Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 September 21

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.

September 21

costs of "pretty bridges" vs functional/utilitarian bridges

I am trying to find out how much extra it costs to make a bridge "pretty". Such as the paint, scrollwork, materials, ect.------ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthia6719 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is paint not utilitarian? Paint prevents rust and corrosion, and so is a vital component of the bridge. --Jayron32 01:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, paint is often a necessary element, not a decorative one. But the question as posed is unanswerable: there are many, many different sizes, shapes, and styles of bridges, with and without ornamental details. One would have to ask about a particular bridge, and even then no one but the architect or general contractor or construction accountant would be able to state the exact cost. Textorus (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it's answerable because we would need to find a reference that broke the cost down based on what is absolutely necessary and what makes it "pretty". And I don't think that anyone would go to a city or town with a bridge proposal and say "Well it will cost X if it's pretty and functional but Y if it's heinous hideous and functional" Dismas|^(talk) 03:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely you mean hideous, not heinous, Dismas? Bad bridge, bad bridge! Textorus (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's a regional thing. I've heard both used as a synonym for "very ugly". Dismas|^(talk) 03:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)h

It's not a regional thing, just ignorant speakers. Textorus (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

An example at least, of "making a bridge pretty" are the granite clad pylons on each end of Sydney Harbour Bridge. Quoting the article: "The pylons have no structural purpose; they are there to provide a frame for the arch panels and give better visual balance to the bridge." [1]. The cost of the pylons would fit the OPs(Cynthia6719) criteria. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Classic example in recent times is the "signature span" of the Oakland Bay Bridge... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article doesn't give the exact amount of cost savings, but you should note that the George Washington Bridge was intended to be encased in granite, which would have added nothing structurally but was just for appearance sake. For economic reasons during the Depression, the granite was omitted, leaving just the structural steel showing. As it turned out, it looks pretty good even like that. — Michael J 13:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

By way of clarification, it was just the two towers of the bridge that were to be cladded. There were several designs considered for the cladding -- most likely it would have been concrete, and there was at least one design where the concrete cladding would have been structural rather than decorative. I looked in several books -- of the ones I tried, Henry Petroski's Engineers of Dreams had the most detail about this -- but none of them quoted an actual cost estimate for the cladding. --Anonymous, 17:19 UTC, September 21, 2010.

Also, upkeep is an issue. On the Golden Gate bridge, for instance, they pretty much have to start repainting the bridge again as soon as they finish repainting it (corrosive conditions keep them busy). If The Bridge had elaborate scroll work, decorative paint jobs, or other finicky bits, they'd have to hire more people to keep up with the job, and the costs of maintaining the bridge would jump. Incidentally, the GG Bridge authority discourages the use of the bridge name and the word 'jump' in the same passage; I just don't care. --Ludwigs2 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The story about the Golden Gate Bridge's constant repainting is not true; see [2]. It is true that there is ongoing maintenance and paint touch-up work, but not constant repainting of the whole bridge. This is apparently a common urban legend that is applied to a number of large bridges; see Forth Bridge#Maintenance. —Bkell (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This page discusses the costs of a utilitarian vs. a fancy bridge over the Grand River in Cambridge, Ontario. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty is in the eye of the beholder. Some would argue that utilitarian is pretty. Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Sundial Bridge at Turtle Bay seems to have been designed with "pretty" in mind. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking for four notes that will sound good no matter how they're played

Hi all,

I'm making a little musical toy for my five-year-old niece. I'd like a suggestion for four notes which can be played in any order and should sound harmonious when played. I might expand the toy later, so using a scale that gives me more than four notes would be ideal. I don't know much about music (as you can tell), but I was thinking maybe a pentatonic? But then I was wondering if this would be too bluesy for a five-year-old... Thanks! — Sam 76.24.222.22 (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a major chord, which gives you three notes, which can be expanded to four by including the octave above the fundamental. E.g. middle C, E, G and C-above-middle-C. -- 174.24.192.84 (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You could also add the seventh in, so C E G Bb which is also a fine sounding chord. In general, setting up the instrument on any major scale (as defined by equal temperament), would result in pleasant sound. Lots of kids toys are set up on major scales, so they always sound "good" even when played randomly. --Jayron32 02:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See Taps. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever notes are selected, if it were me, I'd give the thing a thorough "test drive" first to be sure it produced pleasant sounds, not jangly ones - if I wanted to stay friends with the little girl's parents. Unless of course I hated them and wanted to drive them out of their effing minds with sound torture. Textorus (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Usual practice, when using a reduced scale to introduce a child to music, is indeed to use a pentatonic scale. It only sounds bluesy if she play blues, and you probably want to use the major pentatonic scale anyway! It's a nice basic scale, anything sounds pretty good, there are no dischords, and you can easily expand it all the way up to a major scale when she's older. Orff would say that's exactly what you should be doing! 109.155.33.219 (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies! Now we have to see how a child can make any nice scale completely annoying... :) — Sam 63.138.152.135 (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The kid will end up playing one of the notes over and over, and over and over, again and again. FOREVER. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're 5: you might be lucky. Is there any way to add a secure mute option, for the parents? My 2-year-old nephew only likes the first demo on his little keyboard, and particularly loves the first 6 notes of the intro to it. I hear those notes in my dreams sometimes, over and over. He worked out all the buttons and switches amazingly quickly, just to be able to play those 6 notes over and over again, as loud as he could. When he first got it, you could turn it off for a few minutes peace, but he found and mastered the tiny power switch. Then you could turn it down, but he found and mastered the volume. Then you could switch to a less piercing synth-voice, but he conquered that too. If I had to write a soundtrack for a psychological horror film, I think it would be those 6 notes, in that style, over and over and over and over and over... 109.155.33.219 (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

