Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 December 5

= December 5 =

university of Hawaii sports transportation method is?
Does the university of hawaii own their own jet for transporting their football team to games? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.140.225 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If they work like most other universities, they will charter a flight to transport their larger teams (like football) and will fly "commercial" for their smaller teams (like Basketball). That's because chartering a plane is generally cheaper if you are going to take up the entire plane (85 players plus dozens of coaches, trainers, managers, etc.), but smaller teams will only need a few dozen seats at most, so it would be cheaper just to buy the tickets.  Even so, the teams likely receive a "group rate".  Airplanes are very expensive things, and so having a jetliner sitting around waiting to be flown is generally a bad idea.  Even major airlines try to keep their jets in the air as much as possible, and they run very small profits.  I can't imagine a scenario where the University of Hawaii would need to own a Jumbo Jet just to fly their water polo team to a match in Seattle.  The money you might save on having to buy tickets would possibly take centuries to recoup.  -- Jayron  32  18:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This 2007 article notes that for a trip to the Sugar Bowl, UH chartered three flights with Hawaiian Airlines. (That includes players, coaches, trainers, marching band, and cheerleaders; this blog entry quotes a news story with more info, but the article itself is no longer online.)  As Jayron32 says, keeping a large jet aircraft is a nontrivial expense, even for the disturbingly well-funded sports programs of U.S. colleges. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

People who have wanted to be executed
Can somebody give me a few examples of when a person, who was facing the death penalty, requested or wanted to be executed?--ChromeWire (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Gary Gilmore springs to mind, for a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Luis Monge. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mamoru Takuma. Oda Mari (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Aileen Wournos. Haus Talk 09:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You can get a more or less complete list of recent cases in the USA by going to the Death Penalty Information Center database, and selecting 'Volunteer' from the 'Other Factors' dropdown menu. The most notable UK case was possibly John Amery who pleaded guilty to treason in 1945, knowing it would result in a death sentence with no chance of a reprieve. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Radio unlock Code
Hi

Can someone/anybody please help with the factory fitted Radio unlock code for a 2006 Chevrolet Optra 1.6 LS - I am a second owner and code never supplied by prev. owner - Had to replace dead battery and now Radio is asking for code.

I am SA resident and will appreciate any help.

Warm RegardsDynemosmith (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had this problem in the UK. The dealer who sold the car to you should be able to obtain the unlock code from the manufacturers (but it will require some form of proof of ownership).  I don't know how it works where you live, or whether the unlock code is the same for all similar vehicles.  It is not a good idea to try different possible codes, because the radio will lock and become unusable (without a manufacturer's reset) after a fixed number of wrong tries.    D b f i r s   09:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Check if the code is with the owner's manual. Or in the glove box.  if you have to pay for the unlock code, it will be chaper to buy a new radio.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had this problem twice (different makes of car, in the UK). In each case I took the car to the local main dealer for the appropriate brand, and asked them. They both got the code for me, and IIRC didn't charge me. (I think I asked the cost, so making it clear I wasn't looking for something for nothing). --ColinFine (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple of the radios I've had in 2nd hand cars have had the code painted on the side of the radio, visible when you pull it out of the dashboard. Alansplodge (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of a lockout code is to discourage theft of the radio. Printing the lockout code on the side kinda defeats the purpose!  -- Jayron  32  18:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * These were daubed on the side, (I suspect) so that they could be re-installed in another vehicle without worrying about losing a bit of paper. It's worth a try. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in some cases the anti-theft measures are more trouble than they are worth, so people choose to disable them. This was the case at EDS, where extreme password protection measures required people to use frequently changing, arcane passwords, ensuring that they had to write them down to remember them, defeating the whole purpose. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to why the lockout code is needed. Weren't the radios enabled when sold to the original owner ?  How did they get disabled ?  Do they do this periodically, or do they need the code entered every time the car battery is changed ?  Either one of these would also be annoying to the original owner.  A less annoying anti-theft system would be for the radio to check if the ignition key fob (to which it would be keyed), is nearby, when it's turned on.  This would also have solved the problem I had once, where some teens apparently snuck into my unlocked car, listened to some horrid music, and smoked.  (I realize that many radios won't run without the car being turned on, but this one would.) StuRat (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost all current radios in ordinary UK cars are designed to require a code after disconnecting the power. The code is provided on a card in the user's documentation, but this often gets lost.  There is no reason (other than cost) why StuRat's suggested alternative security system could not be used.  Is it fitted to any expensive models?  (I've no experience of expensive cars)    D b f i r s   21:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't comment further, as my only experience with expensive cars is running them off the road. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What are the names for the different kinds of light bulb sockets in the UK?
I've come across three different kinds so far, something like an edison screw, a 'pop in' kind and a hybrid of the two. --188.220.46.47 (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Te "pop in" ones are Bayonet mount, always very popular with old style bulbs, less so with new ones. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 09:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Two sizes of Edison screw are standard in the UK. I have never come across a "hybrid" of the two systems(?). Other sockets are also standardized, such as the bi-pin connector for florescent tubes.--Shantavira|feed me 10:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at this UK catalogue. Alansplodge (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The normal standard UK light fitting is the bayonet mount. In recent years more non-standard fittings have started to be used. 92.15.31.223 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that although the usual light bulb bayonet mount has two pins, coloured bulbs intended specifically for fire-effect electric fires (and the corresponding sockets in the appliances) are sometimes three-pin - my own appliance takes normal two-pin bulbs, but I noticed some three-pin bulbs on sale in a hardware store and asked what they were for. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The UK abbreviations for light bulbs are BC (bayonet cap), ES (Edison screw), and SES (small Edison screw). Torch bulbs were traditionally MES (miniature Edison screw).  I've never seen any kind of hybrid.    D b f i r s   21:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And here's the original bayonet mount ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a native name "Omageney" For Tlaxcala?
See Talk:Tlaxcala.The Google search of "Omageney" have about 75 results and I am not sure if there is actually this name.--61.18.170.71 (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Knobs and where you stick 'em
Here in the US, door knobs are at about waist height for the average adult male. Occasionally on shows from the BBC and such, I'll see people opening doors which have knobs that are about chest height. How common is this height of knob? And why is it so high? It seems like it would be very inconvenient for shorter people and children. Dismas |(talk) 10:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes door knobs used to be higher but in the early 1960s commonsense prevailed and nowadays they are lower. It may have been to keep them out of reach of children! (this is what happened in Australia) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ?? (x 2) --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   18:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, if you are asking why they would want to keep them out of the reach of children, it would be to keep them from getting outside (or into other rooms) and into trouble, just as playpens keep toddlers from "escaping". Obviously, this would also present a danger when they need to exit quickly, as in a fire, but these type of dangers didn't seem as much of a concern in olden days as the convenience of always knowing your kids were where you left them.  The obvious compromise is to put them where kids can reach them, and put a lock higher up to lock the kids in, if them running loose becomes a problem. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Stu. I understand that part.  It's just that Graeme's post seemed to be saying that the knobs were lowered in order to keep them out of reach of children, which makes sense only if you take into account that we all walk around upside down here (something I'm only rarely aware of). :)  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I see what you meant. But of course, doesn't everyone walk around upside down in Australia ? :-) StuRat (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect they do, but since up is down there it all works out okay. I think "commonsense" by Graeme is meant to be in agreement with the OP, that they were lowered for convenience (as commonsensical as it might seem to some (myself not included) to want doorknobs out of the reach of children, I don't think that's what Graeme meant by it).  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  02:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't so much that word, but "It may have been ...". I now see that that was probably referring to why the knobs were higher in the first place, not to why they were lowered, as the word order would appear to suggest.  I'm sometimes confused with injudicious juxtapositions.  It's OK, it's just me.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   04:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * High door handles were usual on doors in houses built in the 1930s, 1920s and probably before. They may (just guessing) have been influenced the by Art Deco style. 92.15.31.223 (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting the handle exactly halfway up has certain advantages:


 * 1) This is gives ideal mechanical advantage. If you've tried to open a kitchen cabinet with a handle nearly at the top or bottom, you might have noticed that the torque induced can caused them to warp and get stuck, if tight fitting.


