Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 April 6

= April 6 =

Oceans Alive
This should probably be on the Ent board, but it could also be at home on the Sci board. I split the difference and came here. :) As a child in the late 1970s - early 1980s, I watched pretty much any nature documentary that came on the air. One series that I'd like to know more about has completely eluded my searching: Oceans Alive. So far as I can recall, it was the typical nature doc setup: film of animals and scenery overlaid with a narrator, though as the name suggests, these were all marine. The programs were broadcast on CHCH-DT out of Hamilton, Ontario, which was an ambitious independent channel that regularly created their own shows (eg. The Hilarious House of Frightenstein and The Red Green Show), but I can't fathom (heh) them footing the bill of something so ambitious as this and there's no mention of the show in their article. In fact, there's no mention (that I can find) of that show anywhere aside from bare mentions such as this, which essentially only serve to let me know that I'm not imagining the whole thing. My searches are complicated by two things: first, the term "Oceans Alive" is apparently pretty commonly used for various marine endeavors and second, CHCH is a common abbreviation for Christchurch, which literally puts me on the wrong side of the world. If no one can find anything for me, I may contact the station directly, but as the article discusses, it's been bought and re-sold several times since the 80s and I think it's pretty unlikely I'll have much luck there. I realize it's a long shot, but can anyone get me anything substantial? Matt Deres (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My guess is that it's a foreign series renamed for the Canadian market (like the BBC series Spooks was renamed MI-5 for the American market). Do you remember if the narrator's accent was British, American, or Aussie ?  That might help a bit. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Could it be Oceans Alive: Kingdom of the Coral Reef? ($11.12 for the DVD) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a 2008 series, so off by some 30 years. StuRat (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * One reviewer commented, "The shows on this set were originally aired in the mid to late 80's", the other "The quality is what you would expect for a late 80's and ealier show" (obviously s/he meant "eelier"). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. I guess 2008 isn't the original date then, but just when they were put on DVD. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I had stumbled across the Kingdom of the Coral Reef DVD in my earlier searches. I'm fairly certain that's not it; the series I watched was likely a decade earlier and I didn't see the distinctive title card they used. However, that did remind me to try an image search (still no luck, though, but at least it's another avenue explored). I don't recall a distinctive accent, but I was a mere young'un at the time. Also, if your guess is correct, it may well have been dubbed. One particular memory I have is of a piece they did on sea slugs; they wanted to show the simple anatomy of the animal so the divers actually sliced one open right there on the shallow sea floor - after doing a short prayer of some kind, complete with hands like this (though of course that gesture is much more widely used than just in yoga). A very odd thing to see, even back then. Matt Deres (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw the same show back in the late 1970's and early 1980's - I think the narrator had nasal tone like Robin Leach "Life Style of the Rich and Famous" - I know he narrated another (land) animal show too. I thought it was on CTV but you could be right about CHCH - I was a kid at my cottage on Saturday afternoons watching it at Wasaga Beach Ontario. I was seeking episodes on Youtube but came up empty. My main like for this show was the amazing Surf Instrumental stylings that ran from uptempo Dick Dale style to slow reverb heavy. I want the soundtrack for the show basically! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.191.156 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for this show too. It was on Thursday nights on CITV Edmonton. An article in the Globe & Mail from p. 15, May 6, 1976 titled "Some hopeful signs in the fall schedule" says that "CHCH will have ... an underwater nature study series, Oceans Alive,". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Aspenparkland (talk • contribs) 05:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone find anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.204.229.244 (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

TV guide lists some episodes and Tom Cherington as cast. Since Tom Cherington was a reporter/anchor at CHCH this narrows the search. AspenSavannah (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Letter-o-phile?
Is there a single term used to describe people who love reading/writing letters? La  Al qu im  is ta  11:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Epistolophilia (which would be a love of letters) has a few thousand Google hits, but it seems to be a semi-humorous coinage rather than a "real word" (it's not in the OED). The letter-loving person would then be an epistolophile, but this seems much rarer. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * People who collect postcards are deltiologists. --emijrp (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Love Advice.
I guess this situation isn't new to us, specially to me fellow teenagers.

Well, I was now single and is always ready to mingle. I've got a crush on two people (both are my bestfriends).

The first girl, is someone I met since our graduation in primary edu. and the other is my classmate since I was a first grader. Now, I have told the first girl what I felt about her through text message. But she, I think so, have busted me even though I haven't court her or so. She said that it isn't the right time, and if it is... things changed.

While the second girl, is my companion now on a trip at somewhere. Actually, we were joining a competition for the whole country (nationwide). The problem is, she's got a friend (our classmate also), which she had a crush on and the feeling is mutual between them. By then, we still have plans and questions together owing that we have many things in common. Then we kept on telling ourselves with such question: What if, we were the ones really meant for each other?

Then, we were just smiling then laugh at our faces. So, what can I do now with the situation? Thank You for the advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.115.214 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As much that I'm tempted to answer the question, I believe that we cannot give advice or opinions on these matter. Good luck on your relationship though.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 13:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

In hot water
One of my housemates has a habit of leaving the bath running for hours at a time, so the water is still just the right temperature whenever he wants to use it, which is both using up a lot of energy to heat it, costing me far too much in heating bills, and dumping a lot of hot water out of the pipes and into the garden. I want to talk to him about it, but that hasn't worked before, so if he carries on, is there any way of limiting the amount of hot water available, or in particular hot water going to the bath?

Kitutal (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Who's paying the water bill? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you could take your shower immediately before hand or, more drastically, get a smaller water heater, but it seems that the best option is simply talking to him. If you're involved in the bill-paying, you definitely have a say in the usage. If that still fails, you may have to consider different living arrangements. If the utilities are under your name, I guess the passive-aggressive option would be to pay off the bills and then close out the service so that the waster can set it back up under his own name - that way, he gets to see the bills he racks up. Matt Deres (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You might also invest in a white noise generator that has running water as one of its sounds. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My suggestion: Change your arrangements so that he pays the water bill and electricity and maybe gas (if this is how the water is heated), with a reduction in his share of the basic rent, in turn, since he will now be paying for part of your utility usage, too. Then any excess cost is strictly his concern.


 * You didn't mention a problem of not having hot water when you need it, so I assume this isn't an issue. Indeed, I use a somewhat similar strategy specifically to help with an undersized water heater.  If I try to fill the tub quickly or take a shower, the "hot" water is cold before either is finished.  Instead, I turn the hot water on at a drizzle, which allows the water heater time to recover so it keeps it hot, and I can still fill the tub.  I try to stop it before it overflows into the drain, but, since it takes maybe an hour to fill at this rate, and I'm usually off doing something else like my Wikipedia edits in that time, it does sometimes drain off a bit.  Note that the time of year also makes a big difference in the wisdom of this strategy.  In winter, the tub giving off heat and humidity all this time is a good thing, in that it takes the load off the furnace and humidifier.  In summer, however, this excess heat and humidity must be fought with A/C, so costs even more (closing the bathroom door, opening the bathroom window, and not air conditioning the bathroom can help a bit with that).


 * A more ambitious solution would be to install some type of heat exchanger to use the heat from the grey water to heat the incoming water headed into the water heater. This would be a major project.  StuRat (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no problem with the water as it's set up now, it's just laziness. and we 'share' the rent and bills as a house, which means I pay and try to claim the money back from the others, if they have it, which is often not the case. So the only way is to get a smaller heater? nothing I can do to prevent it running more than a certain time each day or anything? 213.104.128.16 (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I had a college roommate who was a nervous wreck and could not exist without a fan running. You might want to investigate whether this is an issue other than having a warm bath always ready, which sounds like a huge amount of work, and inno way "laziness".  Sorry for accidentally deleting this earlier.  I blame Safari. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You can always turn the temperature setting down on the water heater, which has the effect of making it work like a smaller water heater, but then you risk running out of hot water when you need it, and also will only be able to get warm water out of it, not steaming hot.


 * But it rather sounds like you are allowing your roommates to walk all over you. If it's your name on the lease, then you have rights to demand certain things from them:


 * 1) They should pay all bills in advance, and maybe a one month security deposit. With utilities, have them pay based on their portion of the expected usage based on previous months.  The person who leaves the tub running should pay more than the others.  Or, as I suggested before, have him pay it all, and give him a break on rent.  If he has to pay the full cost of his wasteful ways, I bet he will change very quickly.


