Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 July 12

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.

July 12

proverb

can you tell me about the proverb Practise makes man perfect in about 100 words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.52.26 (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The proverb is usualy stated as simply "Practice makes perfect". Googleing that give me this [1]. APL (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these are equivalent, and perhaps that's the point. For one, I've only heard "Practice makes perfect" as the familiar adage. The act of "practicing," I've always understood in the sense cited by APL, indicates repeating an action as the route to "perfecting" its performance. This is not identical to making the person perfect per se. The high utility of practice relates to a Latin proverb, Repetitio mater studiorum est – "Repetition [e.g. rote memorization] is the mother of study." In this context, it supports that particular form of pedagogy. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you practice writing 100 word essays you'll surely reach a level of perfection that is above desiring the help of the reference desk. -LambaJan (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

iq question, once more, this time, i remember it exactly

a 1970's looking car is on a bridge with similar looking ends. this is the sideways view, so, i can't see any headlights or tailights. there's nothing more in the diagram.also, it's a small diagram, so there's no diagram of the driver. (there are cars with three windows, like toyota innova)

well, my friend noticed that the left side of the car(our left side) is a little nearer to the ground than the right side, as if passengers were sitting there. so he concluded that the driver was on the right side and so the car was moving to the right.

did this help you? is there any other answer?

i know the diagram is very uninformative... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.248.231 (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How would you know if the car wasn't moving in reverse? Again, I don't see this as being a very well-posed question. It's certainly got nothing to do with IQ. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your teacher wants you to work this out on your own and not ask internet strangers to help. Regardless, this sounds like the sort of puzzle that depends on noticing some small detail on the diagram, without seeing it we'd just be guessing. APL (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The car is not moving.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As regards the puzzle's exact wording here, are you quite sure it's "car" - and restricted to the sense of a conventional passenger vehicle... or might it be some form of commercial vehicle? You see, I'm familiar with a version of the puzzle, and interpreting the configuration of visible features along with comparable features that can be imputed for the unseen side, is the key to its solution. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

N.B. For a similar comment, see what Grutness responded (later) to your earlier posting, "iq question". -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you've misremembered the question and it was supposed to be a bus, not a car. A bus will have a door on the pavement/sidewalk side, so if you know which country the bus is designed for and which side of the road they drive on, you can tell very easily which end is the front. - 79.71.249.109 (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In a similar vein, if you can see doorhandles, side mirrors or mudflaps then you can tell which end is the front. Does "similar looking ends" include front and back windshields or just the bumper areas? If the picture shows a difference, the front windshield is the one with the gentler slope. While these things could help determine which end is front, except for mudflaps none of them will indicate direction of travel. What I mean is that even if you determine where the front is, the car could still be travelling in reverse gear. When you learn the answer, please come back and let us know. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Fresca Healthy?

Is Fresca soft drink really as healthy as it is marketed to be? On the nutrional label on the back, it claims to have 0 calories, 0 sugar, almost 0 everything- very much like water. Is Fresca as harmless as water? Acceptable (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not healthy. It has an artificial sweetener, which is bad for you, and lots of acid, which is bad for your teeth. I'd stick with water with a few drops of lemon juice for flavor. Or you might want to actually get some vitamins and minerals from your drink by going with fruit juice or milk. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Stu, do you realize that your links don't support your claims and that you prescription for avoiding acid in your drink is to add acid to your drink? And that you didn't mention the medical claims against fruit juice (far tougher on the teeth, etc.) Rmhermen (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of degree. A few drops of lemon juice adds far less acid than you find in any soda. And the links I provided bring up the medical conerns on both counts, listing both arguments for and against. StuRat (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It may also depend on how you feel about glycerol ester of wood rosin and brominated vegetable oil.

