Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 January 19

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.

January 19

Cover of the Album "Dangerous"

Anybody recall Michael Jackson's Dangerous album cover? I'd like to bring your attention to the lower left hand corner of the cover, in which you see a depiction of Aleister Crowley. Then on top his head is a cheeky looking shortie... Who is that? I'd swear I seen that guy's face somewhere (maybe Ripley's?), but I just can't put a name to that face under present circumstances. Anyone knows? Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A number of people on the Internet seem to be under the impression that what you're calling "a depiction of Aleister Crowley" is actually P. T. Barnum (compare the image at the bottom of this page), which would suggest that the vertically challenged guy is General Tom Thumb (compare the image here). Admittedly, I'm not finding, in a Google Images search, any images of Barnum or Thumb (or Crowley) that exactly match the ones on the album cover. Deor (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes! Tom Thumb! Thanks a lot. Cheers, Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

French drawer knobs

> I bought several white procelain knobs at an antique shop that say" 6th arroundissement, Paris France, each has a variety of single letters, plus commode and vetement." I am guessing they were used for some kind of dresser. Can you help me identify them? Martha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troxell21 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have pictures of them? It's hard to identify anything without seeing it. Also, Wikipedia does have an article on the 6th arrondissement of Paris --Jayron32 16:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Vetement" means "clothing", while "commode" means something like "convenience" or "comfort". I take it this is used as a euphemism for something else. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

See Commode. It's a chest of drawers. RudolfRed (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether the chest was designed for a private house or a shop? Can anyone make a guess? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Jaws the Revenge shark exploding

Posting this as miscellaneous because I don't know if it's more science or humanities.

At the end of the movie Jaws the Revenge, the shark eats some kind of device that is meant to give off an electromagnetic pulse. As I understand what the characters are saying, since sharks are hypothesised to incorporate some electromagnetic sensing ability into their sensory perception, the EMP will at least confuse it and at worst make it disoriented and uncompfortable. But in the film, after activating it several times the shark explodes. There's plenty of online reading devoted to the plot holes in this movie, but no one really seems to address this. 210.210.129.92 (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct from the article: "The film contains many scenes that are considered implausible, such as the shark swimming from a New York island to the Bahamas (approx. 2000 km) in less than three days, and following Michael through an underwater labyrinth, as well as the implication that it was seeking revenge. The Independent says that "the film was riddled with inconsistencies [and] errors (sharks cannot float or roar like lions)".[21] The special effects were criticized, especially some frames of the shark being speared by the boat's prow. Also, the mechanisms propelling the shark can be seen in some shots.[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A shark's organs of electroreception are its ampullae of Lorenzini. There's nothing explosive about them. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Our article has a section called "Ending changes" which touches on this. Rmhermen (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar

Do the nylon strings of classical guitars make them easier to play than the steel string acoustic guitars? Are they pressed down more easily and with lesser pressure on the finger? 117.227.100.191 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. --Jayron32 21:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

only extra thing I would add is that because of the low tension of the strings, the action (distance between string and frets) must be higher, this means that although your fingers don't have to press so hard, they have further to push on a classical guitar. With less expensive badly made beginners classical guitars this effect can be made even worse. There is rarely a truss rod in classical guitars so they can be very affected by changes in the humidity of the air, and this can cause the action to be raised also. Steel strung guitars have a truss rod usually and are a bit more stable on the whole, and can be more easily adjusted. ---- _nonsense ferret 13:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll second what nonsense said; to add to it steel string guitars require more strength to play, but conversely I find them much more forgiving and more versatile; even with the difference required in hand strength the steel string guitar is usually easier to play, from a skill point of view. But yes, they do require less strength and less pressure to hold the string against the fretboard. --Jayron32 18:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

When I learnt guitar many years ago I found steel strings caused lots of pain and even cut my fingers, whereas the nylon strings were much easier on my fingers. Didn't stop me developing calluses though! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)