Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 July 13

= July 13 =

Going for a drive...
There is a 2 km road that runs from town 69.11556°N, -105.07472°W to the airport 69.10694°N, -105.11944°W with a speed limit of 60 km/h. I drive the road several times a week to get to work at the terminal. One thing I've noticed is that I will arrive at the terminal or home without remembering the actual drive. I seem to be daydreaming during the drive. I was curious is this common and, given that it's not the safest habit, how would I stop it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Habit is a funny thing. I drive a lot at my job and have experienced the same thing on more than one occasion. I don't think it is all that uncommon among people who drive over the exat same route many times. If it started happening other times in less familiar settings I think you would have cause for concern. I once caught myself trying to drive bo looking into the rearview mirror at my own mirrored sunglasses for guidance on what as ahead. I actually pulled off this insanely stupid technique for a few minutes on a very familiar road with no cross-streets for several minutes until I came to an area with more traffic and realized how idiotic it was. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing I found to stop it wasn't much better and that was to drive way to fast for a gravel road often covered in ice and snow. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See also highway hypnosis (aka "driving without attention mode", "white line fever", "driving trance", "trance driving", "reptilian driving", ...) ---Sluzzelin talk  04:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there are two different things going on. Highway hypnosis, or being 'road stoned' is a different experience from what the OP is describing, at least to me. I regularly don't remember my drive to work, unless something notable happens, whether it's seeing a cool lisence plate, or some jerk cutting me off. I'm completely aware during this, but like someone above said, it seems my brain doesn't see it as important enough to care. Highway hypnosis, on the other hand, is when I'm aware of being unaware. Is there a better term for the 'brain doesn't care enough to remember' type of driving? Foofish (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are paying attention, but your brain did not determine that anything worth storing in the long term memory happened. Googlemeister (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * An absent minded professor gave one of his students a lift by car to the university. During the drive the prof talked about his latest theories. The student interrupted "There's the university. Shouldn't we stop here?". The prof replied "Yes you're right. I'm sorry, I thought you were driving." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, while thinking about something else, I realise I've crossed (as a pedestrian) a busy road without remembering it. I wonder if humans are beginning to develop (or have) more than one consciousness, like people whose brain's have been cut in half as a cure for epilepsy. Or perhaps the drivers just drove around me. 92.28.240.112 (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See also automaticity. (wp:or alert:) Many years ago, I played quite a bit of the computer game 'x-wing'. I recall playing one night on an 'endless' mode. At one look, I had killed ~20 TIE fighters. Seemingly a moment later, I had registered ~200 kills. I had no specific memory of those events, or the time that was necessary for them to pass! SemanticMantis (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

...and on a different day...
On the above road at night in a blizzard a strange effect occurs. Because the headlights on the truck reduce the visibility even more than the blizzard alone driving slow 15 - 20 km/h is the only way to go or drive off the road. Navigation is by looking at the side of the road and making sure not to get too close or too far from it. The other option is to go by snowmobile and drive off the left side of the road under the power lines. Either way it is quite possible to arrive at the airport without knowing that you have made any left or right turns along the road. So why does the road seem to be a straight line under blizzard conditions. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably because you are concentrating so hard in staying in the lane that you are shutting out any other stimuli. You aren't using the "high beams" in heavy snow are you? That makes things much worse. You might want to invest in driving lights or fog lights to mount below the front bumper of the rig, they can really improve visibility in such situations. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If I'm reading this right, you're only looking at a small bit of the road during a blizzard, so you don't notice any curves. It's like looking down the street to the horizon.  You'd think the world was flat if that was the only view of the horizon that you have.  But if you were to raise up in the air, high enough to see horizon all around you, you'd notice the curvature of the earth.  Dismas |(talk) 03:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Those answers make sense. It can be dangerous though. In the question below, the power lines are 15 - 20 m to the left of the road. If going by snowmobile we use the lines above our heads to navigate. Near the building at the second coordinate the power line makes 4 almost 90° turns. Left, right, right and left to come back to the road. We are releasing hydrogen balloons and hitting the power lines is impressive but not a good idea. I drove up following the lines and made the first left and right turns before I noticed the building on my right. Another guy actually drove out on the lake at the end of the road before he noticed. The ice under the skis was a real clue. Beeblebrox, no we never use the highbeams. Currently we have a Ford F150 which has a 3 position switch for the lights. If you put it in the centre position and pull towards you the lights will point slightly down making it easier to drive. The funny thing is that I've been down here for 35+ years and any time I suggest we try fog lamps for blizzards everybody looks at me as if I'm more stupid than normal. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

...but now I'm going for a walk
Going from 69.12028°N, -105.05583°W to 69.12833°N, -105.05806°W is slightly uphill and mostly straight. From my house (not shown) to the Upper Air is about 1.5 km. Most of the time we just drive up there, however during and just after blizzards a few of us will walk up. It takes about 15 minutes (within a minute) to do the walk no matter what. Even walking into the wind uphill or with the wind downhill the time is always 14-16 minutes. The only thing that slows me up is fresh snowdrifts and that usually no more than 5 minutes. Why would the times be so consistent? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's simply because your (possibly subconscious) brain decides your walking speed and adjusts your energy expenditure to match.   D b f i r s   05:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article Walking notes that the body swings forward like an inverted pendulum. A swinging Pendulum acts as an energy reservoir and swings at a fairly constant frequency. Presumably the OP walks on a gradient that is not steep enough to change their gait from walking into running or climbing. The combination of constant step frequency and constant stride length gives in theory a constant trip duration. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep the gradient is not that steep but is noticeable. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Parlez vous francais?
The main line of the question says -

An image inside apple's headquarters.

Hint 1. Parlez-vous francais? Hint 2. See level 14

Can you solve this one....!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.212.118 (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference desk is for providing factual (or at least referenced) answers to genuine questions, not for solving conundrums. Please go to a puzzles forum. --ColinFine (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Papier-mâché? Papier-mâché is made from paper, which in turn is made from wood, which is where apples come from, hence "apple's headquarters".  It's a french word as well.  No idea what "level 14" means in this context, however.  -- Jayron  32  11:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The question seems to be a repetition of a previous question with almost identical title. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

US bonds
The US Republicans and Democrats are locked in a struggle, with no evident chance of compromise, likely leading to a default of obligations of the US, and possibly to a downgrading of US bonds to "junk" status. What does this augur for US Savings Bonds, which have the "full faith and credit" of the US government? I still have thousands of dollars worth. If the US "defaults" and does not meet obligatory payments to creditors, do US Savings Bonds from decades ago lose their value?? Does it make sense therefore to present them right now for payment, before the August 2 deadline? Edison (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's highly likely that any default would only be temporary. As soon as the debt ceiling is raised, all the back-obligations will be paid.  I can't believe that the state of default will last more than a week or two, even at worst -- the damage will be so obvious that the pressure to solve the problem will be irresistable. Looie496 (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I'm not sure it would effect U.S. Savings bonds, which aren't "tradable" securities like T-Bonds are. Thus, bond-rating agencies don't rate them, and their interest is determined by the rules established when they are issued, and aren't subject to the value of the open market or upon the rating agencies to detemine the interest payed on them.  Seriously, if the U.S. default ever gets down to defaulting permanently on your savings bonds, the country is so fooked you're probably not even worrying about your savings bonds anymore... See United States Treasury security for a better description of the different types of financial instruments issued by the U.S. federal government.  -- Jayron  32  11:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Imagine you have a checking account with a balance of $1 trillion, and checks to write for $1.1 trillion. You can either pay the first $1 trillion and the other folks know they will, in fact, eventually be paid, or you can "go on strike" and pay absolutely nothing to anyone because your bank won't let you owe another $.1 trillion.  Nutshell explanation of current state of affairs. Collect (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the full outcome is known of what would happen if the US defaulted. It hasn't happened over here before, but it's certainly happened to other modern countries, and the results there weren't very pretty. I'm not sure the Reference Desk is a great place to look for financial advice. Are there any economists in the house, or are we all just winging it? --Mr.98 (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And as dumb as politicians in the US tend to be, they know they are driving at a destroyed bridge at high speed and they are not suicidal. Chances of a US default in the next month has to be incredibly small.  Googlemeister (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not quite so sanguine. When you have two parties playing chicken, bad things can happen even if both parties know the consequences. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Republicans leaders historically would compromise to avoid a default, but at present they are in fear of the TeaParty movement, and are playing highway chicken in a car with the accelerator bolted down and running on rails. The refusal to raise the debt limit is a refusal to pay for things already purchased. They are demanding cuts in programs, with no tax loopholes being closed for the very rich. Obama seems to have the power to swerve at the last moment, and sell out his constituency, since he is still raking in campaign funds at a record pace from someone who likes what he is doing. I suppose the Treasury will always issue currency to pay off US Savings "Bonds," but it might be like inflated Weimar currency, requiring a shopping cart full to buy a loaf of bread in a worst case scenario. Has there been discussion by TeaParty thinkers as to the interest rates the US government would have to pay when they go to borrow more money on the world market, if real, traded US bonds were downgraded as has happened to other countries, and what that would do the "job creation" ability of rich people and corporations? Edison (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that most likely Obama and the Republicans will come up with some kind of mutually face-saving deal. Here is one such deal that has been proposed.  The next most likely possibilities are 1) Obama caves and gives the Republicans what they want, as he did on extending the Bush tax cuts, or 2) Obama holds firm and, when the government starts to run out of cash, suspends payments on Social Security and other domestic entitlement programs, saying that Republicans have forced his hand.  The resulting outcry from the Republicans' constituents would force them to compromise.  What I think is least likely is that the government would actually default on its debt obligations.  That would cause irreparable damage.  Marco polo (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I think that the expression "Tea Party thinkers" may be an oxymoron. Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's pushing the sterotype pretty far. Googlemeister (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the trend to negative real interest rates recently observed in the five year Treasury bill continues, the debt can be rolled over into paying securities, and need not default. It makes sense to me that those who wish to keep their funds on account with the U.S. government should be paying for the privilege to do so. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have your likelihoods the wrong way around. A reduction in the credit rating is far more likely that an actual default. If there is a default then the credit rating automatically drops to "in default", which is a low as it gets. A reduction from the current triple-A status by a couple of steps is entirely possible, but I doubt it would get to junk status. A triple-A rating says there is essentially no chance of a default in the foreseeable future. The rating agencies may drop it to A+ or something, meaning there is a very small chance of a default, which would be pretty accurate. --Tango (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

