January 25

What's the normal maximum gradient in the developed world, or even better, New Zealand? Of course extremities like Baldwin Street are out of the question, but I just want to make sure if 200W is enough to power a person up at walking speed (1m s^-1). Also can anyone confirm my calculation of ignoring any resistance, 200W can power 75kg load up a 15 degree (27%) slope at 1m s^-1? --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would search www.transit.govt.nz ; they are bound to have some statistics (or at least links). Gwinva (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the Western US, any grade of 4% or steeper gets a road sign warning truckers; the standard highway grade seems to be 5% to 8%, and sustaned grades of more than 10% are only found on very minor roads. --Carnildo (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once found a page on wikipedia, about a music/audio 'phenomenon'? In this 'phenomenon', it sounds as if it's constantly descending, and it works because there are really 4 tones ( i think ) and when one reaches a lower bound, it goes back to the top. Anybody know what I'm talking about and wouldn't mind providing the proper link? Thanks. 67.174.193.69 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is Shepard_tone--TreeSmiler (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(After e/c)

Any repeated change of a given interval will eventually result in a repeating pattern; thus, if you keep moving down major thirds from C, you will reach C again two octaves later, whereupon the pattern starts over again. However, by the time the pattern starts over, the notes will be one or more octaves away from the starting point. Musically, it may be necessary to 'jump up' an octave at some point, as in the theme of the First Movement of Brahms Fourth Symphony, where the composer uses this 'broken' figure of descending thirds as the main melodic material. The article interval may help you, although it does not (as far as I see) mention this property. --MatthewLiberal (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think TreeSmiler's response was more what you were looking for -- I didn't quite understand the question -- so never mind me! Shepard tones are quite cool. --MatthewLiberal (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what it was, thanks!67.174.193.69 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever happen to be at the Exploratorium, you can hear one of these, but their version constantly ascends. It's a very impressive effect.

Atlant (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always found this a little confusing. Why when Vader Brings Luke to see the Emporer, the Emporer says "He's looking forward to completing his training", however, a short time later the Emporer tells luke to "strike him down" because he's defenseless. Then later he tells luke to kill Vader and take Vader's place as the right hand man of the Emporer. This scenario would create 3 options for Luke if he wanted to join the Dark side:

1. Give in and Join the dark side 2. Kill the Emporer and rule the Galaxy as father and son. 3. Kill Vader and become the sith lord.

So why does The Emporer want Luke to kill him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.98.148 (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without getting into all the speculation as to whether or not the Emperor had many clones of him made etc. etc., it's worth noting that the Emperor was not, in fact, defenseless, despite what he said, as he demonstrated later by zapping them both with force lightening. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That, however, does not answer the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.98.148 (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't want Luke to kill him. He wants Luke to try and kill him, because that would mean Luke giving in to his hatred, which would leave him vulnerable to the dark side. As 69.31 pointed out, the Emperor was in reality far from defenseless, and no doubt thought he could take anything Luke could throw at him. FiggyBee (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why does he then tell Luke to Kill Vader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.98.148 (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Sith only rule 2 at a time, master and apprentice. The emperor wanted to remain master and replace vadar with his more powerful son.--155.144.251.120 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What bugged me about that scene — Luke came there expecting to die (and take badguys with him). During at least part of the scene, he's standing beside a window that looks out on vacuum. So why doesn't it cross his mind to light up his phallic symbol and break the window? —Tamfang (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Death Star still shielded at the time and while it was never explained it's resonable to assume the shield will stop the atmosphere leaving even with a broken windows. Also, even without shields the Death Star was designed to be a fairly hardy ship. With an amazingly stupid flaw but still otherwise hardy. The windows were I presume designed to stand against crashing fighters, proton torpedos, laser blasts etc. I somehow doubt that the phallic symbol would be able to damage the window sufficiently to break it. It might not even penetrate it at all. It's logical to assume the window was made of some sort of extremely tough polymer probably several metres thick. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if he killed himself, the movie would have been over. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? It was due to end soon anyway – and it's not as if the only significant characters were in that room. —Tamfang (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he's the hero, I mean, George Lucas is a crappy writer and such, but he wouldn't kill the protagonist! Adam Bishop (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was still holding out hope that he would be able to 'rescue' his father. So even if he thought he could cut through the station's outer hull (the window counts as part of the hull) before Vader and the emperor could stop him, or escape, he would still be hesitant to do that because it would kill his father. APL (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to the original concepts, Vaders suit would allow him to survive in space. He was supposed to pass between his own Interceptor to the Blockade runner. Of anyone in the Star Wars arena, he therefore has the best chance of any to survive such an incident.--Koncorde (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He still needed to breathe though right? Does he carry an oxygen tank on him too? :). In any case, as noted above, I would think the emperor had some sort of defense ready just in case. Also, on another note, Vader wanted to rule with Luke at his side right? Why did Vader end up fighting him? He could have let Luke take a stab at the emperor (if it worked), or did he know that he was outmatched? (Or did he still believe A la episode 3 the emperor could bring back his wife?)--GTPoompt(talk) 01:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the engieering consultancy industry, Knowledge, tacit (mostly available in the the consultants heads) and explicit(in files, computer systems,project reports etc) is a critical asset. I am assigned to convince top management about the importance of KM in the firm

