Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 May 27

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 27

Hypnosis invented when??

The article begins with: "Hypnosis was invented in 2005 (this seems wrong) by Liu Xiabo and his prodige, Dennis Kelly, in China to incite support for a popular rebellion. 72.27.15.215 (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Is this misinformation, historical revisionism, or mischief...?

It was just vandalism. It has been fixed. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) What article? Our hypnosis article seems to get regular vandalism, but I don't see this bit of misinformation when I give a cursory search over the last few days. Matt Deres (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Google hasn't yet picked up the fix so I found it's History of hypnosis. A look thru Mr.98's contribs would have showed the same thing Nil Einne (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

173.54.117.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is the culprit, from a couple of entries about 9 days ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it more of a discovery than an invention? One can invent an ACE inhibitor, but ACE inhibition is not invented, it's just discovered to be effective. If hypnosis is real, and it is an existential entity irrespective of anyone actually performing it, it should be termed a discovery rather than an invention. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

proper name for "bumpy" glass

In some applications of sheet glass (some glass tables, and sometimes the windows in firedoors) the maker of the glass leaves one surface smooth but the other bumpy (where the bumps are roughly 2mm across). This results in the light being distorted and images of what's beyond the glass being broken up. Is there a proper name for this glass treatment (I don't mean the physics of it, but rather the name of the manufacturing process or effect). I've been calling all such things "sintered" glass, but that's not really correct. I'm not sure if it's "rough glass", "patterned glass", or is it just "bumpy glass" ? 87.114.122.221 (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking "frosted glass" or "opaque glass". It's the kind of glass you also usually see in "glass bricks", which let in lots of light but distort it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Frosted glass, at least in as far as that article describes it, isn't what I mean. By that definition, the roughening of frosted glass is at a very small scale, giving the effect of the glass being milky. I do mean something more akin to glass bricks, where there is some semblance of an image visible through the glass, but its so distorted that what is beyond isn't easily recognised. 87.114.122.221 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, frosted glass is made differently. The "bumpy" approach is also used with transparent plastic in the sliding doors in showers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hobnail glass (link to GIS results tends to have bumps about the size you describe, but for sheet glass, I'd guess the term is pebbled (another GIS link). --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of seeded or reeded glass? Distorted glass covers that wavy irregular look seen in glass block.Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Door glass should find what your looking for.Phalcor (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Click under "Literature" here for images of what Pilkington call Texture^(TM) Glass. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It goes by the rather misleading name of cathedral glass.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Career choice

Bon soir all. I have a problem that I'm taking out all the stops to solve, up to asking strangers on the internet. My daughter is in 11th grade and wants to be an opera singer, even planning to go to a music college and everything. She's taken voice lessons and she's good, I'm not saying she's not, but the chance of her "making it" seems, to me, too much like the chance of today's youth "making it" as a rapper or a basketball player (i.e., slim is an overstatement). I don't want to be the kind of parent who controls their children's lives; I know that kids have to do what they like and if this were just a profession that I personally disapproved of but there was a good chance she could be successful in, I would support her 100%. I have said everything above and also cited stats, but she hasn't budged. What can I say to at least make her consider what I have to say? If she's dead set on this I will support her but I would much prefer something that she can succeed in by her own hard work, whatever it might be. Your advice is appreciated. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What's her basic plan for pursuing that career? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Planning on going to music school is a good start. The applications process for art schools can be very rigorous. If she has a shot at making it in the industry she may well get into a good school. If she doesn't have the talent, then she probably wont and that may well burst her bubble (not to say that untalented people don't get in sometimes). Two things to keep in mind: Going to music school is not a total waste even if she doesn't become the world's biggest opera star, there are still a variety of career opportunities available to graduates and secondly even if she eventually realizes she can't make it, spending a few years trying isn't going to ruin her life, it may turn out to be a valuable learning experience. --Daniel 03:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What exactly would "making it" mean in your daughter's case? Is it to be a world-famous superstar; or just having enough regular employment to be able to clothe and feed herself and pay her mortgage without worrying where the next $ is coming from; or something in between? Can she see herself singing Mimi or Carmen or Violetta or Madama Butterfly, or is she aiming at more minor roles or maybe even just to be a chorus member? There are lots of way of being successful in any career - it all depends on how you define "success". But that means having a reasonably clear and precise idea of exactly what you want to achieve. Just "to be an opera singer" is way too imprecise. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? You have an 11th grade daughter? Yesterday you were a high school student looking to get into Harvard or Yale -- what gives? Looie496 (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Shared I/P, and maybe computer, would be my guess. StuRat (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd encourage her to go for it, but also have a backup plan. Are there good jobs for opera singers that don't make it big time ? Perhaps she should also study other types of singing, so she could make a living that way. One way to present this might be as a way to make a living UNTIL she makes it big as an opera singer. Just don't mention that that day may never come. StuRat (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Young English footballers, at professional clubs and with untold riches just a hair's breadth away, are helped to develop alternative careers, in case they don't make it. Most don't make it. I'd say, tell her you're behind her all the way and will give her all the support she needs, are excited and proud of her and want to see her on the big stages, but want to help her with a Plan B just in case. Do we have a deal? Now, sweetie, what's Plan B? --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember that opera is more than just singing; there is a lot of acting as well. Hopefully the music school also offers acting classes. Then later, perhaps if the opera singing doesn't work out, she could turn to acting. Astronaut (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Does it take 7 years to digest gum?

