Miscellaneous desk
< October 10	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 12 >

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.

October 11

John Williams as a boy lived where?

Did John Williams the movie composer ever live in Douglaston Queens?? I knew a John Williams in Douglaston of about the right age who moved out in about 1948. I heard that he had come back to study at Julliard. Douglaston is two towns out from Flushing where your article says he was born.68.193.81.46 (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 68.193.81.46 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read John Williams? It notes he was born in Queens and moved to LA in 1948, are you looking for if he lived in a specific neighbourhood while he was there? TastyCakes (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site says he was born in Floral Park. So it's possible that they could both be off (maybe they say Flushing because it's a better known neighborhood), or that his family moved after he was born. If those other elements of his biography match what you remember it seems like a pretty big coincidence for it to be a different John Williams. I couldn't find anything on google explicitly linking him to Douglaston though. Rckrone (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wouldn't say it would be a HUGE coincidence. John Williams is likely to be a VERY common name; I have a friend that lived in a town of less than 20,000 people and there were 4 residents that shared his same first and last name of approximately the same age, and they used to get confused all the time; get each others mail, etc. etc. And his name was not NEARLY as common as "John Williams" would be, which is a combination of one of the most common first and last names in all of the United States. It would not be all that unlikely for two John Williamses of about the same age to be living in Queens, a borough of over 1,000,000 people, at the same time. --Jayron32 05:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IS Barack Obama is a 32 degree Prince Hall Mason?

Is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.135.211 (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any actual evidence of it from Googling. Sounds like another pathetic smear attempt to me. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the OP actually know what a '32 degree Prince Hall Mason' does or is? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Prince Hall Freemasonry. Its basically like the Rotary Club for African Americans. People who hold that Freemasonry is a giant conspiracy to take over the world are about as unsupported by anything factual as are the "birthers", so I am inclined to agree with Mr. 98 on this one. Even if it were true, it would be pretty meaningless. We have had several Presidents who were Freemasons, as well as those who were members of many other fraternal organizations. I would attach no particular significance to it. --Jayron32 05:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it does turn out that a number of Congressmen are Masons, according to a recent article on Politico.com that was cited this week in the New York Times Book Review. They include Joe "You Lie" Wilson, among others. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The involvement of George Bush in "Skull and Bones" was vastly more worrysome. That club is downright creepy. SteveBaker (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by creepy you mean "does weird shit in its internal, secret meetings" then yeah, probably. But they probably aren't any more active in conspiring to rule the world than any other U.S. college fraternity. --Jayron32 05:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want creepy, try Bohemian Club. Richard Nixon was a member. I can't think of anything creepier than a naked Richard Nixon. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is, the creepiest clubs have not been the secret ones, but the public ones. Creepier than Nixon? Try J. Edgar Hoover in the 1950s. Conspiring to control the world? Try the CIA in the 1960s. It's amazing we bother to invent so many fears of dull societies when there is plenty of evidence of malicious groups being run under official auspices. Groups of businessmen... not too scary. Groups of secret police? Scary. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would put forth The Family as an especially scary semi-secret group. The idea of so many members of Congress essentially believing they have a divine mandate to rule...scary. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "T-ZLBH-L" stand for?

I am reading, for pleasure, an English translation of Emile Zola's La Bete Humaine. It is a paperback published in Great Britain by Penguin Classics in 1977. My copy is a 1978 reprint. The translator is Leonard Tancock.

On the bottom of page 273, aligned with the page number, two letter-spaces from the left hand margin are printed the following letters with dashes, all in capitals, in the same font as the rest of the book, as typed below:

T-ZLBH-L

There is no other such marking in the rest of the book and page 273 is not a special page as far as I can discern. It is in the middle of chapter 9. I have done extensive searches on Google and other search engines and come up with nothing.

