Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 January 15

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 15

16 mm + 18 - 55 mm lenses

A brand camera is sold, in one of it's original packages, with a 16 mm and a 18 - 55 mm lens. What's the point of including this 16 mm lens, it's just a little bit shorter than the shortest span of the other lens, and it will make the camera more expensive. 88.9.215.240 (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I imagine the small lens is considerably smaller and lighter than the zoom lens, making it more portable for occasions that don't require the zoom lens. StuRat (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the f-number of the 16 mm compared with the 18 – 55? A good 16mm 'prime lens' with a good f-number would be a useful addition to a zoom with lower f-numbers.--Aspro (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is Sony NEX5DB Alpha Compact System Camera - 16mm F2.8 and 18-55mm F3.5-5.6. So, yes, you get a lower f on the 16mm. 88.9.215.240 (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Prime lenses tend to be a bit sharper than zoom lens, which might be another reason for its inclusion. --Daniel 17:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you're looking at a package like this one? The 16mm lens will be a bit 'faster' than the 18-55mm zoom when wide open. f/2.8 versus f/3.5 is two-thirds of an f-stop when wide open, which means about 60% more light getting to the sensor (and commensurately shorter exposure times) at maximum aperture. (The low f-number also means a shallower depth of field, which can be useful for certain types of photography.) Because the optics in the 16mm lens only have to work well at one focal length, it's likely to be somewhat sharper and suffer from less distortion than the zoom lens. (This a reasonable rule of thumb for comparing prime and zoom lenses at similar focal lengths; you should check lens-specific reviews if you want to be sure that it's true for any specific lens.)

On a camera with an APS-C-sized sensor, a 16mm prime lens is equivalent to about a 25mm lens on a 35mm film SLR, so it's a moderately wide-angle lens that could be used as a 'walking-around' lens under a lot of circumstances. The short, flat 'pancake lens' form factor makes the 16mm lens a lot shorter and lighter than the 18-55 zoom, so the camera becomes a lot lighter and skinnier – almost 'pocketable', for the NEX5DB – than when you have the zoom attached. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Last USAF pilot killed in air to air engagement?

Who was the last USAF or USN pilot killed in an air to air engagement? Specifically, the pilot must not have fallen victim to fratricide, or a ground to air attack. Reference would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.68 (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Scott Speicher (Jan. 17, 1991)? The official report says he was downed by a surface-to-air missile, but others claim a MiG got him. (See his article for the conflicting references.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses plus some extra hunting around about the one USN listed from the Persian Gulf war points to Scott Speicher being a potential candidate, though the exact cause of his crash (whether it was surface-to-air or air-to-air) seems still a bit murky, though there are potentially good reasons to think it was air-to-air. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If not Speicher, then I think the previous one was from the Vietnam War: Lt. M.F. Haifley, from December 28, 1972. (His co-pilot was not killed in action but captured as a POW.) (See Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War.) --Mr.98 (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Both Speicher and Haifley were navy pilots, not air force though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.68 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Weeelll you did allow for USN pilots, no? Anyway, I've linked to the articles I used to try and suss out this sort of information, you can probably do any remaining research with them myself. Look over the Vietnam article, find the latest air-to-airs, then figure out whether they were USAF, then figure out who it was. If there is none in Vietnam that fits the bill, use the other conflicts in the air-to-air combat losses article (there are a few in 1969-1970 over Eastern Europe). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there national anthems which are required to be sung by law? (as in, no instrumental versions are allowed)

This question came into my mind while listening to the Nepalese national anthem. All videos of it on YouTube (and even the .ogg file of it on our article) are vocal versions (incidentally, the exact same version), and I have not been able to find an instrumental version. Maybe other versions of it are rare, but is it possible that it must be sung? Are there anthems which by law can only have vocal versions? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In contrast (to fail to answer the question in the worst possible way), the Spanish national anthem does not have any (official) words at all. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want this to be construed as spam, but here is a link to a video on YouTube with an instrumental version of the Nepalese anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mKlpWHMLkk (Lorddaine usually has the best instrumental versions on YouTube). 80.122.178.68 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's their old one, not their current one. 112.208.102.37 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Well, then he probably hasn't found the new one in an instrumental version yet, which brings us back to the OP's question. 80.122.178.68 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly and you only found one copy of the anthem (how many duplicates you found doesn't really matter), this doesn't really tell us anything about how common instrumental versions are. All it tells us is the Nepali national anthem is not very common, perhaps because it was only introduced in 2007 and Nepal is not particularly well known in a lot of the world (people may know them as one of the countries Everest is location in and the common climbing starting point, but that only translates to interest in the country itself loosely). Even in terms of sport, one area where you may expect the anthem, they aren't particularly known in any area. (Their current FIFA ranking is 153, they've never made it to any tournament involving Test cricket nations). Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the Costa Concordia the largest passenger ship ever to sink?

