Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 August 18

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 18

Terrorists

Where do they get their money .Also, why do they wear towels on their heads.

• People who donate to Islamic charities
• That is a turban, not a towel.

Use a ? for a question, and sig your statements. 65.173.104.223 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 65.173.104.223's comment is dangerously misleading. Many, many "Islamic charities" do not fund extremism, just as much as, for example, donating to the RSPCA does not fund animal rights extremism. Please be careful about making such general statements in future, they only serve to further Islamophobia. Rockpocket 00:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all do wear towels on their heads; what you're seeing is a turban, commonly worn by all sorts of people in the middle east, not just terrorists. There are non-islamic terrorists; see, for example, Army of God and Timothy McVeigh for examples of terrorists from the good old USA. Kuronue 00:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Or PIRA for non-turbanned (former) terrorists funded (partially at least) by Irish-American charities. DuncanHill 00:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, some Irish-American groups have been found to be channelling money to fund extremist organisations. Not all of them. Rockpocket 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean Islamic extremists, see Al-Qaeda#The chain of command for some information on their funding. Those "towls" are called Keffiyeh. Rockpocket 00:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Many non-Muslims are Sihk of being thought to be Muslim just because they also wear turbans. StuRat 06:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have an article on Terrorist financing emphasizing banking processes and money laundering in the post-9/11 world. In the past, money was sometimes also taken by force. Back in the 1970s and 80s, groups such as the Red Army Fraction partially financed their operations with bank robberies. Kidnappings were orchestrated mainly for blackmailing governments into releasing prisonsers or other political demands, but occasionally (and anonymously) also in order to extort large sums of ransom money. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A major strength of terrorism is that it needs much less money for the same effect than a regular army does. All that is needed for most terrorist acts is a simple weapon. Such as a strategically placed home-made bomb. Or a gun to hijack a train or take a school hostage, as happened in the Netherlands by Moluccans (who didn't wear towels on their heads :) ) in the world's first train hijack and again two years later. You could also hold a pencil to someone's eye and they will do pretty much what you ask them to. Hell, even a good demonstration of martial arts will do the trick for your average train conductor, busdriver or pilot. DirkvdM 08:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are not turbans. Corvus cornix 19:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Corvus, I guess they're on about the keffiyeh. Xn4 21:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaving the headgear to one side, I'm sure this is a less straight forward question than some of the answers imply. Terrorism may not necessarily require sophicated or expensive equipment, as the above answer notes, but many organizations do have a large arsenal of weaponry at their disposal. You can't fund an organization like Hamas or Hezbollah by collecting lots of pennies from peasants. I doubt you could do it purely through organized crime, either. When I think of the scale of operations mounted by many organizations I can't help but think that there must be powerful vested interests such as governments, social elites, industrialists and so on involved in the bankrolling somewhere. There is some mention of this with regard to the two organizations I mentioned, on the respective pages. Terrorism is often a continuation of inter-imperialist conflict by other means... 89.243.7.4 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

sights along the Illinois Tollway

So i live out-of-state but i drive along the Illinois Tollway (I-88) fairly often and there are two things i've always wondered: tia ~ lav-chan @ 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

1. What are the brown dome-shaped buildings along the highway? I think there are like maybe three or four along I-88. They're about the size of a small house, they have a large square door on one side, and they have a pointed dome on top. If i had to guess i would probably say they're used to store construction equipment (i've seen some backhoes or whatever parked there before), but i can never see inside so i don't know for sure.

1)Salt is stored in them to be spread along the road in wintertime. Edison 03:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, duh. Thanks! ~ lav-chan @ 04:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

2. What is that large blue flame that's visible from the highway near DeKalb? I found one result on Google that seems relevant; this Flickr page calls it the 'Eternal Flame of NIU', but searching for 'eternal flame niu' doesn't bring up any more results. What is this flame really for?

