Miscellaneous desk
< August 10	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 11

Navy SEAL vs Spartan Hoplite

Which of these two groups of people were generally physically fitter: Modern-day US Navy SEALS Operators or ancient-Greek Spartan Hoplites? Acceptable 00:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an impossible comparison. I think we can assume that a modern diet is better than an ancient one, but beyond that one simply cannot compare. Suffice to say that they shan't be fighting many SEALs. Your recent fascination with Hoplites seems most bizarre... Plasticup ^T/C 02:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diet may very well be to the advantage of modern man, but I can just as easily believe the opposite. A simple diet can be enough to allow top performance. Not being tempted by junk food (by which I also mean cookies and stuff) will certainly help. And modern western people are too pampered by technology. I once saw a BBC documentary about the testing of some people who wanted to join the SAS (supposedly the toughest guys on this planet) and many of them were wining about how tough the test was. Well, of course, what do you expect? I suppose the fact that Spartan soldiers were trained from childhood will have made a huge difference, because they did not have to 'unlearn' weaknesses developed through luxury. DirkvdM 08:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what helps make a strong body happens in very early life. A Navy SEAL didn't know he was going to need to do all this stuff until he was at least old enough to recognise the existance of such things and to start training. On the other hand, the Spartans were reputed to have been brought up training from birth to do what they did. But on the other hand, we have more modern training techniques - our diets are rarely (if ever) restricted by food shortages - even the Spartans must have had the odd bad harvest - or some kinds of foods that were not always available. It's a hard call. SteveBaker 23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, bad harvests are a good test of how egalitarian a society is. I wonder if they would have made sure the more important people to their society (in their eyes) were at least fed well. Especially if their job was physical, such as is the case with soldiers. And I suppose they were regarded as important people in Spartan society. DirkvdM 06:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames of USN Petty officers

What would a peer informally address a United States Navy Petty Officer 1st or 2nd class as? For example, in the Army, when addressing a Staff Sergeant or SFC one can informally say "Sergeant come with me". What would be the Naval equivalent of that? "Petty officer, come with me" sounds kinda clunky and have too many syllables. Acceptable 00:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best flute manufacturing company

Which company is regarded as the best flute-manufacturing company in the world? For example: Steinway is widely regarded to make the best pianos, Stradivarius (although no longer making) the best violins, etc... Acceptable 02:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the field, but I searched flute-related forums to see what the people in-the-know think. It seems the top spot is contested, being between Yamaha and Gemeinhardt, with Armstrong coming in a distant third. This page lists flute manufacturers with excellent reputations, and another site has a debate about Yamaha vs. Gemeinhardt. 152.16.59.190 05:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Powell is the best out there. I'm stongly anti-Brannen after they made a very expensive, very BADLY-made instrument of mine. My Powell is much better...it's a more consistent and professional company all around. Hope that helps.

Barometric altimeter in GPS receiver

I'm considering getting a handheld GPS receiver and have more or less narrowed it down to two Garmin models. The difference between them is that one has a barometric altimeter and the other one doesn't. The price difference isn't much.

I'm wondering, if I get the one with the barometric altimeter, can I turn it off? Or better, can I get separate readings from the GPS altimeter and the barometric one, and compare? I assume the GPS altimeter is generally more accurate (with my old Garmin, which went sliding down off the trail into poison oak bushes yesterday, I generally got readings at the same place consistent within 20 feet or so, given enough satellites and enough time for the unit to take readings from them -- I don't think you can get that sort of consistency from air pressure). So while the barometric altimeter would be nice as a backup when not enough satellites are visible, I'd like to be able to find out what the satellites are saying as well.

