Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 August 31

= August 31 =

Climbing Everest with Zero mountaineering experience
Per Everest, the mountain possesses no technical challenges along the standard route. Therefore, it is possible to climb mount Everest if I have zero alpine mountaineering experience and the only climbing experience I have been the indoor artifical climbing walls? I am very fit and healthy. Acceptable (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be physically possible in principle, but [speaking purely from past reading - actual climbers' input welcomed] climbing access to Everest is closely controlled, and one has to be part of an organised climb. How likely is it that those in charge of a particular climbing party would take on someone with no alpine (i.e. snow and ice) experience, and no experience even of non-alpine outdoor climbing, which might jeopardize others in the party as soon as anything went wrong? If one lied about the matter, it's very likely that the deception would become very apparent as soon as one encountered serious alpine-type climbing terrain. Bear in mind also that, of those who do climb Everest, presumably all with appropriate previous experience, about 1 in 10 perish anyway. Also, succeptibility to altitude sickness is not correlated with general fitness. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.213 (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The actual death rate is far lower than "1 in 10": according to 1996 Mount Everest disaster, the historic average is that for every hundred people who ascend from the base camp, three will die, and twelve will reach the summit. --Carnildo (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I (possibly mis-)remember the ~1 in 10 statistic from a (then fairly new) book about Everest I read about 4 years ago - I may be able to check it tomorrow. Even 1 in 30-ish is not a risk level I'd be interested in running, but it takes all sorts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.40 (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is possible. Since it's a non-technical climb (the only technical part of the standard route has a fixed rope), you'll be able to get up and back, assuming nothing goes wrong.


 * Note the phrase "assuming nothing goes wrong". Your lack of mountaineering experience means that if anything does go wrong, you don't know how to react.  You often won't have time to think about what to do, and at high altitudes, the lack of oxygen means your brain isn't functioning right (see, for example, ).  Without the reflexes that years of mountain climbing create, you're highly likely to make the wrong choices, which can easily result in death.  People with no prior mountaineering experience do climb Everest on a regular basis, but they also die on a regular basis. --Carnildo (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Technical" in that article is being used in a very narrow (technical) sense - that of climbing vertical faces of ice or rock with both hands and feet. Certainly climbing glaciers and ice slopes while roped in, carrying large packs, relying only on your skills in self-arrest by ice ax while operating in a low oxygen environment or traversing crevasse fields on ladders while wearing crampons and poles, etc. are highly technical activities in the usual sense of the word. Rmhermen (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then what is the highest mountain where you would not need any specialty equipment like ropes or crampons or axes to climb? Is it actually Aconcagua?  Googlemeister (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It evidently beats (by 1,067 metres) Kilimanjaro, which however is (from my conversations with people who've been up it) 'merely' a very long and hard walk. Confirming Aconcagua's status as claimed in the article, however, would need either a good deal of cheecking against all the higher candidates, or a definitive reference from someone who's already done that. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.40 (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The main difference between Kilimanjaro and Aconcagua is the volume of snow and ice at the latter. I really think it would be very foolish to attempt to deal both with the high altitude and the icy conditions on Aconcagua without any experience of either.  As others have said, high altitude limits the supply of oxygen to your brain, and it is easy to make errors of judgment, particularly if you have no experience of the conditions you are facing. Even without technical climbing, on a mountain like Aconcagua (and even parts of Kilimanjaro), you would face hazards such as crevasses hidden by a loose covering of snow.  Also, you will need to use tools such as ice axes and crampons.  As for the altitude, I am also fairly fit, in good shape, and an experienced mountain hiker.  That said, I find it very difficult to operate above 4000 meters/14000 feet due to the lack of oxygen.  Above that altitude many people, regardless of fitness, will get altitude sickness, making it impossible for them to proceed any higher.  I can't imagine what it would be like to deal with the physical challenge of a mountain ascent above 6000 meters/20000 feet, and I'm frankly not very interested in trying it, given the difficulty I experienced at 4000 meters.  If you are, my strong advice to you would be to spend a few days doing mountain ascents at or near 4000 meters during the winter with an experienced guide or friend who can offer pointers.  If, after that experience, you want to take on a greater challenge, then you might consider Aconcagua and maybe eventually Everest.  Setting out for peaks like those without any training or experience is irresponsible because it puts not only yourself at risk but also search-and-rescue parties that might attempt to recover your body, dead or alive.  Marco polo (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure Marco, but spend 2 weeks at 15,000 feet to adjust and going to 20,000 wouldn't be all that bad. I mean there is a town in Peru at 16,000 feet with like 20,000 people living there.  I bet they would have minimal altitude problems at 20,000 feet.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely, it is a good idea to spend time acclimating, and maybe if I had many weeks of vacation time, I, too, could acclimate to altitudes above 14,000 feet. We have an article on Effects of high altitude on humans with a section on acclimation.  It suggests a period of weeks to acclimate. Regarding that town in Peru, it is well known that Andean and Tibetan peoples have genetic traits that help them to live at high altitudes.  See this paper, for example.  In any case, altitude is not the only issue.  Knowing how to deal with ice and snow on steep mountain terrain is another serious issue.  Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe (based upon half-remembered 'stuff I read over the years', for the sake of full disclosure) that if you have enough money, nowadays you can pretty much pay a bunch of experienced guides and Sherpas to do everything short of giving you a piggy back (or maybe even that) to get you to the top if you just want to say that you've done it. This is heavily frowned upon by 'real' climbers. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

1950's comic book
As a kid in the 1950's I read a lot of American comic books ranging from 'Little Lulu' to 'Superman' but one particular comic book had always had me intrigued all these years. It was a one off and not part of a series. I am trying to track down this particular comic as I can't recall the title. The story started with a world war 2 setting somewhere in Europe. Two American soldiers were on patrol when they were ambushed by German troops. In the firefight one of the American soldiers was killed and the other ran off and found shelter in a cave. As the soldier hid in the cave a white mist enveloped him and he started to choke. The next moment he saw himself drifting away from his body and entered a void of sort and exiting into a desolate world of desert and sparse vegetation. The soldier, naked and bewildered, started exploring his new environment and saw in the immediate distance a group of three human like creatures but with frog faces and an extra set of hands each. Each of them were wearing a cape and dressed in medieval attire. Each was also carrying a sword. As the soldier approached the creatures he could see that they were fleeing from another group of creatures. The other group of 5 or 6 looked like kangaroos, white in colour punctuated with small irregular black spots. Each of them sprouted a thick black stringy mop of hair and one huge eye only. No other facial features were present. The kangaroo like creatures with their long leaps and bounds soon closed in on their quarry and a desperate fight ensured. The kangaroo like creatures used their tails as weapons and used them with deadly force, killing two of the frog faced beings. As the kangaroo like creatures moved in for the final kill they caught sign of the soldier now only metres away. Startled they turned and ran off leaving the lone surviving frog face creature alone. The survivor was also startled with the sight of the naked soldier. The creature spoke perfect King's English and thank him for saving his life. The two soon acquainted themselves and the soldier's strange adventure soon begin.

After reading the above I do hope someone will be able to help me to locate the name and even the complete story of that comic book which has long intrigued me.

Many Thanks

Kanga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boylay (talk • contribs) 06:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Could it be Marvel Comics' B&W version of their adaptation of Lieutenant Gullivar Jones: His Vacation? The original Gullivar, like his later and more successful emulator John Carter, was a Civil War soldier, but I gather from the above-linked article that the Marvel re-write (I haven't read it) placed him in Vietnam, which you might be misremembering as WW2. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.213 (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The timeline is wrong, if I'm understanding the OP correctly. If this was a comic from the 1950s, it wasn't likely to be Marvel (a few issues bore the Marvel brand back then, but they released most of their comics under the Atlas and Timely brands back then, among scores of others) and the Marvel adaptation wasn't done until the 1970s. The story does sound very much like John Carter, specifically the opening to Princess of Mars (though, as you say, it wasn't WW2 in the original story), so maybe there was another adaptation done? Kanga, could you narrow down when exactly you would have read this? Also, if you weren't reading these in the US, could you specify what country you were in when you read them? Matt Deres (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I grew up in Brunei, Borneo, and in the 1950's the country was and still is a British Protectorate. English was the mainstream of Education, and comics and especially American comics were widely encouraged to get kids to read and learned the English language. I definitely recalled reading that particular comic book when I was 6 years old which means the year would have been 1952. The little town that I grew up in had a newsagency that would bring in the comic books every 2 weeks from Singapore and I and the rest of the comic mad kids would swamped the place to get our copies. The clue to this comic book is like I mentioned before is the frog faced characters with those extra pair of hands and their kangaroo like enemies. It left a huge impression on me even after all these years. Kanga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.193.62 (talk • contribs)
 * Notice the antagonists here or ? Also, our article on the comic books about the series contains this "Dell Comics released three issues of John Carter of Mars under its Four Color Comics banner. The issue numbers are 375, 437, and 488 and were released in 1952-1953." See here John Carter (character). This may also be of interest Barsoom  He  iro 03:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

We are getting close. I think we can somehow establish that it was a John Carter series but I can't see the connection of Carter being an American GI during World War 2. Still the images of creatures with extra set of hands look similar. The frog faced beings in that comic book were benign creatures with strong frog facial features and no fangs. They wore a cape but their bodies are covered in medieval style clothing. They also wore boots similar to those used by Musketeers. On the other hand, their sworn enemies, the kangaroo like creatures were vicious killers and frog faced creatures had no effective counter to their deadly tails. Hope this will jolt some memories. Kanga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.193.62 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

