Miscellaneous desk
< December 22	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 24 >

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.

December 23[edit]

snorkel monster[edit]

Once I was listining to the radio, and they said someting about a one footed snorkel monster. What's all this about?Warriorscourge (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without some context such as what radio program you were listening to or where the station is or something like that, all we could do is give a rough guess. This is the first Ghit for "one footed snorkel monster". Dismas|^(talk) 04:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a relative of the Purple People Eater. Edison (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a "one-foot" (length) "snorkel" (long tube) "monster"... kinda like "Willy the One-Eyed Wonder Worm"... aka, its a slang term for a penis... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, the radio thing was KXNT, and they said it was being attacked by a UFO. I now, sounds pretty made up.-Warriorscourge (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC) just listened to it, the guys name was William Henry, the show was coast to coast AM, and he was going on about how strange the story was but how surprisingly often reports of the 'one footed snorkel monster" re-appear throughout history[reply]

Town layouts[edit]

Why are US towns & cities laid out in blocks? A simplistic answer of "it makes things easy/regular" is all very well, but what about nature / slopes / rivers? Who says regular is good anyway? No British town has regular blocks and even Milton Keynes where the roads are gridded have bending windy (as in wind a clock not blowing air) roads within the gridsquares. There is an obvious difference in viewpoint between the two countries. I was wondering what the rationale for the difference might be. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A look at Grid plan suggest that this design/city-planning idea has existed for a very long time. I suspect that sometimes nature dictates how a city can be designed, but sometimes the city can be 'planned' in a simple grid format quite easily. There is a section on 'benefits' Grid_plan#Benefits_and_criticisms. It would probably be worthwhile also reading Street hierarchy. I suspect a large reason is because the expansion of British cities wasn't 'planned' or at least not designed in the same way as in the US - whose cities are (mostly) much younger than in the UK. Additionally there'll be 'cultural' economics at play. In the UK a grid-network might not be associated with wealth/high-value and so the money that can be made selling houses on a grid-network estate is perhaps less than the meandering/bendy setup we are used to here in Britain. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While not all U.S. towns and cities laid out in rectangular blocks, two factors at work are:

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which anticipated creating several states in the region near the Great Lakes, and
The Land Ordinance of 1785, which provided a very rectangular system for surveying the land in those states.

My tongue-in-cheek explanation is that George Washington, a former surveyor who grew up in Virginia where it's apparently illegal for roads to meet at right angles, had a hand in this. You can see the effects clearly across the Midwest. Given the regular pattern for larger units like townships (six miles square)and sections (one mile square), it was easy to organize settlements along existing property boundaries. For example, Eight Mile Road, the northern boundary of Detroit, is also known as Base Line Road because it serves as a reference point for land surveys throughout Michigan's lower peninsula. But even Eight Mile varies from its "correct" path because of a stream.

I'd add that many suburbs developed in the past 30 years or so feature curving streets, cul-de-sacs, and other non-grid arrangements. As a developer in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC pointed out, in residential neighborhoods strict grids don't offer all that pleasing a view to the eye; curving streets offer greater interest and help modify the visual impact of roadways. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Victorian times in the UK, 'grid iron' layouts were popular - hence the rows of 'Coronation Street' style Victorian terraced housing in many towns and cities. Glasgow city centre is also built on a grid plan. 62.25.96.244 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hey-day of the "grid-plan" in the U.S. was probably 1750-1900. Cities which came into their own in during that time period (Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia) display quite regular grid patterns. Cities which are older (notably Boston) than that have some rather, um, "un-gridy" streets, as anyone who has tried to navigate Boston can attest. However, parts of Boston that WERE built in that time period (like Back Bay), DO show a grid layout. Grids work best for horse-and-buggy economy; with the advent of the car in the 20th cenrutry, Grids fell out of favor for the street hierarchy system and for zoning, which keeps residential, commercial, and industrial parts of a city seperate. This is all friendlier to cars by better controlling traffic flow onto a smaller number of "major" roads, and keeping high-speed traffic out of residential areas. Cities which saw their development in the 20th century, like Atlanta, Houston, and my current city, Raleigh, North Carolina ascribe to the urban sprawl method of development, and not the old "grid plan". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that New York City is six years older than Boston... Rmhermen (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute age of the city means little. The New Amsterdam of the Dutch has little remnant at all in the modern city of New York. New Amsterdam of the Dutch time period was laid out according to the Castello Plan, and aside from about half a dozen streets south of Wall Street (which at the time was the northern limit of New Amsterdam). So you could say that, for a little tiny plot of Manhattan, around the battery, there is no grid plan. However, the vast majority of the city was laid out much later, and most of the expansion of New York happened much later. Most of modern New York was laid out in a series of plans known as the Commissioners' plans. Everything north of 14th street was plotted out at that time, and most of the streets south of 14th street had been laid out in . Also see File:Grid 1811.jpg for a map of the New York city plan as it existed in the 1807 Commissioners' plan, an early draft of the final version that was passed in 1811, and which (except for Central Park) is still in place today. This article: History of New York City transportation is a helpful read as well.

