Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 November 24

= November 24 =

Proper method for stopping at stop sign
What is the proper method of stopping at a stop sign in a car with a manual transmission? Does one:
 * Break gently while approaching the stop sign.
 * Step in the clutch to dis-engage the transmission once the car begins to stall.
 * Shift to neutral.
 * Glide to the stop sign and stop completely.
 * Shift to 1st gear to get ready to go.

Are these steps correct (for a driving exam)? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't say which country you are in, but here's a rule of thumb. It all depends on how long you need to actually stop for. If it's less than 10 seconds then remain in gear with your foot on the brake. 10-30 seconds - go into neutral with foot on brake. Longer than 30 secs - go into neutral and apply hand brake (emergency/parking brake). Pulling off as you would normally do from a standing start. -- Web  H  amster 01:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In Canada for a quick stop, less than 10 seconds I guess. But would the procedure I listed above be incorrect in the eyes of a driving examiner? Acceptable (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in the UK, but an Advanced Driver and the problems I can see (unless it's just the way you describe it) is the "glide" bit. You shouldn't freewheel a car ever, even over short distances. It should either be under power or under braking. Free-wheeling is considered to be a car that isn't under control. The usual way is to synchronise clutch and brake so that you smoothly come off one whilst engaging the other, timing it so that the clutch is fully disengaged at the same time the wheels stop rolling. Once you have fully stopped you can then go into neutral. When getting ready to start again is when you go into first -- Web  H  amster 01:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Suppose I'm approaching the stop in 3rd gear and will do what you have described. When I'm braking and synchronizing the clutch like you said, can I keep my car in 3rd gear? Then shift into 1st gear when I have fully stopped. Or do I have to progressively downshift? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can do either, but again it depends on the circumstances and environment that you are in. Going down through the gears is a safe method of gentle braking, especially in icy weather so it's doubtful an examiner would criticise you for doing so. The thing to remember is that putting the car in neutral whilst you are moving will at best get you marked down, at worst get you failed. Currently I drive an auto, but for years I drove manual and I did my Roadcraft training in a manual and I have to say I always used the going down through the gears method, but even then I didn't necessarily go from 3 ->2 ->1. It's quite acceptable to go directly from 3 to 1 whilst braking. -- Web  H  amster 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also mention that there are distinct difference between locales. I have been told that UK drivers education programs suggest something very similar to what you describe -- that is, putting the car in neutral and using the parking brake at stoplights.  Stop lights there also have a RED+YELLOW phase (between RED and GREEN) that informs drivers that they should engage the clutch and put the car into gear.  In the US, not only are the stoplights not configured this way, but automatic transmissions are MUCH more prevalent.  I'm in the US, have a manual transmission and personally will often just keep the transmission in gear, but hold in the clutch.  This is bad for the thrust bearing (I think), and if I'm going to be waiting for a longer time, I'll toss it into neutral.  I almost never use the parking brake (ebrake?) at stop lights.  --Mdwyer (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would add "check for pedestrians and other vehicles", which is the whole purpose of stopping. —Nricardo (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm talking UK here. My instructor, many years ago, taught me to progressively brake and disengage the clutch until stationary. Then disengage gears to neutral and pull on handbrake if the stop is likely to be for more than, say, 20 seconds. If it's a short stop, like entering another road, then it is not necessary to pull on the handbrake unless you are on an incline and likely to roll forward or back. Richard Avery (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

this is a uncommon but normal thing, or a thing that you just have getting a disease or making plastic surgery ??
This thing on  this video  [] (WARNING: adult content) is a uncommon but normal thing, or a thing that you just have getting a disease or making plastic surgery ?? 201.8.163.51 (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd be better describing it than expecting people to download an 8Mb mpeg (presumably porno) video. -- Web  H  amster 02:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is fake. it is not plastic sergury. they are just holding a piece of rubber, well moldered rubber. she is clearly faking as there is no or very little penetration. special efects. further more, you are going to need sergury on your eyes, as you might soon go blind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.151.98 (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

career prospects
hi, i am presently studying bsc aeronautical science at an anna university approved college. what are the scope of job in this field and furthere educational possibilities????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.41.70 (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The sky's the limit! Sorry. Someone had to say it.  And I got here first!  Matt Deres (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

barking dogs
I have not been able to find any natural cause why dogs bark at or chase people, bicycles and cars. For instance, such behavior might have developed from a reaction to herds of animals trampling dog dens and killing their young thus eliciting this natural reaction to anything that might potentially be a moving threat.

