Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 September 6

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.

September 6

Cake flour vs. self-rising

I got a recipe that calls for the use cake flour, and I honestly thought I had it on hand, but it turns out that I only have the self-rising variety. The store that is within reasonable walking distance from me is now closed, so I can't exactly go out and buy cake flour right now, and I don't want to postpone making the buckle until the next day. So if I decide to use self-rising flour as a substitute for cake flour, will the results be disastrous? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not when eaten hot. Perhaps you should not put in the baking powder,to compensate? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But when it cools down, will it turn into an inedible consistency, like a rock or something? Also, there's an inconsistency with the recipe, how do you add "approximately 3/4 cup" of "5 1/4 ounces sugar"? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to be crumbly than like a rock. Really, you have to try it & report back. Looking at Cup (unit)#Using volume measures to estimate mass, 3/4 of a cup and 5.25 ounces are roughly the same (i.e. they're giving you two alternatives: weigh the sugar or measure it in a cup). --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading this, self-raising flour is (or can be) plain flour with 2% - 5% baking powder added. As I suggested above, just exclude the baking powder from the recipe and they'll probably be fine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Hopefully all will turn out well... 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Cake flour, traditionally, is rather finer than other types of flour, and the texture may differ slightly as a result, but I am not inclined to anticipate any catastrophy arising from this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The recipe panned out exactly as it should, so it turns out that self-rising flour is an acceptable substitute. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally, cake flour is only specified as not being bread flour. Bread flour is 'strong' flour, higher in gluten than cake flour. That can impact the texture, and high-gluten flour can also be less flavoursome than low-gluten flour (apparently). Self-raising flour is cake flour, with raising agent. Plain flour is also cake flour, but without raising agent. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never used anything other than self-raising flour in my cakes. I've always just followed my Be-ro cook book which states self-raising (http://www.be-ro.com/f_insp.htm) - the brand is something of a classic brand in the Uk. ny156uk (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

French commemorative medal.

I have come across a family owned medal with no knowledge of origin. Family has french heritage with service in 1914-18 war. Wording on medal as follows: Raised relief of Louis XV - "LUD.XV.REX.CHRISTIANISS" Reverse side - "ET HABET SUA CASTRA DIANA" with year "MDCCXXV". Considering its condition it would certainly have been struck during 20th century. Can anyone provide reason for medal and likely recipients114.78.95.127 (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The obverse text could be taken from Ovid. Militat omnis amans, et habet sua castra Cupido "Every lover serves as a soldier, and Cupid has his own camp". (Amores 1.9[1]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The medal was created for Louis XV in 1725, because he liked to hunt as a youth (Diana was the Roman goddess of hunting). Assuming that you don't have the original, it must be a replica, not issued for anything in particular (except to make a bit of money off of people who like to buy historical replicas, presumably). There are other replicas for sale on Ebay and such. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

gasoline drill

How many holes can I do with a tanked up drill to knock in mountaineering spits?--217.194.34.103 (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC) t.i.a.

I think that'll depend on the size of the drill you're using (petrol capacity, rate of fuel consumption), the hardness of the rock you're drilling, and the sharpness of the drill bit. So. anything from 0 to many. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you not just bring extra fuel in a Jerrycan ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If everyone lies...

...who is a liar?--Quest09 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For further information, see the Scott Adams book, The Way of the Weasel, in which he postulates that everyone lies to everyone, especially to themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And lie detection gets even more difficult when that happens. Wikiscient (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: But, what is the purpose of having a word for something that everyone is? What does it mean then to say that "John is a liar"? And why woman say men are all liars, if they are liars too? And why is lying despicable, if everyone does it? --Quest09 (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Everybody lies, but that doesn't mean that everyone lies for the same reasons or to the same extent. Similarly, (nearly) everybody uses drugs, writes, and runs, but not everyone gets labelled a "drug user" or "writer" or "runner" because using those labels means something different than the bare words. See connotation and denotation. Matt Deres (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Orientation of items in dishwashers

