Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 July 24

= July 24 =

Skunks Diet
They are wild. Stinker is pretty tame. But I still don't try to get to close. I live in North Carolina.Thanks for the advise. I won't feed them cheese puffs anymore. They like dry cat food. I know alot of people don't agree but they are beautiful animals. I have 8 skunks which I feed. One I call Stinker. They like cheese Puffs. Will this hurt them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinker2931 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article on Cheese puffs makes no claims relative to whether they are a healthful part of human or skunk diets. The label of the "cheese puffs" should disclose the amount of calories, fat, carbs, sodium, fiber, fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol in a serving. See Skunk. They are omnivores. The typical diet of a skunk varies with the particular species,,  , .   Edison (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They probably have much more salt in them than the animal would encounter naturally, and that may harm them. While the cheese puffs are unhealthy junk-food for humans, I'm guessing that the bad effects may not have time to take effect within the shorter lifespan of skunks. Eight skunks - I don't think you live in Tunbridge Wells. 92.24.191.36 (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are these wild skunks? Or de-scented pets? If they're pets, obviously you'd be best off asking a veterinarian, but there's plenty of advice online. Including here : Pet_skunk.
 * If they're wild, It's probably best not to feed them too much of anything, and let them find food on their own.
 * Either way, if I may hazard a guess : Cheese Puffs aren't too healthy for humans, they're probably just as much "junk food" for most omnivores. You'd hate for them to be neglecting real food in favor of delicious empty calories. APL (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Skunks are in the same subdivision of the carnivore order as dogs. Cheese puffs are not good for any animal in large quantities because of their high sodium (salt) content.  Animals (including humans) are drawn to salt because it is necessary and somewhat rare in nature.  However, too much salt is harmful.  Because people and animals (including skunks) are drawn to salt, they will eat harmful amounts if salt is made plentiful.  Another problem with cheese puffs is their carbohydrate (starch and/or sugar) content.  Humans have digestive systems that are meant to consume a fair amount of carbohydrates, but skunks, like dogs, are meant to consume mainly animal protein. (See this article on dogs and carbohydrates.)  I'm not sure what the ingredients of cheese puffs are, but I bet they include corn and/or soy, neither of which is good for carnivores like skunks.  Really the best thing for skunks is animal protein, not including milk or salty products like cheese.  The healthiest diet for them is their natural diet:  insects, meat (especially frogs and birds), eggs, and smaller amounts of nuts, berries, and root vegetables. Marco polo (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Playing though injuries
Why do pro athletes found they have play though their injuries? Still don't get this aspect of pro sports because found its good to play though them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't quite understand. Could you rephrase the question?  As stated in our article Sports injury, sometimes athletes (or their coaches) decide the athlete should continue to play despite an injury, for "short-term gain", risking much worse injury in order to try to score another point for the team in the coming 60 seconds.  Other athletes continue to play despite their injury because of machismo, or because they believe the pain is temporary, and not an indication of an actual injury.  (The latter must be wishful thinking almost always, though I have no reference for that assertion.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wally Pipp Syndrome: The fear that there's someone right behind you waiting to take your job. Wally Pipp was a firstbaseman for the New York Yankees, and a pretty good one at that.  The man who replaced him in 1925 didn't give up the job for 2130 straight games.  You can find stuff if you search for the phrase "Wally Pipp Syndrome" you'll find LOTS of famous examples where a pretty good player loses their job to someone who was formerly a nobody (c.f. Drew Bledsoe/Tom Brady).  Professional athletes have a very tenuous hold on their jobs, and it is believed that any sign of weakness will open the door for a more determined player to take it from you.  So you get examples like Jack Youngblood who played the entire 1979 NFL playoffs with a broken leg, or Ronnie Lott, who voluntarily had an injured finger amputated rather than repaired since it meant he could return to play faster.  If you aren't playing, then there's a very good chance you may never play again.  -- Jayron  32  06:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Question for chess enthusiasts: why this weird move?
Can anyone explain a puzzling move in the chess game at

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1503204 ?

It's Robert Huebner vs Werner Pesch (1967). Huebner was a grandmaster, and he annotated this game in a book he wrote (which I don't have). Pesch was (apparently) a tournament player whose opponents were respected.

Look at the game after the 23rd move. White then plays 24. Rxb6. Here's the move I don't understand: Black plays 24. ... Rxb6. Why doesn't Black, instead, take white's queen -- 24. ... Nxc4 ?

White ended up winning. What on earth was black afraid of? Why didn't he just take the queen (and perhaps win the exchange with 24. Rxb6 Nxc4 25. Rxb8 Nxa3 26. Rxc8 Rxc8, though that's not the question I'm asking)?

