Miscellaneous desk
< August 19	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 20[edit]

Air traffic control[edit]

I know that air traffic over the Atlantic is controlled from several different ARTCCs: Gander, Shanwick, Reykjavik, Sondrestrom, etc. What are the corresponding ARTCCs controlling air traffic over the Pacific? Thanks! 67.169.177.176 (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check List of Area Control Centers? Dismas|^(talk) 03:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page may give you some clues as to the ARTCCs controlling North Pacific airspace, though I'm not sure that every Russian center listed controls significant oceanic airspace. Marco polo (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morphy vs. Fischer[edit]

Who would have won a chess game between Paul Morphy and Bobby Fischer? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 13:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The object of the game of Chess is to checkmate the opponent's king by placing it under threat of capture ("check") which cannot be avoided. In addition to checkmate, the game can be won by the voluntary resignation of one's opponent, which may occur when too much material is lost, or if checkmate appears unavoidable. The players PM and BF are both dead so a chess contest between them would have to be declared a draw. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other ways a chess game can end, but none of that much matters in determining who would have won this game. The rankings of each might be relevant, if anyone can provide those. StuRat (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What other ways are there? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a timed game, someone's timer can run out. A stalemate is where you can't move without putting yourself into check (you'd think that would count as a loss, but it's actually a draw). There are also draws due to insufficient material (for a checkmate), repeated board positions, and not taking any pieces for a certain number of moves, depending on the rules you're playing with. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So whoever went first would lose since a dead person's time will expire. Googlemeister (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the various ways of ending a game listed by StuRat and Cuddlyable3, there is drawing by mutual consent. I think that if one player runs out of time while the other has insufficient material to checkmate, that's a draw also. I don't know whether that's classified in one of the above categories (viz "draws due to insufficient material"); if not, it's yet another way to end the game.—msh210℠ 23:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't anyone be able to provide their ratings? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 15:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Fisher would have a better theoretical knowledge. Quest09 (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Chess theory had advanced quite a bit since Morphy's time. It would be like asking who would be more likely to hit a target, someone armed with a musket or a rifle. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the question is 'would have won', this seems to suggest the OP is referring to some possibility in the past. Therefore it's possible the match could have taken place when one person was alive and the other dead or not yet born in which case the living person probably would have won unless they refused to play someone who was dead or not yet born. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at the foot of the thread. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I think you would get a better answer in the Math desk. Maybe someone there could do calculations of the two players' relative chess strength using the logistic distribution formula. Also see Elo rating system. Royor (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so after a bit of poking around I found Chessmetrics. According to this website, Bobby Fischer (Highest Rating: 2895 Best Individual Performance: 2887) would beat Paul Morphy (Highest Rating: 2743 Best Individual Performance: 2686). Royor (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. Chessmetrics are based on the average performance of other contemporary players. This is similar to IQ rating where IQ = 100 is the contemporary average. The players PM 1837 - 1884 and BF 1943 - 2008 were a century apart and Flynn effect invalidates the comparison. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is not appropriate to use Chessmetrics rating to compare players of different era, but as the question stands that’s the closest possible sourced answer I could come up with, make of that what you will. Royor (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to place on record that the question as asked is completely unanswerable, and what we've actually been answering is the unasked question: "Who would be more likely to have won a chess game between Paul Morphy and Bobby Fischer?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let me rephrase the question: "If Paul Morphy and Bobby Fischer had both been alive and at the eight of their chess-playing strength at the same time, who would have been more likely to win a chess game between them"? That's actually what I meant with my question. It is obvious that it was unclear to you. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd answer by using a cop out. Cop-out #1: Fischer, since he gathered the benefit of the advances in theoretical knowledge in the time since Morphy's death. Unless you're contending that dead Morphy stays up to speed on theory. In which case, I'd suggest cop-out #2: Morphy. Fischer would default, refusing to play because he was a mad recluse. Unless you think death cured Fischer of his foibles in which case I'd go for cop-out #3: You're asking for speculative answers and the ref desk rules tell us not to do that. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ask someone else. D:< Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't unclear, some Ref desk regulars were just having a little fun at your expense. We try not to speculate about theoretical situations since the Reference desk still has to stick to Wikipedia's rules about original research and verifiability. If you want an argument about who was the better chess player, there are a ton of chess related forums on the internet you can check out. Livewireo (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 04:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Air[edit]

