Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 July 22

= July 22 =

Des Moines International Airport international service or fully domestic
If there is no international flight service then why is Des Moines International Airport called International in its name. I didn't even see any Mexico or Canadian flight service. Is this true most airports in the USA even it is a big city like Denver International Airport, San Diego International Airport it is unlikely you can go to China or Japan or Africa by direct shot? Do San Diego actually have direct service to Japan or Europe on a average basis for customers, or San Diego only does Japan or Europe for charter schools or business service. I heard Portland is like that. Is it because Des Moines have hub so multiple of airport stations connects to it?--107.202.105.233 (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * From the article you linked to: "The airport was renamed the Des Moines International Airport in 1986 to acknowledge the presence of a United States Customs Service office at the airport". Rojomoke (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All three of the other airports mentioned serve multiple international destinations by major or regional carriers. Rmhermen (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Googling "faa definition of international airport" indicates that the presence of a Customs service is the basis for labeling an airport as "International". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * An international airport doesn't have to be the terminus of an international flight. For example, I can fly from Des Moines to Atlanta's international section and then off to many international destinations. Once I go through customs in Des Moines and remain in an international terminal, I am technically on an international flight. It works the other way also. If I fly from China to Des Moines, I will likely land in San Francisco, but I won't leave the international terminal. I will then fly to Des Moines where I will go through customs. 209.149.113.45 (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems really unlikely, and needs supporting evidence, as it does not match my experience with international travel or common sense. For example, there is no flight from Des Moines to "Atlanta's international section"; such a flight would have to consist of only international travelers (or domestic travelers who are electing to and capable of clearing customs). That doesn't happen; flights from Des Moines to Atlanta are a mix of international and domestic travelers and the international-bound travelers don't go through customs until they're actually entering a fully-international portion of the travel leg, and they clear customs on the other side when they exit such a portion.
 * Now, all that said, the likely parallel to Bugs' note on the FAA definition of "international airport" is to note that passengers are not the only things that land at an airport; if there are no international passenger flights from Des Moines, I would guess that cargo flights make up the international portion of Des Moines' traffic (and justify/drive the existence of the customs office) -- a guess that the DSM website confirms. And since cargo can't walk across the domestic/international divide in a connecting airport of its own volition, the "clear customs in Des Moines before flying to Atlanta and beyond" explanation is the true one here. &mdash; Lomn 18:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I was only using "Des Moines" as an example because that is what the question used. I've never flown in or out of Des Moines. In my most recent trip back from Norway, I flow into Maine, switched to a smaller aircraft, and flew into Atlanta. I went through customs in Atlanta, switched aircraft, and flew home. Similarly, went to Spain before that, I flew into Atlanta, went through customs, flew to New York, was allowed to walk around, but stayed on the same plane, flew to London, switched planes without going through customs, then flew to Lisbon, where I went through customs. So, the point was not specifically about Des Moines. It was about airports in general. You can go through customs at one airport and then fly to another airport where you leave the country. 209.149.113.45 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So, my point there is that it's not actually about "airports in general"; it's about (particularly) when you enter a country (or country-like entity such as the Schengen Zone; a passenger from Atlanta to New York to London to Madrid would clear customs in London). This is not generic to airports; it is only applicable to the point of arrival (or, for some countries, departure) of the international flight legs themselves. &mdash; Lomn 18:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, this is airport-by-airport. In London Heathrow, there is a terminal that is outside customs (by which I mean that you have to go through customs to leave the terminal - or get on a plane, obviously). I landed in this terminal coming from the U.S. to Spain. I did not go through customs. I did not leave the terminal. I got on another plane to Spain. When I arrived in Spain, I went through customs - showing my passport and declaring why I was entering the country. Now, if I my flight from London to Spain left from a different terminal, I would likely have to go through customs in London and then not go through customs in Spain. It just didn't happen that way. 209.149.113.45 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no customs check when leaving most countries (including the US). Also, except for the airline check-in agent glancing at your passport, there are no immigration checks on exiting the US (unlike the EU), so your memory of your flight experience sounds off. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Every time I leave the U.S., at some point I must show that I have my passport. I assume this is an "idiot check" to make sure that I can leave and return to the country. I refer to that as "customs". It is very obvious that we are turning this into a semantic argument. Soon, someone will jump in to claim that if you aren't sent into a private room for a full cavity search, they don't consider it "passing through customs." 209.149.113.45 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Kinda sounds Humpty-Dumpty-esque, with words meaning what you want them to mean. You're confusing customs (which deals with goods) and immigration (which deals with people). Based on my time reading TripAdvisor forums, you are not alone in this confusion. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I never distinguished between customs and immigration. Now that you mention it, it is obvious, but I've always called the whole thing "customs" because that is what people around me called it. When I lived in California, the big gate to Mexico was the "customs" gate. The stop on I-5 to check for illegals was the "customs" stop. The special security gate for the international gates at LAX was the "customs" gate. So, I kept that meaning. I was not attempting to dishonestly change the word's meaning. 209.149.113.45 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * At least in the United States, the line that passengers go through to enter the United States is often referred to as Customs, and actually is both customs, for the traveler's baggage, and immigration, for the traveler. It is really only customs for returning Americans with passports, since they are entitled to return to the country of their citizenship.  I don't know if the same overlapping terminology is used in the United Kingdom or the European Union.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What breed of dogs did the Spaniards use to conquer Mexico.
What kind of dogs did Cortes and the conquistadors use in their campaign against the Aztecs? Were they an early form of Spanish Mastiff? If so, the wiki doesn't mention their use by the conquistadors.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * According to "Dogs of the Conquest" by John and Jeannette Varner, they were mastiffs. I wouldn't suggest reading the book though. It is hard to stomach page after page of graphic descriptions of dogs being used to attack and eat children to keep the natives in order. 209.149.113.45 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't realize there's a whole book about the subject. The Spaniards must have been very much like terrifying space aliens with their vicious dogs and horses and steel armor, none of which the Aztecs had ever seen.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It wasn't just conquests of the "New World." That book also includes references to Spaniards launching attacks on places such as Ireland with ships packed full of mastiffs. 209.149.113.45 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Lesbian Sex
Apparently when two women rub their clitorises together it's called Tribadism? Why is it called this, how did this word originate. It's a strange one. Could it just be called something like rubbing?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.12.4 (talk • contribs)


