Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 February 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< January 31 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 2 >
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.


Contents


[edit] February 1

[edit] Lost my iPod

I lost my 16GB iPod touch a few weeks ago. Is there anyway I can recover it? Like if the person who found/stole it access the internet with it, is there any can locate them or something? I know the serial number of my iPod too, so could I contact Apple and get them to locate it for me or something? I live in Canada bt the way.. THanks! 71.18.216.110 (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish you luck, but I'm not over-hopeful. The following couple of links might give you a better idea of the territory you are in: Google: "finding lost ipod" How to Find a Lost Ipod. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Federal Refund Checks

If and when we get those federal tax rebate checks later this year, will they have to be reported as income on next years taxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.143.173 (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No. A tax rebate is not income. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Senate version of the rebate promises to give $500 to everybody who earned at least $3000 from Social Security, whether they had to file taxes or not. Since that wouldn't be a tax rebate, would it be income? Corvus cornixtalk 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the very compelling publication Automatic Fiscal Policies to Combat Recessions by Laurence S. Seidman [1], the IRS letter which accompanied the last of these rebates included a sentence "You will not be required to report the amount as taxable income." I'm guessing the same will pertain this time around - it looks as if some non tax payers were included in that last round. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] True Magazene

I have been left a collection of True Magazene from my father and wondered if they were worth anything and if so to who. It starts with one from 1938 I believe and then skips a lot of yrs to 1949 or so and just about every one after that up to the 1970s. I want to say it goes to 1975 but would have to dig them out to see for sure. Some of them are in good condition considering and some are pretty rough. I remember him getting them in the mail and he would kill me for touching them without his permission, but I would sneak around and read them later on when I was old enough to appreciate them. I liked the articles for the most part but after all it is a mans magazene. thanks for any info 71.49.11.134 (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Best thing is to take them to a shop that sells old newspapers and magazines and see how much you get for them. Also look on eBay and see how much they are going for. I would say it's unlikely you're sitting on a goldmine, though. Rarity value depends on scarcity, and there must have been thousands of copies of this magazine printed, many of which will still be around today (especially the later ones). --Richardrj talk email 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Something that can often be done with magazines which are still published is check the classified ads at the back of a recent issue. Some magazines, such as Private Eye, are popularly collected, and people advertise which issues they have, or want, in the classified ads. 130.88.140.119 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just by flipping to our article (True (magazine)), it looks to me like the January 1950 issue might have some degree of worth, at least in UFO circles. Matt Deres (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sunflower seeds harmful?

aRE SUNFLOWER SEED SHELLS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.36.123 (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends in which context and the age of the child. If a child has swallowed some sunflower seed shells then they are harmless. The seed shells don't contain any poisonous substances. They will probably pass through the child unaltered because they are a woody material that humans are unable to properly digest. For a very small child sunflower seed shells could be dangerous if inhaled. Richard Avery (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Reference Desk cannot give medical advice. If you are in any doubt, please see a doctor or contact your local Poison control center (in the US, call (800) 222-1222). Bovlb (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not a request for medical advice. It is a question of fact; no "advice" is asked for. Let's try not to get too trigger happy on these things; it's very off-putting for questioners. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] may 2nd again

i had a few days ago inquired on a question about may 2nd.i changed the world as we know itand may 2nd is my day?what is it and why? i was directed to an article on all events that occurred on may 2nd.the only relevant one was the fall of the Berlin wall.so did the world war end on may the 2nd or what.coz i thot the fall of the Berlin wall marked the end of the world war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.84.64 (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't mean the fall of the Berlin Wall, which divided Berlin into two parts from 1961 to 1989. That event was related to the end of the Cold War. What you mean is the fall of Berlin in the Battle of Berlin during World War II. That was May 2, 1945. There were still some German armies left after that, but they surrendered a few days later on May 8, ending the European part of the war. However, the Japanese part of the war continued until August 1945. --Anonymous, 07:50 UTC, February 1, 2008.
My bro was born on the 1st of may so by the 2nd my world had certainly changedPerry-mankster (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal?

In the UK, is it legal for a gas company to break into your house to read a gas meter? Seraphim Whipp 11:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ironically enough, a meter reader has just come to my house. I asked him the above question, and he said that only with certain permits, and only after following a number of stages, can a gas company legally break in. Seraphim Whipp 11:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Coincidence doesn't necessarily amount to irony.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Reference Desk cannot give legal advice. You may want to consult a solicitor or your local Citizens Advice Bureau. It is possible that either you or a previous owner has granted the gas board an irrevocable right of entry or easement. Bovlb (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Asking whether something is legal is not necessarily asking for legal advice. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but it's not the asking that's problematic so much as the answering. IANAL. TINLA. Bovlb (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If one of our wikipedians were to make a mistake and answer incorrectly, the person could get into some serious trouble for just taking some legal advice from us. This could result in a lot of unnecessary chaos that could've been avoided.--Dlo2012 (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

He already answered the question himself so the point is moot. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a she! :) Seraphim Whipp 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Answering incorrectly about whether it is legal for a company to do something is not going to get anyone in trouble. It's not the same thing as someone saying, "Oh, should I just push my neighbor's car out of my driveway?" and then doing it. Don't mistake asking about laws with asking for legal advice. They're not the same thing at all. The questioner was clearly not asking for legal consultation. We can give all sorts of answers regarding laws on the books, common interpretations of rulings, and so forth. We do it every day on all aspects of the encyclopedia—think of all of the legal issues involved in properly tagging photographs! Just because it is legal doesn't make it off-base; it's only a problem if we are advising someone in how to handle their own personal affairs. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As 24.147.69.31 says, I wasn't enquiring to take action; it was purely a whimsical wondering. Seraphim Whipp 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The prohibition on giving legal advice is important, but I can't see that it actually affected whether your question was answered, so I'm not sure what we're discussing here. Bovlb (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but only after some serious LEGAL shit has happened, sue me if i'm wrong - the previous answer is not a legally binding response and should not be taken as such, mankster, perry does not represent wikipedia and is in fact a burnt out acid case, man - i work in a local social work dept and have to work with various companies along side 'service users' whom sometimes don't pay ther bills —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perry-mankster (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC) oopsPerry-mankster (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the gas company have a statutory right of entry if there is, say, a suspected gas leak. They cannot enter for reasons such as collecing outstanding payments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.139.85 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mastodon

In Moby Dick, who wins the whale or the man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a tad homework-y, but I'll say Herman Melville wins in the end. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Try page 214, if you're desperate. Richard Avery (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
A fox chases a rabbit. If the rabbit wins, the fox loses only one meal, but if the fox wins, the rabbit loses its entire life. This disparity is the problem in deciding what it means for the man or the whale to "win". You can read the last few paragraphs here, but they won't tell you who won without reading the whole book. --Sean 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you read our article on Moby-Dick? The plot summary tells you what happens. As for Mastodon, that's a very different animal.--Shantavira|feed me 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The heading is in reference to the band Mastodon and their album Leviathan, which is based on Moby Dick. --Joelmills (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crappy old movie filter effects

Why is it that every single "old movie" filter effect I have ever seen looks like total fake shit? How hard can it be to simulate some changing in light etc., instead of simply making it black and white with some random lines at random frames? This pisses me off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.29 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the point is not to make it look real but to make it obvious. —Tamfang (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] superbowl gambling

How much, in total, will be spent gambling on the 2008 Superbowl? How much, in total, was spent gambling on the 2007 superbowl? I am at school and cannot access gambling sites, but I need this number for a class.

Thanks --Omnipotence407 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

CBS suggests "Americans will throw down more than a half a billion dollars on the [2008] game (legally and otherwise)." [2] ESPN agrees, noting that "more than $400 million dollars will be gambled on Internet sites this year... [and] an estimated $100 million will be wagered in Sin City." [3] The Morning Sentinel cites "one gambling expert" estimating that $8 billion was wagered on the 2007 Super Bowl. [4] Thats seems pretty high compared to the other sources, but may be a global figure, while the other appear to refer to Americans specifically. Rockpocket 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] significance of flags outside hotels or inns

rows of colourful flags are seen outside hotels and resorts or a potentail site for their construction, varying in number and color..are they jst a gimmic or do they signify something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.61.182 (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They're a gimmick which signifies that the hotel appreciates that travellers from foreign lands may be customers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You might guess that if you see a eg spanish flag outside they will have staff who speak spanish etc (or maybe not)87.102.12.64 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You might be encouraging rash & wrong guesses. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think this question may be about those small triangle-shaped flags tied in a row, which I also see at many car dealerships. I believe they are simply for decoration. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. I think such strings of pennants would be called bunting ... not something I'd associate with a hotel I'd care to stay in, but as in most things, YMMV. I'm thinking in terms of flags on poles, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is the point of Coke Zero?