Anyone have any experience with barometric altimeters on a GPS? --Trovatore 04:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an aviation model? barometric altimeters are more accurate if you know the altimeter setting which is generally give to aircraft at the airport. Also, at altitudes above 18,000 ft, airplanes fly at Flight Levels which are not fixed altitudes above MSL, but rather the indicated altitude with an altimeter setting of 29.92 in Hg, regardless of what the local altimeter setting is. A barometric altimeter is a necessity for aviation GPSs that fly at these altitudes. --Tbeatty 06:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a handheld. I plan to mount it on my bicycle. Is this "altimeter setting" (I suppose, based on the barometric pressure in the area for the given day) broadcast over the airwaves, in a way that the handheld might be picking it up and using it? --Trovatore 06:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You will need an aviation radio and hope there is an ATIS broadcast. But that is not necessary since you are not flying. There will be a both a manual calibration procedure and automatic calibration from the GPS itself. It will be close enough for what you want. The barometric altitude should be more consistent (i.e. probably less than 10 foot discrepancies day to day) when it's calibrated. I think you'll be able to get both the baro and GPS altitudes. --Tbeatty 06:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a Garmin ETrex that I mount to my bicycle. I am not aware of any way of turning the altimeter off. There are three ways you can use it. You can get it to read out the air presure in mb. You can get it to convert that to altitude based on a "manual calibration". (Essentialy you key in your current, known altitude.) Or you can set it to "automatic calibration". I'm not entirely clear how 'automatic calibration' works, but it seems to guess at the altitude every time I turn on the device. I assume it uses the GPS reciever to make the guess, but I can't say for sure. It could be magic for all I know. APL 21:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How consistent do you find the answers to be, day to day? And, have you compared them with any known benchmarks? --Trovatore 21:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and which model is it? --Trovatore 21:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The GPS altimeter will be vastly more accurate - the only reason to want to add a barometric one is if you are flying a plane. Aircraft only had barometric altimeters until very recently - and the flight rules define the altitude band you are allowed to fly in according to what a barometric altimeter would read. So when the control tower tells you to fly at (say) 10,000 feet - he doesn't know what the air pressure is like where you are - and it's understood that you won't be flying at a TRUE altitude of 10,000 feet - but at whatever altitude a barometric altimeter would read. However, as long as all of the aircraft are using barometric devices - all is well because the plane that's coming straight at you - but at 11,000 feet will have the same amount of altimeter error as you do - and all will be well. So when air pressure changes, all of the aircraft go up or down in altitude together rather than there being a lot of dangerous confusion. So - if you are in a plane - it is VITALLY important to use a barometric altimeter and to ignore the GPS altimeter. For all other purposes, the barometric device is crap compared to the GPS. One would hope that at some time in the future, the world would switch over to GPS altimeters - but so long as the US military have the right to switch off the GPS network in times of crisis, that can never be acceptable. SteveBaker 23:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if Garmin is clever about the design, the barometric information could be used in addition to the GPS information to reduce the variance of the reading. GPS altimeters (or at least my old Garmin) tend to give a first altitude reading something like plus or minus 100 feet from the true one. Then as they pick up more satellites (and their ephemerides) and get more information from them, it settles down to something like plus or minus 10 feet. So the device could probably get an advantage by weighting the baro reading higher initially and then tapering it off, and meanwhile it's calibrating itself to the current meteorological conditions, so that if you lose satellite reception it can still tell you your altitude (that would be nice on some of my rides, which go through wooded areas).

But the sticking point is, what do they actually do? That's what I was hoping to glean from APL's report, since he uses, I suspect, the precise model I'm considering. --Trovatore 00:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Garmin eTrex Vista.

I'm slightly ashamed to say that I've never really tested the altimeter. I mostly just look at the graph and think "Bah. The ride home is going to be mostly uphill."(It always is.)

But here is some very meager data. I just turned on my GPS and checked the stored graph from this morning. This morning (8:35am) the parking lot outside my apartment was at 223ft. Then I stepped outside, waited for it to acquire the satellites, and reset the device. This evening (10:04pm) the parking lot outside my apartment was at 224ft. (It fluctuates by about +/- 3ft on the display, but it stores the average.). That's only two data points and I'm afraid I have no idea if it's normally that consistent.

For comparison,I have an old topographical USGS map hanging on my wall and it's got my building between two lines marked 220 and 240.

