May 29

Anyone know where I can find Diana Buttu's email address? For those who are wondering she is a Palestinian-Canadian who was (is?) the PLO spokeswoman and legal advisor. Eiad77 (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To interview Diana Buttu contact the IMEU at 714-368-0300 or info@imeu.net . From IMEU. Hope that helps. Bioskope (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are most of the hills in Ireland man made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mountains in Ireland would indicate not. Carrauntoohil, the highest peak on both the island and in the Republic of Ireland, is entirely natural. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have virtually no man made hills here. In fact, none that I can think of. I'd be interested to know where you heard the suggestion? Fribbler (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps from accounts that certain legendary figures "named" (and thus by implication created) Ireland's features? —Tamfang (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, all Hills, Irish or otherwise, are "man-made". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i'm the one who posted the "architect and anthropologist" question and i'm the one who wants to be an architect. my friend, after reading your responses decided he would take up science. he sends his thanks. u asked me which grade i'm studying in. well, i'm currently in 11th grade and studying science. thanx for the help u have already given me and i would appreciate some more. also, it would be great if you tell me what specific subjects should an architect be well-versed in, like, for example, whether it's physics, chemistry, mathematics...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.129.159 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that physics and mathematics would be the most useful to an architect. An anthropologist would probably benefit more from some biology and mathematics. However, I always advise people who are picking college course to pick the ones they have the most interest in - a good grade in a less-relevant subject is generally worth more to future employers than a poor grade in a more-relevant subject. You'll probably only have one shot at college - and it's very important for the time to be be a happy one for you. SteveBaker (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Steve notes, typically you will be required to have studied mathematics and physics at the 10+2 level in order to be eligible to gain admission into the 5 year B. Arch programs in India. In addition the schools will also evaluate you for your drawing and engineering drawing skills. You should read up the information at the following websites carefully for specific information and requirements:

• All India Engineering Entrance Exam
• National Aptitude Test in Architecture
• IIT JEE for admission into B Arch programs at IIT Kharagpur and IIT Roorkee. In particular take a look at the Aptitute test information for the type of skills most architecture programs will look for.
• The Directorate of Technical Education website for your state. (Just google for it.)

Also check the websites of some of the premier architecture programs to orient yourself better with what studying to be an architect will actually involve:

