Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 May 15

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.

May 15

Confused about barrel connectors

I'm confused by how barrel connectors are named and listed in parts catalogs.

I'm trying to figure out how I would describe a barrel connector like the one in this out of focus picture. The outer diameter of the barrel is 2.3mm. I have no way of measuring the inner diameter.

Ultimately, I'm looking to buy a right angle plug of this type with as low a profile as possible for a project, but I can't even search because I don't understand how they're listed.

Thanks. APL (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Generically they are called DC connectors, and that type is a coaxial power connector and related closely to the jack plug a look at which you might find helpful. Richard Avery (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Taxi fare from London Heathrow Airport to near Buckingham Palace

What is the approximate taxi fare from London Heathrow Airport to near Buckingham Palace? Is the Tube a good alternative (for someone traveling with a briefcase and a small piece of luggage)? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.166.54 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A taxi will be expensive; a pre-arranged car will be cheaper (I'll see if I can find a taxi fare). The most common ways to get from Heathrow to London are Heathrow Express to Paddington (which is itself not cheap, but is fast) and the Piccadilly line tube (which is cheaper, but slower). There are also shuttle busses (the kind that drop you and several other people off at addresses in the same part of the city) and regular busses. A lot of it is a cost vs. time tradeoff. For London's excellent public transport system see TFL's journey planner -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Not sure about the taxi fare, but what I would say is that the Tube takes an age on the Piccadilly line from Heathrow to central London. It's probably the cheapest option, but only to be recommended if you're not in a hurry. The Heathrow Express may work out quicker than the taxi if you hit traffic, but it terminates at Paddington so you're looking at another Tube journey from there to the palace. By the way the nearest tube station to Buckingham Palace would be Green Park. This is also on the Piccadilly line so no change is required if you take the tube from the airport. --Viennese Waltz 13:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The journey planner says 45 minutes from Terminal 3 to Green Park (which is rather less than I'd expected); allow for major weirdness on Sundays, when they do maintenance. That crosses 6 zones, so it should be £5 cash or £4.50 with an Oyster Card. A minicab-finder website (which I won't link to, as I just found it by Google) estimates £30 for a pre-arranged minicab. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Heathrow's website says ~£55 for the taxi fare, and gives options for private hire alternatives. I forgot to answer the last part of your question: the tube (or the Heathrow Express) is a good option, providing the traveller is okay physical condition - an elderly traveller for whom that luggage is a burden will find the tube (which can have stairs and lots of walking around sometimes hot tunnels) a struggle. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It varies by traffic conditions - I'd say based on my experiences anywhere from £50 to £70.

I think a good compromise between taxi and train is to take the Heathrow Connect or Heathrow Express and then taking a taxi. Both Heathrow and Paddington stations are quite luggage friendly, and the cab rank is not far to walk. The only significant walk is from the terminal to the station on the Heathrow end (but it's designed with luggage in mind). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

To compare the fares of the Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect - the Express is non-stop from Heathrow to Paddington, and a one-way fare will cost between £18 and £23 depending on whether you buy your ticket online (cheapest), at the station booking office, or on the train (most expensive); the Heathrow Connect is about £10 one-way to Paddington - it has a number of intermediate stops, but is not that much slower than the Express. The thing is, these two services are excellent if you want to travel to Paddington, but if you want to go anywhere else in London, like Green Park, and have to transfer to the Underground at Paddington, you may find you've only gained about 15 minutes over if you'd gone by tube the whole way, despite spending an awful lot more money! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't told us what time of day you're arriving. This is crucial. The tube doesn't run in the early hours. And it'll be very crowded in the morning rush-hour which might put you off (though you should be fine getting a seat). Not sure what time the trains run/don't run, but taxis will charge more at night. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

cave in austria

i ´m looking for some informations about a cave in austria called "isnixhalle". I didn´t find any informations by google. thank you for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.118.118.245 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

German for "cave" is "höhle". "Isnix" isn't a sensible sounding German placename; perhaps the neariest is "eisen", which means iron, or "eis" which means ice. Take a look at list of caves in Austria, which lists several caves that might be the one you're interested in . -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the report of an expedition to Austrian caves that include an "Eishöle". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Eishöhle", by itself, simply means ice cave. The German Wikipedia article Eishöhle lists several Eishöhle in Austria. That particular cave is apparently part of the Schwarzmooskogel-Höhlensystem -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that this question is duplicated on the Science Refdesk -- please don't ask questions in multiple places. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on you lot. It took me about 10 seconds to find "Nixhöhle. Here's a Google translation or another page in English. To be fair, Mr Google was kind enough to ask Did you mean: "nixhöhle"? after a few different stabs in the dark ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone may have been gaming the name of the cave. "isnix" could also be a deliberately slurred version of "ist nichts", meaning roughly, "is nothing", "doesn't matter", etc. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the Coalition and US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan do some good for the people?