Forgetting natural causes as the reason it occurred to me that such behavior might be the result of breeding for the purpose of our ancestors using dogs to protect campsites similar to the way Dobermans are bred as personal body guards for their owners. In other words, that the reason some dogs bark and chase people, bicycles and cars is because most were used by our human ancestors for protection and hunting and were bred to have this type of behavior regardless of their original breed for the purpose of protecting or wining food for their human companions to the point of this behavior now being genetically ingrained and randomly dominant or passive but spanning many current breeds.

Since many dogs do not display this sort of behavior can anyone confirm of refute this explanation as to why some dogs bark and chase people, bicycles and cars? 71.100.164.177 (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You might find some books by Temple Grandin to be interesting -- especially "Animals in Translation". In her book, she explains that older wolves don't bark.  Barking is something that wolf puppies do.  It is something they grow out of, and if they didn't they wouldn't be able to sneak up on food.  On the other hand, humans are good at making food, but useless when it comes to things like not becoming food themselves.  So, humans needed noisy animals to protect them.  So, in return for easy food (stalking kibble isn't all that hard), wolves traded in their ability to grow up.  Humans then were able to settle down and start agriculture.  That's her take on it, at least, and I'm probably mangling it horribly.  It is a fascinating book. --Mdwyer (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, she suggests wolfiness is directly related to ... uh... barkiness. Dogs that are VERY divorced from wolves are yappy.  However, the larger, more wolf-like breeds are by comparison much quieter.  I had a siberian husky growing up.  She didn't bark much, but she howled quite a bit.  By comparison, our cockapoo became unhinged at the sound of a doorbell.  A third datapoint would have to be the Basenji, which is generally a 'barkless' breed, although it isn't particularly wolfish. --Mdwyer (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC) (Edit: --Mdwyer (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Behaviors may indeed be subject to "upsettedness" or "calmedness" as I would expect Temple Grandin's assessment to relate and therefore subject to pack mentality. For instance, I pass a fenced in yard every couple of days wherein two dogs bark and give chase. Sometimes when there is only the larger dog of mixed breed (hound and maybe pit bull) he may bark and chase unenthusiastically unless sunning himself in which case he may avoid even a glance and not bark or give chase at all. 71.100.164.177 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly there are a lot of features of modern dogs that are shared with Wolf puppies and not adult Wolves. Barking is certainly one, floppy ears is another, the desire to play is a third.  Since these characteristics are common to most kinds of domesticated dog, we can assume that they were (and perhaps still are) being purposefully bred for those puppy-like characteristics.  Being a good guard dog entails being willing to bark at intruders - so you could imagine how (in times of trouble) the good guard dogs would survive into the next generation while the terrible (non-barking) guard dogs would not.  So between an evolutionary pressure to be able to work with humans and actual selective breeding - we have puppy-like, barking, floppy-eared dogs.  SteveBaker (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, when breeding foxes for tameness (not domesticating them, just allowing those that are naturally most tame to reproduce with no training, merely handling to verify tameness), the foxes grew more and more childlike for longer and longer periods, until their ears flopped and their tails curled like dogs, and IIRC they also became more vocal. So clearly "tameness" and "friendliness" are controlled by the same whatever it is that flops ears, curls tails, and prohibits them from reaching adulthood, lending credence to the theory that dog = baby wolf. Kuronue | Talk 04:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Full Protection Articles
Can anyone tell me if there are any fully protected articles on wiki at the moment, i was interested to see which ones are they.Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These articles should be in Category:Protected. Hope that helps! --Lox (t,c) 08:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of police officers by country
Does the EU/UN or some other International Organization keep statistical information about the number of law enforcement officers in countries on a national level? I wish to compare crime rate against the number of people employed to enforce them as well as a general expression of "harshness" of laws - ie. how much time you must generally serve for 1. degree murder, rape, robbery etc. Does anybody have an idea for where I can obtain information of this type? I have relatively good data on crime rate and national laws but lack the required information about law enforcement... Thanks.
 * The Irish police, An Garda Síochána, have 13,821 officers. Someone else might be able to find a link to some website that shows info on other countries--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 15:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * American police, 738,000 law enforcement officers in the United States in 2002. Others are listed here. 71.100.164.177 (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to control for size of country (percent of population should work I think) - Ireland is a LOT smaller than the USA. Kuronue | Talk 04:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bundled typefaces
