Miscellaneous desk
< August 20	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 22 >

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 21

crime in Texas, charges in Va

why did the United employee that Bob Filner allegedly pushed while in Texas press charges in Virginia?

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_6671044

Dulles, not Dallas. --Nricardo 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filling spaces

I have some areas I'd like to fill and I'm hoping people out there have experience in this and can advise me on relatively cheap methods as well as effective methods. First, my door has a big gap on the bottom and it bothers me a lot because of energy leaking out. It's not a uniform gap either; there's almost no gap under the hinge side, but the other side rides above the metal guard about half an inch. This is obviously not good for A/C and heating. What's the best way of making less of a leak? I've been looking at rubber door sweeps, but I'm not sure if they're installable on triangular gaps. They're only about $8 for the cheaper ones, so I'm going to give those a try unless someone has a better method, or know that it doesn't work.

Second, we got a cat a month ago, and she likes playing with her toys in the kitchen, since the tiles there allow her toys to be tossed around easier than on the carpet in the rest of the house. However, most of her toys are small enough to fit under the oven and refrigerator, and I have to spend lots of time retrieving them for her. Just now, I got 4 toy mice and a toy saucer from under the oven. What can I use to cover the gaps under the oven and refrigerator so she won't lose her toys every few minutes?

P.S. I tried getting her a larger toy mouse but she doesn't play with it much, despite spraying catnip on it. Thanks. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) On the door, a large enough rubber door sweep could handle the triangular gap. Another option (the "professional way") is to take the door off, plane it off even, then build up the metal guard on the floor. The quick and dirty approach is to get one of those fabric "snakes" and stuff it in front of the door each time you close it.

2) Cats do have an uncanny ability to lose their toys under furniture and appliances. Those gaps under the stove and fridge are needed for air circulation and safety, so, if you do cover those gaps, use a grating so air can still pass through. StuRat 06:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They make sweeps which are hinged and spring loaded, and there's just a little button on the door frame which pushes them down when the door is closed. Depending on how much of a triangle you have, that might do it for you. Or just install a regular sweep, at an angle. no? Gzuckier 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain we have sweeps that are like a brush, which cope well with uneven gaps/floors. DuncanHill 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can get those here in Texas too. I have them on my outside doors for that exact reason. I think I bought them in Home Depot. SteveBaker 01:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, we don't call them sweeps, draught excluders, that's what we call them. DuncanHill 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of torque converter

How much of a difference, in terms of performance, is there between a manual and automatic transmission. Assuming Car A with a manual transmission can do 0-60 mph in 8.0 seconds, how much slower would an automatic be? Thanks. Acceptable 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this question a couple of times recently - check the archives. SteveBaker 02:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the short version is, there's no definite answer; in some cars, or with different drivers, the auto may even be quicker. --jjron 08:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse, a car with a variomatic will make other cars look like they're standing still. In the Netherlands there used to be a backwards racing event for some years (with amateur drivers - great fun!) in which the DAF cars were in a separate category, sort of formula 1. I can imagine that in forward drive it would outdo other transmissions as well - ceterus paribus, that is, which is worth noting because it was only used in very cheap cars. It's the ideal transmission and I don't understand why not all cars have it. DirkvdM 18:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mechanically very good at transmitting large amounts of torque. So for very small, low powered cars, it's OK - but for anything with reasonable horsepower/torque, it's not the best option. The drive band has a tendancy to wear out and snap too. SteveBaker 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bullet noise,

Im working on a Manga called Ken (with the kanji for 'story' after it, meaning Ken's Story) anyways, i need to know what noise you might here if your hit by a bullet. Nikrocorp 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most guns have supersonic muzzle velocity - so you won't hear anything until after it hits you. Hence the saying that you won't hear the bullet that kills you. But the noise of the gun firing will sound pretty much like it would if you weren't hit - so aside from that, it's just the noise of the bullet penetrating your body. That's probably pretty quiet. Dunno. SteveBaker 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, thank for answering my question, nobodys answered my questions in along time, so thanks.Nikrocorp 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair you only asked one question before (well, you asked the same question twice) - perhaps nobody knew the answer. Generally, people aren't ignoring you and LOTS of people read the questions on the reference desks - so if you don't get an answer the first time, there is no point in re-asking it. SteveBaker 03:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would go with, "Thwuck" 38.112.225.84 06:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel some scientific experimentation coming on! Capuchin 09:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the OTHER reason for WP:NOR! SteveBaker 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wait a while you hear this. Ew.

