Miscellaneous desk
< May 29	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 31 >

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.

May 30

Thin Condoms Vs. Regular Condoms

Extra sensitive, thin condoms claim to be just as reliable at preventing pregnancy as normal condoms. But this just doesn't seem to make sense. Isn't it common sense, that if something is less thick, it has a higher chance of breaking or tearing? For example Durex Extra Sensitive Condoms say they are 20% thinner than normal. How can it be 20% thinner and keep the same durability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.126.152 (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to your question, but it's conceivable that the thinner condoms are made out of a better and more expensive grade of latex, so that all you sacrifice by buying the thinner ones is cost. But are you sure they claim to be just as reliable? I looked on the Durex website, and all I see is a claim that Extra Sensitive still gives you "the protection you need." All that really means to me is that it still meets some basic standard, not that it's necessarily just as reliable. --Allen (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our condom article says the pregnancy rate is typically 10–18%. Using plenty of lubricant wll reduce the chances of tearing. And FWIW I find that ribbed condoms are better for increased sensation than the so-called extra sensitive ones.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that a device with a failure rate of 18% is still considered an effective form of contraception. I wouldn't buy a pair of shoes if there was an 18% chance they were going to leak. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the 18% failure rate doesn't come from condoms breaking, but from improper use. The article also says, "With proper knowledge and application technique—and use at every act of intercourse—users of male condoms experience a 2% per-year pregnancy rate." The typical failure rate apparently includes things like the couple not using a condom every time the have sex, which is, well, a kind of a no-brainer. Personally, I've never had a condom break, slip off or otherwise malfunction. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [1] breakage and slippage may be of primary concern in a small group of users. While failing to use a condom consistently is obviously a problem, I suspect improper usage which may result in breakage and slippage is just as much of a problem. Evidentally "not living with partner" is significantly associated with increase breakage or slippage. Condoms is one area where size does matter Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, other issues absolutely contribute to the condom failure rate, yes. I wasn't trying to claim otherwise. I was just saying that the 18% failure rate shouldn't be taken at face value, because it includes situations where condoms weren't used at all. (That's really misleading, too, incidentally; I'm not sure it's doing the article any favors.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birds and hot chips

moved to the science desk here[2] where our resident gull specialist hangs out

indian nationality

it's written here in wiki that -

Citizenship by Birth Any person born in India on or after 26 January 1955 but prior to the commencement of the 1986 Act on 1 July 1987 was a citizen of India by birth. A person born in India on or after 1 July 1987 was a citizen of India if either parent was a citizen of India at the time of the birth. Those born in India on or after 3 December 2004 are considered citizens of India only if both of their parents are citizens of India or if one parent is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of their birth.

does this mean that someone who was born before 26 january 1955 isn't a citizen of india? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.248.96 (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anyone domiciled in India in 1949 and born in India is a citizen, for example, under Part II of the constitution (which also grants citizenship to a bunch of other people). I'm not sure what the status is for people born after the constitution was passed but before the 1955 citizenship law. Algebraist 10:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said thanks to a ticket machine

This question has been removed. The questioner is a sockpuppet of an abusive pagemove vandal/troll. Please see Special:Contributions/Matt the barber. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-->

Lending money

I confess, I really am in a tizz. You see, the thing is, I lent my friend (of many many years, not some geezer I spoke to in a pub)some money and now he won't pay me back. Alright it's not a fortune but its the principle of the matter. My friend won't return my phone calls or emails so I sent him a letter, recorded delivery, and he still ignores my requests. Now, I have little option but to consider going to the police. Grassing on your mates doesn't sit easy with me but in my opinion, my friend who won't pay me is the real Judas in this affair. I have emailed him to say that he has 24 hours to pay or I go to the old bill. This whole matter is bang out of order, and I have considered going to my doctors for anti depressants. Any advice (not legal or medical of course) on what I should do? Abwischbar (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that this sort of loan may not be enforceable by the police. I'd think small claims court a more appropriate venue. — Lomn 13:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember who said it, but I've always like the quote. "If you lend someone $20, and never see that person again; it was probably worth it." Principle is one thing, but if the amount is fairly insignificant...it might just be money well spent. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a piece of advice and a joke will cheer you up. The advice: when lending money, have the borrower write you a check for the amount, but post-dated to when they agree to repay you. When the day comes, just go cash the check; they probably have the money and just have better things to spend it on than paying back loans. If they don't have the money, a check is more legally enforceable than a verbal agreement. The joke: two friends were walking down a dark alley when a man with a gun tells them to hand over their wallets. As one of the men is handing his over, he takes out a twenty-dollar bill and gives it to his friend, saying "hey, here's that money I owed you". :) --Sean 13:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the principle of the matter is a lot more important than the need for the money. When I borrow from friends, I make damn sure I pay them back as soon as I can. If I've loaned some small amount to a friend, I'll give them several opportunities to pay me back without me asking, and then I'll start dropping hints. It's never failed me yet.

