Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 April 6

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.

April 6

Housecats

What is the largest breed of housecats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maine Coons are quite large, as well as being very effective mousers. Edison (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I had always thought Tonkinese were big cats.Cardinal Raven (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

According to our article they are only medium sized. I'd go with the Maine Coon. StuRat (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you obviously haven't seen my Tonkinese. He is about the size of a Maine coon. And he isn't chunky. He started as the runt of the litter and then turned into a monster on me. But he is my monster to love. I think that Maine coons are ugly cats. Why would anyone want one?Cardinal Raven (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Your particular cat may have been atypical for the breed. I think Maine Coon cats are cool. They seem to have nice personalities, too. StuRat (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Norwegian forest cat as well. Skittle (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maine coons are only okay when it comes to personality. Other than that they are too fuzzy, their meow isn't very cute, and they look ugly just like that Norwegian forest cat. I've always been a short hair cat person. And my cat meows at you for calling it atypical.Personally the only reason Maine coons are the largest cat is because of all that fur.Cardinal Raven (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

No more personal attacks on Maine coons. I had one for many years, and she was a remarkable cat. Edison (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Catfight! Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As she waould say, "NeeeAIRHGH!!!"

Most worrying thing

If the human race has to worry about something, what should be the thing that they worry about (and try to prevent) most? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.238.153 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is entirely subjective and generally unanswerable. I will, however, note that "should worry most about" and "should try to prevent" do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. — Lomn 02:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Climate change comes readily to mind; AFAIK, it's the most imminent threat to the habitability of the planet. NeonMerlin 02:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm most worried about my car falling apart, but, the human race as a whole, hmm, maybe World War III. Useight (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a skeptic, but the majority of the human race would probably worry about themselves more. Not necessarily that everyone is evil, but innately, humans on a whole are pre-occupied with self-sustainment. --^LaPianísta! 03:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing that humans worry about the most is climate and gas. If those things didn't exist other humans.Cardinal Raven (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

I still think nuclear war is the primary threat. This threat may have reduced somewhat with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but this is far from permanently eliminating the threat. Eventually just about every country will have nuclear weapons, and then various terrorist organizations, too. The only question is for how long we can prevent this. Biological weapons may be a close second, as deadly diseases for which we have no treatment could also be unleashed. In comparison with these threats, global warming is only a minor concern. StuRat (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think every country will eventually have nuclear weapons? The rate of nuclear proliferation is not very fast and has more to do with politics than it does technological change. Non-state actors acquiring nuclear weapons is problematic but is hardly world-ending, and is incredibly preventable from a technical point of view. The hardest things are political, not technical. The collapse of the Soviet Union has if anything worsened the nuclear threat from the point of view of international stability and security of nuclear materials, IMO. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should worry about another Great Depression. It really is turning out like that now a days. People are losing a lot of money. A lot of people were laid off just last year.Gas prices are getting extremely high. Taxes are eating money away. But even if we had a Great Depression we would all have to worry about other humans. Is that human going to block my chance of survival, is that human against me, should I trust that human or is he going to wiggle money out of me, etc. I think in a situation like that we would have to worry about a lot of things. Even a nuclear war we would have to worry not about the nuclear war itself, but if we survive we have to worry about those other humans who need to survive. Survival of the fittest is in our instinct.Cardinal Raven (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Death--Artjo (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A large Near-Earth object (such as an asteroid) would be a global disaster if it crashed into the Earth.--86.149.49.161 (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad driving hotclaws 10:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming may be dangerous, but there is NO WAY that it will kill off humanity. Life is, in fact, remarkably good at surviving. If you want to be terrified, read this section about the even that killed off the dinosaurs. Life survived that. It even survived the Permian–Triassic extinction event, which was even worse. If life can survive that, I think human beings will survive anything Global Warming can throw at us. I the only thing that will be able to end human life (excluding the death of the sun, and, you know, the heat death of the universe) is a big-ass asteroid. Maybe some horrific disease. Maybe. --Oskar 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We have seveal articles that list things to worry about Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth is a place to start. -Arch dude (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1. 1 threat? Other humans, which has been true for, oh, about 2 million years, & shows no signs of abating. Trekphiler (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only recently have humans developed the ability to kill off the entire human race, via nuclear winter after nuclear war. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Me.You'll soon find out why,but then it will be too late.There's no way to stop me!You're doomed,all doomed! Lemon martini (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You might enjoy this article on how to destroy the Earth. I personally am with StuRat that nuclear weapons are the main threat; I will be shocked if there isn't a full-scale nuclear exchange in the next couple of centuries. We're just too darn stupid even before you throw nutball religions into the mix. --Sean 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. - JFK

