Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 May 30

= May 30 =

Joan of Arc
How many times in all was Joan of Arc wounded in battle, and where exactly/with what weapons? The article mentions three times she was wounded -- an arrow to the neck, a glancing blow with a cannonball to the head, and another arrow to the leg, but I'm sure she must have been wounded more times than that, given her aggressive, lead-from-the-front tactics. (In case you want to know why I ask, it's for a novel -- my heroine Blanche will have a lot in common with Joan of Arc, and I want to further the parallel by having her wounded in the exact same places -- but with bullets rather than arrows, because my story takes place in occupied France during World War 2.) Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised anyone could survive even a glancing blow to the head from a cannon ball, unless it was at extreme range and had basically bounced until it had little velocity. Edison (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in 1430 extreme range was pretty much anything beyond the mouth of the cannon. Plus she would probably have been wearing a steel helmet. Looie496 (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I found this, this and this, but no mention of a 4th or 5th wound.   Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   10:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A translation of the trial records can be found at the Internet Medieval Sourcebook. Everyone seems to mention that she was injured by an arrow or crossbow in the neck (or between the neck and the shoulder, or in the chest), but I haven't found the other injuries yet...apparently she was knocked off a ladder by a stone or a cannonball (or a stone being used as a cannonball), and had a thigh injury, and jumped out of a tower once. I assume all the information about her injuries is in the trial records somewhere. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone! I must have been under the impression that her wounds to the neck and shoulder were separate wounds, while in fact it was probably one wound that had been reported differently by different sources. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

fanny pack for men
Is it fashionable for men to wear fanny packs? --Yoglti (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be considered very odd in many parts of the UK, but I assume you are asking about the USA ( and the US meaning ).   D b f i r s   06:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Twenty years ago among yuppies, metrosexuals, and the eurofabulous. Almost all of these people have been killed in muggings or gotten jobs in Bloomberg.  The lucky few are still voluntarily committed.  Never wear one! Head the warnings! μηδείς (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For a man in a wheelchair, they are perfect: secure, accessible and the right size for everything important. Just don't call it a "fanny pack" in the U.K. Bielle (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Or Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Or New Zealand, South Africa, India... in fact anywhere outside of North America - "fanny" has an entirely different meaning. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it became fashionable about the time women wearing ties & pants became ok.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  07:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in our article on fanny packs to suggest that they even existed at the time of the irrelevant stories you've linked to. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in our article on fanny packs to suggest that they were non-existent then, but did enjoy the irrelevant comments you've winked to. If this was a serious concern, I did run a seconds old google search that returns this from April 1980, apparently already a well known phrase that relevantly furthers my notion of year-to-year causality.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   08:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's quite incoherent. You may want to try re-phrasing it. But then this is a rather silly thread, so you may not want to waste your time on it. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Re-phrase what you said? It sounds different when you say it?  Besides if what you refer to as silly threads were useless I wouldn't have learned Washingtonians used the phrase "fanny pack" in the 1970s.  It's cool thou, I always try to re-read posts to avoid labeling them incoherent.   Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   10:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that they are called 'Bum Bags' in the uk85.211.151.84 (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because of course, fanny means something completely different to us. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * God, yer pervs. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * They're very useful for hiking or trail running, or even bicycling, because they let you carry a modest amount of stuff without making your back sweat. (For these purposes, they are always worn on the rear.)  Unfortunately they're absurdly expensive. Looie496 (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * They're not really "fashionable" nowadays (and they don't have to be); But they're very practical for men, especially in hot climate when one doesn't wear a jacket. Some (mostly younger people) might see it as funny but who cares? Consider using a male purse in public in a rural area :) Anyway, that's my experience as a longtime "Fanny pack" user (for any occasion).TMCk (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine to wear, but a little awkward if you're going running. You could wear a long shirt if you're embarrassed to be seen wearing it. I always thought they were called "fanny packs" because they were worn 'round the front .-- Auric    talk  13:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Automatic car
For 25 years I have been driving automatic cars using my right foot on the throttle and left foot for braking. My wife says this is wrong and I should not use my left foot at all, but cannot explain why. Is she right, and if so why please?85.211.151.84 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This "rule" dates from a time when all cars had a clutch, which had to be operated with the left foot. Since the brake and accelerator rarely need to be used together, it makes sense to use the same foot for both those pedals. That way you could also drive automatic cars using the right foot in the same way without having to adapt. But if you have been driving that way for 25 years and don't drive manual cars, there is no reason to change.--Shantavira|feed me 08:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like this LA Times reporter called the Feds, the state of California, NASCAR, UM and many other "experts" to find an answer to this, very interesting that he discovered the Porsche Cayenne actually cuts engine power automatically if you use both feet.   Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   09:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your wife is right - it is a really bad idea because in a stressfull situation, such as an impending collision, you could easily press both at the same time as you instinctively tense your whole body to brace for the impact. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And unless he's naturally left-footed, he would have finer-grained control of the brake pedal with his right foot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Which would probably be mitigated by 25 years' experience doing it, but it's a good point. I've found a couple of articles on the subject    The first two say the left foot should not be used to brake in ordinary driving because the left foot serves as a brace as the car decelerates, and because it contributes to brake wear and flickering brake lights which could be confusing to other drivers.  The second two articles advocate left-foot braking in performance driving because it allows slightly faster slowing time and allows faster acceleration out of turns &c.  The Car Talk guys were split on the issue in 1993.  From my point of view, braking with left foot offers not real advantage, because anytime the brake and accelerator pedals are being depressed simultaneously, one is working against the other, even if only a little (you're either slowing down a car that's still trying to move forward under power or you're accelerating against the drag of the brake) so you're adding brake & engine wear and wasting gas.  Probably not hugely, but still.  And you're either moving your left foot from the floor to the brake, so not gaining a time-to-stop advantage over moving the right foot from the accelerator to the brake, or you're driving around with your left foot hovering over the brake, which seems tiring.

