Miscellaneous desk
< March 2	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 4 >

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.

March 3[edit]

Metro areas[edit]

What other metro areas in US or Canada or english is their primary language or at least their primary secondary language that matches metro NY (thats where I was born, bought up, still live)? And don't want it to be Washington DC because I have been there and really didn't have good impressions of it, but will to give it another try. This isn't the 1st time that I have thought about or isn't my last as well. Because I'm still looking at my other options then NY as well. Don't get me wrong love it here and etc, but don't like certain aspects that come with living in NY. But still want a better quality life for me and others in my future family that I feel NY doesn't provide or at least provides. But not up to standards. At the same time I don't drive and don't plan onto driving. I'm capable of driving. Think thats it for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 03:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your question? What language are you trying to find a match for? RudolfRed (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Rudolf. Could you boil that down into one intelligible question? What I think you're trying to ask if what metro areas in the US or Canada have good public transportation. Have you tried services like Find Your Spot? Dismas|^(talk) 03:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco has outstanding public transportation. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So does Detroit, in the sense that you'll be out standing at the bus stop waiting for a bus that never arrives. StuRat (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

If you're thinking of relocating and want to know about overall quality of life, our article on the World's most livable cities gives some lists based on objective criteria. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too had difficulty understanding your question, but it seems you are looking to move from New York City to another large city. It should also be in North America, where English is the primary or secondary language, and have reasonable public transport. To be honest, that describes many, many cities north of Mexico. Pretty much any city with more than a million people will have a bus network, though it might not cover all areas or all times of the day. It would be helpful if you said what it was about New York City that makes you want to leave - crime? pollution? poverty? noise? cost-of-living? NYC is a 24-hour city, where pretty much anything is available whenever you want it (eg. not many cities worldwide have a subway that runs 24-hours a day). NYC is also known as a global city and perhaps what you are looking for is near top in the cities listed in that article. If you are prepared to consider places outside North America, and can get a resident permit, some cities in Europe and Australasia have a good quality of life, good transport systems and speak English as a first or second language (nearly half the population of the EU speak English). My personal suggestions: (in North America) San Francisco or Toronto, (elsewhere) Copenhagen or Melbourne. Astronaut (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by others, it is hard to parse this question; but if you are looking for major cities in North America (meaning Canada and U.S.) where English is the primary language; you're basically going to find that all of them outside of the province of Quebec speak primarily English, and there are still many people who speak English as a second language in Montreal and Quebec City, so you can get along in those places. If you are looking for a city with similar traits to New York City in terms of culture, population density, and public transportation; then Chicago, Boston, or Philadelphia may make you comfortable. As you note, Washington DC has a good transport network, but is basically a "Southern" city in its population distribution and feel; it is much more suburban in character, with lower population density and more "spread out". Washington has much more in common with cities like Atlanta or Charlotte in that way, than it does with the older "Northeastern" metropolises. --Jayron32 15:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Jessica A Bruno 20:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Thank you for all of your answers to my question here. Especially with the clarification and etc. Sorry, for not being more clear with my original question here because wasn't sure how to word it and etc. At the same time have also fixed the spelling of a word that I misspelled earlier.

Tetra Pak construction[edit]

Do tetra paks use polythene (plastics) in their construction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.146.141.6 (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra Pak (which is packaging pioneer Tetra Laval's brandname) makes fluid cartons from liquid packaging board. Paper, by itself, obviously isn't a good container for water-based substances like milk and juice - so LPB is laminated with a waterproof plastic, usually polyethylene. Some cartons also contain a lining of aluminium foil, which reduces gas-permeability and cuts down on UV penetration. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BMWs[edit]

Hi guys! Dont know if it fits in this category but there i go does anyone know what rotation degrees a bmw m3 steering wheel has(models from 2003 up to the current ones) is it 900 degrees or less??

thanks a bunch! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.47.62 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the 2011 model, Motortrend reports 2.8 turns lock-to-lock. That's 1008 degrees.[1] For the previous generation, there's one source that reports 3.0 turns (1080).--Itinerant1 (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Take-off/ Landings CCTV Recordings[edit]