Fear is the mind-killer - Dune

If you're worried, you've already failed at life. So keep stoking your fear and paranoia with as many delusional thoughts as you can wrap your head around. Eventually you'll reach critical mass and have an epiphany, and stop worrying altogether. Or not. But taking something to the extreme can be just as good as methodically trying to rehabilitate yourself. Vranak (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fear is the mind killer - Adam Freeland Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All you gotta ask yourself is: what type of event would wipe out most of the human race for the longest possible time? Then you have what we should all be worrying about over any thing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.170.42 (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no use worrying about vague and uncertain catastrophies. First of all, if an asteroid did hit the earth, you'd be better off not knowing and enjoying your life as much as possible in the interim, rather than counting down the days to your demise. Second, while you're using all your brainpower trying to work out the most likely way to die, you'll be ignoring the actual world, and might do something stupid like drive off a cliff, or ignore something insidious like a musty odor in your home that slowly ruins your lungs. By looking for catastrophe you create catastrophe. See self-fufilling prophecy. Vranak (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But you're forgetting to include the odds of such a thing happening. Giant extinction-level meteors strike Earth every 100 million years or so, and could wipe out the human race, but the chances of this happening anytime soon are extremely small. Nuclear war, on the other hand, isn't all that unlikely and gets more likely with each new nation or terrorist group that acquires nuclear weapons. StuRat (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No terrorist organisation has ever acquired nuclear weapons, and the only country I could ever see using nukes is north korea, though there could also be some india-pakistan dispute.--Jaeger123 (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Several points:

1) You don't actually know that no terrorist org has yet obtained nuclear weapons. They would be likely to keep it secret, at least until they were able to deploy them in a such way that they could not be destroyed.

2) Even if they haven't yet, that certainly is no guarantee that they never will. On the contrary, as more countries have more nuclear weapons, it becomes increasingly more likely that some country will give them to whatever terrorist org they think will do their bidding for them, or simply sell them for cash.

3) I agree that North Korea is the most irresponsible nation that currently has nuclear weapons. However, even "responsible" nations, like Israel, may use them if they feel they have no other way to survive.

4) As more nations get nuclear weapons, such as Iran, more irresponsible nations will have them, such as Iran. StuRat (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

1. There's no evidence that any have and no reason to believe it has happened. 2. There are strong practical reasons why a nation state would not sell weapons to non-state actors. It is very easy to tell, in the wake of a nuclear explosion, exactly where the fissile material was manufactured. No country would be stupid enough to sell off a nuclear weapon to an unpredictable group; they'd get the blame for it quite quickly. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Answering the OP literally: total annihilation of everything you love while you're forced to watch followed by excrutiating torture, forever, alone.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Humans, as species with advanced mental capabilities, first of all may think about purpose of life. Other problems include bad instincts, degradation, fecundism, etc. Abdullais4u (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fraternities near Trent

What fraternity houses are within walking distance of Trent University? NeonMerlin 02:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There are apparently no fraternities at Trent. Canadians generally do not care about frats, and Trent is not really big enough to support any. There are some at Western and Toronto, at least, but it was still unusual to meet anyone who was in one. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Illusion

Is life an illusion? Are our physical forms a manifestation of spiritual aura? Is life after death just a way to explain the physical form going back into its original spiritual aura form? Is time just an illusion? Is there really no such thing as time? Is it just something we put up to make life feel like its moving? Is there really such a thing as reality? What if reality really is just another hologram? Another manifestation of another being. What if reality and life are really living beings created as non-moving objects by our illusions of the world and reality?

Thank You

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

These aren't questions we can answer. I suggest you listen to a Moody Blues album ([1]) and contemplate the answer for yourself. StuRat (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You may like to start with our articles on topics such as reality and time to see how philosophers have approached these areas. Warofdreams talk 04:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

One sense is sufficient to establish that something real is responsible for the sensation. Of course, that doesn't ensure that we'll correctly identify what it is that is responsible for that sensation.

If someone tells you that men can never perceive reality accurately, ask him how he figured this out and whether this claim constitutes accurate perception of reality.

If someone tells you that you can never be certain that other people have minds, tell him you would think about what he said but you can't be sure that anyone actually said it. Neal (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

