Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 February 5

= February 5 =

Real life Middle Easter Coalition equipment
In Battlefield 2, one of the factions is the Middle Eastern Coalition (MEC), which is a fictional power I guess the devs used so they could have Middle Eastern combat without being too political. MEC uses Russian weaponry like AK-101s and T-90s in the game.

Now if it existed in real life, and their equipment was made in the member states without buying any from other countries, what would they use? Let's assume that the MEC would include the Arab League, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, and a few other middle eastern nations (besides Israel). The BF2 MEC equipment is here. Now what would it look like if it was all Middle Eastern equipment and weapons? 67.169.118.40 (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, most middle eastern countries don't have much of an indigenous arms industry. They generally do have Russian kit as in your game. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Arms industry lists some Turkish and Pakistani firms but no other Middle Eastern producers. NATO member Turkey has the 10th biggest military expenditure in the world.  Turkish Aerospace Industries co-produces F16 and other planes, while Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation (Turkey) is a descendent of the Ottoman empire's supplier of firearms, and produces small arms to rockets and artillery.  List of national defense industries links to Defense industry of Iran (following the 1979 revolution they've had to make a lot of their own weapons).  Arms industry has some Pakistani companies; Pakistani Arms Industry has some info on one of Asia's foremost military powers.  Pakistan Aeronautical Complex builds trainers and services modern fighters; Heavy Industries Taxila makes tanks. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep - I expected Turkey to be one of the more advanced countries, but then I don't really consider Turkey or Pakistan to be part of "the Middle East". 93.97.184.230 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Again with the pocket watch
My pocket watch that I recently acquired has a really tiny issue. The face of the watch moves up and down a slight bit every time I take a step, and that pushes the tiny second hand up little by little, until it falls out - at which point the bigger hands "grab" it and it gets caught between them. I'm stubborn and refuse to just remove the hand, so here is my question. I plan to dab a minuscule amount of glue onto the "shaft" that the hand goes onto, but I have a few concerns. One is that I heard the fumes from certain glues can discolour the porcelain of the watch face. What kind of glue would be best for this kind of task? Chris16447 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a concern. It is the face that moves and causes the problems, but you're set on fixing one of the symptoms, namely the falling off of the second hand. If - and that's a big, italicised if, btw, I were going to do what you're planning, I'd use superglue. But I'd be so damn precise about how I apply the glue and how much I apply, that I'd amaze you. But in reality, I;d fix the wobbly face first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was considering doing that, but besides from gluing or taping it, I have no clue how to keep it down. Chris16447 (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the dilemma, but I think you have to take the other horn, which us to figure out how to get it mounted firmly. It must have been, once; there must be mounting mounts or a compression fit. I just don't think the mechanism will cope if you restrain the second hand from falling off; the resistance will simply be passed back down the drive train and it'll stop, or worse, break. Have you / can you remove all the hands and then remove the face? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd take it to a jeweller or watchmaker. They'd probably be able to fix the clockface from popping up solving the original cause of the problem. - Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Highway exit numbers
Do they go up as you go north or as you go south? I've looked through (albeit quite quickly) the article on them and haven't found anything. 67.169.118.40 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Any particular country? Ah. New Jersey. Exit numbers in the United States is not very specific, though quite detailed. Exit number deals with other countries. Also California Numbered Exit Uniform System. Here's the google search; you can play this game yourself. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On the Interstate Highway System, exit numbers tend to rise going south to north on odd-numbered interstates and west to east on even-numbered interstates. Three-digit interstates vary. &mdash; Lomn 04:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are, of course, exceptions, generally where the interstate follows the route of a larger established road, for example most of Interstate 90 in New York follows the mainline of the New York State Thruway, whose exist are numbered from New York City towards Buffalo, so most of I-90 has increasing exit numbers from east to west, which is opposite of established convention. The untolled portion of I-90 (the Albany spur) is numbered according to standard convention.  Likewise, Illinois Tollways do not number their exits, while the untolled portions of the Interstates that share some roadway with these toll roads are numbered, making for some confusing exit numbering schemes. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  06:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Chemicals & Chicken Bones
I have a few questions regarding a science project. In order for you to help me answer them, I'll explain my project to you. The question I’m going to try to answer by using an experiment is: “Does the chemical content of various bones affect the disintegration of bones?” We are planning to put raw chicken bones into the various liquids – orange juice, Coke, Red Bull, milk, salt water, and plain ol’ tap water (for our control) – and watch them over time to see how long they take to disintegrate, which will have the most effect on the process, and if the stronger chemical content will have the quickest disintegration of the bone. I need some background information for my report! Here are some questions: 1) Why does disintegration in bones happen? 2) How does one measure bone density? 3) Who discovered bone density/ 4) What ingredients in the liquids will cause the bones to disintegrate? 5) What do bones do to be strong? 6) What chemicals are found in the various liquids? 7) What is bone density? 8) Where do bones get the neutrients they need? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.20.243 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally, the questions look like the sort of thing that your textbook will contain in the chapter you're currently studying. However, you may find our bone article and its associated articles interesting.  Also, I would re-examine your experiment premise: I doubt you're studying how bones cause bones to break down. &mdash; Lomn 04:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

SteveBaker (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above two refdeskers are correct; we don't do people's homework for them. However, you did a good job of explaining what your experiment intended to do, and you asked nicely, so I'll give you a couple of pointers: bone density and Calcium in biology. Oh, and strictly speaking, tap water isn't a control, as it contains minute amounts of various chemicals; you would need distilled water for a rigorous control.  Good luck! (And anyway, shouldn't this be on the Science refdesk?) BrainyBabe (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're allowed to add more test liquids, I suggest vinegar. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The setup you describe has little experimental value. Unless your instructor has set the liquids to be used (Why? Ask and he/she may answer.)  Beverages one drinks are processed by the body's digestive system.  The component chemicals are broken down and reformulated in the process. So, soaking bones in "Red Bull" won't have the same effect as drinking it.  The label on the can will tell you some of the chemicals in your softdrink, but there are more that industry isn't legally obligated to disclose, that are introduced as part of the production or bottling process or that form as  synthesis products of the included chemicals.  To get a representative result when doing any experiment it is a good idea to limit the factors that will influence the result. First of all see what you really want to prove. If you want to prove what chemicals affect disintegration of bones it's a better idea to soak your sample bones in as pure a solution as you can find. (Pure not meaning concentrated. Highly concentrated acids, e.g. are not for student experiments.)  Distilled water, for example is a lot more pure than tap water.  Vinegar as suggested by StuRat would be a good choice to prove action of what? (The first paragraph of the article will tell you.) Another way to check chemicals is making your own solutions.  That way you can control what concentration you are looking at.  Some chemicals you can find in rather pure forms in your grocery store are Rubbing alcohol, Citric acid, Ascorbic acid (Check out the common name in the article to see what to look for in the store, then check the label.) Sodium bicarbonate (aka baking soda), cream of tartar, Borax, Dextrose (In the health food or baking aisle), Meat tenderizer (The powder in the spice section, not the mallet!) Sucrose, OxiClean, Hydrogen peroxide (Usually next to the rubbing alcohol), washing soda, household ammonia, Sodium hypochlorite, Salt (Check the label for additives.) Gelatin. You might find lecitin in a health food section, at the pharmacy or in a bakery aisle.  Some other chemicals are only sold as mixtures of several chemicals, but are more defined than e.g. milk:  Tincture of iodine, Oil.  Some of these can irritate your skin or damage your clothes, so wear gloves, goggles and old long sleeve shirts (or a lab coat) when handling them.  Happy shopping and experimenting. BTW when posting a question try to look up/link as many things as you can. That way you may find your answer on the way already or can point to some section of an article that's unclear or missing. That will prevent answers like Steve's of do your own homework. (Which you really should do!!)76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Spoken books on ipod or other devices
I have recently entered a line of work that requires long stretches of being essentially idle, but during which I cannot read. People have always told me I'm strange in this regard, but I am not a music person at all; never cared much for any of it. I am a voracious reader however. So my question relates to whether there are spoken books available (for download? my terminology here is that of a neophyte) for ipod or some similar device. So can you recommend a device? Tell me where I would go to obtain spoken books (if the facility exists), the variety and breadth available, and pricing. Advice on free resources to obtain such material is very welcome. Thanks in advance.--70.19.64.133 (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't say where you are, but here (NY,US) audiobooks are available for download from the public libraries. Downloading to iPods is still a little problematic, because Apple is just now loosening some restrictions on sources for downloads to iPods. In my library, for example, only about 1/10 of the total available titles is downloadable to iPod.  There are also commercial sources for book downloads, like audible.com.  And don't forget podcasts from, for example, radio and tv shows that you like. Catrionak (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As noted, Audible has a significant library of books, and is compatible with ipods and many ipod-like devices. Prices vary, but their subscription service comes out to something like $10/book.  Podcasts are generally free -- I find several of the NPR ones quite good for passing time. &mdash; Lomn 14:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * http://librivox.org/ is a site for downloading free audio books and for uploading your own recordings although the harsh voices and bland delivery of many contributors make me want to tear my ears off.  meltBanana  14:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to the information already given above, let me second the recommendation that you might also want to consider podcasts. I am a music person, but I find that just the same, these days most of my iPod time is spent listening to podcasts, especially during long trips or when I'm taking care of domestic chores that would otherwise be pretty boring. Podcasts also have the advantage that they tend to be free. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Try www.play.com86.209.158.62 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)DT


 * I'll answer the question with two tangents: firstly, audio books are available for free or at a nominal cost from many public libraries.  These usually come on CDs (and yes, portable CD players are still for sale) and are complete unabridged versions.  Secondly, if you are wedded to your iPod, consider non-book downloads such as the Listen Again facility of Radio 4, Spoken Word (if you have any connection to an educational institution), Gresham College lectures, mythology and fairy tales, and the BBC World Service for documentaries. Happy hunting! BrainyBabe (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You could also rip CDs to your computer and then add them to your iPod (or whatever). It's what I do. It's a little bit more work, but it's free and carrying an iPod around is a lot more convenient than a stack of CDs. Tomdobb (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice everyone! I'm going to check out my local library before I decide what device to buy and bookmark this page (well I know it will be archived; that page eventually) and come back to consult your collective written wisdom once I decide.--70.19.64.133 (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Animals
What is the word for animals that co-exist and compliment each other, such as fish that live with whales – the whale acts as protection and the fish eat bugs that cause discomfort? Cheers/ Cycle~ (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * symbiotic --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers – I'd looked around a lot of those articles (inc. mutualism and commensalism) but for some reason none of them seemed quite right. Cycle~ (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that "symbiotic" is not exactly what you're looking for? --Sean 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think he's saying that it is. Cheers being like thanks.  Genius  101 Guestbook  20:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Parasites can also benefit the host, although that is generally not the case.Livewireo (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I've always learned that that was the distinction between parasitism, commensalism and mutualism, whether the host benefits, is unaffected, or is harmed, respectively.  How would a "parasitic" relationship in which the host is benefited be any different from a mutualistic relationship?  Our article seems a little vague on this point. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe you meant 'counter-respectively', but you seem to have the distinction sorted. –  7 4   02:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Right you are of course, thanks. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbiotic is the adjective describing the relationship. The word for an animal that has a symbiotic relationship with another is "symbiote".   --  JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the word "symbiote" was accidentally made up by Hal Clement in the science fiction novel "Needle." The correct word is "symbiont." -Arch dude (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BANK OF ENGLAND INTEREST RATE CUT!
Hi everybody, With the recent cut in U.K. Bank of England to now 1% base rate,and savings rate sometimes less than that at 0.94% will the U.S. now follow and cut interest rates? Gordon brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't the US Federal Reserve interest rate already at 1%? There's little point in cutting it further than this; the agenda moves on to making sure that banks have sufficient liquidity (partly achieved through bale-outs, likely to be followed by more bail-outs and creations of "bad banks" to take on distressed assets) and confidence to start lending (we're starting to see government loan guarantees, for instance). And we're also seeing other screws being tightened on, for instance, partially nationalised banks to 'do the right thing'. But no, you can pretty much forget any lower interest rates as an effective tool. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also these rates only go to people with old mortgage products. You won't find a new product for anything less than about 4%. This is a disincentive to move for people which will further depress the housing market. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Those rates" are the rates at which banks borrow from the fed. But equally you are right; many mortgage products are by now completely disengaged from base rates, which does drive a further nail in their coffin as effective agents of change. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * NB the US Fed rate is currently zero to 1/4 percent. -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which, as far as I can tell, actually means "zero" but just doesn't sound so bad. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The OP premise, that because the UK cut rates therefore the US will, is faulty. While there is no one-to-one correlation, the reverse is more likely. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It certainly is a bad sign that the UK Prime Minister needs to ask this question on the Reference Desk! -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What's he doing in the US working for FedEx? Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What building is this?
--69.152.203.246 (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bank of America Tower. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the angle threw me off. --69.152.203.246 (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Chili sauces
I recently bought a bottle of Blair's Pure Death sauce, and found it to taste rather good, and to be a bit hotter than Tabasco sauce. I currently use it nearly every day. But even though the article claims it's 9.6 times as hot as Tabasco (48000 Scoville units compared to 5000), it doesn't actually taste that hot. I would like to try an even hotter sauce, something that I would use when I want get the urge to eat something really hot. But which sauce? I don't want it to be just like the sauce I already have, but on the other hand I don't want it to be "put one drop on a whole plate of pasta and spend the rest of the day with my mouth on fire" either. I'm currently contemplating either After Death sauce (50000 Scoville units as per the article) or Sudden Death sauce (105000 Scoville units), but I'm not sure which of them to get. Does anyone have experience about them? J I P | Talk 18:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you need an insanity Pepper :) Dmcq (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One problem is that it's difficult to produce a sauce that consistently has the same amount of heat. The raw ingredients will tend to vary in spiciness, and sauces can also lose heat with age.  Since you like the current sauce, and just want something hotter, why not just use more of the current sauce, instead ?  As for the "9.6 times as hot", things like perceived heat don't tend to vary linearly, so 10 times as much heat, as measured chemically, may be barely detectable to the tongue.  (If it was linear, then you couldn't feel anything at all from a peppercorn.) StuRat (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the perceived "heat" in a chilli sauce comes directly from the seeds (not the flesh), why not buy a couple of really hot chilli peppers - your grocer will advise which are the "hottest" - strip out varying amounts of the seeds, grind them with a pestle and mortar or alternatively between two dessert spoons into a paste - and mix them with your chosen chilli sauce and heat the whole thing through to allow the chilli seeeds to impart their flavour into the sauce? By trial and error you will soon discover what quantities best serve your taste buds - assuming you have any left at the end of your experiment? Good Luck though.92.10.184.230 (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your senses develop a certain immunity to repeated heat attacks. So one way of getting to an increased sensation of "hot" would be to reset your system and stay off hot food for a while. (Not sure how long, but I bet we have it somewhere.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I haven't tried any of that Blair's stuff, but if you want spicy, you could give some Asian chili sauces a go. I eat a lot of sambal myself, since my family's Malaysian, and that's easy enough to find at any Asian market.  I picked up this shrimp paste in chili once, thinking it was belacan, and this stuff is so spicy that even I can't eat it.  I unfortunately can't tell you what it's called, since the label is all in Chinese. Coloredink (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Habanero chilis can apparently be even "hotter" than pure capsacin, the substance that produces oral pain (ie. "hot" or "spicyness"). ~ A H  1 (TCU) 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to our Scoville scale article, pure capsaicin is over 40 times hotter. How could a pepper possibly be hotter than the active ingredient in the pepper which causes heat ? StuRat (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbiosis Phil_burnstein (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)