Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 January 5

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.

January 5

Wrists

Closed Discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I recently returned from a trip to the LBJ National Grasslands. I woke in the middle of the night to extreme pain in my wrists. I took some advil and the pain has subsided. I just want to know what causes this (n.b. this means this question is not seeking medical advice). Is this what it means to be 'chilled to the bone?' Thanks Wikipedians. schyler (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Are you telling us it was cold? How cold? HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC) This question appears to be a request for medical advice. It is against our guidelines to provide medical advice. Schyler, from the information you provide this could be a lot of things. You need to consult a doctor about this question. WikiDao ☯ 04:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Responses containing prescriptive information or medical advice should be removed and an explanatory note posted on the discussion page. If you feel a response has been removed in error, please discuss it before restoring it. To answer the other part of your question, "Chilled to the bone" is usually just understood to mean "be very cold".[1] I've never heard or read it used to refer to a pain or to a particular set of medical symptoms except, perhaps, mild hypothermia. APL (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, if you were actually chiled to your actual bones, you would be suffering from severe frostbite as well as severe hypothermia. If you are so cold that your core body temperature drops significantly, you are in deep shit. The phrase is meant to be understood idiomatically, much as one who was very hungry would say "I am starving to death". --Jayron32 05:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I was asking if cold can cause pain in the wrists, NOT what I should do about it. This was not a request for medical advice according to Kainaw's Criterion. schyler (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, the personal experience you described means that your question is likely to fall foul of the "everything is a request for medical advice" crew. If you had phrased the question as "is it physically possible for exposure to cold to cause pain in the wrists?" and left it at that, you might have got away with it. But not now. --Viennese Waltz 14:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) While it may not be your intention, what you're asking for is a list of possible diagnoses based on a symptom you've described. If we say "Yes, cold can cause extreme pain the wrists", then you'll call it a day, and chalk your discomfort up to that. You might even be tempted to ignore the symptom in the future. If we say "No, cold shouldn't cause that symptom", then you'll be more inclined to seek proper medical advice. Whether you explicitly phrased your question as a 'what should I do?', the effect is the same. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Depending on the situation, pain could be caused in the wrists due to cold, but, if you woke up and felt like that, you probibly slept on your hands or arms wrong, though i'm not sure exactly what happened. You'll have to ask a doctor, but if you felt like that when you woke up, you probibly hurt your wrists when you were turning over in your sleep. that's the best i can do. and by the way people, the questioner clearly states that they are not seaking metical advice. N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Without offering medical advice (other than, if you want medical advice, please see a doctor), I would say that it is possible you experienced symptoms of arthritis. But it is conceivably something more serious, and of course only a doctor who examines you could offer a diagnosis. Marco polo (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I'm closing this down. It is clearly a request for medical advice. Explanations of the causes of pain should be explored by doctors, not random people on the Internet. --17:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Silver Award

My son received the "Presidential Silver Award", during his 5th grade graduation ceremony. Please explain in detail what this award is and the critereia for which one is awarded on.98.249.226.125 (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's probably an award given by the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation. This describes it in more detail. For the silver level for 5-14 year olds, it says 75-99 hours of volunteer work is necessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

LGBT understanding

I have a general question about the acronym LGBT.

As I understand this, it's meaning is; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgenders. As I read the acronym though, I feel that it should read; lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgenders. The term "gay" is not gender specific term and in our dictionaries. The word means nothing more than homosexual. In fact, if I'm not wrong, there is no term associated specifically for gay male in our dictionaries, which one assumes "gay" in the acronym refers to.

I find the English language confusing enough and this type of assumption doesn't help. We should not be using the term "gay" as male gender specific. That is not the true meaning. It's just an assumption.

I'm just being picky, but feel that I have a point to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Bryant 1965 (talk • [[SpInsert non-formatted text hereecial:Contributions/Gary Bryant 1965|contribs]]) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

True, we do talk about "gay men and lesbians", while "gay people" encompasses both sexes. But equally, "homosexual" applies to both sexes. If there was any change to be made, it would be to drop the "lesbian" and just have "gay, bisexual and transgender", or "homosexual, bisexual and transgender". But individuals like you and me don't get to dictate that widely-used abbreviations like LGBT should be changed to what we think they should be. Language doesn't work that way. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And "man" means "human being". Oh no it doesn't, it means "human male". Oh no it doesn't ...

People who choose to be picky often seem to lose sight of the fact that words can have more than one meaning. --ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

All that really matters in communication is whether we understand one another. Is there anybody who thinks the "gay" in LGBT means "happy"? --Mr.98 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a word for a male homosexual, but that word ("faggot") is considered offensive. It does seem odd that the word for a male homosexual is offensive when the word for a female homosexual is not. (Then again, "sissy" or "mama's boy" are offensive while "tomboy" or "daddy's girl" are not, so I detect a pattern.) StuRat (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous offensive terms for both male and female homosexuals, and the implication that the one you've used is somehow a standard is even more offensive. --LarryMac | Talk 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In StuRat's defence, he didn't say it was standard. And he stated outright that it was offensive. His point was simply that it was unambiguous because "faggot" is rarely, if ever, used to refer to a lesbian. If you easily get offended by statements of fact, the RD may not be a comfortable place for you. Matt Deres (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And if reading comprehension is such a problem for you, then perhaps the desks are not the place for you, either. --LarryMac | Talk 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be over-reacting, Larry Mac. You say StuRat "implied" the f-word is a standard, but I don't see that. All he said was that such a word exists, which is indisputably true. Your inference =/= his implication -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A faggot is a bundle of sticks used for firewood, or as the symbol of the Fascist party and state. A fag is a ciggie. Just because Americans use a word offensively doesn't mean the rest of us can't use it in a civilised manner. DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for completeness, in the UK a faggot is also a kind of meatball made from offal, which is the word's primary current meaning here. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are equally offensive words for female homosexuals, some of which are unrelated to land reclamation projects in the Netherlands. Let's just leave it at "There's some words that are acceptable and others that are offensive". --Jayron32 20:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This place looks like it could have a couple of polders Going Dutch. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This question has a historical answer. During the early days of gay liberation, a number of organizations were founded with the word gay as part of their names. Most of these organizations were founded by men, and many of them intended to appeal to lesbians; however, they often had little lesbian participation because lesbians did not like that men dominated the organizations. Also, some women had founded separate organizations, such as the Daughters of Bilitis. Beginning in the mid- to late 1970s, many gay organizations added the word lesbian to their names in an effort to attract more female participation. Those that were successful in broadening their appeal also engaged women in leadership positions. It was only later, during the 1980s and '90s, that organizations began broadening their scope to appeal to bisexuals and transgenders. The LGBT acronym has been in common use for less than 20 years. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Both are homosexual. He is a Male homosexual. She is a lesbian. As you state there is no gender specific term for the male homosexual that is not negative. The term they (men) used to self-designate was "gay". The answer is to stop being confused by LGBT. As JackofOz said...we don't get to choose. Buster Seven Talk 21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Languages aren't logical. But they do have common usage conventions. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde and his ilk used the word "Uranian" for male homosexuals, if you need a noun rather than the adjective "gay". That would lead to LUBT, which has a certain charm (if pronounced to rhyme with "love it", but is a little, er, suggestively lubricious if sounded like "lube it".  :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, they used the demonym for "Uranus" to refer to male homesexuals? Holy shit, I knew that Uranus jokes were old, I didn't know they were THAT old! --Jayron32 05:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Uranian is thought to come from the German word Urning, coined in c. 1864, which predated the coining of "homosexual" by about 5 years. In this meaning it doesn't appear to have any connection with Uranus, although it is also coincidentally the adjective denoting things from that planet. If there were any sentient beings on Uranus, I suppose there could be Uranian Uranians. I guess we'll never know, and we'll have to settle for Uranian Ukrainians Ukrainian Uranians. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The answers you are getting here have good historical and sociological meat to them, but if you would like more linguistic input, you might try asking again, after a suitable pause, at the Language RefDesk, which specialises in that sort of thing. In brief, languages live and change, as those who study English (including lexicographers) recognise and record: see Linguistic description and Linguistic prescription. Words which were once disparaging can be reclaimed; the technical name for this cultural process is Reappropriation.

LGBT, which contains no vowel and therefore functions as an initialism rather than an acronym, was intended as an umbrella term, to encompass groups that previously felt excluded by the simple moniker "gay". Social movements move on, however, and the umbrella covers even more people these days. Toronto Pride, which our article says is one of the world's biggest such events, exists, according to its website's section on Mission Vision Values, "to celebrate the history, courage, diversity and future of Toronto's LGBTTIQQ2SA* communities. (* Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer/Questioning, 2 Spirited, Allies)". I wonder how long it will be before the asexual contingent win recognition? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Jack of Oz: Well, Urning IS actually connected to Uranus. K. H. Ulrichs, the granddaddy of all gay activists who coined the term, derived the word from the name Aphrodite Urania, who was created from the body parts of Uranus. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, me thinks this could have been phrased somewhat more elegantly. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. So, it was derived from the same source used to name the planet, but not from the name of the planet itself. An indirect connection at best. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What skill set

What would be a very comprehensive skill set to describe the kind of person who could make this from scratch? I was going to post this question on the computing reference desk, since undoubtedly skill with certain software tools is part of my answer, but I wonder also what specific art skills could be identified as necessary too. Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your link is to a Computer Generated Image and its poster has noted underneath "Software: 3DS Max - Textures + Background: Photoshop" that identifies the software tools used to make it. Wikipedia has an articles on the Autodesk 3ds Max and Adobe Photoshop programs. The required skills are familiarity with these programs, plus creative motivation to draw complicated spaceships. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would describe the general technical skill set as "3D modeling and texturing." What you have here are really two separate things: the model itself (a 3D connection of vectors and planes that makes up the ship), and the textures (a set of 2D graphics that are mapped onto said ship to make it look real). You can have people who can do one without the other (I can do modeling, but I'm not very good at textures), and in any really professional environment they are often disentangled (you'll have full-time texture people and full-time model people). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And let's not forget the artistic design skills needed to dream up an interesting space-ship design. APL (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The 'skill set' will presumably include good Visual-spatial ability, along with an artistic imagination, and a great degree of patience - 3D modelling in software can be a long-winded process. In many ways, this is probably most analogous to sculpture as an artform. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I might disagree on that last part. The spatial skills for a sculptor and a 3D modeler are pretty different in my experience. The reason is that with a 3D model, you not only have an infinite number of undos (which makes a big difference between it and any analog world), and you also have the ability to abstract the work in ways that you can't do with actual sculpture. I have no skills at sculpture, but I can make 3D modeling work, because I can reduce the work to literally one plane at a time, constantly subdividing the complicated parts into simpler parts. You can do 3D modeling entirely without reference to the materials or appearance of your final object, and just have that all done in post-production. You can't really do anything like that with sculpture. In general I'm not sure the "analog" art skills map over to the digital ones very straightforwardly. Being good at Photoshop won't make you a good photographer (or painter, or anything else), nor will being a photographer (or painter) make you good at Photoshop. Generic visual sensibilities are important to both, but the practical and tactile skill sets are so different as to be utterly unrelated. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You might enjoy reading about Randy Pausch, whose lecture and book Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams touched many. His career exemplified building bridges of creativity between computing and arts. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Can any amount of skill make up for talent? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talent implies potential, skill implies actual. History is littered with individuals who had great, and ill-used, potential. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This humble imaging talent should have been nurtured better. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Had he been encouraged instead of disparaged, maybe history would have turned out differently. I wouldn't be surprised if those critics were at the top of his "exterminate" list, maybe even ahead of the Jews. "Don't get mad - get even." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Revenge is sweet. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

NIGHT-TIME PARKING LIGHTS IN BRITAIN

When I was much younger than today - about 50 years ago - it was a legal requirement that cars parked at the roadside during darkness, had to display red lights towards the rear and white lights at the front. Oh dear, I can almost hear the lecturing tones of some academic Wikipedian Guru telling me not to seek legal advice here. But here goes anyway. Nobody nowadays seems to obey that rule - and nobody gets a warning or gets arrested. Question - was that law abandoned, or else, has it passed quietly into redundancy because people woke up every morning to flat batteries? Thanks 92.30.149.195 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying they had to leave their parking lights on all night long ? That's just crazy. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• The Highway Code, as ever, has the answer. See this page, particularly rules 248 to 250. (below)

Parking at night

248

You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space.

[Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24]

249

All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h).

[Law RVLR reg 24]

250

Cars, goods vehicles not exceeding 1525 kg unladen weight, invalid carriages, motorcycles and pedal cycles may be parked without lights on a road (or lay-by) with a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) or less if they are at least 10 metres (32 feet) away from any junction, close to the kerb and facing in the direction of the traffic flow in a recognised parking place or lay-by

Other vehicles and trailers, and all vehicles with projecting loads, MUST NOT be left on a road at night without lights.

[Laws RVLR reg 24 & CUR reg 82(7)]

— The Highway Code

reformatted for legibility --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I used the {{tl:quote}} so it don't scroll off the side. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 02:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hope this helps, DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That leads to another Q ... do Brits really spell curb as "kerb" ? Anyone spelling it that way here would be sent to spelling jail (not gaol). :-) StuRat (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Marnanel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Stu, how is it that you can get away with using the word "Brits"?! I nearly get death threats for using the full word "British" and here you are using "Brits" which I've been flogged over here before. Dismas|^(talk) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because us Brits use it right. You foreigners always use it inappropriately, and annoy the Irish. Or the Scots. Or the Welsh. Or the English. There is no point in having an ethnicity if you can't argue about it... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The reverse is also true. If you called a redneck in the Deep South a "yank", he'd head for his confederate flag-decorated pick-up truck to grab his shotgun off the gun rack. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

But I think the question is about whether 249 and 250 (in particular) are actually enforced. --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably not. And I would be interested in an answer to exactly the same question for Australia. Anybody? HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Will vary from state to state in Australia. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the opposite for UK, certainly 249 seems fine, roads faster than 30mph (ie 40mph+) do not generally have cars parked on them, they're double-yellow lined. 250 is a little more iffy, I've seen a lot of cars parked nearer junctions than 10m, and many people don't pay attention to the "flow of traffic". But as to the lights issue, I've never seen a violation. Worm 08:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

See also Lighting-up time and The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (RVLR) for more info. Nanonic (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

An accessory light was (is?) sold in England that clipped on a side window and contained a single bulb powered by a cable to the cigarette lighter socket. It had a plain glass facing forwards and a red glass facing rearwards. Thus it satisfied the legal parking light requirement with only 1/4 of the current of the regular lamps. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember those, but I haven't seen one for many years. Modern LED lights would solve the problem of battery drain. Dbfirs 13:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As, not a lawyer, but a UK driver for 25 years, my understanding is that the requirement for parking 'lights' is acceptably met by the colour reflective properties of a (parked) vehicle's rear brake and fog lights, and red reflective plates which may additionally be part of the rear light cluster, and by the similar properties of the front light fittings, which like road centre-line cats' eyes reflect some of a moving vehicle's lights back at it. That said, I've never myself had to park at night on a roadway with more than a 30mph limit, but I've often driven at night through 40-60mph zones with parked cars, and have never in my life noticed one vacated with lights left on.

Back in the 1960's, my father was once fined for being incorrectly lit, having parked in a line of other cars, facing "the wrong way" (and without lit lights). He did so outside my grandparents' house to enable my arthritis-crippled grandmother to exit the car more easily: the scores of other cars on both sides of the street were parked with no correlation to the traffic flow (and no lit lights), as they always were, so he did not think to amend his position, and we assume that he uniquely attracted the fine because his car was not recognised as that of a local resident. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I consider myself "old-school" when it comes to using parking lights... I work part-time for a food delivery company and I'm constantly in and out of my car parking on many different types of roads... However I can guarentee that everytime I leave my parking lights on, I get a good half dozen people come over to me to tell me my lights are still on... Parking lights just aren't recognised by drivers nowadays it seems... Admitedly the shop I deliver for is in a 30mph zone, but they all just seem to have no idea what parking lights are... Shows how little the rule over them is enforced! gazhiley.co.uk 13:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)