What on earth can it signify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myersdtm (talk • contribs) 03:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Printer's marks are sometimes visible on the cut page. The centre section (ZLBH) is likely just the code for the novel (Zola La Bête Humaine). The T and L may be letters used to identify a section of the text for binding purposes. Bielle (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's after a page number that's divisible by 16, if that figures into it at all. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly seen books that had a mark like that at the start of each signature, obviously to enable a human to confirm that the signatures were assembled in the correct order for binding. I expect "T-ZLBH" stands for "Tancock-Zola, La Bête Humaine", and the individual signatures are identified by letters after that. In this case apparently someone goofed and placed it too high on the page, so it wasn't cut off when the book was trimmed after binding.

It is a bit odd to find signature L (i.e. #12) at that page number, though. I believe the most usual size of signatures is 32 pages, so the first 11 signatures would correspond to pages 1 to 352. Maybe they used some signatures of another size, or skipped some letters. Does this book have a preface or something before page 1? How many pages is that, counting from the first sheet of normal paper inside the cover as pages 1 and 2? --Anonymous, 05:55 UTC, October 11, 2009.

Thanks all. It seems to me rather obvious now what the letters stand for (i.e., Title and translator's initials). I suppose what threw me off was its appearing mysteriously at the bottom of a seemingly insignificant page like that. I don't quite understand the significance attached to divisions by 16 and 32 and what not as I'm not a publisher or printer. That is, I understand the maths, but not the significance. In answer to the question above, the first numbered page - 7 - is the first page of the introduction. Before that, that are three leaves, which, of course, would constitute pages 1-6. If numbered, they would read as follows: Page 1 - Brief bio of Zola, Page 2- Blank Page, Page 3 - Title page, Page 4 - Copyright page, Page 5- Contents page, Page 6 - Blank page. In other words, there are no unaccounted for pages in the numbering since the first numbered page is 7. Does this clarify or further muddle things as to why the letters would appear on p.273? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myersdtm (talk • contribs) 14:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Thanks to Anonymous above - and the related bookbinding wiki article, I now understand all. All, that is, except the point brought up by him/her. It is indeed very odd to see signature "L" where it is. So, I went back through the book. Sometimes, these signatures come after 16 pages, sometimes after 32 pages, sometimes not at all. So, altogether, a somewhat shoddy job I suppose of paginating signatures (or whatever the term is). The book is otherwise in great shape with no breaks in narrative etc.

So, thanks to one and all once again. It seems very hard for me to believe that I was dumbfounded by these letters. The Zed alone should have been a dead giveaway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myersdtm (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify one point, the "signature" is the group of 16 or 32 pages, not the T-ZLBH-L mark. --Anonymous, 20:15 UTC, October 11, 2009.

Thanks. Point clarified. I suppose the way to put it, then, is "a shoddy way of organising the succession of signature marks." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myersdtm (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's "shoddy" in that some but not all of the markers were positioned so as to be trimmed off, but many books (particularly cheap ones like mass-market paperbacks) make no particular attempt to lose or hide them, because most readers just never notice them, or care much if they do. (In hard-cover books, they're often still present but concealed by the binding and cover.) Coincidentally, this came up just a few weeks ago at a meeting of a reading group I belong to: one of the members, who is a fifty-odd-year-old English teacher and who therefore has read a fair few books in her time, happened to spot just such a signature marker and wondered what it was, never having noticed one before. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL-Indeed? I'm very much like your English teacher friend. I've read and reviewed over 400 books for Amazon - Just finished reviewing ZLBH - and have read so many more, yet had not, until yesterday, noticed these signature marks. Yes, perhaps "shoddy" is a tad too pejorative. You're the expert, after all, and I'm glad you were around to cure my bemusement. Thank you, once again.--Myersdtm (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets Under Water