--some jerk on the Internet   (talk)  14:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * When I took a Driver's Education class in 1971, we sometimes observed cars with their brake lights on while driving normally and not actually slowing or stopped. Our instructor called the operators of the these cars "two-footed drivers" and advised us to always use only the right foot to operate either the brake or the accelerator pedal.  The reasoning was that if you use your left foot to brake, you may rest it on the brake pedal and flash your brake lights unintentionally when not actually slowing down, confusing those driving behind you. Thomprod (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On the rare occasions when I drive an automatic, I only use one foot to avoid instinctively using the brake like a clutch and plunging it to the floor when I want to stop. Automatic transmission is still in the minority on this side of the Atlantic. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (un-indent) There is ONE special situation that calls for the use of both feet: when starting from a dead stop on a steep hill (like in some parts of Frisco), you hold the brake with your left foot while slightly pressing the gas with your right, and then release the brake -- doing this prevents the car from rolling back while the engine accelerates. Other than that, though, you should ONLY use your right foot and press only one pedal at a time, as the others have already pointed out. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is even depicted in a Breaking Bad episode were the protagonist's son, learning to drive, uses both feet and steps on both simultaneously after being told not to use two feet. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

car dashboard symbols
Hi!

For my class I am trying to find out information regarding the symbols used on the car dashboard. I am finding many sites that show all the symbols used on a dashboard but I have not found any information on when we started using these symbols and who came up with these symbols? Was it one car company or multiple at the same time? I have found out that it was around the 1960's that they started to appear but I would like more information if it is out there. Could you help me or direct me in my search? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.142.11 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My first car, a 1969 Hillman Minx, had only two symbols if I recall correctly, a picture of a little trumpet for the horn and a picture of the arc of a windscreen wiper for the wipers. It's difficult to imagine what other symbols could have been used for these features. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ISO 2575 would seem to be the relevant standard. It was first published in 1973. and is currently in its 8th edition.    Rojomoke (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ... but you'll need $170 to read it. Richard Avery (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * However, you can read the standards set by the Indian Automotive Standards Committee, which claim to comply with ISO 2575 and various EU directives here. Alansplodge (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Video cameras forbidden
Quite many entertainment events allow guests to photograph the event but strictly forbid use of video cameras. Why is this? J I P &#124; Talk 20:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because they'd like the option to sell you a copy of the performance if they so choose at a later date. This prohibition usually includes audio recording, video recording, and photography.  This is known as Bootleg recording, and while some artists (notably Phish and the Grateful Dead) have allowed it, most entertainment venues do not, because they recognize that you will not likely buy a copy of a performance you already own, but would possibly buy one of a performance you do not.  -- Jayron  32  20:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of this protection against bootleg recording. But my question is specifically about events where still photography is allowed but video recording is not. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For the same reason. The venue and/or artist gets to decide what is and is not allowed, and the artist may wish to reserve the right to publish a video of the event at some point.  It doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" proposition, the ticket is a form of "contract" where you, as the purchaser, agree to the terms of the seller, and the seller can set any number of reasonable restrictions on what you can, and cannot do, in their venue.  The easiest explanation is that they want to restrict the production of bootleg video recordings.  -- Jayron  32  20:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What exclusives would Joan Rivers have anymore?  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   23:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cameras are often forbidden also. It just depends on how badly the performer wants to protect his copyright. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Video is more desirable than still images, for things like concerts and sports. You ever really listen to a picture of a harp? Don't bother. So there's more potential money to lose. They figure the good will of letting you keep a souvenir photo (or hundreds) outweighs the risk of them losing a cash opportunity. On that note, who wants 994 free Smashing Pumpkins albums? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I question the premise of the question. Every ticket I've ever seen for a major entertainment event has prohibited all forms of photography, not just video. --Viennese Waltz 04:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's typical. I wonder who the OP has seen that didn't have such a requirement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a WWE ticket from 2004 somewhere in my clutter, and I seem to recall it specifically only prohibiting video. And I seem to recall Tony Chimel telling the crowd before the show that pictures were OK, but video was not. Of course, I can't seem to recall where that ticket is (I've been looking for hours, off and on), so take my memories with a grain of salt. I'll keep looking. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In this video of a 2012 house show, the intercom at :45 is pretty garbled, but it seems to say they don't discourage still photographs, but video is prohibited. Probably a better sounding example out there. This one may be better, depending on your ears, but still pretty bad. Maybe worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Different organizations could have different reasons for allowing (or not) pictures and/or videos. In the cases you cite, they might think photos are harmless and also good publicity. As a practical matter, it's easy to make cellphone videos which might pop up on youtube later. But professional-quality videotaping would not be allowed without permission. I'm also reminded of the standard warning in major league baseball prohibiting re-transcription of the game in any form without permission - which is generally ignored. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)