Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 March 6

= March 6 =

Touhoumon help
In Touhoumon, how do I get Mimi-chan (the ICBM)? --70.250.214.164 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Charles Whitman's father
what is charles whitmans father's name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.62.152 (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't read Charles Whitman. It says that his father was "Charles Adolph Whitman". SteveBaker (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Local Water Catchment Area For The Sydney Northern Beaches
Dear Wikipedia Volunteer-

I am doing a science project and was wondering if you could tell me what the water catchment area is for the Sydney Northern Beaches, NSW, Australia.

I would greatly appreciate your help.

Thanks, A curious student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Growlingcow (talk • contribs) 05:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A quick google search turned up this: which looks like it might be useful.  It has maps of all 245 major watersheds in Australia.  I'm not as familiar with Australian geography as you are, but you could probably figure out which watershed area matches which geographic area you are looking for.  -- Jayron  32  05:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at a Gregory's street directory for Sydney, there is the Narrabeen Creek, McCarrs Creek Mullet Creek Deep Creek Middle Creek (with Oxford Falls on it, South Creek draining Cromer and Cromer Heights all going to Narrabeen Lakes; Greendale Creek draining the Brookvale area into Curl Curl Lagoon behind Curl Curl Beach; Dee Why Lagoon behind Dee Why Beach; and the Manly Creek. These are many different basins connected via different paths to the sea. Do you want to know the area in square kilometers? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WhY cAn'T eLePhAnTs JuMp?
Why cant elephants jump? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Growlingcow (talk • contribs) 05:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For the same reason that you can't avoid writing in camel case. -- Jayron  32  05:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, elephants can jump a (seemingly) very small amount...about a foot - they are so big that this looks like a really pathetic effort. I've seen circus elephants who could squat back on their back legs and kinda do a double-footed "hop".  It hardly looks very athletic though.


 * It's an odd fact that almost all animals can jump roughly the same height from a standing jump. About a foot.  A flea can do it - a frog can do it, a dog can do it, a human can do it and so can an elephant.  There are of course exceptions in the case of specialised jumpers - but as a general rule, it's more or less true.  At first sight, that's a suprising thing - the difference in height and weight between a flea and an elephant is VAST - so how come their performance is so similar?


 * The reason for this relates to the mathematical nature of volumes versus areas. When you take a simple shape (a spherical cow, for example) and you double the radius - then the surface area of the sphere gets four times larger and the volume gets eight times larger - and that means that the sphere also gets 8 times heavier.  The implication for animals that are very roughly the same shape is that when an animal is twice as tall, it's eight times heavier - but the cross-sectional area of its muscle is only four times larger.  The amount of power that muscles can deliver in a short punchy move depends almost entirely on the cross sectional area.  So when an animal gets twice as big, the ratio of weight to muscle cross section halves...meaning that it can only jump half as high relative to it's size.  So if you double the height of an animal that can jump about a foot - and you get a much bigger animal that can still only jump about a foot.  If you halve the size, then the same rule operates in reverse and still, they can jump about a foot.


 * CAVEAT: Things are a lot different for a horizontal jump though - and some animals (like maybe kangaroos) have special apparatus to help them jump higher than the other considerations would suggest...and as for all "spherical cow" explanations, this is a very rough approximation, some animals only jump six inches and others can manage a couple of feet - but very, very few can jump either 10 feet straight up and very, very few can't manage to jump at least an inch. SteveBaker (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think there would be many insects that can't jump at all, like millipedes, and also many animals that live on the sea floor. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree - hence the large "CAVEAT" at the end of my answer. SteveBaker (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * White men? --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

US army designation system
M16A4 rifle

M4A3E4 tank

M240B machine gun

Could someone please explain what these designations mean? I assume the M16 part stands for "model 16", but what about the letter? Why the numbers? Why does some equipment advance to B while other equipment advances to A2? Does the E4 bit signify an experimental model, and how does that work? Thanks in advance.--92.251.192.70 (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)#


 * There's not always a firm system in place, so comparing one piece of equipment to another isn't likely to indicate much. However, to take one example {the M4 Sherman variants): M4 was the tank family, as contrasted with the M3 tank.  An was an engine variant, in this case a Ford V-8.  En represented a further armor/armament variant, in this case an upgraded main gun.