YOU BEAUTY!! (sorry for the Aussie slang) Thanks to Hero 03.36 I got it!! It WAS a John Carter series called 'The Prisoner of the Tharks'. Isn't that amazing! I can't wait to read it again after all these years!! Thanks again guys, you are real champs!! Kanga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.193.62 (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And an upcoming (2012) feature film .  He  iro 03:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That does sound remarkably like Edgar Rice Burroughs series of John Carter of Mars books, which I read as a teenager, prolly much later than most as it was the late 1980s. You link above Matt Deres was to a disamb page, so I linked here.  He  iro 00:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's tame stuff for ERB, at least compared with Naked Lunch. StuRat (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong Burroughs, E.R.B., not W.B  He  iro 04:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops. Which one of them started Burroughs Corporation ? :-) StuRat (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WBs grandfather.  He  iro 04:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

James Randi and God
Why don't James Randi and the James Randi Educational Foundation give the one-million-dollar prize for proof or evidence of the existence of God?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not ask them directly? You could try this email address available from their website: media@randi.org --bodnotbod (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because he's not interested in challenging people's beliefs in God, he's interested in debunking people's beliefs in the paranormal. inb4 "belief in God is a belief in the paranormal" --Viennese Waltz 08:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If the existence (or not) of God could be proven, there would only be one religion, if any. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that follows at all. Lots of religions agree that God exists; they differ on questions about God.  I don't see any necessary reason that a proof of God's existence would have to settle those questions. --Trovatore (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They might agree that God exist, but that's based on faith, not proof. If you could prove God exists, it follows that you could also determine a lot of other info about God, and the differences among the religions would melt away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How does it follow that proving the existence of God would tell you any other information at all about God, beyond existence? For example, let's suppose that the ontological proof (either Anselm's or Gödel's, or some new variation of it) is put in a form that answers all the objections made to it, and everyone who is capable of following and understanding the argument in good faith is forced to admit, yes, God exists.
 * That would tell you that God exists and that (e.g.) nothing greater than God can be imagined, but I don't see how it would tell you whether the body of Christ is literally present in the communion host, or whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or only from the Father, or whether Muhammad was a prophet, or any of these other things that people kill each other about. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to prove the existence of God, you need to come up with a definition of "God". Once you've come up with your definition and proven the existence of something that meets that definition, you've determined a good deal about the nature of your god. --Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, no. In fact, my previous paragraph directly refutes your claim. --Trovatore (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Trovatore's main post describes proof of existence of God by argument. However claims that cannot be tested experimentally are not eligible for the Challenge. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Entirely beside the point. My remarks had nothing to do with the Randi thing at all; they were in response to Bugs's claim that a proof of the existence or nonexistence of God would leave at most one religion.  (I don't see why an experimental proof would necessarily do that either, but it has nothing to do with what I was saying.) --Trovatore (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Bug's point, which might be overstated, is that a proven availability of God for interactive dialog would allow a resolution of the current major disagreements between deist religions e.g. about resurrection of Jesus and the identity of the latest prophet. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of the prize is that is no-one takes the million dollars, we can conclude that no supernatural activity occurs – based on the assumption that because supernatural events manifest themselves in the real world in easily observable ways ('I can read people's minds', 'I can talk to the dead' etc etc.). Doing the same for religion would not provide the conclusion that a god or gods did not exist, since there are few very disprovable claims. (Without time travelling to specific parts of the Bible/Qur'an/other religious texts.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Those of us who totally disbelieve the existence of a God would welcome any real indisputable evidence of the existence of a God or otherwise, but don't expect such evidence to ever become available.--85.211.230.86 (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of those of us who totally believe in the existence of a God would hate for there to be indisputable evidence of a God, as it would destroy free will, as well as undermining the basis for reward and punishment. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides, things like deities that exist outside of the laws of physics would not be provable or disprovable by science anyway. Googlemeister (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How would indisputable proof of existence of a God destroy free will? Surely this also requires other specific assumptions about the nature of the God, beyond his/her/its existence (such as omnipotence and omniscience) to be established. Some Gods, particularly the ones whose existence I sometimes choose to behave as though I accept (though not necessarily in a literal sense) do not, to my understanding, preclude human free will. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.40 (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You speak of "Gods", so I find it difficult to follow your thoughts, as they're so alien from mine. If I indisputably knew of an omniscient and all-powerful God (not sure that I'd call any other kind of God, "God") I for one would certainly feel I had no free will to obey or disobey their wishes. I'd be no better than an animal in a Victorian circus, doing what I'm told to get a reward and avoid the otherwise inevitable whip. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Zeus smites you with a plenty powerful (though not all-powerful) lightning bolt for denying the obvious truths of his godhood. I'd duck - Thor is next in line! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the "an omniscient and all-powerful God" where we differ. You assume as a given that any God that existed would necessarily also be so (and presumably also would be the only God), and that any not so cannot be a God, but the Gods of many traditions worldwide are not. I have never (from an early age) found the concept of a God creating the universe to be at all plausible (besides it being usually presented as ridiculously Earth-human centred), but am able to entertain the idea of a God or Gods (I can reconcile the one/many dichotomy) as emergent from the universe, somewhat as my mind is an emergent property of my brain matter. I fear, however, that this exchange of viewpoints is straying from the remit of the RefDesks. Bright blessings. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.40 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The idea that proof/disproof of gods existence would settle religious differences presents a pretty picture but an erronious one. Religion is more about control and human nature than any god. One effect might be to increase the numbers of militant zealots, which would not be a pretty piture.190.56.18.189 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article about James_Randi_Educational_Foundation. I don't think the challenge is to "prove existence of God", rather it is to demonstrate a controlled paranormal ability. Randi will only accept tests to which he has previously agreed and boasts "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!". Meanwhile the prize money happily collects interest in a bank account. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, who in their right mind would accept a test they didn't agree to? In fact, isn't that a contradiction in terms?
