Miscellaneous desk
< November 1	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 3 >

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.

November 2[edit]

Funai TV 2002[edit]

I own an tv named Funai TV 2002 and I want to know what year it's from I searched google and the funai article, I could not find anything and hey I searched hard on google. 85.220.101.206 (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that this question is nearly the same as the Selena Vega one but I've always been wondering how old my television is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.101.206 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The model and make you state does not corrrespond to any model/make at Sams Technical Publishing [1], which has repair models covering 6 decades TVs. It does not correspond to any model at the Funai site for sets back to 2002. Please double check the make/model, on the back of the set. Edison (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, the IP looks up to Iceland. I'm not an expert, but it looks like Sams is focused on the US market which may suggest their coverage of non US televisions is less then complete. Given that Iceland is, as with most of the world, PAL or SECAM, I think we can safely presume this TV is not available in the US Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this [2] which mentions the same model in some Denmark usenet group Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and on the back it says - Model: TV 2002 and the make is Funai 85.220.101.206 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.funai-corp.com is the company. They have only one TV that resembles this name: The "EWF2002". No clue as to dates though. SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this and this is Funai Europe Oda Mari (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of NCAA Female Gymnasts[edit]

Am I correct in assuming that once an athlete, more specifically a female gymnast, receives sponsorship or funding, she is ineligible for participating in NCAA gymnastic competition? However, from the age of the female gymnasts in the Olympics, it appears that most of them are in their prime at around 16 to 18 years of age- during their high school years. Consequently, if these gymnasts participate in the Olympics and receive sponsorships, they would be rendered ineligible for competition in the NCAA.

So does the NCAA have any top-tier female gymnasts in their competitions? Surely a gymnast can not wait until graduation to turn pro, as they will be around 22 years of age- too old for the sport.

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In our article on Alicia Sacramone: "In September 2006, Sacramone enrolled in Brown University and joined the school's gymnastics team. During the 2006-2007 season, she juggled a full NCAA competition schedule with her elite training at Brestyan's. She was the first female American gymnast since Kelly Garrison in the late 1980s to combine full-time university studies and NCAA competition with elite gymnastics." TresÁrboles (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing happens in Baseball and Ice Hockey. Since professional baseball and hockey have no age limits, and indeed also have robust minor league "farm systems", the best players often "go pro" right out of high school (or earlier. Wayne Gretzky famously began his pro career as a 17-year old, and attended high school while playing for Indiana of the old WHA). As a result, the best players out of high school often never play college baseball or hockey. Some players do blossom at the college level in these sports, and they are played at quite a high level, but at any given age the best athletes are already playing professionally in these sports... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography buffs needed...[edit]

<removed> This is not a question - the Ref.Desk is not a place for advertising/spam - even if what you're advertising is a Wikipedia project. SteveBaker (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai?[edit]

How are samurai represented in modern film and literature? It would be great if someone could provide some links to some information on that topic. Thanks in advance.

BlebBlebBlebBLEB (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article titled Samurai has a large section on Pop Culture, and we have an entire seperate article on Samurai cinema. Hope that will give you a start! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Night vision as standard issue?[edit]

Watching an episode from season two of The Unit where the unit was trapped with some regular soldiers at a base in Afghanistan, and in it, for some reason, no one (inexplicably the unit) has night vision or have attachments on their helmets for NVG's. (I remember watching some footage from the recent Russia-Georgia conflict and no one appeared to be have night vision; I guess it was because the footage was in daytime.) This leads me to a question: how common is night vision as standard issue in the US military and in other militaries as well? --Blue387 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be ubiquitous in the US military. Everyone from truck drivers to generals are supposed to have it. But it's heavy and makes the helmet be off-balance - so you would certainly un-clip it from the helmet during daytime. The attachments are pretty standard - I don't understand how they could not have them...but this is fiction - and they don't always get their facts right. The Russians and Georgians almost certainly can't afford to give it to everyone - although both sides definitely have them in smaller quantities. SteveBaker (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on an episode of Generation Kill, which tried to be authentic, the protagonists were driving along in the middle of the night and one of them mentioned that their night vision gave them a huge advantage, and another mentioned "yeah, if you could find a working one in the squad" or something like that. they seemed to make a distinction between two kinds of night vision; maybe the goggles and the sights mounted on their guns? anyway, they seemed to be on verybody's helmetsGzuckier (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many problems with the super-compact helmet-mounted kind:

They restrict your field of view.
They destroy your natural dark adaptation so when you take them off, you're blind - even on a moonlit night.
They eliminate depth and color perception.
The batteries die (and they are HIDEOUSLY expensive, special batteries that you can't buy in stores).
Any normal amounts of light level will overload the goggles - and a sufficiently sustained bright light can destroy them.