Sounds like Reality in Buddhism might be helpful. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles on sensation and perception would be worth reading - we think we see the world objectively but actually have quite a subjective and curtailed view of the universe which of course affects our notions of "reality", life, time and space. Mhicaoidh (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, brains in vats doesn't work.
There is no such thing as a spiritual aura. We are matter acting on matter. Our brain is "us."
No, upon death we cease; see above.
To some extent.
No.
To some extent.
Yes.
Again, brains in vats is a dead end.
Incoherent.
Also Incoherent.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that Fuhghettaboutit mentions it, brains in vats is like the self trying to understand itself, a supposed impossibility; but having fun is possible, so if theorizing is your thing just dive into anything starting with Quantum mechanics and play! Your world is the one you live in and furnish. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Solipsism adresses some of the issues. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me clear up what I meant about spiritual aura. I believe matter, atoms, and all the physics of life is our soul. It is what drives us to live. When we die the parts of that persons matter, atoms, etc. are absorb by other people. That is what I mean about spiritual aura. Let me clear up the last question. I also believe that the thought or the need to live and survive is suppressed in some living creatures.Therefore those suppressed lives and survival instincts are what makes our cars. But all of this is mindless thinking from reading to much science fiction, to many quantum theories, and to many weird shows. My mind is a bit messed up now. Makes me think of life way to much and way to differently to actually be acknowledge as it being that way. Since this mindless thinking is just a theory.

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

The human brain is the end result of million and millions of years of evolution. It's complexity, its structure, is directed by our genes and is built from trillions of atoms. These arent "special" atoms, they're just atoms; it is the structure and organization of those plain everyday atoms that results in the brain, and it is from that, working with the rest of our bodies, that gives us consciousness. When we die, the organization that makes up our brains immediately starts turning into goo. In very little time, the brain is just constituent atoms. Those atoms may enter somewhere back into the chain of life, or not, but they are no different than any other atoms. If you want to call those atoms, when they are in that complex working structure, a "soul", as opposed to the religious idea of a spiritual soul that is something more than just matter, and inhabiting our matter as a vessel, so be it, but then you are either using that word in a way that robs it of any of the meaning normally attached to it, or imbuing matter with some numinous quality that it cannot have.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If "life" were an illusion or a well devised computer simulation, I can't think of any test you could conduct to disclose the fact. A psych professor once opined, "Yes, life could be an illusion. But I imagine that if I imagined I stopped going to work, then I would soon imagine the department stopped paying me, and then I would imagine I was cold and hungry." Edison (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If life were a computer simulation, I would be interested in the hack codes to increase one's bank account. Edison (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true that it's untestable, but here's a statistical argument: there's only one universe, but if we're in a simulation on God's Linux box, there could be almost infinite copies of it running (depending on how much RAM He has), so there's only a ${\frac {1}{\sim \infty }}$ chance that we're the real thing. :) --Sean 14:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cardinal Raven, may I humbly suggest that you are suffering from what could be called lexicographical reification. You're taking words like reality, illusion, physical manifestation, spiritual aura at face value, as actual things that exist in the real world. They don't. They're just words, and words are only useful for conveying understanding. It seems to me like your brain is running around in circles trying to come to some sort of conclusion with regard to myriad metaphysical concepts. This is fruitless. Go for a walk! Best regards, Vranak (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

What is the role Mr. Wales plays on Wikipedia these days? Is he still running the daily oversight of the encyclopedia? What kind of powers does he have? JeanLatore (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say his contribs page is a start. Neal (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

Technically Mr. Wales no longer runs Wikipedia directly, though his word is often treated as law when it comes to policy decisions (when he chooses to weigh in on them), but this is a question of tradition more than formal authority. He is a member of the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization which operates Wikipedia, though it is only in very extreme situations (e.g. relating to legal practices) that they weigh in officially on content or policy. I would sum it up as saying he has a lot of informal influence, though he doesn't do much in terms of daily oversight. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

He is also a sort of ambassador to the world, he travels a lot, makes speeches, is interviewed by journalists as a Wikipedia representative. Corvus cornix_talk 20:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And head of the Rachel Marsden Fan Club? ;) Lemon martini (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Did Tata get the deal of the century (so far)?

Jag AND Land Rover for just $2.3 bn. That sounds like a deal too good to be true?

Lotsofissues 06:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

When you compare that to the sale value to what Ford payed, it certainly seems like a good deal. However, those companies have some disadvantages, like lower quality when compared with some of the newer luxury brands, like Lexus and Acura, from Japan especially. Those cars and trucks also tend to be gas guzzlers in a market where gasoline prices are spiralling. That, combined with people no longer thinking of them as luxury brands but rather as Fords or, even worse, Tata Motors cars in disguise, means those brands just won't sell like they once did. Therefore, the brands are worth less than before. StuRat (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, $2.3 bn, but when you consider that they both probably still come with Lucas electrics (""Lucas -- the Prince of Darkness") ...

(Yes, I know, Lucas Industries plc -> LucasVarity -> TRW, but that wouldn't have been funny.)

(Yes, I know, my joke wasn't very funny anyway.)

