Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 March 10

= March 10 =

High octane demands of supercars
The Ferrari F430 requires a recommended gasoline octane rating of 95. Here in Ottawa, Canada, the highest octane rating of most gas stations is only 91 or 93. Suppose if one was to own such a car, or a car with an even more stringent octane demand, what does one do in such a case? Surely putting 93 octane fuel into an F430 will most likely not damage it, as the on-board computer will reduce performance, but does that mean the car will never reach its full performance potential in this city? Acceptable (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Octane ratings are one of those wonderful things where the Americas and Europe use the same word to mean different things. Specifically, Europeans use the RON, while Americans use the average of the RON and MON.  So 91 octane in Canada is the same stuff as 95 octane in Europe. FiggyBee (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy or Firepower
In a firefight, which is arguably better to have? БοņёŠ ɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 01:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends what kind of firefight you are talking about. There's a rather humorous bit in Unforgiven when one of the cowboys explains to another character that being able to draw fast isn't worth a damn if you can't aim. Seems likely to me, though I've never been in a firefight (and don't plan to be in one). My brief experience with Unreal Tournament suggests that in most cases accuracy is more important (you can often pick opponents off with just a pistol if you aim well) except when you have firepower so large that accuracy doesn't matter (five rockets flying at someone at once don't need to be very accurate). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This would depend entirely on the nature of the fight and how accurate and powerful the, presumably, guns in question are. Suppose if the comparison was to be made between different sniper rifles. Sniper A is shooting the relatively powerful .300 Winchester Magnum, but is very inexperienced and not very accurate with the rifle. On the other hand, Sniper B is firing measly .22's (almost never found in military sniper rifles), but is an Olympic biathlete and is highly trained. Despite the advantage in firing power, Sniper A would not be able to hit Sniper B; while Sniper B may not be able to incapacitate Sniper A in one hit, but can continue to deliver rounds until fatality occurs.


 * Increasing polarity, suppose if that same Sniper B, with his .22, is fighting alongside a M1A2 Abrams Tank-which has a 120mm gun. Assuming that the tank is gunned by a drunk crew whom are also high on LSD, so that one can predict that the accuracy of their aim may decrease. This difference in accuracy, depending on exactly how much, may be negligible. As mentioned by the above poster, the increase splash-damage of the 120mm will compensate for its decrease in accuracy. Acceptable (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well for the weapons i mean normal assault rifles (FN FAL M16's AK74) and lets say that each side is equaly a match for eachother. БοņёŠ ɓɤĭĠ₳₯є  04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that your question specifies that they aren't equal. They can't have the same guns or then they'd have the same firepower, so it would all come down to accuracy. I think it would really just depend what weapons each one had and how proficient they were with them. If I've got Dirty Harry's hand-cannon and you've got Bond's PPK but my shots are about 4-5m off from my aim and you're spot on, then you'll probably win, barring luck. They are both important, but being as you can never have too much accuracy but you can have too much firepower, I'd have to opt for aim over destructive power. I think experience might prove to be a more vital factor, though. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say firepower. You want to be able to interdict as large a space as possible. Rhinoracer (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference given by 98 above to Unforgiven is apposite, as a (the?) major theme of the film is that when it comes to the fight a true killer behaves rather differently changing the odds significantly. However, context would have to be considered. I doubt that Clint's character would have stood that much more of a chance at the Somme. So, IMHO, the question is meaningless without the increased contextualising which would ruin the simplicity of the question. --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a good source, but my understanding is that in real-world gunfights, accuracy typically sucks. So- it depends how you want to look at it. Do you need dozens of shots because you're not hitting anything useful? You can solve that problem by aiming instead of spray-and-pray, or you can solve it by having more rounds available. I suspect the human factor is by far the more significant- even that "not very accurate" rifle can still shoot accurately enough- if you aim it properly. Friday (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The question is not answerable because of a basic flaw. As a "firefight" progresses, casualties will decrease firepower without affecting accuracy. Bring your 100 men with smooth-bore muskets shooting round ball to within 50 yards of my 50 men with rifled muzzle-loaders shooting minnie balls. We'll wipe you out to a man in three or four volleys. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Right now, firepower. Beginning in World War I or possibly slightly before, almost every advance in infantry weapons has been intended to increase the number of bullets an infantryman can put in the air in a given period of time. --Carnildo (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's an awful lot of air and not enough metal to fill it with. If you can hit the target you don't have to spend 15 seconds pumping bullets into the ground around him. Support weapons have their tactical uses, to pin down enemies and restrict their movement, but for the average rifleman, I'd think he's likely to get more kills firing carefully than bulking up his pockets with magazines and going rambo D\=&lt; (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "There's a rather humorous bit in Unforgiven" Not just humorous, accurate. A lot of the top gunslingers, contrary to Hollywood, weren't faster, but more accurate, than the guys they faced. 1st shot had to kill, & most shooters draw quick, esp from hip, can't hit for sh*t; even using Weaver stance, you gotta practise. The top pistoleros, even in the Wild West, did, 'cause it was their business, or lives on the line, & they knew it. Most duels were against scared amateurs.  Trekphiler (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Differentials in winter
When driving a car in winter on slippery road surfaces, would an open differential or a limited slip differential be better when trying to maximize safety? Acceptable (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For a bad driver, undoubtedly the open differential. A couple of years back I was in a line of cars slowly going up a snow-covered hill. We had to go slow because any attempt to accelerate resulted in wheelspin. A 4-wheel drive vehicle came rushing past us all, able to accelerate up the hill. At the top of a hill was a bend. A 4-wheel drive vehicle has no real advantage over a 2-wheel drive vehicle when it comes to taking a bend, and the car went straight on, through a wall and into somebody's garden. Now a good driver may in some conditions be able to accelerate out of danger. Imagine an out of control car approaching on a side-road, obviously unable to stop. Its conceivable that a good driver could use the extra traction to pull out of the way, whereas an open differential car would just spin the wheels. I think that these are exceptional circumstances, and in most cases to a good driver there is little difference in town driving. Now, if you live in a remote farm, and need to get to a nearby town for fuel or food, things could be very different. In cases where you are unlikely to be found if you are stuck, and hypothermia is a real risk if you get stuck then a limited slip diff will certainly be the safer option. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * makes a difference, rwd vs fwd. rwd lsd tends to fishtail a lot in the slipperies. now, on the other hand, i have a honda civic (fwd for those who don't know) and it wasn't particuarly talented in the snow, despite being fwd; but, after a few years ended up putting in a lsd (they're available aftermarket, or you can get a genuine honda one from japanese junkyards) and the difference is such that i would never consider a fwd car without one again. since the driving wheels are being steered, instead of fishtailing, the car just tends to go where the front wheels are pointed, slipping or not. this is true in the dry as well as the slippery. my front bumper right now will testify that in some cases, the car will still just skid straight, but in most cases the fwd lsd will pull you out of a skid. there have been occasions when i've had to maneuver around big suvs, 4wd i assume, stuck in the snow in the parking lot, amost literally driving circles around them, which i can only attribute to maybe they don't use snow tires in winter, while i do, from which i calculate that
 * fwd lsd + snow tire > 4wd - snow tire.
 * Gzuckier (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Who Should Take More Responsibility for The Global Warming?
Should poor countries or rich countries take more responsibility for the global warming? Which kind of countries make more contributions to the global warming? and which kind of countries gain more profit from making global warming? Some evidence or data support the opinion? - Justin545 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume this is an essay homework question. See global warming and the pages it links to for an overview, but the Reference Desk isn't going to do your paper for you.  If you have specific questions of fact or need some help getting pointed in the right direction after doing your research, though, feel free to ask. -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This quesion is unrelated to my paper or homework although I can not prove that. I am just curious about how people think of the global warming, especially for a controversial quesion like this. - Justin545 (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's an interesting map at carbon footprint showing per capita greenhouse gas emissions world wide. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The carbon footprint is just for year 2000, it would be different if the interval was between year 1900 and year 2007. - Justin545 (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * well, the obvious thing to do is make the question per capita, in which case you probably already know the answer. Sadly, somebody who drives a 6,000 pound vehicle which will accelerate to 60 mph in 8 seconds feels it would be unfair to ask him to get something that burns less fuel as long as those sheep herdsmen in Mongolia don't have to cut down on the amount of sheep dung they burn to keep warm in the winter. Gzuckier (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How much will it cost to ask those sheep herdsmen in Mongolia don't burn the dung and discover new kind of fuel to keep them warm in winter? Can they afford the cost? And how much will it cost to ask the guy to drive a more green car? Can he afford the cost? - Justin545 (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite: The best technique would be to look at where can make the biggest impact at the 'least' cost or at the best efficiency. The 'wealth' of the people making the change is basically irrelevant. A look at things like Comparative advantage and Economic efficiency would be a start, then consider how it could be related to climate change. Through intelligent incentivisation we can persuade people to change, we can regulate people towards change and we can even (though ideally not) outright ban things. All will be served by the right people making the changes, rather than everybody being asked to make arbitrary changes because of some moralistic/ethical reasoning - it is best to focus the efforts where most impact can be made for the least cost - all of which has little to do with wealth. 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Car buffs please help!
Hi, I have a 1994 Lexus ES300 and the check engine light came on. The code is "EGR Valve Insufficient flow". I am trying to save money by avoiding the mechanic. I've been doing some research on the internet and have found that replacing the EGR valve doesn't always fix the problem. I would be really dissappointed if i spent the $200 and the time installing the EGR valve only to see that the code doesn't go away. I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on what I could do to fix this problem. Any help would be greatly appreciated.. thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.130.43 (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether a categoric answer would fall under the "professional advice" category that the refdesk header warns us of, but I will give you this piece of non-professional advice; in a situation like this where you don't really understand what you're doing, it's almost always best to pay to get it done properly. A mechanic would have your car back in shape in a few hours, or at least be able to tell you exactly what's wrong with it.  Doing it yourself, you could waste a week on it, spend almost as much money, and still not fix the problem. FiggyBee (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, if you take it to a mechanic for a diagnosis, get a price quote, then you can decide if and when you can afford to have something done. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to save money, you can ignore it. Of course, then if some new problem comes along that warrants a check engine light, you won't know the difference.  It costs money to keep a car in decent shape.  There's no substitute for having a mechanic you trust. Friday (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You've got a Lexus and you're sweating $200? My advice is to make a big decision: become a seat-of-the-pants Lexus mechanic or not. I think it's fun to fix your own car; I had a Camaro that I kept on the road for years beyond its "best if used by" date. Get the Chiltons, buy whatever tools you need for each repair as it comes up (that's the money you would have given a mechanic), and go nuts. You'll learn as you go, and you can always bail out and take it to the shop if it eats your lunch. In the case of your EGR code, the first thing I would do would be to make sure that there is no vacuum leak under the hood. Listen for hissing, and visually and tactilely inspect all hoses, checking for rot at the ends and rubbing elsewhere. Give the valve itself a good looking-over, too. Don't get hit by the fan, and don't burn yourself. If you get zapped by the ignition system, you might jerk back and get into the fan or something hot or sharp, so be careful. Take your necktie off first if you're a guy and get a short haircut if you're a gal. That handsoap with orange in it works great. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That second-to-last sentence was a nice touch. Useight (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Computer hijacked by Spammer
How can you tell IF your computer has been hijacked by a spammer, someone looking to place shit on your comnputer that can get your ass in trouble ? 65.173.104.12 (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do NOT want to find out "the hard way" that some ass placed kiddie porn, other verboten matter on my computer to AVOID a police raid or some such shit. 65.173.104.12 (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * IF that happened, do I have to get a new computer ? I was also told that wikipedia was also a source of bugs as well. That shit really true ? 65.173.104.12 (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Understandably you're anxious, so there are free anti-virus software thingys available on the internet, or you can buy one (ask at the computing desk for recommends) that can be upgraded to keep up with the latest bugs. Our article antivirus software can give you background, but don't let it give you the heebies. Also ask at the computer desk about the indications that point to your computer being a victim. Knowing more helps and afaik, wikipedia isn't the source of bugs. If you like, click on the edit button above right, copy this section and take it across to the comp desk making sure it isn't in both places at the same time. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Running an anti-virus scan (AVG is free) and a spyware scan (Spybot S&D and Ad-Aware are both free) are a good first start. If you are extremely paranoid then you can always spend some time checking for odd connections with TCP View.--droptone (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're really, really paranoid, disconnect the ethernet cable from the back of your computer and leave it disconnected. If you think something has already been placed there, format the C drive and reinstall Windows. That, however, is a very extreme prevention method. I don't recommend it. Useight (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why "Pompey"?
Hi all,

Most football team nicknames make some sort of sense - the colours of the strip (the Red Devils, the Blues), predominant local occupations (the Mariners, the Hatters), abbreviations of the team names (Spurs, Wolves), club history or origins (the Gunners, the Saints)... but there's one that always puzzles me. I've checked the articles on Portsmouth and its football club (great win over the scum at the weekend, guys :), and even the article on a famous Roman, but I can't find any explanation for why Portsmouth are called "Pompey". There must be a reason.... but what is it?

Thanks in advance,

Grutness...wha?  09:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From the references in the Portsmouth F.C. article, there are a number of possible reasons listed on the Royal Naval Museum website here. In addition, the Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea gives "the British sailors' slang for Portsmouth, the English naval base. It is not known how or when the name came into being, though one theory is that it owes its origin to the fact that the local fire brigade, known by their French name pompiers, used to exercise on Southsea Common, adjacent to Portsmouth". Nanonic (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some fellow at the Portsmouth city museum collected a lot of competing explanations - I think there were 20 to 30 different ones and nobody really has the foggiest idea which (if any) is correct. -88.109.222.194 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Big Blue Moon
There's an improv game out there called "Big Blue Moon", in which one person will say "Big blue moon" then name three objects, which at first seem to be related. But I don't think they are. What is the secret to this game? I don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.89.112 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard of "Big Blue Moon", but it sounds like it could be one of those trick games where what you appear to be saying or doing is just a cover for a hard-to-notice thing you're doing in addition.


 * For example, there's a game where you trace with your hand the action of painting a picture, and describing it as well: "The sun goes at the top, the clouds are over there", and so on, but the trick is you have to fold your arms at the end. If you don't fold your arms, you've done it wrong. However, it takes a long time for everyone to realise that the key action is the folding of the arms because it looks so natural.


 * Another game is where each person says a word that appears to be related in some way to the previous person's word, but the trick is each person's word simply starts with the same letter as their name (so if someone gives a word that doesn't begin with the same letter as their name, they're told they're wrong).--217.44.125.38 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

elec + chem
i have a riddle; i put together electricity and chemistry.who am i i though it was elechtrochem making the answer to be michael faraday..but shock on me it isnt.so help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.113.117 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it wasn't supposed to be a riddle if Michael Faraday was the answer.

87.102.94.48 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How about Humphrey Davy,or Alessandro Volta ?87.102.94.48 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is a riddle pure and simple, the answer could be Battery (electricity) - but that surely would be "what am I?". Grutness...wha?  22:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A few questions about murder laws
(if any of these are crimes, it would be appreciated if the specific crime is identified, eg. first degree murder vs. manslaughter).


 * 1) Is it a crime to kill an escaped, convicted murder?
 * 2) Is it a crime to kill someone who attempted to kill you after you have incapacitated them?
 * 3) If a person admits to commiting a murder after being acquitted, what is likely to happen to them (I know they cannot be tried again, but I'd assume there are some loopholes law enforcement can use to their advantage)
 * 4) If a person is murdered, but the family explcitly (sorry about spelling) states they do not want the murderer to be tried, is it legal for the murderer to be tried?
 * 5) This is definetely an "out-there" kind of question, but if Osama Bin Laden was murdered within New York City, would the perpetrator likely be tried? Would the crime fall under local, state, or federal jurisdiction (again, sorry about the spelling)?

These are just some questions I thought of that I became curious about. Thanks. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowlege, the answers are "Yes", "Yes", "I suspect there are exceptions to 'Can't be tried twice'", "Yes", and "state jurisdiction, but probably wouldn't be tried". --Carnildo (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the last answer. Of course, Bin Laden's killer would be tried - the law doesn't make exceptions for unpopular victims. (If it did, we'd have no umpires.) However, it might be a little difficult finding a jury to convict the perpetrator. As for a family excusing the killing of one of its members, see Honor killing - not something to be encouraged. Also, you might be tempted to have your rich relatives bumped off to get your inheritance early. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Murder is usually a state offense, but can be federal if it involves a federal official, takes place on federal property, etc. If someone killed bin Laden in New York City, they would probably get a pardon from both the governor of New York and the president of the US, so I doubt they would ever be tried. Dave 6 talk  00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't count on it. Jack Ruby got a death sentence. No way to know if he would have gotten a commutation at the last minute, because he died of natural causes before his appeals were exhausted. --Trovatore (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently I had that a little wrong -- he won his appeal, meaning he was entitled to a new trial, and died before he could be retried. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions to the double jeopardy rule are pretty limited in the United States. If a person who had been acquitted for a murder at the state level then confessed to it, while I'm not a lawyer, I think it would be pretty categorically impossible to try him again at the state level. Under certain circumstances he could be tried at the federal level -- there's a laundry list of circumstances that make murder into a federal crime (one that sticks in my head, because it's so random, is that a murder committed at an international airport is a federal crime). If the crime could be proved to be racially motivated, even if it's not a federal murder, it still might be prosecuted at the federal level as a violation of the victim's civil rights.

If the perp had any money, he could be sued civilly for wrongful death; double jeopardy does not prevent such lawsuits. --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, also: what I said about "at the state level" assumed that the murder was in the jurisdiction of only one US state. Once in a while two states may claim jurisdiction (for example, if the vic was kidnapped from one state and killed in a different one) and then an acquittal in one state might not protect the perpetrator in the other state (and in the example given I suspect the feds could claim their bite at the apple as well). --Trovatore (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Fifth Amendment: nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Unlike some amendments, this is a right and protection of individuals, not a restriction upon the creation of laws. Of course, they could be convicted of kidnapping in Ohio after being acquitted of murder in Illinois. But they could not be convicted for the same murder anywhere, after having been acquitted of it anywhere. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what the fifth amendment says, to you and me. Surely you understand that everything is different to a lawyer. There's a large body of case law on this issue, and it doesn't always work the way the simple text suggests. (As a practical matter, if the double jeopardy rule were enforced that strictly, it would have been effectively legal for a white person to kill a black person in the South for significant parts of our history. And I suppose it was, but not quite as blatantly as it could have been.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and also I don't know that it changes that much to say that one trial is for murder and the other for kidnapping. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think that double jeopardy ordinarily protects you from two trials on the same facts, even if the prosecution construes it as a different offense. Otherwise the protection would be pretty meaningless. Terry Nichols could be tried in Oklahoma because it was separately sovereign over the case, not so much because the state case alleged different victims. Otherwise they could have tried him 168 times until they found a jury to sentence him to death. And if the man who allegedly left his car in the way of a train in Glendale manages to get off on murder charges (not sure if he's been tried yet) I don't think California would be able to try him again for train wrecking causing death (which is also a capital offense in California).
 * But I admit I'm not that sure. The double jeopardy article has a reference to a 1995 case where an offense, and conspiracy to commit that offense, were adjudged separate for double jeopardy purposes. Seems like a reach to me. --Trovatore (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So, wait. The trial ends. The murderer has successfully lied their way through it and secures an acquital. After the gavel strikes, they jump up and dance around, shouting, "Ha ha, you idiots! I totally did it,and here's how!" Is there seriously nothing to be done about that?? Or do you just have to arrest them for perjury and tack on a really intense prison sentence? Or what? --Masamage ♫ 04:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, nothing. Not in the US, anyway. And remember, the murderer doesn't have to lie; the murderer doesn't have to testify -- so not even a perjury charge, perhaps. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * An important distinction is that each murder that you are accused of can be considered a separate act. If you remember the (godawful) movie Double Jeopardy, the woman was convicted of murdering her husband, and then assumed she could not be again convicted of murdering her husband -- that was wrong.  Even if she was convicted (though wrongly) of murdering her husband on Tuesday in Toledo; she can legally be convicted again of murdering her husband on Friday in Frankfurt.  Even though it's the same victim, it is a very different crime.  Assuming you were acquitted of murdering Fred, if evidence (like your confession) came to light that you did it later, unless the way you did it was -exactly- the way you were acquitted of, you could be tried again without double jeopardy implications.  Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that's accurate. There has to be a distinction between a separate crime (as in the case of the film) and a separate theory of the crime (different time, location). Otherwise the protection would be completely meaningless; the people could keep trying different theories, with some basis in evidence, until they found a jury to convict. Exactly what the distinction is is no doubt complicated. --Trovatore (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This Straight Dope article is the one from which I derived my thesis; I would have been wiser probably just to link it and not interpret it on my own, but I was too lazy to dig up the link before. As far as how accurate it is, elephino, but it sounded convincing when I first read it.  Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not common for a defense lawyer to put his guilty client on the stand in a murder case, so the murderer mught well have been acquitted without testifying. If he testified he did not do it, then after the acquittal admitted he did, he could be tried for perjury. If he didn't testify, then no perjury, but possibly the prosecutors could dream up some other charge such as obstruction of justice if he disposed of evidence. One murderer was acquitted of murder but convicted of disposing of the body of an animal (the victim) in a river. Edison (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The shape of old wooden puzzle pieces
I've seen old wooden jigsaw puzzles with oddly shaped pieces. Irregular, serpentine and sometimes bifurcated, but no interlocking knobby tabs, the way modern cardboard puzzles do. The closest analogy I can up with, is the map of Lake Lugano. A couple of pieces were even shaped like snaky caricatures of actual objects or animals; I remember a rabbit and a rider on his horse. Question: Does anyone know when or where this type of jigsaw puzzle was made, and whether there is a "name" out there for this kind of tiling? ---Sluzzelin talk  22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Found on google contemporary versions, as an example. I've seen one with all kinds of animals in shapes that fit together, in a toy store. Can't fiind a name but these come up: free-standing (or flat) wooden jigsaw animals, wooden animal jigsaw puzzle, interlocking wooden puzzle. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmh I remember a jigsaw puzzle of canada - where the pieces were the states - not easy for a 9 year old obviously..
 * Older jigsaw puzzles had more interesting shapes - with more erratics - must be getting old..
 * Did you read the article 'jigsaw puzzle' - the odd pieces can be called ' whimsy 's
 * The snake like pieces seem to gone out of fashion - probably something to do with making jigsaws out of carboard rather than wood - carboard is too easily bent?87.102.94.48 (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * http://imagestore.justtemplateit.co.uk/jigthings/jigsaw-information.htm answers here it seems also for snake pieces see http://imagestore.justtemplateit.co.uk/jigthings/jigsaw-puzzle-manufacturers.htm -maufac. 'chad valley'87.102.94.48 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (was after e.c.) Thank you Julia Rossi. I like the dog with puppies. Just to clarify, the ones I'm talking about form a rectangular picture when completed, like those modern jigsaw puzzles you find in every store. The themes were usually rural scenes in the style of 19th century realism. And only perhaps 3 of the maybe 100 puzzle pieces were shaped like animals or objects. Escher's Animal Kingdom would make for a lovely puzzle though. And thanks, 87.102, for the whimsy and the examples. Those come pretty close, though they look far more similar to modern puzzle pieces (knobby and not as serpentine) than the ones I'm thinking of. ? ---Sluzzelin talk  22:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have played with old puzzles which were made from hand-coloured prints stuck onto thin plywood and cut by hand with a jigsaw. The piece boundaries often followed outlines of items in the print, for instance the legs of horses harnessed to a coach, and the skirt of one of the passengers. As far as I know this was the original form of jigsaw puzzle. The interlocking and fully interlocking types of pieces were a later innovation, made easier by the introduction of automatic machinery. SaundersW (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And here is a nice site from a collector of old puzzles. He concentrates on the US history. SaundersW (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the whimsy in the wallpaper on the site. And Escher's interlocking motif tic. This is a strangely enchanting thread. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Enchanted here as well, thank you for that great link, Saunders! I haven't had time to examine all of them yet, but "Gidi-yap, you horsies!" and "The Indians at Work" featured under 1900 to 1930 Hand Cut Puzzles come closest to what I have in mind. Bob Armstrong calls them "semi-interlocking" which is perhaps a good description, as they aren't "push-fit" like "A Family of Yawns" (a wonderful motif!), but not completely interlocking like the modern puzzles either. Thanks again, everyone! ---Sluzzelin talk  10:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Military headwear (U.S.)
Anyone knows why this American soldier has a German military helmet (at least of German origin) as part of his uniform? What's it called? --22:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer to the first part seems to be that it was part of the dress uniform of the 9th Cavalry (and possibly other units), as you can see in this picture. I can't really comment on how this type of helmet came to be adopted, except to say that it's a fairly common component of cavalry uniforms in this period. Carom (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The second part of your question - it appears similar to a Pickelhaube, although I'm not sure. Carom (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/new/pickelhaube.html various other places confirm the US army used pickelhaube type helmets at one time...87.102.94.48 (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * also here http://www.buffalola.com/Re-enactment.htm (bottom picture)- why they sometimes wear soft hats, and other times the hard one is another question..87.102.94.48 (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the exact date, but I know that some point in the mid 1800's to the early 1900's the Marine Corps used the pickelhaube as it's dress cover. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Xena Wikipedia
I was wondering, if been doing a lot of editing for other wikipedia and was looking for a source for this RPG I'm working on. Since, no definate source for the show "Xena, warrior princess." Not one that I could find in wikipedia anyways. I was wondering if there was one or not?66.122.165.197 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC) QueenPrudence @ Charmed Wikipedia.
 * ? Xena, Xena: Warrior Princess RPG's Xena:_Warrior_Princess http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Xena+Warrior+Princess+game&meta=


 * What were you looking for - citations maybe?? 87.102.94.48 (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

weird behavior of my Alaskan Malamute
I own a purebred Alaskan Malamute. When I take him for a walk on the road, whenever he sees or hears water gurgling in the ditch, he jumps for the moving water and bites around in the water. Why on earth would he do that? J.d ela noy gabs adds 23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's fun?  Corvus cornix  talk  02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like it - dogs I've had preferred to drink in that way from the garden hose than their own dish prob as you say, because it's fun. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bliss for my Shepherd was to sit in a shallow fast moving stream and tear a log to pieces.86.219.36.125 (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)DT

Name of song
I came across this song the other day on the radio. It was sung by a female and has a relatively uplifting tune. The only lrical excerpts I remember from it is something that goes like "...here she goes (again)..." In the chorus and towards the ending, I seem to recall her repeating that phrase. The song is at least several years old; I think it's between 1990-2000. Acceptable (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe There She Goes Again, in one of its various covers?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, I think the user is far more likely to be referring There She Goes by the La's and by the band with the worst name of all time. A sample of the La's version can be found here; click at your own risk.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Sixpence None the Richer version of There She Goes is from the time period Acceptable is asking about, and it's pleasant enough (and repetitive enough) that it sounds like it's probably right. (There She Goes Again, despite having a similar name, is a very very very very very different song, as the one line about its meaning in that article suggests.) --Masamage ♫ 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you guys. The version I heard on the radio was indeed "There She Goes" by Sixpence None the Richer. Acceptable (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the Fat Man knows his bland pop music or what? :-)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You bet, but there is a worse band name. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Bobs have a whole song about Naming the Band. Personally I decided a long time ago that if I ever started a band it would be called Spock and the Space Hippies. It's on record now, so don't any of you try stealing it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I like all of these band names, actually; this one is infinitely more disturbing. --Masamage ♫ 04:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is my take on the subject. Phileas (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a friend in high school who loved a band with a particularly foul-mouthed name. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, band names are formed by combining a random noun with a random adjective or verb. --Carnildo (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)