As above, are all aircraft take-offs and landings recorded by the control tower/s? 77.97.208.224 (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but why not? Many much less interesting places are monitored by CCTV. Considering that many airplane accidents happen there, I see why they would care. A CCTV could also provide details about lose objects on the runway or birds flying over. XPPaul (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question involves the assumption that all airports have control towers. They don't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is if control towers record landings and take-offs, it doesn't matter if the former are on every airport, even if the OP doesn't seem to care or know that. XPPaul (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So...........as the OP in question....it seems I have wasted my time asking this question....and the time expended on answering it (NOT) by those respondents who either don't know....or care. Thanks for nothing folks. 77.97.208.224 (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were given a simple and correct answer by MilborneOne: No.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne didn't cite any source. XPPaul (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if one exists to say that such a practice doesn't take place. To help answer the question (both stated and unstated) more clearly though... A) Not all airports have control towers (see Uncontrolled field if we have an article), B) Many fields that do have control towers have very small ones because they're very small airports (see for instance Southern Illinois Airport, again, if it has an article), C) Many fields don't bring in the kind of money it would take to have a CCTV camera record each takeoff/landing, store all the recordings, etc, D) Accidents often happen in less than ideal weather conditions so the CCTV camera may not even be able to see the aircraft much less any fine detail that gives a clue to the reason why it crashed or whatever, E) Planes are inspected before they take off on their next flight and any loose equipment/parts would/should be caught during that pre-flight check, F) If there is an accident, the NTSB (or other national organization) can often figure out what happened from the wreckage and not need film. Does any of that help? Dismas|^(talk) 16:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that a CCTV would cost, nowadays, any meaningful sum of money. There are much more expensive things in an airport, even in a small one. Filming has several advantages, as stated above. Even ATMs, buses and parks have CCTVs. Why not a runway? XPPaul (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first answer you got was correct if brief, as you asked if all takeoffs and landings are recorded. At major airports most of them are, they have cameras all over the place. Smaller airports with fewer staff and fewer resources don't. Taking an example from my own area, the Nanwalek Airport, which recently had a crash right after a takeoff, does not have any footage of the incident. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_airports_in_Alaska certainly provides a long list of airports, and many won't have a control tower. 88.8.68.249 (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV would cost a non-trivial amount of money for many airports considering there would be the cost and upkeep of the cameras, the buried cable (including running cabling under runways and taxiways) unless you go wireless and then you need WAPs, the computers to record everything plus keep back ups in case of failures, and any tech support. For a bank to put a CCTV in their ATM is nothing. The power and computers are already right there in the bank. Small airports that can barely keep a control tower manned likely don't have the kind of funding to keep CCTV cameras on all their runways. Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that helpful info. It's much appreciated. 77.97.208.224 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photography with poor light[edit]

Which is more important (without flash): a low f-number of a high ISO? XPPaul (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

Seriously, the answer to that question is going to depend on your subject, your camera, and your lens. Sometimes you want or need the greater depth of field (and, with some lenses, the greater sharpness) afforded by closing the aperture down a few stops. Sometimes (depending on your camera, and how far you're pushing it) you can't tolerate the noise associated with high ISO settings or high-ISO film. Many times, it's a compromise. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this article on the 'Exposure Triangle' useful - http://www.digital-photography-school.com/learning-exposure-in-digital-photography (indeed that whole site may be of use). A key thing about high ISO is you'd have to consider your camera's performance and your intended use. My camera takes reasonable photos at ISO1600 - they don't look the best on screen but in your everyday 5x7 prints they look fine. ny156uk (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can the human jaw rip off flesh?[edit]

Can the average human jaw bite off chunks of flesh (perhaps in a self-defense scenario) from the arms or shoulder of another living person? Acceptable (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, just as it's possible to bite off a chunk of meat from a roast beef. If you do a Google Image Search for "human bite" you'll see a lot of really gross pictures of human bites. Don't do that search if you have an aversion to seeing some mutilated human genitals (ick). Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair a well-cooked roast beef should be a lot more tender than raw living human flesh and skin. But I admit that is just nitpicking, and I agree with your point: it is absolutely possible for the human jaw to bite off chunks of flesh. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and it happens quite often with ears, apparently. (I keep seeing newspaper reports.) The short canines in the human mouth make it difficult (but not impossible) to tear flesh from the arm or shoulder. Dbfirs 23:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO INFORMATION ON ANZAK - AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND ARMY CORPS (WW II)[edit]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I entered a query on ANZAK (Subj) and found nothing, no information in your organization/pedia on this significant military contribution to the Allied cause in WW II. Astonishing omission if this is in fact the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.66.247 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try ANZAC or even Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's "astonishing" is that you thought the acronym would use the letter K to represent "Corps". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they're German. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not if they speak English enough to know how corps is spelled in English. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%93_%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%96%D7%90%22%D7%A7 if you can read Hebrew. Regretfully it was not yet translated to other languages. The article deals with ANSAC memorial near Be'eri (Israel), and also cites the other locations of ANSAC cemeteries in The Middle-East. Etan J. Tal 23:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have just created the ANZAK article, which is now a redirect to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps article. Now, if future guests type ANZAK, they'll go straight to that article. Here on Wikipedia, anybody can add to our encyclopedia. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the OP mixed ANZUK with ANZAC and got ANZAK. RudolfRed (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he did spell it out in the header (in all caps, no less): "AUSTRALIA [and] NEW ZEALAND ARMY CORPS", which has nothing to do with ANZUK.

By the way, it was World War I, not II. However, in World War II the Australian I Corps in Greece was officially renamed ANZAC Corps but for a very short time, less than a month in April 1941. Details are in the article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just mention that the OP geolocates to the Dominican Republic. Looie496 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]