 * 2) If they don't pay on time, evict them. Unless you have some contract preventing it, you can probably evict them immediately.  The police can help if they refuse to go (describe them as house guests rather than tenants, as tenants have many legal rights that house guests do not).


 * One other comment, all that humidity in the bathroom might cause mold or mildew. Have you noticed any ? StuRat (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Stu, can you just confirm for my incredulous ears that you're advising our client to lie to the police in order to get around the pesky problem of their tenant's legal rights? --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really use hot water, except a little in the taps, the shower is connected to a different system. And yea, I should threaten them with eviction or something, but I know they have nowhere else to go, I don't really want to put someone in that sort of position. Just having to wait and hope things work out. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Rain barrel questions
I've ordered a 65 gallon rain barrel, but have questions about how and when I should put water into it and get water out of it. First, some background. Our current system for channeling rainwater/meltwater way from the house overflows in heavy rains or with ice buildup (they stupidly built it underground, but not below the frost line, and we can't get permission to dig it all up and do it right). So, the rain barrel is supposed to take off some of the load during heavy downpours. Questions:

1) Ice. Do rain barrels split open at the seams if ice forms inside ?  Mine is plastic.  If so, our alternate plan is to put heater tape  into the underground drainage channels to keep them ice free in winter.  But there's still the question of how you disconnect and reconnect the rain barrel in winter.  And, how to get the last bit of water out, below the faucet.  Or can you just ignore that ?

2) Wind: Will the rain barrel blow over in heavy winds ?  If so, how should we secure it ?  In the single tube system shown below, we could strap it to the downspout, but that could tear the downspout off.

3) Water diverter. There seem to be two ways to get water in from the gutter downspout and handle overflows. ||  Separate inflow and overflow tubes:  \\   \\    \\     \\      \\     +   +   --o       |  /  |~| ||  | water | ||  +---+

|| Single tube system: || || || || || || +---+ |o--o       | || |~| ||  | water | || +---+ What are the advantages and disadvantages to both ? I think the single tube system won't allow water to flow in as quickly. Is this true ? It does seem like it would be a lot easier to disconnect in winter, though. Here's a close-up of what I imagine the connection to the downspout looks like in the single tube system:

|  |   |   | | |   | | |     | | | |   | | | |   +- | +-  \     /   \   /   |   |   |   |

That is, the tube connecting to the barrel must be at the bottom of the upper section of the downspout, and there must be an overflow above it to allow excess water to fall into the lower section of the downspout. Is this how they work ?

4) How important is the screen (not shown) in the top system at the inflow point ? I was considering removing it, since it seems to cause water to spray all over rather than go straight in.  Without it, we could get mosquitos in there, but they have tablets you can add to kill those.  I'm more worried about leaves.  Would those tend to block up the outlets ?

