Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 August 3

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 3

nostradamus's best and worst predictions?

what were nostradamus's best and worst (i.e. most right and most wrong) predictions? 78.131.25.223 (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(Moved from Computer Desk.) StuRat (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

All of his predictions are tied for "worst". --Jayron32 03:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of his translators have done quite well in retrospect. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean that some after-the-fact translations were manipulated to make it look like he made accurate predictions ? StuRat (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although I suspect that sometimes it was a case of looking extremely hard for a possible meaning that may not have really been there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

More to the point: people don't have to be deliberately fraudulent. Humans are already very good at deluding themselves into making the text have more meaning than it does. Nostradamus works on something akin to the Infinite monkey theorem: The dude wrote a ton of stuff, most of it is incomprehensible gibberish. However, given a longer and longer expanse of history, there will always be some random event which someone, with enough effort, can make "fit" some of Nostradamus's gibberish. Look at it another way: Given the amount of human feces which has been excreted, the likelyhood that someone crapped a log in a decent likeness of Elvis Presley is actually pretty good; most of us don't spend time examining our shit that closely to see who it looks like, however. Nostradamus has written a lot of shit, and unlike the turds in most people's toilets, people have been combing through his shit for hundreds of years. There's bound to be something which looks like a prediction given the combination of enough history to match it to, and enough willpower on the observer to believe that its a match. --Jayron32 04:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This hilarious part is that one of his best "hits" wasn't him at all! In 1997 A Canadian student trying to illustrate how easy it was to imitate Nostradamus's technique, and wrote a nonsense prediction in Nostradamus's style that four years later strongly reminded a lot of people of 9/11. (See this snopes article here. )

More seriously, there are a few examples of real Nostradamus predictions and how they turned out in this Cecil Adams article, The Straight Dope : Was Nostradamus Really Able to Predict the Future?

I think the biggest thing that people have a hard time understanding about these things, is that you can't count something as a prediction unless you can understand it's meaning before the event it predicts. (Once you know what a duck looks like, it's easy to find a cloud that looks like one. Same thing with finding 'predictions' in gibberish.)APL (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In contrast, Criswell's predictions were straightforward and understandable, even though they were totally looney. I wonder what Nostradamus had to say about the Cubs next World Series championship (if any)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in Prophecy of the Popes along list of all the popes of the catholic church, but on a quick glance at the article it doesn't mention any suggestion that Rome shall be incinerated (nuclear blast), just that it would be destroyed. I've always found that one a more interesting vision, as it has an arbitrary climax which we will get to see unwind in our lifetimes (hopefully we will live that long). Nostradamus is famous for his understanding of human nature, rather than time dilation, he gave the world a scrabble set of quatrains, knowing full well he'd have a lot more fun that way, and he did :) Someone else who had fun for the same reasons was the famous artist who (people don't know) made the famous shroud. Penyulap _talk 12:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Extra Dry Martini, how to drink it?

Got an extra dry Martini 100 cl. bottle. On the bottle I can make out a recommended mix of 1/5 martini dry, 4/5 Bombay Sapphire gin e un'oliva. I don't have any gin good gin with me but I have a Smirnoff vodka. olive is also out of question in my part of the world. Can Martini Dry be taken on its own? --117.253.190.68 (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Martini Extra Dry is a brand of vermouth. Just to get some things straight:

• Vermouth is a type of fortified wine; basically wine with other ingredients mixed in. Dry vermouths like "Martini Extra Dry" are flavored with additional spices. There are also sweet vermouths which have added sugar.
• The Martini Cocktail is a mixture of vermouth and gin with an olive used as a garnish. While you could mix these in just about any proportion, the 1 part vermouth to 4 parts gin sounds pretty standard to me. Martini Brand vermouth would probably make a decent Martini; I expect it is named as it is specifically to market it for that purpose.
• There are also vodka martinis where the gin is replaced with vodka. In the original James Bond novels, this is what James Bond drank, shaken not stirred. Personally, I don't like the taste of gin (too piney for me) so I prefer a vodka martini (I like mine "dirty", with some olive brine mixed in as well, but that's my taste). So, you can feel free to make vodka martinis to your heart's content, knowing that lots of people drink them that way.

