Slashdot Mirror

Can you now tell me why the common head gesture for "yes" is to shake the head up and down...

Why, yes, I can: societal training. In Bulgaria the opposite gestures apply. In Turkey, "yes" is a back-and-forth shake and "no" is a sort of head-rearing gesture. Don't trust me -- trust Cecil Adams...

What's the "Scroll Lock" key on my computer for? contains much information on often unused keys. The Scroll Lock key still does something in MS Excel.

Some government contractors are like that. I once worked in a place where they would have free donuts/bagels/drinks twice a week. Nobody would touch the poopy seed bagels for fear of failing a drugs test.

In looking this up, I found what everyone else found about barrels of salted pork, slaves, etc., but I also found this bit from the Straight Dope about the term slush fund, which is a related term frequently used in American politcs.

You're wrong.

Cecil Adams addressed this over 30 years ago. You need to eat 50-70 apricot kernels to kill an adult.

rule of thumb?!

Did you do in the late 19th century it was legal for husbands to beat their wives as long as they used a stick no wider than their thumb!

This is factually incorrect, derived from a series of misunderstandings; the phrase has nothing to do with wife-beating. Now you know. Please join the crusade against silly urban legends!

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000512.html

How the fuck did the parent get moderated informative?

As a car gets older, it does not need higher octane fuel. The idea that even a severe case of combustion-chamber carbon buildup could cause a measurable increase in compression ratio is silly. As a car ages, its compression ratio tends to decrease due to ring blow-by, and carbon buildup preventing the valves from sealing well.

Don't knock sensors make it hard to tell when an old car needs higher-octane gas? Years ago, when your beater started pinging on grades or under acceleration, that was the sign that carbon had built up in the cylinders, increasing compression, and it was time to switch to high-test

As I don't know you from Adam, I'll go with the above. Older cars with carbon build-up will need higher octane fuel. (This doesn't mean I think you should immediately start sticking high octane gas in your '97 Corolla, it means I think if your engine's knocking in your 1971 Dodge, you should be using a higher octane gas, and the reason it pings now and didn't years ago is almost certainly carbon build-up.

3-Higher performance cars often need higher octane fuel because they run at a higher compression ratio, run hotter, and therefore have an increased likelihood of pre-ignition

4-If you car was designed for 87 octane, and it is knocking during acceleration, that is NOT good, and is often a sign of a timing issue you should fix, not mask with higher octane fuel.

The U.S. government financed development of 'remote viewing' for over 20 years. It's said that the spooks hated the program, but because they got results, right from the start, they allowed it to continue until the soviet union broke apart.

[quoting:] Why do they not stand up and be counted? For the most part, they are afraid of being taken apart in the press, afraid of being ridiculed for doing their duty in an area of threat analysis which was completely justified.

[quoting:] I now direct your attention to "successful remote viewing," and ask you to wonder if it can exist. Begin by considering psychics who successfully help the police.

I would counter that the ratio of testosterone to estrogen -- i.e. environmental factors -- would determine how a stem cell would express itself. That's exactly what happens during gestation -- various hormone levels determine vocal pitch. All humans are conceived bisexed or hermaphroditic -- it's what the sex chromosomes do during gestation that makes the difference. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_093.html

Link

With that out of the way, let's take a look at orbital dynamics. You can't actually throw anything (or yourself) out of orbit--all you can do is throw an object, or move yourself, from one orbit to another. If you want to go to a higher orbit, you need to increase your speed in the direction you're traveling. If you want to go to a lower orbit, you need to decrease your speed. Just trying to thrust straight up or down won't work too well: Thrusting down, for instance, will lower you temporarily, but now you're going too fast to stay in that lower orbit, and you'll end up oscillating back above your original orbit. As science fiction author Larry Niven put it, "East takes you out, out takes you west, west takes you in, and in takes you east."

To get those baseballs to earth, you want to throw them back from the shuttle. Now they're traveling slower. The effect of this is to put them into an elliptical orbit, whose apogee--the point furthest from the center of the earth--is at the same height as the shuttle. If the orbit is elliptical enough, then its perigee--the point closest to the earth's center--will be closer than the surface of the earth, and the ball will collide with the earth after half an orbit or less. But if it doesn't hit the earth (and if we ignore atmospheric friction for the moment), it'll stay in that nice comfortable elliptical orbit indefinitely.