Created as an article; moved here by me.  Chzz  ►  04:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Have you ever heard people saying " Don't eat gum or its going to take 7 yeas to digest?" Well for that information thats not true. your intestines always move to break the food in the stomach. So there no way that gum will get stuck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ys09870987 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 May 2011

No doubt a reasonable attempt by sensible, sophisticated people to convince gum chewers that it's a disgusting, ugly, unpleasant, anti-social habit. (But I'm not biased, of course.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

How is that reasonable when chewing gum isn't, isn't, isn't and isn't what you say (if the gum is disposed of properly)? Signed: a socially responsible chewer. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Hi would prefer that folks return to the widespread use of chewing tobacco, snuff, etc.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an old wives tale - see http://www.snopes.com/oldwives/chewgum.asp. Exxolon (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And here's another source from our article List of common misconceptions.Sjö (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

@Sjö: what determines noteworthyness in that article? EllenCT (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I am often amazed at the otherwise sensible and rational people I know who believe all sorts of incredible crap about the dangers of chewing gum. I've been a lifelong gum chewer, I have always swallowed my gum, and I am as healthy as a mallee bull. Bottom line: even if it did take as ridiculously long as 7 years to digest, the body would expel the undigested gum via the usual method in 24-48 hours. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless it stuck in your intestines, of course! --Dweller (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup, then you'd get a 7 year bowel obstruction. -- œ^™ 16:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop perpetuating ludicrous misinformation. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that his point is that gum can't possibly stick around in your gut for 7 years, because it would cause an obstruction. That seems reasonable to me. APL (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. There are pockets on the sides in which the gum could lodge without blocking the intestines. There's also the appendix, of course, for those who still have one. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes stuff lodges in pockets and takes a long time to be excreted. But is there any evidence whatsoever that chewing gum is more likely to do this than anything else that enters the intestines? The fact that it's "sticky" has nothing to do with it, by the way. If that had any relevance, then we'd all be warned not to eat toffee. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Toffee, being mostly sugar, quickly dissolves in the digestive tract, while gum does not. That said, I know of no evidence that gum collects in the pockets. StuRat (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has this article Chewing gum#Swallowed gum. As with much else in life, the critical decision is whether to spit or swallow. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That section seems to imply that a large quantity of swallowed gum can form an indigestible blob in the stomach, too large to pass into the intestines. Reminds me of a cat's hairball. StuRat (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Twin Towers

(Noting the recent entertainment desk question about the San Remo building...) There's these two very tall tower-like buildings right next the the Mercedes building at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel in NYC -- any idea what those buildings are? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean these (which look like ventilation intakes) or do you mean the Silver Towers? -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 10:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Silver Towers. Now my follow-up question is: how did you go about finding out the name, assuming you were not intimately familiar with these towers before I even asked. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm very unfamiliar with Manhattan, so I looked up the Wikipedia article for the Lincoln Tunnel. The article gave me the coordinates and the geohack page, which I opened in Google Earth. But that location corresponds with somewhere in the river off Weehawken; as you said NYC I knew you meant the NY end (not the NJ end), so I found the east end of the tunnel manually. Then I turned on Google Earth's 3D buildings layer and rotated the view around, looking for "two very tall tower-like buildings". Finding them, I clicked on them and it identified them as the "Silver Towers", which I then searched Wikipedia for. To confirm that we were talking about the same things I tried to find what you described as the "Mercedes building" nearby, but found only a Mercedes dealer which is 10 blocks north (so I don't know what you mean by "Mercedes building"). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a much closer Mercedes dealer on the corner of West 40th St and 11th Ave. Easy to find with Google Maps and Streetview. The Silver Towers are on the corner of West 41st St and 11th Ave. So yes, there is a Mercedes dealer right next to two very tall tower-like buildings. Astronaut (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wow! That was a great explanation -- I suppose I should learn how to use the internet :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

