Miscellaneous desk
< February 3	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 5 >

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.

February 4

Fearless people

Are/were there any real people who are/were completely fearless? JCI (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I know a few people have no pain receptors. They usually die by early adulthood because skin sores and joints break down--they don't know they need to shift their weights, etc. Imagine Reason (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John the Fearless? Ha, but seriously, no, probably not, since it is a basic animal instinct. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How have I even heard of Fearless Fosdick? .froth. (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been claims that altered brain chemistry might cause a "fearless" state (but I don't know if such a condition could occur naturally in humans). This isn't entirely unprecedented; toxoplasmosis is known to cause brain chemistry changes, including apparent fearlessness in rats and mice. – 74 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T. E. Lawrence could certainly feel pain, both physical and emotional. But he sometimes put a lighted candle under his palm to test his endurance, saying "It's not that I don't feel the pain, but I don't mind the pain" (or words to that effect). -- JackofOz (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fearlessness was not thought to be advisable among WWII fighter pilots where they had a saying "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old, bold pilots". No, it doesn't answer your question but it's related. Richard Avery (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victoria Cross recipients gives hundreds of people whose actions seem pretty fearless to me. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no reason to believe all of them didn't feel any fear... though it's possible that some of them really didn't. In any case, people are capable of overcoming fear and acting despite it; in fact, that's kind of what bravery is. To actually literally have no fear would be a different story. That's what the original poster seems to be talking about. It wouldn't be a sign of a healthy psyche, I think; there's a reason we're afraid of some things. It's there to keep us from doing stupid things, even if we can suppress it and do things like run into burning buildings, or fight wars, or ask people out on dates. Or do crazy stuff like this. Or this. (That last one really triggers some kind of a primal "OH HELL NO" response in me; I'm all dry mouth and tight testicles looking at it. I don't know if those guys are fearless, but they're definitely NUTS.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got a dry mouth and sick stomach watching that second one too. It's funny how that wouldn't be scary at all with a parachute, and it looks like he does have one at first (why would you bring your backback to the top of a crane and forget to take it off?) though he then does it without. .froth. (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets have a little balance; list of military decorations is sorted in order of precedence and covers many countries, seems a little biased to focus on the Victoria Cross. Also you can be brave or courageous and still experience fear. Lanfear's Bane | t 10:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balance is not really something I strive for, I'm afraid. I'm British, the VC is the highest British honour for bravery, it was the one that occurred to me first so that's why I linked to it. Your list is good as well, though. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye I know what you mean, it wasn't a real criticism. Lanfear's Bane | t 11:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty certain those ones endangering their lives for show probably do feel fear and do it for the kick. There would be no thrill without the fear. The major danger is doing something dangerous without automatically noticing, like a person who is face blind has to work hard to figure out who a person is. Going around causing oneself injury like T. E. Lawrence just seems silly to me. Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly there have been some mutants born with an inability to experience fear but I would have expected them to die relatively quickly. AllanHainey (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like there's much physical danger to be had growing up in the suburbs. A fearless person wouldn't climb cliffs or anything there'd be no point without the feeling of adrenaline and danger. .froth. (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of fear wouldn't necessarily mean a lack of judgment. Do you think the "fear" response is that important to human survival? As Dmcq mentioned, part of the "thrill" of doing stupid things is the adrenaline response triggered by fear, so our hypothetical fearless person would be less likely to participate in such dangerous activities. He would, however, probably be prone to self-sacrifice (running into burning buildings, commendable military service, etc.) but those situations don't come up all that often (and a healthy sense of logic would prevent obvious suicide). This line of inquiry does suggest a method to indentify potential "fearless" candidates: is there a medical condition used to describe a lack of adrenaline (fight-or-flight) response? – 74 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the present, very short, period of human development a lack of fear probably wouldn't be fatal, as you say there isn't that much danger in the suburbs. But for about 99.99% of the time humans have existed on the planet it is a very different story & there would be many many more situations where a decent fear response would save your life, or prevent serious injury (much the same thing really for most of history). AllanHainey (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about literally fearless, but Audie Murphy is an impressive candidate. He starred in a film of his exploits in WW2, but the film (To Hell and Back) was toned down to make it more believable...86.8.176.85 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some German tribes in particular, notably Teutons. Brand спойт 19:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't berserkers used to fight without fear. And I'm sure a book I read suggested that Lacenaire was short by a few emotions, which was how he became such a successful criminal. 148.197.114.165 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with supreme confidence in their own abilities has no need to fear. Also babies that don't yet understand cause and effect and the potential danger of what they're doing, and people that are totally drunk.

I suppose though it depends on whether you determine lack of fear as not worrying about the bad things that might happen, or being unable to understand/ignoring the potential for anything terrible to happen to them.

148.197.114.165 (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durable umbrellas

After yet another nice-looking umbrella bit the dust (or were bent by the wind) today, I have to ask: Is there a durable umbrella these days, or am I using them wrong? If there is, where can I buy some? I assume they'd make great gifts. Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you might want to check out here? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Totes are very durable. --Nricardo (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but I don't like the light much. Will this or other similar model flip over and withstand strong gusts? (I live in NYC.) Imagine Reason (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's expensive, how about this one? Oda Mari (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a bit odd that the manufacturers seem to advocate it as a weapon more than an umbrella!!86.4.186.199 (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Fulton "windproof" umbrellas for years - the umbrella will still blow inside-out, but the mechanism doesn't get damaged by it so you can just close it and re-open it. They claim this one is particularly resistant to strong winds. AJHW (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [Fixed broken link to Fulton's "Windbreaker" brolly. -- ToE 16:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)][reply]

In the U.k. we just buy pound store umbrella"s,it still works out cheaper in the long run than buying an expensive umbrella.They are made in china,and made to break in the wind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is 'we' here? I'm in the UK, and I never buy umbrellas, because I hate them. Algebraist 17:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am in the UK and buy expensive non-breaking umbrellas. Probably Totes. Who knows. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the United States and have a job where I give tours that often involve being outside in the rain and wind. The location is a hilltop near the ocean and the winds can get over 50 miles per hour. I have had many, many umbrellas destroyed--even those supposedly windproof. Then someone told me about this source [1], I bought one, and so far it has lasted for more than two years. It was about $30--expensive, but not unreasonable.--Eriastrum (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which model? Imagine Reason (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in the wind umbrellas do not work well as the rain blows under. Outdoor workers will wear wet weather gear like raincoats. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and even if it's not that windy you have to hold the thing, you get hung up on trees and narrow paths, your hand gets cold, etc etc etc. Daft idea. What you need is a decent hat - keeps the rain off your face better than an umbrella. I use one of these but anything with a proper brim will do.

(That's not me, BTW, he just has the same hat :-) ) 93.97.184.230 (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Reason asked which model. This model: [2]. Graeme Bartlett and 93.97 say that a good hat is better than an umbrella. That is certainly true if you are working with your hands or need to move around a lot. However, if you are just walking, standing, or giving tours the way I do, then a good umbrella is much better. You can hold it at whatever angle you want to counter the direction of the wind and rain. Also, when it is closed it can be used to gesture, to use as a cane, or to defend yourself.--Eriastrum (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever tried one of these: http://www.senzumbrellas.com/ ? The video on the front page shows a test in a car driving at 110km/h: http://www.abnamro.tv/nl/home.html?mcid=27&mid=63125 It should be pretty clear even if you don't understand Dutch. It has won various design awards since its invention in 2006. - Berkoet (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bread and Butter Note

