Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 March 16
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 15 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 17 > |
| 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. |
March 16
[edit]Dog training, etc., manuals
[edit]So we intend to buy a puppy soon. Though we are going to obedience training, and ask the same question there, does anyone have any recommended material regarding dog training? 24.76.160.236 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- And, at that, while I've looked for books online the best sellers all seem to be extremely intuition-based or... stupid, frankly. I guess this is similar to human pop psych books, though. 24.76.160.236 (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since you say "buy" instead of "adopt", I can't help but point out the article on puppy mills. Dismas|(talk) 04:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we already know a reasonable breeder, we're certainly not buying from a pet store or someone shady. We would love to adopt a shelter dog, but right now we don't want a big dog. Those are all that any shelter in town has; that and cats. 24.76.160.236 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)s
- Since you say "buy" instead of "adopt", I can't help but point out the article on puppy mills. Dismas|(talk) 04:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
After a lifetime of experience suggest you treat the new pup much as you would a new baby. Bring the dog up the same way you bring up a toddler. But the dog stops for ever at toddler intelligence. (Of course you don't shut a baby outside, etc. dogs are tougher and mature far faster, so no <clever> comments, please.)90.9.211.187 (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)DT
Never let the puppy get away with anything just because it's cute.Best advice I know for training any young animal86.53.80.11 (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes - but you can do more with love and kindness than you can do with punishment. It's vital to remember that almost everything that goes wrong with a new puppy is your own fault...keep that firmly in mind. Dogs are pack animals - and they value leadership above all else - but they absolutely NEED lots of contact with their pack-members. Also, in general - I'm of the firm opinion that big dogs are better dogs. I've had a lot of dogs as pets over the years - and without a shadow of a doubt - the smaller they are, the more trouble they are. The 6 week old fluff-ball we got from the rescue center (who we were assured was a cross between a border collie (45lbs) and an australian shepherd (55lb)) turned out to be a very lean 135lb giant of a dog who was the quietest, most well-behaved, gentle animal you've ever met. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Always, always reward the dog for coming to you, no matter what terrible thing the dog did over there in the corner of the room. One day when the dog's heading toward the street full of cars, you'll be glad the dog turned around and came to you when you called. Acroterion (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Government plans for ET contact
[edit]Have governments ever made plans for contact with extraterrestrial life, and have these plans ever been released to the public? 86.8.176.85 (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Try SETI. --Ericdn (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I mean more along the lines of an alien turning up or a fleet of UFOs or discovering life on Mars; a situation where we're answering the phone, rather than dialling random numbers. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- The chance of intelligent life elsewhere in our solar system (either native or having travelled here) is so remote that I doubt any government has made any significant plans for it. There are plans for radio communication with distant ETIs, though. See Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. --Tango (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Post-WW II there was a lot of interest in this issue, as evidenced by a whole string of movies on the subject, e.g. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), Red Planet Mars (1952) and many others. They were very popular - they took people's minds off the Cold War, for starters, and it was better to think of aliens hovering around than Reds under the bed. They often had a theme of aliens arriving in Washington DC (obviously) and warning us not to have a World War III etc. This was also the period when interest in UFOs really heightened. I'd be very surprised if some governments didn't at least consider the idea of drawing up contingency plans. But I'd be even more surprised if they ever released any such plans to the public. That would have legitimised alien existence, and in the atmosphere of the day (it wasn't very long after Orson Welles's 1938 fatal broadcast of War of the Worlds), a government appearing to acknowledge the very existence of aliens would have caused panic. It would probably still cause panic today. There are a whole string of X-Files-type movies that show secret government/military-run bases in underground locations dug into mountains etc, where they investigate the evidence that proves incontrovertibly that aliens have arrived, etc, but whether such places exist, or have ever existed, is something that only an insider could possibly know. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- What panic? Almost everytime when "they" hide X-Files about aliens or UFOs, explanation is "to not cause public panic". So what panic is that? One might think that if g-men ever released dox to the public, people would start mass suicide. But srsly: "Aliens? They exist? Well, that's some nice news," and it's OK, no panic. 81.95.228.239 (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're talking about your own response to such information. That would be mine too, and many people, perhaps most, would not be overly concerned. But many others would start doing crazy things, particularly if the government's announcement was in terms of advice about what to do in the event of contact with an alien, ending with "We need to stress there is no reason for alarm or concern. There is no evidence that aliens want to harm us in any way. Just continue to go about your daily lives". That would provoke instant panic among certain people, and the repercussions could be enormous. Merely acknowledging that extra-terrestrial sentient beings are no longer a theory but proven scientific fact would provoke all sorts of reactions. The upshot is, whether governments have any such evidence or not, they're not going to say they have. The corollary to that is, just because governments have never acknowledged that aliens exist, doesn't mean they don't. Neither does it mean they do, of course. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- "no longer a theory but proven scientific fact" - please learn the meanings of technical terms before you use them. There is no process in science in which a "theory" is "proven" and stops being a "theory" and becomes a "fact" instead. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- ??? Is it a "fact" that the Sun exists, or will it remain forever a scientific theory? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a theory. Some people would say it is also a fact (I prefer not to use the word at all in reference to science), but it will never stop being a theory. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- With respect, I think that's a rather narrow and pedantic take on such terminology. This would mean, for example, that there's no such thing as Newton's Laws of Motion etc, merely Newton's Theories of Motion. From Theory, I read that "The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact". Nobody to my knowledge has ever denied the existence of the Sun. It has been held to be self-evident, by all people, everywhere, throughout human history. That makes it a "fact" in my book. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. To refuse to speak of 'fact's in science is to throw away a perfectly good word for no reason, as well as to draw a highly dubious distinction between scientific and nonscientific knowledge (unless 'fact' is to be thrown away outside science too). Algebraist 22:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- With respect, I think that's a rather narrow and pedantic take on such terminology. This would mean, for example, that there's no such thing as Newton's Laws of Motion etc, merely Newton's Theories of Motion. From Theory, I read that "The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact". Nobody to my knowledge has ever denied the existence of the Sun. It has been held to be self-evident, by all people, everywhere, throughout human history. That makes it a "fact" in my book. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a theory. Some people would say it is also a fact (I prefer not to use the word at all in reference to science), but it will never stop being a theory. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- ??? Is it a "fact" that the Sun exists, or will it remain forever a scientific theory? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- "no longer a theory but proven scientific fact" - please learn the meanings of technical terms before you use them. There is no process in science in which a "theory" is "proven" and stops being a "theory" and becomes a "fact" instead. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're talking about your own response to such information. That would be mine too, and many people, perhaps most, would not be overly concerned. But many others would start doing crazy things, particularly if the government's announcement was in terms of advice about what to do in the event of contact with an alien, ending with "We need to stress there is no reason for alarm or concern. There is no evidence that aliens want to harm us in any way. Just continue to go about your daily lives". That would provoke instant panic among certain people, and the repercussions could be enormous. Merely acknowledging that extra-terrestrial sentient beings are no longer a theory but proven scientific fact would provoke all sorts of reactions. The upshot is, whether governments have any such evidence or not, they're not going to say they have. The corollary to that is, just because governments have never acknowledged that aliens exist, doesn't mean they don't. Neither does it mean they do, of course. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- What panic? Almost everytime when "they" hide X-Files about aliens or UFOs, explanation is "to not cause public panic". So what panic is that? One might think that if g-men ever released dox to the public, people would start mass suicide. But srsly: "Aliens? They exist? Well, that's some nice news," and it's OK, no panic. 81.95.228.239 (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Post-WW II there was a lot of interest in this issue, as evidenced by a whole string of movies on the subject, e.g. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), Red Planet Mars (1952) and many others. They were very popular - they took people's minds off the Cold War, for starters, and it was better to think of aliens hovering around than Reds under the bed. They often had a theme of aliens arriving in Washington DC (obviously) and warning us not to have a World War III etc. This was also the period when interest in UFOs really heightened. I'd be very surprised if some governments didn't at least consider the idea of drawing up contingency plans. But I'd be even more surprised if they ever released any such plans to the public. That would have legitimised alien existence, and in the atmosphere of the day (it wasn't very long after Orson Welles's 1938 fatal broadcast of War of the Worlds), a government appearing to acknowledge the very existence of aliens would have caused panic. It would probably still cause panic today. There are a whole string of X-Files-type movies that show secret government/military-run bases in underground locations dug into mountains etc, where they investigate the evidence that proves incontrovertibly that aliens have arrived, etc, but whether such places exist, or have ever existed, is something that only an insider could possibly know. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- The chance of intelligent life elsewhere in our solar system (either native or having travelled here) is so remote that I doubt any government has made any significant plans for it. There are plans for radio communication with distant ETIs, though. See Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. --Tango (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I mean more along the lines of an alien turning up or a fleet of UFOs or discovering life on Mars; a situation where we're answering the phone, rather than dialling random numbers. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Eternally recognizable communication
