May 23

Is it safe to assume that mixed martial artists such as Ken Shamrock or Tito Ortiz would find success in an unarmed street or bar fight? In other words, are the combative skills required in mixed martial arts transferable onto a real-life unarmed "street" confrontation scenario? Acceptable (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain that I understand the question. Is it true that your question could be rephrased: Is it safe to assume that people who make their living by beating the crap out of people could beat the crap out of people? Or are you asking whether UFC is fake? Tempshill (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is quite clear, although it does kind of answer itself. Yes MMA fighters are good at fighting, I've seen it happen.Popcorn II (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is a genuine streetfighter is damn good at improvising a weapon at once,pool cue,broken bottle etc ,that they don't stay unarmed for long.OR but I saw a martial artist left bleeding on the floor in about 1/2 minits by a biker used to fighting for real not show 88.96.226.6 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, martial arts such as Tae Kwon Do and Karate are not practical in a self-defense scenario. Even during sparring competitions, the rules are somewhat rigid and not at all realistic as to what one would do on the streets. Therefore, someone who is excellent at TKD may not be good at defending themself against a real attacker. However, would UFC fighters fare better? Acceptable (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference comes about because the martial artist is accustomed to fighting within the confines of the rules - where a streetfighter pretty much has no rules. If the discipline that the martial artist follows has strict rules - then they may do very badly - but if they have few rules, then it's going to be more likely that their experience and training would allow them to beat the streetfighter. It's hard to know the degree to which this effect matters. SteveBaker (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one move that is by far the most effective move in a real fight but doesn't appear (legally, anyway) in any martial art - the sucker punch. The best way to win a fight is not to get in one in the first place, disabling your opponent before they can do anything is a very good way of doing that. (Of course, if you want to be able to claim self-defence in court, you need to wait until you can reasonably claim that you thought an attack was imminent. Some jurisdictions may have additional requirements as well.) --Tango (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have 30 years of martial arts experience in five different art forms (both striking and grappling). Personally, I'll put my money on the streetfighter most often for all of the reasons noted above (streetfighters can improvise, don't follow rules, etc.) but also because most professional martial artists can't fight more than one opponent at a time! Even the great Royce Gracie would get a major thumping on the street bacause odds are that the streetfighter's buddies will join in! In the case of multiple attackers, I would think that the striker (karate, Tae Kwon Do, Kung Fu, etc.) would likely fare better than the grappler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.185.91 (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I tend to focus on the martial artist as an individual (i.e. his or her individual skills) rather than one art being "superior" to another, I would suggest that the Isreali art of Krav Maga might be the best. It is designed for real world situations including multiple attackers . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.185.91 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading our articles on the Bering Strait bridge and Strait of Gibraltar crossing has got me wondering. Should crossings like these be built, how long would it take to drive through all five linked continents (i.e. no Australasia) – say, from Cape Town to Cape Horn? I appreciate how hypothetical this is – and that there are a kabillion factors to consider – but Google Earth didn't want to help me! This document seems to suggest that such a trip would take a little over a year, but it also seems a little speculative. Cycle~ (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what factors should be considered that may hinder such a journey (politics etc – not just having a vehicle that's up to it!). Cycle~ (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you could drive all around the earth at the equator, you'd have to drive 24,800 miles - with good roads you could probably do 500 miles a day (50mph - 10 hours a day) - so roughly two months. I doubt your transcontinental journey is significantly more than that...so definitely not a year. SteveBaker (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes good roads all the way, though. It only needs one bad 1000 mile stretch to significantly slow the journey - if you could only manage 120 miles per day on that it would increase your time by over a week. You've also got to consider that while 500 miles per day sounds feasible (and is on short trips), on long trips it would be serious wear and tear on both the vehicle and drivers. The longest road trip I've ever done was 4000 miles and two weeks - and I doubt that either the vehicle or those involved would have survived anything quicker. I'd say that 200-250 miles per day is a more practical figure to work from, which would make for a four month journey - more if you want to do any real sightseeing. Grutness...wha? 02:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the real world, as of now, even on land there are obstacles like the Darién Gap.John Z (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some long road trips myself, I can tell you that 500 miles a day, day after day, would be an absolutely punishing schedule even on reasonably good roads. You would quickly fall a long way behind schedule. 150 miles a day is a more realistic pace, enabling you to see something of the country/state you were passing through, stopping for food, take the smaller roads rather than the major highways.