Atlant (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Does every car come with a paternity test? Jamie Madrox 23:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Using mobile

Is it very harmful if we use the mobile phones, while it is lightening? If it is yes can I know the reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufleeh (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Lightning is not attracted to a cell phone in any meaningful fashion. If you're standing out in the middle of a field during a thunderstorm to get better reception, though, that's risky (but not because of the cell phone). — Lomn 16:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Or if you're in the middle of nowhere and you have to hold it up in the air above your head to get a signal. or is it just radios you can do that with?HS7 (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A cell phone is, fundamentally, a radio, so this can be helpful. Multipath and other signal degradation issues can exhibit strange behavior. — Lomn 19:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw a news story a few months ago (sorry, no cite) to the effect that although using a cellphone does not make it more likely that you will be struck by lightning, it may increase the injury you suffer if you are, because the conducting materials in the phone will make more of the lightning current flow that way. The story described cases where people suffered burns mostly in the area where their phone was. But I don't know if there are statistics to say whether this is a meaningful contribution to the (very real) risk of lightning injury. --Anonymous, 21:21:21 UTC, April 6, 2008.

I've seen similar stories related to iPods and etc. in lightning strikes. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The iPod thing can be explained by the headphone cord. It is a path to ground more conductive than the human body, so the lightning will try to follow it. The same thing can probably explain the cell phone injuries, too. You're holding your hand to your ear. If you get struck on your head, you've now given the electricity the choice between your neck and your arm. If it chooses your arm, it's going to look like it went for the phone. --Mdwyer (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

National Forest Land

Is there any way to buy national forest land? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• This, of course, depends on what country you live in, but a national forest is, by definition, publicly owned. Even if you country allows it's purchase, there will be a sea of red tape and environmental restrictions. Paragon12321 (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean U.S. National Forests from your IP. According to this "It is nearly impossible to buy national forest land, or to sell land to the Forest Service." But the site does detail so called "deals" between developers and national forests, where trading pieces of land appears to be a common workaround. D0762 (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The traditional method is to spend a fraction of the money you would have used to buy the land to simply lobby for legal permission to clear cut it, remove its mountaintops, dump your toxic sludge in it, or whatever it is you were planning on doing had you bought it. That said, you might be interested in this fascinating program where you can live on state-owned land in return for doing restoration work on the property. --Sean 14:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the UK, National Park land is nearly all privately owned and you can easily buy some, but there are strict planning restrictions if you want to change use or build anything there. (Not what the question asked, I know) 78.32.74.48 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Finding bond prices

Trying very hard to do my taxes using turbotax. I need to value of a particular bond on a particular date. I have spent the past hour trying to figure out how to find historical information on this bond, given in my 1099 under the description: "CALIF HFA REV MFH TARA VLG APTS A B/E FNMA /R/ 7.150 120124 DTD 110194" I need its value as of October 15, 1996. Any help appreciated.--151.202.36.112 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Carp Fishing

Where should I fish for carp and what bait should I use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.20.20 (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are you? I used to get them on cornmeal and molasses in slow-flowing fresh water. Pretty big hook, fish the bottom in the shallows with a bobber. They'll mouth it, so give them time to take it. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why fish for carp? All bone. Edison (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Help.

OK, I'm not sure you're allowed to answer questions like this, but it's the only place I can think of to ask. What should i do if I think that someone on an internet chat room has taken an overdose to try to kill themselves. they're too far away for me to do anything, I don't know where they live and I don't even know if they have or it's a really bad joke. Is there anything I can do?HS7 (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In reality, not a whole lot. You could contact an administrator for the chat room and see if he/she can trace the other user to a static IP, which might at least give you a localized area to do an online address search (if you know their real name). Or you could try contacting another one of the person's online friends in the hopes that they are also real-life friends (uncommon in a chatroom, but possible). In practice, it's a pretty remote chance that you'll get through to someone before the person is dead. Also consider: if they really want to kill themselves, they probably wouldn't advertise it, right? Matt Deres (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure noone on the website knows them in real life. And they weren't advertizing, they were saying goodbye to their friends. :( I'll see what I can do about getting the administrators help, not that she's online much. HS7 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, let suicidal people be suicidal people.. You'll just have to social engineer with this someone if you don't want them that way. So, is this on IRC? Neal (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

OK, a second question here. They claim to have taken 20 morphine tablets. I don't know much about drugs, so I was wondering if anyone here could tell me if that's an amount it's possible for someone with a very ill father to find, and whether they could even take that many at one time. And also is that enough? How likely are they to survive something like that. And how likely are they to be able to do that and then write about it on the internet in two seperate places with perfect spelling both times? Or would they be barely able to consentrate and make lots of typos?HS7 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You know you shouldn't trust what people say on the internet. Sometimes they stay this stuff to get attention. Maybe you should stop worrying about it so much. Its not very likely that they would survive. If they are living and telling the story they probably haven't taken any. They would be in the hospital by now and wouldn't be telling you the story they would be fighting for their lives.The most likely they have taken is zero.71.143.3.182 (talk)Cardinal Raven —Preceding comment was added at 03:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

