From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< May 7	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 9 >

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 1 May 8 1.1 Government of 1984 1.2 One ear of earbuds is crackling 1.3 Ear, nose and throat 1.4 Hello 1.5 Expanding security council 1.6 wikipedia photos GNU licence 1.7 investigating 1.8 LRT Excluding Trams 1.9 5 1.10 Our Lady of Fatima 1.11 Gum 1.12 Avril Lavigne a scientist? 1.13 Stride 1.14 Automobile Painting 1.15 Narcotics 1.16 Opposite Attracts 1.17 Lunatic 1.18 Why does Wikipedia have a video of a man ejaculating... 1.19 Swords of the highest quality

[edit] May 8

[edit] Government of 1984

In George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, is the totalitarian government of Oceania communist or fascist? Their policies appear to be fascist, but yet, seems to bear resemblance to Stalin's communism. Acceptable (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it quite falls into a single category. It's sort of a worst of all worlds thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See Ingsoc --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely fascist (or, at least, definitely not communist). The articles on fascism and communism should clear up any doubt. — Insanity Incarnate 01:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... fascism implies nationalism, and Orwell makes it clear that the Party is not identified with any particular ethnic group but rather includes "Negroes," Jews and Amerindians. In that regard, The Party clearly reflects the multiethnic Communist Party of the Soviet Union much more closely than any Fascist party. On the other hand, the antique shop in the prole quarter appears to be privately owned (won't put a spoiler here), inferring that the Party allows at least very small businesses to remain in private hands, unlike full-blown Communist regimes. Whether the Party is left- or right-wing is really irrelevant; it's an extreme example of authoritarian totalitarianism, which is what Orwell was criticizing. As a moderate socialist in a country where moderate socialists were dead-set against both fascism and Soviet Communism, it perhaps makes sense that the Party has characteristics of both forms of totalitarianism. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right that Party may not be purely fascist, and contains elements of Soviet communism. However, the Party is really in complete opposition to the ideals of "original" communism (don't know if it has an official name) as described at the beginning of the Communism article. This version "promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society" through "the working class, or proletariat, [replacing] the wealthy bourgeoisie." The Party creates and enforces a strict structure of social classes and keeps the proles from ever rising in status or rebelling.— Insanity Incarnate 02:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And I think that's part of Orwell's point. The Party, which represents Stalinist Communism, was originally a socialist party (The "soc" in Ingsoc) but has instead simply replaced capitalist oligarchy with another oligarchy. Goldstein's book (really Orwell's commentary) says the Party "rejects and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it does so in the name of Socialism." Just like Stalin in the mind of socialists like Orwell. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One ear of earbuds is crackling

Apparently, there's an issue with my earbuds (Shure e2c) such that one of the two sides cuts in and out. It looks like it's an issue where the wire for the right ear meets the plastic interconnect thingy (that splits it from one to two cables for each ear), as wiggling the cable around at that point will cause it to go in and out. Of course, this bit isn't really made for taking apart, being a solid chunk of plastic. Any suggestions here? Should I just attack it with something and split it? What is that part even for / will I damage something? 206.126.163.20 (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Earbuds are extra-low voltage, so at least you are not going to electrocute yourself if you fiddle with them. It sounds as though one of your wires is broken and has a faulty connection. The ends are still held in contact by the insulation at least occasionally. That's why you get an intermittent signal when you wiggle the wire. Since your device is not usable in it's current state without repairs, you lose nothing by attempting to do so. Success is rather unlikely though. The wire broke just above the "chunk of plastic" just like a credit card will eventually break when you bend it to and fro often enough. Stabilizing that part, like one would stabilize a bone fracture with a splint, might get you a little more use out of the device, until the wire breaks again a little higher up. The plastic piece usually only keeps the 2 wires from splitting all the way to the plug. It's fused into one solid piece, if you cut it you are very likely to cut the wires inside, too, (not to mention your fingers). When I was younger the "cure" would have been easy. Cut the wire, strip the 2 ends and twist the ends together. Soldering or a suitable screw terminal would have secured the connection. A little Electrical tape. Done. These days that won't work anymore because the wires you are dealing with are too thin there is little chance you will be able to strip off the insulation without cutting the wire. If you melt off the insulation (NB toxic fumes! Fire hazard!) you won't win anything because the wires inside are so thin. Even if you manage to twist the wires together without breaking them, all you'll create is two or more new points where it will break next. So, yeah fiddle away. Experiment. Just don't expect it to work. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Earbuds and earphones never last long because the wires are thin and fragile. Repairs never last long. I have to replace mine regularly.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not roll that way. My NES is still working, and I could have given up on it a long time ago. It should be fixable, and the wires aren't *that* thin that I would expect them to break immediately after. Cutting, stripping, and reattaching (electrical tape or solder) the wires doesn't seem that hard. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I don't admire your willingness to put in a little time and effort instead of just throwing something away (I do, and I wish more people thought that way), but it should be noted that the NES comes from an age where things generally tended to be a little more robust than modern electronics are. Also, earphones are generally subject to constant mechanical wear and tear -- they are constantly moving, people often wrap the wire around the device they're being used with multiple times a day (at least I do that with my iPod all the time, probably at least half a dozen times every day), they get jammed into a pocket, they can get easily caught in things if you're not careful, etc. It just isn't the kind of technology that is going to last very long. Still, if you can get a couple of months of extra use out of them by working on them for an half an hour, that strikes me as a worthwhile pursuit, as well as a good way to avoid spending money on new stuff until you really have to... and you might even learn a thing or two, or at least keep your skills up, if you already know what you're doing. I dig it. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ear, nose and throat

who was the first otolaryngologist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.189.150 (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Who nose? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

lol. Medical pioneers are generally referred to as the Father of (specific field) but I cant seem to find one for ENT. It is possible it developed gradually from either general surgery or respiratory medicine Fribbler (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Look in googlebooks or your library for this one "Offbeat Otolaryngology: What They Didn't Teach You in Medical School By John D. C. Bennett, John Riddington" I think that has your answer, sort of. Before there were onotolgist and there were laryngologists and they seem to have joined. One guy Sir Henry Trenton Bultin is named as doyen of ontolaryngology. Whether there were others before in some other country, is another question. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

hello i expect to know a vilage of city of NEW YORK who is bell port .may you tell me about it very well ? i hope i can got a map of there too .thank you

Moved from WP:HD. PeterSymonds | talk 05:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in the article Bellport, New York. 152.16.59.122 (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding security council

It's obvious why Pakistan would not want to see India seated but I can't understand the opposition by these countries against Brazil and Germany:

1. Argentina, Colombia, Mexico - opposed to a bid for Brazil
2. Italy, Netherlands, Spain - opposed to a bid for Germany

Lotsofissues 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like regional power plays to me—the sort of thing where countries don't one one other country elevate to a position of prominence above them, making them more minor players as a consequence. But I don't know for sure. Argentina and Brazil have hundreds of years of rivalry. Italy, Spain, and Netherlands have more modern gripes against Germany, but I don't know if those are at play here or if it is just an economic consideration. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedia photos GNU licence

I am helping a friend to publish a book about dogs, and we used Wikipedia information on a no of dog breeds,and we cited Wikipedia as one of the sources in the Biblioraphy.

We also used some dog photos from Wikipedia Commons and from the Wikipedia free encyclopedia, some as public domain and No with GNU licence. The book is not published yet, but we would like to get a written permission apriori in order to be able to use this photos.

We, however cited at the beginning of the manuscript that "A no of photos under Public Domain and GNU licence are sourced through Wikipedia and through Wikipedia Commons"

My name is Slavica Ivanovic. If you need any more information, and Would certainly liked to be contacted, my email is <removed as per policy for your protection>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.215.207 (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slavica, you might like to put your question at the Help desk for using Wikipedia here[1]. If you open an account, you can be emailed without your details being across the net. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

She is not asking about how to use Wikipedia. She is asking about the copyright licenses on Wikipedia content. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slavia—the public domain ones you are free to use without any difficulty at all.

The GFDL ones technically require you to do a few things. The license itself says that you can use them if you label them as being created by whomever made them (not Wikipedia itself, but the actual author), and indicate they are licensed by the GFDL.