As far as I can tell, Coke Zero is 100% identical to Coke Light but in a different can and targetted towards young, retarded males (judging by the commercials).

What does "full taste" mean? It sure as hell doesn't taste anything even remotely in the same universe as original Coke, so is that a plain old lie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.29 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A glance at the Coca-Cola Zero article, peppered with some original research of my own, has led me to conclude that Coke Zero is a (destined-to-be-short-lived) marketing ploy targeted toward males (mostly, but not necessarily young and "retarded) who find the idea of Diet Coke distasteful. These males believe that diets are for girls and that Diet Coke tastes palpably inferior to regular Coke (a premise which the TFMWNCB rejects). Naturally, these males must be convinced that there is a less-girly alternative that purportedly tastes exactly like regular Coke but has no calories. That's the idea, anyway.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Well diet-coke and coke-zero taste different. The idea (as i understand it) is that coke-zero is the same flavour as coke, unlikely diet-coke which, lets be honest, tastes awful. ny156uk (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Coke Zero is likely a late response to Pepsi ONE, which contains the same type of artificial sweetener.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the articles, the both use aspartame as sweetener. Some people don't mind it, but some people find that it tastes bad. If you're noticing a bad, un-Coke-like taste, that may be it. I like Coke quite a bit, but I don't like drinks with aspartame- I'd rather just drink water, which is less interesting but doesn't taste bad. Friday (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Diet soft drinks have always contained aspartame. But newfangled diet sodas such as Coke Zero and Pepsi ONE also contain Ace-K. That's what I was referring to.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Always is a long time. Aspartame wasn't approved for use in carbonated beverages until 1983. Prior to that, drinks such as Tab and Diet Rite used cyclamate and then saccharine. --LarryMac | Talk 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Diet Coke was marketed as the first diet soft drink that (to Coke lovers) was good enough to include the word Coke in its name, and that was because aspartame was now available whereas its predecessor, Tab, had had to use other sweeteners. --Anonymous, 00:02 UTC, 2008-02-02.

From what I see, Diet/Light Coke has no (real) sugar, Coke Zero has no sugar and no calories. That also means that Coke Zero is about as unnatural as a drink can get. What hath we wrought? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

errr... water. Zero calories. Zero sugar. All natural. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was that in order to have a soda with no sugar and no calories that (in theory) tastes exactly like the original soda you would have to load it up with chemicals. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And then there's Diet Coke Plus ... Corvus cornixtalk 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Coke zero does not get you high, (i know cheap laugh, i'm sorry)...Perry-mankster (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I always assumed the point of Coke Zero was to be the coke equivalent of Pepsi Max. That is, a low/no calorie cola that is not viewed as girly, and thus is acceptable for men to buy and drink. The slight flaw in this, I feel, is that Pepsi Max is very tasty in its own right and Coke Zero just taste almost like Coca-Cola. That, and the ad campaign for Coke Zero is awful. Pepsi Max managed to sell itself as tasty first, low calorie second, which I suppose is what Coke did with Diet Coke, but Pepsi didn't feminise their campaign. And all of this is an example of market segmentation, which we probably have an article about. Rather than trying to produce one product that will do for everyone, it can be more profitable to target a market segment with something closer to what they want. Spaghetti sauce is, I believe, a favourite example of this. Some people want chunky sauce, some prefer smooth, and you'll please more customers and sell more sauce if you target different sauces to the different groups, rather than selling one semi-chunky sauce. Skittle (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well duh, Market segment. Not a particularly good article though. Anyway, Coke Zero is supposed to taste closer to Coke than Diet Coke does, and uses a different sweetener, and is not viewed as girly. Pepsi Max is a lovely drink that is tastier than normal Pepsi and is not viewed as girly. Coke Zero is still being sold, so I assume the tactic worked, but I personally see much more point in Pepsi Max :) Skittle (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I like Coke Blāk better, myself, but it's pretty expensive. Corvus cornixtalk 21:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is paper shredder oil?