The city of Boston never had a unified grid street plan, and it was mostly laid out in the 1630s and 1640s. According to our article on Boston transportation, most of the streets were laid out to follow the shorelines of the Shawmut Peninsula upon which Boston was first built. The local geography which was mostly hills, swamps, and brackish estuaries, which left little room for a real grid pattern. The "gridded" parts of Boston date to around the same time as the "gridded" parts of Manhattan; its just that by that time, there was far greater part of the Boston area settled and covered with streets already than there was in Manhattan. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the most obvious factor is that British city centers date to the Middle Ages, before they had the kind of surveying equipment and urban planning they had in the 19th century. I read once that New York considered straying from the rectangular grid system in the 19th century but stuck with it because it was easier to sell real estate in squares rather than oblong shapes. Note that nowadays, straight lines are very rare in North American residential developments, since curvy streets apparently give people the sense of exclusivity and higher property values. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - according to Bernard Cornwell (an author of fiction, but an impeccably-researched one and in this instance writing a factual article) the layout and even many of the property boundaries in Winchester date from King Alfred's time - well over a thousand years ago. PeteVerdon (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why is it felt to be a good idea? Grid plan suggests it reduces boundary arguuments and minimises road lengths. Modern British developments appear to be deliberatly curvy and non-griddy. -- SGBailey (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Manhattan grid has three advantages.

As each block is the same size, the buying, selling, and trading of real estate was greatly simplified in the era of the city's expansion northward.
As the plan was uncomplicated and straightforward, one could plan for future construction years before the work actually began. You could build with confidence that the rest of the city would expand to meet you. For example, the Dakota apartment building on Central Park West was built in lonely splendor a mile from where most construction was occuring, and thus, at less expense. In a few years, the plots around it filled in.
Thw city was, and is, host to many immigrants for whom English is not their native language. By laying out the streets in a regular grid, and numbering them, the city became instantly accessible to many who would, otherwise, have been completely lost.

B00P (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern British developments are definitely, as you say, non-gridded in almost all cases. A deviant of the road hierarchy system is in common use - Motorways for intercity traffic, dual carriageway A roads linking the former to the city centre (usually a ring road), single carriageway A roads radiating through the various districts, unclassified through roads serving individual estates and then cul de sacs off those roads that contain houses or industrial units. If you're building a town/city from scrach then a grid plan may be a good idea (ie Milton Keynes) but in existing urban areas which are not gridded then any developments have to fit in with whatever is around them.