I know this might be borderline asking for opinions and if so, please feel to remove it; but I am genuinely curious about this question and do not have any other place to ask it.

I have watched a few videos and talks recently that made analogies to describe the reason why Iraqis and Afghani citizens hate US forces in their country. This is one such video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKBDHWDgBo&feature=share

It makes the analogy that if Chinese troops are in the US killing innocent civilians, US citizens would also be angry. Although I clearly and and fully understand the point that the US presence in the two countries is viewed negatively by their respective countrypeople, did the invasion of US forces at least bring some good to the people?

In Iraq, non-Sunnis were being widely punished by Saddam, who was able to do anything he wanted. At least now, they have a more or less accountable government. Similarly, the Taliban ruled Afghanistan under a sitfling rule, now they also have a more or less functional government. As a citizen under either country, would the overthrow of their respective pre-invasion government be seen as a benefit, despite all the innocent bloodshed that it took to get there? ThanksAcceptable (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If you need opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere. Do not start a debate. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, there have been benefits from no longer being under the rule of an oppressive regime. There has also been harm due to the hostilities associated with overthrowing that regime and also due to the political instability that has followed. Whether the benefits outweigh the harm is an extremely subjective question and different people in the countries will answer it differently. --Tango (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In Iraq, the Sunnis lost their position as the dominant group, so of course they hate the US. The Shia gained control, but as a group don't seem very thankful about it, particularly the Mahdi Army. The Kurds gained a semi-autonomous region, and do actually seem appreciative. StuRat (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Iraq, I don't think the war in Afghanistan has yet been won. That is, the Taliban might return as soon as the US leaves (I'm pretty sure Saddam won't regain control of Iraq :-) ). So, if they do return, then, from an Afghan perspective, the US will have just killed a lot of people and accomplished nothing. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that the question assumes that history is one-dimensional. Every major event in history has both positive and negative impacts, and impacts are valued differently by different people from different angles. The US public opinion has been feed with a narrative that the world just awaits the arrival of their GIs with joy, its a myth frequently reproduced by Hollywood (relations between US troops and German civilians was not always as cozy as portrayed in American movies). In the run-up the 2003 Iraq War, the Bush administration touted that US troops would be welcomed as liberators. In reality, there is little rational reason why that would happen. For Iraqis, the Iraq War didn't start in 2003. They had a government supported by US in 1980s during a terrible war with Iran (a war Iraqis themselves had little interest in, but was fought on behalf of US and Arab Gulf states), passed through US bombings in 1991, had a brief uprising in which the US allowed Saddam to crush the rebellion and massacre its participants, US instead prefered de-facto separation of Kurdistan (becoming a pseudo-state under US tutelage), then imposed a genocidal economic blockade against Iraq, the bombed the country again, imposed a puppet regime and fomented sectarian violence as a means to divide-n-rule to avoid Iraqis taking full control of the political process in the country. I think if you assume that Iraqis ought to be grateful to the US, ask yourself how you would feel if your home country passed through what the Iraqi people experienced 1980-2006? The Ron Paul speech definiately makes sense, in this regard. --Soman (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have only listed (and greatly exaggerated) the negatives. The Shia certainly benefited in gaining control from the Sunnis, for example, as did the Kurds in gaining control over their region. The current Iraqi government is not a puppet government, it was freely elected. The embargo was not "genocidal", although Saddam chose to make it appear that way by withholding meds from children, etc., and blaming it on the embargo, even though those were allowed under the embargo. It's also interesting that you complain that the "US allowed Saddam to crush the rebellion and massacre its participants", when you surely would have complained about any possible action the US could have taken to stop it (those being embargoes, bombing, and invasion). You seem to think that the US can solve any problem instantly and painlessly, but instead chooses to bomb people for sadistic pleasure. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You could do the same argument about the Holocaust. If it wasn't for the Holocaust, there would be no Jewish state today. Does that mean that Jews should express gratitude to Hitler? Of course not. My point is exactly that any major historical developments has some positive effects for some in some ways. The Iraqi people has undergone a terrible process of collective suffering over the past decades, and the role of the US has been (as supporter of Saddam during some of the worst repression, for example), to put it bluntly, not altruistically favourable for the Iraqi people. And would Iraqi Shiites cherish American policies towards the Middle East? Those groups that dominate Shiite politics in Iraq today were based in Iran during the war, some with fighting units on the Iranian side (against the US-supported Iraqi invasion). Their knowledge of the legacy of US involvement in the Middle East is more ample and profound than most Americans, and they would probably reluctant to view the US role in Iraq as overwhelmingly positive. --Soman (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your Holocaust analogy might work if the US goal had been to kill all Iraqis, and yet somehow Iraqis gained control of their nation as a result. But, when at least part of the stated US goal was to establish democracy there, and it was established, it certainly isn't just an unintended consequence. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A recent commentary on developments in Iraq: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/2011415181326266737.html --Soman (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the original question: "As a citizen under either country, would the overthrow of their respective pre-invasion government be seen as a benefit, despite all the innocent bloodshed that it took to get there?", the question is a bit ambigous. Very few Iraqis miss Saddam, whilst somewhat larger sections of population might miss some aspects of his rule. But probably a large majority would, in a hypotethical scenario, not have voted for him in a free election. Does that mean that those people would think that "the war was worth it"? I think not, my personal gut feeling estimate is that a great majority of ordinary Iraqis does not think that the removal of Saddam makes up for the horror that the Iraq war and occupation has become. That said, the mood is markedly different in Kurdish areas (whose experience on the sanction years is very different from rest of Iraq, for starters), in Kurdistan you would probably find larger percentages of people expressing understanding or sympathy for US military actions.

