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.
I plan to pedal ~90 miles from Manhattan to Lindsborg, KS. Any advice?[edit]
The longest I must've pedaled was maybe 10-15 miles. I plan on packing a bunch of drinks, and maybe some snacks.
My Gary Fisher has two baskets, and a water bottle holder. I will also wear a backpack, and the baskets will have a duffel bag and some extra water bottles and jugs.
I was told not to wear cotton; in order to release more heat, I must try another material. (What was it again? Anything that's slick, right?)
I wasn't going to even think about this until I got my new Xperia Play smartphone, which is equipped with turn-by-turn navigation. (Therefore, I'll be secure in not getting lost.)
The reasons I'm doing this is so I save money on gas (at $3.65/gallon nowadays, I have better places to put my cash) and trim my waistline.
How many pounds do I stand to lose if I pedal this long, at an average of 10 MPH? (Pedaling with a heavier load means more calories burned, after all.) I weigh 198, am about 6'0", and must fall below 182 lbs in order to no longer be overweight.
I have some spare tubes packed in the bike's spare items holder, plus some other tools just in case.
Now, what else must I make sure of in order to do this safely? When I stop at the stops along the way, what must I drink (if other than water) and what food items are best for an undertaking like this? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're serious, I would strongly advise you not to attempt this unless you have some sort of bail-out option. A person who has never ridden more than 15 miles is simply not in shape to do 90. At best you will find that somewhere around the 40 mile mark the pain you are experiencing (probably in the crotch area) will make it impossible for you to continue. Looie496 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note however that this is one of our users who is notorious for asking frivolous questions, so I suspect it isn't really serious. Looie496 (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although learning to cycle long distances may be an okay way to start to get in shape if you plan to join the Korean armed forces. Not to mention if you're really, really good at it you may be able to make money although it wouldn't be quick or easy Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you need to ramp up to that level or you will be in serious trouble midway through. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, for our non-American readers who may be familiar with Manhattan, New York, I feel I should point out that there is also a Manhattan, Kansas which the OP did not explicitly point out. Dismas|(talk) 04:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of bicycling your talking about is Bicycle touring. I strongly suggest you do not wear a backpack, it will become sweaty and uncomfortable rapidly. If you look at a touring bicycle you'll notice they try to keep the weight as low as possible; but, baskets are fine. You ought to carry tubes, a pump and tools. You also may wish to carry bicycle lights, a high visibility vest or costume with reflective bits on it (or just something white). You can check online for long distance bicycle routes that have been confirmed as safe, flat or beautiful by other bicyclists. I suggest that you start with a 20km (10mi) cycle. Then a 40km. Then an 80km. While it is possible to pedal 9 hours, you'll find your average rate of travel is less than you think. I also suggest that you wear bicycle pants if you value your inner thighs. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above. Work your way up to 90, and get padded shorts/pants. Start early in the day, morning when it is still cool for it will probably take you several hours. Don't attempt unless you are already conformable with 50 mile rides.AerobicFox (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A gel saddle-cover[1] will help ease the pain too! A simple guide to cycle touring nutrition is here. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gel saddles and covers are generally not recommended for long-distance riding. They are comfortable only for short distances. Most serious riders use padded bicycle pants and a rather firm saddle - many like Brooks saddles, although there are many more modern options. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected - I must admit to having never used one over a long distance. Alansplodge (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate a bit: Gel saddles or paddings work by distributing the pressure equally over the contact area, so that you do not have unpleasant high pressure at any particular spot. That feels comfortable. But for long-distance riding, even the lower pressure is inacceptable for sensitive parts. So you want to concentrate the force on and around the area of the sit bones, which can take it. That causes some initial discomfort if you are not used to it, but protects more sensitive areas in the long run. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a few one-day rides of 90 miles or more (in my day). I agree with everyone else that you should not carry a backpack. You need to pack your gear on the bike, preferably in panniers. Also, you don't need to and really shouldn't carry all of the water that you need for your ride. It will just weigh you down and make you work harder. You aren't crossing a desert, so you should stop along the way at gas stations and such for water. I also emphatically recommend that you train for the ride. You should get out and ride 10 or 20 miles a day after work about 3 days a week. (Go with 5-10 miles a day your first week, 10-15 miles a day your second week, and 15-20 miles a day your third week, for example.) Then on weekends, do longer rides. On your first weekend, try for 20-25 miles. On your second weekend, 30-40 miles. Do this for at least 5 and preferably 6 weeks. Finally, do at least an 80-mile practice ride (40 miles out, 40 miles back) the weekend before your planned 90-mile trip. Then you will be able to make the trip safely and enjoyably. By the way, even if you were miraculously able to ride 90 miles without any training, you would not lose 16 pounds. Maybe you would lose 2 pounds. However, if you train for 6 weeks and then ride 90 miles, while avoiding overeating, you might come close to losing 16 pounds. However, this is my nonexpert opinion, and if you want medical advice, you need to ask a doctor. Marco polo (talk)
I agree with Marco Polo. I also think you would not be able to do 90 miles in one day. It will take you two, three, or four days. So you need to plan for overnight stops. 2.97.220.135 (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you mean that someone who has never before done a 90-mile ride probably won't be able to do 90 miles in one day, not that such a feat is impossible (or necessarily even overly difficult). A quick look at Google Maps confirms the stereotype that Kansas is mostly farmland; it ought to be very easy, flat riding, and there won't be the frequent stops and delays of city traffic. While 90 miles is a long day on the bike, it's certainly not an unreasonable distance to cover if one has fair weather and an early start. There's no way to stretch the trip out to four days unless one stops for sightseeing (?!) for many hours of the day. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who has trained beforehand could do over 90 miles in a day - I know I have, but rider is not currently trained. The rider is going to get physically tired. I would expect that their mph will drop and they will run out of daylight. The rider is on a mountain bike not a racing bike. I know nothing about the area, but what may seem flat when in a car can seem hilly when cycling. Cycling against the wind can be worse than cycling up hill. 2.97.223.90 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Not SPAM) If I'm looking for some new sex positions/ideas but I find the ones that are featured as articles on Wikipedia to be either so odd so as to be ridiculous or so similar to one another so as to be altogether worthless, where can I go to find others? Perhaps someone can suggest things I can look up? 173.54.197.75 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go find a copy of this Kama Sutra, some are a little acrobatic, but the attempt can be almost as fun, lol. Heiro 05:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an adult bookstore near you? They'd likely have a book or position-of-the-day calendar. Just thumbing through the book in the store may be enough of an inspiration. Dismas|(talk) 06:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no new sex positions. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We tried something once that was incredibly strenuous and left us dizzy and light-headed. Turned out the page was printed upside down. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most people would not have run the Marathon of Mounting or climbed the Parnassus of Polyerotic Passion, Cuddlyable3. The OP clearly has not, and wants some ideas he/she hasn't tried yet. If you've tried every possible sex position, you deserve a medal or something. Here, have a whisky, you must be shagged out (probably literally). On second thoughts, you'd probably prefer something soft rather than a stiff drink, after all your exertions. :) -- Jack of Oz[your turn] 12:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ref deskers, I am planning a road trip. In a couple of weeks my girlfriend and I will be driving from Long Island up towards Vermont. Right now the itinerary for this 5 (ish) day trip is pretty open. We plan on staying in the Burlington area for