An alternative (that might be equally annoying) would be a chime sequence (you can listen to these) such as the Westminster quarters. Dbfirs 02:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Much music in the world has the pentatonic scale in common. Also there are many songs that can be played with these notes. I would build one with 5 using C D E G A as the notes. Not only is it pentatonic it is based around C and A which are both excellent notes to build a sense of absolute pitch around (C being the 'base' tonic and A being the classical tuning note)124.171.93.13 (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Noooo, absolute pitch bad, absolute pitch destructive, absolute pitch will discourage them from enjoying and joining in with most music, and will make it hard for them to develop musically. But, luckily, as long as they have regular access to other instruments (or another instrument) that is tuned slightly differently, or listen to a lot of music (much of which will not be tuned to modern standard concert pitch), they are very unlikely to develop it. Instead, they are likely to develop the extremely useful relative pitch, which most musicians have. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"It's your dime"

What does "It's your dime" mean as it's used at this page? I'm thankful that I wasn't asked this at my job interview earlier today, because I've not a clue what it means, even though (1) I'm an American, so I'm familiar with dimes, and (2) I've Googled the phrase, but all I can find are usages that don't tell me what it means, even by the context. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine how a generic "it's your dime" would qualify as a question. I've certainly never heard of it being common in an interview. I've always assumed the phrase itself came from when calls from a payphone only cost a dime. The recipient of the call (or the person listening) saying that as long as you're the one paying to talk, I'll listen to what you have to say. --Onorem♠Dil 14:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In the context of a job interview it probably means "over to you - tell us anything else you think we should know, or ask us any questions you have" - see here. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm American and also familiar with dimes.  :-) It means exactly what the two people above have said it means. It's an old phrase from when payphone calls literally cost a dime. Basically, the person giving the interview is saying "You're here. You have my attention. Now tell me why I should hire you." Basically, you've spent your money (effort, etc), now talk while you have the opportunity. Dismas|^(talk) 15:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Literally it means "You're paying for this phone-call, (So talk about what you like, it doesn't cost me anything.)" In job interview context it probably means "Make an effort to convince me, it doesn't cost me anything to not hire you."

Frankly, I'd find it weird thing for an employer to say. Usually it implies a sort of carefree attitude on the part of the speaker. Finding decent employees is a time-consuming and important process. Implying that the it's entirely lopsided like that is either a little weird or a little insulting. APL (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, nobody has to hire you, you know; the world doesn't owe you a living. And companies of any size at all routinely get dozens if not hundreds of applications for every single position they advertise, especially in the current job market. It's up to you to convince the interviewer that you deserve the job - which is the point of the statement. Textorus (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Another way "it's your dime" could be intended, APL, is, "Okay, you take the wheel." Steer the interview where you'd like it to go -- which is an opportunity if you haven't yet gotten to make what you think are strong points, or to ask key questions about the organization, the position, the current challenges, and so forth. An interviewer could also use this after hearing too many over-rehearsed, textbook replies to questions. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Textorus, sure. I've interviewed people before too, and my attitude has never been "This is only important to you." which is what "It's your dime" implies to me. It's as least as important to an employer to identify good prospects, otherwise we wouldn't go through the whole rigermarole of bringing people in. Perhaps attitudes are different at larger companies, I don't know. I always just assumed that a "It's our dime" attitude prevailed in big companies. (That is, "This interview is costing us, more than it's costing you, so you'd better not be wasting our time." )

I'm not sure that I've ever understood the phrase to mean "Okay, you take the wheel.", except in the sense of "Don't expect me to lead this, I'm just as happy not having this conversation." APL (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in my experience the usual form of the expression is "it's your nickel". It goes back to when pay phones typically charged 5¢, not 10¢, for a local call (I think that price was usual until the 1950s or so, although it persisted much later in a few places, notably New Orleans). --Anonymous, 17:24 UTC, September 21, 2010.