5) Not shown in my pics above is the faucet, near the bottom of the rain barrel, which we will use to drain it, slowly, with a hose, when it's not raining, and the drainage system can handle it. I'm wondering just how slowly water will flow out of the attached fifty foot hose.  Should we elevate the rain barrel to increase the pressure ? StuRat (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Rain barrels can split open if they freeze solid, though plastic ones can expand a little, and if the barrel is less than half full, the solid block of ice will rise as it expands. I empty mine and turn it upside down with a heavy stone on top for winter.  They do blow about in high winds if nearly empty (I put a heavy stone in the bottom of mine).  I don't have a single-tube system so I can't advise on that.  Insects, leaves and grit from the roof certainly need clearing out regularly.  The screen presumably helps prevent these.  As long as the outlet of the hose is lower than the bottom of the barrel, emptying will be no problem, though elevating the barrel will increase flow.  Although your plan will work to some extent, the amount of water falling on a roof in just moderate rain can be many hundreds of gallons, so a single barrel will not be sufficient to prevent a problem.  I don't know the circumstances, but redesigning the drainage is the only sure way to prevent flooding.  Heating the channel is an expensive option.    D b f i r s   08:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder how expensive. Presumably it's reasonably well insulated, being underground, so a very small amount of heat will "accumulate" to melt any ice. StuRat (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Channelling some waste hot water down there might be the cheapest option. Heat will quickly leak out into the frozen ground, and ice takes a lot of heat to melt it.  If you could properly insulate the drainage pipe then the heat will accumulate.    D b f i r s   15:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to do something like this | |  | |   | | <- inlet | |		  | | |	   |    | | |       ____|__   | | |      /  ____ \   | | |      | /  | \ \   | | |      | |  |  \ \ 	    | \ |      | |  |   | |   \  \|           |   | |    \  \           |   | | <--- overflow \ \ 	   |   | |		      \  \	   |   | |		       \  \	   |   | |		       |\  \	   |   | |		       | \  \	   |   | |		       |~|  ||   | |		       | |  |      |   | |		       | |  |	   |   | |		       | |  |  	   |   | |      	  =====  |  |      |   | |      	   ^   |           |   | |      	   |   +===========+   | |      	   |    				   |    				   normal outlet If you add a small amount (1-3 mm) of oil, then it should suppress the grown of mold. The overflow is bent over to stop the oil from being forced out when it overflows (only a small about will be lost each time the water goes from below the overflow to above it). Likewise, the inlet should be near the bottom to stop disturbing the oil when it rains. Ofcourse, you'd add a lid (not shown for clarity). CS Miller (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've heard that oil will prevent mosquitoes from breeding there, but it kills off mold, too ? What type of oil should I use ? StuRat (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It probably doesn't matter much. You can probably obtain waste sump oil at zero cost, though you might prefer not to use it, even in small quantities.  It might be illegal in some jurisdictions to put oil into waste water systems.  I would take the overflow pipe in CS Miller's design down to the bottom of the barrel so that the oil won't be spilt out at all (though you would need to close the normal outlet before the water falls to that level).    D b f i r s   15:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Presidential Periods
Does anyone know of any other periods in U.S. history where the U.S. Presidency was dominated either by something?

For instance:
 * Between 1789 and 1825, Virginians occupied the U.S. Presidency for 32 out of 36 years (1789-1797 and again between 1801-1825), or 89% of this total time period.
 * Between 1877 and 1945, Ohioans and New Yorkers occupied the U.S. Presidency for 46.5 out of 68 years (1877-1889, again between 1893-1913, again between 1921-1923, and again between 1933-1945), or 68% of this total time period.
 * Between 1989 and the present day, the Bush and Clinton families occupied the U.S. Presidency for 20 out of the last 24 years (1989-2009), or 83% of this total time period. This is relevant to the present day because Hillary Clinton can run and win the U.S. Presidency in 2016, thus extending the amount of time that the Bush and Clinton families occupy the U.S. Presidency.
 * Between 1963 and 2009, Texans and Californians occupied the U.S. Presidency for 30.5 out of 46 years (1963-1974, again between 1981-1993, and again between 2001-2009), or 66% of this total time period.