They're not still telling the story, they came online to say what they had done and then left again. but I really hope you're right.HS7 (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If the person is telling people he/she planes to kill herself then there is at least a moderately good chance the person is engaging in suicidal gestures and ideation. You could try to contact him and try to get him to call Samaritans or a similar crisis hotline. 120 mg of morphine is potently fatal.[2] I have no idea how easy this would be for such a person to obtain. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To those of you saying this is a joke - not necessarily. Questioner, I would advise you to do what you can (such as contacting the administrator as you said you planned to do). Better safe than sorry. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will read this again, but in case anyone does and cares at all, it turns out the whole thing was just a rather late April fools joke. Which was a bit annoying, but at least she's OK.

And people don't seem to have got that she just went online and said she had taken an overdose and then left again. She wasn't there talking about it or saying she was going to do it later.

Anyway, thanks for all your help. HS7 (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I have been wondering about this for a very long time. Although I have never once lied to a police in reality, but I have lied to a police online while playing Halo 3. So here's the question, When is it okay to lie to the police? SlaveofBetrayal (Talk) (UTC)SlaveofBetrayal

I can't answer the legal aspect, but from an ethical POV, probably never. If you're in a situation where you think you ought to lie, being silent is usually the more ethical response. It varies from place to place, but many jurisdictions maintain at least lip

service to the standard of allowing you access to legal counsel (i.e. a lawyer) who could more properly advise you on the legal side of things. It is foolish to lie to your lawyer. Matt Deres (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can think of plenty of situations in which lying to a policeman would be the morally best choice. For example if the policeman is trying to enforce an immoral law, and by lying to him you can impede him in doing so. (From my libertarian perspective, a fairly large percentage of laws are immoral, so out of consideration for my own skin I'm not likely to live up to my highest ideals here except in extraordinary circumstances.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My guess was that the guy you lied to online wasn't actually a policeman, but was impersonating one, which is illegal. If you run into an actual policeman, I'm not sure, so this is not my legal counsel!, but I think you have to give them your name, but aren't required to tell them anything else. Useight (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a legal counsel: I suppose the ethical answer (as opposed to the legal one) depends on one's ethical system. A situationalist or a consequentialist would probably be able to come up with some very good reasons for which one might reasonably be expected to lie to the police (e.g., hiding Jews in your attic in 1941). A deontologist-kantian, however, would say that lying is always wrong, and there is no situation in which it would be exceptable. A virtue ethicist might ask what other factors are playing into the net effect on your character. Pastordavid (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a deontologist, and I think it's morally correct to lie to anyone against whom you would have the moral right to use physical force. That includes the police, when they're trying to enforce a law that the state has no right to impose. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Trovatore, that's not very deontological of you. At least it hardly holds up to a universal moral standard derived from reason that "if they're allowed to use force, I'm allowed to lie to them". Kant would have stated that as their right to use force is essentially a result of a social contract,authorised by the government as agents of the people, you're certainly not allowed to lie to them. Although Kant would also have stated that lying is wrong all the time as it leads to logical contradictions. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say "if they're allowed to use force I can lie to them". I said if it's moral for me to use force against them, then it's also moral for me to lie to them (physical force being the most morally problematic thing that exists).

I am not a Kantian. I'm more a Lockean or Thoreauvian. Not that I know what Locke or Thoreau would have said on this specific issue. But I certainly do not accept that the state has any moral authority whatsoever as "agents of the people". There is no people; there are only people (individuals). --Trovatore (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Very illegal in the US apparently. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I misread your post, sorry. But I still don't see how as a deontologist who presumably believes in the moral supremacy of one ideal/duty, you could justify lying to anyone, let alone using physical force. I have to admit to being ignorant of Thoreau's writings, but it seems problematic. And your point about the state seems a little bit moot if youlive in a western democracy, where the governments continued existence is essentially due to the will of the people, and therefore their ability to delegate power is valid. Personally, I consider myself a Kantian both politically and ethically. I don't live up to Kant's high standards, but his arguments about the primacy of reason and the individual appeal to me. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe in a natural right of self-defense, which includes physical force. As far as the bit about western democracy, that argument doesn't work unless you accept that the majority has the right to dictate the behavior of the minority. I do not accept that in general -- I accept it only when it flows out of the individual right of self-defense belonging to the individuals making up the majority. --Trovatore (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When they are on or off-duty? or are they always police. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want anyone to rely on this, but I think this sort of criminal charge can apply only to lying in connection with an official investigation. Professing your love to a cop, when you don't really feel it, is as far as I know not illegal anywhere in the US. --Trovatore (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would absolutely, 100%, not trust anyone claiming to be a cop on X-Box Live. (Or the Playstation Network, for that matter.) Under no circumstances would I give them any information at all unless they could provide their full name and the police department that they work for. Even then I would not communicate to them via XBL, I would call directory assistance (411) and have them connect me to the police department he mentioned.