Atlant (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As a slight aside, sucralose could totally kick aspartame's ass in a bar fight. Current scientific evidence seems to side with it being safe, though there are possibly immune reactions at 750 mg/kg bw/day (for an average human, that's 5000 Splenda packets per day). Long-term studies to check for possibly accumulative effects would still be helpful though. 24.76.161.28 (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I once drank a couple cans of that stuff after having quite a few cold beers...I woke up feeling like spiders were crawling all over me. I stay away from it. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I will stay away from any artificial sweetener until they have 30 years of safe usage under their belt, as it seems to take about that long for the long-term consequences of things like trans-fats to become widely known. I see no reason to take any chances with any nasty chemicals until then. Meanwhile, I'll either stick with sugar or use stevia, a natural sweetener that does have over 30 years of safe usage under it's belt (in Japan and elsewhere). StuRat (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My ancestors lived well for many millenia drinking H₂O. Artificial colors, sweeteners, flavors, and carbonation provide no benefit in achieving optimal hydration. Edison (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

They also lived 'well' for many millenia without antibiotics. Not saying that drinking water is a bad thing, or that drinking fizzy sweet liquids is good, but that's not really a relevant point. What things provide benefits for optimal hydration vary from circumstance to circumstance; if you had diarrhoea, plain water would not provide optimal hydration. Sorry for wandering off the point... Blah. 79.66.54.186 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you've got significant Native American ancestry, odds are they didn't. Anywhere with high population densities has problems with waterborne diseases. The European solution was beer (alcohol kills bacteria); the Asian solution was tea (so does boiling water). --Carnildo (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

also, excessive consumption of phosphate, as in carbonated soft drinks, leads to weak bones (being composed of calcium phosphate you need to keep the two ions balanced in intake for optimal bone formation).

as for artificial sweeteners in general, the question is not which is best, but just why? aside from diabetics and tooth decay, there has never been any demonstration that artificial sweeteners, particularly in soft drinks, have any appreciable improvement over sugar sweetened soft drinks. they just released the results of yet another similar study not that long ago. and that's just the publicly funded studies; you can assume the sweetener and soft drink companies are running these studies privately all the time trying to get some kind of marketing handle, and if they did you'd hear about it. it's not as paradoxical as one might think; it's not like you spend your day pouring soft drinks and carbohydrates down your throat as much as you can get your hands on, so altering the amount available affects your intake. in fact your hunger and thirst are under the control of a lot of things, but very definitely including your body set points for weight, blood sugar, etc. and it's not too surprising that an extra teaspoon of sugar at one part of the day will mean you intake a teaspoon less at another point; and if you replace that teaspoon with artificial sweetener, then you get that missing teaspoon somewhere else. some of the studies of artificial sweetener have quantified this effect, seeing subjects unconsciously increasing their food intake to maintain the same total caloric uptake when sugar is replaced on a double blind basis, totally unconsciously. the ugly side is that when the sugar is returned on a double blind basis, replacing the artifical sweetener, the total volume intake remains the same, and the calories go up, higher than they were to start with, completely unknown to the subject. again, it's not completely surprising that there should be an asymmetry in appetite modification, given that for a billion years or so our ancestors (back to the bacteria) were in danger of starving most of the time. so, your body doesn't like it when it's deprived of calories and tries to replace them, but when a few more are supplied, it doesn't feel the need to alter behavior to avoid them.Gzuckier (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Brain drops keep falling from my head...

A few days ago there was a Palestinian terrorist who drove a tractor into a crowd of Israelis, and this was covered on BBC News. The shocking part, to us poor innocent Americans, is that they showed somebody shoot him in the head with his brains splattering out. Is this sort of thing usual for BBC News ? StuRat (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing that on the BBC coverage for the UK. The BBC usually edits out all the scenes that it considers unsuitable for viewing on the part of the public. I guess it's all part of the nanny state ethos that is so prevalent over here. On the other hand we have all seen - many times - the clip of JFK losing some of his brains in the Zapruder film. Perhaps that has some sort of historical interest that overrides the censor. On another tack it strikes us here in the UK as odd that gruesome scenes as you describe are shown with freedom in the US but the slightest hint of nipples, nates or nudity are censored with disproportional rigour. (nice headline btw) Richard Avery (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm in need of a translation for Americans...what are "nates" ? StuRat (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