Methane is often released from a Petroleum refinery. It is usually not economically feasable to collect, store, and deliver it as natural gas, and so it is instead simply burned off. This is sometimes called "Excess Gas Burnoff". It might be one of these, especially if there is a factory or refinery near it. --Mdwyer 05:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I cringe when I see those. This is why we need a carbon tax, to MAKE it economically feasible to find a way to avoid burning up precious fossil fuels, polluting the environment, and driving global warming at all once. StuRat 05:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

At least they are burning the methane instead of just letting it out, methane is much more potent than carbon dioxide for global warming. --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if an open flame blowing in the wind like that gets anywhere need 100% combustion. For that you would need the combustion to be in a controlled chamber which holds more of the heat in, enriched with pure oxygen. StuRat 19:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the gases being burned in the flare tower are often not any pure gas and are rather a pretty useless mix of gasses and liquids that would be too-expensive to sort out.

I always liked driving past the Bayway Refinery on the New Jersey Turnpike on cloudy nights when they were flaring off gas; it looked a lot like the way I'd always imagined one of the circles of Hell should look as the flare-light reflected off of the low-lying clouds in great flickering gouts of orange light.

Atlant 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

transmissin output torque = engine power

Why is the transmission output torque of a car equal to the engine power? The last paragraph of [1] states the following: "As far as shifting goes, always shift to maximize transmission output torque. It turns out this is exactly the same as saying shift to maximize engine power."

Thanks. Acceptable 04:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's right, max torque normally occurs at lower RPM than max power. StuRat 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That page you reference is talking nonsense. Torque and power (horsepower) are not at all the same thing. Torque is a force - you can exert a force without consuming any power. You're doing it right now - the 'force' of gravity is keeping your butt in that chair - but you aren't consuming power from the earth in order to do that. The ability of the cars' engine to produce torque and horsepower are two somewhat separate concepts. So: in order to maximise accelleration - you need to shift at an RPM at which the torque of the engine at the new RPM (after you shift) is the same as the RPM before you shifted (which entails knowing the torque curve of your car and also what the gear ratios are and how fast you, personally, are able to shift). However, that's only the right thing to do if you want to burn rubber and blow away that bloody annoying turbo VW bug (sorry - personal bias crept in there!). If you want to shift to maximise fuel economy - then you want to shift to keep the RPM's within the range at which it's most fuel efficient. Generally, that's the lowest RPM you can use without 'lugging' the engine - 2000 to 3000 rpm in most cars. SteveBaker 15:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So when racing, either drag-racing or a formula one-like circuit, it is in your best interest to keep the car as close to the torque peak as possible?

Yes - if you want go as fast as possible you want the output (axle) torque to be is big as you can get it. But you also need to have the axle rotation speed greater than or equal to the cars speed (specifically axlerotations x wheel radius > car speed)

87.102.92.28 17:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

BUT if the torque is too great AND the freewheel axle rotation speed is greater than the actual speed of the car then you will get wheel spin as the article says.)87.102.92.28 17:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If so, then are videogames like Forza Motorsport incorrect as they tell you to keep the car as close the horsepower peak as possible for best lap times? I have read many other articles that also tell you to maximize engine power such as [2] (under maximum Power vs. Acceleration)

No they are right - max horsepower = max energy output = max acceleration/87.102.92.28 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(Assuming that you do not get wheel spin - caused by being in too high(fast) a gear)87.102.92.28 17:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, this website [3] says that "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*." I have heard this statement on other sites. Is this true? If so, why? Thanks. Acceptable 15:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The equation you need is POWER=TORQUExREVS(x a units conversion factor constant)

and also TORQUE_OUT=TORQUE_IN/GEAR_RATIO.

I think someone on the science desk could explain anything you need in more detail.87.102.92.28 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words "(Horse)POWER/REVS = TORQUE."

Note that the power output of an engine will increase with the rpm of the engine. So having high rpm(engine) means high power - which in turn means higher torque...87.102.92.28 17:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. The peak horsepower for my MINI Cooper'S is at the maximum RPM (I have a dynomometer printout to prove it). Waiting until I am close to the redline (7,000 rpm) before I shift will take about 2 seconds off my normal 6.5 second 0-60 time! You don't care about horsepower - you only care about torque and the peak torque (in my car at least) is 4,000 to 5,000 rpm. SteveBaker 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering which bit you thought was nonsense - you agreed that peak power is at top rpm so I guess you think that the torque is not max at 7000rpm but at 4000-5000rpm?

87.102.92.28 20:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The equations are from torque and I'm personally 100% certain that they are right.?87.102.92.28 20:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You said:

• Note that the power output of an engine will increase with the rpm of the engine. - This is true.
• So having high rpm(engine) means high power - Also quite true.
• - which in turn means higher torque... - Nonsense.

As I said. Torque and Horsepower are not directly related. At peak RPM, you have peak horsepower - but you don't have peak torque. Still don't believe me? Look at this image [4] which is an actual measurement from a real car and is therefore hard to argue against. Notice that the horsepower curve increases more or less steadily with rpm right up to 7000rpm (which is redline for this car). Notice that the torque curve levels out at about 3500rpm - and starts decreasing after about 5500rpm. So it's very, very clear that peak horsepower (which is at peak RPM) does NOT mean peak torque. Torque#Machine_torque says exactly that. SteveBaker 02:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating - there was no gear shift right? - but torque x rpm is proportion to power right? so whats going on?87.102.4.148 08:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - got it now - my error.87.102.4.148 08:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed by mistakes..Thanks 'User:SteveBaker'.87.102.4.148 08:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We have to be VERY careful when we talk about "going fast" - are you talking about fast accelleration or fast top speed? Mostly you are talking about accelleration. We can simply answer the question of whether it's horsepower or torque that matters:

• F = m A -- Force equals mass times accelleration.
• A = F / m -- So Accelleration depends on the force you can apply divided by the mass.
• But the mass of the car is essentially constant - so Accelleration depends only on the sum of the forces applied to the car. Those are: Drag, Friction and Force applied by the tyres against the road.
• Since we can't do much about drag and friction - in order to get the fastest accelleration, we need to apply the biggest possible force at the wheels.
• We're driving the car with these round wheel thingies...how do we figure out how much force they can apply? Well, there are two things:
  • If the engine were infinitely powerful, the force would be limited by wheel-spin. Rubber has a greater static friction ("sticktion") than dynamic friction ("sliption") - so you definitely don't want the wheels to slip - if possible, you want to be applying just exactly the amount of force that has the wheels just short of slipping. If your engine is more powerful than the static frictional force of the wheels - then that's the best you can do - get bigger, stickier tyres, put more weight over the drive wheels (or use down-force from spoilers, etc).
  • If the engine is not powerful enough to cause wheel spin then you need to get it to apply as much force as possible to the tyres. How do we do that? Well, the linear force of the tyre against the road is calculated as the torque at the axle divided by the radius of the wheel. So to maximise force - you need to maximise torque.

The conclusion of which is: To get the maximum accelleration - you need the maximum torque you can get (unless your wheels slip - in which case just take your foot off the gas until they stop spinning!). Nowhere in all of that math did we mention horsepower.

I know this to be true (although this is definitely OR) because I decided a couple of years ago to see what the fastest 0-60 time I could get out of my MINI Cooper'S. I wrote a computer program to figure out the best possible shift pattern - and indeed, the answer was: "Shift up when doing so doesn't reduce your torque."...if you have a dynamometer graph for your car (an essential thing if you are serious about best possible accelleration) - note that when you up-shift, your RPM will drop. If you know the gear ratios for your gearbox, you can figure out at which RPM you can up-shift without changing the torque you are getting. This is the perfect point to shift because:

• If you shift earlier than that, your torque in the new gear will be less than your torque is now! So wait a bit!
• If you shift later than that, your torque in the present gear is dropping because you're past the peak in the torque curve. If you had shifted earlier you'd have more torque than you do now - and the torque would actually be increasing!

So your shift points need to 'bracket' the peak in the torque curve. Note that I'm talking about a typical gas-powered car. Some vehicles (notably electric cars) have weird torque curves - where the peak torque is at zero rpm or something...other techniques apply to them. Also, if you have a really crappy turbocharger with lots of turbo-lag, then there may be other considerations - you'll want to keep the revs high enough to keep the turbo kicked-in. But modern turbos (and all superchargers) don't have that issue since they're already spinning before you come close to the shift 'destination' rpms. SteveBaker 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

