Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 December 27

= December 27 =

exercise at home
So, for some reason I have yet to understand, a few weeks ago I took a sudden interest in my appearance, to the extent that I started working out, trying to build up some nice big muscles, as you do. Anyway, it seemed to me I was better off exercising in my room whenever I wanted rather than paying rather a lot to go all the way to the gym and back. Trouble is, though, I have little experience with anything like this, no idea what I should be doing. So, I am wondering if anyone on this site can suggest exercises that I could try out just using stuff around the room. I have managed so far on push-ups, sit-ups and picking up heavy boxes, but I am sure there are other things I could be doing, and likely whole areas of my body I am neglecting. So, what else could I try doing?

Also, while I'm on the subject, I've noticed that most of the exercises get easier as I go, and I can do them for a lot longer with less dificulty now, other than the push-ups, which I still find very hard and can only manage a few at a time. Is this normal, or am I doing something wrong?

79.66.105.117 (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no source for this but I think progress with push-ups is generally slow. There are various types of push-ups that you could try.  For instance, setting your hands wider apart, shoulder width, or right next to one another so that your thumb and index finger form a diamond/triangle.  In addition to standard sit-ups, you could try crunches.  Dismas |(talk) 04:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's complicated. First up, kudoz for exercising at home - exactly what I'm starting again these days.
 * First ask yourself this - do you want to generally improve your appearance and well-being or do you want to work on specific parts of the body or muscles? If the first - use a good mix of exercise, push-ups, sit-ups, crunches (good call, Dismas, had to look it up first though), riding a bike, running, walking (yes!) and a healthy diet will do it. For the second - focus more intensely on the specific body part, but do not omit exercises that generally improve health and endurance (like walking/biking). I am definitely missing biking or walking from your list (depending on your fancy - i. e. a lot of people like running, I don't, hence biking). Long walks (long walks - one to two hours daily) are very beneficial and are the simplest form of exercise one can do (so i. e. consider not driving to work but walking, or walking to your store instead of taking the bus, at least one way).
 * As for the exercises, it's normal to be able to do more or last longer with exercise. See the difference between aerobic exercise, which is low-intensity exercise over a long period, giving endurance, and anaerobic exercise, yielding the ability to perform very much better but over a very limited (on the order of a few minutes) timespan. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to look up bodyweight exercise as a starting point, as the exercises require little to no equipment. If you're trying for a muscular build (as opposed to simply increasing your strength and endurance), you'll need to get dedicated exercise equipment eventually, as there's a limit to how much resistance your body's weight can provide. --Carnildo (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Refer to extended responses in a similar question a couple of weeks ago here: Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 December 18. --jjron (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There isn't much that you can do at home without dedicated equipment. Push-ups and sit-ups are about all I can think of (and, with push-ups, you will soon find yourself in the zone where additional exercising does not result in muscle gain.) The general rule is that you maximize muscle gain doing exercises that fully exhaust the muscle, to the point of not being able to move, after about 10 repetitions. That's why it is important to tune your loads to this precise point.


 * with push-ups, you will soon find yourself in the zone where additional exercising does not result in muscle gain. - this is entirely true. I can comfortably do 1,000 push ups in a day (I could probably do 2 or 3 thousand if I could stand the boredom of it) and I'm not especially strong or muscular. Once you can do 100, pushups become an endurance exercise (and not a very good one). Just as someone who regularly walks 3 miles a day can change to walking 10 miles a day and not really be noticeably fitter, someone who can 100 pushups has gained all the strength a bodyweight pushup can provide. Testovergian (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You could try to get a good set of dumbbells, but you'll quickly outgrow any set that does not go at least to 30 lbs per hand, and those sets that do go that high will probably cost you more than a 1-year subscription to a gym.--Itinerant1 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Lifehacker site runs a series of articles called the Lifehacker Workout. I haven't tried it myself, but there seems to be a number of equipment-free workouts you can try, a different one each day for a week. This page will give you a start, and searching the site will reveal more. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it is a lot easier to make progress by going to the gym. Two reasons: first, once you have made the effort of going all the way to the gym and changing clothes, etc, you are more likely to do a thorough workout rather than cutting it short when you get bored. Second, you can exercise your muscles a lot more effectively using free weights and weight machines than by jury-rigged exercises at home. Once you have tried it, the advantages will be obvious to you. Looie496 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My main reason for thinking I was better off in my room, other than the price, was that I could work for a few minutes several times a day, easy to fit into my schedule, rather than setting aside a whole hour, during which I would quickly become exhausted and have to stop and rest, thus wasting time doing nothing. I have a nice 50kg box that I can lift in a range of different positions that seems to do well enough in the place of all the complex equipment, though maybe you are right, and I will need to reconsider in another few months, see how things go this way first, though.

Meanwhile, I was hoping for a generally overall muscular appearance rather than just focusing on one area, I didn't think to mention walking, since I don't usually think of the large amount of that I do as anything other than normal. I do wonder, though, am I neglecting my back with this set of exercises, and is this something I should take steps to change? 85.210.125.247 (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Exercising several times a day is unnecessary, and may be even counterproductive. You can achieve excellent results by working out at the gym for 20-30 minutes twice a week. Yes, lifting the box will probably neglect your upper back muscles. (Unless you can somehow try to lift the box while lying face down on a sofa or a table.) --Itinerant1 (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Counterproductive how? Surely short bursts of work until I am struggling to do any more, resting for two or three hours then doing it again would be better than forcing myself to go far beyond anything I am used to continually for half an hour or so? Then again, as I said above, I know nothing about this. 79.66.106.204 (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It takes 48 to 72 hours for the muscle to fully recover and to grow after it's thoroughly exercised. Take a look at Strength training. There is a lot of information at, but it may be overwhelming for you at this stage.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, I suppose, though I still don't get the difference between an hours work all at once and spread out a little with rest gaps in between.

Anyway, though, can we take this back to the original question again, I gather from the responses above that the exercises I am doing now will only work for a little while, then will instead only build up endurance rather than anything else, so what else then can I start doing after I reach that stage, still for now only using things I can find easily around the home? 85.210.127.3 (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Chevy Impala trunk
I bought a Chevy Impala this year. On every other car I've had, the trunk pops up when it is released. Not on this one, it goes up an inch or two, then you have to lift it. I took it to the dealer and they said that was the way it is supposed to be. Is that correct? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I dunno, but my car works like your Impala. It's a 1999 Ford Escort, and I've never had the trunk pop more than a centimeter or so.  -- Jayron  32  03:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Even when it was new? I had an 81 Grand Prix whose trunk popped up when it was new, but then got where it wouldn't pop up.  They replaced the pistons in the trunk and it started popping up again. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My '07 Mustang works the same as your Impala. Only pops up a centimeter or so.  Dismas |(talk) 04:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Most cars I've had or travelled in only pop open a few centimetres, but there could be different preferences or standards on this in different countries. Now, as far as I'm concerned, I'd prefer it not pop up. After all, who wants the trunk popping fully open when they release it, e.g., in the pouring rain, in a dodgy neighbourhood, etc? I'd rather control that myself thank you very much. --jjron (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition there's the issue that it may pop up too high for short people to reach it to pull it closed again. I'd tie a rope on the inside if I had that problem, but it would still be annoying the first time. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My 2003 Honda Civic pops up only a centimeter or two, and so does my dad's Chevy Impala.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh,well, all of the previous cars I've dealt with had a trunk that popped up. I guess they don't make them like they used to. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Could be a safety feature. If it only pops up a few inches, it's less likely to obscure your rear-view-mirror vision if you happen to be driving at the time. (Why anyone would flip the trunk unlatch while driving is anybody's guess.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My trunk release button is on the door liner, right where I store my CDs, so it would be easy to hit while driving and reaching for music. (They could have logic built in to disable the button unless the car is in park, but somehow I doubt if they've done that.) StuRat (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but I think that if it did pop up while driving, the air flow would keep it down. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Presumably it works via some mechanism similar to a shock absorber. Did you consult the dealer and find out whether it's adjustable? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I took it to the dealer and they said that it was supposed to be that way. He said that his was that way.  Of course, they might just say that so they don't have to fix it under the warranty.  I was basically trying to verify what he said, since it is different from the other cars I've had.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there's a chatboard somewhere, on that particular car. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a gas spring and on most sedans the trunk only open a few inches, whereas hatchbacks will open fully. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * On all my previous cars (two GMs and two Fords), it has sprung all the way open. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

