Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 November 9

= November 9 =

Block of user 173.17.92.61
I saw that anonymous IP 173.17.92.61 has been blcked because of anonblock in the block log. What does "anonblock" mean? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Anonblock is not the reason for the block, it's just a category. Looking at their talk page, the address was regularly being used for vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit (which went unreverted), the address's heavy focus (both good-faith and disruptive) on Deaths in 2013 and supercentenarians, and that the IP is static could very easily lead one to conclude that the IP address is one you use or did use. That would explain why both you and the IP have incorrectly tried to assert that Misao Okawa have died, and why you're asking about this specific address instead of the many others that get blocked.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC).
 * A person who edits with just an IP number is an "anonymous" account. So anonblock refers to an IP address account being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Of course people who edit with a user name and not an IP address are more anonymous in some ways. I assume that from the viewpoint of the people who wrote the software, IP accounts are anonymous because nothing is know about them beyond their IP address. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Environmentally conscious
I am quite environmentally conscious by doing whatever means I can such as re-using paper, recycling as much as possible, using public transport etc, but what I understand is that it does not make an iota of difference. At times, I think of giving it up because it is too much of a bother and others indicate that I am being cantankerous over small things such as use of plastic bags. What is the way ahead?Sumalsn (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do what makes you feel good, and don't try to directly impose it on others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Live according to your lights. If you think it won't make a difference, it won't. if you think it will, then it will. But the best advice anyone else can give you is from my compatriot Shakespeare:
 * "This above all: to thine own self be true And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."
 * --TammyMoet (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed your indenting. --174.88.134.249 (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate: "...what I understand is that it does not make an iota of difference." &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See, for example, Recycling and Renewable energy debate. On a domestic scale, such activities have no impact on the global environment, compared with industrial energy use, pollution, habitat destruction, etc.  On the other hand, getting into the habit of thrift, regardless of its actual effect on the environment, may be something to encourage on an individual level. Tevildo (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * While some greenwashing (companies, governments, and environmentalists claiming something helps the environment when it really doesn't) occurs, there are also many real ways to help. Just using less of everything is one way.  But I agree with the advice to back off from telling others what they should do, unless they seek your counsel. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See Why Environmental "Hypocrisy" Is Irrelevant and Inevitable—TreeHugger (May 17, 2013).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Normally, doing the cheapest thing means doing the best thing, because all things being equal, cheeper means less labor and less resources. Those things are priced into the cost of what you want.  That assumes there are no hidden subsidies and no costs foisted off on others.  For example, an electric car might seem great since you don't see the smoke, but they cost a huge amount in resources to make (you don't see that cost because the government gives tens of thousands of dollars of subsidies per car) and the electricity is usually generated from burning hydrocarbons anyway, and it's more efficient actually to burn the gas in your car than to burn coal in a plant, convert it into electricity, send it over wires, and put it in your car battery, all of which involves losses in efficiency.  If we had plentiful cheap nuclear or fusion electricity and better electric car technology it would make sense to switch, because it would be cheaper than gas-burning cars and subsidies would be unnecessary.  If electric cars made sense people would rush to buy them voluntarily and without any taxpayer funded government subsidies.  At this point it doesn't, and they don't.


 * Other hidden subsides and costs are things like unregulated use of fisheries, dumping of garbage, and so forth. Things like this can be addressed by sustainable fisheries (allow only that percentage of animals to be culled that will be fully replaced by the next year's generation) and licensing incinerators to generate electricity from garbage and taxing pollution like coal smoke and commercial packaging materials. For example, in NYC, there is a 5c deposit on bottles and cans, basically a tax.  But the streets are clean of them, because jobless people can make a pretty good daily take just by collecting them from trashcans and trashbags.  In fact, there is an unofficial truce between the homeless and building superintendents in NYC.  The supers leave the trashbags accessible and easily untiable, and the homeless unobtrusively remove all the recyclables, and retie the bags without leaving a mess. I have seen this first hand for decades.  I was even once told by a trashpicker please not to crush the soda cans, bcause they can't get the 5c deposit back if the can is crushed.


 * The basic rules are, if you factor in subsidies and hidden costs, then whatever works out cheapest has the least effect on the environment. If you are forced to do something by law, rather than by cost to you, you can bet it is not a good deal.  This is the case where towns have vanity recycling programs.  If recycling were actually cheaper, then doing so should reult in a net gain to the town budget.  If your town is paying for its recycling with you as a slave labor force doing sorting that they take a loss on, then your town is harming the environment.  See hidden cost, sustainable yield, problem of the commons, and download a free pdf of the college textbook, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by George Reisman. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * These articles may interest you.
 * Does Your Personal Effort To ‘Save The Environment’ Make Any Difference? | Sustainable Jill
 * The paradox of inconsequence | Sustaining Community (30 October 2014)
 * "My Emissions Make No Difference" | Joakim Sandberg - Academia.edu (Academia.edu)
 * Does Anything Make A Difference? | Choose The Life You Want
 * What can kids do to help with waste management, recycling and caring for the environment?
 * 'How Bad For The Environment Can Throwing Away One Plastic Bottle Be?' 30 Million People Wonder (The Onion, January 10, 2010)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to thank all those who took pains to reply to my post.Your answers are comprehensive and clear. Thanks once again.Sumalsn (talk)


 * I have decided not to inform my 88-year-old mother that all of her recycling effort has been for naught. As mentioned above, I do believe it makes her feel good. It's also good exercise for someone her age, and it helps keep low-wage recycle industry people off the unemployment rolls. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your efforts and hers are not "all for naught". The impact of a single individual is small, but it's not nothing. There are ways you can expand your impact, by community involvement and such. It's just a question of how much effort you want to put into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You might want to read Tragedy of the commons - because that's what we're collectively experiencing right now. For each person individually, it's easier to pollute the heck out of the planet than to take personal action to avoid doing that. For society as a whole, it's essential that we don't. If the majority of people act in selfish ways, the world is in a lot of trouble - if the majority of the people act to save the planet - we can still (just about!) fix it. If you want to help the most, you have to act in ways that affect more people than just yourself. Push your local government to enact laws to enforce recycling - or run for political office yourself and get an influence that way. Your enthusiasm can produce vastly more change than you can by acting independently. SteveBaker (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is rather florid soapboxing, Steve, but can you give us a source, some examples, or a link that's not already been posted, so we can see where you are coming from? For example, we had Saddam Husein who drained the swamps of Southern Iraq to ethnically cleanse the Marsh Arabs.  But that was a dictator, and he wasn't acting in his own rational self interest, was he?  People do, or I should say, did, leave dog shit on the streets of New York, but the fines for this criminal behavior stopped it.  Being selfish means paying your own way, not depending on others.  That's being otherish, or maybe childish, or animalistic.  Please note an environmental problem that can't be fixed by incentivizing people to pay for what they want? μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The best way to achieve something is to appeal to people's self-interests. The notion of "saving the earth" is misguided - the earth will take of itself; it always has and always will. As with climate change, or any change, inertia gets in the way - nothing significant will get done until practical problems compel people to face it and deal with it on a large scale. We're not there yet, but it's a-comin'. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:


 * 1) A good deal of pollution is because the government is actually subsidizing the polluters, in one form or another.


 * 2) Either the manufacturer or the customer should be required to pay for the disposal costs of their products up front. Just like bottle deposits, you should have to pay a deposit on, say, tire purchases, and only get that back when it's delivered to the recycling center.


 * 3) As far as subsidizing "green industries", that can make sense, say to kick start an industry that needs a lot of start-up cash to get started. China seemed to do this with some industries, like solar cells.  However, the US government is so in the pocket of big business and wealthy individuals that our "representatives" don't actually represent the interest of the public, but rather whoever gives them the most cash for their campaign.  Hence we end up with ethanol subsidies that make no economic or environmental sense, other than to corn farmers. StuRat (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with you 100% on 1 & 2, Stu, and suggest you substitute government funding with venture capitalism for part three. Then the people investing are risking their own money, not gambling with that of the taxpayers.  What was it Margaret Thatcher said?  Socialism is wonderful, except "you always run out of other people's money"?  Your point on ethanol is also spot on, it starves the poor and satisfies the smug. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think venture capitalism always works, since they would want a reasonably quick return on investment. Take replacements for gasoline.  We know that petroleum will become increasingly rare in the next few decades.  However, in the meantime, we have relatively cheap gasoline now, meaning any alternative we develop, like ethanol from cellulose, won't be profitable for decades.  So should we not worry about developing those technologies until gasoline prices are over $10 a gallon (in today's dollars) ?  Well, it might happen quite suddenly, and have a huge shock on the economy, causing a worldwide depression.  But if the government funds some university studies now, perhaps we can have the science all set to produce ethanol from waste silage whenever we need it. StuRat (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Whereas government backed ventures like Solyndra and created market speculators like Enron do always succeed? There is no claim that private ventures always succeed.  The claim is only that with private venture the vested owner is more concerned than the man playing golf and giving your money to his cronies.  As for the claim that oil is becoming scarce, it's one that's been made and falsified repeatedly for decades.  Oil reserves now are more than 2.5 X (se chart) what they were under Jimmy Carter. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Petrol prices in parts of the UK did reach the equivalent of $10 per UK gallon in April 2012, and again a year later, though they have subsequently fallen slightly.   D b f i r s   08:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The UK is a different case, with much shorter distances than in the US, and more fuel efficient vehicles due to historically higher fuel prices. However, if US gasoline prices reached $10 per gallon, I'd expect prices to be maybe double that in the UK, which would be enough to devastate the UK economy, too. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wasn't disagreeing, just complaining about high prices here. The high tax used to pay for road maintenance, but now it's just a tax. I agree with you that governments would do well to invest in alternatives to oil.     D b f i r s   10:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The living cost in kiev Ukrane
What are the living costs in kiev for a month? (for a 3 student together)5.28.158.164 (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Check out this: http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_result.jsp?country=Ukraine&city=Kiev - it has a complete breakdown. You can ask the site for the corresponding costs for the city you currently live in - and that should serve as a useful comparison. SteveBaker (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What is "weather works" - as part of the ship?
As I am non-native speaker of English, I do not understand the term "weather works" concerning ships - and I cannot find this term at the Wikipedia. It is used in the sentence "Both ships had ... black hulls, white masts, and yellow weather works". Thank you for any help. --Radouch (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't seem to find a definition anywhere, but from the context it is used (see for examples) it seems to mean the superstructure above the main deck. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, this source seems to suggest that the 'weather-works' are the sides of the hull above the waterline. It almost certainly means parts of the ship exposed to the weather (i.e. above the waterline), but beyond that there may be ambiguity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to you both. The second source is exactly what I looked for. "My" sentence (from Cyriax's book) concerns painting of Erebus and Terror... :-) --Radouch (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you look at most English warships from the 1800's, they had a part of the hull painted yellow (see image at right) - and that (presumably) is what they're talking about. "Works" means any part of the construction of the ship "Weather" generally means "parts exposed to the weather" (as opposed to stuff below the water line or inside the ship).  But in this case, it must mean something more specific than that because only the stripe that goes through the gun deck(s) was generally painted that way. SteveBaker (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh...and also, see Nelson Chequer - the name of the specific paint scheme you're probably reading about. SteveBaker (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As Andy's second source makes clear, the Erebus and the Terror (the subjects of the quote) had no yellow on the outer hull, so "weather works" must indicate another part of the ship. We're left with inner bulwarks, or something vague that appeared on a balance sheet while the paint went off to decorate a naval architect's fence. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's "clear" at all. A couple of very faded watercolors that could be showing a yellow-ish stripe - and a hell of a lot of pen and ink drawings that show a light colored stripe that could be either white or yellow - and the evidence that pretty much all other ships of the era had yellow stripes - and the SOLE semi-convincing evidence is the word "inside"...which might mean "between the strakes - but not including them" rather than "inside the ship".  It really is unlikely that they'd describe the inside of the ship.  Since only ONE source reads it that way and it admits that ALL of the other sources read it the more likely way (a yellow stripe)...I'd say that the odds of it being right are pretty small. SteveBaker (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Which works if the other ships of the Royal Navy had a yellow stripe - which went out after the Napoleonic wars. Black and white was more typical, and while some paintings could just about be interpreted as yellow (aka dirty white) it certainly wasn't the canary yellow of Nelson's flagship. This picture shows a typical RN livery of Franklin's period. I suppose the third (and most likely) alternative to some vague inner area or my cynical suggestion is a simple mis-transcription of the colour. White weather-works and a yellow mast would be entirely plausible. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The yellow strip along the topside of a ship could be the rubbing strake, which is a semicircular projection which takes the rubbing damage if you've neglected to put out your fenders. CS Miller (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)