Until late last month, I'd never lived in a house with a dishwasher, so I'm rather unfamiliar with some aspects of using it. Why do we always place silverware handle-down, with the business end protruding upward? I do it because I've seen others do it, but I can't see how its orientation makes a difference to the silverware. Note that our dishwasher article says nothing on the subject. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You get more cutlery in that way. And the business ends are up and out of the basket so that they are thoroughly washed. By the way, it is a good idea to rinse plates, etc.. Helps to prevent rubbish build-up within the machine.95.176.67.194 (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It also means that any liquid residue left on the silverware after the rinse cycle will tend to flow down onto the handle, away from the business end of the cutlery. In a poorly-designed silverware basket, the cutlery may also be left in contact with a small amount of standing liquid at the bottom of the basket, and leaving the pointy end of forks down may cause them to become wedged or jammed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

However, there are also arguments against leaving the pointy end uppermost. [2], [3], [4]. Karenjc 16:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For larger knives, especially in a dishwasher which isn't completely full, you can compromise by resting them horizontally on a different part of the rack rather than in the little basket. They'll clean as well, but there's much less danger of this sort of accident. Shimgray | talk | 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Safety issues aside, I would recommend strongly against using the dishwasher for kitchen knives in any case. Pointy end up or down, one risks the blade striking other items (cutlery or dishes) nicking and dulling the blade. Many types of knife handle don't tolerate long water exposure/immersion and high temperatures well, and repeated trips through the dishwasher may loosen the handle, or open cracks in which microbes can become trapped. As well, a sharp blade may damage protective plastic coatings on the dishwasher's internal metal fittings. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It does depend somewhat on the dishwasher and the nature of the cutlery basket, too. My old dishwasher had a basket with particularly sparse edges, and actually recommended that cutlery should be put in point-up and point-down in roughly equal proportions for the best washing performance. My current dishwasher, conversely, has inbuilt handle-sized holes in the lid of the basket, leaving you no option but to put everything in handle first as it won't fit the other way. ~ mazca ^talk 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The benefit to the holes is that they enforce spacing between items, which can be a problem with a normal basket - if you put a handful of spoons or forks of the same pattern in, they're liable to clump together, meaning that the inside "layers" don't wash well. (Handle-down also helps here, in that it's easier to check they're distributed.) Shimgray | talk | 17:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't own a dishwasher, but when I place cutlery on a drying rack I always put it pointy side down. Partially because that's the way my mother taught me and partly out of an ingrained learned instinct not to have a blade pointing outwards, or even visible, when not in use. APL (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course, snopes has this covered. APL (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually read the instruction manual of the new dishwasher we recently acquired, and it said business end down, and don't rinse plates. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of our smaller knives will fit through the holes in the cutlery basket of our current dishwasher, so they have to go in sharp end up, even though it's a bit dangerous. What's best really depends on your particular dishwasher and your particular cutlery. --Anonymous, 05:35 UTC, September 7, 2010.

My mother's dishwasher has a basket for utensils which makes them lie horizontally instead of vertically. I am thinking now, maybe this might be dangerous and could cause them to dislocate during washing, I had never thought about this before. For normal washing (as I do not own a dishwasher myself either) I place the utensils pointy/spoony end up to dry, because the bottom of my dryer unit tends to gather grime sometimes. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretentious

What is considered the most pretentious film ever? With this logic (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that AFI has done a list of 'most pretentious films,' and I searched for "Most pretentious film" and found lots of message boards discussing the subject, but didn't find any film authorities weighing in. There is some general consensus on the best film (Citizen Kane), and the worst film (Plan Nine from Outer Space), but I can't find any good source for a consensus on this question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Green Berets (film). Vets walk out of showings and demanded their money back.--Aspro (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Citizen Kane over Casablanca and Vertigo? That's pretty silly. Citizen Kane is one of the best substitutes for a sleeping pill you're likely to find on the big screen. --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Thinks.... confused pretentious with the pretentious of subject matter dealt with by some films ....William Randolph Hearst for example. The film itself was not protentious. --Aspro (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Trovatore, the fact is that Citizen Kane has been showing up in "Best Films of All Time"-type lists forever. You may not agree that it's all that great. But here is not the place to have a discussion about it. Firstly, nothing would change. But more importantly, it's completely irrelevant to the OP's question. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And neither is your comment because the OP Q is not about greatness but pretentiousness. Born on the Fourth of July (film) was a good antithises --Aspro (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My vote is for Woody Allen's Interiors. Looie496 (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

