Miscellaneous desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 5

Wikipedia's Oligarchy

Moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia.27s_Oligarchy

Digital IR Photography

Will I be able to take Infrared Photographs, like this one on DA [1], with the addition of a IR filter onto a Canon 350D Rebel XT DSLR? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most infra-red photography I've seen (and I'm an auld phart who's only just been dragged screaming into the digital photography age) was taken on specialised (and very finicky) IR film. Any digital versions I've seen have been as a result of a Photoshop filter rather than having been done in-camera. An IR filter is just a red filter that used to be used for black and white film to filter blues and greens. It didn't actually give the effect of the image you linked to. --WebHamster 01:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your digital camera doesn't have an IR filter built-in, then you can take sharp IR pictures if you use very long exposures. I managed to get some interesting IR pics with my CyberShot DSC-S650 using burnt film strips as a filter and high-sensitivity mode (very grainy). See the image. Be warned, though, that the pixels that will be activated by the IR might not be on a desirable color. In my camera, IR has a ugly magenta hue. This camera I have is quite IR sensitive, I guess. I can take picture of hot stuff in the dark. It's pretty cool. Anyway, given the quality of your camera, and the use of a professional filter, you'll probably get nice results if there is no IR filtering built-in. — Kieff | Talk 01:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need filters to take 'near IR' photos in the dark with a digital camera. To convince yourself, turn on your camera, dim the room lights - watch the LCD viewfinder then point your TV remote at the camera and push the buttons. The remote produces near-IR light - and the camera can see it as bright flashes. However, you aren't seeing mid-range IR, so you really aren't seeing properly into the realms of heat. You can get very similar photos to some of the so-called IR photos by taking a perfectly normal daylight photo, splitting off the red plane of the image and making a monochrome image out of it. The fact is, things look pretty similar in near-IR and Red. The only time I'd use a filter would be for daylight IR photography when you really need to block as much of the visible light as you can. SteveBaker (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I needed a filter for taking IR pics in the dark. But in daylight, yeah, I had to use something. — Kieff | Talk 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Near-IR and red look similar for some objects, but others (especially tree leaves and some black fabrics) are very different. Not to mention that certain fabrics often used for swimsuits and summer dresses are transparent to near-IR. --Carnildo (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In mid-range IR (which conventional cameras don't see), pretty much any thin cloth is translucent if the person stands still long enough. We had a military IR camera to play with in my last job (I was writing a computer graphic simulation of the thing) - and it was quite important to remember to walk briskly in front of the camera if you didn't want some co-worker printing embarrasing screen-shots and putting them up on the break-room noticeboard. The saving grace is that bodies look pretty weird in IR because you mostly see things like brown fat deposits versus regular fat versus lean areas - and you don't get natural-looking shading from lights and such - so these were not exactly your usual porn photos! SteveBaker (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, digital cameras are all nicely sensitive to IR, but filter it out. One of our Sony cameras lets you bypass the filtering, and indeed gives an IR look. (It also has an IR flash.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about digital IR photography, but I learned a lot about various methods from browsing this website. Maybe of use.. Pfly (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article in the current issue of Make (magazine) about shooting IR with digital cameras. It looks like you can't read it online unless you are a subscriber, but there are some links listed on the page that mentions the article, which may be of some help. As mentioned above, many digital cameras filter out the IR. --LarryMac | Talk 14:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How big is a door?

How big is the average doorway used in American homes? I've measured the doorways in my house and they are all different sizes. Is there a "standard" doorway size? If so, what is it? 69.123.113.89 (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several "standard" doors. A typical door is thirty inches. A " wheelchair" door is thirty-six inches. I don't even know how the opening is measured. -Arch dude (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just measured my doorways. A 30-inch door is exactly 30 inches wide, and a 36-inch is exactly 36 inches wide. In each case, the doorway is exactly one inch less than the door. -Arch dude (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The doorway is one inch less than the door? You must have to slam really hard to get your doors shut! DuncanHill (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that they subtracted a half inch for the stops on each side. Dismas|^(talk) 11:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, exterior doors are generally wider than interior. Also, I used to work for a steel door manufacturer and the most common size we built was 36 inches. Though, these generally didn't go in homes. They were generally for hospitals, schools, and the company that put up all the Wal-marts. Interesting that I used to make Wal-mart's doors and frames but I won't shop there. :-) Dismas|^(talk) 07:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a requirement in U.S. commercial use that doorways be at least 36" in width. This apparently accommodates both wheelchairs and emergency access. Where I used to work, we got yelled at if we narrowed our cubicle entryways below 36" using file cabinets or what-have-you.

