Miscellaneous desk
< March 24	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 26 >

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 25

circle thingy in cars and dummies

I always see this in some cars and crash test dummies. The circle is divided into 4 parts, two quarters are gold/yellow while the others are black. What is it and what does it do?--121.54.2.188 (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Center of mass location markers ? Or, more generally, they can be used to note the location and rotation of any data point, as during crash studies. They are made to be highly visible so that they can be spotted in crash videos, even with dust and debris flying around. StuRat (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google agrees, calling them calibration or target stickers, saying they are used to provide motion reference points when reviewing the footage and thus helping with interpretation of severity of movement. Nanonic (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's that disc.--121.54.2.188 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found it slightly perverse that they give crash test dummies actual facial features. there's no scientific reason for it, of course. very strange... --Ludwigs2 02:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more strange if they had globular heads without any suggestion of features, in my opinion. These things are not exactly life replicas. But I do see your point. Bus stop (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to know, in a crash, what could happen to the face in particular. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second bugs - surely the facial features being notably like an average face would help to show (warning: major guess going on) say the likelihood of say your nose being broke by debris etc. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to indicate that the entire face is considered as one area, although areas of the skull are each considered as separate areas from one another and separate from the face. Bus stop (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for dummies having facial features may not be scientific. A Competitor dummy provider may have started providing dummies with facial features with same quality and no extra cost. manya (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, I'd be more liable to accept the semi-scientific reasons if there was some reason to believe that the dummy faces mimicked the physical properties of human faces. but there's no suggestion of an attempt to replicate eyes, nose, teeth, or etc in a realistic way (I suspect that dummy's nose would do more damage to the dashboard than vice-versa). knowing scientists, it may be that the first crash test dummies were featureless ball-heads, and the researchers started tacking on pictures of ex-wives, bosses, academic rivals. scientists, I swear... like children with multi-million dollar toys... --Ludwigs2 09:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bust of Nefertiti - authenticity

I read in an article in a newspaper that the famous bust of queen Nefertiti housed in a Berlin museum would in fact be a sculpture made in 1912. The claim was made by Swiss art historian Henri Stierlin. How can such a claim be substantiated and is there any research undergone to proove the authenticity of the bust? Thanks to any help you can bring me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinvillier (talk • contribs) 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted as independent question. You are probably referring to these allegiations? Study the mentioned paragraph and come back if you have further questions. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 05:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lupinis familiaris

Can African hunting dogs be bread with normal domestic dogs. Can Australian Dingo's be bread with African hunting dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the past tense of "breed" is "bred". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misspelled "passive participle". —Tamfang (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dingoes are just feral domestic dogs, so the two questions are the same. Strangely, our article doesn't say anything about whether African hunting dogs can interbreed with domestics. It seems unlikely to me, but I'll search around for a better answer. Matt Deres (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The African Hunting Dog is classified in a different genus (Lycaon) to domestic dogs (and wolves and dingos) (Canis), so interbreeding seems unlikely. DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, I agree, but not impossible. There are Gamebird hybrids that are even from different families. Our taxonomic system is far from perfect. --Tango (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, having now read a bit more on doggy creatures, their taxonomy seems to be rather scrambled. DuncanHill (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Our article on canid hybrids implies that they may be able to breed as they both have 78 chromosomes. Searches through Google books and scholar are not turning up anything definitive, but I still suspect that they likely cannot interbreed successfully. In cases like this, where the species is under a real threat of extinction, it's notable that no references provide information about the dangers from interbreeding with other canids. In fact inbreeding is a real problem at this point. If you or anyone else wishes to research further, please note that using the scientific name Lycaon pictus reduces the number of false hits on Google searches. Matt Deres (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps - I'm not sure what you mean by Lupinis familiaris. The closest thing I can find to that name is Lupinus familiaris, which is a perennial plant. Matt Deres (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I came here expecting a gardening question. DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Canis lupus familiaris" is the domestic dog ("familiar wolf", roughly translated). --Tango (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth moving this to the science desk? DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the science desk would be better suited, but I think we've actually got a pretty decent answer here already. --Tango (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

climate change

how much does smoking contribute to global warming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect not much as any carbon molocules the cigarette puts out would be carbon molecules that the tobacco plant previously removed from the atmosphere. Googlemeister (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how widely you consider the impacts. E.g. this link (http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/190/1/Tobaccos-environmental-impact.html) suggests that each year '600 million trees of forest are destroyed to provide wood to dry tobacco'. I suspect you're probably more interested in the impact of cigarette smoke on the environment (rather than the whole process) though, to which I couldn't find anything in my (admittedly short) search. ny156uk (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~One cigarette doesn't weigh much more than a gram, so presumably wouldn't produce more than a gram of smoke. Averaging fifteen a day (claimed by this site)~~ Okay, I spent a while Googling before finding this website, which claims 6 million tons of tobacco is smoked per year. This is at least something to start with, if you're just trying to find out the effect of the smoke that smoking produces. I'm not sure what to do with that number, though. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, smoking might even be good for the environment, if it kills off enough people to ease the environmental pressure caused by overpopulation. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not very useful, in the long term, if it doesn't get people before they reproduce. APL (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)~~ (Struck in view of Steve's math below.)[reply]

