Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 November 4

= November 4 =

Type of Acronym
Is there a name for the type of acronym that's name has been deliberately arranged (often awkwardly) so that the acronym forms an actual pronouncable word, which usually is related to what the acronym stands for. Some random examples I've quickly found are the USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) and DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade in Africa). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, many. Try CCRAP. --Mayfare 00:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I thought that you were asking for more examples of acronyms or in this case, "backronyms". --Mayfare 02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * backronym --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 01:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) An acronym where the word spelt out is related to what the acronym stands for is, neologistically, an "apronym". An acronym where they started with real words and then turned them into an acronym (like USA PATRIOT) is a backronym. FiggyBee 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of those quite cover it. What I understand the question to mean is this: they didn't name the Uniting and Strengthening America .... Act of 2001 that, purely by chance; it didn't just happen, coincidentally, to provide an acronym (USA PATRIOT Act) that is related to the purpose of the act.  They contrived the long name of the Act specifically to ensure it would result in the desired acronym.  That is, they started out with the acronym they wanted, then found suitable words in the long name to represent each of the letters of the acronym.  None of the examples in the backronym article are like this.  In those cases, they later found words that fit an existing acronym formed from a different set of words.  Here, those words were chosen simultaneously with the choosing of the acronym.  Maybe I can neologise, and suggest it be called a contrivonym.  --  JackofOz 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, Jack. Done.  (See Wiktionary:List of protologisms.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why, thank you Steve. I always knew I'd be famous one day.  It was just a question of time  ...  (a very long time).  :)  --  JackofOz 12:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Was there never a word for this phenomenon before now?  Plasticup  T / C  20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing there must have been. But nobody around here can come up with it.  --  JackofOz 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * After a little searching off-site, Google directed me to one of our own articles - the obvious one when you think about it for a moment. Acronym and initialism talks about this a bit, and uses the USA PATRIOT Act as an example.  (I swear I hadn't read this before I came up with contrivonym.  If you don't believe me, I'll go to my room and hold my breath till you do.)  I’ve always found The Phrontistery an excellent resource for all types of word questions, and it has a list of -nym type words some of which we don't seem to cover in -onym.  But not this one.  --  JackofOz 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Re FiggyBee's post above about "apronym" - our backronym article, and some others, refer to this term, but our article on "apronym" was deleted in January '07 on the grounds that it wasn't a word that had gained general acceptance. Further, most of the examples of apronyms I've seen on Google and here do not satisfy the criterion of being created simultaneously with the long title being contrived.  In most cases, they've only later dreamt up words that make the apro/acronym seem humorous/ironic/relevant.  It's hard to tell without access to the now-deleted article, but it seems that apronyms are a sub-set of backronyms, which by definition means they were created "after-the-fact".  In fact, the only acronyms that weren't created after the fact are those that meet the definition (such as it is) of contrivonym.  Maybe I'll have to go to the ultimate word guru Michael Quinion; he takes a little while to respond, but he's got the goods.  --  JackofOz 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and this question should really be on the Language ref desk. Somebody over there with the answer may not have seen this yet.  --  JackofOz 21:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

University of Michigan Deans
Hello. Was there a University of Michigan dean in the mid-1930s who had the last name Simpson? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 00:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of unpleasant smell from mouth
What are effective, practical and affordable methods of removing strong food smells (such as the garlic sauce on a shawarma) from one's breath? In the case of garlic, brushing, rinsing and chewing gum doesn't seem to help. Acceptable 02:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be folklore, but I've heard that parsley works against garlic. They do come up together in recipes a lot. risk 04:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Eat some durian, no one will be able to smell the garlic afterwards. --antilivedT 05:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, there is page after page of hits for Googling garlic breath. It seems the most common suggestions are eating a sprig of fresh parsley, cloves, cardamom seeds, fresh mint leaves, scraping the tongue and using commercial products that attack the problem at the source (i.e. inside the stomach).  152.16.59.190 11:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that the garlic odour is carried in the body some form of aldehyde which is slowly excreted through the breath and sweat. If this be so you are only masking the smell. Time or initial abstension are the only solutions.Richard Avery 16:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, with garlic it's not your mouth that smells, it's your blood.  Alex Comfort's suggested solution was: "If you're having garlic, onion, etc., both of you have it."  --Anon, 00:14 UTC, November 5.


 * Your feeling is absolutely correct; one can certainly smell last-night's garlic on today's skin secretions. And Anon above has it right; just make sure you stay in "garlic balance" with the person(s) you'll be with afterwards.


 * Atlant 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I find a glass of Scotland's finest export does the trick nicely. --Dweller 11:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Be aware that the smell may be originating from your stomach and that your stomach may be upset from booze, heavy fats, late nights, more booze and travel. Do everything you can as 3 day old garlic is nauseous to others. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.166.234 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Heart
Hi, I was recently asked to contruct a working model of the human heart and other parts of the circulatory system. The model needs to work showing the movement of blood etc. preferebly using a small motor. I've been researching on the topic, but cannot find any info on how to build such model. If you have any information or know where will I be able to find such information, please help. Thanks in advance, James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This question was answered above. Many of those links not only have detailed pictures, but also include the circulatory system in addition to the heart.  152.16.59.190 10:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Circulatory System
How does the Circulatory System interact with other systems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you seen our article Circulatory system? 152.16.59.190 10:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Smelling feces
Can smelling one's feces while doing one's business be detrimental for one's health? Per rm by Ummit, Please note that this is a serious question. Acceptable 02:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well there's not much in there that isn't living inside you or that you didn't eat in the first place. And the amount of material you're breathing in is fairly miniscule. FiggyBee 07:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Some animals do this, so presumably it can't be bad for you, unless it actually makes you retch, and that is presumably only because you are not used to it. The smell can certainly convey information about one's state of health. On a related note, I believe people often quite like the smell of their own farts, but not those of others.--Shantavira|feed me 13:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * from an evolutonary standpoint, it'd be a really bad idea if there was anything harmful in the smell of our own poo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.197.49 (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To take a contrary position - if there was something harmful, we'd probably have evolved a general dislike for the smell of the stuff and have some kind of vague taboo against going around sniffing it....Oh - wait - that's exactly what we do have! SteveBaker 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess that's true, but evolution has the answer to almost every problem and the survivors would come from the variety of species that didn't bother to sniff but just dumped and ran. On a more serious note, the smell of faeces is only composed of a minute - but MINUTE, concentration of a pungent gas. There are no bacteria or other nasties floating in the air emanating from the subject in question. You may remember that in the 70s there were the so-called blanket protests among Irish Republican Army members in the British Army jails. These guys smeared their faeces over the walls of their cells and the cells were certainly not cleaned out every day. During the protest I did not hear of anyone becoming ill because of the state of their cells. Richard Avery 16:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh - I don't know about that. Didn't it put Bobby Sands off his food so badly that he died of malnutrition?


 * Just an interesting side note--according to our article on Gut flora, "Bacteria make up most of the flora in the colon and 60% of the mass of feces."
 * If 60% of the mass of feces is bacteria, its hardly likely to be too healthy. --71.186.16.185 20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That presupposes that all bacteria is harmful, which is patently not the case. I'd go as far as to say that without bacteria we would be very unhealthy indeed.  WebHamste r  21:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) But that bacteria is living inside you anyway. Bacteria doesn't necessarily mean unhealthy.  Anyway, no-one's suggesting that you go around eating turds.  The original question was whether the aroma of your own fresh poo would harm you, and I think the answer is a definite no. FiggyBee 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the smell of anything, per se, is directly detrimental to health. Smell is an associative sense, we detect a molecule at an epithelium in the nose, encode it in the olfactory bulb and process what it means in high brain regions. That process does not have the capability to cause harm (as far as we know). Some smells appear to cause us to vomit, certainly, but its not because the smell itself is harmful, but because we associate the smell with something that could be harmful. In the case of faeces, its probably associated with bacteria. Other toxic compounds can be harmful when we smell them. Methyl bromide for example, destroys the olfactory epithelium. But that is not as a consequence of the smell itself (it is odorless), simply a consequence of the compound reaching the epithelium.
 * The one situation where a type of smell could result in harm is the case of pheromones. Pheromones are chemical cues made by one animal to another of the same species, which elicit innate, hardwired responses. Therefore you don't choose what you do in response to smelling a pheromone, its automatic. It wouldn't make much evolutionary sense for you to evolve a pheromone response that is detrimental to your health. However, a hardwired response is a perfect opportunity for other animals, predators for example, to hijack by producing allomones. So, if a predator could generate an allomone cue that mimicked an attractive pheromone (say one that is important for mating), the smell of the that would be detrimental to the animal health (as it would end up being eaten after going to investigate in the hope of getting laid). However, there is no good evidence that greater apes have the ability to detect pheromone cues, so its not particularly relevant for humans.  Rockpock  e  t  22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point. It's not necessarily that the gasses themselves are harmful - it's that they are a signal that something potentially unhealthy is nearby.  When you smell a bottle of milk that's gone sour, the smell of sour milk won't hurt you - but it's disgusting enough to ensure that you don't drink the stuff that IS harmful. SteveBaker 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The composition of flatus gasses doesn’t look like it contains anything that’s likely to be particularly harmful. My guess is that we evolved to find the smell repugnant in order to discourage coprophagia.  Some of the foul-smelling components of the gasses, such as butyric acid and hydrogen sulfide, are also given off from some rotting foods, so we would have evolved a repulsion of those particular smells in order to discourage eating rotten food, anyway.  MrRedact 04:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen sulfide by itself is actually fairly dangerous, even in quantities that are not acutely toxic. If there's enough H2S to make you want to leave the area, I'd say you probably should. --Trovatore 00:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable, I really hope this has nothing to do with your previous question...  Plasticup  T / C  20:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just came across these two articles: one and two. Apparently people are huffing gases from raw sewage to experience dissociation and hallucinations. They call it Jenkem. It's use was primarily confined to Africa, but with a recent proliferation of news coverage it is spreading to the Western world. This is one of the strangest things I have heard in a long long time.  Plasticup  T / C  01:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that Jenkem is also fermented sewage/feces. Mac Davis (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sunburn
Hi. Are people who come from hot countries (like Arabs, Africans etc) immune to sunburn? If not, are they any more resistant than white people?Cuban Cigar 06:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The sensivity of skin to sunburn is principally, but not solely, determined by the amount of melanin in the skin. From the article Sunburn comes: "sunburn . . . occurs when incident UV radiation exceeds the existing protective capacity of melanin in the skin. Concentrations of this pigment vary greatly among individuals, but in general, darker-skinned people have more melanin than those with lighter skin. Correspondingly, the incidence of sunburn among dark-skinned individuals is lower." It does, still exist, however, and even the darkest skin can burn. Bielle 06:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

DRC used to import labor from overseas?
I found this detail in an article on a new AIDS study: The study concludes that AIDS arrived in Haiti after Haitians went to the Democratic Republic of Congo as workers after that country won independence in 1960.

Does this mean the DRC once needed to import labor from far away? How could this be?

66.91.225.183 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Haitians in question were medical doctors and other skilled health professionals, not laborers. -Arch dude 16:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok. Thanks.Cuban Cigar 22:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Noisy nightclubs
Why nobody does anything to lower the volume of music in nightclubs? It is really harmful for the ears of both users and workers. --Taraborn 18:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it certainly is harmful - and there are laws in most places limiting the volume - but the fact is that people like loud music and they don't understand what it's doing to their hearing - so loud nightclubs make more money than quiet ones and therefore everyone winds the volume up to the legal limit. SteveBaker 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Loud music isn't really any necessity at a night club nowadays, especially with chillout and lounge music being so popular - it's not played that loud as dance music at clubs, and there is demand for it. Certain music was made to be played louder. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Teaching people that it is harmful and ways to alleviate the problem was the impetus for the RNID's don't lose the music campaign, which includes suggesting that clubbers and DJ's wear earplugs 86.21.74.40 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an uncited personal opinion based on anecdotal evidence, but I actually don't believe that most club patrons enjoy music being that loud. They accept it as the way things are done these days, they assume other patrons would expect it to be that loud, and being relatively young their hearing is acute enough and their voices are strong enough to be able to converse above it.  But if they had their druthers, the majority would actually prefer it to be considerably lower - still loud enough to create the right mood, but not so loud as to have to shout to converse.  --  JackofOz 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I recently heard secondhand from a friend of a dance-club employee (so we can't be sure that this is correct) that dance clubs keep the music loud not because people like it at that volume, but because when the music is really loud, they make more money on drinks. Here is how it works:  People go to dance clubs not just to dance but to meet potential sexual partners.  They drink to try to relax or get the courage to approach someone.  They also drink to drown their frustration at failing to connect. However, if they get involved in a conversation that might lead to sex or even a relationship, they consume less alcohol.  Club owners don't want that to happen.  So they purposely keep the music too loud for conversation, because that boosts drink sales.  Marco polo 23:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha, that makes sense. And I guess the government does little in this matter because they don't like much the "social disorder" of nightclubs. I guess I'll buy small earplugs or something, because otherwise I'll experience hearing loss sooner or later. Thanks to all. --Taraborn 08:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't go to nightclubs precisely because the music's too loud. I use my ears (specifically) for my work and they have already been damaged by loud music. So despite my liking for dancing, I avoid nightclubs. Steewi 01:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The audio guys where I work (at a video game company) are exceedingly protective of their hearing - they mostly have custom-fitted reusable earplugs made to fit their ears exactly. These fancy earplugs claim to attenuate all frequencies equally so you still hear everything there is to hear, undistorted, but at a lower volume.  They say that the more you listen to loud music, the more you tend to want to crank it up still louder, making hearing loss all-but-inevitable sooner or later.  However, if you train yourself to listen at lower volumes and resist the temptation to crank it up higher, you can preserve your hearing and get 100% enjoyment out of the sounds.  Mind you - those guys are fanatics about sound.  True story: A couple of weeks ago they were recording background audio and needed the sound made by a leather jacket as one of our characters moves around while wearing it.  The jacket they were using was an old, beat up one - and they decided it didn't sound new enough to fit the look of the character they were recording audio for - so they had to go find a newer jacket!  I don't think many people would have noticed that in the game - but that's the kind of perfectionists we're talking about here!  SteveBaker 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question
What's the difference between a raven and a writing-desk? 66.38.238.208 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's an answer. JMiall  ₰  19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With a raven you can see the skid marks. Oh, sorry, that's the difference between a dead rattle-snake in the middle of the road and a dead lawyer in the middle of the road.

The usual question is "Why is a raven like a writing desk?", and there's an excellent treatment of it at The Straight Dope. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between a duck? --Trovatore 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between a bicycle? ...to use the original, more surreal, version. I'm a joke purist :) Skittle 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where was that stooped and mealy-colored old man I used to call Papa when the merry-go-round broke down? &mdash;Tamfang 01:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know the "bicycle" one. For anyone who's curious, the answer to "what's the difference between a duck?" is "one of its legs is both the same". --Trovatore 04:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely that's the difference between a dog? FiggyBee 02:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Popeseye steak
Anyone care to explain the origin of the name of this cut of Top Rump Steak as sold and enjoyed in Scotland? I have searched every website I can think of and have asked my local butcher (who actually sells it) but have come up with nothing but shrugs. Thanks81.145.240.230 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the etymology of "pope's eye" in the OED "Called in Ger. pfaffensbisschen: priest’s bit, probably as being a tit-bit which the priest was supposed to claim; in F. œil de Judas: Judas’s eye; ‘eye’ referring apparently to its rounded form."--Shantavira|feed me 21:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

DST
I'm confused about daylight saving time...I live on the west coast in the US. What time is it?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.187.66 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at http://www.time.gov/. I think that'll answer your question. --71.186.16.185 20:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Daylight savings time ended late this year. Today you should have put your clocks back 1 hour.  SteveBaker 21:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You could move to Arizona. They do NOT fuck with DST at all. Its no tribble at all. 65.163.112.104 05:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Monster Quest
Got a NEW paranormal source. It is the aforementioned show. First episode: Sasquatch Attack. The creature left DNA behind as it attacked a house. Show will air Wednsday on the History Channel. Go to History Channel.Com for more on this new show. Thought you want this new source. Is there a article concerning this NEW show ? After all Wikipedia is NOT (supposed to be) Censored. 65.163.112.104 20:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either. If you think the yet-to-be-seen show is worthy of an article, go ahead and add one. I don't see how censorship comes into it.--Shantavira|feed me 21:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Censorship - maybe we're suppressing the truth about Bigfoot? FiggyBee 21:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Date of Janmashtami in 1926?
What was the date of Janamashtami in year 1926? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.36.85 (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You asked this question before - we were unable to answer it. Re-asking won't help. SteveBaker 21:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To be fair to the questioner there might be others around now who know the answer. I, unfortunately, am neither use nor ornament in this instance. ny156uk 23:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be that hard to figure out, if you have enough time to waste (and I do not, unfortunately)...you just need to find out when the new moon occurred at the end of August or beginning of September in 1926, since that would be the beginning of the month in the Hindu lunar calendar. Right? Adam Bishop 19:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read my reply to the previous asking of this question, you'll see that the rules for figuring out this date are weird and horribly complicated - and even open to some debate. I felt that the odds of being able to calculate it correctly were near zero.  Moreover, a fairly lengthy web search didn't turn up any tables of past dates - only dates future years.  I think you'd need someone who was an authority in that religion to figure it out...which is why I gave up - and why I'd be exceedingly surprised if we could come up with a certain answer this time.  It's not often that we can't offer any help whatever - but sadly, this is one of those times. SteveBaker 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

STELLER SEALIONS
HOW ARE STELLER SEALIONS ENDANGERD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.175.43 (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read the article Steller Sea Lion? It seems no-one's really sure, but overfishing may be a factor. FiggyBee 22:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read that Steller's Sea Cows went extinct because of overhunting. Really sad, I love big animals. --Taraborn 10:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)