 * 2) There's a small chance you might want to flip the door over, say if it has an unsightly spot that you want moved out of eye level. While you would still have to move the hinges, this would eliminate the need to drill a new hole for the doorknob and plug up the old hole.  This could be even more of a factor during construction, where doors with doorknob holes in the center would be more flexible in their final placement. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The door knobs on my late-Victorian house are at waist level, but earlier "snecks" on older houses in the area (northern England) were at chest height or sometimes higher. Did the fashion vary at different times in different regions?    D b f i r s   21:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My small 1880s house in London has normal door knobs but my Grandarents' rather grand 1860s(?) house in Cornwall had high ones that I couldn't reach when I was a nipper. Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also (at least in the UK) there may be building regulations that require it (e.g. wheelchair / disability friendly height - like plugs that are now higher up the wall). ny156uk (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Light switches are also installed lower these days. In older houses in the UK and Ireland were are usually installed at chest hieght but newer installations tend to put them at waist hieght so they are more accessible from wheelchairs. I'm sure I remember noticing, when I were a lad, that light switches in France were a lot lower than those at home in Ireland. filceolaire (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

software update of Nokia n70.
i have a Nokia N70 music edition. i want to update the software of this phone. i have internet connection and a laptop. so how can i do this in my home, without going to Nokia store. please send me necessary links and the process to do this. please send me, because my phone is not working. Pras9874 (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Heraldry - Red cross on Black Background
Can anyone help me track down whether there was a medieveal coat of arms consisting of a red cross - like the St George's Cross - on a Black (rather than White) background. I have had a good search of the database and also looked on the heraldry site that I have been redirected to - but I can find no reference to it. It is important for a project that I am doing. I am sure it exists - but where and what?

Kind regards for your help.

Emma Barker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.126.54 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is unlikely to exist because sable, the heraldic equivalent of black, is considered a "colo[u]r" as are the equivalents of red, blue, green etc; this is in comparison to argent (white, silver) and Or (yellow, gold) which are deemed "metals". You're not "supposed" to put one metal on another, or a colour on another colour. I can't find any online. (Several sites are confused because the metal silver, often used in pictorial arms, blackens over time.) - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 18:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The heraldic description of a red cross on a black background would be "sable, a cross gules", and a Google search for that phrase finds lots of links, although many of them add complications. This page, for example, shows the arms of the city of Durham as a red cross with a silver border against a black background. Looie496 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) The flag of the city of Durham, England is a red cross, outlined in white, on a black background: See here. I don't know how old the flag is, but Durham dates back to 995 AD. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Which of course means that Durham's arms have a red cross on top of a white cross on top of a black background, so you have color on metal on color, which is legal, since colors don't touch colors. -- Jayron  32  19:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting, and how thin can the white or silver outline be ? If it's thin, and tarnished silver, it may blend in with the black in a low-res photo and look exactly like what was described in the Q. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Normally, heraldic devices are defined solely by words, and not the representation of them, which means people can draw them the thickness they like. I'm sure that's happened before, but most fimbriation is obvious: the flag of the UK and the flag of South Africa, for example. (Heraldists hate the flag of Morocco.) - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 20:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why that would be. Isn't it the case that the heraldry we're talking about is a British/European construct, and that what African/Asian/wherever else societies choose to do with their flags and emblems is entirely a matter for them?  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   12:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. Almost all countries follow this pattern, though, so it is at least fair to mention it as an exception. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 18:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's surprising that we've talked so long about the law of tincture without linking to our article on the subject! Marnanel (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We should probably also clarify what you meant be a cross. I assume you don't mean an X, but a cross can mean either a plus sign (+) or a Christian cross (†).  Which do you mean ? StuRat (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The OP described it as being like a St. George's cross, which is + shaped. --Antiquary (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Knights Templar sergeants wore a red cross on a black tunic, not a heraldic device though. Mikenorton (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ...and here it is: . Note that the cross flares out at the ends, like the Iron Cross. StuRat (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The so-called cross pattée. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 21:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The original Templars wore red on white. Scottish Knights Templar are, well, not really Templars... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

