Miscellaneous desk
< March 19	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 21 >

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.

March 20

Big Lake, TX

What is this big purple thing on the yahoo map at these Coordinates: 31.189466,-101.444438 ?

The same object is dark green on Google Maps. It's hard to say what it is, but I suspect that it is an irrigated field where sod or maybe vegetables or flowers are grown. There are other odd purple spots in the area on Yahoo Maps, and I suspect that they are the result of an error in the coloring of the photograph. Marco polo (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your coordinates appear to me to point to a patch of ground to the west of Big Lake Country Club, in Big Lake (Texas). The purple thing to the north west is Reagan County Airport. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The airport is on the other side of the town from the object the questioner asked about. Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake (comedian)

I love the comedian Earthquake! I kind of want to go see him perform. Does he have a website, or at the very least is there an unofficial site listing his tour dates. I tried a Google search, to no avail.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.quakeshouse.net/loudbaby and http://www.myspace.com/quakeshouse2. Can't find any tour dates though. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 02:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think he must not be touring at present.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One gear ratios

What are some sample gear ratios a modern Formula One car, such as the one used by Scuderia Ferrari, might have? Thanks Acceptable (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a damn thing online talking about the gear ratios used by F1 teams, and I've tried about eight different permutations of search terms at this point. The F1 site itself has nothing, and every piece I've seen talking about the cars doesn't get to that level of detail. Sorry... anyone else? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you any example numbers - like Tony, I drew a blank. What I can tell you is that they change the ratios (that is, the physical cogs) for each race. So for Monaco, for example, they'll have a much smaller change between each gear and a "lower" top gear, for maximum acceleration. Whereas for the circuits with longer straights they'll need a higher top gear to let the car reach top speed. Even the weather will affect the choice of what gears they drop into the box before the race. FiggyBee (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, best I can tell you is to try rFactor's F1 mods available online - they do have numbers, though unsure how accurate they are. It seems that 1st gear does about 0-100, and then the remaining 100mph is divided more or less evenly between 2-7. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic gear ratios from F1 2007 MMG Rfactor mod, for comparison with whatever. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figure that since the car have such ridiculously high acceleration and have extremely high-revving, but relatively low engine torque, engines, they must very aggressive gear ratios to achieve such accelerations. Acceptable (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a little more information on your talkpage, because the details qualify as WP:OR, technically, though the formula used is relatively simple and can be used on any car--what it boils down to is dividing the engine speed by the rotational speed of the tyres themselves. Of course, these vary greatly depending on the track, and which gear is being considered; rear differential gear ratios used by NASCAR teams, for example, range from approximately 3.90:1 at the superspeedways to as high as 7.0:1 or more at the short tracks, according to various broadcasters. Rdfox 76 (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don

Why does the Mafia use the word DON to describe the boss? Where did it start, who was the first? I've looked in Wikipedia, and was unable to locate anything. Grazie.

There's some discussion of this in Don (honorific). Regards, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Boldface Opinions

As humans beings we say a lot of things are based on logic. Even scientific study we base on logic, but wouldn't be cool if logic was just boldface opinions. Opinions with some data given to them to make them logical. What is your "logic" on this theory?71.143.3.182 (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

It's very illogical. There are lots of ways to define/describe logic, but one of the traits of logic is that if all your assumptions are correct, then logical conclusions derived from them cannot be wrong. --Kjoonlee 11:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that Wikipedia is not a forum; we are not here to do your homework for you, or to answer about opinions. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 11:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one, you aren't very clear in distinguishing between Inductive reasoning, which is used in science, and Deductive reasoning, which is what "logical" traditionally refers to. Deductive reasoning isn't a matter of opinions. If something follows deductively, then the conclusion is guaranteed from the premises. Inductive reasoning involves taking data to confirm a given theory (and hopefully providing disconfirmation of rival theories).--droptone (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a long-shot but it sounds like what you want are something like Rudolf Carnap's contributions (in particular) to logical positivism -- a world full of simple, axiomatic statements from which to build up a strong logical and rational understanding. Check it out. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

past to present in fiction

Has any one ever made a correlation between the Elves and the Vulcans, as the Elves left earth. Also and likewise the Orks and the Klingons. Dragons and dinosaurs. ect

I assume you mean 'elves and orcs' in the sense Tolkien wrote about them - these are fictional works, as are 'flash gordon' and 'star trek'. I don't think there is much of a connection in terms of influences of the respective authors. They could be considered similar variations of archetypes which might be worth reading. eg archetypical 'bad guys' - I haven't heard of anyone talking this any further.

As for dragons and dinosaurs - yes numerous people have made this connection, and there are various theories of this - including legends of dragons being based on memories of human/dinosaur interactions.

For instance dinosaur bones were considered to be evidence of the flood destroying vile beasts such as dragons.

Searching for 'dragons dinosaurs' will turn up numerous links that explore this connection83.100.183.180 (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eg try http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=dragon+dinosaur&meta= and take your pick - you can see that many have made the 'dinosaur=dragon' association83.100.183.180 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame Isaac Asimov isn't around anymore; I think he'd get a kick out of the idea of elvin/Vulcan goblin/Klingon unification. IMNSHO, one of the coolest things ever done in fiction was when Asimov took several disjoint series of his novels and short stories (the original Robot short stories, the Foundation/Galactic Empire series, the Elijah Baley and R. Daneel Olivaw detective series see) and wove them all into one grand tapestry. He'd be just the guy who could have done what is proposed in the question.

Atlant (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone loved the result. It has been said that a thriller or a farce is allowed exactly one preposterous coincidence, and good scifi ought to have just one preposterous piece of technology, e.g. Laws of Robotics or FTL or psychohistory ... —Tamfang (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek put dinosaurs and aliens together in one bizarre Voyager episode. Who knew dinosaurs were capable of space flight? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The episode in question was Distant Origin, if you're interested - quite a good one, and easy to enjoy even if you're not a Star Trek fan :) -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recycling

What countries buy recycled products?? or where can i find out this information?? MaryRom (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water is the oldest recycled product and is the main component of all agricultural produce. I suspect that all countries import some food stuffs.

Ignoring humus - presumable the second oldest recycled stuff - you would have ferrous metals, glass, paper and timber. Our article on recycling may be a good starting point, unless you have already checked it. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News UFO

I have seen on Fox News (of all places) that someone took some really bizarre UFO pixes, and now two PIs are after the photog, who has since disappeared. Has anyone else seen this ? The UFO looks like - well you have to see it for yourselves. 65.173.105.141 (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, this is a bizarre looking ship, and a HUGE one at that. Has anyone else seen this ? 65.173.105.141 (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to be condescending but Fox News is a dodgy source, famous for irresponsible journalism and sensationalism. They are about two steps above Weekly World News when it comes to UFO stories—they don't claim Bat Boy is out there but they'll imply, wink, and smile that he is. Anyway, they have reported all sorts of silly UFO sightings over time (and of course never follow up on them to see how unidentified they stay over time), and there are a million non-conspiratorial reasons that someone might not be able to be found. Would you trust Fox News to report on if they end up finding him, and it turns out he just took a vacation? I wouldn't. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distances on road-signs

How accurate are the distances given on road-signs (i'm primarily interested in the UK)? Are they 'as the crow flies' or are they the actual distance using that road? Also are they 'exact' - is the sign that says "York 22 miles" bound by rules on how far/close it can be to be 'legal'? If it were 22.7 miles away but said 22 who would know? Just wondered if anybody knows about this sort of thing. ny156uk (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent discussion on the same topic, though more US-centric. As for being exact (again, US-centric) I can note that they're not. I've observed variation in distance remaining (for instance, signs 15 miles apart might show a 17-mile difference) and having multiple cities per sign strongly suggests that measurements are not exact to any fraction of a mile. — Lomn 23:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More US-centric info: I've been told that the milages are to the main post office of the city. Otherwise the question would be "15 miles to where in the city?" Edison (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some Australian-centric info... The distance is by the shortest available route using that road in the direction the sign is facing, not as the crow flies. I just assume the distance given is rounded to the nearest whole number on the big main signs; however we also have very small signs replacing the old milestones that I assume are meant to be the exact distance. The distance given is usually taken as the distance to the post-office of the indicated town, as that is typically at the town centre. I can also vouch that they're not entirely accurate, at least the main signs. For example, I have seen instances where a sign will display distances to a number of towns on the one sign, while a similar sign say 10km down the same road will give different relative distances, i.e., they don't all decrease by 10km. I have seen other errors as well, but haven't made a practice of measuring exact distances very often. Personally, I just take them as an indicator of how far away the town is. --jjron (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK info, from personal observation: they don't show crow-flies distances, but they're not necessarily the shortest road distance either. They show the distance by the route the planners intend you to take from that point, which is not always the shortest. This is noticeable with the distances to the channel ports on the M2, IIRC. ^{[citation needed]} Algebraist 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK-centric, again: each town or city has a point from which the distances are measured. There used to be a small monument to mark this point in Exeter until the area was redeveloped. SaundersW (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly I've been a bit puzzled by signs at city limits of the form "San Francisco, elevation 150 feet". Is it the altitude at the sign? The ground at City Hall is only ~70 ft; elevation in the city varies from sea level to 925 feet. —Tamfang (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the US, the distance to a city is based on using the city hall as the reference destination. --71.162.242.38 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 March 20

Contents