War torn areas are probably avoidable but you might encounter bandits who will be only too happy to rob you of everything 9including your life). The biggest problem though would be the lack of road infrastructure in some parts of the world, though one would hope that if a Bearing Strait bridge were to be built, they would get around to connecting either end of the bridge to the rest of the road network. However, at the moment, there are parts of Africa, the aforementioned Darién Gap, and the Road of bones in Siberia that are petty much impassable in a "normal" vehicle. The weather would be a major factor too, with heavy rain in equatorial Africa and Central America washing out the unpaved roads, windblown desert sand in the Sahara and many other regions you would probably pass through, and extreme cold in Siberia and Alaska. There are some political moves to build a Trans-African Highway network. There was a ref desk discussion some time ago about driving to the very bottom of South America. Astronaut (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which six continents? Wikipedia has "seven regions commonly regarded as continents – they are (from largest in size to smallest): Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia". If you are excluding Australia / Australasia then are you including Antarctica? Your route does not need a Gibraltar Bridge, You could go via the middle east. So I presume you are talking (Gib route): South Africa -> Nigeria -> Morrocco -> Spain -> Turkey -> China -> Russia -> Alaska -> Mexico -> Argentina for 5 continents. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaghh, thanks for pointing out my incompetence (fixed). As for the Gibraltar route, it was just as an alternative – avoiding going through Sinai, up into Europe and then doubling back. Cycle~ (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan McGregor and some other dude did Long Way Round and Long Way Down - both of which were road-trips of this sort of idea. They seemed to run into a huge number of problems from what I saw. Worth a read of the articles though - it was a very popular series on the BBC (though I personally never watched it hence having only a passing knowledge of it). ny156uk (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't catch the first one, but I saw Long Way Down and more recently Charley Boorman's By Any Means. I think it would be more interesting to do a big trip by one means of transport though! Cycle~ (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The various Michael Palin series are also probably worth a look for this sort of thing, though they are less of a real road trip than the ones mentioned. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i just read the article on "rote learning", and although i understood the meaning and theoretical explanation, could someone please give me some examples of rote learning and some of actual thinking?

i'm from india and here, in high school, the teachers teach us everything from the book, advice us to buy other reference books and practice sums and questions from them. is this rote learning?

but as i entered 11th grade in another school, there was a significant change. even though the teachers still advice us ref. books, there's a much more emphasis on acutal thinking. but then, this may be because different schools have different teaching styles. and then, is this new school following rote or actual???

(and in fact, i find it very hard to cope up with the new school's curriculum. this is primarily due to the fact that this new school follows a curriculum different from the one in which i have been studying for over twelve years. i have been under CBSE where the course is light, while the new school's curriculum is ICSE which is very hard. the teachers were amazed that i didn't know logarithms (which had been taught in grade 9 in ICSE background.)

thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.134.149 (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most schools in India (I'm an Indian too, so I've got hands-on experience) actually encourage rote learning, but there are ocassional exceptions. And it is well-known that the ICSE/ISC board emphasizes on in-depth understandig while the CBSE board has a more diluted course. The syllabi may be the same, but CBSE teaches only the apparent stuff, while ICSE/ISC gives more stress to deeper understanding, and has a vaster field of learning. Also, in class XII, especially if you're a science student, you are expected to use your brains rather than follow the rote-learning technique (which won't get you too far when you pursue higher studies). Using reference books and practicing problems is okay as long as your concepts are clear, and you don't resort to mugging up scores of obscure formulae. Also, changing boards after class X comes as a big shock for anyone, but I think going through the question papers of the last ten years might help you familiarise yourself with the ISC's pattern.La Alquimista 05:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say, as someone who took a "conceptual" math class that emphasized all "thinking" and no rote learning, that there is something quite advantageous about some types of rote learning. 20 years later, I don't remember any math that I don't use on a daily basis that I hadn't had drilled into me — my multiplication tables are there and ready to go, having been drilled into me by the time I was 11, but I have to re-derive the rules for multiplying exponents every time I want to do it, and have forgotten nearly everything "conceptual" I learned. So while rote learning generally gets a bad rap, in retrospect I could have used a bit more of it personally. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When President Bush was at a school when 9/11 happened the children were doing rote learning chanting together and the teacher said "more to come" to split up sections. I remember reading somewhere that there was evidence showing this was a very successful method of teaching, I can't see a reference to it on the school site or about that day, anybody know a reference to this method of teaching? Dmcq (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what they were learning. Some things are quite arbitrary and can't be learned by any method other than rote memorisation (are US children still expected to learn state capitals? That has to be done by rote.) --Tango (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In North America, rote learning became unpopular for a number of years, but is making a comeback in arithmetic. As a child, I rote-learned the multiplication tables up to 12 and it has stuck with me. That's the kind of thing that's starting up again because if basic arithmetic becomes memorized, it still retains its usefulness while checking calculations, etc. In the past, many other things were rote-learned, such as dates in history class or various figures in geography class. These largely remain out of fashion due to a realization that exact dates don't increase knowledge that much; relational dates are more useful.
Rote learning requires you to memorize something through repetition, usually spoken, and usually in a group setting, though there are variations. When you copy something from a book, you are engaging in a mild form of rote learning, because you see, read, consider, then write the same information.
As a personal aside, I'm glad I rote-learned various items in school - they come to me whenever I need them, almost without requiring thought. I've also memorized various poems on my own through rote learning. While that's not as handy as the multiplication tables, it does help pass the time during extended periods of boredom. Matt Deres (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at a 9/11 video and looked around and I think they were teaching using Direct Instruction, probably something from the Science Research Associates range of material, you can see an example of how structured it is from this example [1]. The children looked like they were at an earlier stage of the same scheme learning phonics. Dmcq (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read a part of a book last year, the name of which I simply can't recall now. It was (most probably) a classic, or at least, something written at least 50 years ago.The part that I do remember told of a boy who married a girl and on the way home from the church (they rode in a horse-carriage/cab) he made the girl cry by telling her that the ordering of dinner was solely her responsibility, since he'd taken the trouble of marrying her upon himself. In fact, it was his habit to compare everything he had done with everything else the poor girl did not want or know how to do. And, the couple was deeply religious, as far as I can recall.Can anyone tell me the name of this book? Thanks in advance. 117.194.224.237 (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me a bit of Tess of the d'Urbervilles.Popcorn II (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's The Way of All Flesh by Samuel Butler. You're describing the scene in the coach just after Theobald and Christina marry. Karenjc 22:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone tell me where on the internet i can learn logarithms right from the beginning?? 122.50.134.149 (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wtutor?tutorial=t-log.htm. From your IP address, it seems you're the person who posted the rote-learning question above. If so, I also recommend the ISC maths book M.L Aggarwal, which really simplifies the Logarithm learning process by breaking it up into smaller parts. Also, you might look up Logarithm in Wikipedia to get a clearer idea as to what it is, and how important it is. I gave my ISC's this year, and I assure you, doing log sums was what I enjoyed the most. It's one of the easiest chapters if approached and learnt properly. Best of luck! La Alquimista 08:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple concept - I can teach it to you right here and now - in less time than it takes to find you a reference!

Consider numbers like 1, 10, 100, 1000. We can write these in scientific notation as 1x10⁰, 1x10¹, 1x10² and 1x10³. A number like 342 can be written as 3.42x10²...but it could also be written as 1x10^2.534. OK - so any number (except zero) can be written in this form. When you multiply two numbers in scientific notation: 100x1000 = 10²x10³ you add the exponents: 100x1000=10²x10³=10²⁺³=100000. Now if you convert two numbers into this exponential form: 342x456=10^2.534x10^2.659 ...then you can add the exponents to get 10^2.534+2.659=10^5.193=155952.

