Miscellaneous desk
< January 19	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 20

2x4s

In the U.S. we all know what a 2x4 piece of lumber is. What do they call it in other countries since they use the metric system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.87.63 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in reading Dimensional lumber#Non-North American sizes, personally I just call everything "a plank of wood". Foxhill (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also personally just call it a plank, unless you need the actual measurements of it. I know there is an American expression 'to hit someone with a piece of 2x4' but we'd just say 'a piece/plank of wood' in the UK. A 'piece of 2x4' would mean 'not actually a 2x4, but a piece taken from a 2x4', just like saying 'to hit someone with a piece of baseball bat.' --ChokinBako (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norway is extremely metric, yet the most common name still is the Norwegian word for "two inches four" -- sensible, as the dimensions do not come from the metric system. Jørgen (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know in Canada, we're also very metric about most things, but we still call a 2x4 a 2x4. We do this for a few other things too (people's height in feet and inches, people's weight in pounds). 131.162.146.86 (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2x4 is still frequently used in New Zealand in a generic sense, just as people talk of low-mileage cars even when it is clocked in km, or a pint of milk. The words just take on a figurative meaning rather than a literal one. Just as we send carbon copies of our emails. Gwinva (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We just say XX x YY - but in centimetres90.0.6.116 (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)petitmichel[reply]

Interestingly, although we rarely refer to it in reality, but rather referring to a generic piece of wood, I've always referred to a 4x2 (four by two or forby-two) here in Australia. I think in lumber stores if you ask for a 2x4 or 4x2, they'll know what you're talking about. Steewi (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, 'forby two' might be more common. But we buy it at timber merchants. Gwinva (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes, that would be more likely. I don't do much in the way of building, and spend too much time with North American television. Steewi (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Just to show that we in the UK deal well with metric you will find it quite common to hear people in large hardware stores asking for a 2.4 metre length of 2 by 4 :) --WebHamster 18:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it always 4x2 in the UK as it is here in Ireland, that is the larger dimension comes first? 83.147.142.16 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 x 4's in the U.S are actually 1.5 by 3.5 inches. The excuse is that they were originally sawed to 2 by 4, but the planing them smooth reduces them 1/2 inch each way. In older homes one sometimes sees floor joists which are full dimension, such as 2 x 10 inches. The rumor is that lumber vendors would like to go metric and in the process make them smaller yet. In countries where lumber is sold metrically, what size studs are typically used for the vertical members in walls, where the U.S. uses 2 x 4's? Edison (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmares

I watched a frightening film tonight and I know I'm probably going to have nightmares because my mind keeps dwelling on it. Can someone suggest something relaxing or calming I could do to take my mind off it? Cheers. Seraphim ^Whipp 03:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is purely from a personal recommendation, which we're really not supposed to do here at the Reference Desk, but what works for me is to watch the same film again immediately afterward, if that is possible. This seems to de-mystify it for me, and helps me process the emotions better. But if you cannot do this, I'd suggest listening to some nice music that will repeat over and over all night if possible. Good luck. By the way, what is the film? -- Saukkomies 04:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! That is a great idea! It was "I am Legend". I don't know why I found it so frightening. I think it was more the idea of loss of civilisation and normality...that combined with the fact that the Infected are scary...but then I'm a wuss :). It's now 5am and I still haven't gone to bed... Calming music it is! ^{(Final Fantasy VII Soundtrack or David Gray)} Thanks :). Seraphim ^Whipp 05:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! Well, staying up until 5 am wasn't what I had in mind, but I can relate. Years ago when I first saw "Schindler's List" (I waited to see it when it came out on video), I ended up watching it five times in a row over an entire weekend marathon session before I finally was able to detach myself from it emotionally. It was a very cathartic experience, to say the least. When I can get to the point that I can take a movie apart from a cinematic perspective, I know I've processed through the emotional level enough to let go of it. With Schindler's List this took a long time to accomplish. -- Saukkomies 11:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tred cocoa? DuncanHill (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, by "cocoa" I mean the drink traditionally associated with bedtime, which is mentioned under hot chocolate as "hot cocoa" for some bizarre reason. I do not mean the drink called "hot chocolate", which is a different kettle of fish entirely. 06:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)DuncanHill (talk)

