Miscellaneous desk
< August 5	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 6

Worst flood

The 'In the news' section on the main page of Wikipedia states that 'The worst flooding in Pakistan's history kills over 1,100 people and displaces thousands more.' On the page 'List of deadliest floods', the floods in 1950 and 1993 killed more people in Pakistan than the current one. Does the main page news refer to worst as causing more damage by destroying more structures and displacing more people or is it a mistake? Thanks. --116.71.44.189 (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1950 flood was in East Pakistan, according to the History of Pakistan article, so it falls outside the current borders. Rojomoke (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the one in 1993?--119.155.135.136 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know yet just how many people have been killed in the current flood. Dbfirs 09:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1993 flood affected not only Pakistan, but India, Nepal and Bangladesh as well and was associated with increased seasonal monsoon rains. The current flooding may reach a death toll of 3,000. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the BBC [1] the current floods have affected fourteen million people, and four million will need food-aid for the next three months. The full death toll will not be known for some time. How does one measure "worst"? Dbfirs 08:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Testing

When nuclear Testing was undertaken in Nevada in the 1950/60's were the mushroom clouds viewable from Las Vegas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.192.44 (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nevada_Test_Site#1951.E2.80.931992; During the 1950s, the mushroom cloud from these tests could be seen for almost 100 mi (160 km) in either direction, including the city of Las Vegas, where the tests became tourist attractions. Americans headed for Las Vegas to witness the distant mushroom clouds that could be seen from the downtown hotels. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Nevada Test Site notes that distant mushroom clouds were visible from Las Vegas (including from the downtown hotels), but I haven't been able to find a source for the statement. This 1955 pamphlet from the Atomic Energy Commission reports that the initial flash of a nuclear detonation could be seen from Las Vegas, even during daylight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find some photos on the web that are supposedly of clouds viewed from downtown hotels — [2] [3] — or of the glow visible [4]. For the larger tests it is not inconceivable (most tests at NTS were not exceptionally large, by nuclear standards). It's of note that they generally did not announce exact dates/times of tests ahead of time, so you wouldn't be able to just go and wait for it to happen with much luck. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Operation Plumbbob, the mushroom cloud from the Hood test in 1957 topped out at 49,000 feet. and that from the Priscilla test was 43,000 feet high. At that height, distance to the horizon is about 250 miles, so it is certainly feasible that these mushroom clouds were visible from Las Vegas, only 65 miles away. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, John Wayne probably saw one while making The Conqueror "137 miles downwind". A number of cast members, including Wayne, got cancer later, which many suspect was caused by their exposure to the fallout. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Carson

I've been watching reruns of The Tonight Show from the mid 1970s. A few observations. Johnny Carson was a genius. His interviews were great. He is incredibly clever and quick, and the gag bits on the show are genuinely well written and sometimes laugh out loud funny (and also sometimes bizarre in a great Monty Pythonesque way). I have nothing against Leno or Letterman, et al., but they're so far below in writing in interviewing, etc. Their bits are ubiquitously mildly entertaining in a groaning sort of way, never funny like this. I'm also surprised by how much racier the show is--much racier! Sex talk and innuendo and double entendres and the like are casual. How did we become so puritanical? Anyway, I do have a question, though comments are welcomed regarding anything I've said previously. My parents told me years ago (they are not around anymore) of an incident in which someone came on the show and got into a true fight with Johnny Carson (I don't mean physical), and that it was really nasty. I'm pretty sure it was a woman but that's all I remember. They told me who it was, but I can't remember (not really even an inkling other than my impression of gender). Does anyone know possibly to what incident my parents were referring?--141.155.148.156 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in the mid-seventies, but wanted to comment on your question, "How did we become so puritanical?" Acknowledging that my lifespan isn't as long, and that I've only been able to notice trends in television for, say, thirty years... I would probably say that Television hasn't gotten more puritanical, it's just gotten less subtle. Back then, as you said, there was lots of "sex talk and innuendo and double entendres," but there was (again, from what I remember) significantly less skin and vulgar language. Characters on TV shows now say the word "sex" a lot, where back in the 70s, they used to call it "lovemaking" or "sleeping together" or even "whoopee." (Not that they *only* say "sex" now, and not that they don't say "sleeping together"-- I'm just describing the trend.) I remember watching the miniseries "North and South," and there are a couple of scenes where a bare female back is shown. This was 1985, and that just wasn't seen on prime-time television all that often; where now, it's basically no big deal. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The need for subtlety prompted cleverness. TV was under a pretty tight rein in the 50s and 60s, and this started to change in the 70s. All in the Family broached a lot of previously taboo topics, as did, frankly, the uncensored Nixon "Watergate" tapes; and it has slowly progressed (if that's the word) since then. America in general still has a strong puritanical undercurrent, which is why so much of a brouhaha is made about actresses popping out of their tops, the Janet Jackson incident, and such stuff as that. Carson was great at slipping those comments in. Like one time when an actress allowed herself to be put under hypnosis for a few minutes. When she came to, she asked, "Did you do anything while I was asleep?" and Johnny said, "Yes - We'll name it after both of us!" Then there's the Ed Ames tomahawk clip that was thankfully saved from the early years. It evoked a huge reaction, supposedly the longest sustained laugh in the history of the Tonight show. And just as the laughter was dying down, Carson commented, "I didn't even know you were Jewish!" and the audience screamed again. If something like that happened today on Leno or Letterman, it might get a snicker or two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this, which sounds, partly, like what you describe. Quote: The next guest was Irish actress Siobhan McKenna who then got into a loud fight with both men, and Johnny Carson almost lost control of his own show.. Source: [5]. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Maybe you are referring to Carson's controversy with Joan Rivers, when she accepted a late-night talk show offer from Fox and he took umbrage? See the 1980s-1990s section on her page. Catrionak (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a reference desk, so if you dislike opinions, don't read this :-).

