Random Questions Thread

Refer to Japanese Pronouns.

I know their roles are inherently different, but how would say an Elite SWAT team from NYPD,LAPD, MPD, etc, compare to your average infantry soldier in the Army/Marines or even low tier Spec Ops, if they were pushed into a situation that called for it, i.e. Invaded States of America?

edited 27th Jul '14 5:41:42 AM by TacticalFox88

The main limitation on their effectiveness are their low numbers, and their lack of heavy support weapons (like anti-tank rockets, or machine guns). As far as their tactics and techniques are concerned, they arent really trained to defend their own perimeter.

They are extremely specialized assault infantry, trained to clear buildings, but they are very good at it. NYPD ESU or LAPD SWAT are undoubtedly better-trained than regular US Army for their specialty, and are almost certainly better trained than many national Special Forces groups in second-world or third-world countries. But their purpose is very narrow.

In that situation they would probably do the most good by blending into the civilian population and operating in an almost terroristic role against any invading force, assaulting a command post or supply depot and then fading into the civilian population again.

edited 27th Jul '14 12:00:50 PM by Night

Just don't expect them to fight the T-90s ripping up Market Street and you'll be fine.

OK, odd idea from something I thought of involving the XCOM universe: Suppose the scientists successfully reverse-engineer and semi-mass produce a substance capable of completely eliminating transplant rejection among other things, what would its medical uses be? I suppose that use of it in organ or limb transplants would be a natural choice, but what else could it be used for? Would using it to grow entire secondary/replacement organs in people suffering from failures of said organs be feasible? Or using it to rewrite the genetic code of people suffering from genetic disorders?

And just how many people would be willing to stand in a vat of the stuff and undergo regular checkups (due to its highly experimental nature) in exchange for being able to lead a life without needing to take immunosuppresant drugs? Again, this would be completely voluntary like the average medical trial.

Oh and a bonus: Asides from accusations of eugenics, what conspiracy theories might arise from the use of such a substance in medicine?

edited 28th Jul '14 8:51:31 AM by Krieger22

Well, how does it suppress transplant rejection?

The way I'm thinking of it, the nanomachines "convince" the immune system of the recipent that the transplanted tissue was there all along, or at least is just another, "regular" part of the recipent's body. It's Unobtanium through and through - the utility of such a substance is what spurs increased scientific interest in it - even if the researchers are cautious due to it being part of a failed attempt to uplift humanity.

edited 28th Jul '14 9:06:49 AM by Krieger22

It might be feasible (depending no how it's keyed to a given substance, and what substances it works with—this likely wouldn't work if it only functioned on tissue, for example) for it to be used to deal with allergies (if I recall correctly that allergies are auto-immune over-responses) and other cases of over-response by the immune system.

Tailors and/or cosplayers, I need your help! So I'm thinking about giving a character a cloak/mantle of raven feathers for one of my stories, and while it is expressly for intimidation as opposed to normal wear, I'm just wondering how such a cape would be constructed to keep it light enough to flutter in a good wind (such as riding a galloping horse) without being blown apart.

Sure, I could just gloss it over, but I'd prefer details like stitch work and construction methods because she actually watches her mother and sister finish up the cape and do final touch-ups to make it fit properly.

The cape body would be gauze or lace because they have the right see-through and ethereal properties, but I have almost no idea how you'd sew feathers onto those fabrics without canceling out the see-through effect. I'd like the feathers to be semi-dangling just off the cape's body, so I don't think gluing them to strips of fabric would work unless the strips were only a finger-width or so wide. Maybe they'd wrap/buttonhole the feathers' quills and then attach them at the tips (whether in rows or individually)? The majority of the cape was made over a year and a half and the mother/sister are proficient sewers since they're noblewomen, so I'm not worried about time or difficulty. (Or about acquiring enough raven feathers.)

Also: How do you describe a Dutch braid when you don't have the Netherlands in your world? I can use "woven braid" in place of "French braid," but Dutch braids are surprisingly hard to evoke with general words. So far, I have "standing braid" but that might confuse people into thinking it's an updo, and "ridge braid" because of how it looks like from the side, but that doesn't feel right either. Other ideas?

edited 28th Jul '14 12:28:03 PM by Sharysa

I'm not terribly familiar with braids, but a quick bit of research turned up these [[www.hairstylestars.com/different-braid-styles/ pages]]. Are those what you had in mind?

If so, then you might perhaps describe one as something like a "heavy braid, forming a woven ridge over her hair". If you specifically want the description to be shorter than that, then I might suggest going with something like your "ridge braid" (although I think that "ridged" or "ridging" might be better).

Hmm... Another idea might be to describe it as a "thick, ropelike braid"—although I'm not sure that that description conveys that the braid stands up over the hair.

Yeah, those pictures are great examples of Dutch braids. Sorry, I forget that most people aren't as hair-obsessed as I am.

"Ridged/ridging braid" seems like the best way to go after all. I suppose "turned-out/inside-out" braid would work as well, but that's only assuming people already know about French braids. Man, French braids and lace-braids are described so much easier in a pseudo-medieval world.

@ Inceptiond

Thanks

How would you describe the hairstyle in the bottom row, second picture in this◊?

edited 29th Jul '14 8:11:22 AM by Elfhunter

I'm not quite sure of where those two tied locks come from—are they from her forelock? If so, then perhaps something like this:

"Her hair hung long and loose, save for her forelock, which was parted to either side and its two halves bound behind her head to crown her with a loose diadem of shining hair."

That's just a half-up ponytail. "The upper half of her hair was tied back to stay out of her face, leaving the rest loose."

edited 29th Jul '14 9:59:22 AM by Sharysa

Huh, what do you know, it actually has a name. Thanks to both of you for the speedy replies.

edited 29th Jul '14 10:31:45 AM by Elfhunter

No worries!

Sorry for asking this here and not the history thread, but because I didn't get any replies, I'll aks here, if that's okay. Here goes: In regards to how ethnic Russians are treated in Ukraine, which is one reason for what's going on there, how were ethnic Frenchman and Frenchwomen treated after Alsace and Lorraine wound up being German territory post-Franco-Prussian War, pre-World War I?

What's considered the best breed of dog for a hybrid of genuine playfulness and ruthless protection of its master(s) as a trained attack dog?

Those two things tend not to mix. Largely as a result of how you have to train a proper guard or attack dog.

German Shepherds are nice though

I don't think any safe, trained, and well-bred dog is described as "ruthless." That implies really strong aggression, and you can't have an aggressive dog because it's a danger to everyone, including you.

Ruthlessness is for a fighting dog, not a guard/attack dog. Fighting dogs are often put down because they can no longer be controlled without drugs or severe handling, so they can't live normal lives.

As for good attack/guard breeds: German Shepherds, Dobermans, and Rottweilers are great historical guard dogs. They're effective on the job, and they're also great family dogs off the job.

edited 29th Jul '14 8:21:12 PM by Sharysa

Doing some extremely rough math, how geographically big would a megacity have to be if its population was 350 million assuming some generous population density?

The math is actually easier than you'd think. New York City population density is 27,778.7/sq mile. At that rate, you'd need 12,599.58 square miles to reach 350 million. With modern tech, you can likely increase that density by more than a little, but not too much. If you're in a technologically advanced future where megacities are common, though, increasing it by an order of magnitude wouldn't be excessively difficult. Lots of excessively tall buildings (not like kilometers tall, but maybe a hundred floors or more on average) and especially apartment buildings, with some way of getting enough food to everyone should work.

Could always build down instead of up too