Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 May 27

= May 27 =

Beaver confusion
I searched for Canadian beaver and I was redirected to American beaver. That was okay until I read the opening paragraph where they called this animal the North American beaver. The species name is Castor canadensis which leaves me confused, which is the right name for this animal? Is American beaver a shortened version of North American beaver? --The Dark Side 01:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that Castor canadensis is the only species of beaver currently native to the Americas, and that the common name is the "American beaver," rather than "North American beaver. See this site, which lists common names. Carom 03:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the talk page has a heated discussion on this question that unfortunately sheds no light on the matter. implies one species Castor canadensis is called both Canadian and North American, but there are 24 subspecies.   has more detailed info and shows the regional distribution across the continent of castor c. Most scientific papers on google seem to imply its North American Beaver and that would be more accurate, sorry as I am to deprive Canada of a national symbol.  But I'm not certain, I guess this is why we use scientific rather than common names. Even among flowers and trees the same species can have several common names.  You could try the Science desk but my guess is multiple common names are valid. Mhicaoidh 03:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are lots of bald eagles in Canada, too, so we will share our birds with you Canucks if you will share your beavers with us. StuRat 06:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And beware the Mountain Beaver which is neither a beaver nor inhabits mountains Mhicaoidh 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any good sources for Australian horse racing records?
I was editing the article on "Arwon" the winner of the 1978 Melbourne Cup. It contains a claim of his overall record which I cannot find any sources to verify. Can anyone suggest any good sources either online or in print where I could check?Capitalistroadster 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a major library will have them. --Proficient 05:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article from the Brisbane Times gives his record as 16 wins, 13 seconds and 5 thirds in 67 races, although they don't give a source for this. Carom 05:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Name of song
What is the song thats being played in the background of this video , --Coasttocoast 05:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it I think it is Eminem, forget the name of the track. I think it is the one with Dr Dre and in the video they dress as batman/robin or something strange like that. ny156uk 09:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's "Without Me" by Eminem. Laïka  09:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No. It's My Band by D-Twizzy. Sʟυмgυм • т • c  10:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Slumgum is correct, it is indeed My Band.Jamesino 16:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Starter Pokemon
I need some advice - in Pokemon Diamond - what is the best starter pokemon in the long run (i.e., for competitive battling) - Turtwig, Chimchar, or Piplup?  Ali  (t)(c) 07:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an advice website. Sorry, but you are unlikely to get many answers here.

I would recommend instead that you make a list of all your options, then find out everything you can about them and compare to see which is best. A weighted average would be useful, as some things are more important than others.


 * Also, you have to define what is best and important to you. It may be that you actually prefer a weaker pokemon, so the game is harder to play and it is more rewarding to finish it. I used to play Dune II, and, at the beginning, you have to choose which out of three Houses to play with. Ordos was clearly weaker than the other two, so it felt better to go to the next level when I was playing with Ordos. subsequent fallout 13:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Chimchar. Jamesino 16:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm more interested in how they will fare in multiplayer battles. I decided to go with Piplup because penguins are awesome, and so is water/steel!   Ali  (t)(c) 20:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been considering this... I've decided that if I do get a copy, I'm getting Piplup, and naming it Tux. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, I just started playing diamond yesterday, and chose Piplup as well. Steel / Water is a very strong combination. It also has good stats, and good special attacks and special defense, according to the pokedex. Tortwig is extremely slow but has extremely good physical defenses. Chimchar... I never liked fire type Pokemon because they're not that useful. It's strong against grass, but so is flying (Piplup). It's strong against ice, but so is Steel (evolved Piplup). It's strong against bug, so is flying (Piplup). But Chimchar does have one good thing going for him. He gets his second elemental type after the first evolution, instead of after the second, like the other two. However, just because you choose one at the beginning doesn't mean you have to put it in your line-up in multiplayer battles. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are their English names? God they're awful... --Candy-Panda 03:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why disc brakes are better than drum brakes ?
Look at drum brake and disc brake for a more full explanation of the relative advantages/reasons for each. Disc brakes, as I understand it, give greater stopping power and can reduce your speed faster. Also I think Disc-brakes can have abs technology and i'm not sure if drum brakes can have that. ny156uk 09:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Discs are easier to change the brake pads. Also, when off roading, they clean out easier when rocks and such get caught in them.  Dismas |(talk) 12:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ABS is definitely possible with drum brakes; many trucks have ABS. Meanwhile, disc brakes also have the distinct advantage that there's no brake fade as they get hot.