People stopped going to the movies in the 70s when a lot of films were like that. 92.28.248.94 (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you guys haven't even touched the surface of pretentiousness. How about My Dinner With Andre, which makes any Woody Allen film look like the Three Stooges? Nothing gets worse than two guys with unlistenable accents chatting over dinner for 2 hours. Andre Gregory: "That reminds me of the time we all decided to perform Hamlet with our bodies smeared with butter". Wallace Shawn: "Oh, that sounds interesting, tell me more." Imagine that for 2 hourse. Unwatchable.--Jayron32 04:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Siskel & Ebert liked it. In fact, if not for them, probably nobody would ever have heard of it. Although it also fit Hitchcock's axiom: "Two people sitting around a table talking is not a movie. Now, if there's a bomb under the table, that's a movie." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course in the Hitchcock version you'd first learn some hint about the bomb about half an hour into the movie, and it'd be another half hour before that hint crystallized into an actual bomb. Hitchcock movies moved like cold molasses. In a few cases, like Vertigo, the payoff was spectacular. But for lots of others — like, say, The Wrong Man, there was really never any payoff to speak of. (Admittedly it's a little unfair to pick on The Wrong Man because it had the almost insuperable handicap of being true, but it's not the only one in the never-pays-off category, just the one I've seen most recently.) --Trovatore (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because Hitchcock movies spent time on such worthless endeavours as character development and plot. Now that our brains have been poisoned by the likes of Michael Bay and Joel Schumacher to believe that any film that doesn't have shit blowing up in slow motion around Nicholas Cage and Bruce Willis to be unwatchable; but there was once a time when people actually watched movies because they cared about the characters in them. --Jayron32 06:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying, sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. A lot of the really great movies do start a little slow. But so do some really dull ones.

I was appalled, not that long ago, to find that the critics' response to one of my all-time greats, Blade Runner, was that it was too slow. That was ludicrous; it wasn't slow, it was stately.