Inspired by Reference desk/Miscellaneous, and particularly one of the answers, I've had a quick look at the typefaces that came bundled with my computer, either with Windows or with other programs such as Microsoft Office. There must be close to 200 typefaces, and yet many, if not most, of them would cost me about £20 to buy. Taking oblique and bold face into account (with have to be bought seperately), there is probably several hundred pounds worth of typefaces on my computer - probably more than the associated software cost in the first place. How can the software companies can afford to buy the rights to all these typefaces, only to give them away for next to nothing. Or, alternatively, how can the typeface companies afford to give all these typefaces to Microsoft for so little per user? Laïka 12:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the fonts included with Windows are "knock-offs"; i.e. copies or near copies of other fonts. Under U.S. laws, font styles are hard to protect, while font names are easy to trademark.  I think Microsoft got most of their fonts from Monotype.  Let's take the ubiquitous Arial font: it is a knock-off of the venerable Helvetica font from Linotype; both are actually based on earlier fonts.  Both share the same proportions and weight, but have slightly different glyphs; one can be easily substituted for another.  I do not know if Microsoft purchased their font set outright or if they pay royalties, but everybody gets their money in sales of Windows.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  13:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The price of fonts is like the price of software. The more you sell, the cheaper it gets.  The cost of designing a font is a fixed amount - the cost of 'manufacturing' a font is almost zero - the cost of putting it on a disk or distributing it over the Ethernet.  So, if your font cost $10,000 to develop - then if (like Microsoft) you sell a hundred million copies - the price per copy is one tenth of a cent.  If you sell only 1000 copies to specialist printing companies or whatever then the price per copy is $10 plus profit. SteveBaker (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the point in prolonging the inevitable?
What's the point in prolonging the inevitable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.153.74 (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your partner's pleasure? Azi Like a Fox (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends what the inevitable is. If it's unpleasant, inconvenient, undesirable, etc, then it's natural to avoid it as long as you can.  That's not to say it's wise to avoid it, but it's understandable.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have conflated two expressions: "delay the inevitable" and "prolong the suffering". There is not only no point in "prolonging the inevitable", there is no sense to it. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that. Take politics, for example.  Parties contest elections, hoping to win power.  No matter how popular a government is, no matter how many positive world-changing things they may do, eventually, sooner or later, they'll be voted out.  They could say, it's all going to end badly one day, so why bother getting into it at all for the (relatively) short-term?  But humans are not like that, particularly where the prospect of power is concerned.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I've got a touch of turkey poisoning affecting my brain, but I don't follow. There is no expression "prolong the inevitable" and rightly so, because it doesn't make any sense. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think everybody is just reading it as if it were "delay the inevitable". Cryo921 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I answer to the real question, there is none since that is a nonsensical phrase. Cryo921 (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because the phrase is nonsensical doesn't mean it doesn't exist in idiomatic English. When I read the title, I 'heard' it in the voice of Weezy, the broken penguin toy in Toy Story 2. I don't have the DVD in front of me, but I'm almost positive that was the wording used. I guess it could be read as 'prolonging the wait for the inevitable.' Matt Deres (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes i also thought it was from Toy Story 2! "We're all just one stitch away from here, to there".! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.215.165 (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight; the usage of a fictional toy penguin counts. Next thing you know, we'll have to include the newscasters. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't think I'd ever get so desperate as to use newscasters to tell me anything. Nonsensical though it is, a quick Google search with the phrase in quotes gives us 22,300 hits, though many seem to be for an album by that name. Removing an idiomatic phrase from usage is like trying to take pee out of a pool, so you may want to get used to it. :P Matt Deres (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The heart of the linguistic question here is whether "the inevitable" is an instant in time or an extended event. "Delaying the inevitable" is possible if the event is an instantaneous thing - but "prolonging" something that (by definition) takes zero time doesn't make sense.  OK - so what is "the inevitable".  We are told that "Nothing is inevitable except death and taxes".  So if "death" is "the inevitable" - is it an instant in time or an extended event?   Technically, there is a 'moment of death', one moment you are still alive (just), the next, you are dead - it's instantaneous event and cannot therefore be prolonged.  However, we talk about people wishing to "avoid a prolonged death" all the time - so clearly, this "inevitable" can indeed be prolonged.  In this specific case, prolonging the inevitable is not at all desirable.  However, we could doubtless come up with some fairly inevitable "extended" event (your next vacation) that could be prolonged to some benefit.  So, whilst this is not the correct idiom, it's not necessarily nonsensical.  SteveBaker (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but it unavoidably calls to mind the two other expressions, "delay the inevitable" and "prolong the suffering". We can force sense upon "prolong the inevitable", but only insofar as it is a play on words, a cobbling of idioms. I haven't seen Toy Story II, but if the writing in that is a good as it was in the original movie, it may well be that our broken toy penguin was clever enough to make such a joke, a joke that depends on our familiarity with the fixed forms and the momentary cognitive conflict brought on by the apparently careless conflation. Deliberate conflation is artful, a sort of phrasal pun, but it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances to permit this one. It is more likely, I think, that a broken toy penguin wouldn't be thinking straight and would say all sorts of nonsensical things. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeh, i think that Wheezy was mighty clever. After all, his squeaker was broken, no-one could hear him, after he tried squeaking.