I almost completely agree with the OP on Carson vs today's late-night hosts, and I have one overarching reason: with Carson, everything was "for the good of the show." I can listen to a Letterman joke, close my eyes, and just imagine Carson telling it -- and it's funnier.

When Carson told a joke that got a big laugh, his reaction seemed to be, "Yes, that was a funny joke."
When Letterman tells the same joke, his reaction just exudes, "Yes, I just told a funny joke." It's all about HIM, not the show.

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. Any late night TV chat show is always about the host. And that includes daytime radio shock jocks and all the rest of them. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

animals that can't jump

Can rhinos or hippos jump?

Sail Don

<removed email address>--66.245.29.50 (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at our articles? Hippo/Rhino? We will reply on here, rather than by email. I removed it because many people will be able to see it and you'll probably get spammed. Chevy monte carlo 14:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles do not address the question of these animals jumping. --Sean 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No.[6] Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, on the same site: Yes. [7]. What say we try and find a more reliable source? --Tango (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A rhinoceros can gallop (you can find pictures on Google Images), so it can certainly jump to some degree. Hippos are more questionable. Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"no because the it will break the floor". Hell, if that's good enough for Cuddlyable3, it's good enough for me! --Mr.98 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe this TV advert elephants can climb trees, so perhaps rhinos and hippos can jump. Astronaut (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, yes. See this for rhino jumping. Astronaut (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hippos don't jump. They charge. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Commander Henry T. Stanley Playground

Henry T. Stanley Jr. was born in Panama, January 16, 1925. He was the son of Capt. Henry T. Stanley Sr. who became Naval Aviator #186 in 1916, flew flying boats against German U-boats in WWI and was a Gray Eagle (awarded to the Naval Aviator on active duty the longest) and once commanded Ream Field Naval Auxiliary Air Station. Henry Stanley Sr. died in 1962 and . Henry T Stanley Jr. earned his Navy wings in 1945. He was painter and photographer, composed piano music.

Written for the Oakland Tribune Editorial Page January 13, 1965 - 'Special Kind of Man "It's a brave and unselfish man who will stay with a faltering airplane to avoid a tragedy on the ground. Cmdr. Herny T. Stanley of the United States Navy was such a man. Rather than abandon his crippled jet and allow it to crash in to a crowed residential area in Fremont, Commander Stanley rode his plane down to the treetops in guiding it into a narrow strip of open field. His thoughtfulness for those below cost him his life, because he was much to low for his parachute to open when he finally ejected. Commander Stanley knowingly sacrificed his life, because he knew when his altitude fell below a certain point that his parachute would be useless. And it should be noted here that rather than further endanger the life of his partner, he ordered him to bail out at a safe altitude after attempts to restart the jet's engine had failed. " Commander Stanley ordered me out at 3,500 feet," his partner said. "He stayed with the plane because he wanted to make sure no one would get hurt." The veteran naval pilot could have ejected himself from the falling jet and trusted to luck that the plane would not kill or injure anyone when it crashed - but he would not make such a decision based only on luck. He had to make sure. His action testifies to the fact that Cmdr. Henry T Stanley was a special kind of man. He leaves his wife and three children. They can be everlastingly proud of him."

He was attached to the U.S.S. Midway, which was home ported in Alameda, at the time of his death. Lt. Cmdr. Harford Fields, Mobile, Ala., parachuted to safety earlier at Stanley's command. The City Counsel of Fremont resolution points out that Commander Stanley "unhesitatingly altered his course toward the foothills and then with no thought for himself stayed with his airplane to guide it, thus preventing the catastrophe of it falling into the homes and schools." Stanley ejected, but his parachute never opened. His body was found three-quarters of mile away from the crash scene still strapped to the ejection seat which should have separated automatically. It is estimated that he ejected at 2,000 feet. The jet's canopy was found on a rooftop half a mile for the crash scene. The plane skimmed over rooftops, and narrowly missed Mission San Jose High School, two blocks from the crash scene.