at least a couple of days and would like to make it over to the Maine coast at some point, but aside from that we are open to pretty much anything. For I time I was set on going to Montreal as I have never been to Canada, but I've been told that it doesn't have much that Manhattan (Where she lives and I will be staying for a month or so) doesn't. We are both interested in landscapes (I have a particular interest in post industrial ruins and what not) and like hiking/walking (I don't care for steep climbs, but she's in better shape, so I might have to keep up in a sweaty, wheezy way). I also like good twisty roads to drive on, although we wont be in a serious car. If anyone has any kinds of recommendations either for nice places to stay (less than $150 a night) or unusual cool things to do I would be very interested in hearing about them. Thanks!--Daniel 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I live near Burlington. How are you planning on getting to Maine? If you're taking I-89 from B'ton, then you could take it as far as Montpelier and then get on Rt. 2. Between Montpelier and St. Johnsbury is very scenic. There's the Fairbanks Museum in St. Johnsbury, if you're into that kind of thing. If you like dogs, then there's also Dog Mountain in St. J. It's the studio of the late Stephen Huneck. He was an avid fan of dogs and used them in his artwork extensively. Heading over to New Hampshire, though it's way off the interstate, there is Mount Washington. Even a non-serious (whatever that is) car should be able to make it up to the top. Where in Maine are you going? Knowing that and how you plan to get there (interstate, state routes, etc), I could advise a bit better. Do you need recommendations on things to do in B'ton? Dismas|(talk) 06:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you drive to the top of Mt. Washington, you can park there and do some fairly easy hikes with spectacular views over the White Mountains. That way, your car does the steep uphill part for you. If you are going to head for the Maine coast, I strongly recommend Acadia National Park, which in my opinion has the most beautiful natural landscape on the east coast. There, too, you can do some easy but very scenic hikes if you park in one of the higher-altitude lots. Northern New England doesn't have so much in the way of post-industrial ruins, though you can see old, abandoned brick mills (factories) in towns like Skowhegan and Waterville, Maine. If you are looking for post-industrial ruins, you might want to make stops farther south on your way back in cities like Manchester, New Hampshire or Lawrence, Massachusetts. By the way, I live near Boston, for what that's worth. Marco polo (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-industrial ruins, you say? A Google search for 'Vermont Urban Exploration' turns up a lot of good hints. There are a couple of abandoned places that look promising, but also a couple that look a little dangerous. Foofish (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you like great natural views with a relatively easy hike, let me recommend the Flume Gorge in Franconia Notch (See [2]). Also, if you are heading across New Hampshire, you really can't get a better, more scenic drive than the Kancamagus Highway. Lots of great pull-offs, scenic vistas. Beautiful stuff. Also, if your going to be in the area of Franconia Notch anyways (essentially Lincoln, New Hampshire and Woodstock, New Hampshire) I'd also recommend Clark's Trading Post (see [3]). Great, kitschy roadside attraction stuff. They have some shows (trained Black Bears, Chinese Acrobats, that kind of stuff) and a bunch of other Americana type attractions, old motorcycles and cars, cool stuff like that. Worth a stop for a few hours. --Jayron32 03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For great reading material about Vermont there is E. Annie Proulx's Postcards (novel). It is a story spanning the United States but centrally featuring Vermont set in mid twentieth century. Bus stop (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The key here may be the statement that "urban population describes the percentage of the total population living in urban areas, as defined by the country" (my emphasis). Different countries may simply use radically different definitions, which would make the list virtually valueless. As Colapeninsula rightly says below. Oops. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland and Austria are largely rural, with low population densities (see List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density) - the west of Ireland is largely undeveloped, and the west of Austria is the Alps. Why Japan is so low on the urbanization list is a mystery to me, as its population density is very high, the country is intensively developed, and I don't believe there's much countryside.