• School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), New Delhi
• Sir J.J College of Architecture, Mumbai
• Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology (CEPT), Ahmedabad
• School of Architecture and Planning (SAP), Chennai
• Any other institutions you are particularly interested in.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, try to get in touch with current students and/or qualified architects in real life, since they will be able to provide you with specific guidance tailored to your particular education, aptitude and circumstances. All the best. Abecedare (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with Abecedare - check the required qualifications and speak to current student and architects. But I also agree with Steve's suggestion that, once you have ensured that you are studying the required subjects, it is wise to consider where your interests and aptitudes lie. Having studied architecture, I agree that mathematics is extremely useful - even if you find a course for which it is not a prerequisite, knowledge of mathematics will be essential for the degree. Physics is useful, but less so - only the materials aspect of the subject, and to a small extent studies of light and sound, really come in to it. Some institutions (at least in the UK) want an art portfolio or qualification, and this is also very useful. Finally, humanities subjects can also be useful - history will give useful background for your study of architectural history, and psychology is useful for considering issues around environmental psychology. Warofdreams talk 13:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to prepare yourself well with mathematics - a good knowledge of calculus will form the basis for structural design courses. However, the emphasis in architecture school is on design, and any art courses you can take that will increase your facility with hand drawing and computer-aided drawing will be helpful. Architecture schools tend to assume that you can already draw, both technically and artistically, when you arrive. You can expect to spend more than half your time in design studio, and any skills that you can bring to make yourself more productive, or less preoccupied with making up ground in presentation skills, will be of benefit. Likewise, whatever you can do to prepare for the technical subjects, such as having a good grounding in math, will allow you to focus on the design portion of the program. A by-product of art courses will be a portfolio showcasing your design abilities. Acroterion _(talk) 20:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's a good idea to see if an architect will let you help around the office. These are lots of semi-skilled tasks, and you can pick up some skills along the way. It can be a good way to see what really happens in an architectural practice. My firm generally has high school interns around; some are now architects themselves, and some decided that architecture wasn't for them, saving them wasted time finding that out through other means. Acroterion _(talk) 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know how this King Kong sized anime character was made? Is it inflatable? Is it an ad? Dismas|^(talk) 10:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just photoshopped. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other images. They also look fake to me, and the fact that there's no news about it supports the 'shop theory. --Sean 14:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some small figurines photoshoped into a picture of the city. APL (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photoshop theory is also supported by the fact that for gods' sake, how crazy do you think they are? Aside from the subject matter, which would already be enough to prevent any city from approving this, the thing is a fatal accident waiting to happen. Look at the power lines. Your perception of Japan is pretty warped if you took this seriously for even a moment. -- BenRG (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any country that vends schoolgirl saliva is one you can suspend your disbelief about. The only unbelievable thing about that picture is that there aren't octopus tentacles shoved in all the orifices. Matt Deres (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear that these are faked. Take a close look at the left foot from Sean's second link - I've made a blow-up of it here - notice how the person who photoshopped it didn't bother to make the region inside the loop of the shoe-lace transparent? And there is a blue 'glow' at the edge of the tongue of the shoe. This is perhaps the most obvious mistake - but all of these pictures exhibit similar errors. It's a dead giveaway. SteveBaker (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post the same question in multiple places. This one is also on the Science Ref Desk and answers should be posted there. Edison (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been a member of some roleplaying sites. I like to add buddies on messengers (like AIM, Yahoo!, Windows Live, etc.) so I can do roleplays on messengers/ I consider myself an "omni-roleplayer" -- I like to roleplay about anything. I ;ole to roleplay any genre, and I like to play with fictional or fan-made characters. Not to be cocky or anything. I searched for other omni-roleplayers like me on the roleplaying sites I joined, but there were quite a few. Mostof the roleplayers in the sites can roleplay in only one genre of another preference, like they can only roleplay in a fantasy world or only in a sci-fi world. So, anyone, are there any roleplaying chat sites with a thorough amount of omni-roleplayers, like many of them? And would those sites have some of the users with messenger address on AIM, Yahoo, Windows Live, etc. so I can add them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirdrink13309622 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been invited to a bridal shower in Canada and the invitation suggests a money gift. What is the rule of thumb for an appropriate amount for a bridal shower (monetary) gift? What is the rule of thumb for the gift amounts for the bridal shower vs. the wedding present? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.105.12 (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary gifts are a terrible invention, they make the gift-exchange system fall-down. That said I would suggest that a bridal-shower gift should be (value wise) reasonably small. I don't think i'd personally spend anything more than 1/4 of what i'd spend on the wedding present. This site (http://www.favorideas.com/learn-about/etiquette/bridal-shower-etiquette/) or a search for 'bridal shower etiquette' may be worth a look too. ny156uk (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amount you give the broad should reflect how well u know her. If its just some chick you work with, not much. Best friend, more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivanda199 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I really don't get the point of money gifts for a bridal shower. For a wedding present, maybe - they are supposed to get the couple set up in their new house and money can be helpful there, but a bridal shower is about having some fun, pampering the bride a bit and showing how much everyone loves her. You don't do that with money, you do that with gifts that have some thought behind them. Unless you think the bride will be offended by you not following the instructions on the invite, I would advise against giving money. Find something fairly cheap (compared to the wedding present) that is somehow relevant to the bride or, even better, relevant to your relationship with the bride. --Tango (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the most over the speed limit that someone has been cited for? I have heard of someone doing 120mph in a 30mph zone, which is 90mph over. How much over is the record? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fastest speeding ticket ever was for...242mph, I think, in a 75 zone. That's 167 over. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speeding ticket, at the bottom, has the relevant info. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guy qualified simultaneously for the "Dickhead of the Decade" award. Richard Avery (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my ignorance, I don't drive and I'm familiar with this occurence only inasfar as it was described as Top Gear - so based on that information: what's the problem with driving quickly on a very long, very straight, very empty road? Vimescarrot (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one problem is that at that speed, few roads are "long"! At 240mph - you're covering a mile in 15 seconds. Small problems (debris in the road perhaps) that is too small to see at half a mile away - are only 7 seconds from being under your car. People who have driven for a while have reaction times that are tuned to the 30mph to 70mph range. At twice that speed, you're quite unprepared for how fast things happen. The tendancy to twitch the steering to avoid a pothole or something is just lethally dangerous at those speeds - and you're just not used to looking a quarter mile ahead of your car for potholes that you must avoid with less than four seconds of warning in a car that's probably horribly unmanouverable at that speed. But people rarely have that expertise. The guy in the Koenigsegg was going three times faster than his reactions and experience were attuned to. That is definitely dangerous. The one (and only) time I took my tricked out MINI Cooper'S to 140mph - I was scared out of my wits!...Only too happy to drop back to 70! SteveBaker (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the fact that you can't know the road up ahead is empty. If someone pulls out of a side road in front of you when you're doing those kinds of speeds, you don't stand a chance of stopping in time. Yes, they were wrong to pull out in front of you, but that doesn't make either of you any more alive. --Tango (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - the person pulling out isn't mentally attuned to the closing speed of a 240mph car! When you see another car a quarter mile away, it's a little speck - you're very likely to pull out figuring you have fifteen seconds to get up to highway speeds - which is plenty. You don't expect it to be right next to you going probably 10 to 20 times faster than you just four seconds later! SteveBaker (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been others that would rival that record but many tickets at this level are successfully appealed on the grounds that the prosecution can't prove the car is physically capable of the speed recorded. It is perfectly possible that a higher speed was achieved but only because the driver of the car worked it in mysterious ways. Prokhorovka (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the prosecution have to prove the car physically capable of that? You have the evidence from the radar gun and if you need it - the manufacturer's specification for the car showing that it can do that kind of speed...what else do you need? You go to the Koenigsegg web site - and right there it says that the car is capable of 245+ mph. (Note the '+'!) The car was clocked at 242mph. Case closed. The primary evidence here is the record from the radar gun and the testimony of the cop. The defense has to find a way to disprove that evidence - and it's going to be difficult. It might be a different matter if the car (as purchased) was only capable of much lower speeds - but that the owner had modified it to go faster...but that's very unlikely to be the case and it could easily be shown that the car had been modified. In this case, it could also be shown that the driver was participating the Gumball 3000 rally (yes - just like in the movie "The Gumball Rally"!) - and racing on public highways is illegal at any speed. SteveBaker (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of fixing your link. Matt Deres (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the cases I've heard about where people have got off of tickets by claiming the car couldn't do that speed have been cases where the measured speed was faster than the manufacturer's specs said it could do. Whether that was because the measurement was wrong, the specs were wrong or the car was modified, I don't know, but the burden is on the prosecution to prove it wasn't the former, and that is rather difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. --Tango (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the manufacturers specifications are sometimes on the safe side. Engines produce more power in cold weather than in hot - and air resistance changes with temperature and humidity. Also, two individual engines off the same production line but build six months apart have different engineering tolerances and will produce slightly different performance numbers. So if the manufacturer provides a conservative figure for top speed - it's certainly possible to exceed that number. Although, in many modern cars, there is a speed limiter fitted to the car to ensure that it won't go faster than the specification - but such things can be removed. It seems to me though that you'd have to be going a LOT faster than the car is theoretically able to go in order to cast sufficient doubt on the radar gun's readout. Speed guns are known to have an error range of +/- several percent...so if the gun said "240mph" and the car manufacturer said it could only go up to 235mph - you'd probably still be convicted for speeding...but just by a lesser amount.