However, having said that - they are pretty amazing gadgets. About 10 years ago I worked on simulating a fairly modern set of US night vision goggles using computer graphics and we had a couple of pairs on loan. Knowing that they shouldn't be used in daylight, and anxious to find out what they displayed in UTTER darkness, we shut ourselves inside our computer 'server room' - which has no windows. Firstly, the glare from the computer monitors was so bright that you couldn't see a thing - so we turned all of those off. Then the light showing under the doors was also pretty bright - and enough to dazzle the goggles - so we taped around all of them to shut out that light. The LED's on the computers were still dazzling us - so we taped over those with electrical tape - but the light still shone through the electrical tape enough to be noticably bright - so it took about 5 layers to properly block them out. When we finally had it pretty dark - we could see the bottoms of all of the walls were glowing slightly - and this turned out to be light leaking under the wood and sheetrock walls! We also found that several of the PC's in the room had LED's on their disk drives - which although shut inside the case of the computer were shining through the plastic to the extent that we could use the light cast by them onto the opposite wall to make 'shadow puppets' with our hands! In the end, we had to duct-tape around the bottoms of all of the walls and unplug absolutely everything in the room that had an LED anywhere inside or outside before we could get it dark enough that the goggles would start to struggle to make an image. I also did the US Army's night vision training course - which is quite fascinating.

The devices used in gun-sights and missiles and such are not 'strictly' night vision devices, they are infra-red sensors. They see further into the IR than the goggles do and are pretty much totally insensitive to light in the visual spectrum. They see "heat" - which means that things can look rather weird and unnatural (that's somewhat true of night vision goggles too - but to a much lesser extent). However, you can use infra-red in full daylight and get some benefits from doing so (eg you can see a heavily camoflaged tank if it's engine is running and producing an enormous plume of hot exhaust gasses - when it drives off, you can see a ghostly 'trail' of heat left behind where its engine heated up the ground as the tank drove past).

SteveBaker (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic keyboards[edit]

I need to glue some plastic keyboard parts, so need to choose a glue that would do a good job. But there is a bewildering array of plastic glues to choose from, many of which will only glue certain types of plastic...

So would anyone happen to know the type of plastic that computer keyboards are usually made of? --69.113.82.135 (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krazy Glue will certainly work, but it may be too fast acting to be practical. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many glues claim to work on all sorts of plastic. If you prefer to use one that doesn't, why not contact the keyboard manufacturer instead of asking about what plastic is "usually" used? Tell them specifically what part you mean, in case there are different plastics. --Anonymous, 19:32 UTC, November 2, 2008.

Probably more important is to keep in mind some of the side effects. For instance, acetone and plastic cement may disolve some plastics. If you're working on moving parts, that might not be a good idea. In any case, This Site has some ways to identify plastics, but you might need to set your keyboard on fire! For what it is worth, I would guess ABS. --Mdwyer (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HRC[edit]

Is there a UK version of the LGBT charity, HRC (Human Rights Campaign)?
Or does anyone know the largest LGBT charity in the UK?

12:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichigostar2007 (talk • contribs)

Have a look through Category:LGBT organizations in the United Kingdom. jnestorius^(talk) 13:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do trains seems to make the same noise?[edit]

I've noticed that trains and subways around the world seem to make the same distinctive noise. It's something like click-clack [short pause] click-clack [short pause] click-clack [long pause] click-click.

Does anyone know why this is, or why they even click-clack at all? Louis Waweru Talk 16:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sound of the wheels passing over the joints in the track. Continuous-welded tracks like those used on high speed rail lines, don't click-clack at all. The trains just kind of "whoosh". Fribbler (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, wow...nice article. Thank you Louis Waweru Talk 16:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even more specifically - the carriage you're riding in has four pairs of wheels - two pairs at each end. So as the carriage crosses the joint in the track, you get "clack-clack" from the first two pairs of wheels - then a pause - then "clack-clack" from the second two pairs. It's noticeable that the regular repetition breaks up as you go over more complicated sections of track such as turn-outs and cross-overs because the joints come much more frequently. SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true for most trains, but there are some with other wheel arrangements, generating correspondingly different sounds. Some older, heavy passenger cars have had three axles at each end; I'm not sure if these are still in use. Likewise, some special freight cars for heavy loads have extra axles at each end, up to four or five. On the other hand, freight cars with only two axles are still used in some countries, and some trains (both freight and passenger) have articulated cars with only two axles, or sometimes one, at the joints.