NationMaster, which has similar figures for urbanization by country, says that the definition of urbanization varies from country to country: "Urban-rural classification of population in internationally published statistics follows the national census definition, which differs from one country or area to another. National definitions are usually based on criteria that may include any of the following: size of population in a locality, population density, distance between built-up areas, predominant type of economic activity, legal or administrative boundaries and urban characteristics such as specific services and facilities." [4] So it is possible that Japan uses a very different criterion; the figures for different nations can't be directly compared because they're not using the same measure of urbanization. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The terrain of Ireland is not conducive to building large cities, being either very coastal or quite rough, boggy and/or rocky. What land there is, is good farming land. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Japan's commitment to conserving its undeveloped spaces has been noted by several folks (I'm positive Jared Diamond mentioned it at length, though I'm not sure whether it was in Collapse or something else). The short answer is: they've chosen to value those areas and so haven't allowed them to be developed, instead preferring to build vertically. It's a little bit like New York state, where New York City is obviously intensely urbanized, but large areas are left wild and/or rural. Matt Deres (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A clue to this puzzle could be at Agriculture, forestry, and fishing in Japan: "Only 15% of Japan's land is suitable for cultivation... Employment in agriculture... was still the largest employer (about 50 % of the work force) by the end of World War II. It (had) declined to 7.2% in 1988." The equivelant figure in the UK is 71% of land under cultivation and 1.6% of the population employed in agriculture. But in Japan we learn that "In the late 1980s, 85.5% of Japan's farmers were also engaged in occupations outside of farming.." So most Japanese farmers have second jobs but make it look as though the countryside is full of farmers. Also, up to 85% of Japan must be mountainous and have a very small population. Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scene from Kitaadachi-gun, a "rural" area in Japan As others have suggested, it seems that Japan has an anomalous way of defining urban and rural areas. According to this note from Japan's statistical bureau, urban areas are those that are defined administratively as shi, probably also including Tokyo, which has its own unique adminstrative status. According to our article, a place must have a minimum population of 50,000 (or 30,000 under special circumstances) to qualify as an urban area (shi) in Japan. By contrast, in the United States, a place with more than 2,500 inhabitants is considered urban. All gun, or districts not designated as cities, are considered rural. These rural areas include places such as Kitaadachi-gun, which has a population of about 37,000 and a population density of about 2,500 per square kilometer (or about 6,450 per square mile). It is 30 miles from central Tokyo in a patchwork landscape of dense industrial and residential development and scattered farmed plots. This "rural" area is twice as densely populated as, for example, Phoenix, Arizona. So, Japan's definition of urban and rural areas overstates its rural population compared to other countries. Marco polo (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of something Freddie Prinze once said: That his father came from a large European city, population 3 million; while his mother came from a small Puerto Rican village, population also 3 million. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland was once quite densely populated, but what with all the plague, the famines, our invading every few years, most of them moving to Liverpool or America, there are hardly any left now. Meanwhile, it seems Japan has such densely populated inner city areas that to them anywhere suburban seems empty and rural. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. "Many young men of 20 said goodbye..." And this from Finian's Rainbow: Finian - What does America have more of than Ireland? Sharon - Irishmen! ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, thanks to the outsourcing phenomenon, Ireland has become more prosperous, hence skewing the numbers compared with what they once were. Japan is more like Freddie Prinze's Puerto Rico scenario. That's true in the US as well. Truly rural folks think of a city of 50,000 as large. Truly urban folks think of a city of 50,000 as small. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A" is known by means of "B" , therefore "B" is the cause of "A"
Example: We know of person X's death from the newspaper. Gosh, those reporters need to stop killing people!
2.
"A" is known by means of knowledge of "B" , therefore "B" is the cause of "A"
Example: The energy released in a nuclear reaction can be determined by measuring the mass deficit. Therefore the mass deficit explains the occurrence of the reaction.