I set up this game in a good chess engine at the position following 24. Rxb6, then substituted 24. ... Nxc4. I let the computer play the game at a "9 depth" (it took more than an hour). After 20 moves (i.e., move 44), black had reached an insurmountable advantage, and ended up winning. Here's what the computer played following the substituted play 24. ... Nxc4 (the moves are numbered beginning with "1.," but move "1" would actually be move 25): 1. Rxb8 Re8 2. Bc5 Nxd6 3. Rd1 Nc4 4. Rd4 Ne5 5. Be7 Qe6 6. Bg5 Rg8 7. Ra8 h6 8. Bf4 g5 9. Be3 Ng4 10. Bc1 Kh7 11. f3 Ne5 12. Ra7+ Rg7 13. Rxg7+ Kxg7 14. Nd1 Qf7 15. f4 Qa7 16. Be3 Ng4 17. Rd3 Nxe3 18. Nxe3 Ba6 19. Rc3 Qd4 20. Rxc6 gxf4, after which black's lead is insurmountable (checkmate took another 37 moves, but white would've resigned much earlier). 63.17.47.122 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm no chess master, but just on inspection: If black had taken the queen, it might have played out this way:
 * Rxb6, Nxc4 (white takes bishop, black takes queen, +6 black)
 * Rxb8, Nxa3 (white takes rook, black takes bishop +3 black)
 * d7  (pinned bishop is toast, removing the trade advantage; queen can't be brought to bear effectively; possibility of an elevated pawn or loss of the remaining black rook).


 * As someone once told me, chess is a trapper's game, not a warrior's game, and this whole gambit looks like one giant mess of a trap to me. it just makes my head spin - lol.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering, Ludwigs2, but you're responding to my (ignorant) suggestion of 24. Rxb6 Nxc4 25. Rxb8 Nxa3 26. Rxc8 Rxc8, which indeed WAS stupid and you're right that 26. d7 is the move White would have made. But the question isn't about the combination I suggested (which, again, was dumb, I see now).  The question is, why doesn't black take the queen on move 24?  You're absolutely right that it's a bad move if followed with the exchange I suggested, but otherwise it seems both absolutely obvious AND far superior to what Pesch did (and the computer follows up with 25. Rxb8 Re8 26. Bc5 Nxd6 etc. and eventually wins for black).  Anybody? 63.17.49.128 (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * let me put it this way. there are only two reasons for black not to take the queen at that point: (1) he missed the move (happens sometimes), or (2) he was worried that the short term advantage of taking the queen would lead to a long term disadvantage. You can't really get inside his head on that point, but I was trying to point out that taking the queen at that point looks like a potentially serious error when viewed from a particular perspective.  One thing you should be thinking about when you're playing chess with experts is that is that an expert who makes a bonehead move (e.g. a move that offers his queen up as a trade for a bishop) might not be making a bonehead move at all, but rather dangling a nice juicy worm for you to hook yourself on. -- Ludwigs 2  10:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just a chess enthusiast, but I have some thoughts.


 * The nominal value of pieces is Q=9, R=5, B and N = 3. By taking the rook instead of the queen, Black gets a rook for a bishop, a gain of 2.  If he had taken the queen, he would have only gained 1, since white takes a rook and a bishop for the queen.


 * If that is why he did it, it is ironic that gaining more material made his position weaker. It is the taking of the rook that turns the tide, according to the chess engine I was using -- black had a slight advantage up until that point, after that it is all white.  The passed pawn (the pawn that has no opposing pawns on its file or the two adjoining files) becomes too much for Black to keep from queening.


