Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 February 23

= February 23 =

Chances of Contracting STI's
Suppose if one engages in unprotected heterosexual intercourse with someone who has HIV/AIDS, what is the likelihood (%) that one will contract the disease if one is a) a man and b) a woman. What about if one has sex with someone who has other types of STI's such as herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia, etc... ? Acceptable (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Our article on HIV contains information from a number of sources, offering estimates of per-act risks: HIV. (Missing – to my brief inspection, it may be hiding somewhere in the article – is a discussion about the increased risk caused by the presence of other infections or injuries: open sores on the genitalia, etc.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The only people I can think of who would want to engage in sexual intercourse with an HIV-positive person is someone who has a death wish and desperately wants to contract the disease himself/herself. --Ericdn (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See bug chaser. --Tango (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps if one is not aware of the fact that one's partner is infected. Acceptable (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Disaster
Why does everyone think the Victorian Bushfires are the worst natural disaster in Australia's history? Cyclone Mahina killed about twice as many people. JCI (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Does everyone? 2. Because hyperbole sells news. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While the number of deaths is an important factor, I suspect the area damaged or destroyed is much larger than that affected by the Cyclone Mahini. I haven't seen a cost comparison; that may be a part of the equation. Then there is the infamous "recentism" against which editors of WP are so often cautioned. The bush fires are current; Mahini was over 100 years ago. I do think that Tagashimon's #2 is spot on, however. // BL \\ (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's particularly odd because there are reports that perhaps 50% of the fires were not 'natural' at all - being started deliberately by arsonists. SteveBaker (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One possibility is that Mahina happened in 1899, when technically there was no such place as Australia. Bathurst Bay was then part of the British colony of Queensland, not part of the future Australian state of Queensland.  But that distinction isn't normally made when considering Australian history, and I've heard no reference to it in relation to the recent news.  But you never know.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Recovering damage from nail biting
I found a little bit of (related, but inconclusive) information in the RD archives from a while ago, and this page where pretty much the exact same question is being asked (without answer), but I was wondering if anybody knew anything about this.

I'm not sure if it's directly related to my old nailbiting habit (I hope it's "old", every once in a while I chomp down and have to stop myself again) or if it could be genetic, but I'm wondering if it's possible to increase the appearance of the "nail plate" after it has been shortened/separated by something such as chronic nail biting. I've often heard that nails should be cut so that the end of the nail is close to flush with the end of the finger, but if I were to do that most of my fingers would have a white nail edge something like 4mm long, obviously way too long for comfort! I understand that the nail plate is essentially where the nail is fully in contact with the skin, so I was wondering if it was possible to train the nail to stay in contact with the skin, effectively lengthening the plate. Thanks!

Also, one other weird question. Is there an easy way to measure the length of ones digits accurately? My left thumb is noticably (to me, not so much to other people) stumpier than my right, and I think it's because of the length of my first and second digit, as opposed to the position/length of the nail, but I can't figure out a way to measure the lengths accurately to within 1mm or so, because I don't have any expensive measuring equipment. Any ideas! Thanks again! 219.102.220.90 (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking as one who also stopped nail biting after a long time, it would seem that you need to allow your nails to grow. The advice is good. If you wait until the nail reaches the end of the finger and then keep it that length, eventually the nail bed will grow until it reaches a "normal" length. On my left hand, however, the nails are more brittle than on the right, and the nail beds have remained short, mainly because the nails break before they reach the ends of the fingers. --88.108.231.179 (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that an asymmetry in length between the fingers of either hand is developmental, possibly genetic as well, while a difference in breadth of the fingers and their nail beds is affected by use/disuse and handedness. I'd suggest posting a more specific query on the Science Reference Desk. -- Deborahjay (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Try band-aids to keep your nails from breaking or snagging before your nail bed has had time to recover a bit. (Work on alternate fingers to prevent the skin from shriveling up too much. File them instead of cutting. Leave them a bit longer each time.  This will take quite a while.  Be patient.   76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, great thanks! I'll be patient : P. 219.102.220.90 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I kicked an entrenched nailbiting habit of 34 years by beginning to get manicures regularly. I had stopped many times before but only until my nails got long and brittle.  At that point, I didn't have the skills to take care of them properly because nobody ever showed me.  When they were long and brittle, they'd chip and break, giving me inviting "toothholds" and I'd be back into the cycle.