Another point of variation is the track. As well as welded track, there are two styles of jointed track. In Britain, where jointed track is used, the joints on the two rails are aligned with each other. In North American they alternate from one rail to the other, producing a smaller jolt but an increased tendency to rocking motion; and if the joints in one rail are not halfway between those in the other, you get a sound pattern with pairs of pairs of pairs (!) of clicks. --Anonymous, 19:51 UTC, November 2, 2008.

Not exactly relevant, but related. On the southern section of the M25 motorway where it is made from large concrete slabs jointed together, You get a duh-dum ... duh-dum ... duh-dum as the car wheels go over the joins. Also in California grooves were cut in the road to play the William Tell overture - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7627713.stm -- SGBailey (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, I've been playing with it in my head...I'll pay attention to the pattern next time I'm on a train and see if I can infer how the rails are set up. Louis Waweru Talk 01:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variations in the sound can also be caused by slightly flat-spotted wheels. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical objectivity[edit]

Sort of a homework question. I've got to write an essay on "objectivity in historical writing". Are there any good television or radio documentaries on this? Any good reading I should do? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.136.132 (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Historiography and the various articles that spin off from Objectivity may be of some help. As usual, the articles give you a 'big picture' view of the topic - but check the references in the footnotes of each article as they will get you to the primary and secondary sources - you shouldn't use Wikipedia directly in writing essays of this kind. Historiography in particular has a HUGE set of links, references and bibliography. SteveBaker (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your one-stop-shop for reading on the topic is Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession. It's US-centric (which may or may not matter to you) but the issues of objectivity, history, politics, etc. are pretty transcendent, I would imagine. It is a pretty common book so I'm sure your local library has a copy or could get one. A good criticism of Novick is Haskell, “Objectivity is not Neutrality: Rhetoric vs. Practice in Peter Novick’s That Noble Dream,” History and Theory 29, no. 2 (1990), 129-157. His basic argument is in the title—a question of the difference between "objectivity" and "neutrality" (can one be "objective" but not "neutral"?). As SteveBaker implies, a lot of this comes down to what one even means by "objectivity", which is a difficult-to-pin-down term. If you are looking for something a little less high-brow (and more British), you might look at What Is History? by Carr, which is a fun introduction to the question although he is quite controversial amongst historians today. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the US-centric stuff, Eric Foner's Who Owns History: Rethinking the Past in a Changing World is an interesting read that might help you. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage books[edit]

Can anyone recommend books about bondage? I already have Two Knotty Boys Teaching You The Ropes, are there any more? I'm interested in books that concentrate more on the actual techniques of tying someone up and less about a BDSM master/slave relationship. JIP | Talk 22:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some in references among these "see also" articles in the not only but also Rope bondage and Knot article. There's "Master K's book "Shibari, The art of Japanese Bondage" in Japanese bondage; a review of how-to books is here[3]. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to have a look at this one (link NSFW). I'd write more, but I'm a bit tied up at the moment. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the customer reviews, I don't think that's the right book for me. I don't need lengthy passages about BDSM relationships or overemphasis on safety. What I need is step-by-step instructions like "put this rope there and tie it that way" like there are in Two Knotty Boys Teaching You The Ropes. There are only too few techniques described in that book. So far I have only found two that actually restrict the model's arms (I'm more interested in restrictive than decorative bondage) and look easy enough for me to actually do. JIP | Talk 18:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God Forbid...................[edit]

But what would happen in the US presidential election process this coming Tuesday should one (or both) of the 2 contenders Senators McCain and Obama die before that day. Would their respective running mate(s) simply step up to the plate in their place(s)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.85.64 (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This very question has been asked repeatedly over the past few weeks. It's all in the Ref Desk archives (linked to from the top of the page). --Tango (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can't find it in the archives, does anyone remember what one of the threads discussing it was called? It would be good not to have to go through it all again... (Short answer is that it depends on precisely when the candidate dies with respect to votes being cast, the electoral college meeting [they don't literally get together at any point, but you know what I mean] and the president being sworn in.) --Tango (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using this Google search, I see that there is this and this. Dismas|^(talk) 03:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well found! The second one is the best answer, I think. --Tango (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wonder about those FBI guys who are following all of these threads and tracking down the OP's so their every move can be followed for the next couple of days. We should say "Hi!" to them: Hi, nice Mr FBI guy! <wave> SteveBaker (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]