translation scandinavian to english
does the 'nickname' piera balto have any meaning in english? 2.139.36.192 (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Where is the term used? It doesn't appear to be Danish, Norwegian or Swedish. Mikenorton (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a proper name - "balto" means "white" in Latvian and Lithuanian AFAICT. See  for example.  The journalist in that cite appears to be Norwegian. Collect (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Piera is generally an Italian name, but there are a few Norwegians that have the name Piera Balto, including the Karasjok based NRK journalist mentioned by Collect above. Mikenorton
 * It is not a nickname, but a proper name of the journalist. It is not a typical Scandinavian name and has no specific meaning in any of the Scandinavian languages. The Journalist is a Sami from the north of Norway so his name is probably of Sami origin (an Uralic Languange).DI (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk) 16:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What gives you the idea this is Scandinavian? I speak Swedish fairly well, and by extension, know the basics of Norwegian and Danish. "Piera balto" isn't anywhere near any of these languages. As suggested above, it's more probably Latvian or Lithuanian. J I P  &#124; Talk 21:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some people tend to confuse Scandinavia with the Baltic states (not to mention the Balkans; whenever I start to talk about the Balkans, I have a strong urge to say "Baltic", and I have to check myself every single time. No idea where that came from).  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  06:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In future, questions such as this should be moved to the Language Desk promptly, where all sorts of linguists hang out. The OP is welcome to repost there, if the answers above are not sufficient. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

