Miscellaneous desk
< February 21	<< Jan | February | Mar >>	February 23 >

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.

February 22

In the US, many traffic signals are programmed to flash yellow continuously for traffic on the main road (and flash red continuously for traffic on the side road) during the overnight hours when traffic volume is very low. This allows the majority of traffic to continue through an intersection without stopping when it is unlikely there would be any cross traffic. Why can't more signals be set to do this? I recently had to arrive at work at 4am, which is not my usual time to be commuting, and was surprised by how many red lights I had to stop at along the way. In most cases, there was no cross traffic at these intersections, so it seemed pointless to make me stop when no one was trying to cross the main road on which I was driving. --Thomprod (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt more signals could be set to change their pattern depending on the time of day, but there is almost certainly an expense involved in programming signals in that way, and officials are unlikely to allocate scarce public resources to such reprogramming unless there is a strong public demand for it. Since, by definition, few people travel when traffic is light, there are few who would press their local government to make this change. Marco polo (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There could also be some judgment by the planners as to the relative safety of doing that, as per the recnet "(no) right on red" discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if there's little traffic, there may be no real incentive to programming the lights in that way. APL (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I don't see much cost issue in retiming the lights — in many places this can even be done from a central location. Around here, though, after a certain hour many lights will always show green on the main street and only change when they detect a car on the crossroad. Another issue is that many drivers totally ignore flashing yellow lights. Or speed up to avoid an anticipated upcoming red. PhGustaf (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative programming algorithm used in the UK is to have both sets of lights defaulting to red when traffic is light. On the approach of a vehicle, the lights on that particular route can quickly change to green by the time the vehicle reaches the intersection. From my experience, this seems to be the optimum for very light traffic. Dbfirs 13:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could have a mini-roundabout - basicly just a small white disc painted in the middle of the crossing, no need for traffic lights. 89.243.87.3 (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that tried in the USA, where roundabouts are not used nearly as much as in Europe, and typically drivers drive right over that painted-on disc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put something raised-up in the middle then. 89.243.215.80 (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, that's what it would take, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low-speed roundabouts are pretty out of fashion in the US. (The crazy higher speed varieties can be found in Massachusetts if nowhere else. )

You occasionally see them in town centers where they need a convenient place to put a statue to their favorite revolutionary war hero, but besides that they're almost unheard of. APL (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen both standard roundabouts (with or without statues) and the useless painted-on type in various parts of the USA, recently-constructed. I would agree they are not common, but they are slowly catching on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. There are several in my neighborhood, all installed within the last ten years or so. They're on residential streets, and are largely to slow down drivers using the streets as short cuts. There are 20-foot brick planters in them, so ignoring them is not an option. PhGustaf (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't most hotel rooms have lights in the ceiling, but instead floor or table lamps? Nadando (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lamps probably cost less than it would cost to have fixtures installed in the ceilings of each room.71.161.59.15 (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely OR, but I wonder if it's because lamps would be easier to change the bulbs in, as well? The maid (or whatever you call the person who cleans a hotel room these days) would be able to easily change burnt-out bulbs in lamps without using a stepstool or ladder, but it would be more difficult to change them in a ceiling light. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike in residential low-rise construction, there isn't necessarily a gap between the ceiling of one hotel room and the floor of the room above; it's often a solid concrete slab. Installing wiring for an overhead light would be costly and needlessly complex: [1]. (In some hotel rooms there is a drop ceiling by the entranceway and/or in the bathroom; this provides space for utility conduits and plumbing, and there may be ceiling lamps (or recessed pot lights) in these areas, at cost of a lower ceiling.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be able to get fire alarms and sprinklers in the overhead. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every US hotel room that I can recall, and I've stayed in many, has had the sprinklers in the walls near the ceiling but not in the ceiling itself. Dismas|^(talk) 15:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this is a country-thing because here in the Uk I cannot ever recall staying in a hotel that didn't have ceiling-lights as well as table lamps. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprisingly common, even in the UK. It's one of the things I hate about staying in hotel rooms. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the houses in my subdivision (>20 years old, located in Virginia, US) have overhead lights in all the rooms except the living room. I added sconce lights on the wall, then later a ceiling fan with a light that I don't often use. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that ceiling lights have somewhat gone out of fashion, at least in bedrooms. Wall lights and table lamps give a more intimate lighting effect and most people don't need high lighting levels in a hotel room.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I've just thought of something. It may be rubbish but it's something... The ceilings in hotel rooms all seem a bit low to me. Not the standard ~8' of a home. So by having a light on the ceiling, it's easier to be a bother blinding your guests with lower lighting. And that's to say nothing of having the taller guests crack their noggin or smack their hand while dressing on a shade. Also, if anyone is laying in bed, there's the potential to upset guests further by having a light right in their field of vision. Dismas|^(talk) 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many hotel rooms have one or more outlets that are "on" or "off" based on a switch just inside the door, so that it is still possible to turn at least one floor/table lamp on upon entering and off upon leaving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True but what does that have to do with the discussion? Dismas|^(talk) 08:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In many buildings, overhead lights are controllable by a wall switch near a door, and lamps are controlled by switches on the lamps, the lamps being plugged into outlets that are always "on". The approach mentioned by the OP includes having selected wall outlets controllable by a switch near the door, enabling you to switch at least some lights on or off as you leave or enter, rather than having to either leave them burning while you're away, or grope through the darkness to turn a switch as you leave or return. That approach theoretically replaces the need for a hard-wired overhead light. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just hotels that do that. The house we purchased recently has no ceiling light in the main living area - but instead the two light switches control what appear to be normal outlets. This messes us up all the time when my wife unplugs something when she's vacuuming and plugs them back into the wrong outlet. Twice already I've been typing on my computer when my wife decided to turn off the ligh<LOST CARRIER !@#$%^ SteveBaker (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some houses in the UK have something similar (tends to be more upmarket ones), but the sockets used are the old 5-amp round-pin ones precisely to stop people mixing up lighting and power supplies. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a site (preferably an official one) where I could read the full text of all Michigan (US) law? I tried Googling for it, but I wasn't quite sure if what came up was actually what I was looking for or not. Thanks in advance for the help! 24.247.163.175 (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://legislature.mi.gov/(S(j3ywcq3ue23rx1453apiot55))/mileg.aspx?page=ChapterIndex Enjoy! 63.17.88.122 (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)name[reply]

