/X" would be short for 'effects' - special effects: Explosions, lasers, whatever. Knowing the business he is in would really help to answer this. SteveBaker 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is a marketing expert. --Nemissimo 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only remotely credible thing I could find was that FX Marketing in the UK is owned and run by a guy called Jerry [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 04:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect it means that Jerry is a "Fixer" - a person who gets things done.90.9.87.194 14:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)DT[reply]

Thanks a lot for your input! --Nemissimo 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling DRLs[edit]

I need to disable the daytime running lights on my car. Someone has suggested engaging the parking brake (partially) in order to turn them off. I'm just curious: will this work without causing any damage to the brakes? I don't want to screw anything up on my shiny new car. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that all cars have the ability to turn these lights off (save for possibly a few old Volvo/Saab models). Usually these are alterable as part of the same panel that turns the lights-on for night time driving. I suggest that you do not take your friends advice at all. What make/model is the car, people will be much more likely to have an answer if they know what car it is. ny156uk 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just Volvo and Saab. The '07 MINI has them on all the time too. There is a deeply buried menu option somewhere in the onboard computer that lets you turn them off - but no obvious switch. Engaging the parking brake even a little bit is a bad idea - it'll hit fuel consumption and wear the brakes out. If you are really unlucky it might overheat the brakes and warp the rotors or something. That depends a lot on the car and such. If I were you, I'd ask the dealership - if the car is new and there is an option to turn them off - they ought to do it for nothing. I'm curious though - what kind of car is this - and why would you want to turn them off? They consume almost zero energy compared to moving the car and they are a great safety feature. SteveBaker 18:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Canadian '07 Honda Fit. DRLs are not an optional feature here, so there is no switch to turn them off, and I'm guessing the dealer wouldn't cooperate with disabling them (and at that, I don't want them disabled all the time). The only reason I want to disable them is for driving up to an observatory that the university and local RASC branch uses. Shining lights in people's eyes is generally looked down upon. It was the instructor for my astronomy course that suggested engaging it slightly, and I've seen the suggestion on the internet, but I'm pretty wary of it for obvious reasons. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[2] doesn't list your car, but for other hondas, suggests pulling the relevant fuse. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[3] says "Use the fuse puller and remove the 7.5amp (brown) mini fuse from slot 8" (along with a whole bunch of other stuff about where your fuse box is. You might want to peruse this google search some more. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tad more permanent (and illegal?) than I was planning. If that's the only option, I may simply park and cover the (enormous) suckers up with something before entering the road. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's no more permanent than covering them up - just put the fuses back in when you're done. FiggyBee 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're likely to need to do this on a regular basis and you're handy with a soldering iron, you could always run leads from the fuse box up to a swith inline with the fuse up somewhere on the dash. Note that this may void your warranty; don't try it unless you know what you're doing; make sure that there is still a fuse inline with the switch; your mileage may vary; etc. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your mileage clearly does vary. Pulling the fuse - from the description - sounds like a 10 second job to me. 20 at the outside. Replacing it; ditto. Go and try it & then come back & tell us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about, and trying to rush responses so no one sees me doing this at work. I'll report back, doesn't sound 'too' bad. Not any more time consuming than covering the things up, probably. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the MINI - I bet there is a way to turn them off in software on the Honda Fit. I don't see why that should be illegal - daytime driving lights aren't required yet are they? Definitely ask the dealership...if they won't do it themselves, they may well tell you how to do it if you explain why you need to know. Failing that - the way to do it without voiding the warranty would be to buy a replacement fuse, cut away the plastic around the actual fuse link (these things are generally transparent - so that should be easy) and drill through it so that the fuse is now "blown". Now get a two-pole switch and a single fuse fuse-holder and carefully solder a wire from one side of the dead fuse to the switch - then from the switch to the new fuse-holder and from the fuse holder back to the dead fuse. Put a replacement fuse into your new fuse holder and plug the dead fuse into the car. Now you have a switchable fuse - and you've done it without voiding the warranty on the car. When you need to take your car in for a service, just unplug the 'dead' fuse and replace it with a regular one and the dealership will be none-the-wiser. Be sure to use reasonably heavy gauge wires because car lights can pull quite a bit of current. SteveBaker 03:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this web site [4] - click on Honda - and whilst it doesn't have instructions for the Fit, for all of the other Hondas it says to yank the fuse. So I guess there isn't a software way to do it. I'm surprised. Also (it seems) daytime running lights have been required on all new cars in Canada - so it probably is illegal to disable them permenantly. SteveBaker 04:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Old cars can go without, but I'm fairly certain that new cars are required to keep them working; and really, I'd rather have them most of the time anyways. In any case, pulling the fuse works fine, and it only takes a few seconds to do. Thanks for the help all. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that since DRL's are required in Canada, all of the other people at the observatory must have the exact same problem. It would be worth asking them what they do. SteveBaker 13:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's off the original point of the question but I can't help wondering how you'll be able to drive without any headlights on in the dark. Right now I'm just guessing that you'll pull the fuse for the DRLs, drive to the observatory, before pulling into the driveway or parking lot you'll turn off the headlights (leaving only the parking lights on), and then drive slowly enough so that you can still make out where you're going using only the red/amber parking lights for seeing obstacles and the road. Dismas|(talk) 05:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling the DRL fuse does not disable the ability to put headlights on, according to the article I quoted above - [5]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it would. Or were you simply pointing that out for everyone's edification? Dismas|(talk) 07:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I probably mistook the bit where you said "but I can't help wondering how you'll be able to drive without any headlights on in the dark". WTF. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - you did mistake it. He wasn't talking about the headlights being inoperative - merely that driving up to the observatory at night with headlights deliberately turned off (as a courtesy to people with dark-adapted eyes) would be hard. Nothing to do with disabling them. SteveBaker 13:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem as though it will be that difficult. It will be very dark, so there will be no street lights or others to create large amounts of contrast. It shouldn't be that difficult with only parking lights, especially at the speed I'll be going. Some 'star parties' outright ban non-red lights (even in cars, as long as it shines out and could disturb night-adapted folks), and people don't seem to have a huge issue with it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once you are dark-adapted, then I would expect you could do it - but that takes 20 to 30 minutes and almost any kind of light will instantly put you back to square one. That's why people get so upset about it. One flash and you can't see a thing for the next half hour! So IMHO, you'd need to pull off the road, turn off your lights and wait 20 minutes before driving up to the observatory. That gives you plenty of time to pull the fuse - except of course that you won't be able to see well enough to do it! SteveBaker 19:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was Goliath a real person and what was his height?[edit]

I've been curious if he was or not; I'm Christian, but I know that a lot of the stories on the Bible are metaphors and not historical events. But, I have heard that Goliath actually lived, so I have a few questions:

  1. Is it known if he was an actual or fictional person? If so, was he actually alive? Or is Goliath loosely based on another person? If so, who?
  2. If Goliath was real, how much of the story from the Bible applied to his actual life?
  3. What was his height? I've heard 6'6", 6'9", 9'0", and 9'6". Are any of these true (and I'm talking about both the character and the real person, in case they were different in height)?

Thanks. 71.187.170.128 19:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to get an idea of whether he was real or not would be to find some other source of information that referred to him - but which is not derived from the Bible story (or vice versa). That's going to be tough to find - it almost certainly doesn't exist because in the main, the only writings that people kept and passed on were religious texts - and those don't count because they are not independent sources. But in any case, it's generally the case that people were shorter back then than they are now - so even someone as tall as 6' might have been considered remarkable. SteveBaker 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first two heights are conceivable, if very high for the historic period. Since the tallest man ever recorded (Robert Pershing Wadlow) was only 8'11" we can most likely discount the 9'+ heights. Exxolon 20:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It relates to a much earlier period (only one generation after the supposed Adam and Eve), but Genesis 6:4 says "there were giants in those days". If that were really the case, and depending on what "giants" actually means in terms of height, maybe one of their descendants was Goliath. Hopeless supposition, I know, but .... -- JackofOz 23:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The King James Version says Goliath was "six cubits and a span". The math is left up to somebody who understands what that means. The New International Version says "over 9 feet tall". Corvus cornix 16:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well he was the biggest dude in the whole Philistine kingdom.. I don't think 9 feet is such a stretch if we've verified an 8'11" man since the advent of global communications and the like that make tracking things like this possible. --frotht 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wadlow was a genuine freak of nature though (he had a tumor that caused him to keep growing continuously)—and died super young—and would have been a lousy warrior (he could not walk unaided, he could barely feel his feet; the human frame simply can't support sizes like that very well, and there are probably specific anatomical reasons, related to surface area and volume and all that, why we can't get that big without major problems). In any case I wonder if anyone really would have sat Goliah down and measured him carefully. To someone who was afraid of a big honkin' Philistine dude, Shaq might look like he is 9 feet tall if you were standing next to him. (If you've ever happened to be on an elevator with a number of professional basketball players, you'll totally understand. Those guys look outer-worldly up close. On TV they are all grotesquely tall so the relative difference between them and a "normal" sized person is not easy to see). --24.147.86.187 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beware of the Cubit!
Measurements in cubits have to be taken with a very large dose of caution. The unit comes in a wide variety of sizes and it's almost never possible to tell which one is being referred to. A while back I was working with some guys in UK who were reconstructing a Greek Trireme (of all things!) despite the most careful research they picked the wrong size of cubit and ended up with a vessel that was exceedingly difficult to row because there was insufficient distance between the rowing benches. Our article on the cubit attests that a cubit has historically varied between 18" and 48". 6 cubits could therefore be 9 feet - or 24 feet - or somewhere between those extremes. But then you have to account for the vagiaries of translation and the inevitable exaggerations inherent in repeated retellings of the story...assuming that it's anything more than an inspirational fairy story in the first place. Extracting actual truth from that pile of confusion is simply not going to happen. SteveBaker 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same document that says grasshoppers have 4 legs and that Adam lived to be 930 years old, so I think you need to either abandon logic or else take the whole business with a few cubic cubits of salt. --Sean 17:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

impromptu intrusion detection strategies[edit]

Has anyone ever done research on impromptu intrusion detection strategies?

For examples of what I am asking about, consider:

  • putting a match stick in the door jamb of a hotel room to determine whether someone entered the room. If the match is still there, the door was (probably) never opened;
  • placing a chair in a precise position, relative to a desk to determine whether someone sat at the desk. If the chair is still in the same position upon return, (perhaps) no one sat there.

Obviously, these depend on the obscurity of the chosen "detection" method. Anyone have citations? dr.ef.tymac 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose pointing out movies that used these devices wouldn't be a valid citation?  :) Corvus cornix 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that spy training schools in various countries teach these techniques - but they probably don't publicise them too much because the bad guys will be training his agents to look for matchsticks stuck into closed doors and to be really careful not to move stuff around! There was a British reality TV show where they put people through what was claimed to be authentic spy training - and there was lots of this kind of thing on the show but it's hard to believe that they'd teach the 'real' techniques if they rely on the obscurity of their technique to be effective. Spy School (TV series) doesn't seem much use though. SteveBaker 03:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first one certainly is quite common; in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston Smith places a tiny white speck of dust on his diary to allow him to tell if anyone has read it. However, he later realises that in fact, the diary had been read, but that the state knew so much about him that they had known to replace even the speck of dust. A Google Scholar and Book search doesn't turn up anything obvious, but then most recent articles will cover computer espionage rather than physical espionage. Laïka 07:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I once read advice from a police department that you place a large bill in a very visible spot just inside the entrance to your house or apartment. If you enter your dwelling and the bill isn't there, you've been robbed. The point is that there's a slim chance that you're being robbed, i.e., the intruder is still present, and armed and dangerous. Therefore, if you notice the bill is missing, you immediately flee and call the police. Most of the time, of course, the robbery is long since over with, but I suppose this technique might occasionally save someone from being shot after surprising a robber. JamesMLane t c 05:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tap dancing[edit]

I was wondering about the history of the cincinnati tap step ( the step insists of 1)spank, 2)heal, 3)shuffle, 4)step) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.192.123 (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the history section of www.streetswing.com or www.tapdance.org. If I read correctly, the former hints at Texas Tommy and 1915 --TrogWoolley 20:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_September_12&oldid=1073348698"