If the cop was legit, the department will be able to connect you with someone who can deal with the problem.

In the much, much, more likely case that the cop was phony, they will probably be very interested in knowing the gamertag of someone impersonating one of their officers. APL (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not to say that cops don't play games like anyone else does, of course. And of course, nothing I just posted is legal advice at all. (I'm a computer programmer, not a lawyer.) It's just what I would do. APL (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lying to a police officer during an investigation might qualify as "impeding a police investigation". This charge would mainly apply to witnesses, as it's rather expected that the actual criminal would lie, and the sentence for the crime is typically far worse than the penalty for lying, if any. Interestingly, the police frequently lie during investigations, say by claiming to have witnesses or evidence they don't have, in order to get a confession under false pretenses. This is legal, as far as I can tell. Quite the double-standard. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Push-ups and pull-ups

How many push-ups and pull-ups is a good level? How many should I do to look like Bruce Lee or Jean Claude van Damme? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot, that's for sure. Useight (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I have already thought that it must be a high number. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the number would be relative to your own body type. I would recommend more than just pull ups and push ups, because they only work on specific muscle groups. A gym or a proper workout website might be able to recommend a good routine for complete muscle development. Both Lee and van Damme have/had slim, athletic body types, rather than just developing big muscles. Developing large muscles will require a different workout to developing strong but smaller muscles. Steewi (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Bruce Lee talk page, his book says he could do 50 1-hand pull ups, though some suspect it's more like 17. Jet Li clearly could do 10 1-armed pull ups in a fast pace in a movie. As for push-ups, well, Bruce Lee could do the 2-finger push-ups and such. There are world records for consecutive push-ups and such. Neal (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Would it be in extremely bad taste to point out that the most effective way to look like Bruce Lee would be to die? Yeah, I suppose it would. --Trovatore (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking totally ripped like Bruce Lee has a *lot* to do with having very low body fat. --Sean 14:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with my story plot

I am writing a short story based in the UK. Could anyone give me a credible reason as to why a respectable Ivy-league educated American man would end up as a tramp in central London please? (Someone who is not a drug-addict or alcoholic). Thanks 80.0.106.237 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the character is on the run from the law; something happened shortly before he graduated college, and he had to flee. Maybe he was falsely accused, or maybe it was a heat-of-the-moment thing. He would thus have the education and intelligence of an Ivy League grad, just not the degree. Or, have you read the book/seen the movie Into the Wild? Sometimes people just choose to live like this because they see it as romantic or adventurous. I don't know about the London angle, but something could be worked out. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the character thought it would be useful research for a book, along the lines of Down and Out in Paris and London? Warofdreams talk 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds more like pretending to be down and out. But I love the concept: the guy is slumming in London to research a book in which a character is slumming in London to research a book in which... --mglg_(talk) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What if he lost his identification while pretending to be a tramp in London? There would still be ways of dealing with this problem, especialy if he had friends back in The States who knew what he was doing. Still, it could become dificult, and what if things went wrong back home, perhaps a tragedy, or perhaps a greedy relative who would prefer that the 'tramp' not reclaim his true identity. APL (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think "on the run from the law" clearly offers the widest range of possibilities. He could be wanted by the ordinary police or it could be a border-security thing, like he expects to be arrested at the airport as a suspected terrorist if he tries to return. But he can't get a legal job in London because he entered the country as a tourist (and maybe he's already stayed too long and he's now an illegal immigrant), and if he went on using any credit cards or bank cards he might have to access money he has at home, he'd be traceable. So what else is there but life as a bum or a thief?

As to the plot element "thought it would be useful research", you will want to avoid borrowing too much from the movie Sullivan's Travels, which combines this element with the "falsely accused by the law" one. --Anonymous, 21:39 UTC, April 6, 2008.

Interesting - I haven't seen that one. I suggested it, as it rather seemed that Orwell was pretending to some extent - he certainly was very short of money and suffered many privations, but it wasn't clear why - particularly in London - he couldn't call on his friends and family to assist him. Warofdreams talk 21:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

FEAR NOT. For I a Cardinal Raven is here. I myself write stories so I can help a lot more. Running from the law though gives you a range of things its been done before. Lets not make he runaway. Could you tell me the genre of the story you are writing? Science fiction I would say he would get involved with an extraterrestrial or even a time dimension situation and people think he crazy. Something about ordinary life maybe he fine no more sense in living. Like he has lived it all and experience it all, but he hasn't experienced being poor and begging for money. Horror you could make him a serial killer. Or maybe he isn't the tramp maybe he has an alternate personality and that alternate personality is a tramp. There is so much you can do. I can help more. Tell me the genre and I can help real well.