inquirey re the true-etymology of "reconquesta"
I am currently involved in research that aids in a work I've been at a number of years, I.e. "An Indigenous Treatise". I am a Indigenous N. American, of the AniYunwiyah, [real or-original people] aka commonly; Cherokee. Within the "Treatise", I reveal the import and direct impact of the various "Papal Bulls", Ca. 1400s', that served to A. Justify the conquest of Non-Christian Domains, and B. served as the basis for the later, "Doctrine of Discovery". Within the 1455 "Romanus Pontifex"-Papal Bull, is a reference "Reconquista", However, in seeking etymology of the term, I find there are variants. The common derive from a contemporary Military usage of the word Reconniseance', and "Questa", is explained [etymologically] as to seek, inquire etc. What I am trying to determine is, from whence does Reconnaissance derive? IF, the term :"Recon" [in Reconquesta] id intended to infer- to scout out or to seek, I can readily understand recon-as a "leading term, but; IS That the original intended usage as Intended by the Pope that wrote [that] papal Bull? Something tells me it isn't, call it intuition, whatever. The term Re, I can see as a thing done again, as in re-work a thing, if this is the case, then reconquesta should then be seen as re'Conquesta. [re conquer] however if this is so, then it infers that the lands visited by the reconquesta have at a prior time, been known to the {conquerors].  I will appreciate any insight you may lend to this quandary. Sincerely; David M. Wolfe    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.217.185 (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed your email address since, as you are notified at the top of the page, all responses will be left here. You are dividing up the words wrong.  The word reconquesta comes from the Spanish term, "re-" meaning again and "conquesta" meaning conquest; it is specifically the reconquest of Spain from the muslims.  Reconnaissance comes from French, "connaissance" means "knowledge" and "re-" meaning again; in this case it means literally to reaquire or update the knowledge of an area.  Connaissance is itself rooted in the word "naissance" which is birth in french (hence Renaissance, or rebirth); I am not sure of the connection to connaissance from naissance; excepting in a poetic sense.  I am not aware of any connection between the terms "reconquesta" and "reconnaissance", though admittedly I am willing to be shown wrong by someone who knows this better.   -- Jayron  32  01:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is "re-conquest". We have a Reconquista article; the term refers to the re-conquest of Spain from the Muslims, who had themselves conquered it from the Spanish in the 8th century. It has nothing to do with the conquest of the New World; you see conquistadors in the Americas but that was not a "re-conquest". "Reconnaisance" is a different word entirely (although it does share the "re" and "con" prefixes.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]The Spanish word reconquista refers to a specific historical event, the Reconquista, or the "reconquest", over centuries of the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors. This word is derived from Latin roots, but is not derived from a word that existed in Latin in this form.  As you say, re- has a meaning of "back" or "again".  In this case, it refers to the winning back of the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors by the Christian Spaniards (and Portuguese), who felt that the land had been taken from their Christian ancestors.  The bull Romanus Pontifex, however, does not use the word reconquista or any version of that word (such as *reconquesta).  If you look at the original Latin text of this bull, for example on page 18 of this source, you will see that it uses the term conquestam rather than *reconquestam.  In other words, it refers to conquest rather than reconquest.  Now, the etymology of the English word conquest and of the late Medieval Latin word conquesta/conquestam is as follows.  It comes from the Vulgar Latin conquaesita meaning "acquired, or procured thing" or "gain".  This word gradually acquired a military connotation and mutated in late Vulgar Latin into the form conquesta, which was borrowed into Medieval Latin.  The Vulgar Latin form is composed of the prefix con-, meaning "together" and the word quaesita, which was the past participle of the Classical Latin verb quaero/quaerere, meaning "to seek, get, earn".  (This verb is related to such English words as inquire, acquire, quest, and so on.)  Conquaesita thus originally meant something like "something gotten together" and came to mean "acquisition".  Now, reconnaissance, originally a French word, has different roots.  It is related to the English word recognize.  Here, re- means something more like "again".  This word has the French suffix -ance, which basically turns a verb into a noun.  The root of this word is the French verb connaître, meaning "to be acquainted or familiar with".  (So reconnaissance originally meant something like "the act of becoming thoroughly acquainted with" or "research".)  The French verb connaître comes from the Latin cognoscere meaning "to get to know" or "to recognize".  As you can see, the Latin quaerere is not related to cognoscere.  Marco polo (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)