For your information: Piera is a Sami male name parallel to Per in Norwegian and Pär in Swedish. Balto is a Sami familyname which could have its origin at the place/farm in Finnish Lappland named Balto. When discussing Scandinavia and NW Russia its important to keep in mind that the Sami nation with its languages, names and thoponymes are represented over large areas of Norway, Sweden, Finland and NW Russia. After talking to Mr. Piera balto, at this very moment on holiday on the Canary Islands, he explain me that the name Balto probably comes from the Sami word "báltut" which can be translated to something like "The one hurt avoids danger". The American hero-dog Balto with a statue in Central Park NY was named after a relative of Piera, Mr. Samuel Balto, who parttisipated in the Nansen-team who became the first humans to cross the Greenland innland ice. later he was employed reindeer herder for US gov. in Alaska, and golddigger in Nome where you find Balto Creek also named after him. By the way, its several Sami thoponyms also in Alaska from the days of the Sami reindeerherders. By Stein Svala, Karasjok Norway.
 * OK, thanks. But then you must take into account that the Sami languages are not actually Scandinavian, which is why the question must have confused a lot of people, including myself. "Scandinavia" means Sweden, Denmark and Norway, excluding Finland, Iceland, Greenland, and NW Russia. (In fact, if we are strict about what you say about "discussing Scandinavia and NW Russia", then the impression is that there are no Sami people in Finland, because Finland is neither in Scandinavia or in Russia.) What many people confuse Scandinavia with is the Nordic Countries - a superset of Scandinavia that also includes Finland, Iceland and Greenland, but not NW Russia. But the Sami languages and Finnish are not related to the Scandinavian languages - they are Uralic, while the Scandinavian languages are Germanic. And then there's Greenland, whose native language is entirely unlike either the Germanic or the Uralic languages. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Piera Balto is the name of the journalist. One of the sentences read "One of the journalists in the group was Piera Balto". Piera is a very rare name, but AFAIK it is used both as a Sami male name and a Italian female name, derived from the male name "Piero". Paolo  Napolitano  19:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Extremely rich people who admit luck played a necessary, if not sufficient, part
Are there any hundred-millionaires or more that have publicly said anything to the effect of "lucky events (events completely outside of my locus of control) that, though not sufficient, were necessary to my being as financially successful as I am, are why I am where I am"? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your premise suggests that we have rigid definitions for what constitutes luck. Is meeting my wife in dental school "luck," because I could have just as easily ended up at a different dental school?  So if some multi-millionaire struck a deal because he went out with a prospective buyer and the buyer warmed to him because he noticed that the soon-to-be multi-millionaire likes to drink the same bourbon as he does, and that taste developed because he happened to randomly choose the Knob Creek when he was in college and has since developed a taste for it -- is that luck?  It's certainly not skill.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The premise suggests nothing of the sort. The premise says do any rich people attribute part of their success to luck, however they define luck. All that is required is a quote from a multimillionaire saying "I was lucky." --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My point was that it was irrelevant. I supposed, perhaps erroneously, that you were interested in something other than just acquiring a quote to win a bet or something.  I supposed you were interested in whether or not anyone would admit to such a thing, in which case, what would be the point, seeing how luck, chance and probability have much to do with how everything turn out.  Alright then.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I found this interview with Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen in which he mentions the luck he had:
 * http://www.goodreads.com/interviews/show/586.Paul_Allen
 * I remember Bill Gates once saying something similar, but can't find the quote. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Martin.

There's people like Dave and Angela Dawes from the UK who won €117m (about £101m) through the EuroMillions lottery. There are more at Lottery jackpot records. ny156uk (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

internet film download
If downloading films off the internet is illegal, how can websites that encourage/facilitate this activity exist? It's not exactly like some guy selling marijuana in his basement and asking how come he can get away with it, right? Aren't the servers and whatever else necessary to host a website able to be found by law enforcement and dismantled? Or is it that the servers (or whatever) are housed in the Amazon rainforest or on some boat somewhere where law enforcement has no jurisdiction?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In The Pirate Bay trial, Swedish law enforcement tried to do exactly that, but the website is still up and running even though their servers were confiscated. Obviously it's harder to close down a website than it might appear.  It's a cat-and-mouse game.  --Viennese Waltz 16:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not all film downloads are illegal, there are some legal ones (although you have to pay for those, obviously). It's not always easy to track down where the servers are and it's often very easy to move to a new server, particularly with something like bittorrent where you only have to host a small file with information about the main file and the the main file is hosted by loads of individuals on their own PCs. There are also difficulties with cross-border law enforcement. The server could be in one country, the person running it in another, the people downloading it in another and the copyright owner in another. There are international law enforcement systems set up to try and unravel such things, but it can be very difficult. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Some are legal and free, using advertising to pay for it. For series, they will sometimes give you some for free, to get you hooked, and charge for others. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As well as technical issues (mentioned by Viennese Waltz) which mean it's hard to shut down a site and easy to set a new one up, there are legal issues. The law in most countries says that you can't just ban something because it may facilitate crime - tape decks and CD burners facilitate copying music but they're not illegal (in the USA even guns which allow far more serious crime are accepted as also having legitimate uses).  Sites such as Megaupload, bittorrent, and peer-to-peer services likewise have legitimate uses, including sharing free software, sharing material you have the copyright on, etc.
 * For the US law on this, there are various Wikipedia articles including Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (which established there's a balance between infringing and non-infringing uses of technology, a decision which meant video recorders remained legal) and MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (which found some services could be closed down, after a lot of litigation). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)