 * To win the prize money, you must have an ability that is clearly defined and clearly paranormal, then you and the Foundation, (not necessarily Randi personally, but typically) must agree on a scientific way to test that ability. Detractors always criticize this rather obvious criteria, but they can never point to a person who should have won the challenge.   Water diviners fail to detect water in controlled tests unless they've been told where the water is ahead of time. Should Randi tell them where the water is to make it fair?  What about the girl who could see without using her eyes? Her trick worked great with her blindfold, but when Randi provided a blindfold that actually completely covered her eyes, she couldn't do it. What change in test protocol would have been more fair for her?
 * Of course, the applicant's lawyer is present at every stage of this process. If any of them were treated unfairly they could have sued for the prize money. I don't believe anybody has even tried to do so. APL (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Randi's stance is not a contradiction in terms. Your other questions are merely rhetorical mockery of testing water diviners and of test fairness, and need no answer. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you probably misinterpreted my first line, more importantly, my other points were not rhetorical. You are claiming or at least strongly insinuating, that the tests are unfair, Which test did you believe unfair? And how would you fix it?  (My example of water diviners certainly does seem ridiculous when it's stated like that, but diviners that "prove" that their equipment and ability in situations where they already know where the water is located is surprisingly common.) APL (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, your first line just poses two questions that make no sense because you obviously don't want to be told a name of a sane person who accepted a test. Your post looks rhetorical because none of the further 3 questions that it contains are sensible and their purpose is to initiate a debate about fairness, about which I say nothing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Randi Foundation won't consider proof of God for their challenge because existence of God is fundamentally unfalsifiable and untestable. They want to look at phenomena that can be clearly defined and scientifically tested. See Their FAQ and their clarification on this very point.
 * If God gives you the ability to do something paranormal, they'll investigate that ability, but not its completely unprovable source.
 * Or at least they would have investigated it. I think the challenge is more or less over now. Too bad. APL (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Foundation last updated their FAQ page less than 3 weeks ago. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK ... so? APL (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * According to our article they had planned to kill it, but then decided to keep it. Inferring from the article as well as partly from what I've seen elsewhere in the past, it sounds like part of the problem was they tried to make it more difficult to avoid the random possibly mentally ill challengees who were more delusional then deceptive that they had in the past (from reading some of the proposals in the past I would concur with that assessement and it's not really a surprise either although I don't think those in charge were generally intentionall cruel and did try to nudge challenges to realise their problems) and instead concentrate on the high profile people. But that failed since the high profile people had no interest in embarassing themselves. So they've relaxed it again and seem to be trying to expand the profile of the challenge. I guess with the belief even if the people are often more delusional then deceptive, it's still beneficial in disproving pseudoscientific claims (and perhaps will be a catalyst for the delusional challengees to seek help). And with the higher profile it makes it more difficult for those who are deceptive to evade the challenge without negative effects on their reputation. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it looks like you're right. Good.  The Challenge is a good thing to have around. I wonder how it'll go once Randi himself is no longer available.   APL (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Doppelgangers
Is it true that on average there are 5 people in the world who look identical to you? --112.213.141.177 (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, but what is true is that 74.83% of statistics that someone in a pub on a Friday night swears blind are literally and absolutely true are not true. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As a corollary, check this out: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a recent anecdote that's gone mildly viral. I haven't been able to nail down the origin. A large portion of the hits resolve to tumblr.com. In full, the (broken English) text is "In the world there are, on average, five people with the look identical to yours." followed by a response of" "There are 5 sexy motherfuckers out there."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oooooh. So that's how such misinfo. gets started. By the way Jack, It seems that your percentage must be a little off. It must surely be more like 99. something.190.56.18.189 (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Studies of "eyewitness identifications" suggest that there are a relatively huge number of people who look like someone else to be sure - likely many thousands of "close enough" matches must exist for the identifications to have up to a 40% or more likelihood of being wrong. Collect (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Suppose that each permutation of facial features selected in an on-line identikit gives a different face. The kit offers the following numbers of features:
 * Hair 67, Head 9, Eyebrow 32, Glasses 35, Eyes 22, Nose 38, Moustache 35, Mouth 51, Jaw 29, Beard 57. That gives 1.67E15 different combinations. Since that is nearly a quarter of a million times more than the world population 6.94E9, it is very unlikely, but not impossible, for several people to have the same identikit face. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a nonsensical calculation. Among other unwarranted assumptions, it assumes
 * All of the variations within a category are equally likely;
 * All of the variations within a category are readily distinguishable (is Mouth #21 really all that different from Mouth #22?);
 * All of the features are present in every face (many men and the vast majority of women have neither moustache nor beard);
 * All of the features that are present must match (it is arguable that two people may count as 'doppelgangers' if they happen to wear different styles of glasses or happen to be wearing a different hairstyle);
 * Relatedly, there is a one-to-one correspondence between each individual and the identikit selections (that is, for each person, there is a single, unique, 'correct' identikit option for each feature); and
 * None of the features co-vary to any extent (that is&mdash;do features tend to cluster? are individuals with narrower heads also likelier to have narrower jaws, noses, and eyes?)
 * I hope you see the problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is remarkable shadow boxing from someone who can't see the difference between Mouth #21 and Mouth #22. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wounded your pride, then? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The key to dealing with an insulting person is not to become one. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Design of an identikit proceeds on the following assumptions.
 * 1) Each face can be segmented into a number N of distinguishing features, such as eyes, nose etc.
 * 2) Variation of each feature is treated as one orthogonal coordinate of the N-dimensional volume of possible faces. A face is an N-dimensional vector.
 * 3) Data is collected from many face viewings to establish the range of each feature variation, a subjectively linear quantisation of that range and an estimate of the population distribution in the volume. The distribution is non-uniform because there is a cluster of "ordinary" faces and sparsity of unusual faces such as young women with beards.
 * 4) Vector quantization is applied to divide the volume into vectors having equal numbers of vectors closest to them. This step provides a set of partial face images for each segment.

I posted the following:
 * 1) Suppose that each permutation of facial features selected in an on-line identikit gives a different face.
 * 2) The kit offers the following numbers of features: Hair 67, Head 9, Eyebrow 32, Glasses 35, Eyes 22, Nose 38, Moustache 35, Mouth 51, Jaw 29, Beard 57. That gives 1.67E15 different combinations.
 * 3) Since that is nearly a quarter of a million times more than the world population 6.94E9, it is very unlikely, but not impossible, for several people to have the same identikit face.

It is alleged that my post assumes:
 * 1) All of the variations within a category are equally likely; Wrong. Identikit design does not assume this. The population distribution is non-uniform see 3 above.
 * 2) All of the variations within a category are readily distinguishable (is Mouth #21 really all that different from Mouth #22?); Irrelevant criticism of the design of the on-line identikit. Mouths #21 and #22 are readily distinguishable.
 * 3) All of the features are present in every face (many men and the vast majority of women have neither moustache nor beard); ''Every feature must be defined in every face, including the instances "no moustache" and "no beard".
 * 4) All of the features that are present must match (it is arguable that two people may count as 'doppelgangers' if they happen to wear different styles of glasses or happen to be wearing a different hairstyle); Irrelevant to my order-of-magnitude estimation of the number of "identikit faces".
 * 5) Relatedly, there is a one-to-one correspondence between each individual and the identikit selections (that is, for each person, there is a single, unique, 'correct' identikit option for each feature); Irrelevant criticism of the on-line identikit, specifically of its vector quantizing.
 * 6) and None of the features co-vary to any extent (that is—do features tend to cluster? are individuals with narrower heads also likelier to have narrower jaws, noses, and eyes?) Irrelevant criticism of the on-line identikit, specifically of its quantizing of the non-uniform population distribution e.g. the distribution is sparse in the space region for narrow heads with wide jaws.

Identikits are widely used for facial recognition and therefore, I contend, are relevant to the question about the probability of facial similarity. I make no claim that the particular identikit cited is well designed. It is just a published source which supports the properly qualified statements that I posted. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In a town of a few thousand, I was once mistaken for another man by that man's own mother. A child in my family had a doppelganger at preschool, such that the teachers and both sets of parents had a lot of trouble telling them apart at say 4 years old. Edison (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect that this started out as a joke, like so: "You are one in a million, no, make that one in a billion. Of course, since there are 6 billion people out there, that means you have 5 dopplegangers out there, and one is Chinese."  (Of course, this would have been a few years back.  The current world population is closer to 7 billion.) StuRat (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is true if you are surviving monozgotic sextuplets. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The most popular names for the main street of a town in the US
What are the most popular names for the main street of a city/town in the US? I think Second Street is the most common street name overall because the names of the main streets are split among several popular choices. First Street and Main Street are two obvious ones I can think of. What are the other ones? Any statistics available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.146.154 (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For "non-number names" the report is that "Park" is the most common street name, presumably from USPS lists. Collect (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Main Street is surely the most common name for the main street of a town in the United States. Another common name for a main street is Broadway (obviously modeled after New York).  In eastern Massachusetts, the most common name for the main street of a town is actually Washington Street.  (The reason for this is that the main street of Boston was originally King Street.  This was changed to Washington Street after independence, and this name became a model for surrounding towns.)  Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Main Street is no longer the name of main streets in Augusta County, Virginia and probably others. Updates to the 911 system around 2000 required unique street names within the county so streets such as Main, 1st, 2nd, A and the like were renamed. For example, Main Street in Stuarts Draft was renamed to Draft Avenue. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Center and Central are two other common "main" street names. -- Daniel 14:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Two other possible examples would be "Front Street" and "River Street". --Zerozal (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (wp:or) High street and State street/road are fairly common names in the midwest US. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of US towns based their street grid on Philadelphia's downtown example, with numbers one way crossed by streets named after trees—Walnut, Cherry, Chestnut, Pine, Elm, Locust, etc. Pfly (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, to really answer this question you'd have to define what you mean by "the main street of a city/town". Is it the original main street or the current one? The most trafficked, most central? Origin of the grid? Many towns and cities may not a single obvious main street. Seattle for example: There's no single obvious main street, but I can think of some possibilities. There is a "Main Street", but it is a minor street today. Originally it was more important, but even then not as important as Yesler Way. Various Seattle neighborhoods have obvious main streets. For Capitol Hill it is Broadway, for Queen Anne it is Queen Anne Way. But these areas are not downtown and developed years after the city's founding. Pfly (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to throw one more wrench into the works, in New York City some streets have become associated with certain things. In the larger Midtown area Broadway is the "main street" of theaters, musicals, nightlife, etc, Fifth Avenue is the main street of upscale shopping and (farther north) museums, Park Avenue is the main street of the banking industry, Madison Avenue for advertising. Both Broadway and Madison Avenue have become generic terms for musicals and advertising in general. Pfly (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This came up on the ref desk once before. I can't find it right now, but I do remember that the most popular street name was either "First" or "Main", with "Second" a distant third. --Carnildo (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Where I live in The Carolinas, just about every city has a street named after Martin Luther King, Jr. According to the article, there are more than 700 cities with a street named after him, and only ten states which do not. TheGrimme (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Olympus µ/Stylus 700/710
The article about the Olympus µ700, which I recently edited, seems confused about the model number. It claims the camera is called the µ700 in Europe but the Stylus 710 in the USA. Now from what I've found online (at least at http://www.dpreview.com), Olympus uses the same model number for both the µ and the Stylus naming for all other cameras in the product line. But Google gives me plenty of results both claiming that the µ700 is the Stylus 710, and that the µ700 is the Stylus 700. The fact that the µ700 and the µ710 look completely similar doesn't help. I've never actually owned any µ camera so personal experience doesn't help either. Can anyone settle this, does it have the same model number in different markets or does it not? J I P &#124; Talk 19:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Legal in US State A, Felony in US State B?
Does anyone have any examples of actions which if they occur in US State A would be entirely legal, but if they occur in US State B would be a Felony? (in the year 2011). I was originally thinking Prostitution (the appropriate counties in Nevada vs. anywhere else), but I'm not sure that raises to the level of Felony. Also, can we have two people get married in State A which approves of them having intercourse within the marriage, but if they go to State B, the older is guilty of Statutory Rape?