There was a case in the UK many years ago when radar speed guns were new - of one of those front-end dumper trucks (which had a maximum speed of 25mph) being clocked by police as 120mph - but that turned out to be because the vibration of the vehicles' body was enough to fool the radar gun into thinking it was going 120. Clearly that was cause for dismissal (presumably, the police never even charged the driver because it's so obvious). SteveBaker (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just now I started watching an episode of Doctor Who and it showed a quick clip of workmen using a blow torch on the pavement of the street. It wasn't new construction, it looked to be repair work. Why were they doing this? I've never seen this happen in the States... Dismas|^(talk) 19:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this the episode with the 2012 Olympics (that's the only one I remember having any roadworks in it)? If so, they were filling in pot holes, I guess the blow torch was to heat the tar up again if it hadn't set level (which was a problem described in the episode). Alternatively, it could be to burn off something that was covering the road (as a by-product of the repairs, presumably). --Tango (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the episode. The tar doesn't ignite? Dismas|^(talk) 19:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitumen boils at 525c, I would imagine you'd have to get it a bit hotter than that to burn it. Nanonic (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asphalt doesn't burn without a great deal of help - it's hard to heat the mass of the street and keep it hot long enough . They may have been softening the surface to allow adhesion of new asphalt. Also, there are some kinds of thermoplastic markings that have to be torched down, like crosswalk lines. Acroterion _(talk) 19:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the episode in question, but I've seen workmen using blow torches to remove lines from the road. Astronaut (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One should remember that at the end of that episode it is revealed that the alien homed in on that point for it's heat, so the blowtorch may just be to highlight the heat there. Would be a bloody subtle hint though. Prokhorovka (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't need all that much heat to soften bitumen - I recall seeing photos in the 1980s of a line of trucks that had stopped on a highway in 50 degree C heat and sunk somewhat. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they actually use blowtorches anymore, I saw workmen the other day using a very bright glowing bulb holding it over the tarmacadan, I presume this is a newer technology way of achieving the same end without using a naked flame. AllanHainey (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New technologies don't usually replace older ones instantaneously. I imagine the use of blowtorches for this purpose (which I have also seen within the last couple of years) will persist for a good while yet. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In case someone is wondering about the name of the episode: it's Fear Her. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are the contents of safe deposit boxes in banks of the US insured in the event of a natural disaster or robbery? How is that handled since only the renter of the box knows the contents? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this article notes, the FDIC does not cover the contents of safe deposit boxes. Under certain circumstances, the bank's liability insurance should apply (such as if a robbery is committed by a bank employee) but generally SDB contents fall under the remit of the renter's own insurance policies -- which nicely solves the issue of knowing the contents. — Lomn 19:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this question was asked maybe a year ago, but I felt that it did not receive a sufficient response.