Quilting skill levels

I need the definitions of the Quilting skill levels. Susan Melgaard

New section created for the OP. In the future, please create a new section for new questions. Splintercellguy 05:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wayne Hudson

Can someone please confirm if alledged Melbourne CBD gunman Christopher Wayne Hudson is 29 or 31 years old. One newspaper says 29, others say 31? Thanx Lushlaverle Lushlaverle 05:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New section created for the OP. In the future, please create a new section for new questions. Splintercellguy 05:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that 31 is correct. Early reports from most media (including The Age, SMH, ABC, and Herald Sun) mainly reported him as 29. Later reports from the same media outlets, such as after he was arrested, seem to all report him as being 31. I'd tend to believe the later reports would be more accurate; surely once they'd caught him they'd be more likely to get his age correct. Having said which, I have no inside information, such as a birth certificate, which would confirm this absolutely. --jjron 08:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've taken the liberty of adding 31 to the article. --jjron 08:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by highest point above sea level

Countries by highest point

I’m looking for a list of the world’s countries sorted by the height of each country’s highest point above sea level, which for most countries would be the height of their highest mountain. Do we have such an animal here, or if not, is one available elsewhere? I realise this is quite problematical for the the countries in the Himalayan region where the highest mountains are, because some mountains straddle 2 countries, some borders are disputed, and some formerly autonomous regions are claimed by other countries (eg. Tibet > China). But I’m less interested in the countries that would be at the top of the list, and more interested in where countries down the list would slot in relative to each other. But for argument’s sake, if we deem Everest to belong to Nepal, then Nepal would be No.1 on the list. Country 2 would be Pakistan because K2 lies mainly there. Country 3 would be Tibet, then India, then Bhutan – and so on. I’m basing these first few countries on List of highest mountains. But the list is quickly exhausted because only the top peak in each country counts, and the others are eliminated. Where do I go from here? -- JackofOz 05:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be looking for List of countries by highest point. (Welcome back, btw, Jack) Rockpocket 06:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rockpocket. I did search for a list like this but failed. Maybe I should go back to Ref Desk School. -- JackofOz 03:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aer Lingus

When buying a fare from this airline is the fuel surcharge they add on already part of the fare that you get, or do you have do pay this surcharge seperately.--logger 07:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask them.90.4.244.159 10:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)DT[reply]

They won't charge you again at the airport, if that's what you mean. They may advertise a rate without taxes and surcharges, but when you go to their website to buy the ticket, the amount that you pay includes all that stuff. Plasticup ^T/C 22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What’s a Japanese scallion?

Some surfing on various food blogs leads me to believe that a "Japanese scallion" is also called "negi" or "naganegi" ([1][2][3][4]). However, Japanese scallion is currently a redirect to Allium chinense while negi is currently a redirect to Welsh onion. Would any expert in Japanese cuisine care to clarify this? --Mathew5000 08:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My educated guess is that it's just a regular scallion.. More commonly known as a spring onion.

I think that the welsh onion and scallion articles are quite clear on this. Negi is a kind of welsh onion which is a kind of scallion, basically. Rmhermen 13:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question though: is the term "Japanese scallion" synonymous with "negi"? The page for Allium chinense at the USDA’s GRIN Taxonomy says that "Japanese scallion" is a common name for Allium chinense. Is that erroneous? Or is it erroneous to use "Japanese scallion" to mean "negi"? --Mathew5000 20:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Japanese scallion (Allium chinense) is rakkyo while Japanese bunching onion (Allium fistulosum) is negi.[5] Do you want to believe some blogs or Wikipedia and the USDA? Rmhermen 23:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some quick copy and paste, which may help answer your questions.

Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary (5th ed.) gives:

negi 葱 "a Welsh onion; a spring onion; Allium fistulosum" and cross-references to "wakegi "a scallion; niranegi a leek; and asanegi or ezonegi a chive"
naganegi 長葱 "a long variety of Welsh onion; a ciboule; Allium fistulosum"
wakegi 分葱, 冬葱 "a Welsh onion; a cibol; shallot"
nira 韮 "Chinese chives; Allium tuberosum; A. odorum"
ezonegi 蝦夷葱 "chives; Allium schoenoprasum var. schoenoprasum"
rakkyō 辣韮 "a Chinese [Japanese] scallion; Allium chinense"

The Japanese Wikipedia, which has botanical nomenclature, gives:

negi[6]
wakegi[7]
nira[8]
rakkyō[9]

Note that Allium is named negizoku[10] after negi. Keahapana 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it safe to scan and upload my ID?

If I scanned my genuine ID at low resolution but with all the text legible, would that allow bad guys to do anything spooky?

I mean, erasing parts of image like in Image:Israel Passport Page.jpg severely cripples its value as an illustration, but I guess it has been done for some purpose I'm unaware of. --tyomitch 10:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend against uploading your ID unedited. However, I think the level of editing on the passport is overboard. I would have Photoshopped in false data like #123456789, John Doe, 123 Main St., Anytown, born Jan 1, 1900, etc. --Nricardo 10:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nricardo. While it doesn't really "ruin" the picture, it would be a bit more helpful to have false information, rather than sections blacked out. I'd also strongly agree that you should never, ever, upload your real life information contained on a passport. Having your name, address, birth date, social security number, etc. out on the web, would be an invitation for trouble. See Identity theft for details. ^Ariel♥Gold 10:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"would that allow the bad guys to do anything spooky" You know perfectly well that putting your personal details on the web will cause you major problems, so why do you ask?? If you are at a level of competance that you are thinking about uploading a scanned image you surely know.. etc..etc.. (unnecessary remark removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Avery (talk • contribs)

Well, a bad guy could use that data, along with a higher resolution image of a sample passport/id/whatever, and create a usable copy of your passport/ID. Once they have one convincing piece of ID they could smooth-talk their way into obtaining duplicate "replacements" of other documents with your name on them. Then they could enter into legal and financial deals in your name. I suppose most people would consider that "spooky" 69.95.50.15 14:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I edit away the serial number and birth date, substituting bogus numbers, but leave my name and the surrounding text (there's no address there) unedited -- would that be safe enough? I don't think my Photoshop skills are powerful enough to create smooth-looking text in the scanned image. --tyomitch 05:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could, of course, ask someone else to do it for you (on here, or elsewhere). --24.147.86.187 13:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try and take out all the text and numbers from such fields but only leave the first and last, and then as someone, say, here, to fill in the sections with fake data. Just so long as every version uploaded has been somehow redacted. 68.39.174.238 20:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what exactly sort of "ID" is this? A drivers licence? 68.39.174.238 20:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Artillery vs. Conventional Artillery.

What are the advantages of rocket artillery? I'm always hearing how innacurate they are. --MKnight9989 13:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, greater range and greater payload. Also note that for instance the BM-30 allows the use of guided sub-munition, which negates the argument of inaccuracy. The launching also looks way more impressive, but that isn't really an advantage in combat. - Dammit 14:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artillery requires a very heavy gunbarrel and supporting equipment able to absorb the recoil, because all the work of accelerating the projectile is done by the time it leaves the muzzle. With a rocket, the projectile and attached rocket itself does the work of accelerating, over a longer period. The launching device can be much lighter and more portable. Historically, rocket artillery has thus been able to fire many rounds in a short time from, say a truck mounted launch device like the "Stalin organ" or Katyusha. Edison 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket artilleries can use the Shoot-and-scoot tactics to prevent enermy Counter-battery fire.

Thanks all. All your answers were helpful. --MKnight9989 12:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add my own penny's worth - with rocket artillery you can unleash the lot in a single salvo. All of your ammo will hit the target in a few seconds. That said tube artillery has the advantage of being able to keep on firing for longer periods (counter-battery threats not withstanding), rocket artillery takes time to reload even the MLRS takes a little while.

