Miscellaneous desk
< June 26	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 28 >

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.

June 27

Water-based chemical that would hurt machines but not humans

Im writing a science fiction story. I have a scene where the humans are fighting the robots in a laboratory, and the resident techhie turns on the sprinkler systemmto reveal he's put something in it that somehow helps defeat the robots, either by slowing them down or destroying them outright. Of course, since his human allies are also in the room, I don't want to hurt them. What could he have put in the sprinklers? 82.226.221.64 (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salt water? Seawater? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the techie could also use some sci-fi compound to rapidly speed up the rusting process.Sazea (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that you'll be able to impair the mechanical or electrical systems of the robots; all things being equal, it must be assumed that these have been designed to withstand normal environmental conditions, which would include humidity and grit, for instance. I can't see how you'd speed up the rusting proces without affecting the skin of the humans. I think you need to decide what sort of sensors the robots have, and try to affect those. Let us suppose we're dealing primarily with optical sensors. You probably want a nano material which binds to glass and/or to glass coatings so as to render them opaque. If we assume other sensor systems (ultrasound, passive or infra-red sensing, etc), the solution is much the same: a material which binds to a critical component of the sensor so as to render it ineffective. That being the case, you probably want a backstory somewhere which includes a protagonist researching nano materials. This approach gives you some bonuses: characters who wear glasses will be affected. Nor will your protagonists be able to tell the time from their watches nor read computer or phone screens. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I was looking for similar things, theoretically of course, to the Dies the Fire scenario, what I came up with is something which would greatly increase the opacity of nonliving material (it has to be nonliving because if you do all materials, we'll all be blind). It would be very hard to run a technological civilization without glass or its equivalent. How do you drive?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a 1960s episode of Dr Who, the Doctor defeats the Cybermen by squirting them with his glamourous assistant's nail varnish remover, which dissolved the plastic casing on their chests, causing their instantanious expiry. That's my childhood memory of the episode anyway - I'm sure there are many avid fans out there who could condfirm the details. Of course, the robots of future were much less sophisticated in those days. Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When used in the proposed sprinkler system, acetone in small to modest concentrations isn't going to dissolve anything. If the techie replaces much of the water in the sprinkler system with neat acetone, this might indeed dissolve the robot's polymeric parts. But acetone is extremely inflamable and, as an aerosol, it's explosive. Sprayed continually in a fine mist, and evaporating up from where it pools on the ground, the affected rooms will become something resembling a thermobaric weapon - set to explode with astonishing fury given a spark. And what's a better source of sparks than a bunch of dissolving robots? Worse the poor humans won't be outrunning the blast (in the unprobable way people in movies always try) because in large amounts liquid acetone is a major eye irritant. This is a Pyrrhic strategy indeed. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, probably not a good idea then... Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going with Tagishsimon's idea, you could actually have some flexibility in what all gets affected. Camera optics like you would find in a robot that uses them would likely be glass. Glasses, watches and screens could be glass, plastic or artificial sapphire. A simple sprinkler modification to do on short notice could be splicing a compressed air line into the water supply, helping create a mist rather than a harder spray. Robots not designed to work in a misty environment may not be able to process images nearly as well. A mist would also absorb radiation in the microwave spectrum, which is a likely choice for a robot that uses some sort of short-range radar. I like the air idea because I can't come up with a plausible way to easily get large quantities of a chemical into the supply lines for a standard sprinkler system unless it is fed by a tank. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a Sci -Fi novel this scenario sounds a bit old hat. Bit like spaying sea water on triffids – time moves on and and I'm sure Monsanto can genetically engineer salt water resistant alien weeds to order these days, so liquid resistant robots must be a piece of cake. Just have the techhie broadcast through the lab's wifi, the contents of any old Microsoft installation disc and wait for the robots on-board computer systems to crash. --Aspro (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That worked on Triffids only in the movie. Deor (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you put pure oxygen in the sprinkler system, and hot components in the robots (motors ?) cause nearby plastics in the robots (let's say wire insulation) to burst into flame in the higher oxygen environment ? Pure oxygen isn't healthy for humans, either, but they could probably stand it for a short period. StuRat (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad past experiences of the combination of coke and electrical-mechanical kit makes me suggest that unless they're well waterproofed, a strong sugary solution will jam up circuits and subtle connectors. Alternatively, on Tagishsimon's lines, how about paint? --Dweller (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or add detergent to the water to fill the room with suds. They probably wouldn't have a way to wipe suds off their camera lenses, and detergent inside them would carry away the lubricants, causing them to lock up, then rust. Let's say they have air vents to let heat out, and the detergent gets in that way. StuRat (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

