Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 July 20

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 19 Miscellaneous desk archive July 21 >

IT related

What is the difference between system failure and system disaster?≈±←→

This question belongs on the Computing Reference Desk! David Sneek 18:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• A failure is something easily recoverable from, such as a hard disk going bad, being replaced, then restore from last backup.
• A disaster is something more severe, like bad weather hits so the company has to use another computer a geography distance away. User:AlMac|^(talk) 16:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Numeric keypads

On a telephone keypad the 1-2-3 row is on top. On both a calculator and keyboard the 1-2-3 row is at the bottom. Why the discrepancy?

I hate it when people answer questions with guesses, but I'll make one. Calculators and keyboards undoubtedly imitate adding machines, which is why they're all the same. Why they have the numbers like that is probably to facilitate touch typing. Why phones are different is probably because, since we read from left to right and from top to bottom, it would be too confusing to have them the opposite way.--Anchoress 03:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Early keypad phones could not process extremely quick number inputs, and since many people (like accountants and such) were already familiar with the typewriter and/or calculator keypads that go 7-8-9 on top, the phone makers made it 1-2-3 on top to throw them off and force them to press the buttons slower. -- Миборовский 05:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that true? It sounds like an urban legend. Here's what Straight Dope says.--Anchoress 05:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I saw this on tv recently. Calculator layout came from adding machines and phones originally had dials. So when they tried to figure out a way to lay out buttons for phones they put the 1 on top and the 0 on the bottom, just as it used to be with a dial. The 3-3-3 layout was to save space on the phone and make it squarish for ease of use. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Funerals

Is it bad taste to bring a camera to a friend's funeral and take pictures? I am going to one next week; my friend was a close coworker. I have met his family, but I don't know them well.

Yes.--Anchoress 03:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your loss. There was a Yahoo Answers question on this. Personally, I'd say that it's bad taste for the funeral (the sound and the flash would be as bad as taking a cellphone, and some people don't look their best while mourning and can get touchy about being 'captured for posterity'), but okay for the reception as long as you ask carefully. Ziggurat 03:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Ziggurat. The funeral and burial are sad and when flipping through a photo album, people generally don't want to remember that kind of thing. The "wake" or reception is 50/50, but you should ask the subject of your photograph before taking one. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 03:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably a cultural thing. I've got photos of my grandparents' funerals, albeit all outdoor photos. The location makes quite a difference, I suppose. DirkvdM 06:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I should add that my grandfather was quite well known, so his funeral was a bit of a local event. DirkvdM 06:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's bad taste if you take several pictures. But if you are discreet, I am sure you might even pass unnoticable. --Proficient 12:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd no more take a camera to a funeral service than I would bring a video game or a book. To me it seems unspeakably rude and ill mannered. However, I agree that it is a cultural thing. At my fathers funeral (1996), his sister-in-law brought a camera to take pictures and we had to ask her to put it away. It seems to be more prevalent, at least in my area (Northern Kentucky, US), among people with 'country' backgrounds. The old 19th century tradition of the casket photo (which was frequently the only photo taken of people in those days) lives on amongst some...--Brian Schlosser42 13:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That would also solve the problem of getting the person to remain still for the long exposure times they used to need! ike9898 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly depends on the culture. I will certainly take a casket picture of my grandfather when he goes because he took them at every funeral he ever attended. (and yes, he has a country background from near Northern Kentucky. But I wouldn't even think about it with the other side of my family. But if you mean pictures of the other mourners I would find that strange. I don't think I have ever seen that except for formal pictures - it may be one of the rare times an entire family comes together. Rmhermen 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen pictures taken at a wake, but that was after people had been there quite a well and the mood was more relaxed. If it were a tragic death the wake would probably never get to this point, but sometimes when an old grandparent dies, the wake eventually becomes like a family get-together. ike9898 17:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My grandmother displayed a "casket" photo of my grandfather on her dresser for 40 years, until she herself died. It is also common in the area where my mother grew up for a friend of the family to take responsibility for photographing all the funeral flower arrangements at the wake. Crypticfirefly 13:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends on where your friend's family is from. To be on the safe side, I'd say no, you shouldn't bring a camera. You're most likely going to be considered an outsider, since you don't know your friend's family well. --ColourBurst 17:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it sounds terrible. My family is notorious for funeral gaffes and faux-pas but thankfully nobody has yet turned up with a camera. Jameswilson 22:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think Dirk might have a point (amazing! Lol). The public has an interest in the funerals of public figures, and they're often not just photographed but televised (hopefully with the family's permission).
• Private funerals are a different affair, though. Respect for the grieving family would require obtaining their permission. If they have no objections, fine. They might even ask somebody to make sure photos are taken, so that there's a visual record for anybody who is so inclined. And particularly if the funeral is not a traditionally mournful sombre event but a more up-beat celebration of the departed's life and achievements. Some take the view that, in amongst the tears, it's perfectly appropriate at a funeral to smile and laugh about the good times, and sing happy songs. Photos of that would be great for later memories.
• It's not a question of family later being forced to look at distressing photos in an album. If they are distressing, they have the choice to not have them there, or not to permit them being taken in the first place.
• And actually, it's not even a question of "bad taste". That is a very subjective matter, which no ref desk in the world could give you a categorical answer on. It's all about respect, in my view. JackofOz 00:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Suppose future archeologists use our photographs as indicators of our society. After all, photos of every tiniest aspect of life are taken by the millions now that, once you have the camera, taking a photo costs nothing. They will probably wonder what horrible things we did to our dead that we didn't dare take pictures of it. :)