Having searched from Google to Wikipedia to try and understand exactly what paper shredder oil is made of I have come up empty. If anyone knows and will share the specification or maybe how to make some at home.

Jim78418 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's just a light machine oil. --Carnildo (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My manual recommended using vegetable oil. I don't think that is a good idea, since it will go rancid and start smelling. The benefit of store-bought oils is that they come in a bottle that makes is easy to apply. --Mdwyer (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I was thinking about using 3 in 1 oil as it is good quality and light. Not sure if it's cheaper than buying the stuff they have in the store. Seems to me you can take a cheap something, put a name on it and then sell it for much more than it's worth. Since I couldn't find anything on the internet about it I start to wonder what it really made from.

Jim78418 (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WD40 lubricates everything.--Johnluckie (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Not quite everything.--Shantavira|feed me 08:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
*facepalm* Is that a refrence to sexual lubricants? For the record though looking at the article on wd 40 it wouldn't be a good choice as i think the petroleum in it would dissolve latex condoms. Cryo921 (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eating/drinking with headphones -- different taste?

When I eat or drink something while listening to music or something in headphones, the taste seems less distinctive and more vague. Is this all just in my head? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.29 (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the organs of taste, smell and hearing, along with the processing apparatus for same, are all in your head, I'd have to assume so. Algebraist 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I honestly cannot think of any reason why things would taste different when you're listening to music on headphones, so it probably is just all in your head. Maybe you're not paying as much attention to the taste because you're listening to music. Cryo921 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been some research done into the phenomenon which relates the lack of being able to hear a food's crispness to a modification in the taste sense of a food being 'stale' or less flavoursome. See [5] and [6] [7] including the quote - "Dr Charles Spence, at Oxford University, asked volunteers to munch on crisps in a booth while they listened to an amplified sound of themselves through headphones. By changing the tone of the crunch as heard through the headphones, Spence fooled the volunteers into thinking the crisps were soggier or crisper than they were." with more at [8]. Foxhill (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Could this be a manifestation of synesthesia? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Tall Wish

I just watched The Big Tall Wish. I expected the Wikipedia article to say something about "magic negros", but it does not. Instead it praises the episode. Hmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.29 (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What specific criticism of the episode were you expecting, and do you know of any published sources that voice this criticism? (Alternatively, what sort of bias are you accusing the article of?) If you have something to say then just say it, innuendo is just pointless.
(In any case, Ref Desk is not the best place to ask for an article to be fixed.) APL (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't "magic negroes" generally direct their magic towards (usually authoritarian) white people? As The Big Tall Wish contains an all black cast, if the article is correct, this rules it out of inclusion in the category. 81.159.218.124 (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See magical negro for more information. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Ethical' Behaviour?