medical term for buttocks, used for euphony. Richard Avery (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is still the case, but around the late 1980s I (expat American) was told that scripted television programming (i.e. not documentary or newscasts) in the UK included explicit representations of physical violence unacceptable to US audiences. For example, in a fistfight the American TV viewer would see the swing and hear the impact but not view the punch connecting, let alone the aftermath gore, which would be routine for the UK audience. I don't know whether this held for "foreign films" broadcast on network TV at that time before cable and satellite. (And btw, a "nicer headline" would have stopped after the word "falling"...!) -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression that TV is censored much more in the US than in the UK. The US seems to censor everything except bloody violence - sex is avoided at all costs, profanity is bleeped out (even in adult shows) and even T-shirt slogans are covered up with fuzziness (why is that BTW?). In the UK, particularly after the 9pm watershed, I am never surprised to see sex or bloody violence, or hear profanity in the UK. The exception would appear to be in UK news broadcasts where I have almost never seen blood and gore where it involves real people in real-life situation. I believe this is done to protect the privacy of real people and their realtives. UK news even goes as far as showing out of focus pictures or filming people's feet. Astronaut (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think T-shirt slogans are blurred because of copyright issues. The T-shirt maker could argue in court that people watched the TV show because of the witty saying on the T-shirt, and that they should therefore be compensated. StuRat (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the man driving a bulldozer into a bus. The footage of the man being shot was shown on BBC News, but only during the 10pm bulletin. The editor has blogged about the decision here and the BBC have responded to the complaints they received here (they say that "on reflection, we felt that the pictures featured on Wednesday's News at Ten did not strike the right editorial balance between the demands of accuracy and the potential impact on the programme's audience"). — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In the US, there is a distinction between fictional violence and real violence. In fictional violence just about anything goes (with the possible exception of child murders), whereas real violence is heavily self-censored, with murders or violent assaults rarely shown. And, of course, it also depends on the media. Much more violence is acceptable in a movie rated for adults than on TV rated for kids. I suspect, based on the comments above, that BBC News doesn't show real violence against allies (like the Israelis who were killed), but does show it aginst enemies (such as Palestinian terrorists). StuRat (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute StuRat's suspicion of a pro-allies bias to BBC news coverage. In this case, it strikes me as obvious that they had footage of the Palastinian's death but did not have footage of the earlier Israeli deaths because their correspondant wasn't there at that time - the editor's blog supports that view. However, the BBC does attract criticism from some quarters for a supposed bias against Israel. I really do not subscribe to that view, and find the coverage by BBC news to be as balanced as the best in he world; even if that means it does not glorify the actions of off-duty Israeli soldiers. Astronaut (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why, Astronaut, do you suppose that the BBC's failure to broadcast footage of the killing and wreckage spree that preceded the shooting can be explained by the nonavailability of any such material? It's all the more likely that it was available, given that the events unfolded in broad daylight on a weekday in a populous city, in close proximity to the Israel Broadcasting Authority's headquarters, and were possibly filmed by bystanders as well. If we're into speculating, how likely is it that Israelis, public or private, would refuse to make photos available to foreign media that show a possible terror attack in progress? Even if such footage had to pass Israeli military or police censorship, the value of broadcast coverage would probably expedite that process. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor's blog says: "The incident happened near the BBC's bureau and our correspondent immediately ran to the scene. He caught on camera the man being shot dead." Yes, they could have sought to obtain other footage as well, but if they did it is not mentioned in the blog. It's not a bad assumption to make. Astronaut (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of anti-Israel bias in BBC news reportage (if it purports to be objective, which perhaps it does not?) generally center upon a disproportionate presence/absence of context and content in coverage and background of actions by Israeli forces vs. those of the Palestinians and related Arab bodies. The "actions of off-duty Israeli soldiers." in this incident and the recent Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva massacre, are similar if not identical to those which might be taken in such circumstances — i.e. hot pursuit of a rampaging murderer still armed and dangerous — by an off-duty policeman in one of your Western countries. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that in my experience, the BBC news coverage is usually free of bias. If you feel the BBC's coverage was biased, I would be interested in your opinion on where/how the coverage was biased. Astronaut (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you judge its being usually bias-free based on your experience of comparing its coverage of this particular issue to that of other media outlets, biased or otherwise? As for me, I'll re-state as above: my being aware of allegations of bias in BBC reporting, the nature of which involves selectively withholding information that would cast Palestinians or Arabs in an unfavorable and Israelis in a favorable or sympathetic light, in the context of the ongoing internecine and cross-border conflict. While I myself have only minimal exposure to foreign news coverage, I'm personally resigned to what I consider the impossibility of those media's presenting a balanced picture in these circumstances that are overdetermined and far from zero-sum. "In war, it isn't a matter of who's right, but who's left..." -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