I don't get why so many people find the notion so appalling. Photographing the dead seems a bit macabre (if you're so inclined), but for the rest ... Come to think of it, I once took photos of a funeral in Cuba. Then again, that was from a distance and I was really photographing the cemetery. DirkvdM 06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying to think about why it seems wrong - its not the image thing, Its more the idea of people at the funeral not giving their full attention to the business of mourning, but thinking about camera angles instead, and probably moving around too. That seems disrespectful. Breaking the stillness of the occasion. Jameswilson 00:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, and especially flashes would be disruptive (and camera noises if it's an analog camera). But I never use flash (ugly shadows) and I always make it a point not to draw attention when taking photos (I don't want people to pose), so I suppose that's one reason I didn't see the problem. DirkvdM 06:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's not only a cultural thing, but it can vary with the profession of the deceased. I work in a small law enforcement agency. One of our officers died at the beginning of the year of a quick moving cancer. As is common to law enforcement, the funeral was very public and contained many traditional aspects. As the assistant to the head of the agency, it was my job to photograph the funeral in a very unobtrusive manner, recording the event for the benefit of the widow and her children. I engaged another member of staff to help me. We produced a record of the event with which the widow was very pleased. Her statement was that, in her grief and sorrow, she was unable to remember so much of what happened and who was there. She was very pleased to have the photographs. Again, one must be sensitive to the wishes of the family, the norms of the local culture and, ALWAYS be careful to not intrude. --Yellow rosez 03:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Blood donation questionaire

On this questionaire about donating blood plasma in America, all questions seem normal except the last three (at the very bottom). How is having been in parts of Europe since 1980 significant when donating blood plasma? Hyenaste ^(tell) 03:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mad Cow Disease. Incubation periods for prion diseases can be years or decades, meaning that anyone potentially exposed to Mad Cow Disease back in the 1980's could still be a carrier today and not know it. Plasma donation could transmit the disease. SWAdair 04:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good to be safe. But what is the reason that only the UK, France, and military bases are listed on that particular questionaire. Looking at the BSE article, it seems that being in Spain or Portugal or Ireland would also be a concern. And why only a three month limit for in the UK, but a full 5 years for France? It seems the people at the clinic should cover all bases. Hyenaste ^(tell) 05:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume it is due to the ratio of reported cases. A higher percentage of the population in the UK is likely to be infected, so spending even a little time there could potentially expose a person. Elsewhere the percentage of population infected is smaller, so a person could spend longer in those regions without a significant likelihood of being exposed. The only way I can make sense of not listing Ireland separately is that maybe they are including Ireland in the UK (I know, I know). SWAdair 07:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mad Cow (actually vCJD) isn't transmitted person-to-person so it doesn't matter how many people in a country have it. What matters is how many cattle may have it and how many may have gotten into the food system. Rmhermen 16:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of blood donor organisations seem to disagree with that. In Canada you certainly are/were prohibited from donating blood if you spent time in the UK, unless you were vegetarian. DJ Clayworth 17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about if you are a cannibal who only eats vegetarians ? :-) StuRat 02:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WAvegetarian runs for the hills. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

MICROBIOLOGY

CAN ANYONE SAY WHEN POLYPEPTIDES IS SAID TO BE PEPTONES....AND WHEN IT IS CALLED PROTEINS

Peptide says that "Proteins are polypeptide molecules. The distinction is that peptides are short and proteins are long." SWAdair 08:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zero gee combat.

