Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 July 20

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.

July 20

Smells from a lavatory

How does one duplicate lavatory smells in order to track a problem with the pipes? Obviously it does not need to be an exact duplicate; any smell that I can flush would do. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Perfumed soap, cooking extracts? Your drain vent may have a bird nest in it as well. A small black pipe up on the roof.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

UKian toilet flue pipes are perhaps of larger bore than those in Edmonton; and oft-times gray. I'd be interested to know more of the currently observed symptoms, and a sketch of the general plumbing environment, in order to appreciate why smell-based detection is being sought by KB. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Ammonia is an obvious choice; distinct, smelly, liquid, cheap, and not too caustic. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Plumbers use peppermint oil as a pungent, but inoffensive scent. Acroterion (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why you could detect the smell from a leak, but not the wetness. I'd expect wetness to be far easier to spot. StuRat (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I smell the smell when someone uses the loo above but there is no visible wetness. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As a veteran of several stink hunts when finishing up building projects, the problem is usually a loose joint in a vent pipe that allows sewer gas to escape. They can be remarkably difficult to track down, and the peppermint oil trick can help. Plain leaks are usually easy to spot (unless they're under a slab), but venting problems can be hard to diagnose, and it's often something that has either worked loose, was never fully connected to begin with, has a loose or missing clean-out plug, or is just plain incomplete. Since the soil stack isn't under pressure, they can leak air (pushed out by the flush), but not necessarily water (which is a momentary event, and which doesn't go around corners as easily as air). An obstruction in the venting can cause a flush to push air through a trap's water seal, or a dry trap can allow gas a direct path (and a dry trap can be caused by a bad venting system). Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. StuRat (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are fried chicken TV dinners becoming so hard to find?

I have noticed that some grocery chains have stopped carrying fried chicken TV dinners. Even some that continue to carry other TV dinners. It has been my personal observation that fried chicken is (at least) one of the most popular types of TV dinners. Why would grocery chains that carry TV dinners stop carrying the fried chicken dinners? Aldi is one such grocery chain. Does this have anything at all to do with the "healthy eating" movement that the United States government has been pushing? If it's not that, then I'm at a loss as to what's going on here. Any information would be appreciated. Thank you. InforManiac (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be that many are selling hot roasted chicken to compete with other ready to eat without heating places like fast food etc. If someone wants chicken then they have to buy the ready to go at higher profit bird. The chains just pull the others off the freezer shelf. I live in Edmonton and we are at the end of the supply line. There are many things we can't get here. The shelf space just stays empty until Toronto stops pigging out on all the good stuff. This may be the same in your area.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Aldi has confirmed to me in the past that the chain does not sell any fried chicken TV dinners. They provided me with no reasons. InforManiac (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

They may just be a low profit item or they couldn't get a steady supply. They can't carry everything so they decided not to carry them. If you find another store that has them they may seem like too high a price or low stocks. You could try a frozen food wholesaler or distributor. They may know where to get them. If you have a big freezer they may sell you a case at a time cheaper than the store.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Swanson's Hungry Man dinners still offer classic fried chicken. See http://www.hungry-man.com/dinners.html. If your store doesn't carry it, ask them if they would. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I do love the Swanson's Hungry Man dinners. InforManiac (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind Aldi is a discount store with a very meager selection. I find the local Bottom Dollar has a better selection (although the only thing I get in the frozen dinner aisle are the Mrs. T's mini-pierogies, since I amlomst always cook from scratch.) Walmart is cheap and often has a better selection as well. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Walmart usually has the Hungry Man fried chicken TV dinners, but from what I was told, they didn't have any today. I wasn't there to personally confirm it, but the people who were picking it up for me both said that they couldn't find any. InforManiac (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well we still get fried chicken dinners here, which means that they are passing through Edmonton to get to us. I wouldn't have thought of Edmonton as the end of the supply line but as a major distribution centre to Northern Canada. Supplies are trucked north to places like Yellowknife for flights to more remote places or shipped by rail to Hay River, Northwest Territories and then barged up on NTCL during the summer. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe Aldi does sell frozen fried chicken alone, in maybe a 2 pound box, so you can always clog your arteries that way. (I have a relevant personal experience: My Dad was dying of heart disease, and I was doing his grocery shopping for him. One thing he always asked for was fried chicken, but I outright refused to get him that. Sort of reminds you of the smoker continuing to smoke through his tracheotomy hole, doesn't it ? The last thing he ever ate at a restaurant was a Chili's Bloomin' Onion.) StuRat (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your Dad, because that's a real shame, but I love my fried chicken TV dinners. I may end up taking your advice and buy a box or two of the fried chicken because that would definitely be better than nothing. InforManiac (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can't find fried chicken TV dinners anymore you can still go to KFC and get some fried chicken. Do you have some KFCs near you? Futurist110 (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure they do, but going out to get food is a lot more work than just nuking it, especially if you need to get dressed first. StuRat (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Um below you recommend the OP buy a lot of chicken and freeze it but then here you don't consider this possibility? Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The act of freezing it means you can then prepare it, whenever wanted, without leaving home. You could do that with fried chicken you buy at KFC, too, but then you might as well buy it already frozen, which is less expensive. I'm not aware of anywhere you can buy rotisserie chicken which has been separated and pre-frozen. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

But you're presuming the OP can buy already frozen fried chicken. As we know, the OP can't find frozen fried chicken dinners near them. You suggested above they may be able to get large packs of frozen chicken, and the OP suggested they may do it, but as it stands, we have no real idea if the OP can find these packs of frozen chicken. And even if they can find them or dinnners somewhere, how much more convient it will be. Or even whether it will be cheaper then buying chicken from KFC in bulk and freezing it. Now the OP has mentioned there is no KFC near them this suggests the KFC idea is will most likely not work very well, but at the time of the proposal, it seems there was no harm in Futurist110 suggesting the option inspite of your dismissive attitude to the original proposal without knowing the circumstances for the OP. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I know that Aldi's sells large boxes of frozen fried chicken, since I shop there, too. I also know it's less expensive than KFC. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There actually is a KFC between 10-15 miles from where I live, but with my medical issues, it's just not that convenient to go there all that often. I don't remember when I was there last, but I'm guessing it has probably been well over a year. InforManiac (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just have to ask if any of your medical issues are caused by a poor diet. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

They are not diet related. InforManiac (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

My own advise is to get rotisserie chicken, break it into pieces, and freeze them. I find this to be just as cheap and good as fried chicken, and much healthier, especially if you don't eat the skin. StuRat (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oggy and the Cockroaches

Sir i am a big fan of oggy and the cockroaches, I am watching it for previous one year. before 17th july 2012 it was most entertainer but now it has become less effective due to the replacement of voices, really, and so my question is -may you like to hear me for JACK.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.4.174 (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Question placed in own section and title linked. Richard Avery (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but I think you are saying that in your opinion the voices used are less interesting than they used to be, and you would like to offer your voice? If that is so, you have come to the wrong place: this is the help desk for Wikipedia, and has no connection or influence with the programme. --ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused about my study

I live in KSA. I started studying I.COM (Intermediate of commerce) one year ago then I decided to study ACCA and then be Chartered accountant. I'm confused now that should I continue my I.COM? Would it be helpful for me in future if I study ACCA and CA? I've cleared my first year exam of I.COM and about to start 2nd and final year. I'm confused that if it won't help me in anyway then why I'm doing it. Someone please can guide me? It's about my future :) Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.44.54.138 (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless we happen to have somebody here who is familiar with the educational system in Saudi Arabia (I think that must be what 'KSA' is), you would be much better advised to ask your college. --ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, you probably have a tutor or student support department that can help you better than we can. --Tango (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is This Statement an Example of the Division and/or Composition Logical Fallacies?