Google isn't supporting me, but I consider the complete sentence to be "it's your dime, start talkin'", and it has a "Sam Spade" detective story quality to it.. At face value, it would mean "you called me, so talk." I'd be slightly taken aback if I heard it during an interview, but in that context, I'd guess that the interviewer wants me to sell myself. --LarryMac | Talk 22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a counter-phrase, "not on my dime, [you don't]". I think the sense is strengthened if one thinks of calls that aren't unlimited once you deposit the dime, but (like long-distance/trunk calls), require you to keep feeding the slot with coins as time passes. If you're taking up my time with long-winded, irrelevant or distasteful digressions, don't do it on my dime (i.e. at my progressively-increasing expense); don't make me keep feeding the slot while you blather on. Similarly if you're paying for the call (just as if you're buying the drinks or dinner), then I don't mind (or at least shouldn't object to) what you say or how you say it or how long you take to do so before getting to the point, recite your favorite poems if you like, it's on your dime, not mine. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

[This] from the same website explains what they mean. Zoonoses (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

End of "The Town"

Spoilers ahead, I guess, but in the end of The Town, a gang of thieves has been cornered by the Boston Police and the FBI. In the movie they exchange gunfire and the police lob in a couple of flashbangs. Is there any reason, if this situation were to occur in real-life, why the police or the feds wouldn't use tear gas? 96.246.58.133 (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about real life, but I guarantee you the flashbangs were chosen for the movie on account of being much more cinematic and testosterone-producing. Textorus (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't really speak to the movie, but one of the prime practical drawbacks of chemical warfare is that in close quarters, it hurts you just as much as it hurts them. Flashbangs have no such limitation. As for "more cinematic" above -- billowing clouds of dramatic smoke aren't cinematic? That's not really a convincing rationale. — Lomn 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I dunno Lomn, I get off a lot more on a loud bang than a wisp of smoke, how about you? Textorus (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And therein lies my point -- it's your personal preference, not a referenced (or referenceable) statement. — Lomn 19:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, flashbangs usually do not have the limitation of hurting you as much as them. "How Not To Deploy a Flashbang" ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dang, nailed by the observant Lomn, and out-billowed too. I withdraw the observation. Are you happy now? Textorus (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know what the situation was. Our Urban Warfare article indicates that the best weapons and tactics for any given situation are considered and then applied. For a better sense of the aims and methods of that general kind of mission, see also our Close quarters combat article. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Textorus, surely the flashbangs are a result of testosterone(driven behaviour), they cause adrenaline. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the comment, but do you have a reliable third-party source to cite for your personal point of view here? Better watch out, Smokey may nab you. Textorus (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Windows

why the name window s is added with microsoft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.32.15 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Windows" is the software product. "Microsoft" is the name of the company that produces it. (Along with many other things, like Office or Internet Explorer.) APL (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling it 'Microsoft Windows' is like calling the car a 'Ford Focus'. It's usual. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you mean why 'Windows' specifically, it seems that the head of marketing at MIcrosoft at the time convinced it to be named such (Rather than 'Interface manager' as it was seemingly going to be called). Source History of Microsoft Windows#Early history: an expansion of MS-DOS. ny156uk (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also, the term "Windows" has become so useful that it's not exclusive to Microsoft. Windowing system is a generic term for a graphical user interface that has the same basic look, and the X Window System in particular has a history and pedigree that's in some ways longer than Microsoft's. --M@rēino 14:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Help identifying a pair of vintage sunglasses

They are Ray-Ban Wayfarer style but not Ray-Bans. From sometime in the 1970's, the only marking is one that says "ITALY" and another that says "UP by Lidia." Google hasn't been any help. They may just be some no-name brand, but I'm curious if anyone can find out anything else.

Jasonberger (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I googled around a little bit but didn't find anything specific to the brand you mention. I do seem to recall reading a few years ago that nearly all eyeglass frames sold in the U.S., from the plainest and cheapest up to the megadollar designer styles, are made in a handful of Italian factories. However, I can't find a source to verify that idea, so don't quote me; but anyway here is a list of Italian sunglass manufacters and distributors, which might be of some use. If your ultimate goal is to find out if they are worth something as a collectible item, you might try looking for similar items on eBay or Worthpoint. Textorus (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and information. I should have added that these were purchased in Italy but either way I appreciate the help and I'll try the ebay and worthpoint thing.

Jasonberger (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)