Has a system been developed? Have any troops been trained in it? What is known about it, or is it relegated to the fantasy realm? Have any special munitions been developed for it?

Excuse the unusual question, but just imagine the logistics of it... -

Gee, I wouldn't know. :) DirkvdM 13:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Soviets once fitted an aircraft cannon to one of their space stations and shot down a test satelite. I have no idea as to what kind of modifications would have to be made to fire it in a vacuum. --Kurt Shaped Box 13:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting, but fictional, description of weightless combat is prominent in the novel Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. In it, card speculates on how tactics in a zero G environment would be different, for example, the concept of "up" losses meaning. ike9898 13:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And, as he also points out in Ender's Shadow (not as amazing as Ender's Game, he 'Mary Sue's Bean), defence of a planet becomes close to impossible. Although there's nothing to hide behind (apart from asteroids, meteors, moons, but they're all sparce), you'd need a massive force to cover the full sphere of entry vectors to the planet or area of interest. (Don't know if that's explained clearly). So attack really does become the best form of defence. Skittle 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

Well, zero gravity (or zero g) would mean it goes in a straight line and a vacuum would mean it doesn't lose velocity. Of course, near a space station in orbit there is neither. It's close enough to a vacuum, but a bullet would still be attracted by the Earth (for which reason 'weightlessness' would be a better word). Inside the station it feels like zero gravity because the gravity is counteracted by the rotation around the Earth. One thing one has to take into consideration is that the spacestation would be propelled in the opposite direction. If the speed of a bullet is 500 m/s and it weighs 20 grammes then the spacestation gets an impulse of 10 kg*m/s. If it fires 100 bullets in one direction and weighs 1000 kg, then it will get a speed of 1 m/s or 3,6 km/h. And there's no stopping it in a 'vacuum', so it will start leaving orbit, either into space or towards Earth. Unless it starts firing (something) in the other direction. Just a consideration. DirkvdM 13:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Salyut 3 test do not seem to be well verified. Does anyone have a clear source for that information. Rmhermen 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would expect warfare in space to take place at extreme distances, since nobody can "sneak up on you" in space, as there is nothing to hide behind. Therefore, the primary concerns would be speed (so you can wipe out your enemies before they wipe you out) and accuracy (so you can actually hit them at extreme distances). Laser and high speed particle weapons may be better suited to this than traditional ballistic weapons, which are too slow and too inaccurate, at those distances. Also, lasers would avoid the recoil and therefore make any further aiming easier. Lasers aren't a viable weapon on Earth due to dissipation in the atmosphere. Note that if bullets were used in space, rifling (spiral cuts in the gun barrel) would be less important. This is because the lack of atmosphere means there is no need to spin the bullet to limit the deflection due to air resistance. StuRat 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually rifling might still be important if you were trying to hit targets at the very long ranges because there is some miniscule "atmosphere". And for lasers not being weapons on Earth, see Boeing YAL-1, Evolutionary Air and Space Global Laser Engagement, High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System, Tactical High Energy Laser, Advanced tactical laser, supposedly Starfire Optical Range and (banning some types) the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons. Rmhermen 04:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought Reagan's Star Wars version was a load of bull because the amount of energy needed to do any damage was prohibitive. And the targeting was also a problem I seem to remember (though that may have been because it was remotely controlled). DirkvdM 06:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ship-to-ship combat with lasers would be a very brief affair as things stand at the moment. The first one to face the right direction, get off a successful shot and hole the hull of the other ship would be victorious in very short order (get the computer to lock on to and track the enemy, then fire the laser beam from a rotating turret?). Of course, if/when laser combat in space becomes a viable proposition, I'd expect the design of spacecraft to adapt to reflect this - e.g. metre-thick armour plating, separtately-pressurized compartments, mirror-like coatings on the hull, pressurized chemicals within the hull that instantly form an airtight seal if the hull is breached, etc. --Kurt Shaped Box 11:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend the use of swords and tazers. Firing a pistol inside a pressurized craft is a *very* bad idea... :) --Kurt Shaped Box 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How about tranquilizer (or poisoned) darts fired from guns ? I suppose if somebody on the Space Station went nuts and had to be forcibly removed, something like that would be the safest way to get him out of there without damaging the ship. StuRat 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

dna

hello, i would like to know if a dna can be done on a pregnant woman or does it happen after birth.this isnt a joke my ex partner has been told i however believe it is done after could u please email back (email redacted to prevent spam) thankyou very much.