 * The regular manicures gave me four things. First, someone who is an expert on taking care of nails looks them over and makes sure they are in good shape and never get too long.  Second, she shows me what to do if I chip or break one to make it look nice and not be a temptation.  Third, she brushes on a clear nail strengthener and topcoat (it comes in a polish bottle, but it's more of an epoxy than anything cosmetic) after the manicure.  They give the nails some strength and also create a slick, smooth finish that I immediately notice if I put my finger in my mouth to chew it.  Forth, the whole process makes me invest some money in the effort, giving me incentive to not "wreck" the results.


 * I'm almost 2 years down the road with this plan and my nails look great. I've even taken a girl I dated out to get our nails done.  She thought that it was pretty cool to get a "mani/pedi" together.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.157.106 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm ok with manicures, but I couldn't handle the clear epoxy unless it had a matte finish to it lol. 219.102.220.90 (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Tattoo
If you get your head tatted, does your hair still grow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.233.91 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2009
 * Yes. Dismas |(talk) 03:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the second item in the list of steganographic techniques. B00P (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean "steganographic." Stenographers don't write on people's heads... I hope... -- BenRG (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Never say "Never." Edison (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Don't know how that happened; I did a copy-and-paste. But thanks. B00P (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know how it happened - you copied it from someone that got it wrong! Always a good way to keep homework markers amused. --Tango (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Asian American gun ownership rates
Hi, I'm looking for (as the title implies) Asian American gun ownership numbers, such as how many there are in America, where they are concentrated, and such. I've tried with google with little luck.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ireallyneedanewsn (talk • contribs) 04:43, 23 February 2009

Identification of a song
What's the name of the song that basically goes "hai ai aaaaai, oh ai ai ai" the entire way? It's a staple of TV ads and would most easily be classified as world music - it's famous, so this shouldn't be too difficult to identify.

202.156.14.83 (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a little more information, like a commercial that includes the song? From your description it might be Adiemus from Adiemus; that track has seen some commercial play and involves strings of vowels. –  7 4   06:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the ululation from Difang and Igay Duana's "Jubilant Drinking Song" which was sampled in Enigma's "Return to Innocence" ? Nanonic (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we move this question to Reference_desk/Entertainment instead.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's alright, it's Return to Innocence by Enigma. I should have guessed it. 202.156.14.83 (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When I read the question and your rendition of the 'lyrics', that song by Enigma sprang to my mind instantly. And then I noticed that you already figured it out yourself. Great track by the way. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rule of the hall
In the UK, Japan, Australia, and India (and several other nations), people drive on the left side of the road. Do these people also walk on the left side of the hallway? L ANTZY T ALK 09:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain amount of that occuring as a sort of force of habit thing, but no - people just walk where they want. When things get busier then certainly it becomes more noticeable, I suspect that because more walk on the left unthinkingly that this then ends up becoming the best place to walk, creating a (feedback loop?) that makes it more likely for people to choose the left on a busy street because that's the 'path of least resistance' sort of. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At school we had to walk on the left in the corridors, becomes ingrained after that.  Lanfear's Bane |  t  10:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I ask because, where I come from (the United States), most people keep to the right side of the hallway. In elementary school (in Ohio) we were explicitly told to walk on the right side, especially when climbing stairs. I have noticed that those who violate this rule tend to be East Asian or South Asian, and this led me to suspect that it was related to the rule of the road. L ANTZY T ALK 11:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in the UK and at school we were always told to keep left in the hallways. It certainly makes sense to do it on the same side as people drive, saves unnecessary confusion... I think your hypothesis sounds right. ~ mazca  t 12:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At junior school, which had wide stairs, we were always told to keep left. At senior school, where the stairs were much taller and narrower, it was anything goes. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh stairs are a completely different story. The people who are climbing should stay on the "inside" of the stairs-helix so they don't have to walk as far; people going down can more easily navigate the greater length of the outside. Usually I find that stairs spiral right as they go up so you do walk on the right side, but sometimes they don't. .froth. (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should that matter? Why should people going up get preferential treatment?  It won't reduce their vertical travel, which is where the majority of the effort comes from. APL (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know, I find it much easier to concentrate on hauling myself up 3 stories without walking an additional 3 or 4 paces between flights. If you take stairs two at a time, those paces could add as much as a third to your total number of steps. Any consideration the people going down can offer is welcome, especially as their work is much easier. They just have to spring forward lightly on each step and let gravity take them down and momentum forward. .froth. (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

On the London Underground the rule has always been to stand on the right of escalators and move on the left.86.197.44.234 (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)DT
 * That's the custom on Bay Area Rapid Transit, too. —Tamfang (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the reverse on Australian escalators. We're used to driving on the left, and being overtaken on the right.  The UK also drives on the left, so their escalator rule seems a little counter-intuitive.  In one place I lived, the city council painted thick white lines down the middle of the footpaths in the main shopping areas, decreed that pedestrians must keep to the left, and fined them for contravening.  The idea was later abandoned.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Sidewalk Rage: Rudy's Response" ("Rudy" being former New York City mayor Giuliani). Deor (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While NZ escalator etiquette is often a bit crap I too always stand to the left if I'm not walking (which I usually am unless I can't because of the aforementioned crap etiquette problems) precisely for the driving on the left means staying to the left seems logical reason. IIRC, it was also recommend in school (in Malaysia) once for stairs (without a reason). I too have always found the London underground rule odd given their driving on the left. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was out shopping once with my then-girlfriend, and she berated me for standing on the left hand side of the escalator. I think it's a regional thing in Britain - AFAIK you don't get any escalators with that sort of delineation outside of the London Underground, so it would make sense to me that the closer you are to London (this was in Reading, I'm from Bristol) the more prevalent it would be. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's how people ride the escalators on the Washington Metro. L ANTZY T ALK 06:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sniper computer game
How do we get past the "Mutiny" phase in this sharp shooting game Sniper...Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2009


 * go to google (I don't have full internet access in work otherwise I'd find it myself) and type the game name with "hints" after it... There will be many sites that give cheat codes, but more importantly hints and tips... Gazhiley (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Try GameFAQs.com. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Edited to correct what looks like a typo; "gamefaws.com" seems to be a malware site.—Tamfang (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal with europe/mediterranean/mideast?
My history prof says Indians had been in North America for like 12000 years prior to Columbus and lived very peacefully compared to Europe. So why did the Europeans have like physics and mathematics and astronomy and great literature.. and ancient Greece, and Rome, and shakespeare, and geez the renaissance! Plus they had massive merchant fleets and international trade and organized religion for thousands of years already. Then they met the Indians, who had canoes, wampum.. um pottery?.. oh yeah corn.. they were good at tanning skins. Tomahawks. So why have certain areas, just as rich in resources, remained stagnant and others advanced so much? I can't imagine it's that underdeveloped areas have histories of subjugation and struggles to survive; if anything that describes europe more.. Was it the ruthless capitalist/imperial regimes that utilized slave/laborer work to allow a whole class to sit around and study? .froth. (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is all rather open-ended, but there's possibly some truth to the idea that the native americans had no real need to advance. As for europe... well, we organised into countries, and then went to war, and nothing breeds creativity like trying to kill the enemy. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This question is the subject of Guns, Germs and Steel, which says that it's basically geography and local plants and animals. I found some of the conclusions very unsatisfying, but the book seems to be well regarded.  --Sean 18:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oooh, very good link thanks. Exactly what I was looking for. .froth. (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a very interesting book, I'd recommend it if you're looking for something to read. TastyCakes (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It kind of all depends on what you mean by 'peacefully'. The native American tribes were in fact pretty frequently 'at war' with one another. Fighting was a fairly constant theme. However because the number of people on the continent was low, and the technology of weapons was low, the number of people killed was small (compared with Europe). However after allowing for those two factors I would want to see evidence that the native Americans 'lived peacefully'.
 * Another suggestion I've heard is that cultural assumptions can affect tendency to make technological progress. Thomas Cahill posits that the Jewish tradition was unusual in it's concept of 'progress', i.e. that the future is likely to be better than the past. In many other cultures the past is seen as a 'golden age' to which we can at best hope to return. If your culture believes that then there would be no point in trying to invent anything truly new. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll also want to read 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, a great book on this issue. The deal is, the myth of the Indians as "noble savages" is quite wrong.  They had just as complex a societies in many was as Europe, and they weren't all peace-loving tree-hugging hippies as some would have you believe, and neither were they savages, living barely above subsitance level.  They had extensive technologies well suited to their environments, they fought wars and committed murder, and did all the things that Europe did.  They did it differnetly than Europe did, but it doesn't make it worse or lower or less advanced.  Just different.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the peoples conquered by the Aztecs thought they were particularly peaceful. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * War, torture, slavery, murder, and genocide are not peaceful, and were to be found in PreColumbian America. It would be very hard to prove who was less peaceful, PreColumbian America or Europe. Edison (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot also depends on the viewpoint of who writes the history books. Just one example Mabila probably wasn't built because everyone in the area was living peacefully with their neighbors.  The Ancient Pueblo Peoples probably didn't carve their homes out of the rocks high up in the walls of the Grand canyon because they enjoyed the view.   The fact that much of the population had been wiped out by "superior" European pathogens by the time the armies arrived to help "settle" the country didn't help preserve any historical knowledge.  Europeans are also quite good at including/excluding convenient parts of histories of neighboring areas into their own.  The fact that Persia (Iran) used to be a power house when it came to math and science is often conveniently overlooked.  Not wanting to belittle things, does the fact that stories told by some British guy a couple of hundred years back were written down and preserved really mean his stories were superior to those told by my great-grandma?  While you can still go see Venice, though, the big acorn tree and gurgling stream that featured in one of her tales have long since been cut down or built over.  The fact that Europeans and their descendants measure other cultures with their own value system isn't helping any either.  A lot of misunderstandings between the native population and the new arrivals were caused by the fact that native views make no distinction between spiritual and physical worlds.  AFAIK the strict separation of religion and sciences had become necessary in Europe because religious organizations were powerful and clung to views that were incompatible with what scientists were observing.  Only recently have pharmaceutical companies begun to screen remaining pockets of native herbal lore for useful applications.  A little higher up our resident pastor mentioned native Americans living on reservations.  To explain that they were poor and living in deplorable conditions he said "they live in houses without running water and electricity."  I grew up in a house without running water.  (We often had electricity for lighting, though.)  We would have laughed at the suggestion that we were poor.  Was schlepping water from the well to the house inconvenient?  Sure.  But am I really that much better off now that I spend that time sitting in traffic jams and working out on an exercise bike?  Looking at things from a different perspective is very difficult, but changes the picture significantly.   - 76.97.245.5 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My question is still valid without "peacefully". And come on, running water 2 feet away is certainly an accomplishment over walking to the town square, different perspective or not, and iron and steel are better than wood and copper, and guns are better than bows, and shakespeare told better stories than your grandma. I appreciate your point that all these "better"s are judged by european values, but also reject your claim that it's entirely a matter of perspective. If anything, european values are "better" simply because they survived, but I think there's also a relatively absolute (heh) idea of progress. Indians eagerly adopted superior European technologies when they were confronted; even they recognized superiority. Perhaps their values would have played into it if they could have clearly seen how the lifestyle and moral changes that come along with those new technologies would conflict with their way of life, but since they couldn't, we can look at the issue divorced from values and tell that eurasia has had the greater accomplishments. Plus, I mean really, that's ridiculous of course Eurasia did more. .froth. (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments doesn't make me hopeful that you're open to a different viewpoint. I don't wish to let this deteriorate into a soapbox contest.  I'm just going to throw out a couple of things I dug up in trying to point out why Native Americans did not unanimously consider Europeans superior because they had guns and horses: Jamestown Settlement,  500 Nations, Dances with wolves, Trail of Tears.  Your argument that what survives is automatically superior could have some very scary historical and ethical implications.  It also doesn't hold water in view of the fact that so many "cultural treasures" get lost for extended periods and their survival all too often depends on chance.  (E.g. the Roman hippodrome in Istanbul didn't make it because someone needed the rocks for a government building.)  I know more about physics and the particle zoo than any of my ancestors could have dreamed of.  But I am equally aware that legions of supercomputers could not replace the knowledge that was lost.  When it comes to nature and how it worked they knew more than a library's worth.  We need complicated weather models where they could look at a cloud and take that in context with a myriad of half recognized other factors, like the smell of the wind, to say "it's going to rain soon" or "we're going to get an early winter".  (And yes, both old and modern methods are occasionally wrong.)  It's going to take generations of chemical, plant biological and DNA analysis to reproduce what some people knew about useful plants, pests and sustainable use.  Now that we are getting close to "... the last trees have been cut down etc." such knowledge has all of a sudden gained a lot of value.  Only a handful of quotes from a few Native American thinkers remain.  Yet many of those sayings are known and regarded throughout the world.  It is illustrative that while I have read Shakespear, you have not heard any of my great-grandma's stories.  Yet you immediately know which one is "better".  Most of the native cultures and peoples of North America got wiped out.  We will never know what was there.  We sometimes don't even recognize what's left.  Extrapolating that nothing could ever have been there might make you miss snake mound while standing on it.  Progress is far from as clear cut a path as you may think.  If I had to put a finger on what made Europeans/Eurasians superior I'd say it was their firm belief that they were both superior and right. (Well it did get a bit long, but I couldn't just let it stand like that. Apologies to refdesk purists.) - 76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Shakespeare is widely considered to be the greatest playwright with surviving works, which excludes many thousands of other playwrights with surviving works, I think it's pretty certain that a particular storyteller is not superior to him even though I've never heard her stories.. .froth. (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How widely is that view held outside of European cultures though? Is it a view shared by the Chinese? By the Japanese? By Indians (from India)? By Arabs? Heck bringing this back to the main topic, by native/indigenous Americans who maintain strong cultural ties to their ancesterial roots? Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everybody measures things by their own value system, including you. You bring a pretty standard set of prejudices to the debate. Luwilt (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The aforementioned Guns, Germs, and Steel goes some way to broadly answering some of these questions, so I would definately reccomend it. In a nut shell, here are some of the things it looks at.... like how most of the large domesticated animals in the world (14 out of 15) are from the Middle-east/Europe area, with only Llamas coming from the Americas. This means that ploughing fields and producing enough crops to feed large populations are much easier, so you've got time and resources to produce huge structures and sit back and think about society, etc. without getting too hungry. It also mentions how the development of writing is key in getting technology from one people to another. The American people weren't big on writing with only the Mayans really having anything along those lines. One of the most interesting things it looks at is the notion that if you move around the globe in a lateral direction, (ie: from East to West and vice versa) then you generally stay in the same sort of geography, you can grow the same crops in the same land with the same weather and the same length of day. So from Spain, across the Mediterranean, past Babylon and into India, you were looking at similar rules for survival. Whereas in the Americas, the people came originally from the North before spreading down through the different climates until they reached the Southern tip. Each time they went through a different region, the people would of had to learn all about the flora and fauna of the region again and again. It also covers war and weapons technology, pointing out that the sword would have taken centuries of craftsmanship to develop into something flexible, tough and slim like the Rapier and the Spanish who were successful in conquering parts of South America would have grown up around horses and learnt how to control them expertly. The Americans didn't have horses.91.111.86.8 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Every region of the world had tens of thousands of years of pre-history before it made major technological/economic advances, so there is nothing remarkable about Indians in the Americas going 12,000 years without doing all the things you mention. As for the Americas being peaceful, that is just baloney. War was a normal state of affairs in all pre-industrial regions of the world. With very few exceptions, pre-Industrial elites are warrior elites: there had to be warfare every generation, because war was the main means to achieve personal status. I suspect your prof is deluding himself out of a misguided belief that he must attribute some other merit to the pre-Columbans to excuse their lack of achievements the fields of endeavour you mention. Sadly this is quite a common response the obvious disparity in the achievements of different civilisations. Luwilt (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

largest tree trunk
Which tree has the biggest trunk?Tiki Tiki girl (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is General Sherman, a giant sequoia whose trunk is "1487 cubic meters, making it the largest non-clonal tree by volume." "The trunk alone is estimated to weigh over 2,000 short tons (1,800 t)" (from "Largest organisms"). If you want diameter, it's likely the Baobab of Little Prince fame, the largest of which "has a circumference of 47 metres (150 ft) and an average diameter of 15 metres (49 ft)." General Sherman's trunk is a paltry 11 meters in diameter. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Árbol del Tule claims it has the stoutest. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sewn up pockets
Why are the pockets in blazers sewn up when you buy them new?


 * To stop them getting caught on things, maybe? --Tango (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My guess is to indicate that the garment is new, unused. Just a guess. Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there are two sorts of people. There are people who want a sharp suit - these people don't want pockets that open, as it spoils the clean lines. Then there are those who believe the point of a pocket is to put stuff in, and do so - these people want pockets that open. Therefore, rather than making one set of suits with no pockets and another set with, they stitch them up to begin with, so they they can easily be unpicked if needed.


 * That or the makers are out to get me. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The makers are out to get you, Matt. They sew the pockets up when they see you coming. Actually they are in the pay of your Significant Other who wants you to look sharp and not fill your pockets with stuff. :-)


 * Matt is right, putting stuff in pockets ruins the look of a jacket, not just when the stuff is in there but the future look as well; so for good jackets the pockets are usually sewn up to prevent stuff being put in them. Think of it as a hint from the maker. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Even my £30 Tesco suit has the pockets sewn up, so it's not restricted to "good jackets" ;) ~ mazca  t 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Following EC: While manufacturers couldn't care less whether or not you look smart in the suit after you bought it, they have a vested interested in you looking smart in it when you try it on and look at yourself in the mirror. Before you take them home clothes get picked, packed, shipped, "finished" (steam cleaned). They are probably also tried on by a couple of other people before you get them.  If the pockets aren't sewn closed throughout all this the seam of the pocket could bulge and you'd probably hang it back on the rack and buy something else.  So, no, they don't want to get you, just your money :-) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * surely on the manufacturers of three piece suits have a vested interest? ;-) -- LarryMac  | Talk  15:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, 76.97!! Thank you for using the phrase "couldn't care less" correctly!! It's a pet peeve of mine hearing/seeing people use "could care less", so I thank those who use it correctly Dismas |(talk) 04:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So one might say you could care less if people use it correctly?  ;-)   –   7 4   05:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why despise an easy opportunity to tell if someone's an idiot? .froth. (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anyone manufacture suits without pockets, to cater for the people who never use them? --  JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think if your culture expects you to wear a suit then nobody's terribly concerned about utility. Ties especially, ugh. .froth. (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ties - ah yes. Ceremonial cloth garrotes designed to demonstrate to your customers that you are literally prepared to choke yourself in order to please them.  Small cloth coverings designed to prevent people from getting a tantalizing glimpse of a naked shirt button...badly designed.   A means to ensure that blood flow to the brain is limited in higher management in order that they may better allow the engineers to run the company.  SteveBaker (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But ties are absolutely essential ! Ever since Napolean put those ugly brass buttons on the jacket sleeves to prevent people from rubbing the snot off their noses there, the tie has been essential in that regard. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That must be a facetious comment, Steve. I'm no huge advocate for the wearing of ties, but as a scientist, you must know that if they're uncomfortable, that means the collar is too tight, which means the shirt is too small for the body it's on.  It's the fault of the shirt, and/or the purchaser of that too-small shirt, rather than the tie.  Properly worn, a tie should never be uncomfortable; the wearer should hardly even be aware they're wearing one.  Some shirt top buttons are sewn too far apart from the button-hole, and can easily be adjusted if that's the only problem with the shirt. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I once worked for a bank in a rôle which involved no contact whatsoever with customers or the public. We were based in an office with no air-conditioning, and no opening windows. We were told that we had to wear a tie because it was "more professional" - well if "professional" means "uncomfortable and sweaty" then I suppose it was. I wore a bright red tie, which thoroughly pissed off the managers who all wore shades of blue (as did almost everyone else). It was a plain tie & neither too wide nor too narrow, and so there was nothing they could do about it, but the colour of international revolution had a definate unsettling effect on them. Female staff were allowed to wear open-necked blouses, much more suitable to the temperature of the office (and I suspect much more agreeable to the predominantly male, middle-aged managers responsible for enforcing the dress code). DuncanHill (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Where I work, Hawaiian shirts, shorts and sandals are as close as we come to a summer dress code - in winter, sneakers, jeans and a t-shirt (typically one given away at a trade show - optionally with a Hawaiian shirt worn open over the top) is more likely...but then we have artists...so, um, all bets are off. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A red tie? Always snazzy. Seraphim  &hearts;  12:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This designer made (at least) one. .  You guys try pencil skirts and tops in winter weather if you'd like to try uncomfortable. -76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The pockets of coats can also be found sewn up when you buy them. I had always assumed this was done to prevent thievery. Seraphim &hearts;  06:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thievery of the coat? What difference would open or closed pockets make to someone who intends on stealing a coat?  Dismas |(talk) 10:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol, that wasn't very clear of me. I meant: it stops people from stealing things by putting them in the coat's pockets. Seraphim  &hearts;  12:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It stops them getting 'baggy' and makes them look good in-store. On a side note a 'pet peeve' of mine is the silly people who wander around with the designer's 'details' on the jacket's arm as if it were part of the design, rather than being something that should be removed on purchase. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Minnie Pearl's descendants ? StuRat (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is bob dylan shopping. I don't know if this sheds light on anything.

While learning fashion design (yes, there are degrees) I was taught that pockets are sewn closed early in construction, either to create the pocket opening itself out of 2 pieces of fabric, or for ease of construction further down the line, especially in tailoring or haute couture. If it's a welt pocket, for instance, the top and bottom welts are sewn together so they can be folded away from each other to create the pocket opening itself.--68.47.208.67 (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)