As for how it works, the manual(p53) has this to say about the automatic calibration :

"Selecting 'Auto Calibration On' for the Altimeter allows the unit to provide a fairly accurate reading within minutes of obtaining a 3D fix without requiring you to remain stationary. The accuracy improves over time as the barometric pressure is compared to GPS information"

All in all I'm happy with the device. My biggest complaint is that the magnetic compass is very difficult to calibrate properly, and if you don't have a normal compass handy to compare it to it's hard to tell if you've done it right. Luckily once you're moving it can use your movement vector to determine you heading and that's very accurate. APL 02:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. APL

Wow, that all sounds good. Does your model have the "trip computer" page, the one that's no graphics, just a bunch of boxes that you can customize to show any values you want? That seems to be missing on some of the models I've looked at. Thanks for your info! --Trovatore 05:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, I found it in your manual and also in the Vista Cx manual. I'm deciding now between the Vista Cx and the Vista HCx, which supposedly can pick up a weaker signal. --Trovatore 05:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lube compatible

I have a few tubes of KY brand Tingling jelly lubricant here and i am wondering if this type of lube would work with jelly type pocket pussy sex toys.--logger 05:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the bottle to see if it is water based. If so, it should be fine. In a complete aside, on googling for that type of artificial vagina I came across (no pun intended) a page offering Deep Throat Gel for sale. Which genius thought up that use for Orajel, I wonder, and what were they doing at the time? Rockpocket 07:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jelly lubricant+Jelly pocket pussy=Yes. It will work. (is this medical advise?)87.102.5.144 09:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the tube says it is water based.--logger 06:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blueprints and/or specs for the Golden Hind

I'm looking to expand the article, but I don't know where to go for more technincal information on the ship. Could someone toss me a bone?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 08:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this website, they reconstructed an exact replica of the Golden Hind(e). They include a lot of scans of the original specifications for the ship, and detail the materials and methods used (they stuck exactly to the original manufacturing tools, materials, and techniques). Neil ム 10:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to suggest writing to these folks, based on the research they performed prior to creating a model. 152.16.188.107 10:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Single, Piece of Celery

Bold textWhat name identifies one, single, piece of Celery? Broben 12:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Broben[reply]

It's a celery stalk

...or 'a stick of celery'. SteveBaker 23:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mom says it's a "celery cane". SteveBaker 22:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's a stick in Britain. DuncanHill 11:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stalk.

RMS Titanic - Living survivors

Hello Wikipedia Volunteer(s)

After reading what not to ask or write about...

i found this link about the titanic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic#Rediscovery

in the Living survivors column 3/4 down the page

i am going to england at the end of this year to visit family...and was wondering if anybody knew of a person i could get in contact with about meeting with the last 2 survivors.

Thanks for your help,

Tim

They were both infants when the ship sunk and, as the article says, neither of them remember the event. They might enjoy your company in their old age, but I wouldn't expect a particularly illuminating discussion of the RMS Titanic. Plasticup ^T/C 12:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are probably heartily sick of the fact that throughout their entire lives, just about everyone who meets them asks about this one event that happened so long ago that they don't even remember it. I'd imagine they'd really prefer to talk about something else for a change! SteveBaker 23:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though they might not be able to remember the Titanic themselves, they might be able to retell their parent's stories, assuming they were survivors too but no longer alive. --Candy-Panda 03:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pubic hair and eyebrow colour

Are people's pubic hair the same colour as their eyebrows? --124.180.213.190 14:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Have you tried looking in the mirror and/or thumbing through a "girlie magazine"?--TrogWoolley 14:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you should trust the hair colors you see in "girlie magazine". APL 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...well, at least most of them don't shave their eyebrows... --Mdwyer 23:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dye jobs are fun, aren't they? Typically, if you don't dye your hair on your head, it'll be within a few shades of your pubic hair (sometimes the color might shift a tad for body hair, for instance the light bit of hair on my legs is jet black, so I have to shave often, but my pubic hair matches my auburn head-hair), and your eyebrows typically are within a few shades of the hair on your head. However, people who dye their hair radically different sometimes dye their eyebrows as well. And there's been cases of dyed pubic hair, too. Kuronue 23:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on your geographical location your eyebrows may be sun bleached to a lighter shade than your pubic hair. Plasticup ^T/C 02:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of book for English studies

I need to chose a book for an important essay for English, and I'm a bit clueless. It needs to have some sort of theme to it, and needs to be a bit short. Breakfast at Tiffany's is a perfect example, but many people are doing that. A friend is doing The Ice Storm. The teacher said no Stephen King (obviously >_>). Any ideas are much appreciated. Thanks, 81.158.176.157 14:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at my list of all-time favorite books, one of the shortest and most well-read is "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time" by Mark Haddon (cool - there are Wikipedia articles about both the author and the book!). I read it in one evening - my 16 year old son in two evenings. It's also EXACTLY the kind of thing teachers love you to write about - and it most certainly has a 'theme' - which I won't reveal because we don't want to spoil it. SteveBaker 15:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first recommendation that came to my mind is To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, surely one of the best books ever and with a myriad of themes ... but it is not necessarily "short." If you are looking for "short" ... these great stories / books come to mind. In order of rank preference, they are: (1) A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Newton Peck; (2) The Pearl by John Steinbeck; and (3) The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway. They are all "short" in length, have wonderful stories, and deep themes. Great books, all of them. Good luck. Let us know what you decide. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, my God ... how could I forget to mention Lifeboat by John Steinbeck ... talk about themes ... it is loaded ... (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, my God, Part 2 ... how could I forget to mention Of Mice and Men ... by John Steinbeck ... ditto for talk about themes ... it, too, is loaded ... (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For short Steinbeck, I don't think you can beat Cannery Row. That book is hilarious. --Sean 12:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, 81.158.176.157 ... if you really want more enlightened feedback, you might consider posting this question on the Humanities Help Desk as opposed to this Miscellaneous Help Desk. The helpers there are much more versed in the topic you address, I am sure. (Joseph A. Spadaro 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Have you considered Animal Farm by George Orwell? It's short, easy to read, has plenty to discuss, and has had a big cultural impact. Warofdreams talk 22:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, was going to recommend Animal Farm ... but I was reluctant to classify it as "short" ... (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is fairly short, compared to The Grapes of Wrath or other significant literature. It is also very easy to read as the allegorical style lends itself to simple language. Plasticup ^T/C 02:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. It's a great book, no doubt. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In a different vein to the previous answers, you can read any Dashiell Hammett book in one sitting, and they're nothing but theme. --Sean 12:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco-Oregon-Seattle

First I direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_July_21#Feasibility_of_LA-Vancouver where I've been given a whole host of trip advice from LA - SF.

Unfortunately, we want to fit in Portland onward as well, so now the plan is to drive from SF, take in Lake Tahoe and the Redwoods before winding our way through Oregon and Washington to end up in Vancouver, whereupon we'll catch a flight down to LA and work our way down to Simi Valley, where we have to end up. We'll land in SF at the end of October and linger 2-3 nights there to acclamatize before proceeding from there. Problem is: We don't think we're going to end up seeing quite enough of CA as I'm not sure how much we can do around Simi Valley for 2-3 days, but any suggestions will be very welcome.

Thank you!

AlmostCrimes 14:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further elaboration: we're thinking of going from SF to Yosemite (might be taken off) then to Lake Tahoe. Two nights each at Yosemite and Lake Tahoe, then I-5 all the way to the Redwoods. Will we be missing too much in terms of sights with the long stretches of road on the I-5? AlmostCrimes 15:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I-5 is dull, dull, dull. Nothing but farmland and the occasional aggro city (he says as someone born in the Central Valley). But it'll work (it is quick), and going to Yosemite and Lake Tahoe should more than make up for it. Your travel will be dull but the sights once there will be well, well worth it. --24.147.86.187 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider a different route from Lake Tahoe to "the Redwoods", depending on what you mean by "the Redwoods". The redwood trees grow only along the coast, so I-5 will not get you all the way there. On the other hand, U.S. Route 101 is quite scenic and runs though or close by all of the most impressive redwood forests. From Tahoe, you might consider taking U.S. Route 50 to Sacramento, where you can pick up I-80 past Fairfield, then California Route 12 to California Route 29. This would take you through scenic Napa Valley and its vineyards. You could continue through wine country on California Route 128, which connects with U.S. Route 101 north into Redwood Country. This might be a slightly longer journey than you would have on I-5, but it would be much more pleasant. You could even stop at a vineyard and sample their wares (well, maybe not the driver). Marco polo 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful on Route 12. It's a notoriously dangerous stretch of highway, because of the few, narrow lanes and the large amount of traffic. You can take I-80 into ~~Vacaville~~ Vallejo, then cross over the bridge to San Rafael and take 101 from there. I concur that 101 is beautiful, and especially north of San Francisco, is where you need to be if you want to see redwoods. Corvus cornix 19:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to see in Oregon on the way from the redwood forests to Portland? Same goes for the Portland-Seattle trip. AlmostCrimes 02:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urm. If you take 101, you'll see coastline. But 101 into Washington will take you across the Olympic Peninusla instead of through Seattle. Now, 101 on the Olympic Peninsula is one of the most beautiful drives I've ever taken, especially along the shore of Lake Crescent, but if you're going to Seattle, you'll have to take I-5. I-5 will take you along the eastern shore of Puget Sound, but parts of that are ugly mudflats. Corvus cornix 00:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to go on vacation to the Oregon coast and have been looking into things I would like to do (note, I haven't actually been to some of these). Tastes differ, of course, but some of the places on my list include: Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area (but it is not always obvious from the road where would be best to stop and explore-- a guidebook would be better), the Sea Lion Caves, a whole variety of headlands with dramatic cliffs and, often, beautiful lighthouses (see Category:Headlands of Oregon), another wide variety of large sandy beaches, and then there are lots of tide pool areas (again, a guidebook would help for this), the small town of Yachats, Oregon and nearby coast sounds very nice, the Oregon Coast Aquarium at Newport, Oregon looks cool. There's much more along the coast-- this is just off the top of my head. And then there are areas inland, with such things as Crater lake. Between Portland and Seattle the first thing that pops to mind is Mount St. Helens -- definitely worth seeing if it is a clear day. Landscape of Mordor. I'd recommend a drive around Mount Rainier as well, but the road is still washed out in one section, so you can't drive around. Still a trip into Mount Rainier National Park, perhaps to the Paradise, Washington area may be rewarding. Pfly 08:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration through the internet

It is commonplace for software to be built by communal collaboration among volunteers, coordinated by the internet. The same thing can also done to create organisations, for example Freecycle.

But have any groups ever tried designing and building anything thats physical or material through the internet? I imagine individuals designing parts of a whole, these parts are reviewed and edited by others, then the parts are made, sent by post, and assembled somewhere. I'm reminded of religious groups who sometimes get together to build a church in a day, but that is not coordinated by the internet. Thanks. 80.0.110.151 19:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is Version 1.0. But seriously, I know that a lot of space-related projects, particularly ones involving international collaboration, have been largely arraigned over the internet. Robotic surgery has been performed over the internet too. I suppose that neither of these involve volunteers... Plasticup ^T/C 20:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're asking (search this page for the word "flange") but I'm afraid I'm not aware of any such projects. As soon as physical things are involved you start to lose most of what makes Internet collaboration work. 62.56.81.182 22:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - they have. There have been many 'Open source hardware' projects over the years. The problem is that software (eg Linux) or information (eg Wikipedia) can be duplicated for $0 - but an open hardware project can only ever produce free designs - the actual manufacturing and distribution still has to be paid for somehow. However, check out the RepRap project. The idea is to produce a machine that can manufacture any plastic object up to some maximum size automatically. The goal is to be able to have the machine manufacture a duplicate of itself. (Although you'll obviously need to add some electronics, motors, heating coils and such). But the hope is that it could ultimately be distributed on the basis that: "I'll give you a set of FREE parts with which to build yourself a RepRap machine - on the strict understanding that you use it to make a set of parts to give to someone else." This scheme would result in something close to the OpenSource ideal. Of course once everyone has such a machine, objects that are made only from plastic could be "Open Source Designs" that you could freely download and manufacture automatically - for the cost of the raw plastic powder and some electricity. There is even an idea to make the plastic that the machine uses recyclable so you could shred up any plastic items that you don't need anymore and use the granules to make new objects. Standardising on common computer modules, standard motors and sensors, with open-source software would allow 100% of a previous item to be recycled into something new...at least until your stock of plastic granules started to accumulate dirt and other impurities that would prevent it from being re-used one more time. SteveBaker 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, would GPL or something similar apply to designs for physical products? Suppose I were to start a site on which people develop ideas for alternative energy sources. Could it be arranged thus that some manufacturer can't say, "hey, I'll just start using that to make myself rich". Now that might be the goal - "we don't care who builds it or gets rich off it, just as long as it gets done and the planet is saved", somewhat in analogy with Linux distros. But suppose the designers would want some reward if it becomes a success. That would be a good incentive for professionals to spend time on it and thus have a better chance of success. Quick success, which is rather desirable in the case of 'clean' energy sources. Would GPL or such have to be adapted for this or is it already a built-in possibility? Or could it be expanded with something like "any profits made off this design are to be invested in the development of new energy sources"?

You'd need this first, unless the production through the internet is somehow cheaper than centralised production. Which I can't really envision because of the transport costs of sending stuff to and fro, even if it's a really light product, because you'd still need to pay for handling. Steve's solution would work - have the production facilities in every (participating) home and possibly even the raw materials, such as through recycling (can't think of another way). DirkvdM 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RepRap has a Wiki site for collecting designs for their machines: [1] - they are asking people to contribute designs under Creative Commons or GFDL (same as Wikipedia). This doesn't prevent people from making money by selling objects made using the designs...just as Wikipedia doesn't prevent companies from selling copied of Wikipedia and the Linux operating system is sold by RedHat, SuSE, etc. The key with these things is that whilst you CAN choose to pay for a copy of one of those things - you are still able to get it for free if you want to do the work yourself. RepRap designs will be no different - you'll be able to buy closed-source designs (just like there is closed-source software that you can buy for Linux) - or you'll be able to buy finished objects based on those designs (just as you can buy a copy of Linux on a CD-ROM)) - or you'll be able to fabricate your own objects using your own RepRap machine using free designs (just as you can download a copy of FireFox, compile it yourself and make as many CD-ROMs from it as you like). SteveBaker 17:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second and shorter attempt at providing answer as the first lost in cyberspace. Thank you for replies so far. I think Open Source Designs would be good as for example I'm quite interested in making a wooden bed or office chair, and a clever collaborative design could make the best use of least amount of wood (lattice girders rather than heavy planks for example) and hence be cheapest, and/or be easy to make (sawing, sticking and bolting rather than joints). Wood can be the renewable/substainable "plastic". Also DIY designs for windmills eg. http://www.scoraigwind.com/axialplans/index.htm or solar panels would be good, plus designs for sheds, chalet, or even geodesic domes. I recall a novel on Project Gutenberg that had each chapter written by a different author, but I've never heard of a novel or narrative made in that way through the internet. 62.253.52.127 09:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember one team mostly built their robot over the internet for the UK Robot Wars but off hand I don't know any more than that. hotclaws 16:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wood is indeed a renewable and sustainable resource - but it's not recyclable (well, at least not many times, never all of it - and definitely not easily). The plastics used by the RepRap folks can be made into an object - then, later, ground into powder and reformed into new objects. It is therefore recyclable to a huge degree. The only problem is going to be the amount of contaminants that build up over multiple recyclings - which will mean that there will be a limit on the number of times the plastic can be reused that will depend on how careful you are cleaning things before you recycle them - and how picky you are about the finished products. As for books written collaboratively - yes, there have been many. The one that springs to mind immediately where each author wrote a separate chapter is Atlanta Nights (although I definitely don't recommendd reading it!) - but these days, almost all collaborative works are likely to be written 'via the internet' - not chapter by chapter surely - but with one author doing an outline, then emailing it to the other for amendment - round and round until everyone is happy with it. There are also musicians who work together over the net - each one layering another track onto some piece of music. But the original question was about 'physical' objects. For 'Open Source Designs' that you can make from common materials like wood, with ordinary tools - I suggest you look at Make (magazine) - it's an awesome source for that kind of thing. (And I'm pretty sure I saw an office chair project in one of their back-editions). There's a lot of good design ideas on their website too: http://www.makezine.com SteveBaker 17:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a book you're talking about information again, so that's old-style open source (barely two score years, and I'm already calling it old-style :) ). Unless you'd want to print it, but anyone who is interested in that can do it themselves (although the home printer would be more expensive than necessary, but probably still cheaper than having it printed and bound and sent to customers, I suppose). The idea of designs of things that people can make themselves goes a little further and is indeed a good idea (and I suppose there will be many such sites). But that isn't anywhere near anything large-scale that might take the place of established industries (if that's the goal) - it's still people building things themselves. It would really change our societies (for the better) if Open Source could be applied to large-scale industrial production. But that production itself would still have to be largely centralised (I don't see a way around that) and usually capital-intensive.