You don't seem to be specifying to whom this will be done for clearly. Ask your doctor about testing the pregnant woman's DNA. Certainly both the woman and child have DNA. Your friend seems to be discombobulated. --Proficient 12:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Discombobulated! (= upset, confused) I have to remember that word. A good one to leave people flabbergasted (another word I love). As to the question, how does on 'do dna'? I suppose the questioneer means some test that involves dna, though I haven't a clue what. DirkvdM 13:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Presumably a paternity test. --Richardrj 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Because a maternity test would be a bit pointless. :) Can't much more than that be tested with a dna sample? DirkvdM 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Mother's baby. Father's ? Maybe." StuRat 02:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is such a thing as a surrogate mother. I suppose if a woman claimed a fetus was biologically hers and another claimed it was hers and that the first woman was just a surrogate, a DNA test would be in order. StuRat 02:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While hospitals' procedures for marking babies are normally sound, they aren't perfect. Sometimes they could switch a baby around. --ColourBurst 18:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Amniocentesis carries a small but significant health risk. I don't think a doctor would perform such a procedure just for the benefit of a paternity test –it probably makes most sense to wait till after birth. But you should really be asking your doctor, not us fools on Wikipedia.--Pharos 15:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

biology

The cells in your body are continuously disassembled and reassembled.which one of the following kinds of body cells last the longest-that is turns over the least often? neurons or liver cells or skin cells or intestinal cells?

Neurons. I don't think that they even regenerate at all. --Kurt Shaped Box 13:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. Then those seagull obsession neurons of yours should still be dead after your last electroshock therapy. :-) StuRat 01:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The brain cells you need to do your own homework? DirkvdM 13:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

realtors - use the same one for buying and selling?

For the first time, I am going to be selling my house and buying another. Is it typical in the US to have the same realtor selling your current house and helping you buy your new one? Would their be an advantage to getting two separate people? ike9898 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, yes, your real estate agent typically sells your house and helps you buy a new one. I can't think of any advantage to having two different agents, but maybe I'm not real estate savvy enough...--Brian Schlosser42 13:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if it's different in the US, but in the UK you don't choose the estate agent who handles your purchase. You have to deal with the agent through whom the vendor is selling the house.--Richardrj 13:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

When buying a house in the US, typical the buy and the seller each have separate realtors, sort of one to look out for the interests of each party. ike9898 15:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

However you typically don't pay the realtor who is helping you buy. Instead they take a cut of the commission to the seller's agent. I'll leave you to work out what effect that might have on the agent doing your buying for you. DJ Clayworth 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What DJ Clayworth is saying is, unless the agent is a Buyer brokerage in which case they are specifically under contract to help the buyer, the agent is working for the seller not the buyer. Even in the case where there are two agents, "yours" (assuming you're buying) and "theirs", they are both typically working for the seller (yours basically under subcontract to the seller's agent) - i.e. "your" agent is typically representing the seller, not you. In this (typical) arrangement, if you tell "your" agent something like "let's offer X, but we're willing to go as high as Y", "your" agent is generally obligated to tell this to the seller. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

New computing reference desk

Well the title says it all really. This is to announce that there is a new section of the reference desk devoted to software, hardware and computer science at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computer so that those of you who want to can add it to their watchlists. if you want to comment on the wisdom/stupidity of the move please don't do it here do it here Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Orange advert actor

Who is the blond haired actor who appears in those hilarious Orange film trailers alongside Spacey; he also appeared in Little Britain at one point as the inspector at Anne's hospital. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Steve Furst? MeltBanana 22:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's him. Thanks! smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 06:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

MATAHARI

hello i just finished reading the article about matahari and i noticed the disambig section what i wanted to know was.is the indonesian supermarket named after matahari the spy.

The article on the supermarket has the answer to your question. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Or was the Sun named after the spy? DirkvdM 06:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Drifting/Rambling