Rockets usually need fewer crew members compared to guns as well Victory Is Mine 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo ID on Flickr

Flickr requires users to make an account using their Yahoo ID--but which part of a Flickr account is the user's Yahoo ID? Is it the name included in the phrases "Photos from [Name]" and [Name]'s photostream" or is it the one in the URL: flickr.com/photos/[Name] -- or neither? And also, am I correct in thinking that a person's Yahoo ID is also their e-mail address, meaning that I email someone at [YahooID]@yahoo.com? --CrazyLegsKC 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the last question, not necessarily. My most commonly used Yahoo ID is similar to my name here on Wikipedia, but you wouldn't be able to email me using that. You can have multiple IDs associated with a single Yahoo account, but only one of them can be the email ID, and it doesn't even have to be the first name that you created with them. On the Flickr question, I think it's neither, but I'm not sure if it's changed since the Yahoo takeover. My Flickr name is the same as my Wikipedia name, which does not directly correspond to any of my Yahoo IDs. It is certainly possible to have a single ID amongst all these things, you just can't make any assumptions about Yahoo ID JoeUser123 being correct for email and/or Flickr. --LarryMac | Talk 15:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get you. Well then, here's another question: is there any uniform way to contact any given Flickr user? Some have contact information posted on their profile, but others don't, and I'm wondering whether there's like a "private message" or "contact this user" option visible only to members (because I don't have an account, and don't want to make one just to find out). That was the agenda behind my original questions, because I'd like to be able to contact people in case I need to request permission for Wikipedia to use their photos. --CrazyLegsKC 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an internal email system, which of course is for members only. Flickr users can also leave comments on other user's pictures, I suppose that is limited to signed on users as well. I'm afraid I can't sign on to Flickr from the computer I'm on right now, so I can't check for specifics. --LarryMac | Talk 18:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for letting me know. I did know about the comments feature, and I do know that it's for members only, since under every photo it says "Would you like to comment? Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member)." The email system that you mentioned is exactly what I hoped there would be, so I guess I'll sign up for an account now. Thanks again! :) --CrazyLegsKC 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Algorithms programmed into a computer?