"Wrong direction" might be close, although it doesn't really capture the "known by means of" aspect ("shooting the messenger" probably handles that one, though it's not usually considered a logical fallacy). -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a fun question to invent a fake answer for. I'd like the name "tabloid fallacy" if I were making it up. i kan reed (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Russians so good at chess? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to find a country without good chess players... they just had more active players... Cantankerous giganticus (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviet Union included chess as one of their "mass participation" sports (massovost) which were highly encouraged at all levels of education, highly coordinated centrally, and sought to identify and cultivate exceptional talent very early on (gymnastics was another such sport). (Why? Because Lenin personally thought chess improved the mind, helped people think tactically, and that otherwise it would be the sort of thing that a "new Soviet man" ought to be good at.) The result is that when this system was applied to the large and varied population of the USSR, they were able to find great numbers of exceptional talent — talent that, under other regimes, might have gone unnoticed or unencouraged. I don't know much about how Soviet chess suffered after the collapse of the USSR, but I wouldn't be surprised if either it suffered, or if the system persisted. Either way, though, the fact that chess is a major part of Russian education and popular life (as opposed to the United States, where it is considered a game for "nerds" and old people) would lead one to expect that identifying expert chess players would continue to persist to some degree, at least when compared to places like the US. (I think it should be obvious, but there is absolutely zero reason to suspect Russian historical dominance in chess has anything to do with innate ability.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Mr98 says is certainly the primary reason: it's encouraged there (same reason most great football players come from the U.S.) Maybe the more interesting question, do we have any insight into Stalin's encouragement of chess, and did it begin before Stalin? Is there something about chess and Russian culture that predates it? Shadowjams (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The (American) football claim is not true with a straight link to football, where nearly all of the best players come from outside the U.S! That was a poor analogy, since Russian chess is the same game as American chess. Dbfirs 07:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The straight football link takes you (quite properly) to a page that describes football in general, which is a rather diverse collection of sports. I think it would be fairly difficult to judge who the "best" players are at football in general. How do you compare Joe Montana to Pelé, for example? --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. That's why I was commenting on the poor analogy. Dbfirs 21:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How insensitive of me... if only i'd provided a piped link to the American Football article....... OH WAIT I DID. But feel free to continue to use this thread to make whatever point about U.S. imperialism or whatever. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did say 'where nearly all of the best players come from outside the U.S' which could be taken to imply some comparison was made. I guess you could just take say the top 0.01% of each players of each code and go by sheer numbers, but some would question whether even the tiny number of Ba game players you'd select should be put in a group with the top 0.01% of association football and American football players. (Well you may be able to get around this by selecting the top 0.001% or even lower of players since you'll probably be selecting at most a few tenths of a player that way meaning you probably shouldn't select anyone.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken! I withdraw the comparison. I should have written "nearly all of the best football players come from outside the U.S.", which is another unfair comparison. Dbfirs 13:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely began before Stalin — Alexander Ilyin-Genevsky was apparently the main force behind encouraging Soviet chess, with Lenin's blessing. More curious to me is what happened to Soviet chess once Stalin started persecuting old Bolsheviks (including Ilyin-Genevsky) and everything associated with them. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that many of the grandmasters from the USSR and the former Soviet Union were Jewish or of Jewish ancestry, including Garry Kasparov (born Garry Weinstein). Chess goes well with the bookish, intellectual side of Jewish culture, and you can play it on the sabbath. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if anyone is aware of research or studies regarding decision making. I was wondering if you had say 10 clones of someone and put each into the same situation individually, if you could expect them to always make the same decision. Also on top of that, if the clones were aware of each other, would that affect their decision making. I guess this has kind of a sci-fi bent to it, so if anyone is aware of movies or stories that have dealt with the situation, that would be cool too. Thanks! 129.128.216.107 (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume these "clones" would have be insta-clones, preprogrammed with exactly the same memories as you. Otherwise it's really a very different question. - Jarry1250[Weasel?Discuss.] 22:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also Determinism, the metaphysical notion that if you rewound the world and pressed "play" it would turn out exactly the same (i.e. that a clone would make the same choices a million times in a row); and indeterminism, the idea that you would make different choices even if presented with the same options (i.e. saying that a clone would make different choices). Some interesting studies are linked (or should be) from those pages. Just another angle to consider :) Regards, - Jarry1250[Weasel?Discuss.] 22:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of any empirical studies on this topic are due to the fact that it would require science fiction technology (setting up identical clones with identical brainstates) to carry out. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is a trope of SciFi tho. Can we say Neo? Heiro 06:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I heard of this weapon once, which sounded like guitar... anyone know what it is? I asked my dm and he said it was pronounced "katar" Cantankerous giganticus (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a katara. It's called a "katar" in serveral D&D-like games - I know in Diablo 2 the assassin character uses a katar. Avicennasis @ 23:26, 28 Iyar 5771 / 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Er that's about katanas not kataras Nil Einne (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the katara, though I'm not quite sure... I'm sure it wasn't a katana. Thanks for the help! Cantankerous giganticus (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can I write Arabian-style music for the desert level in a video game that I'm making? What styles, rhythms, etc. are common in Arabian music? The standard MIDI filter doesn't appear to have any Arabian instruments, so what Western instruments can I use to best approximate them? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather broad topic. The Arabic music article should get you started. One difficulty you're likely to encounter is that many MIDI systems are just designed to handle 12-tone equal temperament, so they can't handle the Arab tone system except for hardware and software that supports the MIDI Tuning Standard. Red Act (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it often just use the Western harmonic minor? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some maqams that don't include quarter tones, such as the Nahawand, can be performed on 12-TET instruments, although there are microtonal details of the maqam that are lost in the process; see Arabian maqam#Intonation. Red Act (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually had this exact problem before. I think it's more important to sound like what western listeners think arabian music sounds like than the real thing for desertish music. This means a lot of smooth, stepwise wind panflutelike instruments. Skipwise variations work better on your way down a scale than up. Harmonize with something buzzing and stringy, like a dulcimer. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the scale I've found is best for this. My experience was to go with a really simple chord progression like i-iv, but that's just because I wanted to focus on getting the basics right. I'm not sure its necessary. Also, video game music has some special constraints, it's important to check out games that have done this well. If I wasn't at work, I'd find some copyright infringing youtube videos of some of the best simple desert music. The neverwinter nights expansion: "Shadows of Undrentide" did very well at this in my opinion. Also, you can't miss sands of time series, as the battle themes there catch the feel of tense arabian music quite well. And since I'm hocking my own ridiculous ideas here, you can get an impression of how amateur I am at this from the music I made myselfhere(GPL). It's short, but I only had a week to do about 12 songs for that game. i kan reed (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the cost of establishing an university in the US? --999Zot (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if there's any minimum. However:
1) Getting accreditation likely costs a fair amount of money, as their minimum requirements would force you to build certain facilities.
2) A brick-and-mortar university, as opposed to an Internet-only one, is likely to be more expensive to set up.
3) Buying a failing university is probably the quickest way, and possible the cheapest way, to get your own. StuRat (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably comparable to the cost of building a think tank. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you combine the two you must have some cost savings Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be far more expensive than a think tank. You can have a very small think tank and it could still be worth having. A university needs to be much larger, since you need to be able to provide for students. --Tango (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to all that you'd have to actually aquire some research/teaching talent. Even in "overfilled" markets like the English or History, PhD's don't come cheap. Your yearly costs would very very quickly outpace any initial invetment costs. i kan reed (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the US at the moment you can hire �a new PhD in History for ~$35-50K. Not cheap but not exactly expensive for that level of education. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't exactly staff your university with nothing but post-docs either. Morever, as I implied, history is one of the very cheapest fields to pull staff for. i kan reed (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are the internet, how about an on-line university? DOR (HK) (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drexel University, which is situated in Philadelphia, opened a new campus in Sacramento, California. Did it have to get new accreditation for the new campus, or does the new campus inherit the accreditation of the original school? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accreditation in the US is done by one of 6 different Regional accreditation bodies. Only the school itself needs to get accreditation, not each campus. As an example, Phoenix University hold accreditation from only one these, despite having campuses everywhere.Avicennasis @ 17:09, 2 Sivan 5771 / 4 June 2011 (UTC)