 * So-called "Medical marijuana" is probably a big one, it is legal to smoke pot in California if you get the perfunctory paperwork done, and if you are properly licensed (again requiring some rather superficial hoop-jumping-through) you can sell it; both actions are crimes in many other states. -- Jayron  32  19:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Medical marijuana is a problematic case, because it is illegal at the federal level, but legal at some states levels. So even where it is legal, it is technically illegal to some agencies. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In Texas, it is a state felony to anonymously sell, purchase, or gift an Erlenmeyer or round-bottom flask, or an electrical transformer. (|Section 481.138: UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OR RECEIPT OF CHEMICAL LABORATORY APPARATUS.) The law does not require an intent to use the glassware for the manufacture of illegal drugs (though that is the putative target of the legislation); simply acquiring, possessing, selling, or giving away a flask without a state license is criminal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly dumbstruck. I'd think that some of the braves of the land should do a Jefferson manuring and make it home of the free again... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about your second question, but not too long ago a woman in Florida was sentenced to something like 30 years in jail for having a sexual relationship with her son's 16-year-old friend, which would be perfectly legal in a lot of the country. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also in the sex department, until a few years ago the state of Washington didn't have a law against having sex with animals, while Virginia made it (specifically, "committing the crime against nature, either with man or with beast") a felony. --Carnildo (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seem that sex with a first cousin is a felony in some states (e.g. Texas and Utah), but legal in many others. Warofdreams talk 12:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although humans eating horse flesh (and the performance of butchery in furtherance thereof) is rare in the US, doing so (or the butchery) doesn't seem to be illegal in most states (cf Horse meat), California Proposition 6 (1998) makes the butchery of horses for human consumption a felony, even if that consumption would be in another state or another country. This story suggests a comparable ban exists in Illinois, but I can't find evidence that it's illegal anywhere else. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Gambling? HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Recording your phone calls? Ticket scalping? 67.162.90.113 (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Prostitution is legal in Nevada, but not elsewhere as far as I know. I don't know if that is a felony or not though.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Prostitution is legal on a county-by-county basis in Nevada, not throughout the whole state. It's illegal in Las Vegas and Reno, for example.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Possession and use of certain firearms? Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Plaxico Burress spent time in prison for carrying a handgun into a nightclub in New York. I think in Texas he would have received a medal instead. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if he had brought an unlicensed Erlenmeyer flask to a nightclub in Texas, he would have been in serious trouble. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Carrying a gun openly is legal in many states (sometimes not allowed in cities or counties), and a felony in other states. Carrying a concealed weapon is legal in most states with a license (and some states without one) but a felony in some. Shadowjams (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Old sailing ships sirca 1800's
The sailors on these ships had a uniform that had a back of the neck flap which was used on modern day sailors uniforms. I would like to know how did that flap become part of the sailors uniform and what use did it have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudmanrb (talk • contribs) 20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * According to this, the flap protected their uniform from the grease that they used to hold their hair in place. Mikenorton (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * But our Sailor suit page says: "The blue jean collar is perhaps the most recognisable item of the sailor suit, and tradition says that it dates from the times when seamen wore tarred pigtails. This is in fact false, as the collar was not part of uniform until after pigtails disappeared". The Royal Navy agrees: "Tarred pig tails disappeared rapidly after 1815 and the last is recorded as having been seen at sea in 1827. On the other hand, the first broad collars were worn after 1830. Contrary to popular belief, therefore, the two were never worn together. The first collars were not cut square but were round and closely resembled items that were fashionable ashore. The three rows of white tape were probably added for ornament at first, surviving records mention some discussion about whether there should be two rows or three. The more familiar square collar developed as it was easier for the men to cut and sew themselves than the round variety." So there you have it; a fashion item adapted for do-it-yourself - sailors had to make their own clothes in those days. Alansplodge (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Geometry functions
These are two similar Calculus I homework questions that have me stumped. On the first one I have no idea where to start. On the second one I got as far as $24in^{3}=πr^{2}h$ and $A=2πr^{2}+πdh$ but I have no idea how to go from there. Noting that they are homework problems I don't want the answer, just a prod in the right direction to get me unstuck. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "A box with an open top is to be constructed from a rectangular piece of cardboard with dimensions 12in by 20in by cutting out equal squares of side x at each corner then folding up the sides. Express the volume V of the box as a function of x."
 * 2) "Suppose a company manufactures cylindrical frozen juice cans with volume 24in3. Express the surface area of each juice can, A, as a function of the radius r of the top of the can."


 * For the first, draw the shape you get when four squares have been cut out. Express the length of the top of the cross and the side of the cross in terms of the original dimensions minus the xs that were cut out. That gives you the length of the box and the width of the box. I'll leave you to figure out the height of the box. Hope I've not said too much. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you drop the "in3", then think of it as the simplish $24=πr^{2}h$, that might help you to eliminate "h" and get "A" in terms of "r". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Got both of them. Those prods were perfect, thanks. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understood both of these to be trick questions.
 * For question 1, the question actually asked is: "Express the volume V of the box as a function of x"... the answer being $V=x^{3}$.
 * Similarly, for question 2, the question asked is: "Express the surface area of each juice can, A, as a function of the radius r of the top of the can"... the answer being $A=2πr^{2}+2πrh$ where h is the height of the can. Astronaut (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For 1, the question is correctly understood, but the answer is wrong. Consider the case $$x=6in$$, which results in volume 0. For 2, you miss the point that the volume is given. What is asked is the surface area as a function of volume and radius. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Machines / things that we no longer know how they work
Are there any machines / equipment / technologies we have that work but that we no longer know how they work? (By way of an example I recall a few years ago reading on the BBC about a lot of computer documents stored in specialist 1980s formats/language that have since become obsolete and some of which are proving to be unrecoverable/extremely difficult to recover because of this). ny156uk (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * NASA a few years ago complained that they had data tapes from the early 1960's that they did not know how to read, and older laid-off NASA engineers said they would be delighted to come back to work and transfer data from them. So who is the "we" you speak of? Older technologists know all about operating lots of devices which are still capable of being operated (perhaps with a bit of maintenance: lubricate, clean, repair or adjust a few electronic components). Some hobbyists know how to operate many devices built and retired long before they were born. Younger folks would need training to operate some devices which their seniors could go right to work operating: keypunches (and the ever useful star drum wheel for formatting), sliderules, older computers and their operating systems, peripherals and programming languages, film cameras and darkroom equipment(still used in some college and high school Intro to Photography courses, I expect), Mimeo and Ditto duplicating machines, Marchant rotary calculators, IBM Selectrics of the mag card word processing variety, PBX phone switchboards with all the phone jacks, Teletypes, vacuum tube or relay logic remote control and telemetry equipment, steam engines and steam locomotives, all sorts of specialized analog electromagnetic control equipment in industry and utilities, position finding by sextant rather than GPS (is it still taught to navigators? I hope so if GPS satellites are knocked out on day 1 of a future war). Sometimes the new technology is so much more efficient that knowledge of operating the old is lost in a generation: when matches were invented, people quickly forgot the old standard, the Tinderbox. I have seen children puzzle over how to make a call with a dial telephone, which is still quite serviceable and in fact in service. (Unhandy, though when the site one has called says "Press 1 for..." ). Its hard to think of many devices/equipment/technologies that no one on Earth could figure out how to operate, since there are "living history" exhibits where folks demonstrate old or ancient processes, back to the Stone Age, and experiment until they get a satisfactory result. If the Antikythera mechanism weren't so corroded from immersion in seawater, it might be the sort of thing you seek. although some one would probably work with it until they found what seemed to be its purpose and mode of operation. Researchers have in fact reverse engineered it and seem to think they understand it. There are also some very complex machines which no one can operate, which are actually bogus quack medical devices, or harebrained perpetual motion or free energy devices built in the past, as inoperable as the comic early attempts to build a flying machine with operating principles contrary to physics. So a good bet might be some crackpot inventor's complex device which we can't figure out because it was bogus and misguided in the first place. There are also machines which do something, and we can figure out how to make it do that thing,  but now we have no idea what that function was. Edison (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Edison (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Just thought of another one which few young people could operate: the Linotype machine. I saw one in use when I was a child. Newspapers in general junked them years ago. You type on a keyboard and molten metal is formed into columns of type to print newspapers. Their commercial use today would be hard to justify (pun intended) because of higher operating expense than computer technology. They look great in museums, but there would be more to operating them than just turning them on. As above, some older individuals would remember how to operate them, there might be some publishing museum which fires one up, or a diehard printer here and there, or one might succeed with the operating manual. Edison (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The London College of Printing were maintaining one in operating condition a little over 20 years ago to teach some of the origins of contemporary aspects of printing, typography and design. During a week-long course there I got to operate it briefly as part of a demonstration, and I still have the lead slug of my name that I produced. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.179 (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in the field of Experimental archaeology, which often concerns itself with figuring out how ancient tools were used. APL (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Technologies, even really useful ones, do get forgotten about. Concrete was used extensively by the Romans and then effectively lost as a technology for about 1000 years.  Other technologies we have used until recently will likely be complete lost within a generation or two; can you imagine someone in 2050 having cause to use a cassette tape machine (either VCR or audio cassette) for any reason?  While pulse phones can still be deciphered by modern digital phone switching, that's a form of backward compatibility.  One can imagine that fairly soon, there will be no one alive who understands how to run a telephone switchboard, or what phone phreaking was, or lots of stuff like that.  -- Jayron  32  02:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Geez, Edison, how old are you, anyway? I've been laughing out loud at some of the things we both remember, especially the drum cards on keypunches -- what a hoot!
 * Another real-life example: not that long ago, when we were still car-pooling kids to soccer games, one of the boys couldn't open the window in my truck -- didn't know how to work a crank handle!
 * Thanks for the inventory --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In terms of a 'technology', Greek fire and the ancient flame-throwers that it fuelled immediately springs to mind. AFAIK, we still don't know for sure what it was made of (though there are theories). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Damascus steel. Vranak (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Stonehenge - we have some ideas, but not the operating manual. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The premise is a plot basis for the movie "Space Cowboys." — Michael J 18:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Technologies on the way out but not yet lost might include use of surveying instruments. If enhanced GPS can mark a point to high accuracy, will engineering students and civil (or military) surveyors of the present and future learn to use a transit to lay out a tract of land or to determine the area of a tract of land? Not just going through the motions, but getting survey of a large irregular tract to close to a high precision, by manual calculations. For present lost technology, one might consider test equipment more than manufacturing equipment. I have seen innumerable handmade gadgets which do one obscure test, with low production number, few people trained to use them, and little written documentation. There are likely also many obsolete medical devices with one specialized function, for probing, draining, or extracting things, which were not mass produced or well documented. Edison (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I was told of a gadget on a Penknife for removing stones from horses' hooves but I doubt whether I could identify or use it today. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On the use of sextants and such, our celestial navigation says training with sextants and chronometers etc is still done by the US Navy, British Merchant Navy, etc, and is widely used by private yachtsmen. On surveying, the NGS teaches classes in all kinds of techniques. To become certified as a surveyor in the US you definitely need to know how to do transits, lay out tracts and compute areas, etc. Of course some of the equipment has changed. Modern theodolites are different from old ones. I highly doubt surveyors need to know how to use a Gunter's chain. The "manual calculation" part though...one should understand the math--and I think surveyor certification requires it and doing celestial navigation calculations on paper is required by some organizations--once you know the math isn't it okay to use calculating machines, computers, etc? Some of the computations are very lengthy and tedious, and doing by on paper can led to unnecessary mistakes, no? Pfly (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect they do know how to use a Gunter's chain - I was taught how to use one just over ten years ago, when taking a surveying course at university. We also spent a considerable amount of time learning how to use ancient theodolites.  None of this has proved useful, but I suspect I'm not the only one who has learnt how to use these items. Warofdreams talk 12:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Greek fire. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Phaistos Disc (maybe not mechanical) or the Antikythera mechanism for at least 50 years after its discovery. Googlemeister (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Baghdad Battery. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 01:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Manual transmission automobiles, at least that seems to be the only reason my taxi driver won't down shift on a hill.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)