of course, if the robots look like salt shakers they can be defeated with door sills and floppy hats. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is so often the case when someone is trying to figure out the technicalities of a literary device like this, TVtropes has pages of previous attempts to do likewise. AchillesHeel is the general trope, and because you're wanting to have the robots killed by something that's otherwise rather innocuous it's going to inevitably resemble the many listed at WeaksauceWeakness. I have to fear that any such WeaksauceWeakness you invent will work only if the robots are, well, just lame. Any reader of your work will surely have endured enough (as listed at TVtropes) that it'll seem like parody (tipified by Mars Attacks! yodelling) whether you want it to or not. Would we remember the bad guy in Alien if he'd been killed due to a surprise peanut allergy in the last scene? Anyway, if you want a solution, just lock the doors and run the sprinkler system. The robots will be okay, but the building electricity will short (if it doesn't get automatically cut). Then the humans just hide in a little room (or the air ducts; movies love air ducts) until the robots' batteries die. Maybe they can survive salty water and soap bubbles, but not a power cut. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the techie hates robot and works at the lab, they could have easily developed some sort of device to neutralize them. Perhaps a small EMP, or particles in the shower that inhibit their wireless communication for a brief period, but a special acid that goes after metal but not flesh would be pretty cool, and you could have the heroes have side effects when it hits their fillings so that it doesn't seem like a total cop-out.129.128.216.107 (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

developing and publishing an article

respected sir,
i am stanly working as an assistant professor in reputed engineering college. I am doing my research in fingerprint recognition.I want to pruduce any article in science magazines.how & when.please give me assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanlyjayaprakashj (talk • contribs) 09:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your college (or one nearby) almost certainly has courses in technical and scientific writing for undergraduates and grad students, so that's the logical place to start. The worst way to learn is to read technical and scientific literature. A lot of it is poorly written, even those articles written by native speakers. If you're thinking of writing in English, read A LOT, everyday, and not just technical and scientific literature. Read at least one book of contemporary fiction a month. Science fiction and fantasy are best because of the large vocabulary. Look up EVERY SINGLE word you don't know. Never decide that a word is "important" or not; they're ALL important. Learn to write non-scientific well English first before you attempt to write scientific English. Be patient, work hard, and keep at it. Do it with passion. Don't expect quick results, and there are no shortcuts. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do not appear to be very fluent in English. You might try publishing in a journal in your native language. I have known non-native speakers of English in the US who wrote for scientific journals, whose English writing was almost as awkward as yours is in your question. They found it useful to have a proofreader go over it and correct mistakes in spelling, grammar and word choice so it became publishable, but it was vital to have close consultation between the editor and the scientist, to make sure that the intended meaning of a phrase was not changed to something else in the editing process. Edison (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that while writing is an important component, you first will need to get your research results. Part of getting publishable results is knowing what has been done, so be sure to get a good overview of the field you try to publish in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Food preferences