To see if others have come up with such ideas, I have googled "open source design". Most of the results are about webdesign and software. Three sites that seem to have come from the same people are http://www.thinkcycle.org/ , http://www.instructables.com/tag/type:instructable/category:tech/ and http://www.squid-labs.com. Another one is http://www.think-tank.nl/. And a site that is still under construction, but seems to have a similar idea is http://allrightsreversed.org/. I haven't quite looked through all the google-hits (just the first 40 or so), so there may be more.

Of course Wikipedia has some articles on the subject too: Open design and OScar (open source car). DirkvdM 19:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A common type of "collaborative design" is where a manufacturer farms out design work and manufacturing to suppliers, who may then farm some of that out to their suppliers, etc. For example, a bicycle manufacturer may ask suppliers to come up with designs for the gears, chain, and seats. The seat supplier may, in turn, ask their suppliers to work on the seat cover, frame, and spring. Many of the communications for the contracts, design, and schedule are shared via e-mail or the Internet. StuRat 01:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boarded up windows

Why are the windows of uninhabited houses boarded-up? Acceptable 22:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make it difficult to break the panes of glass. Warofdreams talk 22:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or to prevent rain and thieves getting in through glass that has already been broken. 62.56.81.182 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or prevent access by squatters--88.109.84.206 06:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that going to keep out squatters? And if they would want to remain undetected, that would actually help them. DirkvdM 07:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The squatters would have to remove a board to access the building. Someone would notice that missing board and investigate. That's how it is supposed to work, at least. In practice, probably not so much. --Mdwyer 17:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, it would be a pretty stupid squatter who can't figure out he can put the board back. :) Anyway, there are usually also entrances that are not visible from the street. DirkvdM 05:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the squatter is inside and the boards are nailed up to the outside, it starts getting closer to the realm of possibility. Still, the point is taken. :) --23:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider, however, how absolutely abysmal it would be to squat somewhere with absolutely no natural and (since it's been abandoned, the power's probably been disconnected) artificial light. 68.39.174.238 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yeah, and installing light is a problem in the sense that it would draw attention at night. Unless the boards are really light-proof. The squatter could do that too, though. But that only applies to a 'resident squatter', not a passer-by who crashes for the night. But the latter wouldn't occur if the former existed the way it does in the Netherlands, with squatters who occupy just about any unused building (unused for more than a year, or so the law stipulates). But they don't try to remain unobserved at all because they've got the law on their side. I suppose it's for the same reason that you don't see many boarded up houses in the Netherlands. They're occupied either by their owners or by squatters (or anti-squatters) or only unoccupied for less than a year. DirkvdM 06:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear it's abandoned. Also, to prevent young children from getting in and potentially injuring themselves where noone would ever likely find them. This is more important when the place is abandoned because of code condemnation. 68.39.174.238 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To keep kids out? You've got to be kidding. :) Have you never had a construction site or something in the neighbourhood when you were a kid? The place being boarded up would only make it more appealing because you can't be seen. And for most kids the dark would even make it more exiting. Maybe that's why stories about haunted houses were invented. :) DirkvdM 06:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To stop the delivery of junk-mail? or perhaps these hypothetical squatters want something to light their fire with!!Richard Avery 10:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travelling by horse/on foot

Is there an easy way to calculate the amount of time it would take to travel somewhere by foot, as opposed to riding on a horse?