I was watching the Batman &Robin movie from 1997 (George Clooney, Arnold Governator), and at one point, Alfred's neice discovers the Batcave. She stumbles upon this computer with Alfred's "brain algorithms" programmed into it. I have 2 questions: 1. What does that mean? 2. Is that possible? If so, how? If no, why not? Thanks 71.172.69.32 17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe everything based on a comic book - Marvel and DC are both well known for inventing "comic-book physics", where Superman spinning in a circle can fix any problem. Kuronue | Talk 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were trying to convince you of the idea that Batman was smart enough to program a computer to be a reasonable facsimile of a human being, Alfred in this case, at least enough to understand human speech and respond appropriately. As far as I know, it is beyond our collective capability to create such an advance artificial intelligence, but for fun, check out the article on Jabberwacky. 24.250.32.81 22:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting close (like 20 to 30 years away if Moores' law continues to increase computer complexity) from having computer circuits complex enough that we could simulate every single neuron in a human brain. If we could find a way to scan all of the connections in a real, live brain (no simple matter), there is a reasonable prospect of being able to dump the contents of someone's mind into a computer. SteveBaker 01:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been bandied about in the media in the past week, it's not provable that we are not, in fact, all just characters in a giant simulation; and in fact, given the speed with which things happen in a simulated environment vs. reality, the percentages would appear to imply almost certainly that we are, in fact, just sims. Gzuckier 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not just unprovable - it's unfalsifiable - and hence not worthy of further consideration. SteveBaker 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely unproveable. The point was, I believe, that if a sim universe (fulfilling certain criteria) could be created, at any point in the history of the universe, it then follows that statistically we are more likely to be in a sim universe than a real one. So if you can prove that a sim universe could not possibly be created in the way required, then it isn't true. Equally, if you can prove that such a thing has ever been created in the history of the universe, or that such a thing could be created, mathematically it follows that we are almost certain to be in one. Neither of these things can be done yet, but they potentially could be. So it could be proved true or false, to a high degree of certainty, just not yet :) Skittle 22:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"So if you can prove that a sim universe could not possibly be created in the way required, then it isn't true." Since the simulation would not be running in our own universe wouldn't you need to show that it was impassible for all conceivable universes?--24.2.176.64 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Skittle's answer is so wrong and in so many ways - I don't even know how to start! Firstly - who is to say that the simulated universe bears any relationship at all to the 'real' one. Heck - if I were building a sim-universe, I might well decide to leave out complicated stuff like relativity or quantum theory - I might make it two dimensional...who knows? So we create 'sim universes' all the time - they are just really, really simple. Pretty much every computer game could be described as a 'sim-universe'. Since there is not necessarily anything in the 'real' universe that's like the sim-universe we're supposedly trapped in - we can't use any of the information in the sim-universe that we're in to deduce anything whatever about the real universe. That makes this situation quite utterly unfalsifiable. There is no way to prove that it's NOT true because we can't reason about things that are outside our realms of experiment. Similarly, there is not necessarily any way we can prove it's true either - the uber-beings that put together our sim-universe may have built that impossibility into the fabric of their simulation. But I don't see how you can claim anything "statistically"?! Statistics don't prove anything in this case - there could quite easily be a planet that's stuffed full of sim-universes (like ours - right now - for example!) - yet the universe could be filled with planets containing real civilisations. It's perfectly possible for there to be vastly more real civilisations than fake ones. This supposition is no different from a religion - it's totally unfalsifiable - and even if true, it's likely to be unprovable without cooperation from whatever creatures created the hypothetical simulation. I can claim that the entire universe was created by the tooth fairy - you can't disprove that either - I can claim that the entire universe exists inside a gigantic pink teapot - you can't prove that - I can claim...an infinity of ridiculous possibilities that are unfalsifiable - why would we consider any one unfalsifiable hypothesis more likely than the others? Occams razor says "ignore this unless evidence shows up to prove it's true". SteveBaker 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence "(fulfilling certain criteria)", which I specifically included. The specific idea, as specifically expressed, can be proved or disproved. Whether related, incredibly similar ideas are provable, disprovable, true or false is neither here nor there. The statistical fun with the specific sim-universe, as expressed by its proponents, is that if a sim universe can be created, each sim universe could create multiple sim universes which would each... etc. That's the entire point of the idea. It's not about saying 'there's no way you can tell if this universe is all a dream', since that is obvious and irrelevant. It's about saying 'if you could create a sim-universe that fulfilled these criteria, you would be more likely to exist in a sim-universe than in a real universe since each sim-universe that fulfilled these criteria would be capable of producing multiple sim-universes that also fulfill these criteria'. If you can show (for example, through energy or information limits) that this situation would not be possible, or that a sim-universe that fulfills the specific criteria is not possible, then this particular idea is disproved. If you can show that such a sim-universe can be created, and that creating such recursive universes in such quantities is not impossible, then it is most likely that there are vastly more sim-universes than 'real' universes, and hence that we are probably in one. Whether this matters or not, I don't know. Steve, please look at the specific idea being described before debunking a different idea. Skittle 20:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we have to look at it this way. If we are able to create a "sim universe", then the idea that we're in one is possible. If we can't, well...it's still possible. And when you talk about "statistics" that could come up with a percentage analysis of whether or not we're in one, well, it's like I always say, no percentage except 0% and 100% mean a thing. It doesn't matter if these analysis people say there's a 0.0000000001% chance we're a sim or a 99.99999999% chance we're a sim. Both numbers mean the exact same thing: maybe. 71.172.69.32 01:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But the specific idea that's been bandied around recently is about the probabilities of a particular situation. So if we are able to make this specific type of sim universe, then the probability that we are in a similar sim universe (fulfilling the specified criteria) is extremely high. It doesn't require assuming anything extra to be true (Occam's Razor), since we are talking about if this particular type of sim universe proves to be possible. If there are no problems with the idea of proliferating sim universes, in an almost infinite regression (and I would imagine there would be some problem here to do with energy or information, but nobody seems to bring it up), then there would be hugely more sim universes than real universes. In each of these, multiple civilisations would be possible. You may say that all probabilities mean maybe, but they mean enough for people to make decisions based on. If a doctor told you there was a 99% chance you had cancer based on a test result, wouldn't you assume you probably had cancer and take the necessary action? If there are many more sim universes than real universes (say, millions of times more), wouldn't it be more likely we were in a sim universe than a 'real' universe? While us being in a sim universe without being able to create one is possible, that isn't any part of this particular idea. Again, whether any of this really matters or not is a rather open question... Skittle 18:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is, unless a 100% or 0% statistic comes out, we won't know for sure. And also, I think it does matter. I mean, if people found out we were just a sim, then I think the world would be in trouble. 71.172.69.32 02:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Driving the Wrong Way on a Highway