Regarding the Costa Concordia disaster, this article says the, "Costa Concordia is the largest ship ever to sink," but that's not strictly true counting supertankers. However [1] shows that it is certainly the largest passenger ship to ever sink or be destroyed in service, but it's not a WP:RS. Is there a more reliable source? Selery (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Define "largest". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

By gross weight tonnage or length, or both, I believe, in this case. Selery (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Gross tonnage is volume, not weight. CC was the largest by GT, which is not displacement. RMS Queen Elizabeth (sunk in 1972) displaced more but was smaller, having less GT. (To complicate matters, QE was measured in GRT, CC in GT, but the two measures are similar.) GRT and, after 1969, GT, are the measures of size for passenger ships, so yes, CC is the largest one ever lost. QE was the largest passenger ship ever built until 1996, and no larger ship built since then has been lost, until Concordia. 174.253.140.22

Also note that the CC hasn't actually sunk yet, it only ran aground. It may yet sink, if it gets washed off the reef into deep enough water for it to disappear below the waves. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

After arguing about this for something like 30 kilobytes, the Editing Community has settled on "partially sunk". Sigh. Selery (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If the only thing keeping it up is the fact that the water isn't deep enough for it to fully submerge, I'd call it "sunk". --Carnildo (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

By that definition many ships in dry dock are also sunk. StuRat (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ieager WVa connection to YeagerKy

Mcdowell County West Virginia and Pike County Kentucky seem to have several social, geographic and historical connections. Has someone articled their relationship. I specifically wondered about the railroad connection and the building of the King Coal Highway. Would town residents have taken the name Ieager with them to a new location. There is also a town named Perryville that included residents from that area who came in from the rails maybe because the namne was familiar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BetEthMabJeanDorie (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

renting a room in a home

If you rent one or more rooms in a home, can a case be made for "common law marriage" if you live there long enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.112.103 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Common law marriage says "Cohabitation alone does not create a common-law marriage; the couple must hold themselves out to the world as spouses"; and the cohabitation article defines it as "an arrangement where two people who are not married live together in an intimate relationship" -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Like most legal issues, it depends entirely on the jurisdiction. The article common-law marriage points out that for most jusrisdictions "Cohabitation alone does not create a common-law marriage; the couple must hold themselves out to the world as spouses" and "There must be mutual consent of the parties to the relationship constituting a marriage". Common-law marriage in the United States has a little bit finer breakdown of the different requirements between different states, some of which require presenting themselves to the public as husband and wife, and/or consummation (the term cohabitation is frequently used, but may, depending on jurisdiction, mean something more than just "living in the same house" - you'd have to check local laws). - If you're asking for more than just academic interest, you need to seek out someone who knows the laws in your area - Wikipedia does not give out legal advice. -- 71.35.113.131 (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose some married couples don't sleep in the same room. But in such cases it would be hard to prove a common-law marriage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I watched one of those "dole cheats" TV programmes on British daytime TV (I was at the gym, honest). One case involved a guy who was a lodger at the home of some rich bird (I think she may actually have been a Lady). He was claiming benefits. But the benefit fuzz thought that he wasn't a lodger at all, but a bidie-in. Eventually they found evidence that the pair of them were buying properties together, but then they transferred the title just to her, so he had no assets. By showing the pair pooled their finances in a way akin to a couple, the DHSS could say they were common-law wed, that he'd lied on the benefits claim, and thus there was fraud afoot. 87.113.13.28 (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've heard of the flip side of this, from someone I knew in Australia (and believe I can trust). She was flatting with two people in a two bedroom house, and Social Security concluded she had to be in a relationship with one or the other, so they would dock about a third of her allowance. I think one of the flatmates was a male relative, and the other was a female in a relationship with someone else (or something like that). She actually slept on the couch, but she ended up having to tell them she was sleeping with both the flatmates, and that apparently worked - she couldn't be tied to either one. IBE (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The OP asks "can a case be made". One interpretation of that is, "If I give money to a lawyer, will s/he attempt to find some legal precedent on which we can argue this case in court." The answer to that is almost certainly yes: if that is how you want to spend your money, there is bound to be a lawyer happy to take it from you. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So if you share rent with someone, the government can just assume you to be married should they want? I barely speak to my current flatmates, I hope they're not deducting money from me for being here. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Hold themselves out to the world as spouses" is part of the description in every example I've heard. I suppose you could live somewhere "odd"... Also... quite a few jurisdictions have abolished common law marriages. Shadowjams (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like one of the problems in the case IBE mentions is that there were only 2 beds but 3 people, not simply a case of sharing a flat. It's still a bit surprising, it isn't unheard of for students (general of the same sex) to share rooms in NZ to save cost [2]. Similar, I've heard of students with sleeping on coach and similar arrangements before. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)