 * rc (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't he play 24. ... Nxc4? Because he doesn't think it's good enough, but it turns out it is perhaps the best try, but not for the reason you might at first think. The problem is after 24...Nxc4 25 Rxb8 it looks like White wins another piece from the threat of d7 when the Bishop on a3 attacks the Rook on f8 and if not the effect of the double passes pawns in the middle is rather difficult to defend against.
 * The obvious looking 25... Nxa3?(as suggested by original questioner) is a complete error because of 26. d7 anyway and White wins due to threat of dxc8(Q), if 26...Bxd7 27. Rxf8 is checkmate. 26...Qe6 (defending c8) doesn't hold due to 27. Rd1 and Black loses big material now. i.e. 27...Qg8 28. d8(Q) Rxd8 29. Rxd8 Qxd8 30. Bh3 (with Rxc8) 1-0
 * The natural looking 25 ... Rd8? is a blunder on account of 26 d7 and then the White rook is winning a piece on the back rank and the pressure mounts.
 * 25... Rg8 a passive reply but certainly a way to get the rook out of line of the Bishop on a3, but after 26. e5 Black is facing an onslaught of active pieces from White. 26... Nxa3 is no good as 27. Bxc6 Bh3(...Qd3 28. Bd5 with Rd1) 28. Rxg8+ Kxg8 29. d7 and Black has to give back the material 29...Bxd7 30. Bxd7. So instead 26... Nxe5! 27. Re1 White gets good activity and has plan of Ne4(or Na4)-Nc5 and then d7. 27.... Qf5 fails to 28. Ne4 when Nc4 29. Bc5 leaves White better. 27... Qh5 may hold here on account of double attack from Bh3, likely Blacks best line of all variations.
 * 25... Re8, this ugly move (because of the fork when d7 is a threat) seems to be better then it at first looks. 26. Bc5 Nxd6(doing nothing allows Rd1 and the passed d-pawn gets massive) 27. Re1 and White's passed pawn and the active pieces are about enough practical return for the material. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this line was mentioned above. Seems 27. Rfb1 is even better because now White threatens Ra8 and Rbb8 threatening to gain material on the back row. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL
What does that mean please?--Artjo (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Laugh(ing) out loud" or "lots of laugh". See LOL, wikt:lol, and wikt:LOL. --Theurgist (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Occasionally LOL has been mistaken (as I did when I first saw it) for "Lots of Love". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And it has often been used to mean exactly that. It does not have just the one interpretation.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One such example of confusion between the two meanings was a text message that circulated around the Internet - it read 'heard your dad died, Lol'. Chevy  monte  carlo  08:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're a touch-typist, "HA" is just as fast and is more obvious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you typed "HA" in all-caps like that in a context where I see LOL, I would sit there wondering what it stood for. Hardly Awesome? Heard All? "HA", if it represents a short, loud exclamation, is quite a harsh thing to react with. It often implies a level bitterness or sarcasm. "Lol" would need some supporting context to sound as aggressive as a contextless "HA!" (if it isn't taken for an acronym).
 * In any case, LOL is fairly universally used and understood (on the internet) to mean "laughing out loud". So, while you could use it to mean "Lots of Love", you will be fairly universally misunderstood, often prompting some real lols. Perhaps people will be lolling, or exclaiming "Lollerskates!", or... The one interpretation is so ingrained on the internet that the other interpretation is non-productive, to the extent that I would generally call it an error. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most likely it would be rendered as "(Ha!)" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Soviet submarine B-39
Is this the submarine that is now located in the River Medway near Rochester, in the United Kingdom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.99.178 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. This site says that ex-Soviet sub B-39 "Black Widow" is (or was at the time of its writing) moored in the Medway as a tourist attraction (for which this appears to be the site). The Wikipedia article on Soviet submarine B-39 says it's in San Diego, coming there by way of Finland, Vancouver, and other locations, and also nicknamed "Black Widow". If that's all true, that would suggest that the sub was formerly in the Medway, but has been in California for some years. And that would mean that any sub you know to be in the Medway now must then be something else. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the San Diego Maritime Museum plans to tow the sub out to sea and sink it, to make room at the pier for a simulated 17th century Spanish sailing ship in which Cabrillo sailed. I say "simulated," rather than replica, because they don't have a good description of the Spanish ship the new one represents. I toured the sub at San Diego last month, and it was really interesting to see the sort of sub that the Russians used in the 1960s. Some local opinion in San Diego was that an old sub is hard to keep afloat, so go ahead and sink it. The WW2 German U505 has long been a featured attraction at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and has been on dry land for decades.  A museum exhibit does not have to be full functioning to be of historical importance.  This museum fancies the extra dollars they can charge for admission to or cruises on the shiny new Cabrillo ship. Edison (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a Whiskey class submarine from the Soviet Navy moored in Ostend, Belgium as a tourist attraction. From Rochester you could easily make a day trip by ferry. 81.132.218.31 (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also check out German submarine U-534, one of the last Nazi submarines to be sunk in combat, which was refloated after the war and is now a shore exhibit in Birkenhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.218.31 (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Tetrahedral revolving mirrors on shopping malls
Does anyone know what those revolving pyramid-shaped mirrors on the roofs of shopping malls are called? They reflect sunlight and seem to have no other function than flashing and being eye-catching.


 * Probably just that, you saw them didn't you and maybe you went to the Mall too!--Artjo (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The description reminds me of a pyramidion, although I doubt your shopping mall was built in Ancient Egypt. Still. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Split-level skyscrapers
Why aren't there any split-level skyscrapers? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you assert that there are not? I can't think of specific examples (though I'm looking and will report back), but I'm pretty sure that a split level configuration is not unusual in a skyscraper, particularly for the ground floor/lobby area.  AJ Cham  21:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What would constitute split-level and how does the Willis Tower (Sears Tower) not fit the description?Novangelis (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems the Gherkin would fit the description: pic.  AJ Cham  21:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What advantage is to be gained by offsetting the floor levels? It reduces flexibility and makes the building harder to construct, and essentially requires that a fire separation be built at the offset to achieve the code-required fire rating between floor levels - otherwise, a fire could just zigzag up the structure. 30 St. Mary Axe has a series of atriums, which aren't quite the same thing (and has special fire control features to deal with the interior spaces).  Acroterion  (talk)  01:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This question has been asked before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010_May_21). I assume you're the same OP given the way the question is worded. Your best bet is to re-read the answers given at the time or to provide more information about what it is you're trying to find out as otherwise you're likely to get the same responses (oh and if you're just asking these questions for 'sh!ts and giggles' - as my brother would say - then please don't). ny156uk (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)