87.102, you said that it is best to keep your car as close to the torque peak as possible. However, in the next answer you wrote "max horsepower = max energy output = max acceleration". These seem contradictory statements. From what I read, torque seems to be much more important in performance automobiles. If such is the case, what is horsepower used for and why do most car advertisements only state horsepower? Thanks. Acceptable 14:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess is because maximum horsepower can be expressed as a single, simple number that tells you something about how the car will perform - it's easy to summarise and stick into a little table that you can compare to other cars "in it's class". On the other hand, torque has to be presented as a graph vs. RPM because having an insane amount of torque over a small band of RPM's is pretty much useless to you - you really want a car with an adequate amount of torque over a fairly wide band of RPM's (a "flat torque curve" as most people would express it). Really good car magazines do publish dynamometer graphs for the cars they review - and those show both torque and hp curves. SteveBaker 14:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dog with keys

There are lots of scenes in films, TV shows, etc. where a character is in a prison cell, and a dog is holding the key ring in its mouth. One example I remember off the top of my head is Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. Is there a specific name for that sort of scene or the dog in it? 17Drew 09:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this in any context other than Pirates of the Caribbean - the movie took it from the ride at Disneyland; the shot is set up exactly like that part of the ride. -Elmer Clark 12:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it in other things, just backing up the OP here, but I have no idea if it has a name or anything. A similar scene involves a dog playing with a toy that bounces into the cell and the prisoner works out a deal with the dog by indicating the keys sitting on a desk across the room and somehow gets the dog to understand that they'll trade the toy for the keys. Dismas|^(talk) 13:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This device is so common (though often in tight corners other than jails) that I would call it "the scene with the uncooperative dog". An awful lot of movies consist of a sequence of seemingly impossible situations, only to have the protagonist find a quick and easy way to escape straight into the next one. Since jails are specifically designed not to be escaped from, the scriptwriter is obliged to invent an unlikely or fortuitous circumstance, and the dog with the key is a particularly cliched one. There's a lot of tension in the notoriously uncooperative nature of the beast.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been in the Pirates Ride for years and years; I'd imagine many people writing/directing these things are hearkening back to a familiar scene from their childhood at Disneyland, but that's my own speculation. Kuronue 19:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"The scene with the uncooperative dog" is classic deus ex machina, especially in comedies where the director can get away with that travesty. I seem to remember Cuba Gooding Jr. pleading with some sort of animal but again no titles come to mind. Plasticup ^T/C 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Snow Dogs? Adam Bishop 19:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Snow Dogs was just clogging up my google search. It is actually the reason I stopped looking. Plasticup ^T/C 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mask

Vegetable identification

This is pretty trivial but maybe someone can help. Yesterday I saw a vegetable in the supermarket I was unfamiliar with and bought a bag of them just because I like to try new things. I looked at the name but it just didn't stick. I was planning to Google recipes to learn how to prepare it. Anyway it was something like peppita, pollipas, pollipat, tappipat to the best I can remember. None of those are right and they're not close enough that Google was able to give me a "did you mean ____". I already looked through List of culinary vegetables without finding it (I think I'd recognize the name if I saw it again). They are green, podlike, about the size of a ping pong ball, have a stem sticking off one end and are shaped sort of like little fat flying saucers. They remind me of squahed down okra. That's about the best I can do for a description. Anyone have an idea?--71.247.58.16 14:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pattypan squash? —Keenan Pepper 15:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Tomatillo? - Rmhermen 15:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pattypan Squash is it. I'm looking up recipes now. Thanks! By the way, there appears to be a bug in your software. After I clicked on "you have new messages", I assume the orange bar with that announcement is supposed to go away, yet every page I've navigated to thereafter has continued to tell me in bright orange that I've still got new messages.--71.247.58.16 16:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed a bug, if you go to User talk:71.247.58.16 you will see the message waiting for you (it's a "Welcome to Wikipedia" message, I put it there for you). DuncanHill 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true that "you have new messages" doesn't go away immediately. I assume it only checks the status every so often, not every time you load some other page. --Anon, August 19, 2007, 00:22 (UTC).

Pattypan squash is good. Look for the "sunburst" variety, they taste like they are made of butter (but of course they're low fat like all squash). Gzuckier 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WickedLasers.com

I am looking for information on this website. I have suspicions as to whether or not they deal fairly or scam people, and everything I find in the way of customer reviews online seems to be either falsified against them by other laser companies, or falsified for them by themselves or people trying simply to earn commission from them. Has anyone here had a personal experience with them, or can anyone point me to some more reliable customer reviews? Thanks. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of them, but I had actualy assumed they were fictional. Whoever they are they seem to be the sole advertiser on the Keenspot web-comic "Wicked Lasers Presents : Wicked Powered". Wicked Powered is a web comic about a fictional company called "Wicked Lasers" that sells fantastic sci-fi lasers. I had assumed that the advertisements were part of the fiction.

On closer examination I can't tell if they're a real retailer of lasers or not, their site certainly appears to be a real storefront. Very strange. I wonder if they're a real store who created the web comic specificaly as advertisement. If so it didn't work on me, it didn't even occur to me that they might be real until you asked this question. APL 19:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a real Chinese company to me, and they appear to be seriously irresponsible in selling lasers that can be used to blind pilots of aircraft, etc. These lasers are more powerful than just the average laser pointer. StuRat 19:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS dude! :) --Kurt Shaped Box 19:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The local hardware store sells all kinds of stuff that could be used for evil. It doesn't make them irresponsible. Besides, I only glanced at the site, but I didn't see anything more powerfull than you could salvage from a DVD Burner.

As an aside, I think you'd find that you needed a much, much more powerfull laser to blind a pilot unless you were the co-pilot. APL 01:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "distract", as I didn't mean it would cause a permanent loss of vision. StuRat 11:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Free Downloading

Where can you find a website where they allow free downloads of Adobe Printshop or the Garamond 3 font?

Refer to answers three questions down under Garamond and Adobe Printshop. --jjron 05:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bus/lorry wheel bolts

Recently(ish) someone asked about the yellow tags on bus and lorry wheels; the reply being that the arrows should point to each other, and if they don't, one of the nuts is loose. However, I can't find this thread in the archives; could someone please point a link to it? Thanks. Laïka 19:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

26 June.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, many thanks; for some reason, I couldn't find it with a Google search - probably didn't have the right search terms. Laïka 15:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

McDonald's ice cream cone adhesive

What is the adhesive that holds the paper band on McDonald's ice cream cones? I've called McDonald's a couple of times in the past few years and haven't gotten an answer. WODUP 21:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As the adhesive has to be edible, I suggest it is likely a sugar concoction, like a syrup that hardens at room temperature. The one that Dairy Queen uses causes bits of paper "fluff" to stay stuck, as it were. I am not a fan of eating paper, though it may be the most nutritious part. Bielle 00:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The glue they use on envelopes and previously on postage stamps comes from sweet potatoes. Might be same stuff.Gzuckier 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think of that. Thanks! WODUP 08:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Garamond and Adobe Printshop

1. Do you know a website where they will allow free downloading of Adobe Printshop and a website allowing free downloads of Garamond 3?

2. Do you know a website where they will allow buy-and-purchase downloads of Adobe Prinshop and downloading of Garamond 3?

--Writer Cartoonist 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you asked this before; at least I think it was you. Allow some time, people don't sit here 24/7 waiting to be asked. Adobe rarely if ever allows free downloads of their software; if you can't get it from their site, the download is illegal and I don't think we're supposed to tell you how to do illegal things. As far as paying to download it, I'm fairly certain you can do that at adobe's website, www.adobe.com. I don't know anything about fonts, though. Kuronue | Talk 02:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A co-worker who is usually right about these things told me on Friday that Garamond is not available free. --Anonymous and bemused, August 19, 05:12 (UTC).

Try a Google search on something like free font downloads - see here. As per above, Garamond itself is probably not available free, but you'll probably be able to find a pretty close imitation that is free. If you don't mind paying for it, try this link. --jjron 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it's impossible to patent/copyright fonts, at least in the US, just the font files. Which basically means that anyone that bothers to reverse engineer a font (copy the way the letters look) is free to redistribute it. Still, IANAL, so make sure to look it up properly beforehand. As far as Adobe products go, they're hardly ever free, but there are free (as in speech) alternatives, such as The GIMP or Inkscape --Lucid 13:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Black men

Why do black men wear towels on their heads.

The article on Do-rag explains why. Recury 22:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

See also: Hip hop fashion Plasticup ^T/C 21:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do americans call the head cloth a towel. I was confused by the term towel-head used as derogatory word on radio. I was curious where the term and its derogatory meaning comes from? --Kaveri 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

See Keffiyeh. The derogatory usage in America and other western countries suggests that the Keffiyeh worn by Arabs on their head looks like a Westerner's tea towel, thus towel-head. --jjron 10:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)