The issue is:

How can sustainable competitive advantage be attained/created/achieved by the firm developing KM practices as a corporate culture? Tkabaza (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trite I know, but the first and foremost reason for a firm such as yours to exist(assuming you are NOT a charity) is to survive - in a very competitive market place. In short - if you're not fast - you're last! And if your top management can't see or won't see that, then they're yesterday's men. Trouble is, many such dinosaurs exist long enough to take home a big fat pay-off or pension, while all around them are other hard working and ambitious colleagues trying to stay ahead, if not abreast of the competition. Oh, by the way, dinosaurs aren't always "old" - there are many stick-in-the-muds in their 20's and 30's who really should be "let go" too. Good Luck in your efforts, but being World-Class really does mean getting off your Butt and doing the Benchmarking to see whereabouts you are in the field, and if you can see any others out in front, you had better start getting fit and lean - or else!!!!81.145.241.211 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the real David Blaine, or some sort of guy making a parody of him? Is he parodying himself? What's with the "look"? Why is nobody amazed by the tricks he actually does? They just find it funny (which they are, too). But he does a lot of really awesome stunts without cuts, like making people "fly" and put on roofs, etc. Nobody seems to wonder how this is done. I don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're allowing Blaine's casual performing technique to colour your judgment. He's a conjurer with a particular and idiosyncratic approach. The normal wonderment about how he achieves his tricks still pertains. What is your evidence that "Nobody seems to wonder how this is done"? Any lack of wonderment is surely nothing more than an artifact of the way the TV programmes are edited? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is who the real David Blaine? Are you referring to a similar question t.hat was asked here on 9 January?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is the anon is referring to the series of parody videos of David Blaine (part 1 here). No, they are not real, it's just a parody.

judging by the fact that his beard is drawn on with a marker, iwould say its safe to assume hes not the real david blaine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.138 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any recommended free chess server that supports ELO rating among its users? If that's impossible, I'm willing to pay a small sum of money, too. Thanks. --Taraborn (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All chess servers I know (www.gamecolony.com is where I'm playing this very moment, games.yahoo.com is where most people go, the ICC is a popular non-free site) have some kind of rating system that resembles the Elo (not an acronym!) rating system, but for the real thing you have to play official, over-the-board games. Other chess servers I should mention are the Playchess server (for which you need to buy a copy of Fritz) and the Free Internet Chess Server. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Taraborn (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a bank gets robbed or goes bankcrupt, are my money still safe (insurace company/whatever)? If so, how long has this been the case? "Back in the day", wild west banks got robbed and your money was lost forever. These days people don't have to give a shit about the security of the bank... right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in the US, the FDIC insures accounts against insolvency, but specifically not against fraud or theft. For the latter, a bank would most likely have a policy with a private insurance company. The linked article has specific information on limits per account per institution. --LarryMac | Talk 15:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most countries offer (and require) some form of insurance on deposit accounts. Our article on deposit insurance links to many of the national and international organizations responsible for such insurance. Typically personal deposits will be insured against a bank failure up to some substantial cap (several tens of thousands or euros or dollars, at a minimum). The idea is to protect private individuals and small businesses; it's assumed that large businesses will be able to appropriately protect their cash on their own. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how do you eat a chicken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.28.189 (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pluck it, gut it, stuff it if you want, and stick it in an oven. Cook it up until it reaches an inner temperature of ~100 C. You can get thermometers to measure it at a store. Then cut it up and dig in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellum et Pax (talk • contribs) 15:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100C?? That seems excessive. --LarryMac | Talk 15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joy of Cooking recommends 170F (77C) and I've found this to be satisfactory (no bloody bird bits).

