Miscellaneous desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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 24[edit]

weakest factual capture in the history of Wikipedia.[edit]

(Florence) Dolan v. The City Of Tigard (oregon)

"The city planning commission granted conditional approval, dependent on Dolan dedicating land to a public greenway along an adjacent creek, and developing a pedestrian and bicycle pathway in order to relieve traffic congestion."

Just a comment:

This was probably the weakest Wikipedia article I've ever seen. Dolan wanted to expand her property and Tigard said 'well why don't you give us some of your land?' and she said, 'oh, you mean purchase it at a reduced price from me?' and they said like any 3rd world dictatorship demanding tribute, 'no, give it to us or we won't grant you approval'. Florence spent a million dollars up to SCOTUS, w/ Tigard reimbursing her, and then the city of Tigard held her up procedurally FOR 13 YEARS after her win!

You fail to capture the true meaning and flavor of this "landmark". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.104.101 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supposed to be written in neutral tone, describing the events, not the flavor.

"Flavor" is highly subjective. Events often have more than one "Flavor". You could just as easily say that "The Supreme Court, in a fascist display of federal power, prevented the city from protecting it's waterways and the rights of its pedestrians and cyclists."

(Please understand that I have no opinion on whether the Court ruled correctly or not. I am merely pointing out that you can make it seem good or bad by presenting it differently. )

Of course, if you feel that the article has factual errors, you are free to correct them yourself, provided you can provide references. APL (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page in question: Dolan v. City of Tigard. Pfly (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial zeros in flight numbers[edit]

Is it true that airlines based in the United States leave off the initial zeros in flight numbers (e.g. flight 11 instead of flight 011)? 173.52.209.154 (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leave them off where ? When saying the flight number, of just about any number, it would be quite common to leave off leading zeroes. When printing them, it would all depend on the format used by the computer program. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may create a conspiracy theory about Air Force 1, actually being 001. Thus a 00 licence to kill and more seniority than James Bond as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The likes of United Airlines Flight 93 and United Airlines Flight 175 suggest it's common to have variable lengths of flight numbers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flight number doesn't mention that leading zeroes are required. In fact some sources like [1] [2] [3] suggest you shouldn't include leading zeroes unless it's an integral part of the flight number. And I don't believe an absence of leading zeroes is unique to US airlines in any way. E.g. Malaysia Airlines also does it [4] as does Air New Zealand [5]. Note that a number of airlines actually have four digit flight numbers now so if you want leading zeroes 011 might not be correct anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Driving between Liverpool and Manchester...[edit]

... there is a facility producing huge pillars of steam south of the motorway. I always thought it was a nuclear power plant, but I was just speaking with someone from the area who told me they had no such plants in the area. A quick check confirmed this. I headed to Google Maps to look up other power plants, to no avail. Does anyone know what this might be? I noticed it in 2004 and 2009. Vranak (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a break. Narrow it down to a few miles and tell us where exactly and what time of year? --Aspro (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a largely agricultural/rural type area, and I can't really be sure where it was. Roughly halfway between the two cities I guess. I was just a passenger. First instance was July 2004, next December 2009. The key thing here was the scale -- it was an enormous facility with a biblical output of steam. There wouldn't be anything else like it in a large radius I would assume. Vranak (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In resent years the burning of stubble and straw after harvest has -in most cases- been banned in these areas but that is why I need more info.[6]. Was it brilliant white or greyish white. Did it bloom or flatten out at higher levels. Please describe the cloud formations. If you where on your way to wonderful Mancunia you must have been exited enough to surly remember the location of some greasy spoon Café that you frequented a while on your sojourn to that great city of city of culture and home to the birth place of The Guardian newspaper? As an aside: Has one noticed how the Guardian’s new Berliner (format) fits so nicely into the cats litter tray? --Aspro (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Fiddlers Ferry power station? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it! Thanks. I never realized that those distinctive cooling towers were used for anything other than nuclear plants. Vranak (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That power plant is about 5 km south of M62. And, yes, that type of cooling tower can be used to cool anything large, it just so happens that the design came in about the time nuclear reactors were first built, so we have a strong association between the two. StuRat (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about elsewhere in the world, but here in Australia the print media and TV love to use pictures of cooling towers to represent the polluting impact of power stations. Of course, while not ideal, the water vapour coming from the towers is probably the least of our problems. It's one of those times when you wonder if the sub-editor really is that stupid or has really just chosen the pic with the most visual impact. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, knowing this, for purely PR reasons, nuclear power plants should switch to some other method of cooling, to deny opponents a visual representation of "the horrible threat of nuclear power". StuRat (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually isn't water vapour the largest of the greenhouse gases?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe so, but as I also understand it, the amount coming from cooling towers is trivial compared with that created by evaporation from oceans, etc, around the world. Those articles to which I referred are usually about CO2 emissions, of which, of course, none come from the cooling towers. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the increased water vapour in the air will increase the condensation until the levels normalise again. Boiling water shouldn't have a significant impact on the greenhouse effect. --Tango (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

World War II[edit]

Is it true that during WWII, a math problem was considered so difficult to solve that the Allies wanted to drop leaflets of it on Germany so the German scientists could waste their time too.

I find this fact very interesting but I found it on a some what questionable site. I'd like to know if it's true before sharing it with others. If there is anyone on the WIKI team that could confirm or deny this fact I would be grateful.

--- Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.116.143 (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What site did you find it on? Can you give a link? What was the supposed math problem? RudolfRed (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The math problem is said to be http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit#Empirical_motivation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.116.143 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you what is was for obvious reasons (because a very 'few' Wikipedians have been know to posses a fatal sense of humor) but I think it was not a math problem but a joke: The_Funniest_Joke_in_the_World#Summary. A friend wanted us to recite it at his funeral but he died before he could tell us what it was – so it must be true.--Aspro (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just a sketch on Monty Python? I'm asking about a real event and whether or not it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.116.143 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the point is that somebody modified the Monty Python sketch to make the rumor you heard. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on!--Aspro (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a shame. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.116.143 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that Graham Chapman was the creator of this sketch. Unfortunately, the late Mr Chapman seems to have rehearsed this sketch in the presence of his pet parrot. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true. The parrot at the time was simply "stunned" or "pining for the fjords" . He just appeared to have snuffed it!--Aspro (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guys may have missed that this is sourced to a journal article in our Multi-armed bandit article. I can see how it might be a joke in the citation, but apparently it's not some random rumour. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“It was formulated by Herbert Robbins in 1952” but then again, who can rely on Wikipedia.--Aspro (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the previous sentence says it was "originally considered by Allied scientists in World War II" - and that is the cited information I was talking about. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the line from the reference on that page that led to the Wikipedia inclusion:

Despite the fact that Dr Gittins proved his basic result some seven years ago, the magnitude of his advance has not been generally recognized and I hope that one result of tonight's meeting will be that the strength of his contribution, its nature and its significance will be apparent to all.

As I said,the problem is a classic one; it was formulated during the war, and efforts to solve it so sapped the energies and minds of Allied analysts that the suggestion was made that the problem be dropped over Germany, as the ultimate instrument of intellectual sabotage. In the event, it seems to have landed on Cardiff Arms Park. And there is justice now, for if a Welsh Rugby pack scrumming down is not a multi-armed bandit, then what is?

That seems altogether too jokey and throw-away for me to consider it a real testament to this actually having been proposed, seriously or even unseriously. Anyway, it is from 1979, which puts it pretty far beyond any possible events in question, as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Yes, that definitely does seem like a joke referencing the Python sketch. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having said all that and gotten you all to agree with me. Graham Chapman was a very well read and learned man – with quite a sense of Monty -Pythonesque humour. He may have well come across this crazy war-time proposal during his sojourn at university by the very fraternity that where involved, and so he may have thought: “By jingo (and pass the sherry decanter over here) ”(which is part of an English university ritual which one's professor indoctrinates one into) : “'that' could form the basis a really funny script.” So, dear departed Graham, may be having the last laugh from beyond the grave. Next time I re-configure my computer to be in full compliance with the Ouija protocol I shall discuss this with him. Don't wait with baited breath – this might take me some time.--Aspro (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling the idea of tossing the Nazis an unsolvable problem was floating as a joke and (though I hate to use the word) a meme during and after the war. One example that I can remember popped up in the X Minus One sci-fi radio series in an humorous episode Project Trojan (1956) which involved the heroes giving the Nazis the idea that the Allies had developed a Death Ray by feeding them faked intelligence, taking the details for the ray from a story in a science fiction magazine; the hope being that the Germans would divert resources away from rocket research and into developing their own Death Ray. (Hilarity ensued.) I'm sure I have heard other versions of this story, but I can't for the life of me remember them at the moment. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you. Yet, I think this family of memes (for want of a better phrase) may well have some factual basis in counter - intelligence- warfare. However, those that knew the truth were bound to silence by the British Official Secrets Act. On the point of Death-ray. I saw a film clip of the the 1940s era, demonstrating such a ray-gun device in a laboratory. With my modern eyes it did not convince me – in the sense that Ray Harryhausen amassing Jason and the Argonauts (1963 film) looks today like primitive, unconvincing and a laughable attempt at stop motion animation. A whole body-guard of lies were were directed at Nazi intelligence. This basis of this meme could have been one of them. --Aspro (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't know why Aspro considers this within the realm of British WW2 practice, see Double-Cross System, Operation Fortitude, and the extraordinary Garbo. See also, "carrots help you see in the dark", setting the sea on fire and inflatable tanks, and so on. 86.164.72.243 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this was real, there would be a mention in the forum thread for xkcd strip 356: Nerd Sniping. – b_jonas 12:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarot[edit]

What are the meanings of the Minor Arcana? --108.225.112.237 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does our Minor Arcana article help ? As is typical for such ruses, every card can be interpreted in many ways. In this way, if a prediction fails to come true, the reader can just claim they picked the wrong interpretation. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While some people may use tarot cards as a ruse to make plausible-sounding "predictions" for money, this is an over-simplified distortion of how they are often understood and used today. As with similar systems such as the I-Ching and Runic divination, the cards' multi-layered meanings, and the combination of these into complex trains of thought by the order in which they are drawn and arranged, are employed not to make literal prediction of the future (or seemingly psychic "readings" of the past and present), but rather to help the subject (who may be the reader him/herself) to meditatively reflect and (sometimes) allow subconscious thoughts to surface so as to better assess their circumstances. Within the Neo-pagan community, this is often considered a form of magick and many readers therefore do not solicit, and would refuse, monetary payment for performing the service, in accordance with the general disapproval of carrying out workings ("performing magic") primarily for personal gain. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.33 (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Poster formerly known's point notwithstanding, I happen to own two tarot decks and each came with a booklet on how to "interpret" the cards for the purposes of divination. They don't agree.

If you're looking for the meanings of the cards within a specialized context (Neopaganism, for example) then you might be able to find a concrete answer, but for general fortune-telling purposes, I don't think there is a definitive answer. It's my understanding that "Good" fortune tellers just use the cards as a prop while they do some combination of cold reading, amateur psychology, and good old fashioned listening to a stranger's problems. APL (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]