It does, however, kill off a lot of them before they can dip very heavily into Social Security. On the other hand, if all the previously uninsured smokers get health care now, that could negate the plusses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about climate change, not social security. APL (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Adams, very briefly covered this. Cecil Says:"U.S. smokers produce about 5,500 tons of particles and 78,500 tons of carbon monoxide annually. That sounds like a lot, but it's roughly 0.1 percent of U.S. totals for those pollutants. The real environmental issue here, in my opinion? The 357 billion cigarette butts." APL (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put things in some perspective, the Mount St. Helens article says "Over 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide were released into the atmosphere...it ejected more than 0.67 cubic miles (2.79 km3) of material." It would take a lot of cigarette smoking to approach those numbers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfur dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. (You might be thinking of noted greenhouse gas sulfur hexafluoride, but as far as I know that is not produced by volcanoes.) APL (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this question I asked back in 2006. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking US statistics (because they are available): 440,000 people die from smoking each year - and on average, a smoker cuts their lifespan by 12 years. 22.8% of adults smoke and the population of the US is 300 million people, with a life expectancy rate of around 78 years. So if 22.8% of people are living an average of 12 years less than they otherwise would - then that's equivelant to 100% of people living an average of 2.7 years longer. So if there were no smoking in the USA, there would be about 2% more people living there than there are now. (If we assume that these people are predominantly dying after reproductive ages). The US currently produces 5,800 megatonnes of CO2 per year - and assuming this is more or less proportional to the size of the population, we can say that the 2% reduction in population due to smoking deaths is saving us about 12 megatonnes of CO2 per year. If APL's numbers are right, then smokers are producing 78 ~~megatonnes~~kilotons of CO2 per year. So overall, it looks like the planet would be slightly ~~better~~worse off if people stopped smoking...at least in the USA. I ~~would~~wouldn't be surprised if that were true for the other two top CO2 producers though: China and India. Their per-capita production of CO2 is much lower - their smoking rates much higher - and their life expectancy is lower - so the numbers will be very different. SteveBaker (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I think you slipped a decimal point. I quoted 78,500 ton. I believe that is 78 kilotons. APL (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I'm sorry - you're absolutely right. In that case - you smokers keep on doing what you're doing - by dying 12 years early (on average) you're helping to save the planet. Well done! SteveBaker (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can just see the tobacco industry running ads saying "Wikipedia declares smoking to be good for the environment !", followed by handing out smokes to grade school kids to "encourage them to each do their part for the planet". StuRat (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the oldest people that have lived on the planet chain smoked from an early age till death (China) only issue i see with early death is the other crap placed into the cigs to keep it alight or change the flavour, Compared with a whole range of other pollution issues it is completly unregisterable on scale of effect for global warmingChromagnum (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