Futurist110 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hillary Clinton is famous for "We are the president", but despite that, I question your thesis that "the Clinton family" has ever occupied the presidency. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am talking about the Clinton family comprising of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, and I guess Chelsea Clinton's future children. Futurist110 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A president's young children sometimes live in the White House with their parents, and that could be said to be them "occupying the White House", but it is certainly not them occupying the presidency, which is reserved for one person, the President. You seem to be confusing these things.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I understand that part. However, Bill Clinton is a member of the Clinton family, and he occupied the White House by being U.S. President from 1993 to 2001. As of right now he is the only member of the Clinton family to occupy the U.S. Presidency, but this could change in 2017 with a Hillary Clinton victory in 2016. Futurist110 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, but you expressed yourself extremely unclearly in your question. Even if she were to run and win in 2016, her term would still be separated from her husband's term by the 8 Obama years, which are not part of the Bush-Clinton chronology, thus splitting the "dominance" you refer to.  I see others are struggling to understand your points too.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  06:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not mean uninterrupted "dominance," only overall "dominance" in a particular time period (for instance, as in my other examples, the Virginia, New York/Ohio, and California/Texas Presidential "dominance" periods were not uninterrupted). Futurist110 (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your definition of "dominated by something" is far too broad to be meaningful. In one case you have "places where they were from or born in", in another you have "specific political families." These are apples and oranges. From 1789 through 2008, the U.S. presidency was dominated by white men. From 1789 through 2016 (at least), it was dominated by men. From 1789 through 1817, it was dominated by wigged men; from 1869 through 1897 it was dominated by mustached or bearded men, and so on. None of this, by itself, is history. It is merely trivia. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The wigged and bearded/mustached men info is interesting (though bearded/mustached men needs to be extended to 1913), but the white men and the men parts are way too obvious. I am looking for something much less obvious. Futurist110 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The OP didn't say they were looking for history, just in history. And they never said that they didn't think that their examples weren't trivia. That is just you imposing your standards on their question. And Jack, you know what the OP meant by referring to Clinton. Bill is a member of the Clinton family. Period.
 * (a) See my response to the OP above. (b) Do not tell me what I know.  Never do that.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  06:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And to the OP, you can go even further back if you include Bush, Clinton, and Nixon. All the way back to the Hoover administration. Dismas |(talk) 23:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate on this part. Sorry, but I'm confused as to what your point is. Futurist110 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that between Hoover and Obama, there was always a Bush, Clinton, or Nixon in either the Presidency or Vice Presidency. Dismas |(talk) 12:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, re-read what OP said. The Clinton bit is a bit muddled.  Dismas |(talk) 00:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The categorization is too muddled to give anything other than a list of trivial answers. Repeat similarities do not equate to "domination"; without refinement of what the categorization is meant to be, there are an unlimited number of possible answers, most uninteresting. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The British occupied the White House in 1814. Briefly, that is, before they burnt it down. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The British did not occupy the U.S. Presidency back then, which is what I meant in my original post. Futurist110 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Who says the Brits don't know how to have a good time?
 * There are many ways to slice-and-dice the presidency. The early presidencies were dominated by wigs, and then for a while they were dominated by Whigs. Then came the facial hairs, and then came the "squares". Then the office was dominated for a while by FDR, all by himself. In 1960, as Richard Armour pointed out, "the public was ready for a change - for example, a president with hair." But since the television era, regions don't seem to dominate the parties anymore. The candidates and the winners come a variety of places (even Hawaii). Now, some say the Bush family might be working on a "dynasty", and if Jeb gets elected that would mean at least 4 presidents from that extended family (including Franklin Pierce, a relative on Barbara's side). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If we are going purely by being related very far back, then aren't a lot of U.S. Presidents related to each other? Futurist110 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the most obvious one. It has been dominated by Americans. And amazingly they all shared the same first name, "President". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. It's along the same lines as the answer to "What are the last two words to the national anthem?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the OP is asking whether there is an eqivalent in American historical scholarship to the periodization of history by distinct groups of leaders, like for example, Angevin or Tudor in England, or Tusculan or French for the Papacy. The answer for that is no. Why? Simply because historians do not find such periodization to be useful for understanding American history. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say, not really, because the domination by particular states were brought about by other factors. Virginia and Massachusetts dominated the early presidency because they were wealthy and influential states, who produced a fair number of the Revolutionary leaders.  Ohio and New York dominated the Third Party System (roughly Civil War to 1896) because those were the must-win states to take the presidency and so it was generally useful to nominate someone from in or near those states either for the presidency or vice presidency, or often both.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are lots of potential criteria. John F. Kennedy (catholic) is the only non-protestant president. James Buchanan is the only who never married. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Democratic Republicans held the White House from 1801-1825  Hot Stop     (Talk)   14:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This xkcd cartoon might have some examples for you. Jørgen (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought Washington was 6'3½", but I'll trust XKCD on this one. Tevildo (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * From 1920 to 1996, the shorter candidate only won 3 of 20 presidential elections.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That cartoon demonstrates two fallacies with such statements:


 * 1) Sample size too small. With only a few dozen presidential elections behind us, some "trends" will appear just by random chance.  You need a sample size more like 1100 elections to get a good sample, which will require 4400 years.


 * 2) Preferences and conditions (like the existence of each political party) change over time. The facial hair case is a good example.  At first, people preferred candidates without facial hair, then they switched to preferring those with, now we are back to without.  This requirement somewhat clashes with the first, as preferences and conditions are certain to change over 4400 years ("Cyborgs can never win without carrying the human votes in the states of Hispania and Queerlandia.") StuRat (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)