Cmdr. Stanley did eject from the the T-33 jet trainer at the last moment, but the seat failed to detach automatically from the strapped-in pilot and allow his parachute to open. The Navy board investigating the crash was told the particular type of ejection seat in Stanley's plane was consider outmoded and would have been replaced with newer version that greatly increases the chance of survival if funds had been available. Over a year after Stanley's death the Navy got $1 million in funds to remove and modernize the ejection seats in the 167 T-33s.

"Dedicated September 11, 1965 to the heroism of Commander Henry T. Stanley who, on January 11, 1965 sacrificed his life near this playground so that others might live." This inscription appears on a plaque near Mission San Jose High School in Fremont, CA. During the the playground dedication Vice Admiral Paul D. Stroop presented Mrs. Mary Henry T. Stanley with the Distinguished Flying Cross posthumously awarded to Commander Henry T. Stanley, Jr., United States Navy.

In the 1997 Cmdr. Henry T Stanley Jr.'s second son William J. Stanley, who was ten years old when his father died, visited the playground and found the plaque barely attached to the stone, over grown with weeds and had some vandalism done to it. He contacted the the City of Fremont's Judy Felber, supervising park manager. The unrepairable plaque was re-cast. The plaque was then placed so as you read the plaque you could look across the fields to Mission San Jose High School, and Chadbourne Elementary and Hopkins Junior High to appreciate the innocent lives saved by Stanley giving his life. Stanley eldest son Cmdr. Henry T. Stanley III, (who was also a pilot in the Navy, is now a pilot for American Airlines), and daughter Barbara Stanley took their mother Mary Ann to see her husband's refurbished park and plaque. Mary Ann and Henry Jr. met in the Navy. Mary Ann was a nurse in the Navy. She died in May 2010. She never remarried. Lolagirl1 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serial dog poopers

This is a three part question. What is the psychology of a serial dog pooper? I'm not sure if this is the correct term, but I'm talking about a person who allows their dog to poop in public, but doesn't clean up after them. Now, for the second part. How does society deal with these people? More to the point, how does an individual communicate effectively with such a person and get them to change their behavior? Lastly, what should a person do when they observe this behavior? Remain silent and ignore it, or say something? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you swat them on the nose with a folded newspaper very soon after the offense, it might alter their behavior. (I refer to the owner, not the dog). (Not offered as legal advice: this might constitute assault and battery). Edison (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even that doesn't work. I'm just curious about the mindset of someone who thinks it's ok for their dog to poop all over the place without having to pick it up. BTW, after I posted this message, at least two pedestrians stepped on the poop and got it stuck in their shoes, in two different locations. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Context is key here. Dog poop on a major sidewalk says you don't care what the next person thinks, either because you're so oblivious or because you're just inured to other people's negative reactions. Those people suck. On the other hand, I can imagine a dog on a remote trail literally "in the woods" and having someone complain about it. In that case the complaining people suck. I'll leave it up to you to say what psychological disorder they might display, but as a general rule it's people who fail to consider what others think, and what's reasonable.

By the way, if your culture wants a sign that it's out of real problems, this concern would be a good litmus test. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It's a sign of deeper cultural problems; If you don't care about the place where you live or where others live around you, there's a huge problem. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the owner politely to pick up the deposit. If they refuse, smile and say "OK, I'll pick it up for you". Then follow them home and deposit the offending material on their doorstep. This shouldn't constitute a crime because you are only returning their own property. Dbfirs 09:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dbfirs! You're too good to be true! From whence do you come? Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas: I would try notifying the authorities. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing they could have a tendency for metaphorically defecating on the grounds of society. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :)) Or a bit less confrontational - always carry a couple of little plastic bags in your pocket, and when you see a guilty party about to sneak off, say "excuse me, I've got a spare bag if you're out". It gives them a readymade excuse for having tried to leave, so you're less likely to get a torrent of abuse and/or a black eye. 86.140.52.244 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? That's not such a bad idea. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that any response should be inversely proportional to the metrics of the canine involved. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dbfirs, that's the first time I've come across the concept that one owns one's own waste products, particularly after they've been excreted from the body. The legal/moral requirement to properly dispose of such matter should not be confused with property rights. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it must be considered to be some form of littering. That is "the dumping of unwanted materials on the street". So identifying the proper "owners" (ie the litterers), does not seem like such a bad idea. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's being done. It's called fecal profiling (no joke). Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why dogs should be banned from cities and towns. Googlemeister (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]