What is inherently different about the engine of a fast sports car and a pick-up truck that allows the former to drive very quickly and the latter to tow a lot of weight?

Suppose if I was to take the engine of a Ferrari F430 and drop it into a Ford F-150, would the truck suddenly be able to accelerate very quickly (of course slower than the Ferrari because its heavier)? Similarly, why do sports cars with, say 500HP, have such low towing capacities, when trucks such as the F-150 have a much max lower HP rating, but a high towing capacity?

Is it because the engine of trucks are producing more torque at a lower RPM?

Acceptable (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be very much difference at all - the difference is in the weight and streamlining of the body and (crucially) in the gearbox and suspension. It's the gearing that distinguishes high speed versus pulling ability - and the suspension that provides better cornering (at the cost of ride comfort, ground-clearance and off-road ability). However at low speeds, a sports car needs "pulling power" (torque - to give it a proper name) just as much as a truck does - so the gearing may be kinda similar in the lower gears...that's why weight is also so important. F=ma - Force (or torque in this case) equals mass times acceleration. If you can halve the mass - you get twice the acceleration. Consider that a farm tractor can easily out-pull a truck - and may well have a relatively puny 100hp engine...it's all in the gearing. Perhaps the most clear example is the Dodge Viper - undeniably a sports car - with a Dodge's V10 truck engine (See: Chrysler LA engine). The only concession to 'sportiness' in the engine was a switch from iron to aluminum for the engine block in order to save weight - the Viper weighs 3,400lbs - but the Dodge RAM 2500 (which you can buy with the iron version of exact same engine as the Viper) weighs in at 12,000lbs and can tow twice that. At four times the weight - it's going to be four times slower off the line. SteveBaker (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But in the case with the Viper, why can't it tow 24,000 lbs as well? Surely the difference between the frame and structural integrity of the two vehicles won't make that much of a difference? Acceptable (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the Viper could - primarily because the gearbox isn't set up that way - but also, the clutch is unlikely to be able to hold that much. Also, the Viper is so light (relative to a truck), that it's not going to have enough traction. SteveBaker (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the difference between a gearbox geared for high-speed vs a gearbox geared for pulling ability? If one uses a large gear ratio, hence a larger overall transmission output torque, won't that maximize both speed and pulling ability? Acceptable (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No - think about it - if one turn of the engine moves the wheels only a small amount - then you have lots of torque - but not much speed. If you gear the same engine to move the wheels a large amount for every revolution of the engine - then the vehicle will go faster - but have less torque. Hence the needs for trucks and sports cars are very different. SteveBaker (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was being unclear. By speed, I was referring to the car's acceleration. A large transmission output torque equals large towing capacity and acceleration. Acceptable (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for acceleration - you're right, you need lots of torque. The design of gearboxes for good acceleration is a subtle business. Too much torque in a light, front-engined/rear-wheel-drive vehicle - and you'll just get wheel-spin and not much acceleration - so it may be completely pointless to provide a really low first-gear ratio only to find that the traction control pulls off the power to avoid wheel spin. Also, the peak torque generally only happens over a fairly small range of RPM's - so you need gears that are sufficiently closely spaced to allow the driver (or the automatic transmission) to keep the engine in the middle of it's optimum RPM band. But if you use too many finely-spaced gears, the gearbox gets large and heavy and the car becomes hard to drive...so there are a lot of trade-offs there. So you might maybe find that the lower gears (which are for acceleration) are similar in a truck and a sports car - but the higher gears certainly won't be.

But acceleration depends hugely on the mass of the vehicle...and not so much the gearbox. As I pointed out before, the weight of the Viper and the Dodge RAM 2500 differs by a factor of four...so with even with identical gear ratios and identical engines - you'd expect the Viper to have about four times the acceleration - which means that the Viper's fairly impressive 4.6 second 0-60 time probably translates into a painfully lumbering 18 second 0-60 time for the RAM 2500 pickup.

At top speed, weight doesn't hardly matter at all - it's down to overcoming the air resistance and (to a much smaller extent), the rolling resistance. Getting the highest possible top speed means having a gear ratio that'll let the wheels turn fast enough at an engine RPM at which it delivers sufficient torque to overcome that resistance. The Dodge RAM's aerodynamics are sure to be a hell of a lot worse than the Viper - and given the heavy-duty transmission, differential, axles, etc - it probably has a much higher rolling resistance too. So pushing the pickup through the air requires more torque than the Viper - so even in the topmost gear, the pickup truck needs more torque so it can't possibly go as fast as the Viper because it needs that lower gear ratio.

It's also possible for the top speed of the car to be limited by the available gears. In my 2003 MINI Cooper'S (which has six forward gears) - you couldn't get up to it's top speed of 135mph in 6th gear because the engine's RPM at 135mph was just a bit lower than the peak of it's torque curve. To get to the car's maximum speed, you actually had to drop down to 5th gear to get that extra RPM and higher torque to push it through the air - but because the engine's RPM's are limited, the car wouldn't go any faster than 135 because 5th gear wasn't a high enough ratio. In the 2005 version of the exact same car/engine, they changed the gear ratios and thereby enabled the car to reach 140mph in 6th gear. However, that too was a compromise because by lowering the 6th gear ratio to provide that extra torque, they risked getting lower fuel consumption at more sane highway speeds because the engine would not be in it's optimum fuel efficiency band.

This is why car design is so complicated - and why cars differ widely in performance between types and manufacturers. Even something as seemingly simple as picking gear ratios ends up being a complicated trade-off between cost, reliability, weight, drivability, fuel-efficiency, acceleration and top speed. The difference between a good car and a great one lies in how those kinds of trade-offs are made.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean that the Viper can tow around 24,000 lbs (minus the difference in structural integrity), and hence, get the load moving, on first gear? Acceptable (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Steve said earlier, Probably not. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why? From his first paragraph: "So you might maybe find that the lower gears (which are for acceleration) are similar in a truck and a sports car - but the higher gears certainly won't be."

