Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 November 27

= November 27 =

Length of a minute hand on a clock
Why is the minute hand on a clock longer than the hour hand, and seconds hands are longer still? I'd have though the early clockmakers would have put them in the other order because they are less important. Dmcq (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Less important? That very much depends on one's temporal perspective, which, for any individual, can vary ... from time to time.  There are times when split seconds count between life and death.  At other times, rounding to the nearest hour is good enough. --  JackofOz (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just convention. Perhaps the assumption is that the observer is more likely to know the hour, more or less, than the minute.  Remember that the oldest clocks had only one hand, for the hour, and that the second hand is a relatively new development, and was usually wrong until WWVB clocks became the norm.


 * Then again, it's all relative. In one of the Discworld novels, Susan Sto Helit is showing Big Ben to her class.  "The big hand shows the hour.  The enormous hand...". PhGustaf (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think she was showing them the St Stephen's Tower clock. Big Ben is the bell within the tower. (doncha just love pedants.) Caesar&#39;s Daddy (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, albeit annoying. See also this. PhGustaf (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Big Ben is apparently a substance abuser, taking one extra hit every hour, starting over at the 12's. That twitter reminds me of a Smothers Brothers story about three religious meeting places and their respective bells. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it might be because there are 60 minutes to indicate with the minute hand, but only 12 hours for the hour hand. Therefore putting the minutes indications outside the hour figures on the dial makes sense, and thus having a longer hand pointing to the minutes also makes sense.  --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe this is the right answer. With the hour hand you only have to read it to the nearest multiple of 30°, so it doesn't have to be so long.  Incidentally, until I think about 150 years ago, it was common for clocks and watches to carry an explicit set of numbers from 0 to 60 (in fives) for the minutes as well as the numbers 1 to 12 for the hours.  Naturally each hand would be made long enough to reach the appropriate ring of numbers.  Of course, now that we have digital clocks, "telling time" from clocks with hands is obsolete anyway.  --Anonymous, 22:04 UTC, November 27, 2009.


 * The minute and second pointers (they are hands only on Mickey Mouse clocks) use the same 60-division scale and so are often the same length. This is acceptable because they are easily distinguished by their different speeds of rotation, and in many clocks they have different widths. OR: Cheap clocks are easy to read. One has to pay extra for luxury clocks that omit things like some or all the numbers and divisions, making time telling harder and/or less accurate. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A cheap clock's purpose is to tell time. An expensive clock has some other purpose, like being a style statement, or just being expensive. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are cheap watches that look like expensive chronograph watches but turn out to have only extra dummy pointers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's start with the second hand. It needs to be long enough to reach the individual second markings (or 5-second intervals, or 15, depending on the clock). That's needed for precision if you're counting seconds. Less so with the minute hand, and still less with the hour hand. And because they move relatively slowly, one of those two needs to be a different length than the other. Visually it's pretty clear why the longer one would be the minute hand, and for somewhat the same reason as with the second hand - it would be easier to count minutes since it's closer to the minute marks. You wouldn't likely sit in front of a clock and count the hours. Counting minutes (in a clock lacking a second hand) would be tedious enough. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So it might all ultimately be due to the business about having a large number of minutes in an hour but much less hours in half a day. Which means lots more markings for minutes and you need to distinguish them easier. So in fact good sensible design. I'll blame/praise the Babylonians for it then. I guess 12 hours in half a day is about as much or more than we could cope with - I not sure I'd wan't 60 hours in a day and 24 minutes in an hour.

Thanks very much everybody for the answers. Dmcq (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A macabre aside
I once read in Ripley's Believe It or Not! (sound advice) about a town clock which reversed the hands and put blades on each one to execute someone. His head was stuck out the top of the dial so that the shorter minute hand would regularly graze his throat as a gentle reminder of the longer hour hand that was slowly advancing to cut off his head. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

UN agreement
Is there any condition on UN members that they shall not have more than three Defence forces- Army, Air Force and Navy? Are they bound to limit the numerical strength of these forces as per UN Guidelines? Can anyone throw light on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.213.76 (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could someone enlighten me as to what the other force(s) might be, as we have it all covered with these three! Air, Land and Sea. What more do you need? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Not the OP) Space Navy? 86.140.171.80 (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Or Information warfare? Lukipuk (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What does numerical strength mean? Number of bodies or ships or guns or what? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's no UN limit on sizes of armies, to answer that part. If so surely China would have hit it by now? Prokhorovka (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the UN places no restrictions on size or number of member states' armed forces. I point out that US Marines are neither part of the Army, Navy, or Air Force as one example, for another the Strategic Rocket Forces of the Russian Federation are a separate arm of the Russian armed forces. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uniformed services of the United States article could provide some information too. Lukipuk (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert in international law, but the only U.N. provision I could think of that might bear upon this even remotely is in the United Nations Charter's little-used section about a military committee—did you know that, technically speaking, the U.N. is meant to have a general staff? The Permanent Members of the Security Council do appoint members of the Military Staff Committee, but needless to say, once the euphoria of VE Day had turned into the real-world hostilities of the Cold War, the idea of a United Nations army capable of deterring aggression became purely aspirational, partly displaced by the far-more-credible nuclear deterrent. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the United States Marine Corps falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy, though it essentially operates independently. The United States Coast Guard operates independently under the Department of Homeland Security, but under wartime can be placed under Naval command.  However, there is no UN regulation or agreement which decides how member nations organize their military.  That is a sovereign power which no independent nation is likely to give up to the UN.  -- Jayron  32  04:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Astra 300 Date Code Info
My uncle obtained a pistol in WWII in Europe. It was from a German SS officer. It is an Astra 300, 9m/m & 380 (short) with serial number 543793 and a date code of WaA251 with a German Eagle isignia stamped above the date code. This date code does not appear in your list on date code information. Can anyone please supply information on this date code. Nov.27,2009 By REM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.205.31 (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like this? I assume you looked at Waffenamt codes. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FAL/G3 reload trick; Modern Warfare 2
I recently played COD6/MW2, and I am rather surprised to see a trick they made for the animation of magazine reload, using the FN FAL. It would seem like a new magazine is brought up to the loaded mag, is pushed against the lever/release at the magazine well, and somehow is quickly inserted after the loaded mag is part taken out, part ejected. I am certain the animators made this smoother than it might be in real life, but I am wondering whether or not this is actually doable, and if it might be the standard with more experienced operators. The FAL has a similar magazine system to the G3, which I am experienced with, but I had never thought of even trying it with my own rifle at the time of having it. For recruits such as myself, the reload was done the safe and proper way; not commando renegadelike. I hope someone can help me on this regard! 77.18.9.93 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is perfect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d-FlFM8Ql0 There's no way my unruly G3 was that nimble, or maybe my forearm wasn't strong enough? 77.18.9.93 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Video games very, very rarely show realistic loading sequences - they just take too long for an action game. For the simulation "games" we make at work, we use motion capture of real ex-soldiers reloading real weapons.  When you play the resulting game, it seems painfully slow compared to conventional computer games.  Basically - believe nothing you see in a game. SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the COD Wiki, it's called "speedloading". Recury (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What are the 10-20 Most Popular Sports in the World?
Based on these factors in descending importance 1. global geographic diversity 2. spectator interest 3. number of players at all levels

Flotation (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One more note. Consider all the track and field events as one sport. Flotation (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you give no indication of what weight to give each of your criteria, or even criteria with quantifiable metrics other than number 3, I'd say any answer to your question will be subjective and not particularly useful. TastyCakes (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We can make a start. There is almost no question that the most popular sport in the world in terms of diversity and spectator interest is association football.
 * I've heard it said that the most popular sport in terms of participation is fishing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Walking, cycling, running and swimming all have a lot of participants, probably more than fishing (although I too heard angling cited as having the most participants). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If spectator interest and number of players are taken as important, then sports which are highly significant in China and India have to be taken into consideration (weighed, of course, against their largely non-global nature). As such, sports like wrestling, various martial arts, table-tennis (China) and cricket (India) probably need to be considered. I doubt any of these would rate as high on the overall list as walking, running, cycling, swimming, or football (FIFA has over 200 member nations, and the sport is the national sport in many of these countries). Fishing is a difficult one, since whether you can regard everyone who participates in in as taking part in a sport is questionable (for many participants, it is primarily for the purposes of gaining food). Of other organised team sports, basketball is possibly the one with the greatest global diversity, though - perhaps surprisingly - both cricket and rugby are now played in over 100 countries. Of individual sports, tennis is also very widespread, as is golf, which has huge numbers of participants in many countries. Grutness...wha?  23:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ice Hockey has not been mentioned yet, but it probably shows up on the top 20 list, given the number of countries represented by players in the National Hockey League. I would say that its a fairly popular sport in Canada, USA, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and most of the former Soviet states.  Also, baseball, while not at the absolute top, would still probably show up in the top 20, given its popularity in the USA, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, parts of Mexico, Venuzuela, much of Central America, the Carribean.  If you include softball as a subcategory of baseball, then you add even more countries, like Australia, New Zealand, etc.  -- Jayron  32  04:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ice hockey is just too localized to have worldwide popularity. It's just Canada, Scandanivia and northern US where there is any significant following. Even the southern US follows college football more than professional hockey. See Phoenix Coyotes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC, badminton is the most popular spectator sport in China 3 Chinese cities, at least according to some Chinese newspaper I linked to a few years ago in a different discussion (found it here ). Table tennis is the most popular frequent participant sport in China. Given badminton's popularity in Indonesia as well, it may still belong in the top 20 even if it's only popular in a few more countries. Also while not as popular as cricket and despite their team's decline in the world stage, (field) hockey is AFAIK still fairly popular in parts of South Asia including India and Pakistan (where it's the national sport Sport in India, Sport in Pakistan) suggesting to me it likely belongs to. As Grutness has mentioned, when it comes to certain sports, defining who you include is important. Beyond fishing, what about shooting? Many members of defence & police forces thorough the world at a minimum, practice shooting as part of their careers, I don't think it would be common to include them as participants in the sport of shooting. (Although of course, it's quite common in a number of countries participants in the sport are such people). Oh and there's big money in motor sport and this is quite a popular TV spectator sport, particularly Formula One outside of North America. Participation of course is likely to be significantly smaller then quite a number of other sports, even including karting although whether you include rallying, motorcyle racing etc may make a difference. So far we have track and field events (I presume this includes walking and running?), cycling, swimming, (association) football, cricket, badminton, table tennis, basketball, rugby (union?), (field) hockey, baseball, ice hockey, tennis, golf, martial-arts, motor sports which is 16. If we add fishing 17. I've read it suggested elsewhere volleyball as well which would be 18. And what about sailing?  Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as a spectator sport, NASCAR is still huge in the U.S., even if open wheel racing has almost disappered. And I would guess that American/Canadian style football has more participants than sailing worldwide. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the UK the sport with the greatest number of 'players' rather than just observers is said to be fishing. 92.27.169.45 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That gets to the core issue, how does one define "most popular"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the issue of which things are sports. I wouldn't consider any track and field event to be a sport (or swimming, fishing, etc.) as they don't involve direct interaction between competitors, which I think is essential to sportness. Algebraist 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That would come as a shock to network television producers, as it would disqualify nearly every event in the summer and winter Olympics, for example. They regard sports as "athletic competition", not just violent sports like hockey and boxing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)