In the film Saving Private Ryan, at the beginning in the scene where the soldiers are storming the beach there are a number of underwater shots of men getting shot by the bullets from the MG42s in the pillboxes further up on the beach. Considering these machine guns are at least 100 metres away, how likely is it that bullets would penetrate a few feet of water with enough force to even pierce the skin, never mind kill a man? Also, looking at the speed of the bullets going past each man that is 'killed' I would guess that they were going at just about the same speed that the 'installing bar' of Firefox addons goes, which is probably not even enough to hurt - it just so happens that the ones that hit these poor guys just happen to be the only ones going at supersonic speed. Also, considering the evidence put forward on a Mythbusters episode where they tested a theory about bullets and water, not a single bullet was even able to make a mark on a target at 1 metre depth - and this was at point blank range. Even the high-powered 50-cal (or whatever it was) was unable to make a mark, preferring to disintegrate its bullet and spread shrapnel all over the test swimming pool. So, is this just artistic license on the part of the director, or is it based on fact? Artistic license? In Hollywood? Never! Robin Hood DID speak American! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mythbusters episode was somewhat instructive - but as is typical of them, they didn't quite push things far enough. They found that the bigger/faster the bullets, the more they broke up in the water - and the 50cal round didn't penetrate as far as a relatively slow muzzle velocity pistol. What they failed to investigate is how well a slower bullet could penetrate into deeper water. If the bullet had enough energy to pass through the water - but not enough to make it break up - it might still be able to do damage. In the movie, it's possible that these bullets had travelled a long distance to get there and had slowed down significantly. As for the 'trails' - it might be that the bullet travels fairly rapidly through the water - but the 'trail' it leaves behind expands outwards more slowly - making the trail harder to see until it's a second or two old. Anyway - there is no particular reason to give credance to the movie visuals. We know a lot of people were killed in the water before they even reached the shore - but whether they were several feet below the water as in the movie - or actually swimming on top of the water when they were hit would be almost impossible to verify - even by the most diligent of film makers. SteveBaker (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The angle it hits the water at is almost certainly a factor as well, although I can't predict the effect it would have (shallower angle might prevent the bullet breaking up, but would mean it has to travel further to get the same depth, really shallow bullets might bounce, other effects I haven't thought of might also occur). --Tango (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it likely. It is not surprising when a bullet passes through a soft body part, and human tissue is a stiffer barrier than water. A bullet traverses water comparatively easily and in order to collect an undamaged bullet for Ballistic fingerprinting a more viscous target medium is used such as Ballistic gelatin. There is a true anecdote about a policeman in a police station who tried to collect a bullet by firing into two telephone catalogs. The bullet pierced both catalogs, proceeded through a plaster wall and injured a colleague in the corridor. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the OP mail Mythbusters and ask them to revisit this myth. As it gives them another chance to play with a wide variety of cool guns (possibly even a MG42), I have a feeling that they would not turn this one down. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent idea! I think I'll do that! And thanks for the answers, everyone. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly, the author of this piece on YouTube might be a good person to ask. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to mention that movie, it really is pretty amazing. TastyCakes (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Australian Movie Gallipoli, where at least two of my great uncles fought ( and survived ! ) the Australians pool together a kitty of a few quid, and give it to the one hit by a Turkish bullet when underwater, such that it draws blood, ( typical of them, since as it is said, they will bet on two flies going up a wall ). But is this the recollection of men who were there, as it may have been of those 29 years later and hundreds of miles away at Normandy , or is it, as suggested, the Director's choice of movie fantasy ? Certainly the Mythbusters episode surprised me, and I too have thought that as clever as they are, their experiments may not be as conclusive as they would wish, with limited budget and time. As we know, there are many movies in which people ( goodies and baddies ) are shot at through water. Just last night on New Zealand's Government run TV2, I saw Edward Norton try to kill Mr. Wahlberg the Younger and his mates by firing I believe an AK 47 at the freezing, ice filled water of an Austrian or Northern Italian Lake ( makes one appreciate more Hannibal Barcar's efforts over 2200 years ago ), but then they were not as deep, and yet one of them was struck by a bullet. This could give rise to another question as to whether temperature of water or air affects bullet performance. As Mark Wahlberg himself might know from his role as a sniper, bullets are affected by windage and other such anomalies also. Of course, when a person falls far enough, and therefore according to the equations of kinematics, gathers enough speed, they will hit water as if it is solid ground, so bullets, at an even faster speed, should do so too. Bullets will deform depending on what they hit.The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say the temperature of the water or air is pretty trivial compared to the viscosity the bullet experiences when going through water. I don't know if you've seen the mythbusters episode, but it was pretty convincing to me: the slower the bullet went the shallower it was able to penetrate, and the faster the bullet went the faster it was torn up by friction etc. After watching it, I'm convinced water is a pretty good at resisting bullets and that getting hit as you described at Gallipoli would be unlikely. That's not to say you couldn't get shot while in the water, but if you were down even a couple of feet, you were probably safe. TastyCakes (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sidebands

i would like to know that if in an AM signal ,frequency remains the same.then how these sidebands with different frequencies are present in it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavmahajan3190 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sideband explains this phenomenon. I am not a scientist, so I can't explain it for you, ~~but I can tell you its effect~~ [no - I misintrepreted]. Normally you pick up an AM frequency on only one point on your radio dial, in your car let's say. But if you get very close to the source (as I did once with a 50,000 watt station's broadcasting tower), the signal is overwhelming, i.e. it picks up on many or all of the points on your radio dial. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. An AM transmitter sends out a carrier wave at, for example, 1 MHz. If it chooses to to use this carrier to send information, it must modulate it, and that involves making sidebands. A 1 MHz signal fully modulated by a 1 KHz signal will send out its 1MHz carrier, plus sideband signals of 1MHz plus and minus 1KHz at half the amplitude. This is why AM stations are spaced ten or twenty KHz apart. It gives room for the information. The same applies to FM stations, though they get the information in by wobbling the frequency and don't need extra power for the sidebands. In applications where fidelity isn't important, AM transmitters can suppress the carrier and one sideband, letting them put all their power into the information and letting the receiver figure the signal out. This is the most literal example of "bandwidth". PhGustaf (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs has a point, though: if you're close enough to a powerful station, you'll hear it at all sorts of places on your dial, through imaging and heterodyning and brute force. In extreme cases the signal can turn on your lights. PhGustaf (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking I should draw a line through most of what I said. Meanwhile... turn on the lights? Maybe they should call that the "Tesla effect" or something. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turning on the lights is just some form of induction, surely? --Tango (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you pick it up at harmonics too? --Tango (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an extreme case. I'm thinking of the 16KHz station the Navy has in Maine, which can send information to submarines all around the world. When it turns on, so do a lot of fluorescent lights in Maine. But in a less extreme case, my dad negotiated with a local station to reduce its power on Sunday mornings, because the church's electronic organ was picking it up. PhGustaf (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC) ,K1LUU[reply]

I used to hear stories about people picking up radio stations in the fillings in their teeth or some such. I wonder if that's possible or just silliness. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See[1], tough it doesn't exactly qualify as a Reliable Source. But the answer is basically yes. Any number of things can make an inefficient diode, and a diode will detect AM signals. A rusty joint in a steel gutter will cause all hob with a sensitive receiver. PhGustaf (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to understand why I've sometimes heard radio stations on my amp (when it was set to something other than radio) and even occasionally on my telephone. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up signals on teeth, or getting harmonics, or hearing the same station all over the radio dial are non linear phenomena. The 16kHz signal would have been transmitted very cleanly without emissions at 32 or 48 kHz. But various electronic items would be overloaded and generate harmonics - or close to DC components if it is rectified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio or audio frequencies can be represented by the cosine function from trigonometry. AM (Amplitude Modulation) is the multiplication of a carrier frequency by a modulating frequency. Let's suppose the modulating frequency is a single frequency audio tone. Then here List of trigonometric identities#Product to sum and sum to product identities we find the multiplication of two cosine functions:
$\cos \theta \cos \varphi ={\cos(\theta -\varphi )+\cos(\theta +\varphi ) \over 2}$
Here all the power that before modulation was at the carrier frequency has gone into the sum and difference frequencies that comprise the sidebands. The receiver must take in these sidebands to recover the modulating tone. Apropos a different kind of modulation FM mentioned by PhGustav, it also transfers carrier power into sidebands. In this case the sidebands are more complex than in the AM case, and power at the carrier frequency is completely lost to the sidebands at some modulation depths. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity of a minor to enter into contract