The oil company FINA (now Total) advertised "Pink Air" to keep tyres from deteriorating. What is "Pink Air" ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A marketing campaign. In the day (the 60s) oil companies were trying to differentiate themselves by their different additives in their fuels. Seems FINA decided to differentiate by adding an additive to their air instead. Doesn't seem like they pretended it was anything but a colour, although I guess their claims grew as the promotion stretched on. This site looks to give a good coverage. --jjron (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An advertising gimmick.[1][2] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like they were marketing to women. StuRat (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they actually had "pink air" or if it was all a joke. Coloring the air you put in your tires seems like the stupidest thing imaginable. --Daniel 16:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we have a List of the stupidest things imagineable. WHAAOE, after all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Do they also have red trees? JIP | Talk 18:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this was little more than an advertising gimmick. While nowadays it is common for mechanics to offer to fill your tyres with nitrogen (a much more temperature stable gas than air.. you can pressurize your tyres to a very high level, and they won't rise too much higher after driving on the highway/doing a burnout), I would imagine anyone advertising such a service back in the day would have sold it on the science of the 21st century N-gas! Nevard (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Platformate[edit]

A Shell advertisement(video 1:30) demonstrates improved mileage from fuel containing platformate by comparison with cars allegedly without platformate in their fuel. But is a gasoline without platformate 1) possible, 2) sold by any gasoline company anywhere? This suggests not. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a petroleum chemist, I second the Fiat-Barchetta page in saying that gasoline without platformate (i.e. straight-run gasoline) would have an unacceptably low octane rating (by that, I mean 50 octane or thereabouts) and therefore is not sold anywhere. Platforming is a well-known process for improving the octane number of heavy gasoline (the corresponding process for light gasoline is isomerization) and is routinely used on all gasolines before marketing them to the public. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed that the video is titled "Classic car commercials of the 50's and 60's", which means that the ad was made before platforming or isomerization were in widespread use and before the advent of modern high-compression engines that made high octane ratings an absolute necessity for all motor gasoline. So at the time that they made that ad, you certainly could use straight-run gasoline to run your jalopy. No longer the case today. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear train conductors using the word platform as a verb all the time and cannot but see this word as the intimate command: ¡platfórmate!

New page[edit]

how can i make a whole new page of information without editing any other pages?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokuldev1000 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I added a title to the OP's post Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can request someone else create the page for you at requested articles. Or you can create a userpage draft by clicking this link: User:Gokuldev1000/MyDraftArticle. Other then that, you will have to wait 4 days and make at least 10 edits before you become autoconfirmed and can create a page in the main article space. Please take care to cite your sources and make sure your subject is notable. Read Wikipedia:Your first article for lots of helpful information. Astronaut (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange road signs in Germany[edit]

I've seen this kind of sign in Germany and elsewhere in Europe - the small square additions saying "U 43" and "U 49" in this example. Any idea what they might mean?

Also, there is this small round sign with a yellow background (the actual sign may differ in details from my sketch), and this oddity seen outside the city of Würzburg. Any idea what these might mean? Astronaut (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Bypass/detour. The Autobahn might or is closed. It's an alternative route.

2. for military vehicles. I think it specifies load and/or speed. Whatever, I don't drive a tank.

3. recommended alternate route for vehicle x to place P. Quest09 (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry but number 1 is wrong~~. yellow are for the state roads ~~and blue leads you to the next nearby Autobahn~~. To number two: It's about the maximum weight in metric tons.TMCk (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also the following link [3]. TMCk (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great link, TMCk, that cleared up a few questions for me as well. Kudos! --Ouro (blah blah) 17:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are stereotypical gay men funny[edit]

Why do people find stereotypical gay men in unconventional roles - think about a gay Santa Klaus, gay clown, gay policeman - funny, when depicted in comedies? Quest09 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J65KHpXNek -- unsigned post by Medeis 16:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of theories of humor, but exaggeration and incongruity are two oft-used techniques. The "stereotypical gay man" (or any stereotype) is an exercise in exaggeration. He doesn't just walk differently, he "sashays". He isn't just interested in fashion, he's obsessed with it. You then throw in the incongruity with a contrasting stereotype. Santa Claus is jolly, fatherly, and somewhat reserved. This contrasts with the stereotypical gay man who is sassy, flamboyant, and somewhat sex-obsessed. Likewise with policemen, who are typically thought of as solemn and "conventional", whereas the stereotypical gay man is irreverent and "deviant". Resolving the incongruity between the two stereotypes is part of where the humor lies. A third issue is the unexpected/repetition paradox of humor (unexpected things like punchlines are funny, but so too can be old standards/running gags). Taking an old "standard", like the stereotypical gay man, but putting him in a new and unexpected circumstance fulfills both sides. So I'm not beset by angry responses, let me point out that throughout the post I'm referring to the "gay man stereotype" and not any actual gay man. I realize the "gay man stereotype" is offensive - stereotypes usually are. I merely report on its existence - I don't endorse its use. -- 174.31.214.130 (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[4] [5] Dick Emery was good at that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line, what is and is not funny is entirely subjective. As Mel Brooks once said "Tragedy is when I stub my toe, comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the affectations and mannerisms of your stereotypical gay man add up to one thing to me: a clowning figure. Dispensing with decorum and all seriousness, and just throwing caution to the wind with whatever outrageous cracks come to mind. Vranak (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going to Slovenia or Croatia?[edit]

I have visited Prague in the Czech Republic and Kraków in Poland on my InterRail trips in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Next year I'm thinking of going further south, either to Slovenia or Croatia. Which country should I go to, and to which city? I enjoyed both Prague and Kraków, but I liked Prague better. Are there any similar cities in either Slovenia or Croatia? JIP | Talk 19:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia for the mountains, Croatia for the beaches, Zagreb if you want a nice city, Plitvice Lakes National Park is simply incredible. (Not that I have been to any of these places, but have considered it.) μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia for the mountains, I've been to Dalmatia, and they're wonderful and culturally interesting (abandoned buildings because of the past war). Definitely see Split and Dubrovnik, and if you have some extra time, go a bit further south of Croatia to Kotor in Montenegro. Also, remember to savour the food in Croatia! --Ouro (blah blah) 05:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trento in Italy, home of Andrew Basso. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I visited Slovenia a couple of years ago. I had a nice time, but you couldn't really compare Ljubljana with larger cities like Prague or Kraków, despite the local government's efforts to turn it into a mini version of other EU capitals. One thing I wish I had made time to visit was Lake Bled in western Slovenia - it looks very nice with that church on an island in the middle of the lake.

I have heard good things about Dubrovnik and the Dalmatian coast, though I haven't visited either - my only experience of Croatia was a rural 30 km between Slovenia and Hungary. Astronaut (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gold coins as investment[edit]

As a investment vehicle for small investors, where are gold coins bought and sold? I've heard that, unlike most goods, the sale of gold coins are not subject to sales tax. Is that true (in some/most/all jurisdictions in the US)? --173.49.78.74 (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous precious metal dealers you can find on line. One on line company I've repeatedly done business with for several years with complete satisfaction is www.kitco.com. They are a large and I believe reputable dealer which does just about everything to do with precious metals. You may choose to note, however, that since gold has been racking up a string of high price records in recent weeks that this may or may not be the very best time to buy. Remember the old addage (buy low-sell high)Phalcor (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. gold dollars can still be had for one dollar with no sales tax since it is simply an exchange of paper for gold, not a sale. In order to get anything more than a dollar back out of them you would have to either melt them down when the price was very high or save them for a very long time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The currently printed US golden dollar coins are not made out of gold. There is the First Spouse Program which released actual gold coins, but they cost significantly more than a dollar (unsurprisingly). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I award you a (gold) star,beeble. The M.M. award for maximum misinformation.Phalcor (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Gold dollar. The coin contains only .04837 ounces of pure gold. I don't believe any collector would part with one for $1.00. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My googling around suggests that gold coins which are considered legal tender have no sales tax. There have been laws recently though that require gold dealers to report any transactions above $600 or something along those lines, which would suddenly make them seem taxable. But I'm not sure. There is a detailed discussion of reporting rules for selling gold coins here but I don't know how up to date it is. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask about Europe, but gold coins sold for no more than an 80% premium above their gold content value are exempt from Value added tax. See this sitefor a UK list. Dbfirs 19:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer to the OP is to ask at your bank. If they don't sell gold coins themselves, they should be able to point you in the right direction. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or see if you can find a "Gold to go" ATM machine.[6] - Apparently the late craze from the USA, now spreading to Australia - machines which sell you gold. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC) (Also in Las Vegas[7], Boca Raton, Florida [8] and Shepard's Bush, London [9]) Worm^TT · (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sales tax on coins in the US varies on a state by state basis. Some states have no taxes on coins, others will have the same sales tax as for any other good. Some states tax numismatic coins but not bullion coins. It is a rather hodge-podge system. Googlemeister (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is all of this nonsense being posted in this thread? The place to go is your local coin dealer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]