However you'll also find there is the opposite, allegations of bias in BBC reporting involving witholding information that would cast Israelis in an unfavourable light and Palestinians or Arabs in an unfavourable & sympathetic light. As well as allegations that the overall presentation and assumptions made, and words used are biased towards Israeli and against Palestinians and Arabs. (My personal opinion which I will not discuss any further is that the BBC is better then most American media but is far from perfect and definitely biased towards the Western view which in general favours Israel more then the Palestinians and other Arabs. One needs to watch and read other sources, e.g. Al Jazeera, that are not necessarily less biased but do provide a different context and think for yourself to get a more complete picture. I would agree with DJ that it's inherently impossible for any media to be free from bias. Some of course, e.g. Fox News, don't even seem to try. ) Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you find BBC news biased DONT watch BBC News 24.. which approaches 'north korean' like approval of all british actions.. or maybe that's what you have been watching.. Maybe having to read the news 24hrs a day gets boring, and the readers like to add a little emphasis - just for fun?87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - it's unusual, practically exceptional. However images of dead bodies are shown on UK tv, for some reason foreign dead are acceptable to show, british dead not? (end of rant).87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC) There is usually a warning before eg "some viewers may find the following distressing.."87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I watched a segment on CNN last night about pilots of remote aircraft flying missions in Iraq from their computers in the US. They showed a clip of 4-5 people being blown up - killed, right in front of you - and then the guy talks about how he likes to go to Taco Bell for lunch. Talk about distasteful. They didn't even acknowledge that human beings had just been killed. Meanwhile pictures of an American soldier in shackles is preceded by a dramatic "some viewers may be disturbed by this footage" warning. Plasticup ^T/C 14:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Distance seems to be a big factor in US news. A long range photo that shows no detail is deemed acceptable while a close-up of body parts is not. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

English accents in star wars?

Why do all the "bad guys" (those that are human) in the Star Wars movies (the empire) all speak with stilted English accents? Are they all from england? And why does Dark Vader pick up an English accent when he turns evil, as Hayden Christensen never had an English accent as Anakin? Or is Darth Vader faking an English accent (a la Madonna) to fit in? That has always bugged me. Homotlfqa83 (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Darth Vader doesn't have (or fake) an English accent, though, and Madonna was raised by parents who spoke French and Italian. You're right about the other Star Wars villains, though. I think it's to make them sound stuffy and formal to American audiences, emphasizing the staunch, militaristic feeling of the Empire. --Masamage ♫ 06:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the internal shots in the first movie were all shot at Elstree Studios in London, so they probably just used local actors. I'm not a big star wars fan though so I could be wrong.Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to burst the bubble but English accents were obviously not used to identify the bad guys in Star Wars. To prove that I need say only two words - Alec Guiness. Likewise Ewan MacGregor, who deliberately gave young Obi-Wan English accent and speech patterns "aware that he was going to grow up to be Alec Guiness". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a while when British actors were used as the bad guys in a lot of US movies. It became a bit of a running joke, in fact - see [[2]]. I think its justb another example of the cultural stereotype where the "old empire" is always seen as being disreputable by the "new empire" (the US thinks the Brits are shady, just as the Brits thought the French were, and so on back to disparaging comments made by the Romans about the Greeks). And no, Darth Vader's accent doesn't in any way sound British, nor does it sound like he's faking one...and neither does Madonna. Grutness...wha? 12:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I heard it was because hollywood likes to give the bad guys a different accent so the audiencies can easily tell them from the good guys. At first it was non-english accents (often enemies of the US - German or Russian), but then they latched on to idea that British actors were much more available and spoke english anyway so they didn't need a voice coach, and it made it easier for the audience to understand them.