First, let me give some background on this statement. I was debating abortion with someone who argued a pro-choice position, and this individual argued that an ischemic patient should be given rights because he had past "personhood" (sentience) and will have future "personhood" (sentience), in contrast to an embryo/fetus, who never had "personhood" (sentience).

I asked one of my pro-life friends how he would respond to this statement, and he responded with his own statement.

Here's my pro-life friend's response:

"If one argues that past personhood in itself and future personhood in itself are irrelevant for determining rights, then it's illogical to have these two characteristics combined be relevant in determining rights."

My pro-life friend is guilty of the composition and/or division logical fallacy, right? I told him that he was being fallacious and pointed out those fallacies, but he denied that he was being logically fallacious. So, which one of us is right when it comes to the logical validity of his statement?

Also, I want to make it very clear--I do not want a debate about abortion here. I just want to find out if my pro-life friend's statement is logically valid (not logically fallacious). Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have actually established that combining the two is relevant, then I don't see why it is fallacious to point out that there's no reason to assume combining the two makes them relevant. If you consider a baby duck's fluffiness to be irrelevant (rather than insufficient alone) in deciding whether it is a mammal, and also consider a viviparous lizard giving birth to live young to be irrelevant in deciding whether it is a mammal, then you need to explain the reasoning that would make combinations of these traits relevant in determining that a cat is a mammal :) It sounds like your first debate partner started from things they assumed were right or wrong, and then used "obvious" reasons why their gut feeling was right. It doesn't sound like they established why any of those three personhood statuses depended on the factors introduced, which are pretty sloppy factors in the first place. So it's quite reasonable to point out the gap in the logic, where the conclusion has not been supported. 86.161.208.94 (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that my pro-life friend might have misunderstood my first debate partner's position. My first debate partner argued that each of these qualities alone is insufficient for determining whether someone/something should have rights, not that they were completely irrelevant. Futurist110 (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I think that my pro-life friend has a better grasp of logic than my first debate partner, since my first debate partner made numerous logical fallacies (either in regards to this issue or to other issues) while my pro-life friend either never or very rarely makes logical fallacies. Futurist110 (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think your pro-life friend is committing the fallacy of division. Their argument seem to be: "A does not have property Z + B does not have property Z, therefore A+B do not have property Z". I think your friend can say it has not been demonstrated to their satisfaction that A+B do indeed have property Z, but to say that A+B can NOT have property Z just because A or B individually do not have property Z is fallacious. Vespine (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that you interpreted my pro-life friend's argument correctly. Futurist110 (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Boiling a kettle with hot water

I remember hearing years ago that when you boil a kettle, to make yourself a cup of tea or coffee, you should always fill it with cold water from the tap, not hot water. Is this the case, and if so why? --Viennese Waltz 07:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I can think of two arguments:

1) Because it will boil faster if you start from cold water. This is just plain wrong. There is the Mpemba effect, but that's the reverse (freezing faster starting from hot water).

2) The idea that hot water may contain more contaminants. This could be true, say if your water heater uses an aluminum, aluminum-zinc, zinc, or magnesium sacrificial rod. However, magnesium and zinc are needed nutrients, and, while aluminum has been implicated in some health problems, like Alzheimers, I doubt if the amount you get from your drinking water is significant enough to make a difference. But, just in case, you might want to find out what type of rod you have in your water heater. Let me add a separate Q below to get more expert opinions on this. StuRat (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't the usual arguments I see. I usually see:

1) Water from the hot tap has been heated to a cosy incubation temoerature and then usually stored in the hot water tank for a while. It thus poses a greater risk of microorganisms, and the heating from hot-tap temperature to boiling point doesn't take long enough to properly kill dangerous microorganisms.(I am suspicious of the second part of this)

2) (less important) Additional mineral contaminants in the hot water will fur up your kettle's heating element more quickly.

86.161.208.94 (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, most older houses, and thus most houses, have a vented hot water system, with an open tank in the loft. People worry about if a rat fell into it, or just dust and grime. I have an unvented system now, but still fill the kettle from the cold tap from force of habit, although I do use water from the hot tap in the bottom half of the steamer when cooking veg. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The main contaminant I have seen mentioned is lead from plumbing solder. The U.S. didn't ban lead solder until 1986 and lead continued to be used in plumbing fixtures until 1998.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a possible economic reason: if your hot water is stored in a heated cistern some distance from the hot water tap, then after you turn off the tap all the water in the pipe between the tap and the cistern starts to cool down. Ask yourself how long you typically have to leave the hot tap running before the water turns from cold to hot. All that cold water was heated wastefully. jnestorius^(talk) 18:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Do aluminum sacrificial rods in water heaters represent a health risk ?

Also, aluminum-zinc rods. That is, does the amount of aluminum that will be consumed as a result represent a health risk, particularly in causing Alzheimer's disease. StuRat (talk)

For info - sacrificial rod. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Aluminium does not cause Alzheimer's disease. Aluminium is fairly common in human diet anyway due to it being very common in the earth. Alum is also added to tap water to precipitate sediment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) :This is pure hearsay but because of the source I have no reason to doubt it. About 40 years ago my aunt was admitted to Oswestry Orthopaedic Hospital with severe acute arthritis in the extremities. After some time and exhaustive testing, she was told to dispose of any alumimium pans and only to use stainless steel, enamel coated or Teflon pans, as the aluminium had built up over the years in her joints causing the arthritis. Nobody in our family has used aluminium cooking pans since. I'd welcome any supporting references for this. (And yes she did recover to an extent after changing pans.) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

At work so no time to hunt out references, but I recall reading (in New Scientist etc) that aluminium was for some time thought to be implicated in Alzheimer's because it was detected in slides of brain tissue from (dead) sufferers, but that this was eventually shown to have come from the stain chemicals used to prepare the slides and so was not after all implicated in the disease. This itself may actually be wrong but I proffer it as an avenue for further (textual) research. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

From our article on aluminium: "According to the Alzheimer's Society, the overwhelming medical and scientific opinion is that studies have not convincingly demonstrated a causal relationship between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease.[81] Nevertheless, some studies, such as those on the PAQUID cohort,[82] cite aluminium exposure as a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease." so it sounds as though the jury is still out.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I want things to be proven safe before I expose myself to them, so a lack of proof either way isn't very reassuring. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So StuRat I imagine that you don't eat meat, drink alcohol, put any small objects into your mouth, swim, drive, cross the street, fly, catch public transport, climb stairs, play sport, get out of bed? You know even editing wikipedia probably hasn't been "proven safe". ;) Vespine (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do avoid a lot of those. For those I don't avoid, there's no simple alternative, unlike with aluminum sacrificial rods. And, in the case of staying in bed all day, that would prove fatal far sooner than getting out of bed, on average. StuRat (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Which kingdom rules more than 2000 years continuously?

According to me, Pandyan Dynasty is one of the dynasty ruled more than 2000 years. Is there any kingdom who ruled more than 2000 years? If means let me know in my talk page.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Imperial House of Japan is said to be the "oldest continuous hereditary monarchy" in the world, traditionally ruling from 660 BC. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't the Tokugawa shogunate of the Edo period interrupt the continuity? Roger (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The emperor still ruled Japan in name during the shogunate while the Pandyans apparently were driven out of their country for hundreds of years. Not a good claim to continuity. Rmhermen (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Depends on your definition of "rule", all of the shogunates interrupted the "rule" in the sense that the emperor reigned but did not rule in the sense of exercising political power. Arguably, since 1945 the emperor also reigns but does not rule.