Is there a special term for when someone is a picky eater based on the knowledge of what's in the food, rather than what it tastes like? I mean, my daughter claims to not like onions but when I puree them into the mashed potatoes, she has no idea it's there and thinks it's really yummy. Yet if I merely chopped, fried and stirred them in, she wouldn't eat it, claiming that she "doesn't like onions." DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nocebo ? That is, they think onions are unpleasant, when they really aren't, so thinking they are in something makes them "sick". I bet if you told her onions were in something onion-free, that she would react the same way. Incidentally, cooking onions makes them far more palatable to many people. StuRat (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even more palatable is throwing them out. A smidgen of onion goes a long, long way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In your daughters defence...the liking/not liking of food is not purely flavour based, texture plays a huge part. Personally I don't like mushrooms - sure I don't like the flavour but I really dislike the texture of them...in my mind slightly rubbery, slippery texture...cue responses saying i'm cooking them wrong :-) ny156uk (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to those reading: do not try this with someone you dont know well. I had someone arrogantly believe that I was just being a picky whiny craaaaaaaazy irrational attention hog and slipped peanuts into my food to "prove" that it was all in my little subhuman female head, etc. Spent a week and a half in the ICU and still to this day 20 years later have some physical deficits related to hypoxia. Naturally, because he was a poor, poor, poor, Nice Guy who (sob) just DIDN'T KNOW, he wasn't charged criminally. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However there is a very big difference between being allergic to food and just not liking it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's certainly advantageous to not like foods you're already allergic to. But I've known folks who love tomatoes, for example, but are allergic to them - and there's some sort of medication they can take just before eating, which neutralize the allergic reaction. I, on the other hand, would be fine with an allergy to liver and onions, as they're wretched in any case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like an intolerance than an allergy. 86.164.77.7 (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old story. We had a party at our place. One pair of friends brought their only child, a girl aged about 7. She got peckish and asked me if there was anything to eat apart from the party food we had out. I told her there was tons of other stuff in the fridge, and to have at it. A minute later she said, "Jack, this ham is yummy. So delicious! The best ham I've ever tasted. Where did you get it from?". Like an idiot, I said to her "Oh, that isn't ham, it's cured tongue". This produced a violent reaction. She immediately spat it out, almost threw up and ran off screaming "Eeeeuggghhrrr!! Yuuuuuck!!". Mind over matter at its worst. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is perfectly sensible behaviour and I probably would have spat it out myself once you'd told me. Knowing what you're eating makes a big difference as to whether you want to eat it or not. Just ask a vegetarian. --Viennese Waltz 07:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate, as tongue is quite good - beef tongue, anyway. Very mild. An old joke from All in the Family: Edith has served tongue to the daughter and the son-in-law for breakfast. Somehow it comes out that Archie wouldn't eat it because he "won't eat anything that comes from a cow's mouth." So what did she serve him instead? [drum roll here] Eggs! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lesson being you need to know when to bite your tongue. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very tongue-in-cheek. StuRat (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I used to eat black pudding until I got a recipe book containing a recipe for it. It started. "When killing the pig, put a bucket underneath and catch the blood. Now stir it while it is still warm with your arm so the veins stick to your skin and can be removed..." I stopped reading after that and resolved never to eat it again. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before you knew what it was, did it taste good? Keep in mind it probably grew out of the perceived need to let nothing go to waste. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it tasted good before I read that recipe. In the olden days the saying went that the only part of the pig they didn't use was the squeal. I know it's irractional and I knew it was irrational then, but I can't force it past my lips now. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not irrational at all, it's perfectly rational. See my post above. --Viennese Waltz 11:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might be rational. If you have made a conscious decision that you will not eat a certain foodstuff under any circumstances because of medical-environmental-vegetarian-ideological-ethical-religious concerns, that's a rational stance. But if the only reason you decide not to eat Food X is because you assume it must taste horrible, whether from where it comes or just from the sound of it, that's completely irrational. My 7-year old friend above had certainly not decided in advance that meat was out of the question, because she couldn't get enough of it while she thought it was ham. But clearly, she assumed that tongue and probably other forms of offal taste horribly gross, merely because of where they come from, and that assumption completely overrode her objective experience that the thing actually tasted delicious. That's irrational. We can cut a 7-yr old some slack, but lots of adults have similar irrational reactions when they discover they're eating something they weren't aware of. Show most adults how sausages are made and they'll probably never eat them again, but until then, they rather enjoy them. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reason why I would spit it out is nothing to do with assuming it must taste horrible. It's because I don't want a piece of an animal's tongue in my mouth, no matter how good it may taste. What's irrational about that? --Viennese Waltz 12:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you, as with the Archie Bunker story farther up, still like to eat eggs, even knowing where they came from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrational because there's nothing intrinsically bad about the tongue; it's like saying you'll only eat chicken pieces that come from the left side or something - and that you're perfectly rational for not wanting to eat anything from the right side. You can still get sausage made out of what is, essentially, pig asshole and not tell the difference between it and the synthetic casings. And if you eat enough hot dogs and other sausages, chances are good you've eaten your share of both tongue and asshole and not even known. So knowing it now, will you stop eating them? Or will you develop a new rule that says the tongue chunks must be ground finer than a certain limit before you'll scarf them down? Isn't food great? :) Bismarck may never have said it, but it's still true: "If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made." Matt Deres (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's the fact that you know what's in it that makes all the difference. Sure, I eat sausages (Wiener wurstel, natürlich), and sure I don't know what's in them. But once you know what's in something, that enables you to make an informed choice as to whether or not you eat it. As for tongue being intrinsically bad, sure it is. It's just yucky, like all offal, and unlike steak and so on. --Viennese Waltz 14:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But now you do know, so will you stop eating them? See, that's part of the irrationality here - I don't see how you can include tongue into the offal category, yet not have asshole and intestine left off. Tongue is, at least, a muscle (like steak and chops, etc.). Matt Deres (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viennese Waltz, I venture to suppose that you have not actually tasted all the possible types of offal in existence and found empirically that in 100% of cases it's "yucky". If I'm wrong, please correct me. Far more likely is that you've formed this opinion from a small subset of all offal, which you were exposed to when you were considerably younger than you are now, and extrapolated your dislike of that small subset to all offal. If you read a book and don't like it, or see a movie and don't like it, or hear some music and don't like it, wouldn't it be irrational to make the leap into "I dislike all books, movies and music"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about tongue is that it hurts to bite one's own tongue. Therefore there is an accompanying thought of doing that to another tongue, and in such close proximity to one's own tongue. Rationally this does not make sense. But to consider the food item a tongue is to bring some of the same thoughts and associations to mind that accompany thinking about one's own tongue. Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tongue I've had is typically thinly sliced and doesn't really look like a tongue at all, just like slices of bologna or something (maybe I could make a better comparison, but you get the idea). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason for the thin slicing is to disguise its origin as the plump piece of tissue that we know as tongue. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree with Bus Stop 100% on the biting of tongue, was thinking the exact same thing, as well as the fact that a tongue is very intimate. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As compared to a chicken's "cloaca", or whatever the term is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between the wall of the cloaca and an egg that comes out of cloaca. Tongue is tongue and doesn't come out of, but is the tongue. One doesn't eat asshole or cloaca in any case; only perhaps its sphincter.