On the other hand, 2001: A Space Odyssey was just slow. --Trovatore (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least one notorious film authority called that one pretentious. John Simon in The New Leader, 1968: "... a kind of space-Spartacus and, more pretentious still, a shaggy God story."(rogerebert.com) ---Sluzzelin talk 06:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No opinion; I haven't seen it in too long. I don't usually re-watch films that I think are boring. Maybe it would be worth running the experiment — I didn't like Brazil the first time, and now it's one of my favorites. But the reason that I didn't like it the first time was that I thought it was disturbing; I think disturbing changes to interesting more readily than boring does. --Trovatore (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh hey, how about The Breakfast Club as most pretentious? Don't know if the critics have said that, but it works for me. --Trovatore (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the subjectivity of this question, the ambiguity of the term pretentious makes it a very difficult question to even discuss among ourselves (which we shouldn't be doing anyway). Naming My Dinner with André, is an example of directing the word "pretentious" against a certain stereotype of navel-gazing intellectualism. With Interiors, it is also the pretentiousness of trying to be like Ingmar Bergman. While searching a bit, I saw The Passion of the Christ being labeled as pretentious. A completely different type of pompous puffery. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and The Breakfast Club is still another sort. Its populism is its affectation. --Trovatore (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(Actually, now that I look at it again, I shouldn't have started the sentence with "Yes" — I don't really think that about The Passion of the Christ. I don't know that I'll ever see it again, but I think it was sincere.) --Trovatore (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha! There you go! My personal usage of pretentious needn't imply insincerity. Making a sincerely felt claim to undeserved importance can come across as pretentious (and so can having the dialogue spoken in Aramaic). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Aramaic was one of the main reasons I went to see the film. I thought it was an audacious choice and wanted to see it done. Unfortunately I didn't think the actors came across natural when speaking it. On the other hand the Italians that he got to play Romans sounded totally natural, at the expense of anachronistically speaking Church Latin. --Trovatore (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed Wood's efforts were totally sincere, yet also pretentious, in that he thought they were much better than they were at conveying some kind of social message. You don't have to be on a mega-budget to be pretentious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I disagree that you can be sincere but pretentious. I certainly do agree you don't need huge production values. (By the way, on the subject of Wood, Plan 9 gets a worse rap than it deserves; it actually does have a couple of interesting things to say, despite the amateurish execution.) --Trovatore (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen worse movies than Plan 9. Wood himself made one or two of them. In fact, the colorized version of Plan 9 is an improvement. You can actually compare the extremely bare bones of his stories with the extremely bare bones of classics like The Day the Earth Stood Still and realize that the difference is in little details like script, acting, direction, and budget. Defining what "pretentious" really means is where this gets slippery. You can go down a checklist of production values as to why a movie is inferior (and Plan 9 has a very long list), but it's harder to do that with "pretentiousness", because there's so much opinion and personal preference involved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This subject could perhaps be a section within List of films considered the worst, or perhaps there's enough material for a companion article, List of films considered the most pretentious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Intolerance (film) was widely considered the most ambitious, and possibly pretentious film of its era. Acroterion _(talk) 14:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sluzzelin's got it right. OP needs to define pretentious or else this is just yet another request for opinions, something that we (used to) not do here on the ref desk. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does OP need to define it? Go look at a dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretentious 124.37.178.244 (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We've never not done it. It's a pious commonplace, never actually observed. --Trovatore (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, and I haven't done it. But it seems recently that the disclaimer is being blatantly ignored by more and more editors. For those that perhaps haven't noticed it, I will repeat it here: "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.". --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

People are eager to answer questions that are really unanswerable. My guess is that The Green Berets might well be the answer. But as I noted earlier, you can call a movie "worst" based on a checklist of production values; but to call a movie "pretentious" is largely a matter of opinion. I doubt that an internet forum will do anything but provide more opinions. To create an article List of most pretentious films would be difficult to source. You'd have to use a lot of OR just to figure "whose opinion matters". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I may have one correct answer to the OP's question. Mindwalk (1990), is generally criticized as pretentious, even though I don't think it is. However, it appears many disagree, as it has never been released on DVD. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The films of Joan Collins would be the place to look. 92.15.20.52 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

astronauts

what have they not sent anyone to the moon for so long? would it be right to call a shuttle astronaut names for not having been to the moon? Isn't the moon more dangerous? Would they ever put soemone on mars? Is it that the shuttle isnt as good as the saturn five or are they just not able to go to the moon any more? Mocteau (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Apollo program article presumably would get into more detail, but the bottom line was "the bottom line" - namely, that there was no further interest in public funding of manned missions to the moon. The final three Apollo launches were cancelled, and the government space agencies used the information it had gained from the moon programs to go forward with the earth-centric shuttles and space stations, and robotic explorers to other planets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