As for Star Wars, there would have been a lot of British extras, but the main characters were still played by their regular actors. I'm not sure about the putting-on of accents, but of the principle bad guys, Palpatine was played by Ian McDiarmid (British), Grand Moff Tarkin was played by Peter Cushing (British), Count Dooku was played by Christopher Lee (British), and Darth Vader was played by David Prowse (British, but voiced by American actor James Earl Jones) then by Hayden Christensen (Canadian). However, several of the good guys were also played by British actors: Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness and Ewan McGregor) Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson), C-3PO and R2-D2 (Anthony Daniels and Kenny Baker respectively). Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Liam Neeson is Irish. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a more glaring example than starwars is Scar in the lion king. How is it that only one lion in the whole pride has an english accent, and he happens to be the bad lion? I will say that "english villains" tend to be clever and devious, which I suppose is something like a compliment. TastyCakes (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Americans like to think of themselves as loose, informal, cocky, Wild West gunslingers. They see sophistication and ornateness as being associated with being effeminate. They see the British as very effeminate compared to them, concerned with tea and peace rather than rustling cattle. A sophisticated enemy with a British accent is actually effeminate despite being evil—effeminate bad guys are a big thing for Americans. (It goes without saying that these visions of themselves and of others are wholly fabricated, part of a deep national mythos. Unfortunately that mythos often translates into policy—note the ridiculous notion held by a great deal of Americans that they need to have handguns in case the US government "gets too big for its britches," when it is clear that a few yokels with 9mm pistols would not have a snowball's chance in hell to overthrow a totalitarian state, and the US government has no fear of internal revolution no matter what.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is because (I believe they had said this on a special) that either most actors on the original Star Wars were English except for the main characters and most of it was filmed in a studio somewhere in England so that was why they used mostly English actors. In fact, though he is Scottish, Ewan McGregor's uncle played in one or more of the films, so they probably stuck with local actors from that side of the ocean to play the other roles and Darth Vader was either English and forgot to hide his accent after a while or being in those surroundings rubbed off on him, maybe like Madonna. Take that how you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.241.20 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't put too much stock in the location for accents. Films are filmed all over the place and don't reflect that in the accents of the actors. Actors often have very different "natural" accents than their "screen" ones. (I was particularly shocked to see a clip of Jamie Bamber talking informally off-camera. I had totally bought into his "American" accent in Battlestar Gallactica; and to see that he is actually British was horrifying, weird.) Rest assured, if they didn't want British accents, they wouldn't have had them. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Very true. British actors (with the exception of Sean Connery) can usually do pretty good imitations of foreign accents - consider the actor once regarded as the epitome of playing "upper class twit" characters, Hugh Laurie. If they hand't wanted British accents for the roles, they wouldn't have had them. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you watch some of the original footage they filmed for the first film (God, I'm a geek), you'll hear a lot of the extras speaking with various British accents. These were dubbed over for the actual film, including Aunt Beru and the beings in the cantina. So it was definitely a choice. Incidentally, on some of that footage you can also hear Chewbacca speaking lines of dialogue, before the roars are dubbed in! 79.66.67.219 (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is entirely based on personal research (well, watching too many movies) but as far as I can tell the tendency of Hollywood to use bad guys with British accents entirely stems from Alan Rickman's performance in Die Hard. Anyone able to contradict that (with obvious exceptions of cases where the bad guys had to be Brits, like Revolutionary War movies). DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly that is not the case, since Star Wars (1977) came out some time before Die Hard (1988). It dates back much further than that.

For example, if you watch Spartacus (1960), the noble, heroic gladiators and slaves all have American accents, whereas their effete, corrupt, villainous and tyrannical Roman overlords are all played with English accents. Similarly, in Ben-Hur (1959), the noble, heroic Hebrews all have American accents, whereas their effete, corrupt, villainous and tyrannical Roman overlords are all - surprise! - played with English accents. At its most ridiculous, in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1953), the noble, heroic Englishmen all have American accents (even though Robin himself is played by a Tasmanian), whereas their Norman overlords, being effete, corrupt, villainous and tyrannical, are naturally played with English accents.

What this really boils down to is the ridiculous self-aggrandising United States creation myth, specifically the "heroic rebels versus decadent imperialist overlords" schtick which is drummed into every American schoolchild from the First Grade on. In point of fact, both sides in what you laughably call the "Revolutionary War" would have spoken with pretty much the same accent, given how recently many of the participants had moved to the colonies and given that many of the Loyalists were colonials themselves. Of course, that doesn't stop Hollywood painting the British as sneering, brutish proto-Nazis... Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

i think at some level there's kind of a homophobic subtext; i don't want to make too much of that, but i don't know how else to call it; the "effete" sissy who speaks prissily. see also the german accents of lots of bad guys. Gzuckier (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

jet aircrafts

i need a list of top ten jet aircraft(used in defense purpose) with their speed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.11.44.213 (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Some names for you: Mig-31 'Foxhound', Mig-25 'Foxbat' and SR-71 Blackbird (which was a spy plane, but military - I'm not sure how strictly you're taking 'defense' to be defined). These are the fastest three that I'm aware of, all in the region of Mach 3 (although the Foxbat's structural integrity was extremely poor at such speeds). Are you including experimental aircraft such as the XB-70 Valkyrie? Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 20:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you meant top 10 by use? or by effectivness? or by speed (see above) ???87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1. X-15, Mach 6.72, 354,200 feet
• 2. SR-71 Blackbird, (YF-12) Mach 3.2+ 85,000+ feet
• 3. MiG-25R Foxbat-B, Mach 3.2 123,524 feet
• 3. X-2, Mach 3.2 126,200 feet
• 4. XB-70 Valkyrie, Mach 3.1 77,350 feet
• 5. MiG-31 Foxhound, Mach 2.83 67,600 feet
• 6. MiG-25 Foxbat, (Ye-155) Mach 2.8 118,900 feet
• 7. F-15 Eagle, Mach 2.5 60,000 feet
• 7. F-111 Aardvark, Mach 2.5 60,000+ feet
• 8. X-1, Mach 2.435 90,440 feet
• 9. Su-24 Fencer, Mach 2.4 57,400 feet
• 10. Tu-144 Charger, Mach 2.35 59,055 feet
• 10. MiG-23 Flogger, Mach 2.35 60,700 feet
• 10. Su-27 Flanker, Mach 2.35 59,055 feet
• 11. F-14A Tomcat Mach 2.34 58,000+ feet
• 12. F-106 Delta Dart Mach 2.31 57,000 feet
• 13. IAI Kfir Mach 2.3 75,000 feet
• 13. English Electric Lightning Mach 2.3 60,000 feet
• 13. MiG-29 Fulcrum Mach 2.3 59,060 feet
• 13. F-107 Ultra Sabre Mach 2.3 48,000 feet
• 14. Tornado ADV Mach 2.2 69,997 feet
• 14. F-4 Phantom Mach 2.2 62,250 feet
• 14. Mirage 2000 Mach 2.2 59,055 feet
• 14. F-104 Starfighter Mach 2.2 58,000 feet
• (120,800 feet NF-104A)
• 14. B-58 Hustler Mach 2.2 64,800 feet
• 15. F-105 Thunderchief Mach 2.1 52,000 feet
• 15. A-5 Vigilante Mach 2.1 52,100 feet

24.118.228.239 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Although as the Mach number article points out, the mach number coincides with different speeds depending on altitude and atmospheric temperature. The higher the altitude, the slower (in miles/hr) a particular mach number is. TastyCakes (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Geographical Details

I was trying to find out details of an area in San Bernardino County called Old Woman Mountains, I wanted to find geographical descriptions and details and a map about this place, where could I go to find this information? I also had a few other places to look up so is there a web site that gives these details about certain land areas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.241.20 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You can search at the US Geological Survey's Geographic Names Information System: [3]. This will also link you to various maps which include the name. Rmhermen (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Or you may be able to find Wikipedia articles on places such as Old Woman Mountains. Just use the search box. Marco polo (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)