I kinda doubt that. We slice ham thinly too, and cheese, and other things. Nothing to do with disguising their origins. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with Matt Deres here that it's irrational. And not really comparable to a vegetarian. Whether you agree with their reasoning or not, many vegetarians have reasons for why they choose not do eat meat with a fair degree of logic and thought even if they may arguably also have some flaws, in other words they have reasons can be considered rational. So far I haven't heard any explaination here for why people wouldn't want to eat tongue that makes any sense, in other words all the explainations just seem to prove it's irrational. Of course I'm not saying you're wrong to not want to eat tongue or to find it disgusting, that's your choice (or non choice), people including me do plenty of things which aren't rational. Nil Einne (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

short notice international travel

so, I need to get to america (missouri) from england on sunday, is this still possible? wasn't there some thing where you could get cheaper flights booking at the last minute if you accepted that they might not have some going to where you want to, and since I don't mind any of half a dozen airports within a few hours of where I want to get to, or changing to a domestic flight pretty much anywhere in the country, I can shop around a few options, but anyone have ideas where I could find the cheapest flights?

85.210.126.109 (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might try standby (air travel), but you may not get to fly at all, since you only go if somebody else fails to show up. I hope you have your passport up to date.

From our article:

"Travelers get themselves onto the standby list by speaking to a ticket agent or a gate agent. Almost always, this must occur in person at the airport, and not over the phone. When the flight is boarding, any unclaimed or available seats will be given to those passengers on the standby list, who must wait at the gate to be called. Any passengers on the list who are not given seats are rolled into the standby list for the next flight."

Also, just try all the common internet sites (Travelocity, Expedia, Orbitz, Priceline.com), as well as the airlines' own sites. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to travel because a close family member is very seriously ill, you may qualify for a compassion fares, although these still aren't cheap. I took a gander at Kayak.co.uk, another aggregator, and the best it could do was LHR->Kansas City on Wednesday, for over £800. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

anyone know where I can buy a one way ticket, or a return where I come back from a different airport to the one I arrive at? I'll be doing a bit of travelling there, and don't want to have to go all the way back again after 79.66.96.116 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just caution you that if you travel to the US without a ticket out of the country, you will also require a Visa - you would not be eligible to travel under the visa waiver program with an ESTA. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Travel agents and online ticket companies like those listed above will sell you a one-way ticket or an open-jaw ticket (which is where you return from a different airport. Note (given your visa question below) that immigration may take a very dim view if you only have a one-way ticket. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I found it, strange that it costs so much more than a return. anyone know where I can sell the spare if I get the return? 79.66.96.116 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere; airline tickets are almost never transferable. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since 911, the name on the ticket has had to be the name on the passport (or other travel ID) and the name in the computer.

Ah, solved it, a flight between the two airports costs about as much as the bus, and gets me the right return ticket too, that was easy 79.66.96.116 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]