So the difference in acceleration is explained primarily in the difference in mass of the two vehicles. Since one would begin in the lowest gear and if the lower gears are similar, what - aside from the structural integrity of the two vehicles - accounts for the difference in towing capacity? Acceptable (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Towing requires more than simply making the load move. You need to keep it under control and stop it, too. Heavy-duty suspension and overall high vehicle weight tend to help with that. Friday (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with towing is that you also need traction. The Viper (being light) doesn't have anything like the traction of a Dodge RAM. Also, for a sporty car, you need really stiff suspension - but for a truck, you need something compliant enough to keep all four wheels firmly planted. So the likely consequence of trying to pull 24,000 lbs would firstly be that the weight on the tow hitch would lift the front of the Viper a couple of feet off the ground...but assuming we somehow ignore that - then it would be wheel-spin...failing that, the question of whether the clutch could take the strain of getting the car moving without burning out...failing that whether the Viper's body has the structural integrity to do it. If you actually did get the load moving, then controlling it would be virtually impossible - the momentum of 24,000lbs would mean that the Viper's brakes and steering would be almost entirely ineffective. The usual advice is that the load should weigh no more than half that of the towing vehicle (although when they claim that a 12,000lb Dodge RAM can pull 24,000lbs of load...they clearly aren't following that rule!) SteveBaker (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the rated towing capacity of the vehicle is not how much mass the car get moving, but rather the maximum mass that the car can safely move? Does that mean that the Dodge RAM can tow more than 24k lbs of mass, albeit dangerously? Acceptable (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Is there anyplace online that specializes in photos of locations specifically to be Photoshopped as a background? Let me make myself clearer: It is very simple to do a Google search and find scenic photos of just about anywhere. But almost always, those shots are composed to feature the locale itself. What I am looking for are photos that are composed and framed specifically so that someone could place a person in that photo and it would be at the right angle, distance, etc. (For example, in New York City a photo of the Empire State Building with the building a little off-center in the background, but looking straight down an adjacent sidewalk as if someone were standing there, but there isn't really anyone there. With that, I could take a photo of someone just standing anywhere, remove the background and align them with the background photo.) If such a site existed, it probably wouldn't be free, but I'm just wondering if anyone has heard of such things. — Michael J 22:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is any web site like that - but WikiCommons is an amazing resource for photos - I'd be quite surprised if you couldn't find something suitable. One big issue though is that you need to find a picture that has the same lighting as the picture you are trying to blend into it. It's really quite difficult to correct lighting differences - so picking two pictures that are close is a huge benefit. I wouldn't fret too much about the framing of the background image - you can always take one of the really high res images on Commons and crop it to make it look like the subject was off-center. Alternatively - find a photo that already has someone in the foreground and replace them. Then you have a photo that was posed completely naturally as a portrait. SteveBaker (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep in mind that many, perhaps most, of these images are copyright, though licensed under GFDL or CC-by-SA. With either of those licenses, you will have to release your work under the same license, and give credit to the author of the original photo. If you don't want to do that you'll have to look for photos that have specifically been released into the public domain. --Trovatore (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a non-Persian trying to figure out the state of play in the upcoming presidential election in Iran. Our article quotes widely divergent poll results, and I'm wondering if there is anyone here in the know who can tell me what the realistic probabilities of victory the leading candidates Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Mousavi have of winning, or point me to sources with some authority on the issue. Any help appreciated,  Skomorokh  22:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC radio 4 news interviewed an Iran expert (sorry, I didn't catch his name) today. He said that if asked two weeks ago he'd have been convinced Ahmadinejad was going to win, but that recently Mousavi (who he said had the support of intellectuals and students, and who he credited as being a particularly thorough organiser) had made great strides. They didn't ask for a prediction or odds, but the way he spoke it seems he thought Mousavi had a very realistic chance (although still with Ahmadinejad as the favourite, maybe). 87.114.167.162 (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was the PM program (the news before the news), which had a lengthy interview with Sadegh Ziba Kalam (a professor of politics at the University of Tehran). I'm listening again now on iPlayer - he says Mousavi enjoys support among women (in addition to those groups I mentioned above), and in general among more educated Iranians. 87.114.167.162 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, that is very helpful indeed, I'll be sure to look up the program! Mahalo,  Skomorokh  17:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]