Now - when we talk about logarithms, the 'log' of a number is the whatever in 10^whatever...so if you can convert your two numbers into the appropriate fractional power of 10 - the logarithm - and convert your answer back from that form into ordinary numbers - you can do multplication by doing addition...and in the era before pocket calculators - that was a HUGE deal! You can also do division using subtraction.

Of course that conversion into powers-of-10 format is a bitch to do - but they published big, thick books ("log tables") containing the logs of numbers from 0 to 1 (to perhaps 4 to 7 digits of precision) and other big books that did 'antilogarithms' that convert from the log back to the normal number. So to multiply two numbers - you looked up the log of the digits in the numbers (so for 354, you looked up 0.3540 and got 0.534 from the tables in the book) - added the appropriate number of powers of 10 (so for 354, you added 2 to get 2.534) - then you added the two logs - and looked up the fractional part of the answer in the antilog tables - and added the right number of zeroes to get the right answer.

Better still - you could use a slide rule to automate the log/antilog and addition processes - for approximate calculations. Back in the 1960's - when I was in high school - you used a slide rule for approximate multiplications and divisions - and log tables when you needed more precision. Slide rules are particularly elegant - you can multiply and divide numbers considerably faster than you can do it on a pocket calculator. With care you could do square roots and all sorts of other tricks.

Now go read logarithm for the full answer! SteveBaker (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what are the cheatcodes of road rash game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.239.88 (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually your best bet with questions like this is to try google - a search for "roadrash cheats" brings me to this page (http://www.cheatscodesguides.com/pc-cheats/road-rash/) and the results. For example to activate no police "during the game, press "xyzzy" to get access cheats. Then any time you want type in "bribe". Great game by the way. ny156uk (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people stick to a single reliable website, rather than Googling every time. GameFAQs is my personal choice. It has a searchbox. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always actually Google and I include "gamefaqs" in the Google search! Tempshill (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to cheat on your game? Surely the challenge is to defeat the game without the need to resort to cheating. Astronaut (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of cheat codes is deep and subtle. When a new game comes out - everyone reviews it - it's gets tons of publicity - great free advertising! After that, if you want advertising, you have to pay for it. But if you cunningly tucked away lots of cheat codes and easter eggs then you can 'leak' these a few at a time to magazines and online games reviewers and get more free coverage. Also, if you make these codes available to players who complete the game - you give them reasons to keep playing it - and ways for them to brag to their friends by giving out cheat codes ahead of the leaks to the media. This keeps the underground 'buzz' about your game going.

This wasn't always the case - originally, these cheat codes were put there to allow game programmers to debug their games without having to play all the way through (which gets exceedingly tedious when you're in your second or third year of development!)...occasionally, the programmers would forget to take out the cheat mechanisms before the game shipped. But programmers also find it useful to be able to get to the later levels quickly and easily - for example if they are demoing the game - or in order that busy game reviewers can review the later levels of the game without having to spend dozens of hours playing through to them. Other cheat codes were put in by programmers just for fun - more like easter eggs than anything else. A way to 'sign' the game - to prove to other people that you really did work on the project.

But these days (since the GTA "Hot Coffee" business lost Rockstar games something like $15,000,000) games are screened VERY carefully and programmers and artists can get into a LOT of trouble for introducing cheats and easter eggs without permission...and generally, these things are planned as a regular part of the design process. (Well, that's what we like our management to think!)

