Miscellaneous desk
< October 5	<< Sep | October | Nov >>	October 7 >

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.

In, well, not actually baseball, but the adulterated version of it that they play in the American League, I understand that there's a peculiar little rule involving the designated hitter. You can, if you like, let your DH take over for one of your other players in the defensive half you of your inning. However, if you do, then you no longer have access to the DH rule, and your pitcher has to hit for himself for the rest of the game (or more precisely, I guess, it's the same rules as in normal baseball, where you can hit for the pitcher if you like but then he has to come out of the game).

My question is, how often does this actually happen? Has anyone here actually seen it? --Trovatore (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Designated_hitter#Forfeiting_the_right_to_a_DH? You may be surprised what you can learn in Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interference, Jayron. Bugs is up. --Trovatore (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? --Jayron32 03:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing he's saying you beat me to the answer. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for someone to ask what the story was on that botched "infield fly" call. Regarding the DH, let's just say I've never found it entertaining to watch the pitcher come to bat and strike out. Maybe it's because I remember a Cubs pitcher named Bob Buhl, a fair pitcher on a near-worthless team, but who went through an entire season as a Cubs starter and never got even one lousy hit. Baseball fever! Catch it! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I root for an American League team, and even I don't like the DH. I also don't like watching a short stop come up all the time and strike out. If a player can't play baseball, they can't play baseball. But how is the DH for a pitcher different from just having two full platoons: put a bunch of light hitting fielders out on defense, and replace them all with beefed up steroid junkies at bat. Why not? Because baseball isn't football. Players should be complete players, and if they aren't, they shouldn't get the promotion outta Toledo or Durham. There are plenty of pitchers who can hit quite well, and there are plenty of great fielders who can't hit for shit, so why do we grant the pitcher special status? I'm not sure I understand that. --Jayron32 05:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One reason would be to simply keep the pitcher off the basepaths. Decades ago, in certain leagues, they used to allow a courtesy runner for the occasions when a pitcher would get on base. I know what you mean about good-field, no-hit regulars, though. A couple of generations ago the Cardinals had a shortstop named Dal Maxvill, who was kept around strictly for his fielding, because he couldn't bat his way out of a paper bag. Bob Gibson was a much better hitter. Players like Maxvill could have another label: "Designated Strikeout". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Herbel. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Hank Aguirre would be another one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us of mature years still see the mere existence of designated hitters as an adulteration of baseball. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. I remember watching a game where Don Drysdale was inserted as a pinch-hitter, because the Dodgers didn’t have anyone else left. He got on (but, I can’t remember how).DOR (HK) (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caveman was used as a pinch hitter, not because Roger Craig didn't have anyone else, but because he was a good hitter. He had more than one pinch-hit homer. Pitchers who hit for power are a Giants tradition — I think Madison Bumgarner has a couple of dingers just this year. --Trovatore (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arizona Diamondback are know for pitchers who rake Hotclaws (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Iran is in danger of hyperinflation, what are the drawbacks of pegging their currency to a foreign currency, or just outright adopting a foreign currency, or (lastly) forgoing a fiat currency altogether (e.g., precious medals)? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That only works if you have reserves or the ability to actually exchange the one for the other. There's a reason they call it fiat currency. (You can't just unfiat it by fiat.) μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Hyperinflation - not just old-fashioned 100%/yr Latin American inflation - is always a result of supply problems, of war, of debts that need to be paid in a foreign currency or precious metals that the country cannot obtain enough of, e.g. reparations as in Germany. In Iran, afaik, it is mainly the result of the sanctions; there is a dollar peg (usually a bad idea), but they are having trouble maintaining it. The unfiating of fiat is when the state has enough power to run a strong tax system, lacking this contributes to inflation of course. Hyperinflation is a symptom of bad problems, not a cause.John Z (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions may be a limit on revenue, but the $10 billion they have given Syria recently in aid is the source of the inflation. See various. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um none of the results seem to attribute the inflation to the $10 billion aide. In fact any of the sources from your search (I didn't move past page one) which do give a cause seem to attribute it to the sanctions. Considering Iran's GDP was $482.445 billion in 2011, it's perhaps not surprising that the sources you provided, while often criticising or questioning the $10 billion aide given Iran's current economic climate (and other factors), don't attribute hyperinflation to it. Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, inflation comes from government spending via printing extra money. Mere economic contraction by itself never causes inflation, only an inflated money supply does. The relevant figure is not estimated GDP, but change in the money supply due to government spending. Sanctions themselves can't cause infolation unless the government prints extra money to spend "revenue" it doesn't have. How much did the government spend versus actual revenue in the year prior to the recent $10 billion transfer to Syria, and how much are they spending in regards to actual revenue now? Government spending is not a constant of nature, one can't pretend it exists in a vacuum of will, regardless of revenue. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, given the size of the Iranian GDP, it's ludicrious to suggest that giving US$10 billion (which is a small percentage of the GDP) to Syria is the sole cause of hyperinflation as you suggested was support by the sources, but is in fact supported by none of them (which don't even mention it as a cause or at least not directly). While you're correct that to some extent the government's budget is the figure that matters more, ultimately since there is generally a strong correlation between the governments budget and GDP, it's a decent figure to use and given how ludicrious your suggestion was, I didn't feel the need to find better sources. But as it turns out, it was in the news very recently [1] and it was USD$$453 billion at the official exchange rate. While as this entire thread illustrates, the official exchange rate is not particularly reliable, since it's entirely unclear in what form the aide came from, it remains an acceptable measure particularly given the magnitude of the figures involved. Incidentally, whether or not you want to consider the sanctions (which likely lead to a massive fall in revenue effectively forcing the goverment to either massively cut spending (and risk the deleterious effects which would potentially be worse then hyperinflation) or print money to keep spending at a resonable level) as a contributing factor to the hyperinflation; is largely a matter of semantics. And of course as has been explained to you before we prefer reliable sources some of which do that. Of course plenty of people do question some aspects of Iranian government spending, including the aide to Syria particularly considering their current problems, something which I acknowledged in my first post. This is quite different from suggesting the aide to Syria is the sole cause of the inflation. Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The causes of inflation are far more complicated than you seem to believe... printing money can cause inflation (although it doesn't always), but there are plenty of other things that can cause it too. --Tango (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They should peg their currency to Fiat's, like this beauty: [2]. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