Atlant (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My meat thermometer recommends 185°F/85°C for poultry. If you use a meat thermometer, be sure to stick it into the bird's thigh, and be sure it doesn't touch the bone. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the meaning of "how". One answer could be that you have to kill it first, another that you may use your hands rather than a knife and fork, a third answer would be that you bake it and serve it with oyster sauce. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no I mean do you kill it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.28.189 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the chicken must be killed. Trying to eat it without killing it would be unpleasant and dangerous for you and more unpleasant for the chicken than being killed humanely first. Marco polo (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "how", farmers generally use decapitation; they can use special funnels or blocks that the chicken is placed in which hold the neck still. The process isn't perfect, though - just see Mike the Headless Chicken. Laïka 21:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can rely on the fact that Marco Pollo knows what he's talking about. :-) Gwinva (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mike rocks I hate chickens exept for mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.156.191 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Mike had more of a strut than a rock. His decapitation didn't appear to inhibit his gait too much. Rockpocket 07:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the overflow water drain to in the Ladybower Reservoir, as seen in this picture? xxx User:Hyper Girl 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Into the River Derwent below the dam. If you look at the reservoir in Google Earth, you can quite clearly see the two overflow inlets at the upper corners of the dam, and the outlets below. FiggyBee (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FiggyBee! xxx User:Hyper Girl 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the water goes through the 4½-mile Rivelin Tunnel. It's fun to watch it gushing out at the other end.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once a CD got corrupted when I burned it while playing a game (Windows). This was a long time ago and I think I ran Windows 98 at the time. What was the cause of this, though? The OS? The software? The hardware? Or was it just something that would've happened even if no other apps ran on the same time? I think I used Nero or something. Somebody had warned me that it would fluck up, but I didn't believe it could be that way, since it makes no sense if the OS is multi-tasking... apparently, I was wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer underrun used to be a serious risk when burning CDs; basically, the laser couldn't stop mid-burn, and if the computer couldn't pass the burner information fast enough, it would just write garbage and ruin the disk. More modern burners have buffer underrun protection and can stop the laser, so it's not as much of a problem as it used to be. FiggyBee (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The computer desk is good for this type of question. As FiggyBee said: burning a CD, especially on an old computer, requires a lot of processor power to copy the original data from the hard drive, covert it, and burn it to the disk. Playing a game also uses these resources of the computer, and the CD-R drives buffer wouldn't have gotten the data in time to burn it to the disk. Think outside the box 16:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This property where doing something in a timely fashion is part of the correctness of the system is what real-time computing is all about. General-purpose operating systems just aren't made to do it, although the problem can be alleviated with brute force (big buffers, fast processors, etc.) --Sean 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to get the question answered but here it goes.

The apparent owner of an institution that has been called a diploma mill by some authorities has a user account, user_talk:Bircham. They are understandably unhappy with the Wikipedia article Bircham International University. They have complained a number of times. The complaints have involved numerous misleading statments. However, I feel that we should still diligently investigate every point they make. Here is their most recent complaint, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bircham_International_University#Neutral_Point_of_View.3F with some responses from a couple of different editors, including me. The problem is that their points 5 & 6 require an understanding of spanish to verify. I don't know spanish. Can someone that knows spanish please investigate these points? I would really appreciate it. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also try the Spanish Wiki Embassy. --Sean 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll wait a few days and if there's no response here then I'll try there. I don't want two people working on the same thing. :-) Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help you. There's a lot of reading needed so give me an hour or so.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 00:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that back in the day, NASA used "analogue" simulators. How was this done? They apparently used video cameras and a model of the moon and the camera physically moved around with advanced, elaborate setups. Please link me to a video of this or an article or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a bit of an article about analogue flight simulators, which was where I came across analogue simulation in the mid-late 1970s. I will try to find you something more related to moon landings! SaundersW (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a chapter from NASA's history on the use of simulators in the various missions. No good diagrams though. SaundersW (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here there seems to be an account and a photo of the facility used to practice landings, which has been given national monument status. SaundersW (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this article there is a link to a photo of the Landing and Ascent facility where the camera and plaster model were located, beside the LM Mission simulator. Have fun reading all this lot! SaundersW (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know two people over the years who have gone through the process of naturalizing, my mother and grandmother. Neither of them was given the test. My mother was asked the name of Bill Clinton's dog. So I'm curious is there any discussion on how the citizenship test seems optional? From what I read, it seems to be mandatory.-128.54.77.37 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to United States nationality law#Naturalization, everyone has to take the test. It's probably not optional for the person demanding the citizenship, but the officer might be able to give the person an easier test or none at all.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took it in 2004. It was short and extremely easy; I think the hardest question was "how many branches does the US government have?". I'm a native-level English speaker and look white, so I don't know if that affected how it was administered. Perhaps if I'd had a bushy beard, he would have asked me in what order the states ratified the 12th Amendment. --Sean 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And would have rejected you if you were able to answer? Makes the most sense since the people who would know that shit would be the most likely ones who have incidious motives to be come US citizens :-P The rest would just go 'screw this shit' and go somewhere where they aren't treated like shit Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what one of your favorite words is ;) Poechalkdust (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to go and see Lytton Strachey's house, Ham Spray House (Wiltshire, England), but is it open for tourists? --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not, the grade II listed building and estate is still owned privately. Foxhill (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But many such properties which aren't regularly open to the public in the way you mean are sometimes open in other ways, for instance for one or two days a year as part of the national gardens scheme, or else for events for local groups. You could try contacting the Hungerford Historical Association - they should be able to give you an idea of any possibilities. Xn4 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have been just recently seeing human rights violation (things) such as