What is the average pulling power and carry load of Shetland Pony? And is there any way to work out how much it can carry and/or pull according to it's size or weight? Also, are they known for being a generally easy to train animal? Thanks for any help 87.111.102.76 (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about an average, or a formula, but they are intelligent and hard working. See the pit pony article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or indeed the links from Shetland pony. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherds used to ride them in the Shetland Isles, but I think that people were probably smaller and more lightweight than nowadays. My experience with them is that, as with all ponies, they are cleverer than horses and can take advantage unless trained correctly. They certainly have a lot of character, and also can be suprisingly solid - like miniature tanks! I am assuming that the OP is referring to Shetland ponies as found in the UK. American Shetland ponies tend to be more refined, a little taller and able to carry less weight as they have been crossed with some Welsh pony blood.[I notice that this is all mentioned in the linked article which I should have read before replying, so my comment doesn't really add anything except agreement through personal exeprience! Also, I forgot to mention miniature Shetlands which are a smaller version of the standard Shetland and aren't able to carry/pull as much weight.]

I am 50% Native American,(mother is full blood) and I noticed that a lot of my classmates are eager to tell me how much Native American they are even if its 1/9. I remember my grandfather telling me that when he was younger, there was a stigma to be identified as such, which I understand. Is there a name to this phenomena that is happening now?