business

If you have a successful business, but decide that you do not want to have it any more, for whatever reason, eg moral, religion, etc. Can you just stop operating? can you just close down for good? what happens to your staff? eg I runa brothel in amsterdam, then have a religious experience and decide to leave the next day to live in a monistary. can I just lock the doors and walk away? If not why not. and if so, what happens to your staff etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the sole owner of a business, it is your prerogative to "shut it down", however there may be legal ramifications for doing so; for example your employees may be due severance pay if you let them go; if your business has any debt, your creditors may be due money as well. As a proprietor of a business, you have certain Fiduciary responsibilities to your employees, clients, and creditors, and if you just up and shut down the business one day, with no advance warning or preparation to do so, you may be liable to recompense various people when you do so. You may be better off selling your business to another proprietor, as it leaves you with less liability. --Jayron32 16:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this occurs in England, but over here when we decide to close down, we need to file a form with the authorities, pay your taxes and other dues (bills, etc.) and that's it. In most cases you can just stop operating and tell whatever authorities are in charge that you stopped, so they can suspend your health insurance or whatever. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even in England though, you would have to make good on any outstanding contracts or be penalized for them though correct? Googlemeister (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that comes under "pay other dues". --Tango (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is known as Liquidation#Voluntary_liquidation and you can call in a professional liquidator if you wish, who will see to all the legal things as well. --Aspro (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tango, that's what I meant by that. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, a business owner can close their doors at any time, without notice, to go live in a monastery. Legally the business must pay all of its employees what they are owed for work up to the time that the business closes. The business must also pay all money owed to its employees under any policy the business may have, including any accrued sick time and vacation time, if the business offers those things. There is no requirement to pay employees any severance, unless the company's policy says that it shall pay them severance. There is a form to send to the Secretary of State of each state in which the company does business. The business is still liable for any debts that it has incurred (like a loan from the bank, or paying off the balance of the business's credit cards), and for any contractually agreed-upon payments in the future (as in the case of the business having agreed to lease its place of business through next October). Banks, credit card companies, and landlords will be able to sue the company if these payments are not made; and they all require, in 98% of cases, a "personal guarantee" from the owners on such debts and guaranteed payments; so if the company seems to vaporize, these lenders will have a particularly easy time getting the business owner to pay. The business is also of course liable for paying all taxes incurred up to the date of closure. As for the equipment and furniture that the newly monked owner has left behind in his locked-up brothel, the contract with the landlord says that the landlord will dispose of it (which means he'll sell it for a profit) and the business has to pay for the costs of removing the furniture and equipment. Good luck in the monastery - Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if he gave away all his assets and took a vow of poverty, the bank could sue, but what could they get from it? Googlemeister (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This actually happened to me once. The brewery my husband worked for just decided to close. They sold the equipment, gave the staff a pay-off and locked the doors, having paid their debts. The proprietor was really stupid: he could have told us he wanted to quit and we would have bought the business off him, giving him more money than just selling the equipment did, because we would have bought the goodwill (which usually means the good name of the busines, customers etc.) as well as just the equipment. Basically, as long as you're solvent, pay off your obligations and you are a sole trader, you can just shut up shop and call it a day. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would have required a lack of arrogance on the owner's part. On the other hand, maybe he wasn't so good at running a business anyway. The OP's original question mentioned morals or religion, but the more likely explanations are either practical (losing money) or personal (wanting to retire). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised how being newly religious will cause some people to make drastic decisions (especially incredibly stupid ones, if they're naive enough to just blindly follow whatever their religious leaders tell them to do). 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia search box

What determines what the wikipedia search box to the left suggests? Is is recent page use? Is is graded on relevancy? As an experiment, I typed a single letter into the search box and recorded the top result. Many were fairly logical, but there were some odd ones. Here is the list.

Animal

Brazil

Canada

Departments of France --- ???

England

France

Germany

Hispanic (US Census) --- ???

India

Japan

Km^2 --- ????????

List of sovereign states

Marriage

Native American (US Census) ---???

Ontario

Poland

Quebec

Race and Ethnicity in the United States Census --- ???

Spain

The New York Times

United States

Village

World War 2

X

Yale University

Zip Code

US Census topics seem overrepresented here, which I imagine is current use, but is that how it really works? Googlemeister (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but going by that list I would guess it's some kind of PageRank-esque measurement of incoming links. Recury (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a better chance at an answer at Village Pump/Technical, perhaps. Rmhermen (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to be the most linked-to article beginning with each letter - compare the (outdated) list at Wikipedia:Most referenced articles. The ones which you have questioned are linked from widely used templates, or the census information included for pretty much everywhere in the U.S. The same trick works with numbers, symbols, etc. Warofdreams talk 15:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it that if I type in 'History' it comes up with 'History of Pomerania'? 148.197.114.158 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, history comes up before History of Pomerania. And History of Pomerania has 6679 links primarily it looks like Special:WhatLinksHere/History of Pomerania bot created ~~(I presume)~~ (User:Kotbot) articles on ~~PolishPomeranian (or perhaps it's German and Polish)~~Polish places. History has 21384 and History of China (which is third) has 4021. So I don't know why history didn't come up first in your case, maybe a temporary bug, but in my case it's following what Warofdreams suggested. The same bot BTW is now involved in creating articles on Romanian places which probably explains why Romania is fourth for R. Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turbofan helicopter?

Has there ever been any helicpters that used turbofan engines like the one in this picture?--92.251.249.90 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're looking for is probably under the heading of V/STOL. The V-22 Osprey looks kind of similar, but doesn't use turbofans. There's the EWR VJ 101, which does use turbojets, but is more plane-like than helicopter. The Bell X-22 has a superficially similar look. The Moller Skycar M400 (images) is similar as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the Command & Conquer Orca in the picture quite clearly has outboard turbofan engines, a real-life highly-manuverable aircraft with twisting nacelles would be more likely to have turboshaft engines mounted in the body connected to ducted fans via shafts, so there's less weight being slung around in the nacelles. The V-22 has its (turboprop) engines mounted outboard of the pivot, but it doesn't need to waggle them about in the way a fighter aircraft would. FiggyBee (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]