Say someone's in a rush to get to a place on their horse--not galloping the whole way or even going as fast as they can, but sort of a relaxed hurry. About how far could they get in three days? And how long would it take to hike the same distance, with the same level of hurry? --Masamage ♫ 22:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that about 50% of the people who enter the Leadville Trail 100 go 100 miles in under 30 hours, with no stops. The winners do it in about 18 hours. Of course, this is also at 10,000ft of altitude, but it is over trails and across mountains -- what I would consider 'hiking'. --Mdwyer 23:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, okay. But how far can a horse go in a day? --Masamage ♫ 23:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's pretty easy to cover 25 miles per day on foot and carrying camping gear and other essentials - and you can pretty much keep up that pace indefinitely - with an occasional rest day. Ultramarathons have been run over 100 miles with completion times of under 20 hours - and there is a 147 mile ultramarathon that was completed in 27 hours. So the practical 24 hour distance limit for a fit, trained individual might easily be 120 miles. In terms of a sustained effort - the Self-Transcendence 3100 Mile Race has been completed in 41 days - suggesting that 71 miles per day is sustainable for a fit/trained individual, although most participants managed about 60 miles per day. [2] says that they run horse riding events of 275 miles over 5 days - suggesting a sustained rate of 55 miles per day with trained but not record-breaking horses. [3] offers broadly similar figures. This rather suggests that fit/trained horses and humans have comparable stamina levels over long distances. SteveBaker 23:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes on forced marches. 152.16.188.107 09:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit of difference with forced-marching an army though - they would have had to bring artillery pieces, horses and carts and heavy muskets and ammunition as well as the bare necessities of life. No modern roads - and everywhere those carts and artillery pieces went was chewed up into mud. Tents were heavy canvas affairs with wooden tent poles and stakes - and no super-lightweight camping gear and comfortable sleeping bags for those guys at the end of the day! Setting up and striking camp would have taken considerable time each day (compared to putting up a modern two-man tent which can be done in about a minute!) - firewood would have to be gathered, cooking fires set up. In a modern situation, you light your propane stove and cook pre-prepared food within minutes. You can comfortably walk for 8 hours at 3mph - and an eight hour walk with an easy camp setup and strike with no heavy packs to carry - means that you get plenty of rest-breaks through the day and a solid 12 hour sleep. In the modern world, well-equipped hikers can easily do 25 miles a day. I've done 200 miles in 10 days - with two rest days in the middle, that was 25 miles per day. At the end of the first couple of days I was pretty stiff - but by the end and I didn't feel particularly tired - and I'm about as far from being in good shape as it is possible to be! For a modern example of a forced march, see Yomp - 56 miles in three days with 80lbs of equipment. You can see how the weight of the equipment turns a comfortable 25 miles per day into a considerable struggle to do 19 miles per day. SteveBaker 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an item on CBS tv (US) this morning about a man who did a "yo-yo" hike. He started at the US-Mexico border, hiked to Canada (presumably through California, Oregon and Washington) then hiked back. It was, if I recall correctly, 5300 miles in 190 days. That would be just under 28 miles per day. The story said he travelled at about 3 miles per hour. From a Google search, it was probably Scott Williamson [4] [5]. Edison 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking walking at a 'relaxed hurry', my usual rule of thumb is 3 mph as an easily sustainable pace. (League (unit)) This varies with gradient and terrain, but I find it's useful enough. Of course, over a longer distance you'll probably slow down if you don't have a very good reason, or training, to keep going, and you could probably go faster if you weren't relaxed. Skittle 00:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naismith's_Rule is good for calculating walking times and distances, its set at an average walking pace and is about right for a normal person when hiking. Not sure about the horse dilemma though Xarr☎ 20:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horse vs. Human

I read somewhere that, in the long run, a person can outdistance a horse. Is this true? If so, how long a run would be required? Clarityfiend 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start your reading here: Man versus Horse Marathon. The last reference might be what you're looking for. --Mdwyer 23:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question made me think of the Tarahumara, and the external article even more so. I like the term that article uses -- Persistence hunting. When the conquistadors were making their way through Mexico, they hired the Tarahumara as message runners because they had seen them hunting deer by running the deer to death. Over long distances, the Tarahumara runners could deliver a message sooner than a rider on horseback could. 152.16.188.107 23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tarahumara came for the Leadville Trail 100 ultra-marathon for a few years and kicked serious butt. --Mdwyer 03:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might enjoy the Scott Carrier book Running After Antelope, in which the author and his brother test their theory that early humans could hunt and kill an animal by simply chasing it on foot until it became exhausted. --Sean 12:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see persistence hunting. Capuchin 10:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 August 11

Contents