Also my second question, is there a slang term for people who pretend to be/to act like a Native American. Not to offend anyone, but similar to the term wigger? --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Wannabes" is perfectly usable general term. APL (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, If I was 1/9th native American, I'd probably tell people about it too. Not because I want to claim any special connection with the land, but because it'd be an interesting mathematical oddity. APL (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any power of 2 that's divisible by 9? Maybe it would work if some cousins married somewhere along the way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that having a little native ancestry is more honourable than having a lot; one-ninth (or something minuscule) is better than one half. If you have just a little, it means that sometime in the noble past a the noble natives interbred with the noble early pioneers of North America. If if was your parents or your grandparents, that's boring, and since people tend to look down on the natives today it's not as impressive. An example that springs to mind is Jessica Simpson, who recently claimed to be 1/16th native. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reversal of an earlier social stigma could be called heritage pride, comparable to the pride expressed on Australia Day by descendents of emancipated convicts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am at least 1/128th Native American. I think it is really cool that I know enough of my family tree to be able to be able to say that, but I don't feel any special pride because of the ancestry. Dragons flight (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflicts and intervening edits) More than just oddity! 1/9 cannot be expressed as a finite sum of fractions of the form 1/2^n, and there has not been the time for infinite interbreeding! You could achieve just over 1/9 if one great great grandparent, plus a 3xgreat grandparent on a different line, plus a 4xgreat grandparent, plus an 8xgreat, plus a 9xgreat, plus a 10xgreat, plus a 13xgreat grandparent were all native American, and all were on different ancestral lines. The total exceeds 1/9 by just 0.003%Perhaps you are popular and your classmates just want to identify with you. Dbfirs 18:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If seven of your great-great-great-great grandparents were of the same ethnic group (and the others weren't), you'd be one-ninth that ethnic group, conversationally. (One-ninth.point.one.four ... people round things like that off.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.79.127 (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's another approximation but it falls short on one-ninth by 1.5625%Dbfirs 09:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps blood or organ donation is the way to make up the difference. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather like saying that in terms of cell-count you are 90% non-human. Dbfirs 17:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no, I'm not popular like that. thanks tho --Reticuli88 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC) ... (At least it proves that you are not unpopular, otherwise others would keep quiet about ancestry in common.) Dbfirs 09:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychologically speaking, you're talking about some kind of group identification process. The mental mechanisms behind such can be very subtle. belonging to group X may have social advantages and disadvantages from the perspectives of both the ingroup and the outgroup: the novelty of the group identification may increase social status in the outgroup, but may create pressure to conform to ingroup norms; the stereotypes associated with the identification might be pleasant or unpleasant. for example, claiming to be Native American might increase your chances of getting a date in non-NA groups, but you're likely to be viewed as a fake by other Native Americans if you don't participate in NA interests or activities; The common stereotype of Native Americans as spiritual and wise is a good thing, but there are an assortment of equally common prejudices that are not things you'd want to claim as your own. --Ludwigs2 19:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first part of Ludwigs2's statement — this is certainly pretty common (the film For Your Consideration (2006) mocked a wannabe of this type) — and I don't think it's specific to Native Americans. If some American mentions they are half Dutch, then I think it's pretty automatic for any classmate in hearing range who happens to be one-eighth Dutch to mention this fact. People like to belong in groups. Our articles Social identity, Collective identity and Identity (social science) may be of interest. (The first two are unfortunately short so far.) I don't know if there's a name for a social stigma turning into a social asset over the decades. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See cultural appropriation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Criteria section of our Indigenous peoples article, self-identification is a (sufficient?) criterion for being indigenous, which means anyone could claim to be indigenous (native American, Australian Aborigine, etc) regardless of any percentage of the appropriate native blood! The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (PDF), Article 33, it's a little more complicated: Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions, so presumably at least some other indigenous people would also have to accept you as indigenous. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on "Cherokee princess", like this, gets you all kinds of pages on the general topic--especially in the form of people making the claim without proof. In my own very-extended family there is an old tale about one or more marriages to a "Cherokee princess". There's no proof, although the possibility is reasonable (apart from the "princess" bit). Some of the greater family genealogists are quite attached to the idea. My impression is that a (rather distant) blood relation to Native Americans somehow makes you more truly "American"--not recently immigrated from some foreign un-American place. The farther back in time the supposed relationship is the better--because it only reinforces the idea that your family has been in America for a very long time. It might also evoke images of brave pioneers on the now-romanticized frontier. It's cool to think your ancestors were akin to Sam Houston, who really did marry a Cherokee, um, princess. Pfly (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Dragons Flight and his/her assertion of being at least 1/128th Native America. How far back does one have to go to determine 1/128th? I'm lousy at math and can't figure this one out . . .