gunpowder recipie
So, say it is around 1500 and I wish to make a quantity of gunpowder. I know I need charcoal, high quality urine and various other seemingly random chemicals, but I know little of the specifics. So, what actually is the full ingredients list, where might each be acquired and where would the actual process be undertaken? 85.210.115.112 (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not much - and widely known. Grate charcoal, add saltpetre and sulphur to taste. Collect (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Our article on gunpowder describes the ingredients. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

So, saltpeter, sulpher and charcoal, and that's it? where would I go to buy such things, though? charcoal is made from wood, of course, sulphur seems to be mined and extracted from some rock or mineral, but I cannot seem to find where this saltpeter comes from. 85.210.115.112 (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Saltpeter in this context generally means Potassium nitrate; that article has some info on its production; it can be obtained as the mineral niter. It's a little confusing because both saltpeter/saltpetre and niter/nitre have multiple meanings.  (I wonder if there's a 16th century version of the Anarchist's Cookbook anywhere?) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This page describes how to obtain niter from urine; it could be obtained directly from the walls of stables, or by filtering urine through straw (and presumably letting it dry). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, saltpetre was produced from manure and urine, or from urine and straw. I've seen references to monks' urine being considered the best - something to do with the concentration. A smelly business, but then the neighbours will have other concerns if you are producing gunpowder in any quantity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Saltpetre is the main ingredient (about 3/4er by weight, with charcoal and sulfur is varying but generally similar amounts). As I understand it, you want to wet the mixed powder, compress it, let it dry, and then grind it down (and sieve it into uniform grades). This reduces the risk of accidental detonation and also ensures that the different ingredients don't separate out over time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You should also consider that not all charcoal is equal for this endeavor. I presume you would want a very porus charcoal for better results.  Googlemeister (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mythbusters tried to make black powder, using a variety of recipes, and the result was pretty disappointing. It would burn too slowly to explode. If it is made in kernals rather than a mixture of dust it is said to work better. Naturally many experimenters with making gunpowder wind up maimed, blind, or dead. There is some info in "The Complete Blackpowder Handbook". Edison (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember reading that in the English Civil War, country churches with beaten earth floors had the same dug up for the manufacture of gunpowder. Apparently the ladies used to discreetly pee on the floor during the long services; now you know why they wore long dresses! Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting trick if you're sitting down. It would also be an interesting definition of "discreet" since a stream of urine hitting a dry floor would make a noticeable and distinctive noise.APL (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if it trickled down your legs and over your shoes. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did everyone smell so bad in Europe in pre-Modern times that pissing all overyourself went unnoticed? Nevermind, I already know that they did, but it still boggles the mind.  -- Jayron  32  19:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ROFL! Joefromrandb (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC on "Cash in the Attic" they once found a specialy designed article of convenience for ladies so that would not have occurred. Sold for a great deal of money, by the way. Collect (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

People, apart from the wealthy, stood and knelt in church in those days; they didn't sit. Perhaps there were some accidents due to the long services, but women didn't regularly wee themselves in church, it would have been sacrilegious. People did't smell terrible, they washed every day. They didn't bathe often, and that shocked the Victorians who were advocating the installation of baths in houses. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

All very interesting, I'm sure. One last question, though, I don't suppose anyone knows where this would have taken place, if there was a particular name for the building where these things would have been processed and made? 79.66.96.223 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * When the production of gunpowder became industrialised, from the 16th century onwards, the places where it was manufactured were called gunpowder mills. If you were making gunpowder on a smaller scale, you would probably want to do it in a shed at the bottom of a very long garden. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Where can I buy a British bus day pass online?
I want to travel from Oxford to London multiple times in one day. Where can I buy a day pass online? 163.1.151.174 (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's such a thing at all, certainly not online, but the best source for information on this sort of thing is http://transportdirect.info/ ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  presiding officer  ─╢ 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This image describes a day pass, so I know it exists. I just want to know if I can buy one online. I'm searching the link you provided, but not finding anything. 163.1.151.174 (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't read the picture properly – that day pass is only valid on London buses, not intercity ones! And it can't be bought online anyway. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  presiding officer  ─╢ 15:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to use the bus from Oxford to London, there are two competing companies: the Oxford Tube, and the Oxford Bus Company. Neither offers a day pass.  Both do offer return tickets, weekly passes, or a 12 trip ticket.  You can compare their fares at  and, decide which of these options would prove cheapest, and buy tickets online if you wish.  Alternatively, you could take the train. Warofdreams talk 16:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Possibly the cheapest is Megabus. It seems that their £1 fares to London aren't running at the moment - that may change over the summer I guess. It seems at present a one way fare from Oxford to London costs £7.00 - this may (or may not) be the cheapest way to go. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope you realize the journey is going to take you about two hours each way by bus. The train takes about an hour.--Shantavira|feed me 08:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but the timetable will probably mean it's effectively a much longer journey, unless buses are available exactly when you need them. Doing the round trip more than once in a day will be exhausting and not leave much time for doing anything else at either end. If you think of doing it by train, do a lot of research online with the train geek sites, because there are often cheaper tickets available intercity, by being smart. --14:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For most train tickets like that, you can get a much cheaper fare if you book up weeks in advance, although you have to specify an exact date and time. 92.24.177.241 (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

home fire alarm network
Is there a way to connect your home fire alarm so that it calls the fire deparment automatically in the even of a fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshor05 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the regulations vary, so contact your local fire department and ask them what they would recommend for your building. Then ask them what they would recommend if you had to do it on a tight budget. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Automatic fire alarms are notorious for generating false alarms that will be expensive for someone. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My church has a similar system whereby the burglar alarms are linked to the police station. The police gives the church 2 false alarms per year, and then charges us $250 per false alarm after that.  YMMV, but as Cuddlyable3 implies, if your local fire department does allow for such a system, they may charge you hefty fees for false alarms.  -- Jayron  32  23:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Churches keep giving a false alarm. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we're way off topic: "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh", but I hope you're not expecting an "everlasting fire".   D b f i r s   21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

James Bond and Illigitemate Children
When James bond goes about his daily routine he has lots of sex with lots of hot girls. How many of these has he got pregnant? How many illigitemate children does he have? Ol&#39; Uncle Screamin Bug (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the article on Mr. Bond, he had one son with Kissy Suzuki. Vranak (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * All the other girls were on the pill. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dispensed to them by Mr. Bond himself, as he had a license to pill. Fribbler (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fiction. Fictional heroes don't have embarrassed conversations with new lovers about who is carrying a condom. They don't get sexually transmitted infections. In real life if you have many partners you risk STIs and unwanted pregnancies. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am certain that any male secret agent expected to perform sexually in the line of duty would have been offered a vasectomy and semen cryostasis as part of his employment agreement, with UIDs for female secret agents. 208.54.5.137 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the late 1950s and early 1960s, when Ian Fleming's books were set? Hmm ..  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  02:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Vasectomies were invented circa 1900. Not sure about cyrostasis, but then secret agents might not expect to live long enough to worry about ever having a family.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you tell them that, they will be terrible secret agents. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As David Lodge put it in The British Museum Is Falling Down, "Literature is mostly about having sex and not much about having children; life is the other way around." . AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Being a military man, maybe Bond was good at strategic withdrawal HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just want to note that (from your link) the failure rates for typical use is 15 ~ 28%. Royor (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I said he was good at it. (And I'm certainly not recommending it!) HiLo48 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * According to our article on Kissy Suzuki (though unreferenced) "She is also one of the only known Bond girls (also in literary) to have died as a result of a non-violent, natural death." Perhaps, if life begins at conception, he had many illigitemate children, only just the one whose mother survived long to bear him. i.m.canadian (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)