Unlike US cities, UK towns/cities and even villages tend to have one of several different designs -

- Radial - All the main roads go out from a central point at whatever angle heads towards the road's destination (a lot of that is thanks to the Romans)

- Linear - The settlement has developed alongside a river, canal, railway or road and so tends to be longer than it is wide. 62.249.220.179 (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are lots of American cities, expecially in mountain areas, which follow that linear pattern. C.f. Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and Charleston, West Virginia; where the cities are indeed quite long and narrow, as you note, following a river course. And the radial pattern you note, well that's essentially how urban sprawl works, see Atlanta, Georgia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Boston (and love its non-griddiness), but as Jayron suggests, Boston is not the only U.S. city that is free of the oppressive order and monotonous sightlines of the grid. Citywide grids are really the exception rather than the rule east of the Mississippi and south of the Great Lakes drainage (except for Florida). Even in New York City, it is really only Midtown and Upper Manhattan that have a unified grid. Other parts of the city, such as most of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, have a more organic street pattern. Maybe it is just that the parts of the United States most likely to be visited by foreign tourists tend to have citywide grids. Marco polo (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn is more griddy than not, though there are several grids, not one throughout. (I used to live in Yonkers. I don't think there was a straight street in the entire city.) --Nricardo (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Theodolite for surveying probably facilitated grid designs. Property lines defined by natural elements like rivers, hills etc. tend to be rather unreliable. While today's advanced surveying methods make same size lots with curvy property lines possible, in former days straight lines on a map, transferred to the actual plot, would have been easiest to get each buyer the exact acerage they paid for. The disputed border between Georgia and Tennessee shows that such transfer was not always successful. (Rumor has it that the surveyors didn't fancy meeting the local native American population and surveyed a bit farther south.) As for Atlanta: The roads were designed along former cow-paths; and the cows were drunk! ;-) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that the reason for grid streets and parcels in the US circa 18-19th century had less to do with it being easier to sell the parcels and more to do with keeping surveying costs low. In those days there were vast amounts of land in America in the hands of people wishing to subdivide and sell, and not nearly enough skilled surveyers to fill the demand. Thus surveying work was costly. Grids are easier and quicker for even novice surveyors to plat out. There's more to the history of US street grids than just that, but the cost and time savings were likely a major factor. Pfly (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a response to the people talking about its origins, the Roman empire perfected the grid layout (Greece having fiddled with it previously) and built grid cities throughout the empire to demonstrate their opulence/intellect/awesomeness. Many of the cities were perfect squares, but the larger ones tending to distort with the topography. 98.122.161.31 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is cracking the knuckles/neck associated with toughness?[edit]

I do this all the time and I'm not particularly tough or manly! So what's the reason? 99.245.92.47 (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because tough muscular people find it a convenient way of drawing attention to their physique? By the way I have a colleague who is super skinny and he cracks his neck all the time. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it says: "I'm so tough that I don't expect to live long enough for the tendon damage I'm causing to myself to become a problem." SteveBaker (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest reason of all is that cracking nuckles is intimately tied in to the image of a man getting in to a fight. You know, imagine a big, tough guy, getting ready to fight someone. He jumps around and hits some air to warm up his muscles, he cracks his knuckles and puts up his dukes. That sequence has been in like a gazillion movies, thus forever associating that action with masculinity. Belisarius (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I do that all the time before fighting in Taekwondo, so the last guy was right.-Warriorscourge (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or preparing to play concert piano? Julia Rossi (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it, bub. I find playing concert piano to be very manly. Perhaps that's because I do play the piano... Or the fact that the name for a piano player is pianist... flaming lawye r^c 04:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one doubts the masculinity involved in fingering away at a 88-key bench, but why a caricature that pianists first crack their knuckles? ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's because someone who doesn't crack their knuckles or neck whould assume that it's painful, and therefore assume that anyone voluntarily inflicting pain upon themselves is a hardass.--AtTheAbyss (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a pianophile for as long as I can remember, Julia, and I can honestly say I've never heard of that stereotype. But pianists often warm their fingers up before a concert. Most often they do this by playing some exercises on a piano away from the stage. Glenn Gould used to soak his hands for some minutes in the hottest water he could tolerate. It worked for him. But then he died of a heart attack at age 50, so you never know .... -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My man takes too long to orgasm.[edit]

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

You should encourage your partner to speak to his physician or other expert about any concerns he might have; you might also ask if you can come along to participate in at least part of the discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was did not mean to ask for doctor's advice, just some ideas and links to things to read. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should perhaps, then, start with Human sexuality and follow some links from there. The only advice I can give is rather general, and to note that "different" is not always "wrong", and just because one person has a different method of participating in sexual activity does not always mean that such methods are "wrong". However, as noted, if you have a concern, please talk to your partner, and then consider contacting a professional who specializes in these issues. If there is one "wrong" thing, it is going to the internet to seek advice from random strangers!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that "This question has been removed." doesn't apply to answers ;) -hydnjo talk 02:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kippah keptah on the headah[edit]

How the heck do Jews keep them from flying off their noggins? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're held on with the horns. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They must be thoroughly attached to them. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The heads up in Comb says they're held on with combs and google says combs or clips. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what if you're bald? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit gum works. Staples, too. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what's really sad, is that I bet the standard belief in the Middle Ages was that the kippah/yarmukle existed to cover up those devil's horns. And there are bound to be some who believe it today. We mock ignorance at our peril. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question actually...there were laws decreeing that Jews must dress differently from Christians but I don't remember ever reading about yarmulkes. They are often depicted wearing a judenhut though, maybe that is the same idea. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem* The short answer is: a bobby pin, or two bobby pins.

The longer answer is: Conservative Jews don't wear them full-time (usually) and hence don't have to worry about them flying off during a basketball game. Synagogue, and other religious rituals which require a kippah aren't usually particularly hectic or head-shaking.

To be perfectly frank, go to a religious jewish wedding, watch the men dance for about 10 minutes, and you'll see kippot soaring in all directions.151.203.23.82 (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the right size, it wont fly off in a light breeze. If the breeze is heavier, you'll still be OK if you slightly tilt your head into the breeze. In a windstorm, you either hold it down with a finger, or wear a hat. Also, Scunci makes clips that work very well.

You may also find some with a button on top that conceals a thumb tack. Furthermore, my wife tells me that if I lose any more hair she will get me a velcro implant. Phil_burnstein (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Printing custom postage stamps[edit]

Is there a company that will print custom-designed, gummed postage stamps? I don't want internet generated US postage, I don't even want "real postage", I just want to design my own postage stamps and have them printed. Whenever I do online searches I get rubber stamps, real postage to print and use, etc, That's not what I want. I know that the USPS prints it's own postage and doubt they would print my custom stamps. Any ideas? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.6.82 (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in Australia I found a company that made up some proper postage stamps that had a photo of me on them. It was a gimmick for tourists, like 'send a postcard home with your own holiday snap on it'. But I'm afraid that's all the info I can give.91.111.99.97 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm betting that now that you can get actual postgae with a picture of your stupid cat on it, you're flirting with a charge of counterfeiting to make something that looks like a stamp. I googled my ass off just now and got no farther than you did. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These[1] people claim to. Oh, I see, you want ones that aren't actually for posting letters, just for putting them on hand-delivered envelopes, etc. Steewi (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2]This is what 91.111 was talking about. You get the normal stamp, but on an adjoining stamp (with a perforation between them) you get your custom stamp (usually a photo of a person, but it doesn't seem to be restricted to that). Steewi (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you do it yourself with a color printer and some special paper with either lickable glue or pull off tape on one side ? I bet hobby stores sell this. Cutting them into stamp sized portions would require a paper cutter or just some scissors, unless you want fancy edges. You'd need a special device to cut those. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a guillotine attachment that'll put fake perforation tearing down the edge of a sheet of paper. - that would let you print the stamps out yourself. There is still the matter of adhesive. SteveBaker (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for adhesive, see this. Oda Mari (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term you need to Google for is Cinderellas. 94.196.76.55 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scandalous politicians[edit]

I was reading Todd Alcott's analysis of The Dark Knight and he compares what would happen to the people of Gotham's morale of finding out Harvey Dent is Two-Face to people's reactions to a "gay-bashing senator elicit[ing] sex in airport mens' rooms, or your law-and-order governor gets caught soliciting prostitutes". Who are these politicians? Alientraveller (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Craig and Eliot Spitzer Belisarius (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Belisarius" isn't part of "Eliot Spitzer," just in case there's any confusion... · AndonicO ^Engage. 04:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]