Miscellaneous desk
< August 18	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 20 >

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.

August 19[edit]

Coastal Management - Central Coast Beaches - Terrigal/Wamberal Beach (Australia)[edit]

This article has a timeline of woe when storms hit Central Coast beaches. (http://express-advocate-gosford.whereilive.com.au/news/story/history-of-woe-when-storms-hit-central-coast-beaches/). The only problem is the timeline cuts off mid 2011. Would someone be able to find a record of what's happened to date regarding the coastal management of the Terrigal/Wamberal beach? I'm currently conducting some research and any help would be greatly appreciated!! 220.233.20.37 (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is this pic real[edit]

Is the picture showing a small boy saluting at a coffin with the caption saying "Don't worry dad, I'll take care of Mom" real? If so, what is the story behind the picture? When was it taken, who is the deceased soldier, and how did he die? If a link is needed, here's the picture in question. 112.208.119.148 (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the story here: [1]. StuRat (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Crane's napsack[edit]

What does he keep in it. I've seen many episodes of Coast and all he does is carry it around. Why? --92.28.82.83 (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's Coast (TV series). StuRat (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine he keeps the same kind of things in there as anyone out walking along coastal routes would. A water bottle, a raincoat, an extra pair of socks, that sort of thing. He probably carries it partly to make it look more realistically like he is out exploring the British coastline. --Tango (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also gives him something to strap his umbrella to. Quite why he takes an umbrella into rugged terrain is a mystery. I strap my brolly to my rucksack when I commute to work, but when I take the same pack hiking, I just take a raincoat. Brollys and bushes don't play nicely together. --TrogWoolley (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the umbrella is a little unusual. Perhaps it is harder to do a piece-to-camera with a hood up - it does tend to cast a shadow over your face. --Tango (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen him use the brolly as a substitute walking stick. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[See the correct spelling at wikt:knapsack.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)][reply]

knapsack So he just carries it for effect! How pathetic!!--92.28.82.83 (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a little bit pathetic but on the scale of "celebrities and sportsman doing things for effect" it rates almost invisibly small. Bear in mind also that Nicholas Crane has a fairly self-effacing manner and a neat way of presenting information, an umbrella in his baggage counts for little. Now if you want pathetic think about Steve Backshall and others of his kind who go around the world getting into pathetic "dangerous" situations with pathetic "deadly" animals just for the titillation of pathetic viewers. Look at the way some film celebrities dress and behave to attract attention, think about the way the British Government adopts a bullying and colonial attitude towards another country that does not agree with it, that is seriously pathetic. A brolly in the knapsack of a modest, gentle chap - microscopically pathetic. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is just a poser anyhow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.154.5 (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or even Bear Grylls spending the days in the wilderness, and the nights in the Hilton... --TammyMoet (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pieces in chess variants[edit]

In a chess variant for two players with neutral pieces (pieces that don't belong to either side and can be moved by either player, but neither player can simply undo the last move with the neutral piece immediately), one would expect that a neutral piece should have equal value to both players. Are there exceptions, and if so, what are they? (Assuming that if pieces have different movement forward and backward, the piece's idea of "forward" and "backward" changes in accordance to the side moving it.) Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's location relative to other pieces could be significant. For example, if it is a useful defensive piece then it may have more value for the player to whose king it is nearer (and vice versa for a useful offensive piece). The other pieces a player has remaining could also be significant. If the neutral piece is a knight and one player has lost both their knights while the other player still have both, then it will be of more value to the player with no knights. --Tango (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about in the initial position? (It could be a chess variant, perhaps with White and Black having different pieces.) Double sharp (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a user just hurl the neutral pieces at his opponent right at the start of the game to weaken him (eliminating neutral in the process) before bringing his own pieces to the fore? Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It generally takes more than one move to capture a piece so, unless you planned it very carefully, your opponent would just move the piece away again. (The rule that you can just undo the previous move means it is possible to come up with a plan to do it, but you couldn't just do it straight from the beginning.) --Tango (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, one could imagine a neutral piece that could teleport to any unoccupied square, but could not capture – a Neutral Ghost! How useful is this? It seems as though all it does is get in both sides' way, although it may be useful to prevent zugzwang in the endgame. It gets in both sides' way even more if it is uncapturable (so-called "iron"). Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]