Miscellaneous desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

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 16[edit]

Oil drilling preparation[edit]

Without excluding the time needed for governmental and environmental regulations, how long does an oil company spend preparing to drill in a site once it has singled out it's spot?--LastLived 02:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which country? Offshore or land based? Regulations and their timescales will likely be quite variable with country, and both technical and legal considerations are probably different for offshore vs. land based sites. Also, by "singled out its spot" do you mean "selected a spot for exploratory drilling", or "definitely found oil and preparing to put a full rig in place". Sorry to respond to your question with more questions, but we will probably need more information before we can give you any specific numbers - if you don't mind which situation say so and people can then either give you general timescales, or whichever specific situation they happen to know/find out about. 131.111.185.69 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the US; and that the co. has definately found oil.--LastLived 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 2nd thought, i don't really mind the situation.--LastLived 04:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any aid for shooting big loads[edit]

like the .458_Winchester_Magnum? Like a pad for the shoulder or vest? --Quest09 (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recoil buffer? --Mr.98 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double-ace straight[edit]

Alice and Bob are playing wild-card poker. Alice has A♣ K♣ Q♦ J♦ J; Bob has A♥ K♥ Q♠ J♠ 10♠. My question: Who has the higher hand? --84.61.135.112 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under standard rules, it's a tie. You can't play the Joker more than once. PhGustaf (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, usually it would be a tie. Some people play that natural hands beat ones with wild cards in. There is no way you could have a straight with two aces. --Tango (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are double-ace straights not allowed in wild-card poker, even if double-ace flushes are allowed? --84.61.135.112 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, double-Ace flushes count only in some home games. See Wild card (card games). Second, you can play only one hand, and a card can't be an Ace and a Jack at the same time. I'm talking about more or less standard rules here; the kind one might find in a cardroom. People play all sorts of weird rules in kitchen-table games, PhGustaf (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A hand with two of the same number in it simply isn't a straight. A straight is 5 consecutive cards. --Tango (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a common rule to play wild-card poker with both double-ace flushes and double-ace straights? --84.61.135.112 (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never have in any games I have played, and I have played a lot of poker. Home rules are about as various as homes, so I am sure that some people do, but I never have in multiple decades playing poker regularly. If we play wilds, the ONLY non-natural hand a wild could make is a "Five of a kind". For example, the hand A♣ Q♣ 9♣ 8♣ J and A♦ K♦ Q♦ 9♦ 8♦ are identical in any game i have played; the joker in the first case would play as a King of Clubs, and thus the hands would tie. In the case of a straight, the wild can only count as a card not in the straight, thus the two hands cited above would be identical. In a few games, I have played where natural beats wild, so the second hand would win. I have never played a game where the first would win outright. If you asked me, I would count the two hands as a tie, and the players would split the pot. --Jayron32 20:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is on the money. The last casino game to use a wild card is lowball; five-card A-5 low draw with the Joker playing as the lowest card not already in the hand. Since straights and flushes don't matter in this game, there are no issues about them. (The game is almost extinct in cardrooms now. You used to be able to spot a lowball table by looking for one full of white guys over 60.) When high draw was played (as far as I know, it's totally extinct), the Joker could play as an Ace, or a card to complete a straight or a flush. Five Aces were possible, but AA flushes and straights were not.

I get the feeling that the OP is trying to resolve a dispute about a home game. The resolution won't happen. Home games are played by house rules, which can be weird. In principle, the eccentricities of home games should be explained to new players, but this is hard because the players often don't know their rules are eccentric: "We've always played it that way!". If you lost a pot because of a misunderstanding, it's just something that happens. PhGustaf (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the number one rule about home games is always "no hard feelings". In home games, you're playing with your buddies, and it should be for fun. Generally, in the case of disputed hands, the two most important rules in home games is a) the cards talk (you can't lose because you misread your own hand) and b) in the case of a genuine dispute, where the rules aren't clear, always arrive at a neutral solution. Either split the pot, or roll over the pot for a new hand, with the ambiguous rule resolved. A player who plays in good faith should not lose a pot for not knowing the house rules. The worst home game I ever played in, checkbooks came out. Several guys who played in the game were never on speaking terms again. You don't want that. It should be about enjoying the game, and its pointless to let one hand spoil the whole night. Instead, set the rule, and say "OK, lets just call this a draw, but from now on, here's how it works..." or something like that. --Jayron32 02:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The cards talk" (or "speak") is a standard rule, rather than a house rule, as far as I know. --Tango (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. In fact, in a cardroom, the dealer is responsible for looking at the exposed hands and announcing the winner. If a players hasn't physically folded his cards, he wins if he has the best hand even if he's said, "I lose". (In fact, beginners, especially at Omaha, are well advised to show their hands even if they think they've lost. They may have won and not noticed. PhGustaf (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marble dropping mystery[edit]