How far away is the train?

By holding one's ear to, or attaching a microphone to a railroad track one can hear an oncoming train at a great distance. Is there a way to determine how far away the train is? Observations about the question are:

• Measuring the intensity of the sound gives only a rough estimate because trains vary in the noise they impart to the track, which may not be a uniform sound conductor due to joints. The method fails if there are multiple trains in hearing distance.
• Autocorrelation of the sound could reveal the length of the oncoming train, but this does not answer the question.
• Two microphones say 1km apart might be able to determine the position of a moving train between them by comparing amplitudes or phases of the received sounds. The system would be quite complex and probably need a radio link and calibration.

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is no. There are too many variables, such as the type of track and the nature of the terrain, not to mention the size and weight of the train itself.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

While obvious, it probably needs to be said that this is only a hypothetical scenario - Railroads/ways are dangerous and especially in the UK tend to have live electrical rails - the above scenario is a good fast way to get killed. Exxolon (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

For any given location, if the train comes at about the same (constant) speed each day, you could probably measure the distance one day, by noting the time between the first sounds and the train's arrival, and measuring the train's speed, and combining those to get the distance. You could repeat this exercise for various dB levels of noise on the track to determine distances for each. Then, under the same conditions, the same calibration should apply.

One possible variable that might muck things up is temperature. If the tracks expand or contract, based on temp, that might make stronger or weaker acoustic connections between rail segments, having a major effect on the distance the sound travels. So, you could still use the above method, but now you'd need to do multiple sets of calibration, each at different temperature ranges. StuRat (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

From 1915 to 1937, the UK experimented with concrete sound mirrors which in the later stages could be used to triangulate the position of incoming aircraft. "From 1930 until 1935 the mirrors participated in the annual Air Defence of Great Britain exercises with the RAF. The 200' mirror was the long range lookout, telling the operators of the 30' and 20' mirrors where to listen. They in turn tracked the incoming aircraft and reported their readings back to a central control centre which calculated and plotted the raiders' position."[1] The invention of RADAR made them obsolete but the centralised early warning system created for them was used to great effect in the Battle of Britain. So if you had a couple of these handy, then you might be able to achieve your aim (or you could get a timetable - they're free). Alansplodge (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone actually done this and can confirm that they can hear the train? I have put my ear on the train track about 20 meters away from a train and couldn't hear or feel anything. Not saying that precise instruments couldn't pick up vibrations, but just from my experience I couldn't detect anything. Or maybe they make railway lines very sturdy in my country... (Details: Train travelling approximately 35 km away from me; put my ear both near and on, and put my hand on, the rail it was travelling on.) Ikiwi (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

35 KPH, you mean ? If you were only 20 meters away from the train, it's noise through the air probably overwhelmed the sound on the rail. And sturdy rails would transmit sound better than rickety old rusty rails, with gaps in them. StuRat (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Global warming and ice free ports for Russia

