Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 May 6

= May 6 =

Why does Don Cherry wear such high collars?
It's something I've been wondering about for a long time; because I've never seen anyone else with collars that big, to the point where you can't see his neck; so I used to think he's got some kind of skin condition on his neck that he's intentionally hiding with the high collar. Does anyone know if there's actually a reason for it or if it's just his weird sense of fashion and wanting to be different? -- &oelig; &trade; 03:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * He appears to believe in dressing quite formally (other than his goofy headgear). He is not only wearing a tie and suit jacket, but also has a handkerchief displayed in the pocket and a flower in the lapel.  So, he may just like how formal the high collars look.  Also consider that he's 77, and dressing more formally used to be the norm. StuRat (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an Edwardian collar. The Toronto Star had an article about his tailor a few years ago. Why does he dress like that? Well, to stand out, for the attention...I guess it is formal, even if the colours and patterns make you want to poke your eyes out. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * British comedian Harry Hill also likes that style of shirt collar, though often worn without a tie. Astronaut (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * One of those questions that can only be answered by the individual concerned, like Bernie Ecclestone always wearing long sleeves, even in tropical climes. Richard Avery (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a conspiracy! They're hiding tattoos.. or something.. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait, you watch Don Cherry and notice the collar? Most people have a hard time noticing anything else on the TV screen (or indeed their entire field of vision) after viewing his suit for a few seconds.  I think the fabrics he wears have been banned by the Geneva Convention for use in warfare or when interrogating prisoners.  -- Jayron  32  16:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rejects from Herb Tarlek or Doc Severinsen, perhaps? In this one pic File:Cherry Maclean2.jpg I noticed how well the hat matched the suit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In that pic, given the conservative quality of his dress, I take it he must be attending a funeral, likely of a very close family member. this google search shows a little bit more of what I expect from Canada's biggest booster... -- Jayron  32  18:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This search is even better. He's Canada's biggest something.... --NellieBly (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Connie Mack favored the high collar, though I doubt he was ever seen in public wearing a white shirt covered in pink flowers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See? Look! This is what I'm talking about! Even when he's not wearing a flashy suit he's still got his neck completely covered.. has anyone ever actually seen his neck? what's he hiding?? --  &oelig; &trade; 12:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. They're hiding the tribal tattoos covering most of their body that they got when they were in captivity of cannibalistic indigenous people in New Zealand. &#x2013; b_jonas 16:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he has scars, or is just trying to hide his old man neck - flabby skin? The Paula C

Attack Helicopters' Anti-tank Role
The article on attack helicopters mentions that they are used in anti-tank roles. Why would you prefer to use a helicopter as opposed to a fixed-wing aircraft? 96.246.68.89 (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple: They can reach areas which fixed-wing aircraft can not reach. Collect (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This question is similar to asking why give anti-tank weapons to infantry. Not only can they reach a wider area, it is best to have a wider range of options, as fixed-wing aircraft are not always available. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  13:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Helicopters have much more maneuverability than fixed wing aircraft, particularly vertical maneuverability and variability of speed, which is key when you need to hit a moving object protected by anti-aircraft fire. You want to swoop down close enough to be sure of hitting your target, preferably while moving about the same speed, then swoop back up as soon as you release your weapon.  Marco polo (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or with modern anti-tank helicoper tactics, rise-up out of a concealed position, fire your missile and then drop back down out of sight.
 * Another advantage of helicopters is that many Anti-tank missiles (like the BGM-71 TOW or MILAN) have to be steered by the operator after launch. So the crew of the aircraft have to identify an enemy tank, fire the missile and then steer it to the target using a little joystick to send messages to the missile usually along a thin wire which pays out behind it. Obviously, a fast ground-attack jet would have overflown the target by several miles before all that was sorted out.
 * The A-10 Thunderbolt II is a very slow-flying aircraft which either uses a big and fast-firing cannon to kill tanks or the AGM-65 Maverick missile which is a "Fire-and-forget" system. The newer AGM-114 Hellfire system is fire-and-forget too, allowing helicopters to spend less time in view of the enemy. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the real advantages of helicopters on the modern battlefield is their ability to engage in very effective nap of the earth flying. They can avoid detection from enemy anti-aircraft systems and even other aircraft by flying extremely low to the ground.  I have seen some videos of Apaches flying just five of ten feet off the ground, while weaving around trees.  In a major war between NATO and the Warsaw pact (which is what helicopters like the AH-64 Apache where designed for) the air space above the battle field gets extremely dangerous and it is much better to hide in the ground clutter, pop up fire a missile and drop back down.  Another major advantage is not needing a runway.  In the hypothetical world war three scenario, runways would likely be hard to come by and attack helicopters could be kept in the air using mobile airfield set up just about anywhere.