I just read yet another news story of a fatality due to a driver driving the wrong way down the highway. I never understood this. If we exclude impairment (alcohol, drugs, etc.) ... how in the world does anyone drive the wrong way down a highway and not notice it? I have never understood that. I mean ... isn't it completely obvious? For example, all the signs would be "backwards" ... you are travelling in the same direction as the "opposite" side of the highway ... and, duh ... there are cars heading toward you (travelling in the opposite direction, as opposed to the same direction as you). It seems that these drivers often go miles and miles driving like this (so it's not like a quick mistake, they realize it, and turn around quickly). Also, is it not obvious when you first get on the highway, that you are using an exit ramp and not an entrance ramp? Does anyone have any ideas or insights as to how and why drivers make this mistake? And another question ... can't road and highway officials implement some minor / inexpensive precaution (perhaps painting arrows on the road, the way that they paint those solid or broken white lines that divide lanes, etc.)? Seems like an easy enough solution ... how come no precautions are ever undertaken? Any ideas? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Never underestimate the power of stupidity. DuncanHill 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dad once drove on the wrong side of the road. We turned out of this place onto an unlit, wide highway and couldn't even tell we were on the wrong side until we saw some distant headlights coming towards us. They really need somes streetlights up in there. 71.172.69.32 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three reasons. A- Suicide Driving. I've heard this isn't very uncommon on Germany's autobahn, as well as some other places. B- International drivers. Which side people are used to driving on, or habit, can override common sense. C- Poor signage. I have personally been in a bus, by a driver who was more than qualified to drive given the fact that they were driving a school bus, that went the wrong way down a one way road because it wasn't clear which way could be driven. --lucid 18:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In North America for the last 35-40 years we've had a "minor / inexpensive precaution [like] the way that they paint those solid or broken white lines that divide lanes": if the yellow line is on your right, you're going the wrong way. But if a driver misses everything else, they can miss that too. And a driver from a country where colored lines have other meanings, like England, proabably isn't going to know they should learn that simple rule. --Anon, August 21, 23:02 (UTC).

When I was younger, US-58 heading east-west along the southern edge of Virginia had a lot of unfinished construction. In some parts, it was interstate quality, with limited access, two lanes each way, a center divider, the works. In other parts, it was the original road: two-lane, with one lane for each direction, and some worn-out paint down the middle. And, it switched back and forth several times between the Norfolk area and South Hill. In bad weather, it was VERY easy to lose track of which part you were on, and if you pull into the "fast lane" to pass some people when you are really in a two-lane section, you've just caused a head-on collision. Many people would drive home from a bar and have their own reasons for losing situational awareness. After I got hit by one such, in broad daylight, I talked some about the issue with the locals, and they told me it was a common problem, they called it "suicide strip", and they just didn't use that road on Friday and Saturday nights. Any car on that road at 10PM on a Saturday night was a drunk, or a visitor. Maybe both, of course. -SandyJax

Another factor not to underestimate is old age and loss of alertness. Marco polo 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Sydney (Australia) I've seen various signs saying "WRONG WAY - GO BACK!" in very large, bold letters. In some cases they are placed in odd places where it is obviously the wrong direction. In other cases they had specific reason. For example, let's assume you approach a T-junction. There is a road to the left, and to the right, and in fact straight ahead of you, except the road straight ahead of you is suddenly made 1 way against your favour. It is foreseeable that some people that don't pay attention, will in certain cases go straight from a 2-way road, onto a 1-way road. Rfwoolf 18:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example:

|         |           |     
|         |     ↓     |     
|         |           |     
|         |     ↓     |     
|----------------------------------
|         |           |
| →  →  → |           |→   →   →  →
|         |           |
|- - - - -|            - - - - - - 
|         |           |
| ←  ←  ← |            ←   ←   ←  ←
|         |           |
|----------------------------------
|         |  X     ↓  |     
|         |     |     |     
|         |  ↑     ↓  |     
|         |     |     |     
|         |  ↑     ↓  |     
Notes: X = The driver not paying attention. In this example, people drive on the left side of the road. 
Note the one-way at the top.

Rfwoolf 18:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just returned from a visit to India (et al.), and I saw many, many examples of cars and other vehicles driving the wrong way on their "highways". They do it quite intentionally - they flash their lights to let you know they're coming, and if you don't move out of their way, you will suffer the consequences. We do live in a very sheltered world in the West. -- JackofOz 03:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errr.. you do know they drive on the left in India?

Yes of course. We were travelling on the left, and we had vehicles approaching us that were travelling on their right. Very scary. -- JackofOz 05:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highways are a new development in a country that has traditionally relied on the world's largest rail network for long-distance travel and haulage. So they try, but they don't always succeed. Even when there are rules and people are following them, it can get a little scary: [11]. Hornplease 07:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein. Capuchin 08:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it Douglas Adams that said "When making things foolproof, they tend to underestimate the ingenuity of the complete fool" ... or something similar. Killa Klown 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the A1 in Northumberland - and anywhere else a dual carriageway goes down to single carriageways - you'll from time to time get people who don't notice that they're now on single carriageways. I've had the experience, in the dark, in fog, of coming across a car in the wrong lane, heading for me. Very scary indeed. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Driving the wrong way on the highway; supporting Bush in 2007. Same thing. "hey, everybody else is wrong".

But seriously, folks, the related item that gets me is the folks, usually elderly, who miss their exit on the highway then continue driving until they are found, out of gas, two states away. Gzuckier 14:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A woman calls her husband on the cell phone (mobile phone) to warn him "The news says there's some idiot driving the wrong way on the highway, so watch out on your drive home."

The man replies "Not just one, there's hundreds of 'em on this highway !". StuRat 05:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On controlled access[ish] roads, D: Missing and exit and trying to go back. I've personally never seen it, but the drivers' manual and exam emphasized very strongly that you should get off at the NEXT exist rather then turn around or back up. 68.39.174.238 20:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition Facts

Why don't alcoholic beverage bottles have nutrition fact labels on them?

Wikiman232 19:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Bureau FAQs question 4. Jon513 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which essentially says "We decided against it." I've heard of a brewer who wanted to put nutrition info on the label and was forbidden to do so, on the grounds that customers might be "misled" into thinking that beer is good for you. —Tamfang 17:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er - but it is good for you (in moderation at least). One or two beers per week (if you are an average adult male) helps fend off heart attacks - and my wife was told to drink Guinness to help recover from a mild case of blood loss after surgery when she refused a blood transfusion. Beer is full of some pretty good nutrients. Just don't drink too much of it! SteveBaker 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't tell me – note the scare-quotes on "misled". —Tamfang 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard that drinking moderate amount of alcohol can fend off some viral liver diseases

Gun laws

I was wondering what the gun laws were in UK + Ireland. I know its not very specific but any info is good--Pheonix (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Gun politics in the United Kingdom. We do not have such an article for Ireland, however. Marco polo 20:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site offers an overview of the legal situation in Ireland. I don't know how reliable it is. I hasten to add that we can't offer legal advice at Wikipedia. Marco polo 21:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not really legal advice as I am a minor. I'm just interested as I saw the thing about Mayor Bloomburg suing that guy (can't remember details).--Pheonix (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are a minor isn't necessarily relevant. In the many places in the U.S., minors can own guns. I remember a story of a grandfather giving his infant grandchild a shotgun for a baptism gift recently.[12] The 10-month old even got a proper gun registration card. Rmhermen 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How heartwarming. Marco polo 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a baby a shotgun ? That's just insane ! How is the baby supposed to lift it, draw a bead on someone, and then pull the trigger ? A more sensible option would obviously be a lightweight pistol with a hair trigger, I guess some people just have no sense. StuRat 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the Alabama massive hog hunter: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275524,00.html (Sorry that was the best link I found in a quick search) 68.39.174.238 20:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 August 21

Contents