Does anyone know where and how this originated?Krandallkraus (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've never heard the term before (it's in Wiktionary, though), and like to know where it's used now. Would you mind telling us where you're located, and how common the term is there? Algebraist 17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Routledge Dictionary of Historic Slang suggests a US origin in about 1905 (see here). A Google search brought up this site with the tantalising phrase "use in “bread and butter letter” dates to around 1720", but sadly it's a pay-to-view article. Emily Post in her book Etiquette refers to the phrase in 1922. I think "note" and "letter" are both acceptable although letter is more commonly heard in British English. Ka renjc 18:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How? My understanding is that both are basic essentials. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the lack of American Single Malt Whiskies

Scotland is famous for its single malt whiskies and ever since the 17th centuary lots of Scots have emigrated to America, but the only American whisky we ever see or hear of is Bourbon. Why has the distillation of single malts, or even blended, double distilled, whisky never caught on in the U.S.A.? There is no practical reason why it couldn't be made there (though it couldn't be called Scotch) but I can't see that any ever have. Why? AllanHainey (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to doubt the premise of this question given the assertion "Single malt distilleries also exist in the US, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Japan and South Africa" in Single malt whisky, referenced to Murray, Jim (2007). Jim Murray's Whisky Bible 2007. London: Carlton Books Limited. ISBN 1-84442-147-3. The largest cause of the relative imbalance might be nothing more than an effect of "distillation of whisky has been performed in Scotland and Ireland for centuries", whereas it is a newer game in other countries. I also suspect that it is easier to make a drinkable blended whisky than a single malt, and that might drive organisational preferences in the newer producers. But all of that is speculation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that reference in the article too but I haven't found any on google. I suppose even if there is one or two small single malt distileries the question becomes why haven't there been more (or of greater popularity) in all the time whisky of some sort has been made in the U.S.A. I wouldn't think taste/preference could be an issue given the volume of single malt scotch imported into the U.S.A.

I didn't think time would have been an issue as Japan has developed a large single malt industry since the 1870's and in the U.S.A. there has been plenty of time for the bourbon industry to develop. AllanHainey (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Breton Rare, distilled on Nova Scotia's Cape Breton Island, claims to be the only single malt made in Canada. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of whisky brands#American Single Malt Whiskeys has a few blue links. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a mature market is being served adequately by existing businesses there is little incentive for a new business to join the fray, especially markets that are steeped in tradition, have high lower price limits, are characterized by affluent appeal, and have other imbalances (such as naming restrictions). Compare single malt distilleries to wineries, for instance, where tradition existed but the market demand outpaced supply, and new business were capable of entering the market as a 'value' supplier to establish some tradition/brand recognition. If the demand for single malt whiskey doubled, or if a new, more price-motivated following developed, or if new techniques were developed that reduced the cost of production (and, thereby, the lower price limits) then I would expect expansion in local production. Until that happens, new entrants to the (mature) market must grow slowly (and relatively obscurely). – 74 21:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rye whiskey notes that the U.S. industry was devastated by Prohibition. The article cocktail notes that during Prohibition that "There was a shift from whiskey to gin, which doesn't require aging and is therefore easier to produce illicitly." If I can interpret a bit, during Prohibition people turned to all sorts of low quality boooze, which in turn caused the boom in cocktails that hid the taste of the booze. High quality maker of legitimate whiskey was driven out of business during the 13 years of Prohibition, while at the same time consumers were getting used to whiskey replacements and to hiding the taste of their crappy booze behind various flavoring agents. Once Prohibition ended, the only decent whiskeys available in the States were foreign-made, who now had an advantage over domestic producers trying to restart the industry. In other words, blame the morality police. - Banyan Tree 12:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, That list of whiskies is interesting, I see most of them are Rye Whiskies but I didn't realise there were any single malt whiskies made in the U.S.A. I see most of them are small batch or microdistilleries so I doubt I'll ever get a chance to try them. Anyone tried them and can comment on how they compare to Scotch barley whiskeys?