Technically you are supposed to include an entire copy of the GFDL license with the book. Personally I think the authors would be happy if you just said it was licensed under the GFDL and had the GFDL hyperlink in the back of the book. The requirement to include the entire GFDL is a holdover from the idea that the files would primarily be used online, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense when talking about printed matter and especially photographs. But I should point out that this is just my personal opinion—technically the GFDL does say you have to include an entire copy of it.

The easiest way to resolve it is to get in contact with the authors of the photos and ask them for special permission to use the photos in your book without including the entire GFDL. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Better to get it from the horse's mouth, rather than the mouth of a reference desk-ite: The images should have links to their respective licenses to read. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is printed, it is not just links, it is an entire copy of the GFDL. I know the GFDL front and back, I'm just trying to emphasize that it's better when doing a printed book to try and secure alternate arrangements with the authors because the GFDL is very hard to implement correctly or elegantly when you only wanting to use a photo or two. (And while I am all in agreement about reading it yourself, some of it is in a rather legal language and without an accompanying straightforward translation, like the CC licenses have, so I've seen more than a few people get totally confused about it when they aren't used to reading in that language.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] investigating

How can I find out what was written on the previous page of the notebook? I can see some of the words clearly, but others I can not. I know there is a method that can be used to reveal what it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.242.142 (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at [Electrostatics in Forensics]. The oblique lighting is probably the easiest method at home -- Q Chris (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your easiest way is to use a soft pencil (say a 4B) and gently colour the page that the previous-one (The one you want to read) was below. This should reveal most of what you do, takes very little time and can be removed afterwards with a rubber if you so need. ny156uk (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LRT Excluding Trams

Which is the smallest (population wise) metropolitan area, town, village, hamlet and/or city absolutely with a LRT excluding trams that also operates on the street. It might operate in the air, underground, in the water, but at least, it has to operate in the street.

Which is the smallest (area wise) metropolitan area, town, village, hamlet and/or city absolutely with a LRT excluding trams that also operates on the street. It might operate in the air, underground, in the water, but at least, it has to operate in the street.

Criteria:

• If the LRT connects two or more towns, do you count only the largest (because the system "belongs to" that town) or the smallest (because you mean the question literally)?
  • For both questions: Count the combined total.
• Does it make a difference if the towns do not touch each other?
  • For both questions: Count the towns as if they were one.
• And second, does it count as "in the street" if the tracks are in a semi-isolated median or similar setup?
  • For both questions: It does not count.
• Finally, are you counting only actual public transit operations where the cars run at regular intervals all day and stop frequently for people to get on and off, or do museum railways count, where they might run once an hour and only on summer Sundays, and only allow trips over the full route?
  • For both questions: "...actual public transit operations where the cars run at regular intervals all day and stop frequently for people to get on and off..." = Counts
  • For both questions: "...museum railways count, where they might run once an hour and only on summer Sundays, and only allow trips over the full route..." = Does not count.

If there are any other questions or criteria addenda, please let me know.68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5

Cobalt 5 and Rain 5 can come in multi packs of 3; I've seen it and bought 1 each. Does Flare come in multi packsc of 3 too? Has anyone seen it?

And how bout the new Lush flavor? And other future new flavors if any.68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How many of you are asking this question-you appear to come as a multipack of 3! Lemon martini (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For those who have no idea what the above question is about, see 5 (gum) Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Our Lady of Fatima

why is MARY called Our Lady of Fatima? what is the origin and history of name FATIMA in this connection? Did MARY herself commanded 3 children to call her Our Lady of Fatima?

i read the wikipedia article on Our Lady of Fatima but coulnt find the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a form of address to Mary, see Titles of Mary, and it seems the place is attached according to where she appears or where she is connected to, or even what qualities she offers (eg, Our Lady of Guadaloupe, Our Lady of Perpetual Sorrow). As to who invents the title for any time or place, don't know. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And see Fátima, Portugal which is where the visions happened. Did you catch our article Our Lady of Fatima? cheers. JR sorry, where is my head? Julia Rossi (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fatima isn't a very large city; I'd imagine that's one of the more important events in its history. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's far and away the single most important event in its history. These visions put Fatima on the map and made it a world-wide centre of pilgrimage. Previously, very few people outside Portugal (and probably a lot of Portuguese as well) had ever heard of it. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gum

Do Freedent Wintermint and Freedent Spearmint come 3 MegapaksTM sizes? I know Freedent Peppermint does, I own a pack. Thanks!68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avril Lavigne a scientist?

Whats all this about Avril Lavigne being a scientist? http://www.avrilbandaids.com/forums/articles-concert-reviews/56868-avril-1st-female-celebrity-named-scientific-method.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makey melly (talk • contribs) 11:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

She's not a scientist. It's a joke. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a joke. Makey melly (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because it's a pretty intricate joke. The site in question directs people to arrange their fingers in the "horns" position, which Avril Lavigne appears to be fond of. I don't know a damn thing about organic chemistry, so perhaps this even works for its stated purpose (that of determining a stereocenter's configuration), but if it does, Avril Lavigne didn't contribute to it in any scientific capacity. She just likes to throw up horns. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. So it was named after her in her honor. Makey melly (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also a Britney Spears guide to semiconductor band structure, in a similar vein. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I mean, if the method actually does what it purports to, then yes, it's named in her honor. If it doesn't, then it's more of a joke on her (albeit clearly a good-natured one!). Like I said, I'm not knowledgeable about organic chemistry, so I don't know if it works. (I wouldn't recommend assuming that it works unless you understand the subject matter enough to know that it does, or find a credible source that says it works. It could just be a complex geek joke.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else missing planet Xena? Eris just doesn't do it. (Not an opinion poll, merely an observation on naming)  :-)71.236.23.111 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stride

Do all Sride gum come in multipacks? Thanks!68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe Troll gum comes in threes... Lemon martini (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automobile Painting

I'm buying a new car soon(er or later), and I have a few questions about painting the car before I make another one of my stupid decisions:

1. How much would it cost to paint a small car (i.e. New Mini) in this day and age in the USA?

2. Would it be cheaper to get the car painted at the dealer or a stand-alone professional place?

3. In reference to above, is there a difference in quality between the 2 options?

4. Do painting services offer colour matching? (e.g. I bring in a sweater or something and they can match the colour perfectly).

5. I've heard that the best painting places take apart the car in order to paint it well, is this true? Is it always necessary?

6. How much more would I have to pay to get simple decals such as stripes painted on the car?

Thanks in advance. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have answers for all those, but I know Maaco will paint your entire car for about $500. However, other auto painters (who convienently charge four times that amount) say you'll wish you didn't go to Maaco about 2 years after the paint job. When I needed to paint the hood of my car, I went to a paint mixing place and had them mix the pain to match the rest of my car, then just spray painted the hood. Sure, it looked real amateur, but the color matched, so I would guess they could match a sweater as well. Useight (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Many dealers will just "shop out" the job, sending your car off to their favorite auto body shop.

As to whether or not the car should be disassembled, well, that depends on how many places you want to find the old color later. There's are plenty of places that can't be painted if the car is fully-assembled (think about door latches, all sorts of rubber weatherstripping, and the like). The no-disassembly job will look okay to the casual viewer, but it will be blatantly obvious to anyone who cares that you changed the color of the car.

Atlant (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Matching color of a different material is more difficult than if you asked them to match the color of another piece of painted metal, e.g. your bike. If you say you want to buy a "new" car but want to get it "painted" are you talking used car or custom color? In any case I'd say that you are getting the better service if they take the car apart. Otherwise you could end up with "seams" where the new paint could start to peel off or allow moisture to creep in. For simple decals you could try to look what your local automotive store has available or look online (gooling for "car decal" order online, will get you lots of choices) If you don't trust yourself with applying those, a local workshop should be able to help you without charging oodles of money. Prices tend to be negotiable. Phone around to get quotes. Also check whether your area has an online review site. (Otherwise ask people who had their car painted.) 71.236.23.111 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of a single dealer that has a paint booth of their own. Don't go to Maaco. And Do go to different shops for to get quotes, ask for advice about good and bad shops, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 00:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Narcotics

Why are drugs illegal? i read war on drugs and it told me when and how, but not why. It is a victimless crime so why? I dont mean to start a debate, i am just curious. Thanks 86.18.34.51 (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Zionist

Law is something created by society, so at some point in history society has decided that these 'drugs' are bad for society and thus their use needs to be curbed/prevented. Some people have moral reasons for disliking drug-taking, some claim a link to crime/social devastation, some believe for safety/health reasons. Each of the drugs will have been banned/made illegal for a variety of reasons, I suggest picking a drug and trying to understand its history - there is no one reason. The question of 'victimless' is the one that is most disputed by opponents of relaxed laws on drugs. under the influence of drugs people have been known to do things that are far from victimless (this is not to suggest that the drug should be blamed but that is a line of argument oft used). I suspect your question will draw the usual set of 'not a forum' responses (fair enough I suppose), but it is a reasonably interesting question which can 'sort of' be answered. ny156uk (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, not everybody believes it is a victimless crime, clearly. There are those who believe that drug users themselves are victims of the drugs themselves (which, from a libertarian standpoint, might be seen as an argument that the effects of the drugs are strong enough to deny rational activity), and those that believe that drug activity leads in most cases to a strong criminalistic lifestyle (some of which is obviously due to the fact that the drugs themselves are illegal, but one could make the argument that drug addicts are in so little control over their abilities that they will have an extremely hard time not resorting to crime to pay for their habits). Which is to say: you seem to be assuming that the only people who want to make drugs illegal do so out of a moral compulsion or out of a desire to regulate the lives of others, deprive them of their own rational choice, etc. I'm not sure that's necessarily true, though it is obviously for some. There are arguments, though, that would favor even someone who believes in libertarian rational choice to lean away from legalization of all drugs.

Of course, the whole debate is quite muddled by the fact that there are many different types of drugs being considered under the same heading here. The effects of marijuana are more on the scale with alcohol and cigarettes than, say, methamphetamine and crack cocaine. Personally I don't think the latter should be legalized, for reasons relating to what I've stated above, whereas I'd have no problem with marijuana being legalized, even though I wouldn't use it even if it was. From a standpoint of rational actors, criminality, and likelihood to get out of control, some drugs are more justified than others to be legal or illegal. (I would personally say that marijuana and alcohol are able to make a stronger case for legality than cigarettes, personally, because of the highly addictive and long-term danger associated with the latter, whereas the former can be partaken in moderation without serious long-term effects or addiction.) (Personal note: I haven't done crack cocaine, though I did, for awhile, do meth, now many years ago. It is fiendishly addictive over the long term, and has horrible health effects. The people that dismiss its dangers and effects in the same way they'd dismiss the dangers and effects of marijuana do not really know what they are talking about, in my opinion. They are qualitatively worlds apart in terms of effects and long-term consequences.)

Note, of course, that much of the "why" today is political: to be "soft" on drugs is political suicide at the moment, though over time this has gotten better and over more time I suspect we will eventually get to a more sensible place (where the "softer" drugs will be decriminalized if not legalized, and treatment, rather than punishment, will become more standard for users of the "harder" drugs). This is, though, just a personal opinion. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The concept of drug use being "victimless" is problematic. There are always knock-on effects of every action. Discussion about legalisation should not deny the effects occur, but consider whether they are significant enough to warrant continued legislation. On a more specific note, I am always intrigued to hear people refer to marijuana as "harmless". This is certainly not the general belief within the field of psychiatry: anecdotal and peer-reviewed evidence suggests direct links between marijuana use and psychiatric illnesses (this does not mean that every marijuana user will become mentally ill, but that high usage significantly increases the likelihood that they will) . In such a case, even if you discount the individual's problems, the state/health system/tax payer can be considered a "victim" of drug-use, for they must support those who have become mentally ill through their drug use. So, such things must be considered, and weighed up against the benefits of legalising the drug (and there are believed to be some positive health benefits, also). Cannabis (drug)#Health issues considers some of these issues, and it's also worth reading the Beckley Foundation Report, which begins: "There is increasing apprehension about [marijuana's] possible role in triggering or exacerbating mental health problems, or of inhibiting young people’s emotional or social development." Note: "There is abundant research evidence that cannabis can cause shortlived psychotic episodes"; "People who used cannabis on a daily basis were 2.4 times more likely to report psychotic experiences than nondaily cannabis users"; "Regular cannabis use increased the chances of developing later schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychotic illness by approximately two to threefold" but also: "the vast majority of young cannabis smokers do not develop psychosis, supporting the hypothesis that a small minority of users may be vulnerable to the effects of cannabis." (all p 5) The report also looks at legalisation (both pros and cons) . Since cannabis is the "safest" drug, you can see that debates about drug legalisation can never be simple. Gwinva (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Very true—though I wouldn't say using cannabis on a daily basis is really what the "safe" benchmark is. I drink alcohol (usually red wine of some sort) on maybe a weekly or bi-weekly basis and it doesn't seem likely to be doing me any real harm. Similarly I think if one were to adopt moderate attitudes regarding marijuana one would not expect to find serious damage. The real point is that the short-term effects are relatively mild (that is, on a scale comparable with alcohol or cigarettes), putting marijuana (for me) more in that category than the other schedule III drugs (the opiates, the amphetamines, etc.) and the addiction is nonexistent (at least compared to alcohol and cigarettes), and thus on the end of the scale that should be up to individual choice. The same cannot be said of most of the others we are talking about. The question isn't whether it is "safe" but whether it is "safe enough" to be considered an issue of individual responsibility rather than social mandate; we allow people to do "unsafe" things all the time (driving a car, by itself, is immensely more dangerous than marijuana), the question is at what level we are satisfied with individuals being responsible for their own choices in such a thing and at what level do we blame the thing itself. (Among other debates one can have.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

At least sometimes, the motive has been racist: jazz cocaine, marijuana and opium were symbols of the fear of Blacks, Mexicans and Chinese respectively. —Tamfang (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opposite Attracts

Is there any truth in the saying: Opposite attracts? and why is it truthful? Is there a point were opposite attracting can be dangerous?

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

When it comes to immune systems, yes. Researchers have found that there are olfactory processes that let us be attracted to immune systems that are complimentary (dissimilar). 71.236.23.111 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if a human is attracted to a plant, there's unlikely to be a successful mating Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, consider the crypto-historical case of Eve and the Apple. Mac users, of course, see it as evidence that their product is a remnant of paradise and the fruit of divine knowledge.

As to the successful mating, let me point out that the global population was 2 (two) prior to this "human has a close encounter with a plant" incident. It has somewhat increased. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL - valid point :Re$p(_)t}n —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.243.111 (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, opposites in humans do not attract (one study, others can be found if you require and Daniel Gilbert's book Stumbling on Happiness talks about this). Why is this considered common wisdom? I don't know. Is there a point were opposites attracting can be dangerous? Yes, when your hand is between opposite poles of strong magnets.--droptone (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Magnetically?hotclaws 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with the conclusion based on the study adduced by droptone. Humans have an enormous number of characteristics, and any two people will have some important ones in common and some important ones that differ. By being selective about the characteristics, you could always find "proof" that it's the ones in common that are attracting them. Equally, you could find "proof" that it's the differences that are attracting them. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lunatic

If the 'pockmarks' on the moon are meteor strikes, and we always see the same side, then by definition these must have come very close to, or from earth, can some one please explain this to me. I realize that alot of them may be glancing blows to the moon, but the thing that made me think of this was a photograph of the moon i am looking at, and just off center to the bottom left is a crater and one can clearly see the debris that was ejected from the impact point and it seems to be spread evenly in all directions, so how is this possible? unless it can from earth, directly into the moon. Thanks 86.18.34.51 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Zionist

This image shows the size and distances to scale. The moon is pretty far away compared to the size of the Earth. Friday (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that while the moon may appear like a flat disc to you, it's not. For instance, the prominent Tycho crater (which may be the one you're thinking of) is about 45° off the Earth-Moon line shown by Friday. Even if you were to assume that meteors only impact perpendicular to the surface, which is in no way a correct assumption, such an impact path wouldn't get much closer to the Earth than the Moon's distance. While this is astronomically close, it's also trivial -- anything that impacts the Moon passed astronomically close to Earth. — Lomn 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Friday, stop trying to destroy the moon with your sodium-laser deathray! -mattbuck (Talk) 11:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats what happened when Gaia had too much to drink and got intimate with a chameleon. Rockpocket 21:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that impacts form round craters no matter what direction the meteor came from. --Carnildo (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why does Wikipedia have a video of a man ejaculating...

...but not one of a woman orgasming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spensuch (talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this is becuase no one has uploaded one (to my knowledge) Im sure if it was properly licensed it could be put into an article. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 22:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I ask for a Wikipedian to upload one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spensuch (talk • contribs) 22:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably here: Wikipedia:Requested pictures. I wouldn't hold your breath, though. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is easier to be sure the male picture is real than it would be to tell whether the female was faking it. Edison (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Does it really matter? I can see the talk page discussion now: 100k of debate followed by a straw poll on whether the woman is faking it in the video and hence whether it is appropriate for the article. Only on Wikipedia... ! Rockpocket 21:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be easier to watch When Harry Met Sally...? Or listen to Dark Side of the Moon?

Atlant (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swords of the highest quality

I was inspired by the "flat of the sword" question above. Who were the best sword makers in the world for different cultures and were there any tests that pitted their works against each other? I'm pretty sure some countries were renowned for their smithing skills. I know that Japanese swords are good but I think the lore is overexaggerated, especially in animes.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they really are that good. Their secret is in the folding, which AFAIK, is not found in other "traditional" sword types. The other secret (if you can call it that) is that they take the quality of their blades very seriously indeed - spending months on the creation of a single blade, with different experts overseeing each stage of the process. Check out Katana construction. While I'm sure swordsmiths all over the world have practiced their art with all due attention to detail, the Japanese have really ingrained it within their society, thus bringing more societal support to the process. The only other contender I know of might be the blades made of Damascus steel. Matt Deres (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish swords had a good reputation in the Middle Ages, espcially those from Toledo. On the other hand, if you wanted good armour, then you'd look to Germany or Italy. Gwinva (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, they're good, but they really aren't that good -- by which I mean that they're not anime good. The lore is definitely exaggerated to and past the point of ridiculousness, as Lenticel says. I'm not dissing the skills of Japanese swordsmiths, you understand, but you're not going to be, oh, slicing through solid steel with them, for example. Katanas in fiction deals with some of this stuff. Also, Mythbusters did an episode of movie myths, in which they tested whether swords could cut through other swords, as well as another in which they tested the myth of Japanese WW2 soldiers slicing through machine gun barrels with katanas. Great swords, sure. Absolutely. But also really, really exaggerated, particularly in fiction. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So Damascus and Toledo blades are good as well. Darn I missed that Mythbusters episode. I want to know what sword beat whom. Anyways, thanks for the info--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Solingen was renowned as well (forgot to mention that). But we're talking about a long period, with changing technologies, so the swords differed in strength and flexibility. Also, what test would you devise to pit them against each other? Are you wanting strongest? Sharpest? Most durable? Most flexible? A very hard sword is brittle, so can break; a "soft" sword is flexible but not as strong. Also, different swords were designed for different things: some for thrusting, others slashing and cutting: make-up, width, hardness, shape, edge differs according to use. (and Mythbusters can hardly provide an accurate test, unless they were allowed to use museum specimens: just like the originals, replica swords vary according to the skill of swordmaker and the quality of the steel, and it would be hard to accurately represent precisely a Damascene sword from the height of the Damascene trade, to match against a Toledo sword from the most famous Toledo swordsmith [etc] Gwinva (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah never thought of the qualifications since swords were made for different roles. I was thinking of the best of their era.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's some old, probably apocryphal story about a contest of sword quality between Richard the Lionheart and Saladin. Richard's club-like sword was able to break an iron bar or something, while Saladin's damascus steel scimitar was able to slice through a pillow, thus winning the contest. I'm nearly positive the tale is basically a work of fiction, but it stuck in my mind as an good description of the quality and sharpness of damascus steel. Pfly (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)