Does enwiki have an article about a phenomenon called "marble dropping mystery"? Does the phenomenon have been researched in the western world? (The mystery is about a voice that sounds like somebody was dropping glass marbles or dragging furnitures on the floor.) luuva (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but see the ghost, haunted house, and paranormal articles. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those kinds of short, percussive sounds are commonly produced by objects that are cooling down - you can hear them (for example) for several minutes when you turn off the engine of your car. My guess is that the reason you hear them in the evening is that the building has been heated during the day and cools off in the evening. Also, during the day, when everyone is quite active - there is a lot more ambient noise, making it harder to hear these small, subtle sounds - so they are only noticable when everything is very calm and quiet. The cause of the sound is that as structures cool, some parts do so at different rates to others so as they contract, two components will stay together until the strain becomes too large and there is a brief slippage of one against the other. The precise nature of the sound will depend on the type of structure and the rate of cooling. SteveBaker (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This happens at my house almost every night. I live in a post and beam house and as the temperature cools down at dusk, the beams start making cracking noises. The person who we bought the house from called it "the house talking". Most of the cracks are rather soft but every so often they can get quite loud. During the day they aren't as noticeable due to other ambient noises but they do happen. Dismas|^(talk) 23:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. There is also an insect, called Death watch beetle (seriously!) that taps on wooden surfaces at night, fairly loud, to attract mates. Sounds more like a woodpecker than like a marble-drop, though. --Dr Dima (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A more general term is "the house settling". Since it's random and often momentary, and thus can't be tracked to its source, it's not surprising that superstitious types might attribute it to spooks. In fact, in the still of the night, it can be a little "unsettling". One possible solution, if such noises bother you, are to run your CD player on "continuous" and play something soft, like white noise, that you can sleep to and which will hopefully drown out most of the random sounds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our flat roof during a deep freeze will crack so loudly that anyone in the room below will jump. Pipes in the house also ping as liquid in them warms or cools. Bielle (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of "background noises" that get picked up by a small proportion of people. For example, the Taos Hum is centered around a small location where a large percentage of residents hear the hum. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easyjet luggage[edit]

The easyjet booking form is confusing in the extreme. Does anyone know what their luggage policy is? It reads as though "one piece of hand luggage smaller than 56 * 45 * 25cm and less than 20kg" (and no sharps or liquids) is allowed. Then they talk about hold luggage. Is "one small hand baggage plus one hold baggage <20kg" included in the ticket or is that one hold bag already "extra baggage"? I'm very confused. -- SGBailey (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to pay extra for any hold baggage on easyjet, and most other budget airlines. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, they don't have any weight restrictions on hand luggage, only the dimension restrictions which you've mentioned. As for hold luggage, you have to pay extra for each item. From memory, I have a feeling that when you do the booking, they automatically add and charge you for one piece of hold luggage for each person - you can remove it, and this will remove the extra charge. 203.208.110.63 (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't true the last time I booked an EasyJet flight (a couple of weeks ago): the default was no hold baggage. Cynics might say that this increases the chances that you'll forget to pre-pay and have to pay a higher (double) rate when you turn up at the airport. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tapioca pudding[edit]