Now for the specific problem of astronauts throwing fastballs: The space station is at a height of about 390 km over the surface of the earth, for a total distance of 6,768 km from the center, and it's traveling at about 7,674 m/s. Our 93 MPH pitch translates to about 42 m/s, so the total speed of the ball is then about 7,632 m/s. Given that energy and angular momentum are conserved, it's straightforward (if a bit tedious) to calculate that, at perigee, the ball will be 6,623 km from the center of the earth, which is still a comfortable 245 km above the surface.

But this is all figured without the atmosphere. Won't friction from the topmost layers of the atmosphere cause the ball's orbit to decay, and eventually bring it down? Yes, but that would happen even without pitching the ball. If left on its own, the space station itself would eventually fall to earth, but they boost the orbit every so often to prevent that. In fact, that's why Mir was deliberately brought down: The Russians didn't want to keep boosting it any more, and they knew that eventually it would come down on its own.

They have tons of white meat compared to, say, a crow.

The Straight Dope shows that the construction, "different than," is, both in general and in this case particularly, erronious. Please, people, think of the poor words before you butcher them!

Cool is right. This blocking brings earth down to 2.725K

Sorry, it stripped the link... The Straight Dope

Glass doesn't flow either (except in geologic time scales) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glas s/glass.html http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_120.html

How is a wave of molasses going to kill anyone? You could probably outrun it easily; molasses isn't very fast.

You'd think so... but it was estimated at 35 MPH. In January, no less.

Not so easy to outrun, that.

They made industrial alchohol out of it, which was used in making gunpowder. See the straigth dope article.

An article on Straight Dope on the Boston molasses accident

How fast did the initial surge of molasses travel? Experts and eyewitnesses agreed on 35 mph, but we needn't take their word for it. I consulted with Gareth McKinley, professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, and established that the theoretical maximum rate of flow for a (roughly) 50-foot column of liquid, ignoring density and viscosity, was 38 mph. Surprisingly, molasses's stiffness would have slowed things only a bit--making certain assumptions about Reynolds number and whatnot that I expect some gratitude for not sharing, the flow rate would have been mostly a function of inertia (i.e., mass) rather than viscosity. Bottom line: 35 mph was a pretty good guess.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041231.html

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your college paper doesn't pre-date Cecil Adams, who published the same answer in 1984: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I doubt that Mr. Stallman would agree with your opinion that his views are only of very limited interest. He's trying to Free Mankind(tm), after all, isn't he?

I'll believe a partial solution through thermal deploymerization like the
Changing World Technologies folks are doing
, long before I believe Ethanol - which fits perfectly into the system you describe.
Right now is a way to siphon tax dollars into ADM's pockets.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
http://zfacts.com/p/60.html

How about Unca Cece? The Straight Dope covered this awhile ago. Cecil references a book called The Bermuda Triangle Mystery--Solved by Lawrence David Kusche.

That you're a Mormon.

I think we're set for another DDT-style disaster here.

Acutally, that depends on the state. In some states, even felons currently in prison can still vote! See the Straigh Dope answer http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfelonvote.htm l

That only covers documented prisoners. This sheds a bit more light on the issue.

HFCS is almost a direct replacement to sugar in many (most?) of today's processed foods, and that is just about everything (breads, snacks, condiments, pop, "juice", etc...). The problem is that HFCS does not cause the body to produce the same levels of insulin, so your body doesn't "register" the same calories that it does with pure sugar.

Having a six-pack of soda/pop/coke/whatever-ya-call-it 30 years ago was virtually unheard of. No one in their right mind would buy a 2L bottle because it would go flat before the kids could get through it. But with the substitution of HFCS, getting through a 2L bottle in a day is no problem (ain't progress great!).

I've become a radical. I've abandonned the soft drink world entirely. I tried diet drinks at first, but then I started drinking water, tea, coffee, milk and more water. I've not missed Coke-a-Pepsi-Co-And-Friends (at least, not their soft drink divisions).

The only problem I run into is when I occasionally find myself grabbing something at a fast food restaurant. I've had to re-train myself that a "value meal" isn't getting as much as possible...it is getting what I want and what I want is a healthy choice. I'll pay the extra $0.25 or whatever for the bottled water or even give up the "package deal" to avoid getting crap I don't need.

on the smiley face: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_031.html[s traightdope.com] No mention of France...

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_031.html

The previous post is right. Michael Jackson and SONY share half of the publishing rights to about 250 (or so) Beatles tunes, not counting a few early songs. In the articles I read, Capitol Records or EMI owns the tape reels, masters, etc. There was nothing about Apple Corps, unless Apple Corps is a front for Capitol Records or EMI. It seems that this confusing arrangement arose from bad money choices the Beatles made in the 60's. See Cecil or Snopes on this.