If we are drawing comparisons, however, the Pandyan Dynasty article also makes clear that they did not actually rule continuously between 550BC and the 1500s, there were periods of overthrow and revival - in fact a glance at the "History" section of that article shows that, even if one deems the various "revivals" of the dynasty (and I am sceptical that two lineages can be considered the same one when there is a 300 or 400 year gap in between), the longest period of continuous rule was only about 600 years. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

By comparison, the Zhou Dynasty of China ruled, actually or nominally, for almost 800 years, though in the end their rule was effective over only a tiny territory. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And if we count the same throne, but not the guy on the throne, China had a pretty long run overall. The Qin dynasty started in 221 BCE and China had an emperor until 1911. Dynasties changed, but the kingdom/empire was still "China." Ian.thomson (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. At least twice, the land we know as China was ruled by a foreign power, for a considerable time period. The Yuan Dynasty is the name for the time period when the Mongols conquered and annexed China, ruling it for almost a century. The Qing Dynasty is the name for the time period when China was ruled by the Manchu or Jurchen. In Chinese historiography, whoever had functional control over the land of China was said to have the Mandate of Heaven which officially declares that these foreign powers were actually legitimate Chinese dynasties. The Mongols and Manchus also adopted Chinese customs and bureaucracy, but they seized the land via conquest from their own homelands. Even during the other time periods, China also had periods of disunity when China was divided into multiple states, with no clear single "Empire" to rule it all. During the period known as the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, there was no single "China". The notion that there was a single "China" or even "Chinese monarchy" or "Chinese Empire" for the entire period from 221 - 1911 is like claiming that the Holy Roman Empire or the Sultanate of Rum or Russia as the Third Rome represent the same state as the original Roman Empire. --Jayron32 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the only really long interregnum - one exceeding a lifetime in length - was between the fall of the Han Dynasty & the Sui Dynasty. And also the conquest by the Yuan took more than a century, leading to the division of the Northern & Southern Song Dynasty. The comparisons have limited validity. China was a far more integrated & continuous political, cultural & social unit from 589 to now. The Han is frequently compared to Rome. Chinese history is more like if Charlemagne had genuinely reconstituted the Roman empire & created a real EU, with common written language, Latin, that lasted to the present, with some invasions & interruptions.John Z (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Rusty vertical pipe on Southport Beach

I was on Southport Beach last night and found this pipe. I've no idea what it was for, and thought there might be a clever person on WP who may be able to help out. Around the pipe was written "TIDAL STANDARD" "LIVERPOOL FLEETWOOD" and some Roman Numerals, starting at XXIX and going down, XXVIII, XXVII, before being obscured by sand. It looks like there was space for a horizontal pipe of the same width, a vent on the top which is all but gone, a support strut at about 45 degrees, which went into the sand and 4 securing points. All visibile on the photo, but I thought some description might help.

Now, I assume it's got something to do with measuring the tides from "back in the day", but if anyone can give me something more accurate, especially if those numerals go all the way to 1, I'd be interested. Worm^TT(talk) 12:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Up until very recently, raw sewerage was pumped into the sea along the coast in that area, so my guess is it's part of the old sewage outfall system. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be disappointing, given my speculations. but it would make sense with regards to the vent at the top. Worm^TT(talk) 13:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And this confirms it's an old ventalation shaft from the sewage outlet. I always thought it was odd that Southport town centre was so far back from the beach, but if there was that much waste pumped out there, I can see why they'd want to keep away from the smell! Worm^TT(talk) 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

chess rule

in a situation when a king is in a check, and wants to get out but a pinned piece is blocking the move ( meaning that piece is guarding his own king and by moving that piece his king will be in a check), is the move allowed. in a deeper sense although the piece is pinned because capturing the other king helps him win the game he can block the opponents move. or although its a king a pinned piece can not move whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamlielsabbah (talk • contribs) 15:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A player can't put himself into check; it's an illegal move to do so. If the only move a player can made would put them into check, that's a stalemate. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. It's not clear which player you are talking about at each point. Can you rewrite the question with "Black" and "White" instead of "he"? Either way, if a player is already in check then nothing else matters - they have to get out of check in one move or it is checkmate. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If in check there are only 3 ways to get out of check:

1) Take the checking piece or pawn.

2) Move the king out of check.