{ec}I think the view being taken is, "been there, done that, got the t-shirt". It costs less to travel to & hang out in the space station than on the lunar surface, and NASA does not have limitless resources. Comparing just these two things, it is far far far far far more sensible to play space station games than lunar landing games. In other news, you should not call anyone names; not big, not clever. Shuttle versus Saturn V is an apples & pears comparison; mostly unhelpful. "They" could go the the moon if they wanted. It's just that they mostly (and with one eye on the budget) don't. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. If you're old enough to recall the space program, once we actually accomplished a few moon landings, it started to become old news and public support plummetted. "We beat the Rooskies", that was the main thing, and then the public said, "Now let's spend our money on useful stuff." Like the Vietnam War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that last part about the Vietnam War being "useful" was trolling. 95.93.28.118 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It was irony, and the moon landings were one of the Vietnam War casualties, although there was really a sense that there was nothing else to do on the moon at that time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Moon landings are expensive and logistically demanding and space travel is inherently dangerous. If we discover valuable resources on the moon that are rare on earth we may be able to justify the cost, expense and danger. Exxolon (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The danger is not a good argument at all. Is there anyone here who wouldn't go to the Moon given a 90% chance of coming back safe? --Trovatore (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The real issue is that you are now confusing Space tourism with actual space-based scientific and commercial activities. It turns out that almost anything we could do in space is cheaper, easier, and less dangerous when done by unmanned probes. As technology has progressed, we no longer need to send someone to, say, Mars or the Moon to bring back a chunk of rock to study on earth. We don't even need to bring the chunk back to earth, modern probes are equipped with rather sophisticated equipment which can do all of the necessary analyses on site. What activity beyond "just going for the sake of going" could a human do, at this point, which cannot already be done by unmanned probes (which don't need food, water, entertainment, etc.)? Some of the research going on at the ISS, in terms of long-term survivability of people in space, growing food at zero G, etc. may be useful for future colonization, but as of right now, at the current state of the space program, there's just not a need to put a person on the moon. What would they do when they got there that would make it worth the trip? --Jayron32 05:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm just saying we don't have to think of the risk to astronauts as some sort of deep sacrifice that we should avoid asking of them if we have a way around it. There are plenty of volunteers who would take the risk gladly and thank us for the chance. I'd be one of them if I had anything to contribute up there and could meet the standards. --Trovatore (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"would it be right to call a shuttle astronaut names for not having been to the moon?"

In case you haven't already realised this from the replies above, Mocteau, once the Saturn V rocket was retired, the USA (and everyone else) no longer had any rocket capable of getting astronauts the 240,000 miles to the Moon. In fact, we (humanity) have not since then even been able to get astronauts (whose life support capsules and systems weigh a lot) as far as the 22,000-mile-high Geosynchronous Orbit of most communications satellites. The Shuttle can only get to Low Earth Orbit, no more than about 600 miles up. If the USA (say) decided today to go to the expense of designing and building another Moon-capable rocket system, it would take (I believe it has been estimated) at least 10 years to complete it. So no, it would be quite wrong to insult Shuttle astronauts for not having gone to the Moon - I'm sure they would all love to if they could, but it hasn't been possible for them or anyone else since 1973. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would it take us 10 years to build such a rocket? It only took 9 years from blueprints to the moon the first time they did it. Googlemeister (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a national urgency about it that pushed the schedule, sometimes with disastrous results. There would be no such national urgency now, and it would be a project that everyone would want a slice of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the inherent dangers just in the shuttle program and other space programs, the best "name" I can think of to call astronauts and cosmonauts is "heroes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Why? Is everyone who does something dangerous a hero? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In what may be one of the last remaining personal freedoms, individual people still get to choose their own heroes. I refuse to have heroes imposed on me by others. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The OP's question was "would it be right to call a shuttle astronaut names for not having been to the moon?" As if they had a choice in the matter. I call them heroes. You can call them by whatever names you want. But not "for not having been to the moon", since they have no control over that option. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Death rates for space flights and astronauts are not trivial. On any one space flight you have a 1 in 50 chance of dying. Over your astronaut career that jumps to 1 in 20. Ergo you don't send people into space unless there's a damn good reason to do so - going to the moon for shits and giggles would be a ludicrous idea. Exxolon (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's total nonsense. As I said above, there's no lack of volunteers (I'd love to be one myself but I'd never make the cut), and they're entitled to make that choice.

Oh, it would be different if it were the sort of "volunteer" that you get in wartime, where someone has to charge the machine gun nest, and you do it so your buddy doesn't have to. But I don't think it's that at all. I'd gladly do it at a 2% risk of my life, and not out of any sense of duty, but because I genuinely wanted to.

So if you think it's not worth the tax dollars to send people up there, fine, I'll listen to that argument. But don't give me any nonsense about the risk. --Trovatore (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that on average, a career astronaut only goes into space 2.5 times total? Googlemeister (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Info is from Space accidents and incidents. Obviously the statistical sample is rather small, but that is the current rate based on accidents so far. Exxolon (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ray Mears

I have been watching a collection of the television shows that Mr Mears has made, and I have two questions that seem to have not been answered in the shows, firstly and most importantly; RM cooks alot of food in a traditional method by digging a hold underneath his camp fire, placing food in the hole, often wrapped in leaves then covered with either coals and soil or soil and coals, this then cooks the food. One can come back later, dig up the food and it is beautifully cooked. I agreed with him that this may be a very tasty way of cooking with natural flavours, but, I am sure any one who has watched his shows or tried this themselves will agree, and want this answered too. How do you stop from getting sand in your food? This can be very unpleasant as I am sure alot of people have experienced this at some stage, sand on food, even just a grain or two can be very unpleasant. How does he evade this when cooking directly on the flames, or when buried beneath the fire? secondly, and very much as an aside, how does one go about nominating some one for a knighthood? RM surely is in need of this, he has done wonders for preserving ancient methods of cooking food, ancient foods themselves, and methods of using natural materials for survival. Alot can be learned from him in the modern age especially now days when we are trying to be quote unquote green. We all need to start making better use of our natural resources, apparently, and I feel he is a forrunner in this field and deserves some sort of recognition for this. So to summerize, how do you stop from getting sand in your food when doing traditional cooking, and how would one go about nominating some one for a knight hood? Sir Ray Mears, nice ring to it huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To nominate someone for a knighthood, you simply write to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street (some awards, such as those to military and diplomatic services are handled instead by the relevant secretary of state). It looks like Ray Mears hasn't been awarded a lower class of honour (e.g. OBE, CBE), which you'd generally expect to be awarded before a knighthood. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrap the food in big leaves, or perhaps paper or cloth. If someone is worthy of a knighthood for being paid to read out someone else's script about "done wonders for preserving ancient methods of cooking food" then about half the population of Britain have done things of equal merit and deserve a knighthood too. 92.28.248.94 (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking of an Earth oven? This is still used in some cultures on special occasions, I don't think RM had anything to do with that. Guides to setting one up, like a hāngi should help with any problems you have. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

One cannot avoid the grit. Look at skeletal remains of those that ate such a diet and they have heavily worn teeth.Some people even make a study of the wear. [5]Here are some images (not all at once now, or you might crash the site) [6] --Aspro (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ray Mears isn't that great. I used to like his shows, but after they killed and deer and skinned it for no purpose other than killing a deer and skinning it I hated the man. I mean sure killing to eat is one thing, but killing a poor innocent creature just to say "hi folks at home here's what a dead deer looks like" it's disgusting and no respect for nature. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Knowing how to skin a deer is pretty important if you're going to eat it, use the skin for clothing, etc, and Ray Mears teaches how to cook a variety of game, as well as how to make useful things from bits and pieces of them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Of the people who watch it, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be in a situation where they need or find a use for such information. Unless they are by choice into guns and blood sports. 92.28.242.240 (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of us are interested in how our ancestors lived, and how indigenous people around the world live. Knowledge does not need to have an immediate utilitarian value to be of importance. Almost nobody will ever need to know where Washington was born, or the different flavours of quarks, but that is no argument against educating people about them. I have to say the post abut the deer was somewhat disingenuous, as Mears doesn't kill animals to say "this is what a dead deer looks like" - he'll demonstrate ancient hunting techniques, preparation, cooking, etc, and talk about the importance of the animal to the societies which depend upon it. DuncanHill (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)