It is common in U.S. residential use that exterior doors are 36" and interior doors are 30", but you see other, narrower dimensions for interior doors as well, especially with closet doors.

Atlant (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "doorway" is what is left after you take the door off the hinges. For my 36-inch doors, the resulting doorway is 35 inches wide. This is bacause the door, when closed, is flush against a set of moldings at the top and at each side. These moldings are each one-half inch in width. Thus, when I slam my 36" door with great force and effect, the outer half-inch at left, right, and top, strike these moldings, causing a very loud and satisfactory noise. If I subsequentiality need to maneuver an awkward appliance through the doorway, however, I must remove the actual 36" door from its hinges, and then maneuver the appliance through the resulting 35" doorway. In a commercial building, some of the doors are two-way swinging doors: such doors will have a doorway that is slightly wider than the door. This is not the case for a traditional residential door. Please note that your original questin was about doorways, not doors. -Arch dude (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has yet mentioned the height. The question was "how big", not "how ~~high~~ wide". --Anon, 02:00 UTC, December 7, 2007, corrected only 4 days later, 03:36 UTC, December 11.

6'6" seems to be common. —Tamfang (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Style Citations

I’m trying to write a paper using Chicago style citations, as required by a professor. In this system I need to use both in text citations and the references used at the bottom of each page matching the in text citation. My problem is where to put the references at the bottom of the page. I’m using Microsoft Word, if I type the references into the footer it appears on every page and if I use Word’s footnote feature it makes me use a superscript number, which I am not supposed to use. So how do I use in text citations and get the references on the bottom of the pages that they are used on? ChesterMarcol (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, there's a "custom mark" option in the footnotes dialogue box. Enter (Jones 2000) into it. If you want, go on to reformat the "Footnote Reference" style. My reading of the Chicago Citation convention is that superscript numerals are just fine - [2]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I will have to email him and see what he wants. This is all way too confusing.--ChesterMarcol (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use Chicago all the time (it's the citation style for history, usually) and I'm pretty sure superscript numbers are okay. Some people use the numbers for endnotes and the little symbols (*, that cross thing, and so on) for footnotes, so maybe that's what your teacher's doing. Natalie (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, stop using Microsoft Word, as it's a bug-ridden, user-unfriendly, worthless piece of tat. I realise that it's probably a little late in the day to tell you this, but it might be worth thinking about for future reference. 64.236.80.62 (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard good things about Open Office. MS Word does suck a lot, especially considering the cost. Natalie (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back MS Word version 4! —Tamfang (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring a National Day

Is there an organisation in Australia responsible for approving and declaring national days/weeks or months (not holidays) that relate to community events or issues? For exampale diabetes week, children's day etc. If so, who are they and is it a government or private organisation. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neighbiz (talk • contribs) 02:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private organizations just make them up.--Dacium (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, governments and politicians generally are often more than happy to be associated with them. For example, when Federal Parliament is sitting and Question Time is televised, they make sure they're wearing pink ribbons in Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In fact, the wearing of coloured ribbons by politicians is becoming something of a cliche (not that I'm suggesting any particular awareness campaign is without its merits). -- JackofOz (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see politicians get involved in Movember. It's the male version of BCAM.