In my younger days before iTunes Music Store existed I would download songs from Napster - I came to use it as a bit of a 'radio' station, trying just about anything. As a result I have extremely diverse taste and a rack full of CDs i've purchased of artists i've found. At the time I felt 'justified' because no 'download single song' service appeared to exist. This all changed with the introduction of the music store and I have not used any free-download services since. Now this is reasonably questionable ethically speaking (there always existed legally importable CDs to get my music etc.) but I wondered if anybody else experienced similar ethical policy? Additionally I am, to an extent, in the same boat with some tv series. I will happily buy them on DVD but some shows are 'region 1' only and my dvd player is not region-free (nor do I wish to make it so). As a result i'm stuck unable to get all the series on DVD but still want to 'watch' the shows (oh and they're not on UK Satellite tv currently). Again does anybody else get this un-ethical ethical dilemma? Oh and I don't want legal advice just wondered about the ethics and would like input from fellow well-rounded people like yourselves. ny156uk (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're looking for an answer on ethics? I wouldn't be able to direct you to any article or references regarding ethics of this nature, but I can throw some ideas around. The problem is the law; in many cases the law is designed around ethics, but ethics and law still remain two separate (although sometimes overlapping) systems. It is entirely possible to have laws that conflict with your ethical system - some examples for some people include laws that hamper freedom of speech, freedom of thought, equality. Already such laws exist, covering Affirmative Action, or possession or distribution of pornography of minors even if they are computer generated or in written/story form. In some religious countries there are laws against homosexuality - often citing religion as the moral or perhaps ethical compass. Again you can usually use ethical models to justify the laws, again you have ethical models that opposes them.
But at the end of the day, why consider breaking the law? Laws will usually supercede ethics and morals. It's because you're not afraid of getting caught. All you have left is your ethical and moral compass. And you're right: the people that usually get caught and punished for copyright violations are those that are the biggest violaters, for example people with accounts on p2p programs that have thousands of files and share these files for many hours a day - or people that make money from it, like people that make pirated DVDs and CDs and sell them illegally. The average p2p user violates copyright laws often but simply doesn't get detected, and even when they are, the big corporations don't waste their time going through the arduous process of forcing them to stop, reporting them to the police, or seeking damages.
So your ethical quandry is more about whether you can violate copyright on a small scale in the unlikelihood of ever getting caught. In an ethical system with millions of people doing this every day, you know the answer: it is going to affect the industry (it already has). Even in cases where you have no access to the DVD for your region, or a single song when only full albums are available, on a large scale you are costing the artists and companies millions and billions of dollars. The ultimate result is these things become more expensive, to justify the efforts of producing them, and as a result less gets produced (although in my opinion there is already an overproduction of music and media content - but small artists do get affected)
One common ethical excuse is "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, even if I had the money or it was easily available". This is usually a lie because how else do you justify downloading it anyway?
Copyright laws do make some room for research and education purposes, but these are generally legal definitions.
There is yet another ethical excuse: "I simply can't afford it". This is less likely if you can afford an internet connection that can handle the kind of bandwidth needed to leech pirated content off the net. But the user is protesting that even if it was easily available, even if I was offered only the songs I want, or the DVD in the region I want, I wouldn't be able to justify the expense. No doubt, this type of excuse doesn't hold up to the law; copyright violation is copyright violation, but at least no artists are getting harmed, and in a way, you may be assisting the popularity of those artists or of the copyrighted material because you will probably go on to talk about it and it becomes part of popular culture.
But let's make one thing clear: even such an ethical excuse (the lack of money) cannot be successfully or feasibly tested by the courts. It's for this reason that such an ethical excuse doesn't hold up to the law.
At the end of the day it seems there is no real ethical justification for violating copyright law.
Good luck, and I hope that shed some light
Rfwoolf (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd question your reasoning on several points there, Rfwoolf.
  • Firstly, if you're talking about ethics rather than legality, whether "such an ethical excuse [would] hold up to the law" is irrelevent. Illegal acts can still be ethical (and vice versa, of course).
  • Secondly, even accepting that piracy as a whole has a detrimental effect (which I'm not sure I do), a) why does that mean that *I* shouldn't do it, given that other people are going to do it whether I do or not, and b) do I care - how high on my ethical agenda are the profits of music producers?
  • Thirdly, your counterargument to "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" ("This is usually a lie") seems like a big bullet to bite, and I'd take a lot of convincing that your average illegal downloader would have paid for more than a tiny fraction of their downloaded collection had the free option not been available. FiggyBee (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
First - I covered that in the first part of my post
Second - that's precisely what ethics is all about "If everyone did 'x' what kind of world would we live in" or "if everyone behaved in such a way, if I was at the receiving end of the behaviour, would I endorse the behaviour?"
Third - I don't follow what you're saying. What I was saying is that it is really odd that someone will think themselves justified in not paying for something because they wouldn't have paid for it even if they had the money or opportunity. It's basically saying they would have stolen something even if they could have obtained it without stealing.
Rfwoolf (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What is it that the pirate-who-wouldn't-have-paid-anyway has actually stolen? FiggyBee (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ethically, you must consider not only the consequences of your own actions, but also the consequences of your actions on others. Although you are not downloading wholesale, are you implicitly supporting a means of others who are misusing the program? You may use it as a springboard for finding new tastes, etc., but others are not necessarily doing so. Steewi (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mary jane research question

Medical question removed. See the marijuana article for a general overview, but the Ref Desk is not suitable for providing specific effects and symptoms of marijuana doses. — Lomn 22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what is the name of this building?

http://web.mit.edu/facilities/photos/construction/Projects/stata/1_large.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreftymac (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Stata Center. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Here's the web page that that image is used on. --Anon, 00:05 UTC, 2008-02-02