3) Place a piece or pawn between the king and checking piece. Doesn't work if you are checked by a knight (which can "jump" over) or two pieces from different directions.

In some cases you can combine these strategies, say by taking one checking piece with your king, which then moves the king out of check from the other checking piece. In no case can you move so your king is in check (or moves through a space which is in check, in the case of castling). StuRat (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't understand the question either. On the last statement in it: Pinned pieces can move. They just can't move in ways which will put the King in check. But there's no way a legal move of a pinned piece could get a king out of check. (except of course if it captures the pinning piece) The pinning piece can't also be checking the King, so was correct before I added this. Very easy to make mistakes!John Z (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As I understand(?) the question, the answer is no. You can't get out of one check by moving a piece which results in you getting into a different check. A pinned piece can't be moved (that's pretty much the definition of pinning). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pinned pieces can move between the King & the pinning piece, along the pinning piece's line of attack.John Z (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops. That's true. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP would find the maxim that "a pinned piece can deliver check" helpful. Robinh (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why does steam come out of the pavement in American films?

Just one of those odd conversations - everyone thought they knew but only bullshine was forthcoming.

"It's from the subway!"

"What? American underground trains are steam powered?"

"No, it's how they make the electricity to run the subway..."

"Really? The power station is under the pavement? That can't be right."

Somebody help please.... Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A number of American (and non-American) cities have district heating using steam. New York is the most notable one, but a surprising number of places have systems. The pipes have relief valves that can release steam, or if it's cool at street level the warm moist air from the tunnels can condense. Filmmakers love it, of course. Acroterion (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I believe they are steam heating vents. When I was first in the States, I photographed the first one I saw, because they are utterly unknown here in the UK - a fact which might surprise some Americans. (A recent Dork Tower comic used the existence of steam tunnels at a British university as a punchline, but the author is British by birth and upbringing, and the gag was part of a whole series of deliberate anachronisms.) AlexTiefling (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your speedy and concise answers - I shall enlighten the assembled company forthwith. Cheers! Alansplodge (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Just wanted to mention that the steam heat one sees in US Cities is coming out of grates, not pavement. Steam will rise and condense off pavements anywhere if they were very hot until a short sudden shower wet them and cooled the atmosphere enough to allow the evaporated steam to recondense at ground level. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding AlanSplodge, who is using UK English terminology (if he'd been from the US he wouldn't have had to ask the question!) Here in the UK, what USAians call the "sidewalk" is the "pavement" (because it's usually paved, with paving stones). What USAians call the pavement (i.e. the part the car[riage]s run on) we call the "carriageway". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

British user here, never heard of a "carriageway". Do you mean "road"? --Dweller (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. I meant what I said. Heating steam doesn't come out of pavement in any sense, it comes through what we rulers of the universe call grills or grating and sometimes manholes and the like. But steam after a rain can come off any sort of pavement, stone, concrete or tarmac or even metal plate, even in Yorkshire. The difference is between a subterranean heating overflow through gaps in the walking surface and evaporation off a hot solid manmade surface. μηδείς (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What the anon was trying to explain, Medeis, is that the "grills, grating and manholes" you refer to are viewed by other people as part of the pavement, because they do not understand pavement to refer to some sort of solid surface (I am not sure what you mean by it, to be honest), pavement just means "sidewalk", and grates, grills, or whatever, can just as much be part of the pavement, thus understood, as solid surfaces. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Some guy on the internet is telling me that "pavement" doesn't mean the area that is paved, and that I am confusing matters by pointing out the difference between steam escaping underground steam pipes and steam evaporating off hot pavement? μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Who is the "some guy" you refer to?

And yes, pavement in some varieties of English means simply "sidewalk", and the grills or whatever you call it is part of the pavement even if it is not actually paved with stone.

FYI, there is a difference between "steam" and "water vapour". I find it hard to believe that in your part of the world the paving stones or concrete on your pavements actually gets so hot as to produce steam. Surely a pavement like that would not be safe to walk on. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)