There's also nothing stoping you from drinking vermouth straight, or on the rocks, or mixed with club soda, or anything else really. Taste is purely subjective, and if you want to try it, and you like it that way, go with it! --Jayron32 05:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron for the well-informed reply. So, this thing is brand of vermouth. I guess with 18% vol it's a very mild spirits and can be taken without diluting. --117.253.190.68 (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically, as Jayron already mentioned (though didn't link), vermouth is not a spirit but fortified wine. Though even if it was a spirit there is no law that says it should be diluted. A lot of spirits are even meant to be drunk straight, like for example single malt whisky (although some prefer adding a drop of water, as it is said to increase the aroma). --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, vermouth can be consumed as an aperitif, straight up (chilled), over ice, or with a splash of soda. (That said, the cheaper vermouth labels are generally best employed in mixed cocktails or cooking.) Vermouth 101 provides an approachable introduction to this fortified wine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If I were to mix it with vodka, what would be the right proportion?--117.253.190.68 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As I was taught, a proper vodka martini is a measure of vodka and just a dash of vermouth (with, a twist of lemon peel or an olive as garnish)--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I thoroughly approve of the American Standard Safety Code and Requirements for Dry Martinis, especially the "radiation method", whereby, A 60 watt incandescent lamp is placed on a flat surface 9 inches from a sealed bottle of vermouth. A sealed bottle of gin is placed on the other side [...] at a distance of 23 inches....The lamp may be illuminated for an interval of 7 to 16 seconds. -that is, of course, quite tongue-in-cheek; it's a kind-of joke ANSI standard, to demonstrate how standards work. But the idea is right - a very small amount, a dash. Of course, each to his/her own.  Chzz  ►  15:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Whilst, ahem, "researching" this (°hic°) I came across a book, available on Google - Martini, Straight Up: The Classic American Cocktail, by Lowell Edmunds. Like a decent martini, it's rather good.  Chzz  ►  15:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never understood the appeal of the martini, I've always thought it to be a vile drink. Now an Appletini, that's a good drink, although not the recipe in the article--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

a list of favorite articles

hello,

i am curious if their is an option to create a custom list of my personal favorite articles (much the same as favoriting/creating playlists in youtube) via my wikipedia account or if i simply have to favorite the urls on my browser?

,thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burton333 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Add articles that interest you to your Watch list. Do that by ticking "Watch this page" under the article's editing window, without changing anything else, then "Save page". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to Save after Watchlisting a page, Cuddlyable3. There's been no change made, so there's nothing to save. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You can create a watchlist: see Help:Watching pages. This isn't exactly what you require, but might be useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, you can create a list at your home page (click on your screen name at the very top of the page, to go there). Do this by typing the exact name of each article, with double square brackets around it. You will get something like this:

My Favorite Articles

• Root beer
• Smurfs

Old lift

Why didn't the lift doors open at 0:42 in this video? --84.61.147.210 (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The lift (elevator) was at the E floor waiting for a command to ascend, and ignored a press on the E button. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

High Speed 1 KML?

Is there a downloadable KML/KMZ file for the route of High Speed 1 from St Pancras to Dover? --CGPGrey (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's available as an XML file from OpenStreetMap via the link at the bottom of this page. Judging by various forum posts on the topic, it should be fairly easy to convert the OSM XML file to a KML file. Warofdreams talk 16:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that appears to be missing much of the route. Try instead, which is the entirety of Eurostar; you can then remove the sections you don't want. Warofdreams talk 16:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