I don't think there's a regulating body, but organising one takes a lot of publicity and celebrity support to get it recognised on top of all the other ones. Good luck to you if you're planning to start one. If it gets notable, someone will add an article about it. Steewi (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention politicians and Movember - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QWxOHKI_0jY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mechanical pencils

How do they make the tiny, extremely skinny pieces of graphite used in mechanical pencils? It seems really difficult since they break so easily. 70.171.229.76 (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphite is ground into a powder, mixed with some water and maybe some colorants, extruded into tubes, and baked at about 1000°C. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but how do they make the tubes so small and yet perfectly round? 70.171.229.76 (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black majic Esskater11 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See extrusion. Neil ☎ 13:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PETA and canibalisim

Beans, peas and vegatable protien only go so far. Does PETA intend that people eat each other instead of animals to obtain this nutrient ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are promoting that sort of diet perhaps they should be called FARTA? --WebHamster 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just what is actually wrong with eating each other? I've been doing it for years, and it doesn't taste like pork ;) --WebHamster 03:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe one of their stated point is promotion of cannibalism. It's also important to note that vegetarians and vegans argue that non-animal sources of protein actually do go far enough, if they are chosen carefully. Natalie (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'll stop eating animal protein when evolution gets rid of my canines and incisors. Meanwhile PETA can, errr, errrr, eat me! :P --WebHamster 03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just vegans who say that plant sources of protein go far enough. According to the American Dietetic Association, "plant sources of protein alone can provide adequate amounts of essential amino acids if a variety of plant foods are consumed and energy needs are met." See Vegan nutrition#Protein and amino acids. MrRedact (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"WEBHAMSTER ITS WHATS FOR DINNER Esskater11 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it: WEBHAMSTER: THE OTHER WHITE MEAT ? --ShelfSkewed Talk 03:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely PETA = People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. While they probably do advocate and encourage vegetarianism, their focus is not so much to stop people eating meat, but rather that the meat they do eat should be obtained in ethical ways. Having read PETA's paraphenalia in the past, I think they explained that all our commercial meat sources, i.e. beef, chicken etc are all fed grain and plants anyway, that if we all had to eat the grain the animals eat we'd have a motherload of food to eat and could probably better use this to solve world hunger (That last part I added in). You should look at the stats of deforestation made way for commercial meat farms. That's one good reason to be come vegetarian: global warming and deforestation. Rfwoolf (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals. Lanfear's Bane | t 11:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite fallacy is the one that argues something shouldn't be done just because it's "unethical" or "immoral". It's like saying that something shouldn't be done because it shouldn't be done. But well, I can't expect people to get magically smarter, I'll have to get over this. --Taraborn (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that to say you don't understand what ethics and morals are? Are you saying that you hold no morals or ethical philosophies when it comes to the treatment of animals? Saying that ethics and morals are logical fallacies, and are the equivalent of saying "don't do it because you shouldn't do it" strikes me as possibly naïve. Don't get me wrong I'm no spokesperson for PETA, and I'm not even vegatarian, but your statement nonetheless implied you believe there should be no moral or ethical boundries when it comes to animals. Are you aware of things like animal testing, battery cages, the difference between free-range and commercial meat farms? Rfwoolf (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Taraborn was saying that the language could be simplified from "this shouldn't be done because it's unethical" to simply "this shouldn't be done" on the grounds that "unethical" and "immoral" simply mean "shouldn't be done". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psud (talk • contribs)

That is rather interesting. From that mindset you can dispel 'any and all ethics and morals. It shows a lack of understanding of the ethics and morals in the first place. One could argue that it is morally and ethically unsound to be cruel to animals because, if it were the other way round and you were an animal, would you like to be treated in this way? Of course you could argue things like animals don't feel pain (generally false), or that we need to kill animals for food (true, but PETA might argue several things, firstly that you don't have to kill animals for food and opt for vegatarianism, or that the pain and ill-treatment inflicted on animals is still 'unnecessary' (the means don't justify the end), or they could argue certain other dangers and risks of other kinds of animal treatment including hormones, genitic modification, etc). Ethics run much deeper than this. Perhaps what the OP was communicating is that he/she simply doesn't understand the ethics and morals involved in animal treatment. They are presumably not as simple as "because you just shouldn't". 124.188.65.118 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I imagined, a bunch of mindless angry mastodons without a clue replying. It's not that hard, think for a while. What are ethics? By definition "those things that should and should not be done". You can say that something shouldn't be done because it is unethical. Okay, now replace the definition of unethical in that statement. What do you get? Taadaa! Whatever.

Moreover, I'd like to remind fellow RD users that moral values are an artificial set of rules created by humans themselves in order to establish social order. That means they have no mystic or magical origin unlike some people think. --Taraborn (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taraborn, just to say that "shouldn't" isn't tautological in your above criticism. The "ethical" part sorts and qualifies the "shouldn't" part. Thus, it is not a fallacy. While all unethical things shouldn't be done, not all things that shouldn't be done are unethical. Some things shouldn't be done because they are dangerous (running out into traffic) or because they have aesthetic consequences (one shouldn't put certain colors together or have avocado-colored appliances). There are big and small "shouldn'ts". Saying "you shouldn't torture animals" could mean: because they are sentient and feel pain and we should strive never to cause pain to other living things (ethics); because it will damage *your* own soul (bourgeois pragmatism); because you should be doing something else instead (time management); because you don't own the animal (legal/property rights); because *I* am trying to sleep and the yelps are keeping me awake (being neighborly)...I am just making the point about your own logical fallacy here. I like animals. Also, given this, your statement, "I can't expect people to get magically smarter" is really unkind and unfounded. Saudade7 03:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution gave us carnassial's and canines's for a reason. Yummy, yummy meat. Everytime you hear someone is a vegetarian - eat twice as much meat for dinner. Lanfear's Bane | t 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly possible to remain healthy without eating meat. PETA does indeed advocate a vegetarian diet for everyone, and they do not advocate cannibalism. There. A factual answer to the question, folks; it isn't that difficult. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, but then it's not as funny and takes much more willpower :) --WebHamster 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-Scam ?!

Is the whole environmental movement a scam ? You ought to see and hear what Sean Hannity and other conservatives had done to Al Gore ( I just got a Gor-gasm! One of Rush Limbaugh's cute jokes.), calling him a hypocrite and showing tapes of him flying in a smoke belching jet while telling US to quit driving, etc. They made Al Gore look like some kind of shyster, conman. One guy said that if you want your house burned down, donate to Earth Share, if you want your pets, food taken from you, donate to PETA, and groups who believe that farming is evil.

Is people like THAT correct saying that if you donate to environmentalists, you're gullible for every conman, etc. around ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One guy said that global warming is global b******* for crying out loud.

Will I be able to donate money to any environmental and/or animal organizations w/o the Feds crawling up my ass, due to Operation Backfire (FBI), related police operations ? I was told to ask this question. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a peek at global warming controversy, climate change denial and scientific opinion on climate change. I personally like the sound of solar variation, however like many things there is so much crap, lies and political hyperbole surrounding any truth there may be it makes it very difficult to tell. Lanfear's Bane | t 13:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The logic of Hannity's argument does not follow, but let me break it down in each part. Essentially he is saying that if someone advocates a certain position but acts contrary to what they say then they are a hypocrite. The next move is more problematic in that he wants us to not believe in any position advocated by a hypocrite.

The main problem with this view is his claim that we can show the view is false because it is advocated by a hypocrite. There may be practical problems with the view the hypocrite is advocating, like it is nearly impossible to follow his view or that it is very hard to follow his view. But these practical concerns do not invalidate the deeper issues of the argument.

There are extreme environmentalist groups, but to discount any claims coming from a particular group within the larger movement because of their share some views with an extremist group seems problematic. You should evaluate their claims regardless of who shares the view.

If you are worried that your donation will go to a group that has positions that you do not agree with then you should do some basic research on the group in question before you donate by listening to both the critics and advocates. You can donate to any group with cash if you are worried about potential government tracking, and the people you give the money to should be understanding if you do not leave a name or any other identifying information.--droptone (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez - where do you start? First of all, PETA isn't an environmentalist group - they have nothing to do with saving the planet - they are indeed nut-jobs. So let's cross them off the list. Earth Share are just an umberella group that takes your money, takes out their admin costs and passes it on to some other group. You are better off giving your money to the exact group who needs it and then you know what it's being spent on. So let's cross Earth Share off the list too.

Environmentalism isn't about spending money - if you want to save the planet then do so by your actions - not by writing a check and thinking you've done the right thing. So - when you next come to buy a car - find one that does at least 35 mpg. When you buy a house - make sure it has spectacularly good insulation. Vote against politicians who advocate things like "Clean Coal" and expansion of oil drilling into new areas. Vote for politicians who will lower CAFE limits and join international efforts to lower CO2 levels. Lambasting Al Gore is counterproductive - he has his faults (who doesn't) - but we have to give him credit for FINALLY waking America up to the problem. He may not practice what he preaches - but that doesn't mean that the facts he presented are not true.