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

This is a bit autobiographical, but here goes. I am in fact an Ivy League educated American. (I'm not sure how respectable I am.) I almost did this. I got a summer job working for an American tour company working as their liaison with London hotels and tour operators some years ago, at age 21. I fell in love with the city and considered staying on after the summer job ended, come what may. (In fact, I decided to hitchhike to Greece, but that is another story.) Although I have an Ivy League education thanks to generous stipends, my family doesn't have money and wouldn't have been able to support me. I can very well imagine not being able to find legitimate work, due to a lack of the proper papers. (Actually, the American tour company employed me there illegally.) I would have had to fall back on odd jobs washing dishes, perhaps collecting recyclables, or whatever. Under those circumstances, I suppose that I would have gotten over being in love with London and would have borrowed the air fare from my family (as I did to get back from Greece). However, a love interest might have changed that. If your protagonist has a lover in London, he or she might be willing to live life as a tramp to be near his/her beloved. Marco polo (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A psychotic episode might give the impetus to a life-changing event such as that. I have heard of cases of phds and other well educated people on the streets because of something like this. It might not fit with your cahracter, though, because the psychotic issue would have to be somewhat ongoing. You would need to research schizophrenia, paranoia and perhaps the nature of different types of hallucinations. Steewi (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You might find help with this at the Livejournal community little details here. They have everyone from cops to heraldry specialists to doctors. --NellieBly (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is quicky of my alternate personality plot:

I woke up in the streets again. Like I always did every morning. I didn't know why exactly. I wasn't a man to be begging for money on the streets. I was the man lending money to other people. Hence forth, I wore nice suits and ties. I lived in a clean house that was to big for one person. Everyone knew me as James Living the wealthiest man on the planet not James Living the man who begs for money like some tramp.

And then the other personality the tramp:

I woke up in a suit and tie. Did I sneak into another persons house? Did I steal again just to stay warm like I did every night? I walked out the window the sun was no where to be seen how long was I out for. I had know name. I just stole names. Like Saxon today my name was going to be Saxon the greatest magician just to swindle a bit of food off the wealthier people.

Or something like that. Its not very good, but I hope it helps a little.71.143.3.182 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

For a plot "ripped from today's headlines", how about a visitor who gets amnesia ? Always a favorite of fiction authors. StuRat (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He saw his girlfriend die,under a Tube train and went into shock?He said he'd live as a tramp for a bet then couldn't get out of the situation? Someone stole his ID and committed a crime? hotclaws 06:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he saw himself as a modern day Francis of Assisi and took a vow of poverty. Gwinva (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that your ivy-leaguer just paid for a tankful of UK petrol without realising that the cost would bankrupt him, his family, and his friends; make him sell all his worldly goods and pawn his watch etc; and put him on the streets of London singing Ralph McTell songs. 81.145.240.146 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you want him to retain the knowledge he gained at university, an option like identity theft or being framed for a crime (or a combination of both) would work well. Or he could have discovered something that sort of set him on his way to London but he spent all of his money and lost credibility amongst his peers in the process. Science or historical revisionism would be good topics forhim to be investigating, they'd seem less 'conspiracy theorist' and perhaps a bit more philosophical about the nature of truth. If you want to take the Bourne route and go for he doesn't really know who he is but is talented, then a mental breakdown would be pretty good. A really severe one. Look into mental disorders and pick one. You could even combine both, sohe suffers a mental breakdown while following his research obssessively around the world. There is a whole worldof options open to your character, depending on what sort of story it is. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for ideas so far. I'm looking for a reason that is consistent with a wealthy and cheerful english woman wanting to marry him later on. Thanks. 80.2.199.202 (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

He looks like George Clooney would do it ,I think ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

tractor

What is the smallest type of tractor that is able to bale hay and have a loader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tractors don't bale hay: do you mean a baler? I'm not sure what you mean by "have a loader", though. --NellieBly (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There are too many variables here. If a loader is a front bucket or fork-lift type tines, you can get those even for lawn tractors. But will that be big enough for the job you have in mind? What kind of baler do you want to pull - a square bailer, a round bailer? Different balers have different weights, require different power inputs, etc. Many models are designed for small farms/farms with smaller equipment. Rmhermen (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

electromagnetics

A uniform surface charge density of 20nC/m2 is present on the spherical surface r=0.6 cm in free space. a) Find the absolute potential at P(r=1cm, θ=25°, φ=50°). b) Find VA-B (potential difference between point A and point B) given points A(r=2cm, θ=30°, φ=60°) and B(r=3cm, θ=45°, φ=90°). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabadapado (talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like homework! Capacitance of isolated spherical conductor given by: C= 4ΠЄR. where Epsilon is the permittivity of free space, and R is the radius of the sphere. Also Q=CV.