 * Atlant 21:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Disc brakes are generally lighter than drum brakes, and for better handling and performance one wants to have less unsprung weight. Also, on those lines, making a disc brake disc larger will increase the swept area for only a small increase in weight. A larger drum brake will have a proportionally much larger increase in weight. Drum brakes (at least in the old days) were also prone to self-servoing. As you applied the brake, the rotating drum would pull the leading edge of the shoes in, and the braking action would increase on its own.

Disc brakes will most definitely fade when hot, I've experienced it myself many times on my motorcycle. Granted, I was on racetracks when it happened, but by the end of a session with top speeds nearing 180 MPH my brakes would certainly be fading. Brake fade is more a factor of small air bubbles in the brakelines than the type of brake itself. As the brake fluid heats up, it can boil, causing gas bubbles in the hoses. Those bubbles are compressible where the fluid is not, resulting in brake fade. 71.113.114.231 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But long before you boil the brake fluid, you will have rendered drum brakes completely ineffective by virtue of the drum having expanded past the point where the shoes can apply enough pressure. If your brake fluid is boiling, you either need a different brake fluid or your current brake fluid is contaminated with stuff (such as water) that is boiling out.


 * Atlant 18:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't thought of that. So all else being equal, when a disc brake and a drum brake heat up, the drum of the drum brake will be expanding and moving away from the brake shoes, rendering it less effective (or "fading"). When the disc of a disc brake heats up it expands too, but unlike the drum, does not move away from the brake shoes. To the original poster: Another couple advantages of disc brakes are that the discs can be drilled, and the discs can be floating. For a discussion of what those terms mean see this page, and scroll down to the "brake myths" section about halfway down, where drilled rotors and floating rotors are discussed. 71.113.117.115 19:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How many calories / 100g in bakkwa?
As title - wondering if anyone knows where I can find nutritional information for bakkwa - thanks! 131.111.229.57 09:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to THIS site, it's 228 calories in a 57g serving, which would be 400 calories per 100g. Anchoress 00:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just what I was looking for. Thanks! 131.111.229.57 17:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Exercise bike problem
I turned the "difficulty" knob on my exercise bike to a higher level one day, and got on and started pedalling in a normal way, and there was a loud click kind of noise and since then all the difficulty levels feel the same, loose, easy way. I guess something broke? Is this common and/or simple? How do I fix this? thanks for any suggestions...


 * Sounds like some gears/chain disconnected. Can't really say without looking at it how hard it will be to fix -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 15:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree with the statement above. It sounds like while you were shifting the setting, the chain or whatever material slipped off the gear and is stuck somewhere possibly not connected to anything. So you're effectively just moving the pedals and not turning everything. Might want to check the bikes manufacturer to see if you have some sort of warrantly, or you can probably open it up and fix it yourself (opening the bike, re-attaching the chain, and closing it)--GTPoompt 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a superhero chat...
I'm looking for a web site where I can chat about superheroes. I came to one but it was a forum instead of a chatroom. Can you tell me choices for a site, which is a chatroom, not a forum?


 * What's the difference? If you're looking for realtime messaging, I'd think a website is the wrong medium.  &mdash;Tamfang 21:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe be more specific about superheroes? Maybe you want a Marvel IRC chat channel or something? But your best bet should be IRC. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * if you ask on the superheor forum that you mentined, they might know about some chat rooms.-Czmtzc 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pigeons on cricket grounds
I well recall watching English cricket in the 1970s and 1980s and a regular feature was flocks of pigeons being disturbed from the outfield when the ball was played in their direction. Indeed, I believe that the Lord's museum has a macabre exhibit of a pigeon that was killed by a cricket ball. It is my perception that flocks of pigeons no longer gather at the Test grounds in England. Is my perception inaccurate? If not, what's caused this? Pigeon mortality or a deliberate (successful) attempt to deter the "flying rats"? --Dweller 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps the combination of foxes, kestrels and sparrowhawks are enough to scare off the wild pigeons. Rockpock e  t  03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Lord's groundsman Mick Hunt (no, seriously) in 2006: "We see a lot of wildlife here: kestrels and sparrowhawks, plus the odd racing pigeon. We found a peacock strutting about here a few years ago – I’ve no idea where it came from! We also have a lot of foxes. They’ve become a real nuisance... We trap them in a cage in the winter months – we can’t do it in summer because there are people on the grounds – and they get released in a wood down in Sussex. Over the past the past two winters we must have caught in the region of fifty foxes per winter."


 * There were plenty on show during this winter's Ashes, but I've not noticed any so far this summer. Blowers still gets excited as the odd one flies by, but the flocks are sadly missing. It's not so long ago that pigeons were a common sight - I seem to recall Simon Hughes gained the nickname of 'Pigeon' when working as The Analyst for Channel 4. Perhaps the pigeons now just prefer county cricket - here is a picture I took of some pigeons being conspicuously indifferent to cricket at Trent Bridge. Slightly mores seriously, I don't think that pigeons themselves are on the decline - in fact there seems to be more of them than ever, and they seem less averse to humans too - so they must be being deterred somehow. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They've all flown north to shit on my car. Bloody pigeons.  Neil  ( ► ) 11:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

News Agencies
What news agency (CNN, CTV, BBC, etc...) is the world's best? Best= covers a wide variety of issues, goes in-depth in many issues and is un-biased. Thanks. 64.230.43.114 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Best is very much a matter of opinion. Historically the BBC was widely considered to be "the best", partly due to its funding situation promoting impartiality, and its global reach (The BBC World Service). This appears to have taken a bit of a hit recently (see Hutton Inquiry and Criticism of the BBC), but is still often described as being "the best" when you sample people, awards, pundits etc.    Reuters and Associated Press are pretty well respected globally, also, but less well known to the man-on-the-street.


 * Although technically not news agencies, if you ask people in the Midwest of America, they are more likely to tell you FOX or CNN, and if you ask in the Middle East, they may tell you Al Jazeera. In otherwords, bias, or lack thereof, is very much in the eye of the beholder. Rockpock  e  t  01:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it depends on the subject area. But if I had to pick one, it would be the BBC.  They have one huge theoretical advantage over the others - they have an utterly independent source of funding.  They aren't funded by big corporations via advertising - they don't have to attract a big audience in order to pull in cable TV fees - they more-or-less aren't funded by government either.  They get their money from a tax that's collected from the British people in the form of a Television License Fee.  The money goes straight from the license fee into the BBC's coffers - nobody can refuse to pay it (well, not without winding up in jail or getting rid of their TV's) - the government can't get their hands on the cash so the BBC don't have to suck up to the British government in order to get the funding they need.   This pretty much allows the BBC to "do the right thing" - they have no incentive to do otherwise.  Well, that's the theory at least.  I'm biassed - because I'm British - but I see the BBC as a shining highlight of what the British people give to the world.  It's not perfect - but it's a lot better than the alternatives.  The BBC world service radio is still the place people all around the world turn to when there is trouble in their part of the world and they want the truth.  You see! User:Rockpocket was right - bias is in the eye of the beholder! SteveBaker 04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the ARD is independent in the same way the BBC is, its funding model was copied from the BBC. I would say that the BBC provides slightly better new coverage than the ARD, although the Tagesschau was really incredibly good until it started to decline a little about 15 years ago. American news channels are completely laughable in comparison, so I think that the funding model is really a factor for a good news service.


 * Before lauding the BBC, you might want to red the article Criticism of the BBC. The BBC's "independence" may not be such a virtue. Because British people have to pay license fees to the BBC, the corporation may lack accountability. You assume that with no monetary pressure to satisfy advertisers or keep viewership numbers up, the BBC will "do the right thing." But what is to stop them from not doing the right thing?
 * It's said, for example, that the corporation's Middle East bureaus have a long-running institutional culture hostile to Israel, and that those who do not share that viewpoint do not get positions in the Middle East. A commercial network facing competition might feel forced to address concerns about biased reporting because of pressures from viewers. Fewer viewers, less money.
 * In my opinion, the best news agency is, bar none, the Associated Press. AP articles run in thousands of newspapers of all different stripes, so they have to be straight-down-the-middle completely unbiased -- and they almost always are. If you live in the United States, most of the international content in your local newspaper probably comes from the AP. -- Mwalcoff 05:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that accountability means bias towards the opinions of those to whom you must be accountable. There is nothing stopping the BBC from doing the wrong thing - but there is no institutional reason why they should.  If you are held accountable to your advertisers - it's hard to say something bad about them.  If you are held accountable to your viewers then you can't say things that are unpopular - no matter how important they are or how much what is said happens to be true.  If you are accountable to politicians - well, it's self-evident that that isn't going to work.  Newspapers that are held accountable by their owners suffer biasses that way.  So what do you do?  There is no group to whom you could be accountable without that very accountability resulting in bias.  So, dispense with accountability - instill a culture of non-bias - and hope it works out.  I'm open to hearing other suggestions - but the BBC's model has historically worked out pretty well (although nothing is ever perfect). SteveBaker 14:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea is to have a pluralistic press and media in which you have different outlets that are accountable to different people. In my opinion, no one should be forced to promote opinions he or she disagrees with, as is the case in the UK with people opposed to the BBC's agenda. -- Mwalcoff 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparitions/ghosts in televisions?
I have two questions, both I've searched tirelessly for, for the last couple of hours on google and wikipedia and have found nothing. The first is, is there a "scientific" name for the effect of having pictures display apparitions/ghosts in television screens? Also there used to be a very popular shockwave flash-based video displaying examples of such pictures with discussions about them, it also showed a few other "ghost" pictures -- i've tried to find this but cannot, does anyone know where I can? -Anthonysenn 23:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a formal meaning for the term "ghost" and "ghosting" in TV images - it happens when a TV signal is reflected by a nearby building or something - your receiver gets two versions of the signal - one via the direct path and another from the reflection. Because the distance the signal has travelled is different, the signals arrive at slightly different times and a second 'ghost' image is formed on the screen - generally a little to the right of the real image.   Another cause of ghost-like effects is "co-channel interference".  This happens when the radio reception is unusually good for some freak weather-related reason and there is some TV station that is on the same frequency as the one you are watching but which is supposed to be too far away to pick up.  Under the right circumstances, you get a faint ghostly image from the other TV channel superimposed on the one you are watching.  Sometimes this is very obvious - but on other occasions it can be downright creepy.  However, this 'ghosting' is nothing whatever to do with any supernatural nonsense. SteveBaker 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two other possibilities.
 * Local cable companies which carry local stations may not carry them on the same channels as they're broadcast, and a ghost of the broadcast signal can appear behind the cable signal. For example, CICT broadcasts on channel 2 in Calgary but is carried on cable channel 7. If you have cable (like 90-some percent of Calgarians) and you tune to channel 2, you'll get the current TV listings, but behind it you might see ghosts of whatever's being broadcast on CICT.
 * You may see a ghost if your TV tuner malfunctions. This is more common with older sets (which is why many of these stories come from 20 or more years ago). -- Charlene 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Or occasionally there could be real ghosts there :] HS7 15:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "They're here..."


 * Atlant 18:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See also Multipath. Also, expanding on Charlene's point, you may also see ghosting on cable systems when they transmit a local channel on the same cable channel; if the broadcast signal "leaks in" to your cable drop, it will probably produce a ghost that leads (is to the left of) the main cable image. The reverse can happen if you're watching the television channel via an antenna, but your neighbor's cable connection is leaking the cable signal outwards; you'll see the cable system's ghost to the right of your broadcast signal. For either of these faults, the cable company will probably want to know about it.


 * Atlant 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)