 * Not sure if this will help but I just thought I'd point out that we have an article on Tribadism. Bus stop (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See Tribadism. Lots of sexual terms - penis, vagina, cunnilingus, fellatio, etc. etc. - derive their names from classical languages, because the people who first wrote extensively about them in the 19th and early 20th centuries intended that discussion be limited only to those academics who understood classical languages, not the hoi polloi.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Church Lady would probably say it's only a tribadism if there is a threesome. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I bet she would say something like "I don't believe in the coffee klatch ... all those ladies bumping donuts together, it's all part of Satan's master plan !". (She might say that as a guest on Coffee Talk, as a warm-up to a full-on anti-Semitic rave.)  StuRat (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Τρίβω (trivo, once transcribed as tribo) means to rub in Greek 2A02:582:C55:2A00:E58C:3FFC:F108:2131 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not really a matter of transcription. The Modern Greek pronunciation is [v], the Ancient Greek pronunciation is [b]. Anyway, our article on tribadism already explains the etymology very well.
 * Also, famously, bonobos are where tribadism supports tribalism (as in group coherence). (Yeah, that's more of an eye rhyme, but I couldn't help it.) Bonobo society should be a model for all of us. :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So we should ape their culture? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Only for monkey business. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverberation Time
According to the following document research found that: "There is an interaction of noise and gender on performance; girls tend to perform better in quiet classrooms, while boys tend to perform better in noisy classrooms". Can this gender bias be explained, and is there any strategy for addressing that question ? Thanks --Askedonty (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Cunliffe's report (Cunliff, D.D. (1967), Soft floor covering in the Los Angeles city school district. New York: American Carpet Institute) seems to be the only one that arrived at that conclusion so perhaps no-one bothered to look into it further. Most other studies (Morgan (1917), Glass (1985), Kyzar (1977), Dixon (1953), Bronzaft and McCarthy (1975), and Cohen, Sheldon and Lezak (1977)) all agree that noise is detrimental to learning but found "no significant differences for sex". King and Marans (1979) found that noise had a greater effect on those with learning difficulties and Hall 1952, concluded that some background music was actually beneficial, particularly for those with learning difficulties.--Ykraps (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well Hall 1952, Bach, Mozart or Beethoven (?) I'm go for Ives --Askedonty (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bronzaft and McCarthy (1975) found "No significant differences for sex... (p.521) Bronzaft, A. L. and McCarthy, D P. The Effect of Elevated Train Noise on Reading Ability, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 7, 517-528.

What car ?
What car model is this please ? Blump007 (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it says "Plymouth" on the front. I'll see if I can identify the ornament above the name... The attached (1950 Plymouth Deluxe) looks pretty similar. Not identical. But your picture is definitely of a Plymouth, ca. 1950. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Bugs, it is a 1950 Plymouth Deluxe. The Deluxe came in several different body styles, the pic Bugs posted is the 2-door coupe.  The picture the OP posted is the same model, but in the 4-door sedan style.  See This page here, which looks almost the same as the OP posted, except with a white (rather than cream) hard top.  -- Jayron 32 21:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys, it's definitely it! Blump007 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)