[edit]I seem to remember hearing about a study performed by the Federal government about coming up with a way of communicating very basically with a completely unknown future (IE. No assumptions about the state of human development when they were going to be read); does anyone know if such a thing was done, or if there is a name for that type of (Attempted) communication? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- This earlier question kind of dealt with it, particularly here and here. Leaving messages for future far distant generations who's culture might be very different to our own, about the dangers of radioactive waste. meltBanana 04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
See Time capsule. See also Pioneer plaque and Voyager Golden Record. Phil_burnstein (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- The one that was most studied by the US government was for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. They wanted to place signage around the mountain warning future generations not to go rummaging around in there. They were required to consider what would happen in (I believe) 10,000 years from now when NO assumptions about the state of society or the nature of language could be made. The problem was to avoid the place being made to be seen as interesting or exciting - whilst still communicating the importance of the place. They also wanted to explain the precise nature of the materials deposited there in case some future advanced society might have a use for the exotic materials stored there. It was an interesting study. (Hmmm - our article doesn't say much...so check this out. SteveBaker (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at www.longnow.org DOR (HK) (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
travel time
[edit]Why does it take longer time when we ravel to west side of teh earth? ex: the earth roates from west to east. and so when we travel in air from east to west, why it is taking more time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nag183raj (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Jet streams flow from W to E. In North America, flying from coast to coast, this results in a gain (or a loss, when flying West) of some 30 minutes. There ARE easterly jets, but only in tropical regions. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note also that when the earth rotates, so does the earth's atmosphere; you'd have to be outside the atmosphere for the earth's rotation to have any affect on the travel time in either direction. --LarryMac | Talk 12:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- The atmosphere does rotate with the Earth's daily rotation, but differential heating causes wind to blow which does have a significant effect on the progress of an aircraft over the ground. A modern commercial airliner cruises at an airspeed of around 900 km/hr. If flying into a headwind of 200 km/hr, the speed over the ground will be only 700 km/hr, but if flying with a tailwind of 200 km/hr, the speed over the ground will be 1100 km/hr. Astronaut (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- But what is the groundspeed of a swallow? --Trovatore (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not surprisingly that came up at Talk:Swallow and this seemed like a helpful link.[1] --JGGardiner (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- But what is the groundspeed of a swallow? --Trovatore (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- The atmosphere does rotate with the Earth's daily rotation, but differential heating causes wind to blow which does have a significant effect on the progress of an aircraft over the ground. A modern commercial airliner cruises at an airspeed of around 900 km/hr. If flying into a headwind of 200 km/hr, the speed over the ground will be only 700 km/hr, but if flying with a tailwind of 200 km/hr, the speed over the ground will be 1100 km/hr. Astronaut (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The usual humorous reply is "African or European swallow?" Britmax (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you help me find
[edit]Hey guys, can you help me find an online version of "R v Jacobs (1817). Russell & Ryan's Crown Cases Reserved 331", a pdf, webpage, anything will do. It's an old court case ruling from the 19th century but I can't find it though I've searched. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Rex v. Samuel Jacobs is here [2]. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Maximum prison sentence in Ecuador
[edit]Life imprisonment says the maximum penalty is 25 years, but Daniel Camargo Barbosa says it's 16 years. What is it?--121.223.135.100 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Spanish wikipedia page on es:Daniel Camargo says he was sentenced following a "field court martial". That might be why the maximum sentence is lower. But the Spanish page doesn't say that that was the maximum sentence available. The Spanish page on life imprisonment doesn't contain any info on Ecuador. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Jean luc godard
[edit]Moved to entertainment
Ford Truck Maintenance Manual
[edit]I am looking for a Ford truck maintenance manual for a 1972 F100 Range XLT pick-up, with pictures and diregrams for repairing and restoring the truck, where can I find something to buy. Thank you for any help. PEP BOYS WILL HAVE THE MANUALS For a Ford Ranger XLT Good choice of truck,I maintained them for 12 years. Lighten up WIKI staff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.67.188 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I have removed your email as per reference desk policies. This is not a forum for placing want ads. I would suggest finding a website about Ford trucks, or truck maintenence in general, and posting your request there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- He's asking for a specific maintenance manual, I don't see a problem in that. Try searching amazon.com or ebay, they have loads of car manuals for sale, or look for a specialist handbook seller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Numbers on Placards on Tanker Trucks
[edit]What are they? I know they stand for what's in the tank, but i can't find anything but the generic placards on Wikipedia. What do the numbers mean??? Buffered Input Output 16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- You might be referring to UN numbers (list here) or the related NA numbers. Or you might be talking about some other system in use in the area you're talking about, wherever that is. Algebraist 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- This might help. APL (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)