This might be a bit too abstract for anyone to possibly have an answer to, but I was writing a short story about a drifter -- and have often wondered about this -- What would be the best method for a rambler/drifter/otherwise homeless person to bathe/shower? It would be easy and cheap for one to get electricity, shelter, food, brush their teeth, go to the bathroom, but where the hell would they shower? The only thing I can think of is hotel pools. Any ideas? Thanks --Demonesque 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but one of the stereotypical traits of ramblers/drifters/otherwise homeless people is that thay are not known for their cleanliness. Is it necessary for the purposes of plot that your character be clean? If so, many truck stops (in the US at least) have pay showers, as well as many parks with camping facilities.--Brian Schlosser42 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your answer. It is necessary, by the way, because he believes that as long as you don't look homeless it is easier to be homeless. =D --Demonesque 21:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's due to the nature of the few places I've lived, but I've never been too far from a lake, river, or stream. Plus there are all sorts of objects that collect a fair amount of water whenever it rains. I'm sure one could also find a hose attached to a house in many suburban areas. If it extremely north or south areas, melting snow is always a possibility. There's the old "trucker's shower" which requires only a sink and perhaps a washcloth. For a creative bum, the possibilities are endless! Digfarenough 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not entirely sure that bathing in fast, cold rivers/streams or insect infested lakes would be entirely pleasant, that's why I didn't mention them. And one would run into problems using someone's backyard hose or stagnant standing water to bathe. Although, if it was important enough and one lacked money, those would probably be the only options -- that's why I came up with the hotel pool idea. --Just walk right into the pool and don't look out of place and who is going to question you? The chlorine will be a good disinfectant and if you snag some of those little bottles of shampoo you can clean your hair. However, you'd have to make sure you were alone if you were going to wash your hair or you might draw attention to yourself. :D --Demonesque 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the case everywhere, but in my town there are outdoor showers by our public beaches for people to wash the salt water off. It's just cold water, but it's free. Also, there are showers with warm water in a lot of the public washrooms near beaches. Open seasonally, but if your story took place in a warm area, that might mean open all the time. Also, I think places like the YMCA and missions allow clients to bathe.--Anchoress 00:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note that campsites and truck stops have showers where you pay a few quarters to get them to run. Even a bum could probably manage that with a bit of begging. StuRat 01:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There's also the possibility of cleaning onself in the sink in public restrooms. I was going to suggest gas stations, but they lock their restrooms now. Maybe in a shopping mall? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe no-one has mentioned the Salvation Army yet. And of course there are government-run places where homeless can get food and shelter, albeit for only up to three days in the Netherlands, meaning they have to keep on the move. Well, they wouldn't be drifters otherwise, now would they? DirkvdM 07:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and shampoo isn't necessary. I haven't used shampoo for over 10 years. Since then, I have (almost) stopped losing hair. When you're used to shampoo, your body adapts by producing extra 'body grease' (there must be a beeter word for this), so you need shampoo to remove that. Etc. Bassically, the stuff is addictive. DirkvdM 07:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I spent some time talking with a homeless guy several years ago, his "spot" was near my school. He explained that he usually did the "trucker's shower" thing using the washrooms at the public library or other public buildings. Crypticfirefly 13:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Westfield High School, Jefferson County AL School System,

I am trying to locate information about Westfield High School classes 1952 -57. This was a black high school located on Tin Mill Road between Westfield, AL and Dolomite, AL. The school was operational from 1931 - 1971 when it was closed as the Jefferson County Board was unable to successfully integrate its student body as mandated by a court order.

Classmates.com appears to have an entry:

High School

This entry has 317 entries, with the first entry graduating in 1939 and only 10 listed after 1971 (those might be mistakes). 97 members are listed for the years 1952-1957. So, I think it's the right school. Unfortunately, you can only contact people via that site if you pay money. But, you can browse a list of classmates for free to see who is registered at the site. If you do choose to contact some people on the list, I'm sure they have all sorts of info on the school. StuRat 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Heart Attack

I am researching a novel in which a person with a weak heart, due to a serious heart attack in the past, is stalked by an assassin who injects a chemical into his bloodstream that would cause him to have another heart attack, killing him.

After reading the heart attack article, I have discovered that Antiplatelet drugs such as aspirin or Glyceryl trinitrate are used to treat heart attacks.

Then, in the platelet article, I discovered there are chemicals that (sometimes massively)stimulate the production of platelets such as Thrombin or Convulxin.

So, if a person with a weak heart was injected with platelet stimulating drugs, would it cause them to have a heart attack? Is that logic correct?

--69.138.61.168 22:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe caffeine can be injected to cause a heart attack. The KGB used the tip of an umbrella to kill a Bulgarian diplomat, in London, using a caffeine laced micro-ball. Does anyone have a link for this ? StuRat 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, in that case, the KGB used some type of slow-acting bacterial agent to kill a radical, non-Russian radio host. Let me see if I can find something. 69.138.61.168 03:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I found it. Appearantly they used Ricin, a potent protein biosynthesis inhibiter, which was put into the tip of an umbrella. 69.138.61.168 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB#Other_notable_KGB_operations

• I believe an overdose of digitalis will do it-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 07:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC))