Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 15

= July 15 =

Left and right contact lenses.
I have gas-permeable lenses, and I need to know which lens is the left one, and which is the right. I know that a lot of GP lenses are colored, so as to be able to tell the difference between the 2, but I've forgotten which one is which. One is blue, and one is green. 204.113.200.218 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you tried calling the ones who sold you the lenses? They might have a record of it. Another obvious way might be to simply try them both ways, and see which way is clearer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you ever been photographed while wearing the different coloured lenses? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know the manufacturer? If so, can you check their website to see if they have a standard for color associated with left or right. It would make sense to assign blue to left and green to right (four letters versus five letters), but I don't know if they made that sensible decision.--  SPhilbrick  T  15:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lenses are colored, or the lens case? My lens case is green for the right eye and white for the left. Green, starboard, is how I remember.  Plasticup  T / C  15:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't wear contacts, but oddly enough, I remember the port/starboard thing in the same way. It should make sense to use the mnemonic of port = left (and = blue for lenses, I guess) because they all have four letters (helpfully, including blue), but instead I remember that starboard and right are both the "long" words, as compared to port/left. The fact that green is also longer than blue gives me this deliciously warm feeling that all is right in the world... Matt Deres (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The mnemonic I learned from some book – in childhood, before I had been exposed to the words otherwise – is that port wine is red (unless it's tawny...), and port has four letters like left. (I have a pair of custom earplugs in green and red.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This does not address the question, but when I wore hard lenses they drew a dot near the edge of the right one with a pen. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Euw. You don't know where that pen has been! —Tamfang (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Arrow missile range
User Flayer have cited this  source to provide evidence for the 90 km range of the Arrow 2 missile. However, this source has not been dated and have no relevance for the Arrow 3 missile. During my discussion with him,  Flayer told me that the sources I provided to indicate a range of more than 1000 km range  for the existing Arrow missile are not valuable or reliable us the source he provided and hence he deleted my edit on the Arrow 2 box (and it doesnt matter whether the box is of Arrow 1or 2 or 3, as long as the article is about the all Arrow "family" the box title can be changed-the issues are what source is more reliable and if my sources can be accounted)-so please tell me what is your opinion. Is this is the right place for references entimation?--Gilisa (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera is a major news network so ought to be reliable. Regarding your second reference, you could cite Reuters directly . Your sources seem reliable enough, but don't specifically state that they refer to model No. 3. Nevertheless, since they do make clear that they're talking about something more recent than Arrow II, I would have thought that would be okay.


 * It seems the only issue is whether you're talking about Arrow 2 or Arrow 3. Can't you put both and state which range applies to which model? A simple carriage return between entries will allow both to go in the same box. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: It's better to discuss this on the article talk page though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a bit problematic to put both models in one text box because as you wrote the sources give no indication to which model the range apply. However there are reliable sources in Hebrew for that (but again, another procedure to start). I will further address the issue on the article talk page.--Gilisa (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your sources don't say that an Arrow missile has a range of 1000 km. They say that it is tested against a missile with a range of 1000 km. This is consistent with the Federation of American Scientists (often one of the best sources, experts at filtering through the military PR and coming to some kind of settled view about the secret capabilities of weapons systems) page on Arrow here; for Arrow 2 they say it "can detect and track incoming missiles as far way as 500 km and can intercept missiles 50-90 km away". With that distinction in mind, your and Flayer's sources tell a consistent story - the upgraded Arrow 3 can detect targets at roughly 1000 km, and kill them at about 90km. That's entirely consistent with its role as a theater missile defense system; an ABM with a kill range of 1000 km would only be useful against ICBMs fired virtually from the other side of the world; hardly a theatre defense, and of no use to a country like Israel that is worried about its neighbours not a power several thousand of miles away. 87.114.25.180 (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2009


 * First, you have to identify yourself. Second at one of the sources (El Jazira) it is quaoted that "he test site will allow Israel to measure its Arrow interceptor missile system against a target at a range of more than 1,000km". You have to read the sources before commenting on them. And again, identify yourself otherwise your opinion will not be regarded. Finally, the source you just gave is not dated-the Federation of American Scientists is good as a source as long as you have date on the article-one reason for it is that this reaserch organiztion allways updating its data. BTW, other sources also tell that this Arrow model has a range of more than 1000 km, it's a matter of simple comprehension to get it from the text what more that even Arrow 2 dealed with missiles that have a range far greater than 1000 km as the Sheab 3 --Gilisa (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Gilisa - in answer to your original question - no, this is not the right place to ask for opinions on the evaluation or interpretation of sources. The right places for this discussion are (1) the article talk page (as pointed out above) or (2) the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please don't bring content disputes to the reference desks. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link.--Gilisa (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Gilisa, surely everyone is welcome at Wikipedia? There are numerous valid reasons someone may not want to sign up to an account, we shouldn't ignore valid opinions because of this. If the poster's argument is wrong, then it should be disregarded, but not because he/she chooses to post as an IP. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's accepted in Wiki that one would sign his/her name when participating in public discussion. It also have a reason you know, someone may more easily replu on the behalf of his/her own opinion while giving the impression that his/her argument represent more than just him/her. So again, when it comes to disagreements I expect users to sign their name.--Gilisa (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What the fuck are you talking about? Everyone above you has signed their posts, and even if they hadn't sinebot would come along and add a little signature tag after the post. You can also find who made what post in the history tab. I think you need to read WP:Signature.
 * It's also accepted in Wiki that people may edit from IP accounts, and signing from one of these is still signing. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if people on wikipedia are basing quality of arguement on volume of agreement they are being daft. Volume of agrement is a poor indicator of truthlessness...for example...A shockingly large number of half-wits think Princess Diana was murdered, think the Moon landings didn't take place, think September 11 2001 was planned etc. Objective assessment of evidence is what is important, not volume of people proposing said evidence is correct. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's obvious, but unfortunately it's much harder for facts to be heard when there are too many who object to them-and it's valid for Wikipedia as well.--Gilisa (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please find another forum for this discussion; this is the reference desk, not the relevant article's talk page. IPs have as much right to an opinion as named accounts. For what it's worth, mainstream news agencies frequently confuse this sort of technical distinction, and I have grave doubts about the veracity of the 1000 km range.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK--Gilisa (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

creative way to motivate people
please think of creative ways to say things that help motivate people to protect the environment. Can you please provide some expression of ideas or wordings that can promote environment activities? You know, how we say motivating things that give people the urge to act? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.0.5.211 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mess with Texas. --Sean 17:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fear is a great motivator lol. But seriously, things like money are always good motivators. And if people feel loyal to something, like a business or company they will always try harder than if they hate their job. So promoting a good atmosphere, like being friendly and chill is good too. May I also add that your ip address is very unusual, at least I've never seen one in the 1xx range before.
 * I think one of the stumbling blocks to motivate people to help the environment is the whole tragedy of the commons principal. This is a complex form of the prisoners dilemma whereby if everyone works together, everyone is better off, but each has a built in individual advantage over the others if they don't play ball.  Whatever method for motivation will have to consider how to address this.  Googlemeister (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess that by 'the environment' you are probably talking about modern issues concerning 'the planet', but your question made me think of those old wartime posters that had everyone joining in with helping out. There was one encouraging people to save fuel by sharing rides in cars and it had a bloke driving in his car next to a spectre of Hitler and read "When You Ride Alone You Ride With Hitler!". Loads of then where about saving food for the winter, growing your own vegetables, etc. One just read "Eat Less Bread!". Just google wartime posters or similar and see some. Popcorn II (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "OMG! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!"...well, that might be a little over-the-top. But everything depends on your target audience.  If these are people who are already aware that there is a major problem - then your work is to combat apathy and the hope that someone else will fix it - you need to work up enthusiasm and a feeling that they can "make a difference".  But if these are people who are either unaware or disbelieving in the fact that there is a problem at all - then you need a more educational approach.  SteveBaker (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Apart from apathy and disbelief/ignorance you'll also have to fight fatigue and frustration. Media hype, scam artists, well intended political efforts and shifting environmental foci are to blame.  Yesteryear's "save the planet" idea all too often turns into this year's bad idea.  Scientist often battle over results and some factors taken for granted in the beginning tend to not pan out after a while.  Many people have hopped onto one too many bandwagons labeled let's just do something.  Make sure the actions you propose include the big picture (Energy balance, Carbon footprint,  water use, resources etc.).  Carefully check for studies criticizing the effects.  My personal favorite would be building a trash monster, then suggest viable ideas for avoiding trash and building another one after those have been applied.  Try to not get too far out with your suggestions or you'll be left with only the hard-core crowd that won't need motivating anyhow.71.236.26.74 (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the real problems aren't going to be solved by a bunch of people getting together on one Saturday morning two or three times a year to pick up trash from the local park or whatever makes them feel good about themselves. That's not just unproductive - it also leaves people with the feeling that they've "done the right thing" - which may lead them to feel OK about failing to attack the "big picture" problems because "they've already made a sacrifice".  Well, it's not like that.  There is absolutely NOTHING you can do in short spurts like that that'll help the problem one little bit!  The real solutions require longer-term behavioral changes.  Buying more efficient appliances, better insulated homes, smaller cars, CFL's, etc.  Living closer to where you work, using public transport where you can, recycling and composting as a matter of habit, avoiding over-packaged products, buying things that are made locally rather than shipped halfway around the planet, not having lawns that need watering, voting for politicians who are prepared to enact the necessary tough legislation, looking into the way things happen at work and actively seeking to save energy and cut waste in the workplace.  It's only these long-term changes that really make a difference.


 * So here are some of the things I've done:


 * My all-electric house has foot-thick walls, reflective window glass, and things like automatic attic ventilation. I designed it with windows on the corners of the house to allow light in while minimising heating from sunlight - my electricity bill is less than half that of my neighbors.  These energy-efficiency measures paid for themselves in about 5 years.
 * The house is in dense woodland - I have no lawns and do no watering or yard work of any kind (gas powered garden tools are HORRIBLY polluting and energy-wasting) - the trees help to shade the house in summer and trap heat in the winter and wildlife abounds in the area. My water usage is way lower than the average house in my area - but I think we could still do better with things like on-demand flash-heaters for showers and bathroom sinks and 'grey-water' recycling from showers and baths used to flush toilets.
 * My car gets a solid 42mpg (US gallons)...that's what it actually ACHIEVES in daily driving...not what the manufacturer claims. Most cars that claim to be fuel-efficient claim 35mpg and actually achieve about 25mpg.  Most hybrids don't come close to the mpg they claim.
 * My recycling and composting efforts - and a refusal to buy over-packaged products where possible - mean that I produce only about half a trash-can of trash per week. My neighbors seem to produce one or two trash-can-fulls TWICE a week.  If everyone did this right, we'd need one trash pickup every two weeks instead of two pickups per week!
 * I have no incandescent lamps left in my home (well - except in the fridge and cooker hood) - and I'm gradually transitioning to LED lights (although the price is kinda steep!).
 * At work, we lobbied management to install a computer controlled air conditioner/heater controller that turns off the A/C (except in the server room) and turns the room lights off at night and at the weekends. If you want to work late or come in over the weekend, you just phone or send an email to the computer giving the start and end times that you'll be working - and it'll make sure the place is cool while you're there and allow you to turn the lights on and off manually during that time.  This costs $15,000 and saves $15 an hour in electricity at night and during the weekend...do the math...why doesn't every company on the planet use one of these?


 * These are not things that everyone can do immediately - but when you have the opportunity to do the right thing (eg when you next buy a refrigerator or a light bulb or a car or house) then these things should be uppermost in your mind. None of these things required an sacrifice on my part - my house is more comfortable and quiet because of the insulation - I save money on electricity and gasoline - my car is small but it'll go 140mph and accellerate fast enough to blow away most muscle cars.  I love having no yard work to do - and the woodland is simply gorgeous to live in.  Once you are geared up to do it (and providing your local city services are geared up to support it), recycling is painless.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Recycling is not quite as uncontroversial as it used to be. It has come under some fire because it uses mains water.  That takes quite a bit of energy to produce (Not just the H2O but also the additives).  Somehow they found that that hadn't figured in the calculations until water became a scarce commodity in some places (e.g. Atlanta had a drought last year).  All of a sudden the life-cycle comparison didn't look that rosy anymore.  The fact that the local recycling effort asks participants to rinse their trash (and people use warm tap water to do so) has turned a lot of former supporters against it.  Somehow the revised energy figures and seeing their $$$ landscaping wither due to water rationing while the trash can/should get washed put a significant damper on things.  Avoiding trash is a lot less likely to be subject to changing tides and for lots of products choosing alternatives with less packaging is no hardship.  Composting takes some skill and real-estate.  Willingness doesn't always match ability and opportunity.  (Some incinerator facilities are actually complaining that the trash mix supplied by ecologically minded citizens doesn't contain enough combustible materials to keep their furnace at an optimal temperature :-)  On turning off the A/C there seem to be two conflicting schools of thought both of which provide plausible calculations and examples.  I think it depends a lot on the building.  One opinion holds that it takes much more energy to cool/heat the building back to a certain base temperature and turning off the AC/heating only makes sense for a period of a week or more.  Others say that even overnight and on weekends the difference ends up in savings.  (OR we are still waiting for the "30% energy savings" our new AC/furnace was supposed to provide.  We think that figure was based on heavy use by a large family.  We just never used that much to begin with, so the savings are minimal.)  Our new roof has a Ridge vent which is said to save vs. the attic fan we used to have.  (Comparison data is unfortunately not available.  Our fan never worked properly.)  I have replaced part of our landscaping with fruit and vegetables.  That saves a bit of energy/money/CO2 vs. supermarket produce.  I don't put any effort in it except for throwing in some seeds, throwing some nets and harvesting.  (I don't like gardening, my plants look a bit more ratty than in gardening catalogs, but the fruit an veggies are just as good as from a meticulously maintained yard. Even the critters like them, hence the nets.)  There are lots of things one can do that actually work and won't get blown out of the water by the next report.  It's just as easy to put a lot of effort in to things that don't work.  71.236.26.74 (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To say "educational approach" assumes that it is just a matter of informing people of facts, when the problem may be philosophical differences. There is an underlying idea of everybody chipping in and doing their bit to achieve a group goal, which is something I disagree with regardless of context. Individuals must be motivated by individual goals, this is a matter of principle for me.
 * You offer a list of measures you have taken which allegedly benefit you besides being good for the environment, but the absence of a sacrifice is not the same as a reason to do a thing. There is a hidden sacrifice in the loss of the option to do a different, polluting thing. Options have value.
 * Personal benefit, fear, and the removal of misconceptions are all potentially motivating, but there are some of us on whom none of this juju will work because we disagree with environmentalism on a deep level.213.122.35.222 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nazi in solitary confinementfor 40 years after war
I recall some nazi being put in a a prison with no other inmates, only him, in solitary confinement for 40 years after World War II. I can't remember his name,anyone know who it was? 92.251.255.18 (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably Rudolf Hess. DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes that's it thanks. 92.251.255.18 (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. He had Spandau all to himself for twenty years.  That's about as solitary as confinement can get. PhGustaf (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Eventually, he was found "mysteriously" strangled to death. Edison (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shortly after the Soviet's agreed he should be released, if I recall. Although, he was completely batty by that time.  Plasticup  T / C  12:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally (OR) I think he went batty in 1941. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm...he was a Nazi. Let's start at May 1920 at the latest and work backwards.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Forced labor
When people are sentenced to "hard labor", what sort of labor do they actually do? What sort of labor will Euna Lee and Laura Ling be doing for the next twelve years? Do they produce or build anything? Or is it purely meaningless punishment, such as digging holes and then filling them back up? Mike R (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See Penal labour for a little info. Hopefully someone will be able to provide more info beyond this. ny156uk (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Neil Hanson's fine book The Custom of the Sea describes "hard labor" in 19th-century England. (The "Custom of the Sea" includes a protocol concerning who eats whom when several are starving in a lifeboat.)  One of the labors was, indeed, moving a pile of rocks from one end of a room to the other one, and then moving them back.  Over and over, all day.  No idea what they do today in Korea.  PhGustaf (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * France or some such country had a neat gadget consisting of a metal drum full of gravel which had to be turned a given number of times per day. Satisfies me as better defined than "breaking large rocks into small rocks." Edison (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See Laogai for practices in China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked this question last month. Dismas |(talk) 03:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry! Mike R (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In Texas prison labor sometimes includes filling in potholes. Since such road repairs rarely survived the next rainy season they keep having to fill them up again.  They let mother nature do the digging up. In between drivers appreciate not breaking their axle (or Steve Baker being able to park his mini :-) in the holes.  Work condition for prison labor in China is usually described as grueling.  71.236.26.74 (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be two schools of thought here...and as a result, standards may vary around the world.
 * One idea is that the labor should not only be physically exhausting - but also pointless and soul-destroying. Breaking up rocks with hammers was a classic one in the USA for a long time.  There was machinery that could do that work far more cheaply and easily!
 * But the other view is that you can get prisoners to 'repay the cost to society' by doing harsh jobs that other people won't do. In Texas, maintaining roads and ditches seems to be a popular one...and lest you think that this isn't such a terrible punishment...just try doing that in 105 degrees and 50% humidity (which is what we've been subjected to here in Austin recently).
 * Working in a license plate factory would be a more typical prison job in the US.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In North Korea, where Euna Lee and Laura Ling were sentenced, the labour camps are notorious. Here's one media report on the conditions. The work is described as in "mining, logging, farming and industrial enterprises". AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say working in a license plate factory was just a prison job rather than "hard labour", ditto for stitching mailbags, which is the UK equivalent (they are probably machine made these days, though). --Tango (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of the work done in prisons is actually support work for the administration of the prison, such as working in the prison laundry (cleaning the sheets, etc.), working in the kitchen, working in the prison library, and some prisoners even do administrative work in the prison offices. (All I know about prisons I learned from watching Oz :) ).  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Historically, see treadwheel. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)