calimac: (Default)
[personal profile] calimac
Slate's Explainer column listed some of its unanswered questions of the year. Some of these seem more suitable for the Straight Dope, or for what in Britain is called an agony aunt (Dear Abby, etc.), but a few I can shed some light on.

What comes after 999 trillion?
Uh, 999 trillion and one? You were expecting a different answer?

Why is smooth peanut butter cheaper than nutty?
When I first bought "natural style" chunky peanut butter and looked at its rough-ground texture, I realized that the previous "chunky" peanut butter I'd known, Skippy's, was not actually chunky at all, but was smooth peanut butter with chunks of peanut added. That could be relevant to the cost.

If we taught animals to talk, how would that affect the world?
Read Saki's story "Tobermory" about a talking cat, and you'll find out.

When we are approaching another person, like in a hallway, why do we step to our left? That is, try and pass right-shoulder-to-right-shoulder.
We do? I mean, I wish we'd pick something. I detest the hesitancy dance, and when caught in it will often just stand still and let the other person pick something. (I realize this wouldn't work if they tried the same thing.) Usually in case of doubt I usually try to pass on the right, as that reflects how we're supposed to drive in this country (and I do the opposite when walking in Britain). Usually picking my right first works, but on occasion I've had some odd squeezes past people determined to pick their left.

If a group of passengers on a hijacked plane wanted to, could they bring a plane down by all of them using their cell phones at the same time?
Probably not. The "interference with navigation equipment" excuse for banning cell phone use on planes has only faint validity and is mostly a cover. The real reason is to keep passengers from driving each other crazy in an enclosed space by yakking on their cell phones. As such, I'm in favor of the ban. (Recent reading has suggested that most of the passenger calls on 9/11 were made from seat-back phones, not cell phones. I'm not even sure if they'd work properly on a plane flying at altitude.)

Hi, how does nature make water?
Well, nature looks for the next gas station and ... Oops, wrong question. Questioner continues:

How does nature combine one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms to make water? If we knew how nature makes water, then perhaps we can then find an efficient way of separating hydrogen from oxygen, thus creating the ultimate source for energy.
Seriously, why didn't they answer this one? A little basic high-school chemistry could have corrected the misassumptions here.

Can a state in the United States split into two or more states? If so, how? I think Texas has a special provision for being able to divide into up to five states. But I am wondering about the others.
In the case of Texas, yes. This link doesn't say, but I think the idea is that Texas has the right to divide itself without congressional permission. Other states may be divided by Congress with the consent of the state government, and this has actually happened three times (at least). Trivia question for you all: name them.

Date: 2006-12-24 04:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] asimovberlioz.livejournal.com
Well, West Virginia from Virginia is the obvious example. And wasn't Tennessee split off from one of the Carolinas? That's all I can recall right now, and I've decided not to cheat by Googling.

Date: 2006-12-25 02:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kevin-standlee.livejournal.com
WV/VA is something of a special case, as the government in Washington recognized the rump legislature in Charleston as being the legal government of the whole state, and thus authorized to make the split-state request.

Other states have similarly been formed by splits authorized by Congress. Maine used to be part of Massachusetts, until admitted as part of the Missouri Compromise.

See my comment below about the often-quoted "Texas Split," which is actually no different than the method already in the US Constitution for redrawing state lines.

Date: 2006-12-25 03:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kalimac.livejournal.com
The "special case" is what makes the WV split legitimate, for in terms of raw political fact WV authorized its own split. But since they were the only legitimist VA state government left, they got to do it.

The third case was Kentucky, which was taken directly from Virginia. (Tennessee was formed from lands which N. Carolina had surrendered to the feds, but was not directly formed by splitting N. Carolina.)

Date: 2006-12-25 02:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kevin-standlee.livejournal.com
I looked up the stuff about the "Texas split" a while ago, but don't have the link at hand; however, the way I read the joint resolution in question, all that the annexation resolution did was restate the portion of the US constitution about splitting. That is, it said approximately, "You can split into more states if Congress approves, as provided in the Constitution." This is no different from how any state can split up.

Date: 2006-12-25 03:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kalimac.livejournal.com
That may be true. I didn't find the resolution itself on the web, and lacked time to check other sources.

Date: 2006-12-26 02:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kevin-standlee.livejournal.com
I was able to locate the joint resolution after a bit of searching. The key phrase is:
Third -- New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution....
Now, the question is whether this wording is "advance approval" of Congress for the procedures listed in the US Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, or whether it just restates the IV/3 rule that the state legislatures in question an the Congress have to approve the splits.

Snopes says the urban legend is true, but also suggests that it's superfluous under the IV/3 rule. I can see arguing it either way, and if the Texas legislature ever tried to invoke it, a large fight would ensue. Another interesting question is whether the Supreme Court would get involved or refuse the case on the grounds that it's a political question, not a legal one, and that the Court has historically avoided getting involved in questions such as the ratification of constitutional amendments.

Date: 2006-12-25 08:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nwl.livejournal.com
Slate's Explainer column listed some of its unanswered questions of the year. Some of these seem more suitable for the Straight Dope, or for what in Britain is called an agony aunt (Dear Abby, etc.), but a few I can shed some light on.

Considering that Dear Abby and the rest of advice columnists deal with relationships and etiquette, I think the questions might be better addressed to Ask Marilyn - Marilyn vos Savant (which I read in the Parade Magazine). She answers (and asks) such questions.

Date: 2006-12-26 02:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kalimac.livejournal.com
A number of the questions were more agony-aunt style. I didn't try to answer those. Not the same ones that I thought suitable for the Straight Dope (or Marilyn Vos Savant, another good choice).

Profile

calimac: (Default)
calimac

January 2026

S M T W T F S
     1 23
4 5 6 789 10
1112 13 1415 1617
1819 20 21 222324
25262728293031

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 22nd, 2026 05:04 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios