Miscellaneous desk
< December 15	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 17 >

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 16

Tornado alley inhabitants

Why don't they build most (say 2/3) of their houses below ground? That way it would cost less to rebuild if the worst happened!--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excavating deep foundations isn't cheap, and very few houses get hit in any given year. --Carnildo (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good insurance policy though! Also protects against nuclear blast!--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, there's the whole thing about not having any windows. You might as well live in a cave. Mind you, the residents of Coober Pedy don't seem to mind much. There are other cheaper ways to make a house more tornado resistant. Most of them seem to be already codified in building codes, but the enforcement might be lax. For instance, the Hurricane clip is also effective for tornados. --Mdwyer (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not done because the probability of being even mildly inconvenienced by a tornado is VANISHINGLY small.

A couple of dozen people a year get killed and about the same number are injured. Given that there are probably 100 million people in Tornado alley - and a bunch more in areas where there are tornados - but not so many.

There are simply more important things in life. FAR more people are killed by handguns, cars, various diseases. Heck more people die from Benign prostatic hyperplasia and you haven't even HEARD of that! (And it's "benign" for chrissakes!)

Personally (and I live slap in the middle of tornado alley) - I built a house with tornado straps to help keep the roof on - and it has 6" thick steel-reinforced concrete walls with brick on the outside. It's proof against 300mph winds...but I didn't think about that when I built it - I was more interested in keeping my electricity bills low than preparing against tornado's...they just aren't that dangerous statistically.

A few years ago, I did actually drive under a funnel cloud as it was about to touch down as a tornado...very exciting! I was heading along a 2 mile bridge over Lake Joe Pool when the tornado alarms went off - but I didn't think that stopping right in the path of it made much sense - and I had no idea whether it was behind me or ahead of me (the radio station said "likely to touch down on Lake Joe Pool - which really wasn't very helpful)...so I kept on going...right into the path of the damned thing! The principle thought going though my mind as the 1" hail was bouncing off my car - and the wind was pushing my little MINI Cooper sideways was that I really wished that I hadn't decided to take my convertible that day...I really wanted a bit more metal between the hail and my head!

SteveBaker (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think tornados are like plane crashes; as dramatic events they capture our consciousness, even though statistically they aren't really a danger. As SteveBaker notes, there are MANY more devastating weather events, and I would suspect that more people die of exposure during a cold snap than die of tornadoes each year; and yet freezing to death is not nearly as exciting as having some Kansas farmgirls house dropped on your sister... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Rereading the OP's question - I'd add another point. Where my house is (to the South of Dallas, TX) the soil is an amazingly heavy clay - you absolutely can't build below ground in that area - we don't even have basements. When we wanted to put a pool in beside the house but the pool installation guys wouldn't touch it because of the soil conditions. I don't know if this kind of thing is typical of Tornado alley - but 'below ground' is not even an option where our house is. SteveBaker (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So when I see on the TV these tragic graphic depictions of peoples' houses being destroyed by twisters and people being left homeless, I shouldn't worry too much?--GreenSpigot (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. Do you run out and build your house Earthquake safe when one is reported, or do you build your house on stilts when you hear of a flood, do you build a bunker when the TV shows wars? And what do you do if you get a tornado in an area that has occasional flooding. I used to live south of Dallas, TX and when we got rain there it sometimes poured so hard there was water everywhere. A basement would surely have gotten flooded. Although the Fort Worth Tornado caused a lot of damage, I doubt that builders would appreciate a building code that required them to build their skyscrapers below ground. As Steve Baker said it's clay and you'd have to blow it up to make the holes and then it'd get washed away in the next rain. While there are ways to cover costs for rebuilding after a disaster (insurance, FEMA), extra costs to make all buildings safer for a possible event would have to come entirely out of the owners' pockets. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you see those things on TV - sure you worry - it's human nature. You have sympathy for the victims, etc. But when it comes to taking drastic personal action like redesigning your house - you need to put away the emotion and pull out the science. Something like 20 deaths a year over maybe 100 million people - that's a probability that's way smaller than winning the lottery. Do you worry about Benign prostatic hyperplasia? You are WAY more likely to die of that disease than by a tornado. Are you right now rushing off to see how you can avoid this horrible death? Are you planning on a major redesign of your lifestyle to cut your chances of getting it? No - you aren't. Why not? That's WAY more likely to prolong your life than redesigning your house for Tornado protection (especially since there's a pretty good chance you'll get wiped off the map while at work - or (in my case) while driving home from work). It's worth buying a car with better airbags and side impact protection - because your chances of dying in a car crash are HUGE. It's worth adjusting your lifestyle and diet to cut your risk of heart disease...but that's because these are COMMON events. It's not worth the effort to even find out how you avoid Benign prostatic hyperplasia - let alone actually taking action to avoid it. So why worry about tornadoes? SteveBaker (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you've chosen the best example here. We don't know the OPs sex (as far as I can see) so there's a fair chance the OP does actually have a greater probability of dying from a tornado then benign prostatic hyperplasia, even if she lives in Alaska Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Texas, we generally do not have basements in our houses. Something to do with the type of clay, it just doesn't hold an entire house. We do have some storm shelters, which are small. That would probably relate to why they're not underground.

I have always wondered, cost aside, if prople in flood plains could put steel (or something like that) on the outside of their houses to act as a water barrier. I figured you could put the bricks on the outside of the barrier and it would look normal. Better yet, how about better waterproof bricks. I'm sorry, I don't live where it floods, so I'm probably way off base here, just a thought though.

I hope I didn't accidentally provide any medical advise here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JelloTube (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes Thrown at Bush

In reference to the shoe throwing incident: the reporter who threw the shoes at President George Bush managed to throw 2 shoes at him before being stopped by security. He threw one shoe and took a sizable pause before throwing the other shoe. Why did the US Secret Service not respond faster? When the first shoe was thrown at the President, it may have taken everyone by surprise, but with all the training they receive, should the Secret Service agents not have responded faster to immediately shield Bush from any further shoes? Acceptable (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why people are so excited about this. The president is fine, and he was never in danger. If I was the Prez I would have no problem with how the incident was handled. APL (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just timed it. There was not a sizable pause. There was less than one and a half seconds. Perhaps time enough to leap on the president and force him to the ground. Perhaps even time enough for some quick-draw agent to shoot the reporter dead. But I think that Bush would have been unhappy with either of those two options. Frankly, if you watch the video Bush doesn't seem too bothered by the whole thing. It's just a pair of shoes, after all. (MSNBC says he was joking about it right afterward.) APL (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While all the reporters were thoroughly screened, what if one of them had embedded an explosive device in a recording tape or a microphone? This would mean that the would-be assailant would have 2 opportunities to attempt to assassinate the President before being stopped. Acceptable (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ... but ... that didn't happen. You're talking about someone who was clearly throwing his shoes. Perhaps you could tell us what you would have liked to have happened if you were president? APL (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's inconceivable that someone could sneak into an event like that with a gun or explosives - they'll have been checked with explosive 'sniffers' that can figure out if you merely touched explosives during the previous few days...if you were actually CARRYING any of the stuff, the detectors would have gone nuts. That's why the security people didn't have to panic. More importantly, if they'd shot the guy - an invited member of the press - on foreign soil - for the 'crime' of throwing a shoe (and missing!) the resulting hoo-haa would have gone on for weeks! The second shoe was (by comparison) a minor matter. So they did exactly the right thing - how could you fault them on that?! Plus, what kind of suicidal maniac throws a shoe and then blows himself up?! SteveBaker (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in another section about the same incident (how many sections do we have?) you seem to be missing the point that if the first shoe had exploded they would have obviously responded quite differently. Other then the fact the guy would almost definitely now be dead, they probably would have tried to jump on the President to get him out of the way not to mention no matter how stupid Bush may be, I doubt he would have just stood there if someone has just shown an explosive shoe at him. Therefore talking about what could have happened if the situation were different makes little sense since people would have behaved differently if the situation were different Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN showed a video someone spliced together where Curly throws a pie, Bush ducks and the pie hit Larry. Youtube link: [1]. Huffington post link: [2]. Thank God the Leader of the Free World was unharmed! Edison (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - because even a couple of weeks with Dick Cheney as President would be a deeply scarey thing! SteveBaker (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to assume that Cheney would actually step down on January 20th. He's already demonstrated that he can control the CIA and get them to lie for him about WMD, how much harder would it be for him to seize control of the military, once he was President ? StuRat (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much. There's a great deal of respect for the concept of "orderly government succession" here -- trying to arrange a self coup would simply result in a quick trip to prison. --Carnildo (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say though, I was pretty impressed with how wily Bush looked ducking those shoes. Not bad for a 62 year old, but then again I suppose it pays to have razor sharp reflexes if there's any chance of getting roped into going hunting with Cheney... TastyCakes (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it would be more appropriate to serve shoofly pie as desert this Christmas. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applying the Bush Doctrine to this situation; from this day forward, all people attending press conferences who wear shoes will be premptively shot in the head. That is all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New doctrine, We will bombard them with crocs and sandals until their shoes tremble in fear against the presence of the American footwear warmachine!--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just reported he joked about it. I saw the interview in question. He actually saw a funny side to it. He gets just a little respect from me for not blowing up and overreacting. -- Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch the video, they did respond, albeit a little late, but Bush waved them off. The Reader who Writes (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the radio yesterday they were talking about if people might start throwing their shoes at his motorcades or drop them off in front of the white house. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

effect of sex

Can anybody please tell me, what is the effect of having sex or watching porn for the young? In most countries like India, sex is a strict no-no socially till you marry. But what exactly happens physically, or mentally once a youngster has sex, or watches porn ? 117.201.113.223 (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might depend on age. If age is (very roughly) 11 or above and sex is male, then the physical result of porn is likely to be masturbation, and either sex or masturbation is likely to end in ejaculation. (And the porn-deprived male is likely to masturbate anyway.) Sex carries a risk of STDs while [straightforward] masturbation doesn't. Tama1988 (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Young" is too inspecific here—you are using it as synonymous with "unmarried" which is ridiculous. Are you talking about pre-pubescent, early pubescent, post-puberty, what? The effects will be very different depending on the relative sexual maturity of the person in question. If you really just mean "unmarried", then the effects physically are no different than when married, and the effects mentally varies more with the person in question than the issue of sex itself. --140.247.250.20 (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very broad question to answer in this short of a space. Simple masturbation is pretty much always completely harmless, regardless of the age or sex of the person. Most often it's even beneficial, and should be encouraged. The only problem you might suffer from it is social humiliation if you get caught. So as long as a person does it in secret and nobody notices, there's no problem at all.

As for sex, that varies wildly between people and depends heavily on what kind of sex it is. An 18-year-old that has completely consensual and safe sex with a steady monogamous partner that respects them and their needs will probably suffer no ill-effects what-so-ever. A 15-year-old who gets seduced by a 25-year-old sleezebag into doing something they don't really want to do can get screwed up for life.

As for where the line between "ok" sex and "bad" sex goes, different people will give you different answers. A conservative Christian will probably say that any sexual activity whatsoever outside of marriage is bad. A freewheelin', summer-of-love hippie will obviously disagree. There are a few guidelines to which most people would agree though: waiting until you're mature enough and ready for it (if unsure, wait some more). Making sure that the partner understands and cares for the person, and they are in a steady relationship. Being safe. And most of all, it has to be completely consensual, regardless of the status of the partner. Some people get that point when they're fairly young. Some people might not get to that point until they're married. Some people might never get there. As parents, we have to make sure that our children understand their limits and where they are personally, and to help them make that choice themselves. And when they do engage in sexual relations, we have to support them and make sure that they feel comfortable talking about it (even though they probably wont want to). Even if the sex itself was wonderful and not harmful at all, being shamed and degraded for it afterwards can be hugely damaging and hurful. Belisarius (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Belisarius. My only comment is the phrase "in secret". Like picking your toenails or gobbling your boogers, masturbation should normally be done "in private", but there's nothing shameful about it and there's no need for the furtiveness that "in secret" might suggest. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. That is what I meant :) Belisarius (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed an excellent response. Jocelyn Elders smiles upon you. I'll add that "what exactly happens physically, or mentally" when adolescents (that's presumably who you're talking about?) discover sex or porn has very little to do with the sex or porn itself, and much to do with the society the child was raised in. As Belisarius says, there's little to object to about masturbation or safe, consensual sex, other than on religious grounds. But we're not born knowing what words like "safe" and "consensual" mean; we have to be taught. Even with sex education, it's easy for curious adolescents to end up in sexual situations which they're not ready for or don't understand, and this can lead to enduring feelings of guilt, immorality, or distaste for sex. In the absence of sex education, this possibility is magnified, as is the potential for accidental pregnancy (since kids have no way of knowing how sex works, or even what sex is, other than from gossiping with other kids). To have a negative sexual experience, and then to be unable to talk about it due to fear of being called dirty, irresponsible, and worthless, can indeed be traumatizing. Similarly, kids who discover pornography on their own may spend some years confused about whether it's representative of actual sex, and may judge themselves or their friends harshly for their interest in it. It's worth noting that none of these issues are "solved" by marriage; legally and religiously sanctioning a person's first sexual experiences doesn't automatically make them pleasant, and there is such a thing as spousal rape. Now that I've written this whole negative paragraph, though, the flipside of the coin is that adolescents who engage in positive, consensual sex without being socially condemned for it may find the experience to be intimate, fun, and empowering. You may be interested in Masturbation#Health and psychological effects, child sexuality, virginity, and Studies on effects of Pornography.--Fullobeans (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, you guys are so nice! You're absolutely right, sex-ed is crucial, and pornography is a terrible substitute. If that's your education in sex, you're going to have a very skewed perception of what real sex is. It can also really skew your view of women (since most porn is very male-centric, and not a little misogynistic). I personally don't think it's such a big deal if you're just using it for stimulation and masturbation (as you pointed out, me and Jocelyn Elders are in agreement on the subject of masturbation). I think it's probably healthier if you get off on porn than if you simply suppress your sexual urges. Belisarius (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Houston (BC, Canada)

How's the "Houston" of Houston, British Columbia pronounced -- Huustn, Hyuustn, Haustn, something else? (I know that I should be using IPA, and hope that the article eventually will.) Tama1988 (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this video has the mayor of Houston, the fire chief, and a reporter for Houston Today pronouncing it in the British style, i.e. hyoostun or in IPA /'hjustən/. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have added this to the article accordingly. Tama1988 (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

party

how do I get to go to a party on a boat with pounding music and rum in a pineapple and hot japanese girls in bikinis? I have seen pictures Wochende (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get an invitation. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organise the party yourself: charter the boat, book the band, invite everyone at the Japanese embassy and specify a dress code of swimwear. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say: "using a small rowboat and some oars"...but this is a much better idea! If you've got the the boat, the rum and the babes with the "Hello Kitty" bikini's - I'll definitely bring the pineapples. Just out of interest - will there be little paper umbrellas in these drinks? SteveBaker (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC0 I don't know about the last one. Commonly I believe many of the people at an embassy will be locals and since there isn't usually a 'hot' or female requirement to work at an embassy, there's no guarantee you'd actually get anyone you want. It may be better to invite them from Japan itself. I'm sure there would be a few willing if you offer to pay for the trip (do the same if hunks in trunks is your thing) Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have an infomercial on with some short oriental man on a yacht (with girls in bikinis) claiming, in bad English, that you too could have all this if you sent him your life savings. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It helps if you get to a place near the sea or a big lake. You can rent a boat, hire the musicians and a bartender. The latter will know where you can buy the rum and the pineapples. Contrary to what the other posters think getting the Japanese (or at least sufficiently Asian looking) girls should be easy. Just send the request with a promise of sufficient amount of pay for a day to a couple of model agencies (the photo/fashion kind, although the others might work, too). Unless you're out in the boonies somewhere they should have one or two on their books and you don't have to import them. Reading our page Model (person) they even have a separate type for "bikini". So all you need for the party is money. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you hire models, it will probably be on a "you can look, but you can't touch" basis - they may not be willing to hang off your shoulders in that way bikini clad girls always do in films. If you want that, just distribute some flyers at the local university offering free drinks. --Tango (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Join the Minnesota Vikings? anonymous6494 03:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]