200 mm like 300 mm lens

What does that mean? Do they want to say that there is a typical 300 mm lens, but this 200 mm is the equivalent of it? In this case, what makes a lens typical, if it can have a shorter equivalent? 88.9.106.140 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In traditional (i.e. non-digital era) terms that doesn't seem to me to make much sense, and googling finds no instances of the complete phrase. Can you give us some more context, such as more of the surrounding text, and if this is from a professional manufacturer's or retailer's advertisement (where the wording may be deliberately obfusticated) as opposed to a private one (where the seller may simply be clueless)? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.52 (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it only makes sense in the field of digital photography. Here is the text extract: "The "lens to die" for the D80 is the Nikkor 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR Zoom. 18 mm is the equivalent of 27 mm and is a great angle Decent. 200 mm is equivalent to 300 mm and is a very good zoom nature." 88.9.106.140 (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed in our article Crop factor. Most digital SLR cameras have a sensor that is smaller than a full-frame 35mm negative. Therefore any given focal length is effectively multiplied by the ratio between the DSLR sensor and the traditional full-frame. This ratio varies a bit between the major manufacturers, but 1.5 is a good approximiation. Thus, using a 200mm lens on a D80 is equivalent to using a 300mm lens on an old-school, film-using Nikon F5. --LarryMac | Talk 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that we know that the phrase involved comparing differently formatted (35mm) film and digital sensors (which I should have thought of), it does indeed make sense. You might find further information of interest in our article Lenses for SLR and DSLR cameras, which has a table of equivalent focal lengths for different formats (i.e. different sensor sizes) compared to the standard 35mm format most common in film cameras and also used in some (I believe especially earlier) digitals. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.52 (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Disparaging quips about grown men wearing shorts

I remember hearing some sardonic polemics about the only contexts in which it is acceptable for grown men to wear shorts but can't remember the punchiest lines. Anyone help out? Skomorokh 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm 34 and I wear shorts! It gets hot here! --Jayron32 23:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How about "anywhere except within the privileged walls of Bushwood Country Club"? I reject this snobbery. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wife to Paint Store Clerk: "I'm looking for a particular shade of white. (turns to husband) Honey, pull up your pant leg and show the man your thigh." Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 00:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The sitcom King of Queens featured characters who wore shorts at work, and there were many jokes about that. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See Lederhosen. 2.97.219.104 (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Who wears short shorts? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

“ A man should never wear shorts in the city. Flip-flops and shorts in the city are never appropriate. Shorts should only be worn on the tennis court or on the beach. ” — Tom Ford

 Chzz  ►  15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

One wonders how a guy who grew up in Houston could ever make such a claim. Still, it might help if he defined what he meant by "city". Do suburbs count? What about shopping malls? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an interesting constellation of age, gender and class here. In the 20th century Anglophone settler-societies (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, some other one) young male children began wearing shorts (rather than dresses or skirts) as part of a growing trend towards gendering children; and, in the context where expanding working class consumption allowed such gendering. Shorts are and were cheaper than full trousers (themselves a "working mans'" clothing when initially worn, but later shifted in class positioning by the suits trouser). Shorts have an association with childishness and immaturity in males, think of Blackadder 2, "Shorty greasy spot spot?". Shorts are also worn by manual workers. Given a long term association between proletarian status, manual labour, and cultural repression of the manual working class—shorts are viewed through a class lens as embodying dirt, raw masculinity, combativity, cretinism, low social income, etc. My understanding of pay rates by skill in Australia indicate that this view, that manual work is some how radically different to mental work, has not been true since the late 1970s. There's a third constellation in Australia about 1950s-1970s radical nationalism (think Communist Party nationalism, Labor Party nationalism, its time). I've seen a variety of mental workers (teachers, academics, scientists) wearing shorts and long socks as a demonstration of a particular kind of hot climate masculinity. This dress appears to be related to working outdoors: astronomers, not chemists, geoloists, not historians. There's also the concept of "shorts, socks and sandles." I've occasionally seen work shorts recooperated for hipster sexual purposes by men and women into a "rugged" aesthetic. So looking at this constellation of meanings backwards: shorts on adult men could mean that you're from a sexually excluded minority, a "beardy weirdy" academic, a dirty poor worker, or a pre sexual child. All of these are a construction opposed to the primary gender meanings of socially acceptable masculinity as the adult white collar socially intellectual conventional male. Now I want to go out and buy some shorts. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)