gender inequality

mistreatment of homosexuals

immoral acts such as adultery,rape,

child abuse

domestic violence

where can i find more about these issues?

i ACTIVELY want to work for human rights?

what shall i do? and is there any website or group i may call in pakistan (i live in pakistan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To find more about this issues, check out the articles on: Gender inequality, LGBT rights opposition, Domestic violence, adultery, Rape and Child abuse. See also Human rights in Pakistan. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have more information about Human Rights in Pakistan. I'm sorry i can't be of more help, maybe someone that knows Urdu will be able to give you more information on who to contact in Pakistan.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what are the requirements of citizenship of countries such as iran?kuwait?n other gulf states n please tell specially about iran n india? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article for Indian nationality law and i found a vague answer here for Kuwait. Here it says that it's almost impossible to become a citizen of Kuwait, specially if you are not a Muslim.

When it comes to Iran, here it says that ...foreigners might become Iranian citizens within the regulations. Their citizenship might, however, be denied once they are either accepted as citizens of another country or file an application for the citizenship of any state. The prerequisites for gaining Iranian citizenship, are:

1. The applicant should be 18 years old.

2. Five years of consecutive or alternate residence in Iran is required.

3. The applicants should have served their military service.

4. The applicants should not be convicts of any major crime or non-political offense in any country. Of course, given the revision of the nation's Penal Code and the elimination of such terms as offense and crime, Paragraph 4 of the Civil Code Article 979 should likewise be revised. It should be noted, however, that the government might refrain from granting Iranian citizenship to aliens either on account of political reasons or for the protection of national security. The admission of such applications might, therefore, require the Cabinet's approval.

Once you become an Iranian citizen, you would not have the same rights as regular Iranian citizens of descent blood (Iranian citizenship is determined by blood, not by country of birth like in the United States), you cannot practice law, become Majlis deputies or members of the Guardian Council, or provincial and urban councils as well as president.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 21:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you shoot somebody with a gun from "near", does the bullet actually make the body fly backwards, or have movies been lying to me? If not from one bullet, maybe from a machinegun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per conservation of momentum, the most a gun could push someone back (if the bullet transfers all the energy to them) is the same that it pushes back against the shooter. Notice how the shooter doesn't fly backward? Neither would the person being shot. Nearly all movie depictions of guns are silly inaccurate for this and several other reasons. Friday (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Friday above. It is also worth noting however, that even though the kinetic impact of the bullet may not push one backwards, one may still collapse to the ground due to the pain or the psychological shock of being shot. Acceptable (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the individual shooting a gun is 'prepared' for the power so their stance is likely to be stronger than someone who perhaps isn't expecting to be hit? For instance here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlFlXMHaSVQ) shows people being pushed-back by the force. Now I agree that a bullet would give a lot less push-back but I don't think it would be impossible to imagine someone being knocked back by the power of a gun-shot - though not to the dramatic extent that you see in movies/tv no doubt. ny156uk (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recoil does exist, certainly, and it's sensible that being prepared for it could make a difference. Also, someone might jump upon getting shot, making it look like the bullet pushed them around. A big factor to consider here, tho, is that the more powerful the gun, the more likely it is the bullet will zip right through a person, thus not exerting as much force on them. Friday (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have shot pistols before with my feet together, thus "not preparing" myself for the recoil and I was not pushed back at all. However, I have never fired guns with larger recoils, such as a shotgun, from this position so I wouldn't know about that. The Youtube video posted was an example of an extremely powerful catridge, the .577 T-Rex, which has almost 10 times as much energy than a standard 5.56mm NATO. Acceptable (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if the shooter was using a shotgun, like Acceptable mentioned, since the pellets are more spread out would they exert more force on the body (instead of going through it) ... possibly knocking them backwards? --72.69.145.183 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the best you can do is still limited by the force that was exerted on the shooter. And, a shotgun is pretty darn mild recoil compared to a monster cartridge like mentioned above. Friday (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add my above was pure speculation i've no idea about recoil/power, just remember having seen some you-tube vid of people being pushed-back by the power. The guys above certainly sound like they understand the effects much more than me ny156uk (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just do add a little more, suppose if a light person was wearing several layers of bulletproof vests and was shot by a powerful .50 BMG from a anti-material rifle from a point-blank range or by a 20mm round from an aircraft cannon, I think it's possible for them to be knocked over by the kinetic energy from the bullet. Of course, this is assuming that the bullet doesn't penetrate and that the multiple layers of vests will be fairly low in mass. Acceptable (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This really should have been asked on the Science Desk. But anyway, I just want to point out that the bullet's impact on the victim is not necessarily equal to the recoil in terms of force or in terms of kinetic energy. It is necessarily equal in terms of momentum — provided that the bullet does not pass through the victim and has not yet lost signficant speed due to air friction. If either of those conditions applies, then of course the momentum transferred to the victim is less.