Michael Jackson sings when you download Beatles:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html

You also have anywhere from from 2,400 to 22,000 cubic feet of low-level waste per unit per year, which consists of contaminated clothing, filters, sludge, and stuff like that. There's no way to reprocess this; it's usually just shipped out in drums and buried.

I once calculated that from a typical 1,000-megawatt unit you'd get maybe 8,000-10,000 spent fuel rods per year, which works out to about 130-165 cubic feet of unreprocessed high-level waste.

If you watch CNNInternational, you might find that they actually put a pretty good spin on China. Sometimes they make the place sound pleasant. As for prison populations, Here's an interesting piece on the subject.

That would be awesome, but unfortunately it doesn't work.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_356.html

'According to rule 917.243(b) in the Domestic Mail Manual, when a business reply card is "improperly used as a label"--e.g., when it's affixed to a brick--the item so labeled may be treated as "waste." That means the post office can heave it into the trash without further ado.'

Better Yet, tape the Business reply envelope to a Brick (wrapped in shipping paper), the Post Office has to deliver it, and it will cost the receiving company a fortune in shipping costs.

"There is no u in Al Qaeda..."

Depending on how the Press is spelling it this week.

Remember this guy?

Taxes are part of that expenditure. Payroll taxes do not affect those with large incomes nearly the way they affect those with smaller incomes. For one thing, payroll taxes only affect wages. They do not affect capital gains and dividends.

Income taxes are progressive, but sales and property taxes are not. Sales tax is assessed in proportion to consumption, not in proportion to income or wealth. Thus, sales taxes tend to be regressive, as those with less income spend a greater proportion of their income on basic necessities. Property taxes are a bit more complicated: They tend to hit folks in the middle. Poorer folks tend to rent, and pay property tax indirectly through rent. That tax is amortized over all the renters and so tends to hit each individual less. The folks in the middle buy houses and get hit with property tax directly. As your wealth grows, typically the value of your property grows sublinearly. I know if my income doubled, I would not buy a house that cost twice as much.

So, there's two impacts here:

1. Overall tax burden, measured as a proportion of income, is closer to flat than most people realize.
2. The amount of income available for investment (e.g. wealth accumulation) is vastly limited for people under some threshold.

That threshold isn't a fixed number, but rather flexible depending on the spending habits of individuals. I agree: Most people don't save enough, and push that threshold higher than it should be. But it's a very real fact that there is a threshold above which only truly reckless spending would cause you not to accumulate wealth. (And, well, that happens often enough if you look for washed up celebrities....)

Personally, I think many of the recent tax reforms are rather bogus... they tend to tilt the overall tax burden further toward the lower ranks, pushing the investment (and thus, wealth accumulation) threshold further up. Cecil Adams did a thoughtful analysis of Reagan's tax reforms. I'd love to see him do an update relative to Bush's reforms. Hint: Us middle class wage earners don't earn the bulk of our income from dividends. I bet you can guess who does, though.

I'm in favor of progressive taxation, not because "Oh, the rich guy can better afford it." Rather, the putative "rich guy" benefits more from the infrastructure, stability and social investment the government performs than the average individual. Roadways, public works, stable financial markets (overseen by the SEC), etc. Those don't directly impact the "little guy," except to cause the movers and shakers to decide where they do business, and how much business they choose to conduct. It's those with capital that reap the most direct benefits, and so they owe something back to the system that allows them to accumulate and control that wealth. It's only fair.

What if we went to a pure "wealth tax"?

My post was a response to something I perceived as an attack on hard science by squishy science. I fully realized that I was to some extent proving your point (especially with regards to ad hominem attacks), but I simply couldn't let a comparison of hard scientists with astrologers (itself an ad hominem attack) go unanswered, and thus I decided to feed a troll by counter-trolling. You were baiting me to support your point, and I went for the bait. It's entirely possible that your typos were calculated to draw such a response. My basic point is that if you're going to attack hard science, you should at least do some editing lest you undermine your message, and calling me an "idoit" will just make me point at you and laugh.

I'll get to work on personality tests, though, if you like.

My specific jab at psychology ("based on cigars and violins") went unanswered, though it is something that makes most respectable psychologists blush and stare at their feet, knowing the lack of rigor that characterized the early history of their field. Another post pointed out the statistical problems typical of many psychology studies (chiefly insufficient sample size). In terms of personality tests, it's not uncommon for them to be horribly written, with a number of stale assumptions. For example, the old-school MMPI had some hilarious true/false questions:

• I like tall women.
  I know a tall woman, a psych nurse living in Minnesota, who was puzzled by this question. If she says no, does that indicate that she doesn't like herself and that she has self-esteem problems? If she says yes, does that indicate that she is a lesbian?
• I used to like "drop-the-handkerchief."
  This may have been a meaningful question in the 1930s, when the test was written, but within a few decades, most people taking the test didn't understand the question well enough to be able to give a meaningful answer.

I understand that the MMPI has been reworked, but it still stands as an example of a typical personality test, full of poorly-worded ambiguous questions that say as much about the failings of the test writer as they do about the personality of the test taker. For further discussion, see The Straight Dope. I feel entirely justified in saying that this is pseudo-science.

Would you care to respond to these points, or shall we continue to swap ad hominem attacks?

But you are welcome to judge me on whatever criteria you prefer, since it seems important to you.

Bingo. Care to guess how I turn up on Myers-Briggs?

You shouldn't state this as an absolute, because it's not. You also need to give reasons WHY to use maildir. An example exception case: We had an application where thousands of very small emails needed to be delivered to a single mailbox every minute.

If you are using mail servers for something other than email, then advice about how to handle email would indeed not apply.

Your comment is sort of like saying the advice for safely handling uncooked poultry doesn't really apply to the test engineers using the chicken gun to shoot raw chickens into running jet engines. It's true, but you would hope they already know that the normal rules don't apply.

handsfree kits are the sensible way to go

Administering a nation of 300 million people is not a job for morons, although some morons have got it anyway. Historically, we've had some extremely bright people running the country.

From wikipedia:
In addition to his political career, Jefferson was also an agriculturalist, horticulturist, architect, etymologist, archaeologist, mathematician, cryptographer, surveyor, paleontologist, author, lawyer, inventor, violinist, and the founder of the University of Virginia.

Jefferson wasn't alone either.

There was a period of time when smart people pretty much took over the world, called the Enlightenment. You really don't know anything meaningful about American history unless you know what and why the Enlightenment was... which is sad, because few do. The very existence of our country and modern ideas about democracy are owed to the intellectual revolution of those days.

In recent years, we've had Bill Clinton, who was a rhode scholar. Anyone know who was the smartest president of the 20th century?

Here's a nice article on the relative intelligence and stupidity of various presidents.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010622.html

Apparently something similar happened with Teflon too. The engineers at Dupont spent a very long time trying to get it to adhere to various surfaces. Teflon is so non-sticky that it took them years to get it to stick to metal pots and pans. Finally they came up with techniques of multiple layering and various methods to bake it on. More at http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_173.html

Um, where exactly did you check on the SSN not being a valid form of identification? http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_154.html

Now if your vomiting is from a reaction from something besides taste and burning mouth, you screwed.

Capsaicin is an irritant to all parts of the body, not just the mouth. If he's sensitive enough to throw up from a single habanero, then this pill would really mess with his stomach lining.

Incidentally, birds are not sensitive to capsaicin. This may be why chili peppers evolved to be hot since only they rely on birds (and birds alone) to eat the pods and spread their seeds around.

"In 1874 a company called Sholes and Glidden developed the QWERTY keyboard layout for their typewriters in order to decrease the frequency of mechanical failure."

Stop Propogating Myths

The first typewriter had its letters on the end of rods called "typebars." The typebars hung in a circle. The roller which held the paper sat over this circle, and when a key was pressed, a typebar would swing up to hit the paper from underneath. If two typebars were near each other in the circle, they would tend to clash into each other when typed in succession. So, Sholes figured he had to take the most common letter pairs such as "TH" and make sure their typebars hung at safe distances.

He did this using a study of letter-pair frequency prepared by educator Amos Densmore, brother of James Densmore, who was Sholes' chief financial backer. The QWERTY keyboard itself was determined by the existing mechanical linkages of the typebars inside the machine to the keys on the outside. Sholes' solution did not eliminate the problem completely, but it was greatly reduced.

The keyboard arrangement was considered important enough to be included on Sholes' patent granted in 1878 (see drawing), some years after the machine was into production. QWERTY's effect, by reducing those annoying clashes, was to speed up typing rather than slow it down.

In 1874 a company called Sholes and Glidden developed the QWERTY keyboard layout for their typewriters in order to decrease the frequency of mechanical failure.

Stop Propogating Myths

Anyone dumb enough to report income acquired through illegal means will get what's coming to them: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_329b.html

Here here.

Where? Where?

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhear.html/