 * For similar variance, consider the H-60 Blackhawk. Mainline models jumped from the UH-60A to the UH-60L, with virtually no letter usage in-between.  Then the next major model is the UH-60M.  Then there's a "UH-60M Upgrade", whatever that means.  So we advance 12 letters, then one letter, then no letters, for a series of upgrades.  The initial medical variant was the UH-60Q, the next was the HH-60L.  Different schemes entirely, even though it's the same progression.  So I don't think there's a fixed "meaning" to be derived from the minutiae of naming schemes, even if overall general trends can be observed (the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system).  &mdash; Lomn 14:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the aircraft designation system, I'm just interested in this army one. What would an M16B be, for example?--92.251.192.70 (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean M16 rifle, M16 mine or M16 MGMC anti-aircraft variant half-track? If the M16 rifle, then the variants are listen in the article, but there is no M16B. We do have a list of U.S. military vehicles by model number. See M4 Sherman and M240 machine gun. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the rifle, and yes I know there is no M16B. I am saying what modifications would have to be mae to get an M16B? For example I can tell you exactly what an RS-19 plane would be even though it doesn't exist, just from the designation. Could someone explain how the US army designation system works?--92.251.192.70 (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An M16B would be an M16A with sufficient modifications to no longer be considered an "A". --Carnildo (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm asking what sort of modifcations are considered to create a "B" rather than and "A5".--92.251.205.164 (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

flea jumping the Eiffel Tower
Supposedly if an flea was the size of a person it could jump the Eiffel Tower in a single bound. But if a flea actually was zapped to the size of a person using some machine, wouldn't it collapse under its own weight because it's used to much smaller gravity? And wouldn't it have trouble breathing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axlity (talk • contribs) 11:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If it were the size of a person it wouldn't be able to jump as high as a person per the explanation in the section, above. However flees jump so high relative their size that it would be equivilant to a human jumping as high as the eiffel tower. And if a flea were somehow increased to the size of a human, it wouldn't collapse under its own weight, or I suspect, be affected much at all, as all of its body would be the same size relative to the rest of its body. I guess it would be signifcantly weaker, but apart from that, fine.--92.251.192.70 (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe you're wrong about the enlarged flea's not collapsing under its own weight, as its exoskeleton would be insufficiently strong to support its increased weight. See On Being the Right Size. Deor (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It would also suffocate, lacking lungs, which larger land animals need to distribute oxygen to cells in the interior (sea animals needing gills). StuRat (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not certain about fleas, but for a comparison; ants are said to be amazing because they can lift 100 times their own weight - but if we were the same size, we could do that too. Then again, fleas do use a specific method of jumping which we don't have available to us - so we probably wouldn't have flea-like agility at their sizes. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not used to "smaller gravity" either, it's used to the same gravity as everything else on Earth. (I think I asked about this on the Science RD once, basically gravity is very weak and things living on Earth are very small, so it doesn't really matter very much.) The worst problem is that having a human-sized flea would be extremely freaky. It gives me the willies just thinking about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, we do have many human-sized blood sucking parasites, hence the word politics ("poly", meaning many, + "ticks"). StuRat (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing to remember when scaling is that if cross-section (which is, roughly, "strength") squares, then volume (which is, roughly, "weight") cubes. If you make something three times as big in every dimension, it will be nine times as strong, but weigh 27 times as much.  This is one reason giant human-shaped robots are not really practical. FiggyBee (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Asian airline ID requested
Which airline do these flight attendants belong to?

Thanks, --Scriberius (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like these uniforms, which are AirAsia. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

hair care
i've got lots of hair problems. first of all, my hair is very weak, just pull it a little, and it'll come out. i've also got dandruff, and my hair is just, just... well, wavy... in a sense. no matter how hard i soak it lots of water, it just wont straighten properly, which leads to horrible hairstyles. plz, could anyone tell me how i can take care of my hair? of course, i know, different types of hair require different treatments, but the thing is that i dunno what kind of hair is mine. should i use shampoo and conditioner frequently, or go to some other treatment? any kind of help or website will be welcome. thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.132.191 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Straight hair is waaay over-rated. Wavy hair is much better. As for the dandruff, well showering every day should sort that out. If you already do or that doesn't work I suggest you seek medical help.--92.251.192.70 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bad advice. I can shower every day and still have scalp trouble, if I don't use a dandruff shampoo. —Tamfang (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you male or female? We can't give medical advice here, but we should be able to give advice on self-care. Also, letting us know where you live might give us a clue as to what products might be available in your area. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I don't think hair care falls under the umbrella of medical advice (although women sometimes say "my hair is so ugly I could just die !"). If you're male, cutting it shorter might be an option.  If you're female, and/or don't want to do that, I suggest some "product", such as hair mousse and/or a moisturizing conditioner to hold down the frizzies.  I have to disagree with the previous response that washing your hair frequently will control dandruff.  In fact, some dandruff is actually due to overly dried scalp from such washing or an allergy to it or is shampoo buildup flaking off.


 * You really need to determine which type of dandruff you have to treat it. Try being extra careful to rinse, first, and fully submerge your hair in the bathtub while running your fingers through it repeatedly.  If this isn't the problem, try a moisturizing shampoo, in case it's dry skin that's the issue (here "dry" means a lack of oil, not water).  And just trying different brands can help you to find if you're allergic to the ingredients in one brand.  You also might want to try something with aloe, mint, or eucalyptus in it if your scalp is itchy.


 * If none of this helps, try specific dandruff-control shampoos, such as Selsun Blue and the "hard stuff", the T-Sal/T-Gel system. And, until you resolve this dandruff issue, wear only light colored tops and coats (although you can actually get dark dandruff if you dye your hair dark).  Also try to only comb the surface of your hair, since deep combing can bring up a new batch of dandruff.  So, save the deep combing for home, right before you shampoo.


 * As for straightening your hair, that probably requires a flat iron, and is very hard on the hair, so it's not a good idea if your hair is already weak. There's nothing inherently bad about wavy hair, though, and many people with straight hair go out of their way to make it wavy.  So here, I agree with the previous advice to love your hair the way it is.