There is an explanation of the blue plaque scheme run by English Heritage here. (The scheme allows a notable person to be commemorated on the outside of a building they lived in.) I have searched the EH list and cannot find Mary Wollstonecraft, but there is a news article showing her commemorative plaque being unveiled here. What gives? Is the EH site just not up to date (odd, because the unveiling was in 2004), or is it a (semi-)spurious non-EH scheme? Who sponsored it, in that case? There are other schemes, I know, e.g. the pink (gay) plaques. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the pictures in the news article you linked to, the plaque was sponsored by Southwark Borough Council, not English Heritage. To my knowledge, many councils in England will have similar schemes to commemorate local worthies. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! How could I have missed that! Well done. So a follow-up question is, is there a comprehensive database somewhere, of all the blue-ish plaques in the country? I'd like to be able to look up someone as famous as Charles Darwin or as obscure as Mary Toft and see what plaques commemorate them. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain there is no comprehensive database. Most local authorities have some list - for example, Oxfordshire or Tameside, but some areas (such as Sheffield) don't have any official scheme. There are also some unofficial plaques around. This website is a partially-implemented proposal to use Google Maps to display all the blue plaque locations in London. Oh, and although I've no reference, I'm sure that there is no plaque commemorating Mary Toft in Godalming. Warofdreams talk 12:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot that Wikipedea has an article for everything - List of blue plaques is what you want :-) Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our list isn't comprehensive; I assume that is the reason for the question. Warofdreams talk 13:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Alansplodge (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. The GMap overlay is interesting, but very partial. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I need to ring an 0845 number, and will potentially be spending a long period on the line (bureaucracy, blah). I don't have access to a landline: what's the cheapest way of doing this? The cheapest method I can find is 30p/min 20p/min (the tables of pricing are confusing!) from a BT phonebox: can I do better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bletcherous park (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the phrase "no 0845" yields several money-saving websites. I haven't checked any of them myself, but two are pages within reputable sites: [2], [3], [4]. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could install Skype on your PC. They charge a monthly subscription - with unlimited calls within the area you choose for that time. It looks like they charge maybe 4 euro's a month. SteveBaker (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Skype as pay-as-you-go with a minimum credit purchase of £10. That was what I did when I needed to chase up the Student Loans Company on their 0845 number. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.saynoto0870.co.uk lists various alternative numbers for some businnesses. Some companies think they're doing the public a favour with so-called local rate numbers, but forget that most calling plans only include 01, 02 & 03 numbers in the inclusive calls - ie. you pay a more for 0845 (and a lot more for 0870) than if they just listed the normal area code. However, some companies, notably Sky TV, see 08 numbers as a source of revenue and actively disable alternative numbers. Astronaut (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us in the dark: Non-geographical telephone numbers in the United Kingdom. —Tamfang (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call them on a normal landline, state that you are calling from overseas and need an international number for them before you enter any form of conversation, and then call tham on that international number number from your landline or mobile which is a lot cheaper... Yes you do have an initial call to 0845 but if you don't enter into any conversation other than to find out their overseas number, then you will be on the phone for a very short time... Gazhiley (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An ex-navy friend just sent me a video of a military plane approaching and landing on the deck of a carrier - the video was recorded by the co-pilot. And it got me wondering what happens after an arrest wire snaps and the plane goes over the edge into the drink. I know that pilot error can cause that to happen too, and I also know that when landing, the pilot increses his engine speed in case he has to go about again (if he misses the wire for instance). But in such ditching events, is any attempt made to recover the plane from the bottom of the sea, even when the pilot manages to escape? Thanks. 92.30.7.197 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would very likely be hugely un-economical to do so, cost of recovery vs worth of recovered plane. The plane would very likely be so damaged by fall & immersion that it would be a total write-off. One exception would be if the plane was nuclear armed. In which case recovery of the warhead would be prriority.

One incident where nuclear recovery occured was the 1966 Palomares B-52 crash after a B—52 & USAF KC-135 tanker collided during in-flight refueling, one nuke landed 12 miles (19 km) off the coast in the Mediterranean sea. "The US Navy conducted a three month search involving 12,000 men and successfully recovered the fourth bomb. The U.S. Navy employed the use of the deep-diving research submarine DSV Alvin to aid in the recovery efforts" (from List of military nuclear accidents) I have some doubts so much effort would be expended to recover a pilots remains in a similar situation. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they wait 65 years until the plane is extremely rare and valuable, and then raise it from the bottom, This was recently done with a plane which sank to the bottom of Lake Michigan on a training flight off a sidewheeler steam powered carrier in WW2. The pilot, in his 80's surmised that they might have forgotten to refuel it between flights. [5]. The planes come up with paint still pretty, even if not flyable. The airframes are likely quite strong, because they are found to be covered with mussels. Edison (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that that's freshwater. Saltwater will severely damage an aluminum aircraft very quickly. Falconus^{p t c} 12:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember something like this happening, on video. IIRC, a F-14 rolling over the edge of an aircraft carrier landing deck and ending up in the sea, then judged uneconomic to attempt recovery/salvage due to the depth of the water (many thousands of feet deep). I'll try to find a reference. Astronaut (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They might even prefer to drop a few depth charges on it to prevent another Project Azorian type incident. Rmhermen (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that planes are pretty aerodynamic - which actually makes them pretty hydrodynamic too. Once they fill up with water, if the ocean is fairly deep, they are going to head to the bottom at a fairly high speed and a nose-down attitude. When they hit the bottom, they are going to be smashed rather severely. Also, you have to consider which parts of the plane are considered valuable for recovery purposes. The engines and electronics would be useless after even a fairly brief submersion - and the airframe will have taken a severe beating from the initial impact with the water and whatever happens to it when it reaches the ocean floor. There isn't going to be much left that's of any use. The most likely reason they'd consider recovering anything would be if the pilot didn't get out and they wanted to recover his body - or if there were sensitive information or equipment on board that might need to be kept from some enemy or other. SteveBaker (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Even now, decades later, WWII aircraft wrecks continue to be found and recovered."[6].Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An A-4 Skyhawk from the USS Ticonderoga (CV-14), armed with a B43 nuclear bomb rolled off the carrier's deck (pilot aboard) in 1965 off the coast of Japan and was never found. (Referenced in the Ticonderoga article). An F-14 Tomcat from the John F. Kennedy was recovered shortly after the type was introduced to keep it and its AIM-54 Phoenix from being recovered by the Soviets; the Navy used the NR-1 submersible. This [7] Navy link summarizes salvage operations for aircraft and ships, usually in shallower waters. Acroterion _(talk)

Thanks for that Navy link, Acroterion. Best link of the week. I just improved the USS Alvin article with some material from the 1969 salvage summary. Tempshill (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. That is the one I was remembering. I thought they had decided to leave it, despite concerns about the Soviet Union recovering it, due to the depth of the water; obviously I was mistaken. Astronaut (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I like to drink pop, as it's known colloquially here in the midwest, but most have ridiculous sugar content (46 grams in a can of Mountain Dew???) and my recent dental record says I should reconsider. Without having to go through the nutrition facts of every item in the beverages aisle, which currently available soft drinks have the least amount of sugar? 174.20.69.69 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's ale has none at all. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone was going to say that. Too predictable. 174.20.69.69 (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say nearly any drink with the word Diet in it is sugarless, like Diet Coke (which is sweetened with aspartame) or Diet Rite (which uses Splenda and something called acesulfame potassium). Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of which will be better for the wasteline, but many still have a lot of the acid to attack the teeth. I've heard that drinking with a straw can help in reducing tooth decay. Buddy431 (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My dentist told me that, in general, drinking a soft drink quickly is better for the teeth than sipping it. Don't know about the straw theory. I'll ask next time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can make your own soda where you can control the sugar content. Or you can forgo soda for awhile and just drink homemade juice. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Err, juice is not sugar-free, at all. And some juices—orange in particular—are acidic enough to cause enamel erosion.) --Mr.98 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As hinted earlier, water is typically sugar-free, and arguably could be considered a "soft drink" (unless it's hard water). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want fizz with no sugar, there's always Perrier water or club soda, or other waters with or without flavorings. PhGustaf (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a sugar-free soft drink that doesn't taste diet, may I suggest Fresca, the grapefruit soda beloved by LBJ? It didn't used to be widely available in the Midwest but it might be more widespread now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the modern version of Fizzies is sugarless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As others have mentioned, if you want sugar-free soda pop, look for ones labeled "diet" or "sugar free". If you're concerned about acid, there's been a few studies about that, e.g. [8]. (found with the Google search "acid content soda")-- 174.31.197.90 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want a diet/sugar-free (soda) pop, consider ginger ale. A 355 ml (12 US fl. oz) can has 120 Cal, vs 150-160 for colas and more for some other drinks (your Mountain Dew has 186 Cal). Since the calories in a can of pop (always clearly listed on the side of the can) will all come from sugar, you can figure out the amount of sugar (in grams) by dividing (kilo)calories by 4. Like Buddy431, I've also heard that drinking pop with a straw is better for your teeth as the drink essentially bypasses your teeth. A-ha! A study says this may be true!. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]