Hello, it seems we are in turbulent times. This may be incalculable, but I was wondering if Russia will gain major icefree ports from global warming and what effect that would have militarily and economically. If Russia doesn't what about smaller nations nearby? If the shipping of a smaller nation like Lithuania for example benefits from global warming, will Lithuania's security be threatened by Russia's need for access to the sea? Thanks, Rich Peterson 24.7.28.186 (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Which ports were you thinking of? The north coast of Russia is largely uninhabited, although one could easily see increased mining or logging going on if the Arctic Ocean were more easily navigable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Climate change in the Arctic led me to Territorial claims in the Arctic, which has a long section on Russia. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Russia already has one ice-free port on the north coast, at Murmansk (and I suspect that Severomorsk is also ice-free). It also has an ice-free port on the Baltic Sea, at Kaliningrad. Shipping in the Baltic can be affected by sea ice, but it's hard to see why a reduction in ice would leave Russia unsatisfied with its Kaliningrad outlet (particularly as it could improve access to Saint Petersburg). If there was a major reduction in sea ice to the north of Russia, Arkangelsk could benefit, and some of the smaller ports listed in the northernmost settlements article, particularly if the entire Northern Sea Route became open to more ships, and for longer - but such climate changes would also raise the sea level, causing rather more widespread problems. Warofdreams talk 09:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Access through the melted North Pole will secure some faster shipping lanes for many commercial and state-owned actors. Russia will not gain "major" icefree ports, no (though Dudinka opens); they will however be freer to operate offshore facilities for gas or oil drilling. You may instead say that global warming will make the northern and north-eastern icefree ports majorer. Geopolitically for Russia and Europe, an ice-free arctic will mean nobody has to worry about Suez; the trip from Asian industry, through the Bering strait and past Russia has significantly fewer pirates. On the other side, it is also less forgiving climatically and with little search and rescue-cover.

Am I correct in assuming OP is asking whether Russia will use the North-Eastern passage as a gepolitical tool? In very insignificant amounts, so long as Suez is not blocked. China, Japan and India are important actors by virtue of their interest in trade routes to US and European markets. Russia under Medvedev/Putin has made overtures of commercial entanglement with the EU, in order to foster modernization in Russian research and industry. Any discussion on an ice-free arctic must take into account Russia's value to the EU, and the EU's self-perceived ability to function as an enhancer of liberal values in markets. This spring we saw the EU explicitly mention Russia in their talks on energy and EU 2020 - not a signal to miss, when Medvedev (or Putin? I forgot) echoed the "economical harmonization from Lisbon to Yakutsk".

Russia's territorial claims may be of some more value in this discussion. It is on the assertion of claims to territory that we find friction between countries - though few will actively oppose the Russians. Extracting oil and gas, especially at such distances from land, will demand a high enough oil price that the venture is financially viable. The exploitation of these fields is set far in the future, and one can't speculate on the current status quo. Whether it is Rosneft or foreign companies that will drill this far out is an open question. Still, Russian analysts should observe that including commercial actors allows more room for maneuver: By including US and EU corporations, attack on rigs and equipment is no longer an attack on Russia, but also its trading partners. Simultaneously, companies can be forcibly nationalised or forced to make concessions under such threats.

This is why, to summarize, I think you should regard the melting of the North Pole as a factor for growth in the northern industries of Russia. Insofar as these industries entangle themselves with corporations abroad, there is less incentive for future Russian administrations to use the North against countries that may 'depend' on it. It is the energy cooperation between the EU and Russia that makes me believe the Russian market, despite its quagmire-like qualities, will be sufficiently modernised that the Russians will find both foreign commercial and political actors engaged in their offshore endeavours. Finally, the really interesting discussion is on how an ice-free north influences Suez, which since the 19th century has held immense geopolitical value. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A good summary. Some additional points:

1) Kaliningrad is an enclave, so they might be reluctant to ship sensitive military items through Lithuania to that port from Russia proper (and Lithuania might forbid shipping things like nuclear weapons that way, insist on inspections of cargo, etc.). They could put such items on cargo planes and fly to Russia, but that increases costs relative to ground shipping.

2) While there may not be much infrastructure there now for navigation, search and rescue, etc., there's no reason to think that such items couldn't be put in place once the need arises.

3) We may also want to install a tsunami warning system in the Arctic Ocean, such as currently exists in the Pacific Ocean, although I believe there to be fewer volcanoes and active faults there.

4) The Arctic Ocean ports would need major upgrades. Since, in the short term, icing up is a still a possibility, they would need facilities for docking large ocean-going freighters, potentially for months. Having ice-breakers on hand, to keep the ports open as long as possible and rescue ships stranded in the ice, would also be a good strategy. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Barring Murmansk and a few other White Sea spots, what incentive would Russia have to install a tsunami warning system? Surely they don't care if uninhabited tundra and taiga get hit by a tsunami. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You're thinking about how it is now, not in the future. With global warming that may become productive farmland, and those may become thriving ports, with a large population living there. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, all of you.-Rich Peterson199.33.32.40 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What countries made their first appearance at the World Cup when they hosted it?