You could work out the potential at the surface of the sphere, then use the inverse square law I think. I think the angles given are irrelevant as the source is isotropic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.193.130 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

dog whistle and neighbor's dog

My neighbor has a very annoying dog. Specially when the dog is alone it is very loud. I thought I could buy a dog whistle to 'train' the dog so it can let me alone. As it starts to bark I could blow the whistle as loud as I can. Does this training method will work?217.168.3.246 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it might make the dog bark louder..? --Masamage ♫ 23:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure. I've heard that if it is loud enough it hurts. Meantime I've found an online shop and they cost only a couple of dollars. I think I will give it a try. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're going to blow a whistle loud enough to hurt the dog's ears if you're in the next house over. (Imagine you were trying to hurt a human's ears with an audible whistle.) Still for a couple of bucks, why not. You might also consider complaining to the neighbor, or in extreme cases to the local animal control officer. APL (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Talking to my neighbor is not an option. I am also cogitating to feed his dog with lots of chocolate. I've heard the LD50 is not very high. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, so you're saying you'd rather kill an innocent animal who doesn't have the capacity to know he's bothering you rather than man up and talk to the animal's owners. I had a useful comment before the edit conflict but I'll refrain, since you're obviously just trying to get a reaction out of people for being a dog-killer. --NellieBly (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please, now I will burst with curiosity about your comment. I am no dog-killer, I just love the silence more than my neighbor's dogs. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then talk to your neighbor. Don't bring the animal into it. Obviously its owner didn't train it well. But that doesn't make it right for you to train the dog. YOU TAKE ACTION if your neighbor isn't willing and stop acting like surly teenager and tell the neighbor. Your comments have agitated me beyond a level you could understand. You are a dog killer if that is the only thing you can think of silencing the dog.Cardinal Raven (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Of course this is not the only thing I can think about. The question was precisely about other way of silencing the dog. And, BTW, why do you care about a dog possibly thousand miles away from you? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The solution is set talk to your neighbor. Why do I care about a dog so far from me? Well I don't know maybe I've lost pet before. One of my neighbors ran over my puppy while I was still training him. And you know why? Same reason you have because you don't know how to solve your problems with YOUR WORDSSS!Cardinal Raven (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Oh, I see. Perhaps we are even neighbors and I killed your puppy, who knows? Anyway, why are you supposing that I am not able to communicate with words? Perhaps my neighbor is not able to communicate and accept criticism. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you don't have the right criticism. Maybe you should record their dog barking. Or maybe you should try to make better criticism. Sometimes people have a hard time accepting criticism because of the way the other people are presenting it. You are obviously not capable to communicate with your words if you want to kill the animal. If you killed my puppy I would get another and teach him to bark like hell just to bother you.71.143.3.182 (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

But you could agree with me that throwing some chocolate to the dog is way easier than ringing at the door with chocolate and talking to the owner? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

NO ITS NOT! The dog hasn't been trained properly. Its not his fault. He doesn't know he is bothering you. He doesn't know barking is wrong. TALK TO THE NEIGHBOR!71.143.3.182 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Ok, thanks for your input. It's time to sleep now here where I am. I'll keep you informed about what I'll do. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If talking to the neighbor doesn't work, try animal control. Give them a tape of the dog barking constantly and they will come out or send a nasty-gram to the owner. Most owners will take that seriously. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should kill the dog. Partly to get rid of a dangerous and annoying animal, and partly to get revenge on your neighbour. But mostly, and this is surely the highest good of all, to annoy Cardinal Raven. -PinkEllie (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, all this is better than any soap opera.--Artjo (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate is boring though. You'll need some elaborate, YouTube-worthy rube goldberg contraption. APL (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dogs, like most animals hate getting soaked. A sudden downpour or even the threat of a good soaking can sometimes divert the attention of a dog away from whatever is making it bark. A perimeter can be established using agricultural, landscape or golf sprinkler heads, which typically have ranges of 30 to 50 feet or more. Neighbors will usually complain that your water is crossing the property line and landing on their property. When the neighbor complains simply ask if the rule of not letting water cross the property line applies to sound as well. If the answer is "yes" then an agreement may be possible to eliminate the cause to the water crossing the property line. If the answer is "no" then complaint should be ignored until the answer changes to yes. (Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.) Mimus polyglottos (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you and cardinal raven want to fight about this, i suggest you do it somewhere else. --Dlo2012 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Try using some kind of Ultrasonic device on the dog to annoy it. (or use it on your neighbor and give him a headache). Don't kill the dog, though. Your neighbor may do something worse back to you. Ilikefood (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)