The article on the .577 Nitro Express bullet for elephant guns cites a mass of 750 grains (about 48.6 grams) and a muzzle velocity of around 2050 ft/s (625 m/s). If the shooter is a smallish person weighing say 50 kilograms, the recoil would therefore be enough to put their whole body in motion at about 2 ft/s or 60 cm/s. In practice, of course, most of the recoil would impinge on the body parts holding the gun, delivering quite a kick — but not enough to throw the whole body backwards. Likewise for the victim, with the further note that such a large bullet at high speed would be very likely to pass through, thus reducing this particular effect. So even with a gun that big, what you see in bad movies is impossible.

--Anonymous, edited 02:25 UTC, January 26, 2008.

On generic TV cop show, generic forensic female scientist (the one in the sterile white bubble clothes) tells the generic all-knowing male detective that when shot, the body would not have arced dramatically, spun around or landed elsewhere – it would just drop. (Can't remember where or when, they all seem to run together somehow.) Sounded boring enough to be convincing at the time. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a bit late for this response, but MythBusters thoroughly debunked the "fly backwards" bit of this, all the way through the .50 cal rifle idea. Bullets were able to knock the dummy off the quick-release stand (demonstrating force transfer) but wholly unable to push the dummy backwards. Most of the position change was the result of how the dummy's knees buckled. If I recall correctly, armor plate was used with the .50 cal to ensure that it didn't pass through and instead fully transferred its momentum. In other ref-desk staple news, I'm hella excited for this week's put-an-airplane-on-a-treadmill episode! — Lomn 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are some home remedies for Poison Sumac?--76.176.130.141 (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might interest you; it would be appropriate to scroll down to the "Treatment" section. Good luck. --72.69.145.183 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How were audio tapes mass produced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When? A more specific time or time period would be helpful if you want a complete answer to this question. --72.69.145.183 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For compact cassettes Cassette duplicators were used running at ~10 times the playback speed.--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

still available! [1]--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try Loop bin duplicator. Poechalkdust (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Employer is paying JLC rates. What does it mean? Aligatorek (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JLC rates are decided by independent Joint Labour Committees (of which there are 17) comprised of worker and employee representatives. These rates are legally enforceable minimum wages for given sectors, it would appear. More information here and here. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 23:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the stated printing resolution of a printer is listed at 600 x 600 DPI, it means that there are 600 dots across and 600 dots down of ink per one inch of paper. But what does it mean when the printer is rated at 4800 x 1200 DPI? If it means that there are 4800 dots across and 1200 dots down, wouldn't the inch be stretched rectangularly? Acceptable (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inch wouldn't be stretched (the inch itself is the same length, regardless of the number of dots therein). Rather, it would have a higher resolution in a given direction. Much the same as taking an inch and marking it off in quarters, and placing an ink/pigment/toner dot there, or marking it off in sixteenths and doing the same. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what would the advantage of having more inches dots across the width than keeping both width and height the same? Acceptable (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not more inches, more dots (I can foresee an intention where I could have misunderstood you, it would have to be a fairly obtuse wording). OR, but I'd suggest that it's probably easier to boost resolution in one direction than it is in another (through the quality of motors available to feed paper/drive the head back and forth or the like) and so you achieve a higher overall resolution (in terms of dots per square inch) at the loss of symmetry. I'll do a little searching, but this could be tricky to phrase in such a way as to get useful results from a search engine! Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 00:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A search for asymmetrical resolution turned up this comment, which mentions that having a higher horizontal resolution means printed text will have more even looking vertical stems and less jagged italics. So if a manufacturer can only afford to increase resolution in one direction, it may be better for them to increase the horizontal resolution. --Bavi H (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]