What, like a huge influx of gold compared to other economic growth when you are already on a hard currency? Iran is hardly flush with newfound gold wealth. You, and I, and even their citizens are quite aware that as their actual revenues fall the government is printing money to prop up themselves and now Syria. That is very simple. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that hyperinflation crops up when there are underlying problems, but my question is why pegging the value to a foreign currency or adapting a foreign currency can't fix the problem. Seems to have worked in Zimbabwe. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Say they peg it to the Euro. People lack faith in their own currency, so want to trade it in for Euros. The Iranian government then has to come up with billions of Euros. How do they do that ? If they had something of value (like oil), they could conceivably trade that for billion of Euros. But this would take a long time, and even longer with sanctions applied. In the meantime, people unable to trade in their Iranian currency still would lack faith in it. I suppose Iran could make their currency directly exchangeable for crude oil, but that's not exactly easy for people to store at home, and isn't useful in small quantities. If they had sufficient refinery capacity, they could make it exchangeable for gasoline, which at least people could use directly. StuRat (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is very little foreign currency entering Iran. Usually, you get foreign currency by exporting goods and services, which you are then paid for in foreign currency (or people buy your currency with foreign currency and then pay you with your currency, but the end result is the same). The sanctions are preventing Iran from exporting, so there is a shortage of hard currency in the country. That is driving up exchange rates (simply supply and demand - shortages drive up prices). Since Iran is dependant on imports (as most countries are), high exchange rates cause high prices for imported goods, which drives up prices of everything else - that's inflation. --Tango (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The cause of hyperinflation is very simple, and always the same: a government that can't pay its bills from the revenue it receives pays its bills by printing money. The disadvantage of tying the currency to a fixed standard is that the Iranian government would no longer be able to pay its bills at all. Looie496 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but that can happen either way. At some point, hyperinflation will make people unwilling to sell anything for payments in worthless paper. And, based on Medeis' link below: [3], it seems we've already hit that point: "Because of the rial's dismal state, even the bazaar closed its gates — the same bazaar that actually supports the conservative Iranian leadership and is considered one of the regime's strongholds. 'We have no choice but to close our shops,' said one vendor to a foreign reporter. 'We prefer not to sell anything than to lose money.'". StuRat (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Nil above, first off, a point of order. Your condescending comment in your edit summary that you had to insert your response above Tango's because of something I did is bollocks. With the exception of StuRat's joke, everyone of those comments was in order by time and indented under the one it was responding to. The only randomly placed one is yours. In any case am responding at the bottom of the page so as not to compound your action. Second, hyperinflation is not a word I have used once, so telling me that I am wrong to attribute Iranian hyperinflation to the ten billion printed to give to Syria is also based on something imagined. To the matter itself, of course the added $10 billion is just one additional factor adding to the Iranian governments already historically inflationary spending policy. But it is not of so little consequence as you imply. The inflationary effect of just the $10 billion would be calculated not against GDP, but against money supply. On that topic, according to our article Central_Bank_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Key_statistics, Iranian M1 in 2001 was valued at $71 Billion, presumably in US dollars. This source citing Bloomberg shows that the Iranian money supply (in some unspecified and presumably Iranian unit) has about septupled since 2000, which, if it doesn't correspond to a septupling in the value of the GDP over that time, indicates 600% inflation during the same period, which corresponds neatly with the just under 20% average annual inflation during Ahmedinejad's era. That is, the annual inflation corresponds almost exactly to the government's printing money. Unfortunately that chart doesn't give the money supply's value in US dollars, so we can't calculate exactly what effect the $10 billion will have on inflation above the current rate. But if the current actual US dollar value of their M1 is the same $71 billion (although I suspect it's probably less), then (71+10)/81=1.14, adding an additional 14% to the inflation, doubling the recent average rate in one fell swoop. And indeed, this interesting article suggests inflation is well above double the historical average.μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat correctly placed their comment [4]. You are the sole person who confused matters by placing your comment under StuRat's even though you weren't replying to them but to a comment above theres. In fact you're behaviour isn't even consistent. You initially replied above StuRat (which is proper behaviour supported by both our indenting guideline and common practice) [5]. It was only later you decided to post below StuRat [6] with another post for whatever bizzare reason. Your calculations appear to be flawed, since you've ignored what I highlighted earlier, the $10 billion appears to be only a tiny percentage the current Iranian budget, therefore however you spin it, the $10 billion can only have made a small effect on inflation. (Your calculation also seems to have ignore the likely reduction in revenue due to to the sanctions.) In any case, now that you've acknowledge your first response was flawed, and the aide (and in fact it's not even clear if the aide is different from previous years or perhaps came from a reallocation of any existing aide budget they may have) is not the sole cause of inflation, I don't consider there is anything more to discuss. P.S. I came across the Business Insider ref earlier and considered posting it as a general reply to the thread but ultimately decided it was too controversy. However it's an interesting thesis and if you read it you'll know that it doesn't even mention the aide but does mention the inflation may not actually be a bad thing in terms of a goverment support POV and the government is using a variety of measures which contribute towards inflation to help their popularity (not including the aide). P.P.S. I acknowledge you never used the word hyperinflation, and apologies for any confusion caused, simply substitute for inflation wherever I used inflation previously if there is still any confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through some pretty old notepads this morning and came across one with an autograph I received sometime more than 7 years ago. I have absolutely zero idea who's autograph this is...would anyone be able to shed some light on this? Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Dream Big! Dream Often! Dreams do come true!" is attributed to a certain Dorothy here. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zil...? Zib...? —Tamfang (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does look a bit like "Zib". I thought the first part may be "Dan". Apparently, there are plenty of people called Dan Zibel. Alansplodge (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be Diane something. There's a Diane Dike who's associated with the "Dreams do come true" mantra. If I try not too hard, I can read the sig as "Diane Dike". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression was Diane Zi#l(/d/b)##, with "Diane" only apparently having four letters at most and strangely lacking a dotted i. It seems far too flowery to be a straight man's signature. D#### Zi(#)l(/d/b)#(#) seems about the best we can guess. Jack's guess of Diane Dike seems good on other grounds. Surely all this will prompt some sort of memory or at least spacio-temporal context. I.e., this wasn't signed in the south of France in 1987, was it? μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an autograph by Diane Dike - the 3rd photo here. It's sorta vaguely similar, but still different enough for me to discount her as the one in the OP's photo. Back to the drawing board. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Zadra? Seems to be a person who writes things like that. 88.112.36.91 (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the blatantly sexist/homophobic commentary really necessary? Anyway, initially the first name looked like "Drew" to me, but now I'm not sure. Maybe Dean or Dion or Dina? Hopefully it isn't just an old friend or teacher or something... 81.98.43.107 (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I modified my comment, didn't mean to offend. μηδείς (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to assume there's an "i" in the second name, so Zadra seems out, and probably not an "i" in the first name, so Dina seems out as well. μηδείς (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this seems to be struggling...having thought really hard about it, my best guess as to where I got it would have been a golf tournament at Prairie Dunes, either the Women's Open or the Senior Open...I can't say with 100% certainty that that's where I got it though. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of contestants at the 2002 Women's Open.

Here's the 2006 Senior Open player list. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Living in Southeast Ohio, Have seen numerous sizes,shapes & colors of mushrooms....on lawn...Just curious about them....AM NOT picking & eating...just info. on them...even some that are pinkish/red on top...beautiful to look at..another looks like a stingray,even the color...& it is huge,flat on top...shaped like a stingray...the pinkish/red 1 is almost heart shaped w/some sort of tentacles coming from under the head....as I said beautiful to look at.......will be mowing them as soon as weather dries up some....TY.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.168.138 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this google search turns up some promissing websites to help you identify your mushrooms --Jayron32 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkish red, large, with dangly bits? You may want to look at fly agaric, or related Amanita species. Mushroom ID is hard, you may also be interested in googling a mushroom identification key for your region. SemanticMantis (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]