 * Since the threat of this type of war is low these days, attack helicopters are used for their other advantages (mentioned by others), but I imagine they will be all but replaced in advanced armies by small UAVs (both fixed and rotary) in the next few decades. -- Daniel 18:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

unauthorized purchases
I have sent similar letters to Bradenton, Sarasota, and St. Petersburg Lowe's stores. What can I do about someone using my Mom's check card and spending in thousands of dollars in Lowe's stores for appliances? My Mom is personal information redacted to protect privacy. He wiped her out! After stopping her card and closing her checking account, I recently found another Lowe's purchase $351.44 in April 12, 2011, this time from her charge card, over $1,600 worth of purchases. I am sending a description and picture to the Florida stores involved n these purchases. I have contacted Bradenton Police. What else can I do to stop him? Mavis Hight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.32.1 (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The best advice to give is a) talk to the banks or financial providers of the cards being misused, and take thier advice and b) presumably, report the situation to the police, for what little good that will do. If your mother has been defrauded, all things being equal, the bank aqnd no your mother should be liable, since it is in effect the bank's security system that has failed. I tend to doubt that contacting the stores will achieve much. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there's not a lot you can do about identity theft. There are some good resources here.  In general, charges against a credit card are usually just written off by the credit card company as part of the operating costs.  Loss of cash from a checking account may not be recoverable unless your mother's bank account had some sort of protections in place.  You should definitely obtain credit reports from the major US consumer credit reporting agencies in order to verify that no other accounts have been opened in your mother's name. You are entitled to a free annual credit report (annualcreditreport.com), so don't pay anyone for them.  If there are any fraudulent addresses, accounts, etc. in any of the credit records you will need to go through a big hassle to get them removed. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You may also wish to contact the rehab center in case it's one of their staff who has been doing this - sometimes such things get reported and dealt with without any of the residents knowing. Just say that, since your mother was in there, she has had some unauthorised withdrawals from her bank account, and you'd like to warn them just in case something else is happening. Don't be confrontational, just approach it as a sort of "word to the wise" situation. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A word to the wise: For this reason, in the future, never use debit cards.  They can allow thieves to empty your bank account. I once experienced that kind of debit-card theft and will never use one again. Marco polo (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With due acknowledgement of your plight and sympathy with your outrage, I don't think that your experience means that it's OK to advise people generally not to use debit cards, Marco. There are precautions that can be taken.  They are generally safe.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. If you don't mind putting your bank account at risk, by all means use debit cards. Marco polo (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Better safe than sorry. Either be sure to always maintain just a small amount in your account, or do what I do and use the bank card only at a secure ATM for that bank. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this an American thing? As a Canadian I find this totally bewildering. Everybody uses debit cards like they are a natural extension of our hand. What are we supposed to use, actual money?! (In my limited experience of France and England, debit cards seem pretty normal here too. I even had my debit card stolen over here, so I cancelled it, and got a new one, with no problems at all.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the States, credit cards are generally seen as safer than debit cards. --Trovatore (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Different countries with different banking systems and regulations no doubt expose debit card users to different levels of liability. This document from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission would seem to indicate that if you lose your card your liability is limited to no more than $50 if you report the loss within two business days, and no more than $500 if you report the loss of your card within 60 days of the bank statement showing the unauthorized transactions.  (Your liability is unlimited if you fail to report the loss of the card within those periods.)  Obviously, you're not liable for any charges which occur after you report the card missing or stolen.  If you still have the card – that is, the card has not been lost or stolen – and someone is just using the card number, then you are not liable for any losses, as long as you report the unauthorized use within sixty days of the mailing of your bank statement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely call the bank or credit-card company. They have procedures for this kind of thing. Also, the police, as mentioned above. I don't think there's much the stores can do. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Here in the UK, if someone becomes incapable of managing their own affairs, their next of kin can apply for an Enduring Power of Attorney, which gives them power over their bank accounts and other affairs. From what you say it seems as if you have this, but I thought I'd mention it here in case it helps others. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Need to find the name of the novel
Hi, i had read this fabulous fictional novel a few years back, the story line consisted of five characters and the theme was base on: 1)kabbalah 2)zero power/one power 3)A scientist in the Nazi concentration camp 4)Parallel universes/ Jacob's ladder 5) good:evil 50:50 earth as we know it and then different universes wer the ratio changes like 60:40, 30:70 and they are all on the Jacob's Ladder

I know this is not much but I have tried everything and sincerly hope that sum1 might read this and tell me the name of the novel/author

Thank you anubhav mishra —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnubhavMishra28 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you read this in a book printed on paper? Was it a paperback?  I assume it was in English. Which country did you read this in? Where did you get the novel from? 09:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Fertile Crescent"
How were they able to farm in the middle of the desert? Isn't it too dry and sandy? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As the Fertile Crescent article explains, that area is quite climatically diverse, with different elevations and large marshes. The vision people have of Iraq as a sandy scrubland is true for western Iraq, and the fertile crescent is fertile because of the two great rivers that feed into a great common delta (and the subsequent irrigation systems that extend the area watered by these rivers). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mesopotamia, "the land between the rivers". Baghdad situated near where the two rivers come close together, some distance upstream from the delta. I'm supposing that is not a coincidence? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Baghdad was not founded until the 8th century AD. Babylon is located about 50 miles to the south.  In any cases rivers of that sort will change location pretty substantially over a couple of thousand years. Looie496 (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See Cultivation and Climate Change. Schyler  ( one language ) 03:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To answer in a more direct fashion; the area used to have better soil than it does now. Agriculture can be very hard on the soil, and primitive irrigation techniques combined to slowly reduce the fertility of the land.  When you farm the same crops over and over in the same spots, those crops slowly extract the very substances out of the soil which made it good in the first place.  The ancients didn't have a good system of crop rotation.  The greater factor is irrigation, which did bring vital water to the crops, but brought disolved minerals along with the water.  Over time, these minerals will build up in the soil, changing its chemistry and slowly killing it.  The Fertile Crescent was fertile for several thousand years; which is quite impressive considering that unwise farming practices can ruin a region in a few decades, such as happened in the Dust bowl years of the American Plains; a formerly fertile and productive farming region was laid waste by short-sighted and unwise farming practices.  -- Jayron  32  16:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)