As for the scientific situation - there is UNIVERSAL agreement amongst all but the lunatic fringe that there is a problem. Scientists who deny global warming are now regarded with about as much credibility as those who promote perpetual motion machines. The only serious debate is the degree of the problem.

If you are still skeptical about the truth of global warming, you need to look at this as a betting man would. What are the odds that Al Gore is right and global warming is true? I'd put the odds at thousand to one that he's wrong. But you might be skeptical and say it's a 50/50 chance - or maybe you might even go so far as to say there is only a 1 in 10 chance that he's right. But if you are a gambler, winning isn't only about the odds - it's also about the amount you lose if you're unlucky. There are four ways this could come out:

If we assume global warming is true, and we do something about it and it really is true - then we saved the planet, that's an incomparably huge win.
If we assume global warming is true, and we do something about it and it's NOT true - then we cut our reliance on foreign oil, we improved air quality standards and we increased the amount of time before we run out of oil. That's not a huge win because it was expensive to do - but it's not such a huge loss either. A recent British study estimated that if we take action now, it's 1% of our economy. If you are an average American - it's going to cost you, personally, about $500 a year.
If we assume global warming is bullshit and do nothing - and it turns out to be true - we've screwed up the planet. This could be an "End of the World" thing...the consequences are unimaginably terrible. This is the biggest loss there could ever be in the entire history of the world...but, hey - at least you can console yourself because you saved that $500.
If we assume global warming is bullshit and it really is bullshit - then we're still going to run out of oil in the near future, so sooner or later, we're going to have to take some kind of action. We just delayed the inevitable.

Look at it this way...suppose I were to offer you a bet: If you give me $10, if you win, I'll give you back $20 - but if you lose: you, your family and all of your friends will be killed. What would the odds have to be for you to take that bet? Would you do it on the flip of a coin? No...would you do it on the draw of a card (if you get the ace of spades, I kill you and all of your family - if you get any other card, I give you $20)...still not a good bet? What do the odds have to be? Even at one in a million, I wouldn't take that bet.

Yet you are prepared to take the risk of killing the planet to save yourself $500 a year? When just about every scientific expert out there is telling you that this is a bet you'll definitely lose?!! When you can see the melting glaciers and the retreating polar ice? When you can count the number of hurricanes ever year? You have to be utterly insane not to take action - urgently - no matter how skeptical you are about the science.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm dubious. The question of economic/political impact are virtual unknowns. It is good that we are getting to the stage that is beyond science, and into political policy - that means we are acknowledging the issue and considering how to deal with it. It isn't, however, a case of 'do now or do later' for every one. This is similar to the advice that you are better to start saving for your pension in your 20s than in your 40s... it's not correct for everyone. Some nations, rich nations for example, should probably consider making smaller (cost) sacrifices now to offset potential bigger ones in the future. Undeveloped/developing nations for example should probably focus on getting their people out of poverty as quickly as possible and utilizing greener methods where financially viable, but not focus as much attention as the established nations. They could plausibly get 'first mover' advantage in the green-world, but it is evident that the wealthiest citizens have the best chance of surviving whatever may come, and while we shouldn't actively court more problems we must acknowledge economic realities and realize that this is a luxury that many nations in the developing world cannot afford to spend massively on given other more pressing priorities. Just as when you a poor in your 20s putting 10% into a pension for when you are 60 might not be a good policy, compared to spending on say education and then when you earn more by 40 saving more at that point. Of course each nation must balance action with non-action, spending with political viability of spending levels. ny156uk (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but all of that is fine detail compared to the braying donkey crap that is the views of Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, Steve. You make some rather valid points, but I do have to ask, why you like talking to trolls. Rfwoolf (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is far more than global warming that is of concern to environmentalists. So much more that even if global warming is a false prediction it would by no means show that "the whole environmental movement a scam". I'd recommend (again) reading the Environmentalism page, but this questioner's edit history makes it very hard to continue to assume good faith. Pfly (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: "Is the whole environmental movement a scam ?". For the answer, see the Wikipedia article on scams, and you'll quickly realize it's "no". Where's the profit? Anyone who has made money on environmentalism, from Al Gore on down, could have made much, much more money by opposing environmentalism. --M @r ē ino 15:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duck tape