What are the consequences of entering into a contract with a minor unassisted or without the guardain's consent,and the remedies available to the other party in Botswana (Africa)...which has a Roman-dutch common law system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OJ koveya (talk • contribs) 11:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a lawyer. Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. Xenon54 / talk / 12:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xenon54 correctly points out that the RefDesk cannot give you legal advice. Law is complex, and those who advise on it need specialist knowledge and a clear understanding of the facts in the case. The consequences of giving flawed advice may be very serious, which is why Wikipedia does not permit us to advise you. If you look at this article, you will see that even the definition of a "minor" in Botswana is not a simple matter. Sorry, but if your question refers to a real and specific legal problem, the only advice we can give you is to consult a qualified professional with a knowledge of Botswana contract law. Ka renjc 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should indeed contact a lawyer. Karenjc is correct, though it's OK for us to answer his question, if anyone knows, since OJ koveya is not asking for specific legal advice. This does not answer your question, but for comparison, in the US, I have been told (but am not sure!) that in every state of the US, any contract entered into with a minor is simply void, as though the contract had never taken place. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great example of why we can't give legal advice there: you're not quite right. The details vary from state to state (as with most things law-related in the US), but in general, most contracts entered by a minor are voidable by the minor. Makes doing so a high-risk proposition for the other party. --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think from my paralegals' course in contracts, there are ways in which a minor can "ratify" a contract by observing its terms, at least in some states of the U.S. The greater risk from the other party's point of view is that he, she, it or they might still be bound to perform their own obligations under the contract, regardless of the minor's performance or non-performance (2nd possibility: the minor's non-performance might render the whole contract and all its provisions void; 3rd possibility: the minor's ratification or performance might bind the other party.) Yet another reason to ask a real lawyer, after giving him or her all the material facts, documents and records. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and the other thing is, there are probably reasonably qualified lawyers here who can harp on about US, English, and other Commonwealth law - but the OP reminds us that Botswana has a Roman-Dutch system (I thought Roman-Dutch would by definition not be a common law system??) -- and so everything we say is probably irrelevant and possibly misleading. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health care certification in US

What are the different types of healthcare certifications available for Business analysts and IT professionals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.173.246 (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anyone, no matter what their field, can go to their local fire department or hospital to find out about CPR certification. I can't think why IT professionals would need any sort of healthcare certification at all for their position, so I don't know what sort of answer you're looking for. Dismas|^(talk) 22:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure of the context of your question. If you are looking for certifications for IT professionals 'Specializing' in the health care industry...See: Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology. If I am heading down the wrong path, please rephrase your question. 174.152.61.116 (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nut Cracker

Hi There, we have been looking for our nut cracker on the web but we don't seem to able to find him we know he belongs to the Hussar family he stands 52" tall and he is red with a black hat and a black and gold sword n his right side his red coat has a cross on each side with dots in each corner and he has a upside down v with 6 dots going down each side.Hopefully you will be able to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.195.203 (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you wanting to trace which Hussar regiment he represents, or the maker of the actual nutcracker? Do you know where it was made? It's quite possible he's made in Hussar style, rather than being representative of a particular regiment, but if he is designed to accurately represent an actual regimental uniform, then have a look at these, to see if any look similar: French Hussar uniforms, Sacramento Hussars (2nd image). The Austrian Hussars don't seem to have red jackets, but there are some with green jackets, red breeches, black shako (scroll down to illustration and table). Russian hussar (scroll down). British Hussars (serach by regiment). Also look in these books: Polish, Hungarian. Gwinva (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See:this. Details such as the MFG/location/date may help. If this is a priority a trip to Sonneberg (see Nutcracker as to why) may be in order. 174.146.231.171 (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]