 * As for strengthening your hair, just be sure you have a good, balanced diet. Some nutrients, such as protein, are more important for hair than others, but just getting enough of all nutrients will likely solve the problem, if it's a deficiency causing it.  Getting more than needed never helps, in such a case.  If your diet is poor, improve it, or, if you can't, at least take a multi-vitamin/multi-mineral pill.  On the other hand, if others in your family have the same type of hair, it may just be genetics. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Use conditioner on it for a start. And ignore what there jokers are saying about hair straightening damaging the hair. It's half true if you do it yourself and botch it or if you use a load of chemicals. But just go to the salon and have it done professionally and it won't do any damage at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VCRVLC1010 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Royalty
Have there ever been any kings or queens of America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jainanie (talk • contribs) 13:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No. The United States of America has been a republic since it came into existence in 1776.--92.251.192.70 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But there has been an emperor! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "America" is a quite generic term. If you are referring to the United States of America, then the answer is no, for the United States has only elected presidents. However, other countries in the Americas have had monarchies - Mexico under Emperor Maximilian I, and Brazil under Emperors Peter I and Peter II. Even today, Queen Elizabeth II is still technically the leader of Canada. Xenon54 / talk / 14:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not technically at all, she actually is the monarch.--92.251.192.70 (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "technically" here means she doesn't have any of the powers we would associate with a queen of "the good old days", like pointing to someone they dislike and saying "off with his head !". (Well, they could say it, but it's not gonna happen.) StuRat (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That particular pronouncement is a favorite of The Queen of Hearts, and even in that fictional world it seems that no one actually loses their head. Vranak (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. But there were certainly many monarchs who could, and did, order beheadings, such as Henry VIII. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In any event, she is not the "leader" of Canada. That's the Prime Minister of Canada.  The Queen is the Queen of Canada.  Modern constitutional monarchs reign, but do not rule.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @ StuRat: Her powers as Queen of Canada are largely identical to her powers as Queen of the United Kingdom. Yes, they aren't the same as those of the monarchs of the Age of Absolutism, but still, insofar as she is the Actual and 100 % All The Way Without Any Technicalities the Real Queen of the United Kingdom, she is also the Actual and 100 % All The Way Without Any Technicalities the Real Queen of Canada.  -- Jayron  32  01:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there is Queen Latifah. If this is some type of trivia quiz, that might be the answer they are looking for. StuRat (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Queen Elizabeth I was the first British monarch to hold territories in the area now covered by the USA, and George III was the last. Napoleon Bonaparte held huge tracts which he sold off to the US to finance his invasion of Britain. I bet he wished he hadn't. Alansplodge (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, France never would have been able to hold onto that land, after having lost Canada to the British, the only question was whether they would lose it to the US, British, or Spanish. So, it was better to sell it and get money than fight for it and lose money, soldiers, and face. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Liliuokalani was "Queen of Hawaii " until 1883. Alaska was owned by Russia, and thus under the Tsar, until sold to the US in 1867.  Parts of the Pacific Northwest were claimed by Britain until the 1846 Oregon Treaty, and thus under the British monarch.  Florida and parts of the Southwest were under the Spanish monarchs until they became US possessions in the 1800s (some became Mexican and then independent first). StuRat (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The early settlers often refered to the heads of Indian tribes and confederations as Kings. King Philip's War for instance involved no Spaniards. Rmhermen (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course there were! George III of the United Kingdom was the last legitimate king of the Thirteen Colonies. But the colonies were ruled by the English - and later, British crown for over 150 years.  Parts of what is now the USA were ruled by a long succession of Kings & Queens from the house of Stuart and Hanover. SteveBaker (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Go to San Francisco.In the right clubs,you'll find a wide selection of American queens. Lemon martini (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The US also has a Queens, New York. Dismas |(talk) 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And the adjacent borough of Brooklyn is also Kings County, New York. --Anonymous, 01:25 UTC, March 7, 2010.


 * Entertainment titles aside, the United States Constitution is clear that titles of nobility are not permitted. The constitution is rare when it directly affects people, most constitutional provisions regard the organs of government that then can affect people, but in a few places, like oaths, treason, and nobility, it does directly address individuals. Shadowjams (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * King George III ruled over parts of the present United States of America while the United States under the Continental Congress had sovereignty over other parts. The Brits left New York City on Evacuation Day long after fighting ended in the American Revolution, and stayed around in parts of the present U.S northeast for years after. During the War of 1812, the British crown once again exercised sovereignty over parts of the present U.S. northeast. It was part of the United States of America under the Constitution, but the British occupied it and exercised control on behalf of the King, including collecting customs duties. The occupied New Englanders considered secession from the U.S. and the signing of a peace treaty with their erstwhile King. Edison (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See our article Monarchies in the Americas. --Kvasir (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

logo
I want to create a logo of a medicine shop. So what is the important thing to create this logo ?Supriyochowdhury (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you asking ? Do you want help in designing the logo, or do you want to know what software to use, or how to print it ?  If you want help in designing it, there are various medical symbols, like the ℞ symbol, mortar and pestle, and the caduceus, which you might want to incorporate into your logo.   Here's a pic with those and a few others: . You probably also want the name or initials of the shop in the logo.  Beyond that, maybe a smiling person ?  (As a person bent over the toilet, vomiting, might not go over very well. :-) ) StuRat (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Side view of man downing pills from a bottle and rubbing his belly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.171.183 (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The important thing in the design is to make sure that it is sufficiently different from other medical logos that it's not going to create a trademark conflict (you'd have to talk to a trademark lawyer about how close is too close, etc.). It's also important from a marketing perspective that it's something that people can associate with. Some people go for something that's recognisable as what it's trying to sell: that is a shoe for a shoe store, or a book for a school. Others go for something more abstract, but easily recognisable, such as the Nike swoosh. Either way, it has to be distinctive. Steewi (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A decent design agency. Or if you can afford it, a design agency with good branding credentials. Home-made efforts can be excrutiatingly awful, except for the odd occasion when an amateur is truly gifted. If you do insist on doing it cheaply yourself, make it extremely simple. And go for legibility over design every time. People will try and find you by what you're called, not by what your logo looks like. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it would be worth it, even if they can afford to hire a "professional" to create the logo. That is, would the additional money spent on such an effort result on a return in investment in a reasonable time frame ?  If this was a clothing manufacturer which intended to have the logo on their clothes, then I'd say yes.  Or even if it's a large chain of medicine shops.  But I get the impression it's a single store, in which case the number of additional sales due to having a excellent logo is sure to be quite low.  You might argue that they could grow to be a much larger firm in the future, but, of course, they could always redesign their logo at that time, as many do. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if the logo and/or signage bearing it is (by local standards) poorly designed and/or executed, many potential customers will unconsciously assume that the goods and services on offer are also likely to be poor, and go to a spiffier-looking competitor. Such considerations usually make expenditure on professional designs and signage well worth their immediate costs. If Supriyochowdhury has, as is possible though by no means certain, the option of having his Commercial signage made by a professional sign-making company, that company should be able to either collaborate with him to design a suitable logo in-house, or refer him to a designer who can do so. This is all assuming in good faith that the question is not an exercise in Graphic design or sign-making training that Supriyochowdhury is pursuing :-). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And besides, there are many "boutique" (ie small) design agencies around that don't charge very much - especially for a new company that could give them repeat business as they grow. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Debt obligations.
I'm collapsing this whole section. The OP hasn't asked a question and is just soapboxing. I have nothing against the people that have attempted to give helpful responses, but they aren't actually answering the question since there is no question. --Tango (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The question seems to be: I have to ask what misguided "legitimacy" this position might be based upon. Is this ambiguous in some way I have missed? Bielle (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Soy sauce with makizushi
Should maki be eaten with shoyu? How should it be dipped, with the shoyu touching the nori or the rice? Thank you. 142.68.140.42 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Makizushi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcargo321 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm Japanese. There's no rule. If you want shoyu, eat with shoyu. If not, do not. The man on the left eats makizushi twice in the video here. 2:18 and 3:56. It is also OK to drip shoyu a few drops on makizushi when the sushi is not tight enough. Of cource not from the small dish, but from the container like these. Do not hesitate to eat with your fingers. It's easier. Just enjoy! Oda Mari (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See this one too. Oda Mari (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Implicit trust
Around half an hour before lessons were to end, someone would always call out "i can smell gas" in science class (because there were gas taps for bunsont burners) and the teacher would always go "everyone stay clam, we need to leave the room while we check etc etc". This happened every other lesson for months, and he never once gave the impression he suspected people were just saying it to get out of class early. What is that called, where someone just keeps believing what you say is true no matter how many times you do it to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrit400 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Extreme gullibility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.171.183 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or he felt it was better to be on the safe side and always assume the risk is genuine. He may also have not wanted to punish people for calling out falsely because that would discourage genuine calls. --Tango (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or the gullible ones are the pupils that the teacher is happy for an excuse to get rid of. That is called having the last laugh. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe just be glad that you're out of compulsory school. And remember that lesson. That centralized government planning telling you what to do is the most efficient way of doing things in an educated, organized society. Or maybe that's not quite right.... Shadowjams (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Boy Who Cried Wolf comes to mind. Usually it's interpreted to be a cautionary tale for people in the boy's position, but it can also be interpreted as a cautionary tale for people in the villagers' position. (That is, even someone who's raised false alarms in the past may raise a real alarm at somepoint.) -- 174.21.235.250 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)