Does anyone know how to get duck tape off a dogs mouth without pulling out all the hair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.143 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean duct tape. And the only things I can think of aren't very good for the dog. WD-40 will dissolve the glue on the tape but I wouldn't want my dog ingesting WD-40. Dismas|^(talk) 13:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Duck" tape is a brand name of Duct tape. Corvus cornix_talk 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's disputed which one is the original name of the stuff. See Duct tape#Etymology. --Anonymous, 00:21 UTC, December 6, 2007.

Scissors and extreme care. Did it "cure" the hiccups?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It stopped them temporarily but they come back whenever he smells or thinks about bacon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.143 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe people with this kind of a problem think "I know - I'll ask the Wikipedia reference desk!" - however, I think a quick, hard yank to remove the tape is the answer - get it over with quickly, dogs are better at taking pain than they are with prolonged stress. Duct tape (even 'Duck tape'-brand duct tape...yes, you can buy 'Duck tape') isn't all that sticky - it's not going to pull the fur out - it's no worse than pulling a band-aid off your arm. The problem will be that if the tape has been there a while, it'll leave a nasty, sticky residue which you don't want to leave there. WD-40 does dissolve that wonderfully - but you don't want the dog licking WD-40. I think if there is a lot of sticky mess once the tape is gone then I'd try trimming off the sticky fur first - but if that's impractical then wiping with a paper towel that you sprayed with WD-40 to get off the mess - and then IMMEDIATELY flushing the area with something like cooking oil that will dilute and dissolve the WD-40 and leave something not too unpleasant for the dog. For gods' sake don't SPRAY WD-40 onto the dog because it'll get into eyes and nose and mouth and other places where you don't want it. Hence, wipe with a kitchen towel. Follow up from a safe distance with treats - and when the possibility of being bitten to death subsides, you might try to get close enough for a hug. SteveBaker (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would any sort of edible oil, like cooking oil, lessen the stickiness of the duct tape? Would mild heat (hot water bottle with the temp carefully set not so hot as to cause burns) soften the adhesive? It is presumably stuck to fur, not skin, so could an electric shaver be used to peel away the hair and tape, leaving the skin undamaged (but wierd looking for a while as the fur grows back?) Ripping away the tape has the possibility of damaging the skin. Ever think of consulting the vet? Maybe he would know of less toxic solvents to soften the glue (I know of 2 but I won't name them because I wouldn't want someone dumping them on a dog). I would apply along the edge of the tape with a Q-tip and gradually work it off. Maybe the animal cruelty people in your town have some experience with pets which have been duct taped, and they could offer advice and counsel. Edison (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the tape was already cut along his mouth immediately after he stopped hiccuping. We just didn't want to pull the tape off and pull out his hair. Round pointed scissors worked for the pine resin that driped on him from the pine tree over his favorite place to sleep but we wanted to try something else besides cutting his hair.

