Miscellaneous desk
< October 4	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 6 >

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.

October 5[edit]

Is Japanese informal attire Western‐based?[edit]

I had another interesting dream tonight, and it made me wonder if business wear is a Western invention. Suits are, as I just found out tonight, but I don’t know if the Japanese people have an equivalent. I thought that if they did have one, it would be archaic by now. Are all Japanese business clothes copied from the West? --Romanophile (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, men's clothes are copied from the West. Interestingly, some girls and women wear clothes inspired by Western sailors, as in the manga Sailor Moon.

And yes, there is also traditional Japanese formal and informal attire, although it would tend to vary by class, etc., which wouldn't be appropriate for business. StuRat (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in our History of suits article. Western dress seems to be almost universal for Japanese salarymen; a quick Google search brought up a mass of images like this and this. The transition to western styling came with the Meiji Restoration during the 1870s, when there was a concerted drive, led by Japan's most powerful feudal dynasties, to modernise the country, particularly in the areas of trade and industry. I believe that Japanese men often dress up in traditional costume for their wedding. Alansplodge (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese word for a (Western) suit, sebiro, is written with Kanji 背広, meaning back broad; but it is certainly a loanword. The origin is not certain, but the most common origin given is that it is from English "civil", i.e. a "civil" uniform, as opposed to the military uniforms which were adopted at the same period. --ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my memory of what that delightful rogue, possible love-child of Lafcadio Hearn and Ambrose Bierce, and Order of the Sacred Treasure recipient Jack Seward wrote in one of his many books, sebiro was a wry Meiji period pun on "Savile Row".

Yes, yes, Seward was what I was reading when I should have been studying my Tōyō kanji.

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an alternative theory, but I think it is less favoured by the sources. In my opinion, if that were the origin, it would be sebirurou. --ColinFine (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Run through the jungle ;-)[edit]

In jungle warfare, what's the maximum distance a small unit operating behind enemy lines can reasonably travel in 1 hour? (Assume that they are not under artillery fire at any time, that they can easily bypass any likely minefields and therefore don't have to minesweep, and that the main threat to them is from snipers and the occasional (well-concealed but non-overlapping) pillboxes and machine-gun nests.) 2601:646:8E01:9089:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really "jungle" if there are pillboxes? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Battle of the Gifu, Battle of Mount Song, Battle of Tarawa, Battle of Saipan, Battle of the Hurtgen Forest, Battle of Iwo Jima, De Lattre Line, Battle of Na San, Battle of Muong Khoua, Battle of Dien Bien Phu, Battle of Ia Drang, Battle of Dong Xoai, and numerous others. 2601:646:8E01:9089:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to Vietnam and am still not convinced that pillboxes are found in thick forest, not in great number anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A typical range will vary from perhaps a hundred yards in thick jungle to perhaps six miles on foot, depending on the availability of tracks and roads and the time taken to avoid the dangers. Dbfirs 09:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So the main factor is how many snipers/pillboxes/etc. they're up against, right? (Condition #2 (or is it #4?): they can't use the trails because these are enfiladed by enemy machine guns which must be taken out first.) 2601:646:8E01:9089:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but a major factor (I would have thought the main one) is the thickness of the jungle. If they cannot use trails, then cutting their way through thick jungle is going to take a long time. My top limit of six miles was "scout's pace" along clear tracks, not achievable in your circumstances. Dbfirs 15:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about military action, but I know a few things about moving through forests. Consider that not all "jungle" has dense understory requiring machete work. E.g. I could sustain 6 mph movement through this [1] but not through this [2]. Both photos are from Barro Colorado Island, a semi-typical neotropical forest AKA "jungle". For Asia, some young-growth forests are very open in the understory, like this Thai example [3]. Here's another example of a very open "jungle" in India [4]. Mainly, I agree that terrain and cover type are a huge factor, independent of any suppressing fire. If OP has never spent time in a tropical forest, I suggest touring a bit via google images. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have been more clear, but I did not actually have in mind a real tropical jungle -- rather, I had in mind a temperate "jungle" like this place. (Yes, I know that technically it's not a jungle -- but tactically it's very similar to jungle warfare, except that most non-combat casualties were from frostbite rather than malaria.) 2601:646:8E01:9089:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)'[reply]

See "Run Through the Jungle" For reasons unknown to me I hear Fogerty's /ʌ/ in "jungle" and "run" as /ɒ/, as "ron" and "jongle". Just sayin' is all.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Train speed limit[edit]

In the video at this source regarding today's derailment of a train in Vermont, governor Shumlin mentions that the speed limit at that point in the track is 59 mph. Why not 60? Do train companies not like round numbers? Dismas|^(talk) 19:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a ref for why, but Rail speed limits in the United States notes common limits at 49, 59, and 79 mph, so the 10n-1 pattern is commonplace. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 20:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's so much like the 99 cent pattern at the end of prices to make prices seem lower than they are, I have to suspect that the goal is to make the speed limit seem like less than it is (to make the townspeople feel safer than they really are). StuRat (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to suspect. You can look it up. That's what we do here. See Tevildo's answer. --174.88.134.156 (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His answer takes some fact, in his case where various speed restrictions apply, and then speculates that this is why speed limits are set just below that limit, to avoid those restrictions. Similarly my answer takes some fact, that retail prices are set like that to make them seem lower, and then speculates that this is why speed limits are set just below that limit. The fact I used (why prices are set like that) is so widely known as to not require a reference. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but maybe when you've received the Nth complaint about guessing/speculation/not looking things up/not citing references, you might consider that the criticisms may have some validity... SemanticMantis (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless complaints, like this one, don't count. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I would not be surprised if the reason is that somewhere someone wrote a law / regulation that says something to the effect of "and under these conditions trains must travel less than 60 mph" rather than "and under these conditions trains must travel no more than 60 mph", such that an injudicious phrasing resulted in allowed speeds of "59 mph and below" rather than "60 mph and below". Dragons flight (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The regulations (linked from the rail speed limits article above) actually say "where a passenger train is operated at a speed of 60 or more miles per hour, or a freight train is operated at a speed of 50 or more miles per hour [various restrictions apply]". So the 10x-1 rule is to ensure the train stays in the "low speed" part of the regulatory regime. The speed could be legally as high as 59.99999 mph, but when it reaches 60, it's into the "high speed" region. Tevildo (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 00:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved