Miscellaneous desk
< October 6	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 8 >

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.

October 7

"Dark Ride"

where was the movie "Dark Ride" filmed? The amusement park looked too well done to just be a throw-up-and-tear-down-after set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.195.89 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Internet Movie Database, Dark Ride was filmed in Los Angeles and at the Santa Monica Pier. See [1]. I would assume they used Pacific Park. - Eron ^Talk 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selfless good deed

Hi,

As with so many ref desk questions, this is inspired by Friends. In a recent episode (The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS), Joey thinks that a true selfless good deed is impossible as any good deed makes you feel good. Is he right? I'm sure philosophers have pondered this point. I've heard that sacrificing yourself for someone else can be perfectly good, but if I was the person that lived, I wouldn't be completely happy that this person had just died for me. What about if you were forced to (say) kill a baby to save mankind. You'd feel shit, but it would have been a good thing you'd done (in the grand scheme of things). Any thoughts? Aaadddaaammm 03:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're exactly right. Think about war in which you kill other people so you and your buddies don't get killed by them (you're forced, in other words). and look what happens to veterans: post-traumatic stress disorder and post-war depression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.195.89 (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of win-win is important here. Sacrificing your own or another's life is an extreme case, and I'd prefer to talk about more mundane circumstances. If you do something for another person, unless you derive some positive return from doing it, even it's just the knowledge that you've made a teeny positive difference to their life, you've sacrificed a part of yourself for no good purpose, and you've lost. That's why doing good works purely out of a sense of duty, or some other reason that doesn't give something back to the doer, doesn't work and is not sustainable. There will always be at least a tinge of resentment involved on the part of the doer, and the gift will be compromised. The recipient may not be consciously aware of this, but at some level they will detect that the deed was not done with with the giver's full heart. Ultimately, win-lose and lose-win are both lose-lose. -- JackofOz 04:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A direct contradiction of JackofOz's formulation: in the 12th century, Maimonides laid down eight levels of charity, from the least to the most honorable.

A person gives, but not happily.
A person gives cheerfully, but less then they should.
A person gives when asked by a needy person.
A person gives without being asked, but gives directly. The recipient knows who gave, and the giver knows who received.
A person gives a donation in a certain place, so that the giver does not know the receiver, but the receiver knows the giver.
A person makes a donation secretly. The giver knows who received, but the receiver doesn't know who gave.
A person contributes anonymously to a fund, which then dispenses the money. Neither party knows the other.
The highest level is to prevent someone from becoming needy in the first place, by (for example) teaching a trade, teaching someone how to fish, finding someone a job, etc.

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC) I can come up with way more levels than that. For example, if we believe the gradual increase in honor from (1) to (7) and accept that (8) is higher than those - then higher still than teaching face-to-face would be to teach anonymously so that the pupil never knows who it was who was teaching them. The ultimate would be: "Someone contributes knowledge (eg how to fish) anonymously to a foundation ("a fund of knowledge") that dispenses the knowledge to learners. Neither party knows the other. (Hmmm - does this sound at all familiar? I'm beginning to get this warm glow all over). But it doesn't end there. There are virtues between level (7) and (8) such as contributing money to pay teachers to prevent someone from becoming needy. Teaching other teachers. I think there are an infinite number of levels of honor in charity. SteveBaker 23:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton's new book Giving might be of interest. -- JackofOz 08:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting and fairly well known case where the language one uses shapes the answer one gets. There are different levels, or layers, or "takes" on what words like "choice" or "self" mean, and these influence the answer.

In some ultimate sense, every action a person does is probably selfish. That is, we do it because we wish to, and in that wish, some reason that benefits us can be found. We feel good, we want to look good, we want to not be criticized as citizens and human beings, we feel its right and bnot doing right would be uncomfortable (a feeling we wish to avoid), etc etc. So in once sense, it's very hard to find a single action or choice made, that does not serrve the "self".

However in another sense, that isn't the most helpful take. It's a "take" to be aware of, and in terms of psychology, therapy, and "spiritual development" it's definitely one that is important to examine, but we also want our answers to allow shades of grey. Some actions are beneficial to others and the main surface thought is to help others. We want to recognize that and not classify theft with helping old folks cross the road as just being "both selfish", without distinction.

Hope this helps! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A BOOK about Meteorite$

This not only tells you about them, it also tells you, as of 2000, how much they are worth. One is worth $0.10 a gram since rust attacks it easily, another is approx. $300.00 a gram. Book is Falling Stars A Guide to Meteors & Meteorites, written by Mike D. Reynolds, ISBN:0-8117-2755-6 The $300 gram rock is from a meteorite allegedly from Mars. Can this be used in appropriate articles ? 65.163.112.225 06:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One rock that is of high value is from a comet, and one hit Siberia in 1947. 65.163.112.225 06:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This source also mentions Robert Haag as well, so this could mean that Wikipedia will have several edits deriving from this source as well. Happy source placement. 65.163.112.225 07:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely though it is that you'd like to promote the heck out of this book, Wikipedia doesn't exist to do that. We write facts into our articles - then cite books as a way for people to verify those facts. SteveBaker 14:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ICE (Law Enforcement) site

Is there a article concerning http://www.daylaborers.org ? I saw it, and it is a website that depicts illegal and legal aliens who have committed crimes, ranging from infractions to murder and child molestation and child rape. 65.163.112.225 09:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To have an article about it in Wikipedia, a website must meet certain notability guidelines. I can see no reason to think that that website is notable (although you may know better than I do). FiggyBee 10:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

holy rock in california

I am trying to do a project on a holy rock in California. I believe that this rock people believe to be spiratual powers, was in a roadway they were trying to build in California and they wanted to move this rock, the people that believed it to be spiritual wanted the rock to remane. They had a vote and decided to move the rock to a park. I can not find anything on this rock or the park. can you give me a direction to look? Thank you Kelly Farewell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.157.17.95 (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this Google search for "golden gate park" and "shiva linga". It's a quite amusing story. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this. I searched on "sacred rock relocated OR moved california park -acropolis -inca". I might be able to do better with a little more to go on. California is a big place that's been around a long time. --Milkbreath 16:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sending a letter during the UK postal strike

I need to send an urgent letter this week during the Royal Mail postal strike. Which services would be best to use, bearing in mind I want to send a letter, not a parcel. I can have it collected from a commercial address, or I can drop it off at a depot. Any ideas?

--86.156.40.179 16:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how far away you have to send it but in principle almost all commercial delivery companies would be interested in your business. The way the Royal Mail monopoly used to work until the beginning of 2006 was that no other company was allowed to deliver mail for less than a set amount, but it has been lifted. If you're sending within London, courier companies may be the easiest way; otherwise try those well known companies with three initials in their name. Sam Blacketer 17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try TNT, they deliver letters as well as parcels, here is their web-site address http://www.tntpost.co.uk/Mail/ Richard Avery 21:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to Fax it? SteveBaker 23:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you Identify a Sea creqature for me Please

I was in the Costa Brava on an almost static boat in the Med at Tossa De Mar, the engine was turning over. Caught in the wash of the boat was a beautiful sea creature. It was about 6 inches in diameter and had a flatter top piece which looked rubbery and appeared separate from the bottom. The bottom looked like a half dome and was made of separate stems, like mini tentacles lots of them mad up a half moon brush. There were colours of a mauve pink and white on the hundreds of small tentacles.. Under them were fewer dark ones. The top part seemed to be moving up and down and appeared as if it were syphoning water in and out. The top of it looked like a teat for a baby's bottle and was flat with a point on top. I thought it was a kind of jelly fish but not jelly like. I also thoughtg of a kind of sea urchin out of shell. I would like to know if you can identify it from the description Thaanks jeanette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.246.215 (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not sure but look at Echinoderm possibly Sand dollar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.115.31 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your description, I'm sure it is some kind of "jellyfish", Class Scyphozoa. A sand dollar would not be free swimming. Not all jellyfish are obviously "jelly-like." There are many species of Scyphozoans and very little is known about them. I would suggest that you do an image search in google using the key work "Scyphozoa" and see if anything turns up that looks like your creature.--Eriastrum 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Man o' War ? -Arch dude 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POPULATION VOTE

I,M LOOKING FOR A BLOG ARE LIKE MINDED PEOPLE WHO THINK THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ELECTED BY POPULATION VOTE AND NOT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.`````` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.130 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in the caps lock key. It's rude to shout. Aaadddaaammm 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which country? I presume you mean the USA, but that's probably because I'm ignorant and unaware of how other countries with Presidents elect them, but I'd be prepared to hazard a guess that at least one or two have a similar system to the USA. --Dweller 09:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might try searching for blog + Electoral College + abolish. —Tamfang 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 October 7

Contents