As you may know, Qatar will be hosting the 2022 World Cup. Unless they qualify for the 2018 World Cup, it will be their first (and sadly quite possibly) their only appearance at the World Cup. Which other countries made their first apprearance at the World Cup when they hosted it? This excludes Uruguay, as they hosted the inagural World Cup back in 1930. 112.210.187.109 (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Italy hosted the 1934 FIFA World Cup, having declined to take part in 1930; Italy went on to win the tournament. FIFA World Cup hosts has all the hosts; South Korea and South Africa probably had the poorest past records of hosts, but both had taken part in previous tournaments, so I don't think there is anyone between Italy and Qatar. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The excellent chart at National_team_appearances_in_the_FIFA_World_Cup#Comprehensive_team_results_by_tournament makes it easy to see. But as the OP says, Qatar may still qualify for 2018. --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Colapeninsula is right after all, only Italy and Qatar (unless they qualify for either the 2014 or 2018 World Cups). I'm actually Wikipedia user Narutolovehinata5, I'm just too lazy to log in. Anyway, I have another, similar question. Which countries first competed in the Olympics when they hosted it? (excluding Greece, having hosted the inagural event in 1896). 112.210.187.109 (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Greece in 1896 is the only one - see the table at list of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games, and its Winter Olympic equivalent. France hosted the first Winter Olympics, but they had already appeared at the Summer Olympics. Warofdreams talk 13:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually said aside from Greece, but there aren't any others so thanks anyway. 112.210.187.109 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A question about sports?

What are examples of professional sports teams that won a championship one year, but no longer existed the following year? Examples include Brawn GP in Formula One or the Baltimore Stallions in the Canadian Football League. This includes teams that assumed a new identity, for example, Brawn GP was bought by Mercedez-Benz and was renamed Mercedes GP and the Baltimore Stallions moved to Montreal to become the Montreal Alouettes (although the CFL does not officially recognize the link). 112.210.187.109 (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Miami Fusion won the MLS Supporters' Shield in their last year (2001) although I think the MLS Cup is usually considered more important. Recury (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this includes teams outside of the US. 112.210.187.109 (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Cleveland Rams won the NFL Championship in 1945 and moved to Los Angeles in the off-season. The Dallas Texans won the AFL Championship in 1962, then became the Kansas City Chiefs before the next season. The Philadelphia Stars won the USFL title in 1984, then moved to Baltimore. In the short-lived World Football League, the Birmingham Americans won the "World Bowl" in 1974, only to have their gear repossessed after the game. They were replaced by the Birmingham Vulcans, who had the best record in the league when it folded midway through the 1975 season. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

One more: The Canton Bulldogs won the 1923 NFL Championship, then moved merged with the Cleveland (football) Indians to become the Cleveland Bulldogs. The "new" Bulldogs won the 1924 title. A separate Canton Bulldogs team was established in 1925. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Including teams that moved is not appropriate because it's not true that they "no longer exist". You also have to exclude the last champion of a failed league. That cuts the candidates down considerably. Under those restrictions, it's never happened in major league baseball, although the Providence Grays and the Detroit Wolverines came close, winning the National League (and also the World Series) in 1884 and 1887 respectively, and disbanded after the 1885 and 1888 seasons respectively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Random interview questions

I am interviewing a very bright friend of mine. She is 26 years old and is an editor for a NY art magazine. The interview is only for fun and will be only shared by friends of ours. Aside from asking inside joke questions, we ask each other tough/thought provoking questions. Does anyone have any good questions I could ask her? Like I said, she is very bright and very sharp so I would like to challenge her a bit and make her stop and think for a moment. They can range from fun to serious... no boundaries. Thank you for your help! --67.134.239.205 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding thought provoking questions, Edge has a set of annual questions that it asks various intellectuals [2] - you might find find some inspiration there. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

James Lipton had a list of 10 questions he'd ask everybody- see Inside the Actors Studio. These were inspired by the Proust Questionnaire. Staecker (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would start off by asking, "What is art?" Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it Aggression Replacement Training or something else.?. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd try some of the Zen Buddhist Kōans -- œ^™ 15:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A few conversation starters I like:

• If you had a job other than the one you have now, what would it be and why?
• Have you ever experienced the kindness of a stranger? How?
• What do you believe now that you did not used to believe, or vice versa?
• What's the best compliment you've ever received?
• What's the worst advice you've ever taken?
• Are you the same person you were as a child, or much different?

Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely remember someone using the following phrase: First we'll talk about the meaning of life, and then move on to the tough questions. It was definitely in Polish originally (though it's possible someone might have used this phrase elsewhere, right?), and probably used in the context of somebody having been interviewed according to such a tactic. Also, it definitely does not stem from fiction. --Ouro (blah blah) 04:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?" --courtesy of Barbara Walters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If yours had a nickname, what would it be? If it was a tree, what would it be? If yours was an animal, what would it be? If yours was a natural disaster, what would it be? (video) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My favorite interview question, when things start to slow down, is, “What’s your biggest challenge this year, and what are you doing about it?” DOR (HK) (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Railway guage (toy)

The track is approx 1.25". Is this a standard clockwork toy? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like 0 guage see List of rail transport modelling scale standards. The large clockwork Hornby trains were this size for instance. Dmcq (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Can old UPC codes be reissued?

Can an old UPC code be usurped by a newer, different product? Say, an item from 1982 that is no longer sold or manufactured anywhere.. can its unique UPC code be 'usurped' by a completely unrelated product? -- œ^™ 18:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

According to this handy document from GS1, UPC codes (or, strictly speaking, GTIN codes, of which UPC codes are a subset) can be re-allocated 48 months after the product has last been sold ("supplied by the Brand Owner to the customer"). Tevildo (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Note also that the GTIN code identifies the manufacturer, as well as the product, and it's not possible for a different manufacturer to use someone else's Company Prefix (see the above-mentioned handy document). So a new product with the same barcode as an old one will definitely be manufactured by the same company as the old product - it's not possible to "usurp" a competitor's old barcode, although you can re-use one of your own. Tevildo (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That answers my question. -- œ^™ 19:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How to remove an unremovable window screen ?

It's time to put in a window A/C unit. Unfortunately, there's a window screen there which appears to have had the window frame built around it. So, how do I remove it ? Some thoughts I had:

1) Push on the center of the screen frame, top and bottom, and try to pop it out of the window frame by deforming the screen frame. I already tried this, but was getting to the point where I was afraid it might break either the screen frame or the window frame. This is the only approach that seems to have the possibility of preserving everything unbroken, though.

2) Cut through the screen frame, making the screen into junk.

3) Cut the screen out of the screen frame, also making the screen into junk.

Any suggestions ? StuRat (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want the process to have a chance at being semi-reversable at some indeterminate point in the future, your option 3 is the starting point. Cut out the screen about an inch inside of the existing frame -- and no larger than the hole you'll need for the A/C unit. If you then wish to take the unit out for the winter, you could "sew" a patch of screen fabric back into the hole, overlapping the original inch.

This doesn't solve the original problem, of course. The only way to do that is to commit to an irreversible process; once you've done some permanent damage to the frame, the mechanism for removing the screen will instantly become obvious!

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Usually the screen frame should slide either up or down within the window frame. this will expose either top or bottom edge so that extraction can begin. Sometimes it's held down by gravity. Other times it's held up by two small leaf springs in the bottom. 190.56.18.72 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two half-screens in the window, one above the other, both of which could slide up and down, if not blocked by the other. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

( 18.72 back) Haven't had them like that but I think they should still work the same way. I should have specified that they slide only about a quarter to half inch. Just enough to barely clear the window frame. If they've been there a long time you may need to pry them a bit with a scew driver or something. They should both slide that quarter inch together. 190.148.132.178 (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not these, there is zero room for them to move. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then, if the window frame is not nailed/screwed down over the screen frame then I'm all out of suggestions StuRat.(18.72) 190.148.132.178 (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for trying. StuRat (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You've called the screen "unremovable", Stu. If you truly believe that, nothing is ever going to work. Maybe removing the conceptual barrier will have some effect on the physical barrier. You've got nothing to lose. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't understand my usage of the term. An "unremovable" screen is one that's not designed to be removed for cleaning, etc. Obviously everything is removable, if we are willing to resort to the use of high explosives. It's just a question of whether it can be removed intact. StuRat (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I gave up and cut the screen. At least I have my A/C installed now. StuRat (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: It was difficult to resist posting this "Windows" question on the Computer Desk. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)