I've never been a fan of hot drinks...everyone thinks I'm mad...I don't even like tea or coffee :). Seraphim ^Whipp 13:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a Catholic, the archangel Raphael is the patron saint for protection against nightmares. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I do, is I start reading a boring or long book and I usually wake up a few hours later, having had few or no dreams. I've also noticed that if I dwell on something scary before I go to bed, I usually don't dream about it. Maybe that's just me... --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 17:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could read something really up-beat, like Cormach McCarthy's The Road. ;-) --24.147.69.31 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I was going to suggest the exact same thing! Azi Like a Fox (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in a sort of variation of Saukkomies's suggestion, you can imagine the making of the film. Think of them planning the scenes, putting the makeup on the actors, lining people up to wait around ready to jump out, etc. Can help. Or force it out of your mind with something else by repeating something you know well over and over again, but concentrating on it enough to push everything else out. 79.66.24.40 (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When i was young I used to watch a comedy show/something funny straight after. I think anything that can keep you preoccupied is the key to success. Additionally maybe play the radio quietly so that you can drift off with some soothing noise, rather than the near pure-silence that you can often get where any floorboard movement/slight bit of draft gets your heart going ny156uk (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did watch a number of episodes of Scrubs but I couldn't seem to shake it... Seraphim ^Whipp 12:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried staying up late editing that internet thing called Wikipedia? Gwinva (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, til 5am :o Seraphim ^Whipp 12:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the Cornish litany - "From ghosties and ghoulies and long-leggety beasties, and things that go bump in the night, good lord deliver us!" DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The music worked :). I didn't have any dreams or nightmares :) and none last night either. Seraphim ^Whipp 12:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing time

How long would it take an old-fashioned sailing ship to get from the Caribbean to Singapore? (To be perfectly specific about what I'm asking, I just want to know how much time I can reasonably assume elapsed between the second and third Pirates of the Caribbean movies.) Taking into account how fast the ship can go, how often they'd have to stop to re-supply, the fact that they couldn't just whip through the Panama canal in those days, etc. I personally am terrible at estimating, but if anyone can come up with even a ballpark figure...? Thanks! 131.162.146.86 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 - 4 months maybe.--Johnluckie (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vessels that went from Seville to the Caribbean in the sixteenth century needed about 6 months of travel. The article Ferdinand Magellan gives some concrete dates that may be useful for you. --Taraborn (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The First Fleet from England to south-eastern Australia took about 9 months including a stop in Rio, but that would be slowed due to travelling in a group and the necessity of larger cargo over speed. Some months less would be needed for a shorter trip at top speed - perhaps 4 - 5 months. They'd be aided by the prevailing winds in the Indian Ocean. And they'd be faster than those of the 16th century. Two centuries further of seacraft would have lessened traveling time. Steewi (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the average reader read the Sun?

An American here. I read the article on Kelvin MacKenzie and I'm amazed at the viciousness and other absurdities of tabloids in the UK. Do a lot of people actually read these publications for news? Do they have any trust in whatever they are reading?

66.91.224.203 (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say that the answer to both your questions would appear to be "yes". DuncanHill (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is there readership so amazingly resilient? I mean hasn't it lost SOME credibility? 66.91.224.203 (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC) n[reply]

Speaking for myself, it doesn't have any credibility, and never has. But I can't speak for Sun readers. 131.111.8.97 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By and large Sun readers don't buy it for the news! --WebHamster 18:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key is in your question: average reader. When I was part of a group preparing information brochures for the NHS for distribution to the public we were asked to bear in mind that the average reading age for UK adults was 7, (word comprehension and subject matter) which (so we were told) is what The Sun aims at. And I've met plenty of people who believe what they read in The Sun. If it makes you feel better, the Daily Mirror is worse. Gwinva (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By and large Sun buyers cannot read. But they enjoy the pictures. Page Three (Glamour) especially.86.219.35.112 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

I don't know that the Mirror is worse, although it is a little ... single-minded at times. Certainly used to be that the Mirror was the left-wing one and the sun was the right-wing. Not sure the Mirror's that left-wing any more, but it doesn't tend to be as rabid as the Sun, although it does have some rather unhealthy fixations.

Anyway, as it says in the Harry Potter books (a great way of learning about Britain through a prism, incidentally), "The Daily Prophet exists to sell itself". The tabloids (and the broadsheets) will print what they think will make people buy them. Papers like The Sun are generally bought as entertainment, not out of any great desire to improve the reader's knowledge of the world. People read them because they enjoy reading them. Some people, no doubt, believe everything they say, but much of what they say is written in a humourous style and intended to be read in this fashion. The Sun is a lighthearted paper, even when it's calling for death and destruction. The Mirror under Piers Morgan was supposedly going to try to be a serious, but easily-read, paper; it did badly, hence all the Diana-ing.