Military service question
How many countries in the world have:

J I P | Talk 17:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * voluntary military service for men, no military service for women,
 * voluntary military service for both men and women,
 * mandatory military service for men, no military service for women,
 * mandatory military service for men, voluntary military service for women,
 * mandatory military service for both men and women?


 * Some of this is in military service, but it is not broken down by gender. --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  17:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Conscription has more. Rmhermen (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also consider History of women in the military. --Mdwyer (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

cotton sheet by weight
I have been searching the net and wikipedia for cottonsheets by weigt messured in in squaremeter or feet, without any results. I know there are differnt qualities so some average messure will do just fine. It might bee a strange queastin, but I realy have to know for artikel I,m writing about cottonconsumpion in the world. Thank`s Gunnar Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.65.50 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW I thought cotton sheets were differentiated mainly by threads per inch, not by weight. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, but anyway, is there anybody that perhaps have maeesure the spuareweigt of a cottonsheet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.65.50 (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Would Canvas suffice? It is sold in ounces-per-yard, instead of a threadcount. "They are available in a variety of weights: light-weight is about 4 oz. or 5 oz.; medium-weight is about 7 oz. or 8 oz.; heavy-weight is about 10 oz. or 12 oz."  However, it also mentioned that canvas might be linen and not cotton. --Mdwyer (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Please feel free to take advantage of the chambermaid"
Are there any hotels in which, as a special service, you really are free to take advantage of the chambermaid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.193.181 (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean any hotels where the hosteller is a pimp? (Also known in some circles as the ho-teller.) 71.100.172.18 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean to act like Spike Lester whenever the hotel's chambermaid enters your hotel room? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - they are called brothels. They are free in the sense of doing what you want. Not free as without charge.86.209.158.90 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)DT


 * I can't help thinking of the wonderful Gerard Hoffnung, who jokingly took on the persona of a Tyrolean landlord who was writing back to an English person enquiring about his establishment:
 * Dear Madam: I am honorable to accept your impossible request. Unhappy it is, I here have not bedroom with bath. A bathroom with bed I have. I can, though, give you a washing, with pleasure, in a most clean spring with no one to see. I insist that you will like this... I am amazing diverted by your entreaty for a room. I can offer you a commodious chamber with balcony imminent to the romantic gorge, and I hope that you want to drop in. A vivacious stream washes my doorsteps, so do not concern yourself that I am not too good in bath, I am superb in bed. Sorrowfully I cannot abide your auto... Having freshly taken over the propriety of this notorious house, I am wishful that you remove to me your esteemed costume. Standing among savage scenery, the hotel offers stupendous revelations. There is a French widow [sic] in every bedroom, affording delightful prospects. I give personal look to the interior wants of each guests. Here, you shall be well fed-up and agreeably drunk. Our charges for weekly visitors are scarcely creditable. We have ample garage accomodations for your char... In the close village you can buy jolly memorials for when you pass away...  I am sending you my prices: If I am dear to you and your mistress she might perhaps be reduced... we are also noted for having children... Peculiar arrangements for gross parties, our motto is "ever serve you right!".  RIP, Gerard.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

growing up
The ability to breed a dog with all the qualities of a child's animated and cuddly stuffed toy appear in the cockapoo. Are such dogs bred for people who have an inability to grow out of childhood? 71.100.172.18 (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What? No. Such dogs are bred because they look cute and cuddly and one doesn't have to be a child to appreciate things that are cute and cuddly, as you seem to be supposing. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)