It looks like the small number of American malts & the American concentration on Bourbon is the fault of prohibition, its a bit surprising that the effects of it have been so long lasting though. AllanHainey (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've had three, two versions of which are made by Old Potrero. One was quite flat and blah while I would consider at least one to be on the same level as any Scotch single malts I've had - very smooth with a long, peppery pleasantness. My two scotches are Oban and Dahlwhinnie and I would probably replace the Oban with that rye if I could find a regular supply. (Nothing got close to the lightness of the Dahlwinnie though.) This may just be wishful thinking on my part, but the fad in Scotchs in the 90s seems to have had a bit of spillover effect onto ryes in that more whiskey drinkers seem to be aware that they exist and some bars with stubborn owners appear to be regularly stocking a small variety. They are really worth the attention of whiskey drinkers and, if you're on the mid-Atlantic seaboard, you can find some specialty bars that serve a selection of small batch ryes that claim pre-Prohibition roots. - Banyan Tree 22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sounds like some of them are quite good whiskies, I doubt I'll get the chance to try them though as I'm in the UK & I doubt there's much exported over here. I'll keep an eye open though.AllanHainey (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Isinglass present in normal lager?

I had heard that it was used in Guinness a long time ago but never saw anything to verify it as anything more than a rumour until now. But is it found in normal lager?--ParrRae (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article suggests it's used mostly in cask ale. Most beer labels I've seen don't go into technical detail on finings- it's not really an ingredient, even for those which list their ingredients. I would maybe try looking at individual websites of breweries to see if they go into that kind of detail. Friday (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Even if they use it, it doesn't particularly end up in the end product, if that's what you're asking about. Friday (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly no, according to this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Phone Picture Bombardment - Help appreciated

Resolved

Hi folks, I will try to keep this brief. I was in Spain over the Festive Season and received some mobile phone pics from my daughter whose new twins had been hospitalised in the UK with respiratory problems over Christmas - but TBTG - all is now well. Today I received all the pics again so I rang my daughter to ask what is going on. She was really upset as all the pics I received have been repetitiously received by ALL the folk she sent them to on Christmas Day - one recipient has to date had them 240 times - and quite understandably, we are all absolutely fed up and have asked her to get her provider Orange (Pay as you Go) to desist - but I am told that the company claim there is nothing they can do. It seems the pics were offloaded on Christmas Day to an "overflow server" that is programmed to keep sending the pics - but there is no way to stop that procedure. The agent she spoke with told her he had had the same problem with over 500 re-sends having been received by his family, and he claimed this is a common occurrence with ALL Mobile Phone Suppliers. Again, I am told - at once removed - that this may go on forever - or until we all scrap and replace our phones. I really would appreciate any suggestions or advice before my daughter loses all her friends and family. And thanks. 92.22.204.197 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When talking to call centre drones fails, write a letter to Pippa Dunn, Director of Pay As You Go, copied to Tom Alexander, CEO, at Orange, Plc, Verulam Point, Station Way, St Albans, AL1 9AW. Explain to them that they are your service provider, it is their responsibility to fix their errant server. Explain to them the distress this is causing one & all. If you're not too worried about karma, explain that the children, sadly, died. You are getting flannel from the call centre - it really is within their power to trace a fault like this, they're merely too lazy. I cannot find much on the internet about this sort of issue, making me think it is not widespread. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree. When you call the call center, use the magic phrase "Please connect me to your supervisor"...you can use it more than once to get hold of the supervisor's supervisor. Yes, they can fix this - yes, they should fix it. SteveBaker (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to contact the consumer ombuds at the big newspapers (or are there consumer rights TV programmes?). You could try getting local press attention: "Family distressed by big business incompetence". Anything with photos (e.g. picketing the Orange shop on the high street) gets you great publicity, and gets their publicists eager to sort out your problem. Join or start a FaceBook group. Shame them. (But don't lie about the babies dying -- it might come back to haunt you). BrainyBabe (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OP and want to say a huge thankyou to you all for your understanding and supportful advice, especially Tagishmon and Steve, I copied your responses to my daughter and her partner who then re-approached the company and by requesting and demanding referral to the next level of management, and by insisting on knowing the name of the last agent they spoke with, and by quoting Tagishmon's contact names above, they eventually were handed to a "very senior and very helpful lady", who acknowledged that there had been a technical hitch that had affected many others; that she would immediately have it investigated and repaired; that she acknowledged any failure on her part to deliver could and should be delivered to the names above; and that no additional call costs would accrue to my daughter. She also apparently apologised profusely and acknowledge how dreadful it would have been HAD one or both children died, and if everyone had now started to receive hundreds of distressing reminders of such a sad event. But thanks God, it didn't come to that. So, again, many many thanks to you all. And thanks Brainy - unfortunately we didn't get to use your very good tips as I had already sent the first 2 off to my daughter by the time yours arrived. Good tips though, and thanks anyway. God Bless. 92.10.184.230 (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first person she talked to was full of BS. I suspect that this problem will be very expensive for them (bad publicity and lost customers, mainly) and that they are working to fix it. Meanwhile, if the people who are getting deluged have the ability to block incoming pics, they should do that. If they have the ability to block pics coming from a particular phone number, that's even better. Once the situation is resolved she can call each from another phone to have them unblock her. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is so lovely when the OP comes back and A) thanks us for our work, and B) tells us the resolution of the situation, and best yet C) informs us that our refdesk skills did indeed do the trick. The vast majority of OPs don't write anything again. It is so satisfying to get a little bread and butter! BrainyBabe (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Average" Attrition Rate in US Businesses

I am an engineer at a large aerospace company. It has been announced that we will be eliminating 3500 jobs out of our 77000 person workforce (about 5%). The announcement was that they expect to have most of these filled by not filling new positions and via retirement and other attrition. While this seems sensible for a 5% rate, I realized that I have no background to go with this as I don't know what an "average" annual attrition rate is for a company like mine.

So, does anyone out there know what a reasonable annual attrition rate is for aerospace (as opposed to retail, medical, etc)?

Thanks,

--KNHaw ^(talk) 22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few data points:

Boeing: 4-5%
NASA: 3.5%
20-35 age group, aerospace and defense: 14%

These numbers were not necessarily calculated using the same criteria, and do not adjust for economic conditions (fewer people will voluntarily leave a job during an economic downturn, for instance). Still, I wouldn't consider 5% to be an unreasonable estimate. – 74 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those rates seem very reasonable - the question isn't really answered though because you don't know how fast your management wants to shed that 5%. If they need to do it in 3 months - then there is a problem. If they are prepared to wait a year, it'll be easy. They can probably make it happen faster by offering early retirement and cash incentives for people to resign voluntarily - perhaps offering them vouchers for retraining in other fields or jobs in sister companies or subsidiaries. The tricky part about this strategy for them is that they may end up losing a bunch of people from one specific discipline and being shorthanded there whilst still having too many people in some other areas. So if that 5% of 'natural' leavings is spread evenly - you'll have no problem - but if (say) the entire IT department leaves and the company doesn't replace them - then "Very Bad Things Happen". But a 5% drop in staff over a year does sound very do-able. I don't think I'd be panicking if I were in your shoes. SteveBaker (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The attrition rate will vary due to many factors. Here's a few:

1) Age. Young people tend to leave more often, the middle-aged tend to stay on, and older people tend to retire.

2) Seniority. New hires tend to leave more often. This is, of course, also related to age, as most new hires are young.

3) Alternative employment. If no other good jobs are available in the area, people will tend to stay.

4) Benefits. If they need to stay on to receive full benefits, like health insurance, they are more likely to stay.

5) Buy-outs. Obviously offering people money to leave will get some to agree. StuRat (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I used to work in the Call Center industry. When I left my last site, the attrition rate was 2.8%.... per week. It was unusual for a North American Call center to have an annual attrition rate of lower than 80%. Few of our US or Canadian sites did. Jamaica, the Philippines and India however... NByz (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]