He decided the bacon grease was his favorite so I went with that. I think it was a mistake though. Is there any way to stop him from hicupping when we start cooking breakfast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.143 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait wait wait. After duct-taping your dog's muzzle to stop him from hiccuping, and then using bacon grease to remove the tape, you are now concerned that your dog will intentionally hiccup for the logical purpose of getting you to duct-tape his muzzle again, so you'll once again need to use bacon grease to remove the tape? --72.10.110.107 (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we noticed that everytime we stopped at the drive thru when they were cooking bacon he got the hiccups. He loves bacon bits but just seeing the container or hearing us ask if he would like some bacon results in making him hiccup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.143 (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, you should call your local branch of the SPCA, explain to them specifically how the dog got duct tape on his muzzle, and ask them what the best method of getting it off is. Make sure to give them your name, address, and telephone number so they can contact you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The local SPCA has a contract with a medical research facility in our area associated with the university. We have seen and owned some of the animals that have been returned from the medical research facility which they are not allowed to kill. None of the the animals lived for more than three months and were sick or had some kind of physical problem that we got from the SPCA. We stopped going to the SPCA for that reason and do not trust anything they have to say since they lied to us about the condition of the animals. Same now with the county shelter. One of the animals that had scars on its chest even dropped dead of a heart attack while we were out walking. If you are concerned about the welfare of animals I suggest you join one of those groups against using animals for research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.214 (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about shutting him outside before you start to cook? Also, fried breakfasts aren't so healthy for you either. SaundersW (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could just shut him in another room of the house, too. For that matter, who cares if their dog has hiccups? Hiccups don't hurt and will go away on their own. I'd just ignore the dog and his hiccups while you're cooking. Natalie (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer you to my original answer and urge you to ask a vet, like here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PETA might also have some suggestions for you. Edison (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: did you all know that duck tape works ok on the moon. They used it to repair the wheel cover (mud guard) on the lunar rover on Apollo XX (cant remember the mission number)--TreeSmiler (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, apparently, the one purpose for which duct tape is not recommended to be used is for sealing ducting etc. --WebHamster 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This time we used a strap fastened with velcro and by the time he got it off he had lost all interest in hiccuping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.143 (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper answer You are too stupid to own a pet. Take your poor dog down to the SPCA or whatever organization is around your area to take care of abused animals. Give them a couple of hundred dollars to care for the animal until someone with more than half a brain decides to adopt it and give it a proper home. And shame on the people here for giving veterinary advice - especially to someone without an ounce of common sense. Matt Deres (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt that comment just a bit incivil?--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If ya gotta ask ... —Tamfang (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armor

Is Felix mentally ill? If so, what is his condition? It seems that someone so fatalistic would have to have some sort of condition (I was thinking maybe some strange variation of SPD) recognized in the field of psychiatry. Any one know? --MKnight 9989 14:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalism can be a symptom of certain sub-types of depression.--droptone (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he joined the military as a suicidal gesture. Suicide's article says that "The predominant view of modern medicine is that suicide is a mental health concern", and see the stub section Suicide and mental illness; although other reasons for mentally healthy people to commit suicide are listed as well, none of them seem to apply to Felix. Since his unhealthy behavior seemed to be started by the death of his beloved, and was spurred on by continuing disasters and losses, post-traumatic stress disorder seems most likely. At the end, when he seems convinced that he is destined to live and be a sole survivor, he may take on aspects of delusions of omnipotence. If he's sent off on a long voyage in a solitary spaceship at the end, the isolation and survivor guilt will probably not help. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I never considered PTSD, but I guess it makes sense.--MKnight 9989 13:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds inside the womb

I've been looking for some time but can't find it. Is there anywhere on the internet I can download sounds recorded from inside the womb, similar to what the foetus would hear? Keria (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this require a microphone to be placed inside the uterus? If so, I very much doubt this has ever been done as the risk of damaging the foetus would be too great. Unless you're talking about an approximation of sounds that someone reckons a foetus might hear? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much as pictures have been taken of babies inside the womb. If this can be done, i know not how, then why not sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling on ultrasound heartbeat .wav led me here. Very cool. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make a note that the sounds that may be picked up through a stethoscope or other monitoring device that is placed against the mother's tummy might not be the same that would be picked up by a microphone (or a baby's ear) from inside the womb. The difference being that some sounds that originate from outside the mother's body (such as the father's voice or machinery noises or whatever) can be heard by the fetus inside the womb, although they'd be muffled by having had to pass through the barrier of the mother's abdominal wall and the uterus. So to really hear what a fetus hears, one would have to place a microphone inside the womb. Saukkomies 14:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl Window Stickers

If i were to put a window decal on the back window of my car, will the small lines that somehow defrost the window interfere with it if i use them?the juggreserection (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. But if you take the decal off, you may well pull off some of the lines & break some or all of the demisting system. Been there. Done that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but you see, i live in South Dakota and its like 15 degrees out right now, so i kind of need the defrosters. so would pulling them off ruin the whole system?the juggreserection (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If when removing the decals you pull off any of the lines, then you will break some or all of the system. Depends where the decal is, and how the wires are arranged into a heating circuit. Bottom line: take great care, and if in doubt, do not do it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The defogger lines are electrically insulated and the decal is non-conductive, so that is not an issue. The heat from the defroster may damage the decal though. If you want to remove the decal, I suggest heating it with a hair dryer to loosen the adhesive. The defogger lines are in parallel, so breaking a few will render only that area inoperable. You can get a conductive paint at many auto parts stores to repair them. Your state might also regulate the placement of decals; here in Virginia, decals are allowed only in the lower five inches of the rear window (although it seems to be well ignored). --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we speaking of self-adhesive bumper stickers applied to the exterior of the glass or "cling" stickers (like the ubiquitous Apple stickers) stuck on the inside? If the former, then they will not interact with the rear-window demister in any significant way because the heater "wires" are on the inside of the glass and the sticker is on the outside. If the latter, then you may find that the heat from the wires discolors the sticker, but there's usually no problem of the sticker croaking the heater.

Atlant (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Its More of a decal than a sticker. I just dont want to waste money on a decal if its only going to get ruined.the juggreserection (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on Gadget's response above, but only to focus away from the legality issues surrounding applying "decals" to rear (or any) windows in a car (or any automobile for that matter), but instead to focus on the pragmatic safety issues arising here, permit me to enquire whether in America, as here in the UK, windows in cars are for seeing through - (not for decorating and causing distraction by obscuring the field of vision) - thus maximising the reduction potential of causing or failing to observe the imminency of, a collision, with either an inanimate, stationary, or moving object, but God forbid, a living creature, not least, a person. I apologise for being on the wrong side of 60 and regarding a car as a convenient alternative to walking rather than an extension of my individualistic personality that needs to be enhanced by "wallpaper" in my car. I think the motto is, "There's no point in being seen by others - if you can't see them". 81.145.241.113 (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

linking to wikipedia

How can I send people a link to the question above about dogs and duct tape? It's one of the daftest things I've seen in a long time and would love to see it as a link on my friend's blog. (I'd also like to then link to the question before that - presumably from the same person - regarding his dog hiccupping!)

thanks 83.104.131.135 (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Duck_tape However it'll break in a week or so when the thread is archived ... once archived it'll have a stable URL. note that the duck tape thing is probably a troll. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

im not too familiar but i think if you browse to this page and then click the topic in the table of contents and then copy the url, then i think clicking the link will take you right to the question. but dont hold it against me if im wrong.the juggreserection (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's the way to do it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you can use "permanent link" under the toolbox in the top left of the page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, good point. it would be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&oldid=175962462#hiccup_relief & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&oldid=175962462#Duck_tape --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the guy's first question about curing the dog's hiccups. All good comedy needs the proper set-up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#hiccup_relief --72.10.110.107 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Region-free DVD player

I'm looking to purchase a region-free DVD player for my girlfriend's parents, who live in Germany. I have a few questions that even the relevant articles couldn't help me solve, and I was hoping you guys could help me out.

First, I've seen advertised "region-free," "multi-region," and "code-free" DVD players...I want them to be able to play American and European (and maybe other) DVDs on their German TV...which categories do I have to look for? Second, I'd love for it to have a SCART connection because that's what they use and are familiar with. I haven't been able to find anything with a SCART out on Amazon, does anybody know of an American retailer where I might be able to find that? Is there another name that is more popular that I should look for? And how good are RCA-SCART converters, if I can't find one...are they a viable solution? Thank you! --ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just use a European Amazon? That way you can get the voltage right, the TV standard (Germany uses PAL I believe rather than NTSC) and you then also get the European scart standards. Buying anything electronic in the US then expecting it to work in the EU is asking for trouble. --WebHamster 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is now instead of navigating between "code-free" and "region-free," I'll have to do the whole thing in German! And shipping, etc. But I'm looking at it. --ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Code free" and "region free" are the same thing really. It's something that's far more common outside the US as far more Europeans buy R1 than Americans buy R2 etc. Most of the Americans I've dealt with had no idea there was a difference in TV standards much less region coding. FYI SCART is actually a European standard having been previously called Peritel and EuroSCART and Euroconnector. --WebHamster 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]