Afghanistan is a different case. It would be wrong to assume that a majority of Afghans regret removal of Taliban from power. Parts of the Taliban legacy were widely impopular, but at the same time there was a process of moderation (which was interrupted by the US invasion and occupation) which is rarely mentioned today. Moreover, there is somehow an Islamist consensus in Afghan politics, all major players in Afghan politics (both resistance and the co-opted warlords bought over the Americans) adhere to a view that religious practices should be imposed on the inhabitants by the state. I saw a very interesting documentary on a women's prison some time ago, which I think illustrates this problem. Afghan law (post-Taliban) sentences "adulterous women" (i.e. in many cases wives arbitrarily kicked out from their homes by their husbands) to jail. European Union money had gone to renovation a major female prisoners jail (where most prisoners were judged on moral crimes). On one hand, this did improve conditions for inmates, but at the same time it demonstrated the absurdity that Western powers were enabling (economically) the systematic persecution of women. Official narratives has it that the Western invasion was done to secure democracy and women's rights, in reality the allies of the Western powers are rarely more progressive than those engaged in armed resistance against them. --Soman (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

But, of course, under the Taliban, women accused of adultery were executed, often in an arena built with Western money (as a soccer stadium). As backwards as Afghanistan is, perhaps the best such women can realistically hope for is a a comfortable prison. Considering the abuse they might face on the outside, this "protective custody" might actually be welcome. StuRat (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Rothwell in Northamptonshirre

I know that the old name and that used by many residents of Rothwell is 'Rowell', Please can you tell me if this is pronounced with the 'row' as in rowing boat or row as in argument?? Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.63.72 (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a BBC video report of Rowell Fair. The PC I'm using hasn't got the right software to play it, so you'll have to do it yourself I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Me again; I found a man in a top hat sitting on a horse, who says "Rowell" as in "rowing-boat" in this video. Alansplodge (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A reading about caring for patient that sounds like an old person but turns out to be a baby

Hi There, When I was in nursing school I heard a reading about caring for a patient who was incontinent, difficult etc. that sounded like an old person but at the end turned out to be about caring for a baby. The point was that assuming it was an old person no one would want to care for them but when you realized it was a baby you had a different attitude as a caregiver. I've tried googling this but no luck. Anybody heard of this and have a source? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.6.175 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity and math ability

Why are Asians (especially East Asians and Indians) and Eastern Europeans so much better at math than everyone else? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is mainly a cultural difference. In some cultures, it is expected that children will excel in some subjects, so much more time and effort is expended by parents in making sure that children are at least competent. This contrasts with the (disgraceful) attitude of many parents in England who seem to be proud of the fact that they cannot "do mathematics" and make excuses for their children's laziness. (End of rant!) Dbfirs 19:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly a cultural difference — there's no evidence whatsoever that the often vast score differences could be correlated with any innate abilities (there may be some small innate differences in this kind of cognitive processing across population groups, but they would not be as large as the score differences). There are very strong culture correlations with performance at education in general, especially amongst immigrants, where educational achievement is the best shot for children to jump into a higher economic class than their parents (and thus are pushed by the parents). Expectations by parents for their children's performance seem to make a huge difference. There has been a big flap in the US now for months about the "Tiger mom" phenomena and whether it screws kids up, but it does seem to result in better test scores (though at potentially high psychological cost). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Seemingly outrageous but largely true generalisation from a high school teacher follows - in western countries, Asians do homework; western kids don't. HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The same generalisation is probably equally valid when comparing eastern and western countries generally... Discipline just isn't emphasised to anywhere near the same degree in western countries in general (not that that's necessarily a bad thing). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mainland China's sub-university education system places tremendous emphasis on math and science, and very little on humanities when compared to the USA. This is an intentional educational strategy by the government. They believe that math and science skills/knowledge/ability are what is needed to drive China's current phase of development. The Masked Booby (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that. Someone who finishes high school in China would have a much better command of, for example, classical Chinese poetry, the history of the Han Dynasty and world geography than the equivalent American student would of old English verse, the history of the Roman Empire, and world geography (to pick the closest correlates). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference? I can. To quote:

Particular attention has been paid to improving systems in recent reforms. Many industrial multiversities and specialist colleges have been established, strengthening some incomplete subjects and establishing new specialties, e.g., automation, atomic energy, energy resources, oceanography, nuclear physics, computer science, polymer chemistry, polymer physics, radiochemistry, physical chemistry and biophysics.

and:

The contribution to China's economic construction and social development made by research in the higher education sector is becoming ever more evident. By strengthening cooperation among their production, teaching and research, schools of higher learning are speeding up the process in turning sci-tech research results into products, giving rise to many new and hi-tech enterprises and important innovations. Forty-three national university sci-tech parks have been started or approved, some of which have become important bases for turning research into products.

Nothing on that page about humanities. I pass no judgment on this strategy, but reality is reality. China is balls-out favoring science and math. The Masked Booby (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where in those paragraphs does it say "and very little on humanities when compared to the USA." (your quote)? Your quotes support the view that China invests in science and technology, but my objection is not to that - it is to your claim that China pays "little attention to humanities compared to the US".

Here's a reference - [1] from the OECD. The US has a sub-standard sub-tertiary education system, and if you want to argue the inferiority of China on sub-tertiary education, whether in humanities or science, I would suggest using a more advantageous reference point like, I don't know, anywhere in the rest of the western world. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an enormously complex question that has components that are social, cultural, and perhaps even biological. For a start, see race and intelligence; model minority; shame society/guilt society; filial piety; and even Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. You can explore all this more deeply in academic articles and news pieces, of course. Neutrality^talk 09:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Couchette cars

Where does one put one's luggage in a couchette car? I am going on one such car from Malmö to Berlin on EuroNightLine 301 in late June and will be travelling with a large backpack, a camera bag and a small shoulder bag containing the important documents. Where should I put those for the night? Are there attendees who patrol the cars during the night? JIP | Talk 20:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

When I travelled in a couchette car there was space underneath the bottom couchette for some luggage. Depending on how tall you are, there may be room at your feet for the shoulder bag. There are people that come around to wake you up 10 minutes before your stop, but that's about it. There isn't much to patrol, really. --Tango (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am mostly concerned about the safety of my luggage. But after reading the replies to my previous question, especially since EN 301 is a direct connection from Malmö to Berlin, I am not so worried. I will probably have to place the backpack under the beds and the camera bag and the shoulder bag at my feet. I have no previous experience of couchette cars, but having read the article couchette car and looked at the pictures, I have a feeling that any real danger of theft will come from fellow sleepers in the couchette car, not from people wandering about the train, and so this will be unlikely. I have previously travelled the same route, and from Kraków to Vienna, in a sleeping car, and have had no problems. But this will be my first time in a couchette car. It appears that Berlin is the ending station of EN 301, so the train staff will probably make sure I wake up when the train reaches Berlin. JIP | Talk 21:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone entering your cabin would probably wake you up, so I agree that the biggest risk is the other people in your cabin and that risk is minimal. How would they escape with your stuff? They are stuck on the train until it gets to a station and they would probably wake you up as they left even if they were getting off at an earlier stop. --Tango (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Trelleborg is shortly after Malmö, so you (and any folks in the same compartment), should be still awake. The ferry takes about 4:00 hours after which time any fellow travelers who have used the ferry´s facilities will return. There are no further stops between Sassnitz and Berlin. There is an attendant for every two carriages (I think). To the best of my recollection you speak fluently both Swedish and German, so any communication with this person should be no problem. Sharing a compartment with strangers generally results in light (and poor) sleep, anyway. If in doubt, talk to the attendant and ask for her / his help. There may be "safe boxes" for hire where you can park your camera equipment and personal documents. Finally, your fellow travellers may have the same concerns, so everybody is slightly on edge.

PS: No bondage and tattoing may be permitted on the train:) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you're not a fussy sleeper, I'd just use your bag with valuables as a pillow. When I travel on night trains I get a top berth and put anything else of value between my head and the wall--would be hard to get to without waking me up. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am a fussy sleeper. I can't explain it, but I have a hard time sleeping pretty much anywhere except my own apartment or my parents' apartment. The more alien a place is to me, the more trouble I have sleeping there. But then all this should, of course, help towards keeping an eye on my luggage. After Berlin, I'm going on a six-and-half hour train trip to Munich, and from there a four-and-half hour trip to Pörtschach, so I will have time to rest even after reaching Berlin. JIP | Talk 19:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that the top bunk has a small storage area at one end. You get to choose whether you're woken continuously by your bag sliding into your head or your feet. --Dweller (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)