I can not seem to find instant tapioca pudding in my local (Midwestern US) shopping facilities. Is that because there is not a large enough market for it to sell well, or is there a different reason (health concerns?) that requires this type of pudding to be cooked? Googlemeister (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can get canned (eg.) in ready-to-eat snack packs (eg) and mixes eg and [1]). Where are you shopping? Gwinva (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the mixes you linked require cooking, which does not meet Googlemeister's request. I did a lot of searching when I saw this question and could not find any type of tapioca mix that did not require cooking. There are "quick" versions, but nothing instant. I also could not find any specific discussion of why this was the case, however I assume that cooking has some effect on the starch. --LarryMac | Talk 15:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how can you have instant tapioca pudding mix? You can't really have dry mix and wet tapiocas in the same container. You might be able to find tapioca cooked, and put it in vanilla pudding though? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who had school dinners in the UK before about 1980 will remember it (less than fondly) as "frog-spawn pud". Alansplodge (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Maple Tree[edit]

After numerous searches, I believe I have a red maple tree at the end of my garden. This tree is approximately 14m high and was here before any properties were built. I am now receiving complaints from a property that was built in the last twenty years, well after mine, as to the sunlight that is blocked from their rear garden. Is their any environmental / conservation / legal rites that will ensure that my tree is protected? Location is North Wales, United Kingdom Maplemonster (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, we cannot give legal advice, so any answers given here should be taken as informative but not definitive. That said, the tree may already be a subject of a Tree Preservation Order, or otherwise protected (for example, by being in a conservation area, or by being over a particular circumference). Your local council should have a Tree Officer who can give you advice and information about both the legal position of your tree, and caring for it to keep it healthy. Your local Citizens Advice Bureau can give you advice about disputes with your neighbour. DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess advice from East Cheshire council is probably typical. They say [2] "Many people are aware of the ancient and prescriptive ‘right-to-light’, but this only relates to loss of light over a considerable period of time and in certain specific circumstances. Where trees are concerned, there is no ‘right-to-light’ and owners of trees are not required or obliged in respect of any law to prune any tree – including those located in the highway - for the benefit of a neighbour’s level of light. However, the common law position still applies; i.e. neighbours can take their own action at their own expense to cut overhanging branches over their land". --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Right to light article says: "In effect, the owner of a building with windows that have received natural daylight for 20 years or more is entitled to forbid any construction or other obstruction that would deprive him or her of that illumination. Neighbours cannot build anything that would block the light without permission.". So if your tree has grown since their house was built such as to block their light when they previously had light - then they may have a legal case. If your tree has been that roughly that size since before their house was built - then they probably have no such right. So the question comes down to whether the tree has grown significantly since their house was built. But the law also says that they must have had benefit of that light for 20 years - if their house is indeed less than 20 years old - then they don't have a claim. But you really need to talk to a solicitor - we can't advise you on what to do in such situations. SteveBaker (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta say though - having firmly established with your neighbour that you are in the right, legally speaking, you should probably offer an olive branch here (actually - that's a terrible idea - keep branches of all kinds firmly out of the discussion!). It is pretty miserable having your garden overshadowed - and (from your perspective) it's totally miserable to be at war with your neighbours. Perhaps you can come to some kind of a deal. You shouldn't have to be inconvenienced - but perhaps you can be more flexible. Maybe you'd consider letting your neighbour pay for the tree removal and have them agree to pay to have a smaller tree professionally planted in its place. This may be to your advantage if the tree is very old. Also, when branches fall off of the tree on their side of the fence, they are legally entitled to toss them back over into your back yard...arguments with neighbours can get WAY out of hand! Also, Red Maples live for 150 years - if yours is close to that then you will someday be forced to pay for its removal yourself - and this might just save you a packet in the longer term if the tree is close to the end of its life. SteveBaker (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tree can't be that old if the tree is still growing to the extent that what seemed like a reasonable garden location a few years ago is now overshadowed.

(Unless the neighbors intentionally built in the shade with the intention of harassing their neighbor to 'fix' it.) APL (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love trees and hate the people who chop them down - politely tell them the tree is going to stay. Ask the council for a tree preservation order to safeguard the trees future. I hate these prairie gardens with zero privacy - if I was in charge I would legally regire every garden to have a 2+ metre wall or hedge around them. 92.29.150.112 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]