It can be a culture-shock if you read the 'editorials' having been used to other newspapers. Seriously, they're 2 or 3 sentences long, with one of the sentences starting "This is a good/bad thing". But, if you take into account that they're written for people with a low reading age, at least they're discussing it at all. 79.66.24.40 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFL bulb crack

I was installing a cfl and it cracked in my hand. It discolored around the crack on the inside (which might mean that the gas has got out and its stuffed) around where it was cracked so i double sealed it in a bag and chucked it in the bin. I just remembered how much they cost (this one was about $6.50) but its cold, dark, windy and late and my bin has been put out for collection. Is it worth rushing out and digging around for it to try it out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frugpani (talk • contribs) 12:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'is it worth it'? You probably won't get a refund (it could have cracked further since you threw it away), and if you're concerned with the environment - you're probably doing a lot more than the average Joe just by asking this question, even if you had thrown the thing out already. But, even one lamp makes a difference - it'd be mighty nice if you recovered it and disposed of it properly. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 13:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... let me rephrase the question.. will a serverly cracked bulb still work? my first thought when it cracked was "OH CRAP MERCURY" so i double bagged it (Theres no other options in my area - i checked), now im thinking have i thrown out a perfectly working bulb? i didnt really get a good look at how bad it was but there was a large crack and a few chips of glass flew off and it became discolored. (Sorry i know this is ridiculous but i tend to obsess over these things) Frugpani (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, the bulb will not work any more - sorry. But it's good that you put it in a bag, at least for yourself, because of possible poisoning by mercury vapours. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lobotomy -- why?!

I get pissed off when I think of the fact that people used to actually believe that poking around randomly in the brain would cure diseases (lobotomy). Didn't they realize that their knowledge and instruments were far too underdeveloped to even remotely safely perform such an insanely advanced surgery? It boggles my mind how they could just... do shit like that. Of course, that "drilling in the skull" thing isn't much better either and was around much earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People have been digging around in other peoples' skulls for some time long before modern medicine came on the scene. There's a wiki article on this called Trepanation that discusses how far back this thing goes. -- Saukkomies 14:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article 'lobotomy'? The procedure may be obsolete now, but the practice as developed from 1890 was far from the 'poking about randomly' that you are suggesting, and certainly had a proportion of outcomes judged successful at the time. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time that lobotomies became very popular (in the 1940s and early 1950s) there weren't any other effective treatments for many forms of mental illness. Lobotomies "improved" patients in that it made them "manageable"—instead of throwing fits and hysterically crying, for example, they'd sit in the corner passively and do what they were told. We see it as pretty disturbing now but remember that this was in the age before any real psychotropic drugs were available (Thorazine started being used only in the mid 1950s) and the only other option was to stay in an institution for long periods of time, even their entire lives, undergoing such other lovely "treatments" like electrical and insulin shock therapy, and even (in some states) compulsory sterilization. It was a sad state of things at the time no matter how you look at it, and psychiatrists found lobotomies to be more effective towards the goal of getting patients to live with their families and not under full-time institutionalized medical care. You have to understand lobotomization in the context of psychiatrists being desperate for some sort of treatment that would actually work on very disturbed patients—they were essentially a profession that could not accomplish the goals set out for them (curing mental illness) with the tools and knowledge of their time. In this sense, no matter what you think about our current over-medicated world, the development of powerful psychiatric drugs is one of the few bright sides in the history of psychiatric care; electro- and insulin shock, along with lobotomies and sterilizations, all declined rapidly once Thorazine and other drugs made it on wider use. (A great book about just this quandry of early-20th century psychiatry is Joel Braslow, Mental Ills and Bodily Cures: Psychiatric Treatment in the First Half of the Twentieth Century, University of California Press, 1997). --24.147.69.31 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to know that the 'drilling in the skull thing' is called trepanation. In ancient times they thought the hole would allow evil spirits to escape freeing the patient of his demons, this may seem absurd, however trepanation is still used today. It is used to drain excess fluid from inside the skull. I hope you find this of interest, albeit it being slightly off track of lobotomys, RobertsZ (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy. :) JackofOz (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But once the full bottle in front of you is empty, there won't be a difference. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. But, on a more positive note, I once worked with someone who had had a lobotomy: she claimed it had improved her quality of life, and enabled her to have a successful career, marriage and family. Apart from a few placid emotions, she was not troubled by any of the psychiatric symptoms she had had previously. So, it's not all bad... Gwinva (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My grandfather (now not here to ask) used to cure sheep of a form of "staggers" (caused by a parasite) by drilling into the skull. Was this similar to the trepanation operation? It apparently resulted in a fast recovery from the illness. dbfirs 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that in a basic sense, the trans orbital lobotomy as popularized by Dr. Walter Freeman does consist of "poking around randomly in the brain" with decidedly mixed results

Sugar free candy bad in any way for the teeth?

I have decided to stop ruining my teeth. I will no longer drink Coke (which is a very big change for me), and no candy with sugar. My question is: Is there anything besides SUGAR that damages teeth? I mean... if I buy so called "sugar free" candy/drinks, will it not affect my teeth in any way then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think coke still has carbonic acid in it which wouldnt be good for your teeth... i hear using a straw can help with this.Frugpani (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you gone to the dentist yet? Go already! Your dentist will be able to answer these questions very easily. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate that your decision to stop ruining your teeth, while wise, will not heal the cavity you already seem to have, which will only get worse if left unattended ( =more painful and expensive treatment). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wear a tongue piercing - they've been known to wear away at your teeth. Also the acidic nature of Coke might attack teeth even in its non-sugared forms (i.e. diet, zero). Doctors and nutritionists are good for advice when undertaking any major diet change - you still need to make sure you're getting all the things you need. And they might know a few things about teeth. Many dental surgeries have a dental hygienist who can tell you about caring for your teeth (as well as showing you proper brushing technique). They don't use drills. Steewi (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sugars found in acidic fruit juices and even dried fruit can also be harmful for the teeth. If you want to switch to drinks that are healthier for your teeth, then drink water or milk as these drinks are safest for teeth. "Sugar free" drinks can be just as harmful as drinks full of sugar, because of their acidity. [1]. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't Microsoft make/license PCs?

Yeah. Why? They could design neat Windows PCs saying "Microsoft" physically on the chassis. They could really make Mac-like PCs running Windows. Just team up with some big hardware manufacturer. Or buy them. Why not? I have wondered this for 10+ years now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at Microsoft. I'd say that a) they already harass humanity with their mediocre products enough and make loads of money as it is, b) it could lead to them favouring certain hardware manufacturers/solutions over others (e. g. by not providing high quality drivers if you'd want to upgrade your Microsoft machine yourself), c) they are primarily a software company, even though they make some miscellaneous hardware (joysticks, keyboards, mice, Xbox). Shot in the dark. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The technics and talents needed to design good software are very different from those needed to build good hardware. It would be the same thing as asking why people who write books do not also manufacture printing presses. -- Saukkomies 14:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if i remember this one presentation from Microsoft that was done at my high school a few years beck they actually do work with Intel somewhat. I can barely remember the presentation. 98.197.3.211 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it the Microsoft business model has been to support non-proprietary hardware so that the hardware itself can be very cheap—hence the million flavors of PC clones out there which can all run Windows. By contrast, Mac's proprietary hardware model means that the hardware costs are going to be a lot higher on the whole and you're going to have less market saturation. There wouldn't be any real advantage for Microsoft taking on hardware production at this point. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they have their fingers pretty deep into the PC pie without having MS-branded PCs. I would guess that they'd see branching into that as being pretty irrelevant to their core business. Friday (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the Xbox & XB360 are their attempts at Microsoft PC. -- Chuq (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Those are video gaming consoles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That distinction becomes less clear with every "generation" of machines. APL (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the above really answers the question. If you're a multibillion dollar software company, and you own a great percentage of the software market, you would be foolish not to consider horizontal expansion - i.e. expanding into a related industry. Not only would they have the resources to do this, but it may even make economic sense. I think the only satisfying answer we'll get here is from Microsoft. One shot in the dark is antitrust reasons. Rfwoolf (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They already have close relations with manufacturers, with "designed for such-and-such OS" stickers on the box. Why would they want a closer relationship with one company? Firstly, they'd be tying their fortunes to that one manufacturer (and manufacturers come and go; I remember when Gateway was the old Dell). Secondly, by favouring one manufacturer they risk all the other manufacturers saying "well screw you too" and moving to alternative operating systems. FiggyBee (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you rather limit your software to one machine, or have it hosted on numerous machines? More money. kerr-ching! 86.139.90.67 (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tut's mask

What is the mask of King Tutankhamun called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.69.60 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral mask, burial mask, gold mask, no special name really. See Tutankhamun for more info. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 17:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Death mask too. Also, this website has some interesting information: [2]. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

name French letter

how did the name french letter come about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.194.41 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it means condom, but Googling doesn't help much. There seem to be lots of people asking the same question, and no one can explain why. Try here for one such discussion. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why it's used is a relatively simple concept. It would have been (and for some still is) vulgar to talk about condoms ("preservatif" in French, in case you're wondering), so you have a word or phrase call a euphemism to refer to it. Everyone knows what you're talking about, except the children, but you don't have to sully the conversation with a "dirty word". Why French letters were chosen is a mystery. Steewi (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In France, they're called "capotes anglaises"--"English hoods"! Rhinoracer (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Repair

Can someone give me an approximate value of how much (in U.S. dollars) it would cost to repair a pocket watch made circa 1900? I don't have a such a watch, but I'm trying to obtain one, and I want to know if buying a broken one for less money is a good idea. Chris16447 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it will depend on what's wrong with it. From reading around, a simple cleaning and oiling will set you back $50-$100. At the other end of the scale, a rare watch which has several missing or broken parts could cost several hundred dollars to get repaired. FiggyBee (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]