SteveBaker (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no fun trying to sneak easter eggs into games if the management weren't trying to stop it! --Tango (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - but the concern is that console games have to go through inspection by the console manufacturers (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) - if one of the team sneaks something inappropriate and the game fails that inspection process then the consequences can be exceedingly serious. Aside from the fact that you have to pay to get the game re-inspected, the process takes a month or so and that amount of delay in the release of a game can cause your advertising to kick in too soon - and perhaps for you to miss the critical Xmas buying season. That risk is so grave that you'd have to be crazy to try to sneak something like that through without getting the OK from management. SteveBaker (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy, or working on your last project before you retire! ;) --14:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a page that describes standards for amounts in business. A thousand Euro are TEUR. How about million? MEUR 1.0 or EUR 1.0M or mEUR 1.0?? Does s.o. know where I can find this for various currencies? 71.236.24.129 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, in a business PowerPoint presentation, or some other form in which a shorthand is required, you would write "50K" for 50 thousand, presumably because of the "kilo-" prefix. Usually 50 million would be written as "50MM". I have been told that "MM" is used instead of "M" because "M" in roman numerals means only one thousand. I have often seen people use "M" for million, though, and have not found it confusing. Tempshill (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Manual of Style has the rules used in writing out currency amounts in this encyclopedia: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Currencies. SteveBaker (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"k" is often used for "thousands". More commonly, "m" or "MM" for millions, "b", "bn", "B" etc for (American) billions. I find EUR 1.0m or EUR 1.0MM fairly common, but have not seen "MEUR". Nor "TEUR", actually. More often EUR1.0k or simply EUR1,000. TEUR seems inconsistent to me. EUR is the unit, there's no such unit as TEUR, and if there is, i would've thought it represented Tera-Euros rather than kiloEuros. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this correctly [2] along with the linked earlier discussions TEUR or perhaps TEuro or something is common in German and sometimes used in English. This also supports the fact [3] it's sometimes used in English. Interesting enough Google Language Tools appears to translate (when doing German to English, added in edit) the subject from TEUR to KEUR of [4]. It doesn't appear to translate it in the text. In [5] it translates TEuro to K € in both subject and text. Babelfish doesn't translate either. Neither do anything to [6] that I noticed. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is a topic with large variations in teh answer by nation. In the UK, I am only aware of 50K (or 50k) for thousands, 50m or 50 million for millions and 50 billion for billions. I feel it highly likley that the US does something completely different. I expect the Germans and French to have their own conventions too. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it common practice to position pilots on the left side of airplane cockpits, and on the right side of helicopter cockpits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccaero (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From this Yahoo discussion, the pilot holds the collective with the left hand and the cyclic in the right hand (see Helicopter flight controls). Keeping a hand on the cyclic is much more important to maintaining control than keeping a hand on the collective. By being seated on the right side, the pilot can more easily reach controls on the center console with the left hand. A left seated pilot would have to switch hands on the cyclic in order to reach center console controls with the right hand. However, another site (here) seems to indicate that the position is more arbitrary. -- Tcncv (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always understood the helicopter placing to date from older, more basic craft that had only a single collective, placed between the seats like the handbrake on a (non-US) car. It's more natural to fly with the cyclic on one's right hand, so although both seats could reach the central collective it would be more comfortable for the main pilot to be in the right seat and grip it with his left hand.

As for why pilots sit on the left in fixed-wing aircraft, my answer is a little more speculative. It's based around the "rules of the road", and the fact that when two aircraft are on a constant bearing, the one who can see the other's right side should stand on, and the other (who can see the first's left side) should give way. Now, my father (who is a pilot) says that the rule is this way round because it makes observation easier for the pilot in the left-hand seat - he assumes the seats came first and the rule came after. However, I am a sailor, and I know that the same rule exists for ships; I also believe it has existed for a long time. This rule, along with many others about navigation lights and so on, seem to have been lifted wholesale from the sea into the air when some means to regulate air traffic started to become necessary. So if the seat position makes the traffic rules easier, perhaps that's where it came from? 93.97.184.230 (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I had heard that it was because most airports fly left traffic, and so the captain has better visibility sitting on the left side. But this is sort of a chicken and egg problem, because the current wikipedia article says that most airports fly left traffic because the left seat is commonly used. Shadowjams (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have it on the left for British pilots as well? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]