After that, I think the general rule of advice here is: If it's a small amount (say, £20 or less) then give up on it and just don't loan to them again. If they do ask again, just remind them of the previous loan. If it's a substantial amount (say, several hundred), then maybe you should seek the advice of a solicitor. If it's something in between, then you'll need to weigh up what's more important - your money or your friendship. Astronaut (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then you'd have to wonder what sort of friendship it is where your "friend" borrows money from you, and promises to pay it back (which is, after all, the definition of borrowing, as opposed to a donation), but then doesn't come to the party. He may as well have come into your house and stolen it. Maybe he's skint and can't pay right now, but at least he could say so and negotiate a new payment date or some suitable repayment arrangement. To simply avoid any contact with you is not the hallmark of a friend, in my book. So, you have nothing to lose by taking legal action, and everything to gain (assuming the cost of the action doesn't outweigh the amount that's recoverable). I don't see how the quantum of the loan has anything to do with the principle involved here. There again, your "friend" appears to have a hazy concept of principle, but that's no reason why you should have to be the victim here. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Polonius, is that you? "For loan oft loses both itself and friend"... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't give legal advice. But don't waste your effort going to the police! They have no more to do with this than your doctor or your milkman. If you want to pursue it, go to a solicitor or try a Citizens Advice Bureau. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bumblebees

Hi, I posted this earlier but it looks like it has been lost in the system. I am an artist and I'd doing an exhibition in the new few weeks. The piece I'm working on involves a bee. I had a bee, but it seems to have got lost. I it on a windowsill, but I wouldn't want to kill one, and I didn't kill mine, so if anyone knows good places to find dead bumblebees, in good condition, then please tell me. Many thanks. Thiagara (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the Bumblebee article where you will find about a dozen pictures of (live) bumblebees. Also click on the link to Commons at the very bottom of that article, where you will be taken to hundreds more pictures. I know you wanted a real one but I'm sure the pics will help. Best Wishes- Adrian Pingstone (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had you considered googling beekeepers or honey farms in your local area - they would probably have a fair few they could offer you -russ (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows are your best bet. Try looking in your neighbors greenhouses, where bees might have gone in and gotten trapped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clingfilm clive (talk • contribs) 15:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girl in the photograph

I'm looking to trace a girl from an old photograph, taken in 1918. It was taken during the commemorations the end of the first world war. We were stood in the same street, a sepia tinge to your skin, you had nearly every inch of your body covered in excessively thick garments. Your perfect deportment was only marred slightly by the vague air of tuberculosis. I was the bow-legged gentleman with rickets. If she is still alive, how can I get in touch with her? Eff wone (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craigslist missed connections? --Sean 13:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's probably hanging out with the goldfish and the bumblebee. They're having a ball on some money they loaned and never paid back. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, though their arses might be numb from the hard seats on the bus! JohnComputer17 (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which country the photo was taken in. Whilst Craigslist might be useful in the San Francisco bay area or New York, I doubt a 90+ londoner would be as familiar with Craigslist. How about trying the local paper instead - sounds like a great "human interest" story a paper might love to publish. 17:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds nothing like a great "human interest" story. Sounds like a fucking idiotic load of fiction. Does any seriously believe that a 108-year-old man is trying to get back in touch with a woman he hasn't seen for 90 years through the Wikipedia Reference Desk? This sort of crap should be deleted on sight. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it's likely he's a troll,I was assuming good faith here :-) Astronaut (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. All though its highly unlikely a ninety-year-old man is looking for his long lost Jane Doe. It might be possible that you look at some of your other old photos that might be from the same year. Look on the back of the photo to see any names and dates. But there are always two options on this one she is alive and will probably not remember you or the second one she is dead and had never made that ninety-year leap. Whatever the possibility, have a wonderful evening.Rem Nightfall (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall[reply]

Whatever drollness may be assumed: the OP should be awarded an antique rusty barnstar with verdigris and barnacles for being the first supercentenarian rickety bow-legged trollOP to grace this referential desk. If, in mumblety years, anyone of us has the computer skills and keyboard aptitude of the ancient one, we can then cast the first stone. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And incarnated as an op who lost a goldfish called "Kenny". Time to put your t-specs on Cookatoo, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its Hard to Part

Good evening sirs and ma'ams. I was just a bit curious. What would be the most productive way of stopping a drug addiction? Cause it seems, to me at least, that no matter how clean you are from a drug you are never clean. It always seems like that drug haunts you and your addiction may be subdued, but not entirely gone. So, what is the most productive way of stopping drug addiction? And, what would be the most productive way of never getting addicted again? One answer would be not to do the drug in the first place, but I am talking about those hopeless individuals. I hope I have asked a question that can be answered here. I hope you don't get trolled anymore, cause I quite like it here. Have a postively wonderful evening.Rem Nightfall (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall[reply]

A good night to ye sir :-)! the best method I found, when studying Psychiatry a few years ago, was gradual withdrawal. Slowly reducing the dose of the drug (whatever it might be) over a month or two allowed the patient to adapt to abstinence and also avoided the nasty physical symptoms associated with the withdrawal of some drugs: Heroin and in many ways Alcohol. Drastic withdrawal can kill. Fribbler (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a seamless sequitur to user:Fribbler:

Rigor mortis. My favourite panacea for all minor ailments, including impotence. Mind you, I have not tried it yet, but, one day, the night will fall... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from my own experience, I think that the only way for a person to overcome addiction is the person must be committed to overcoming it, and the person needs support from others. Fribbler is probably right that gradual withdrawal is the only safe way for drugs that involve a strong physical addiction. However, that kind of gradual withdrawal is probably beyond the ability of even the most iron-willed addicts to accomplish on their own. Because each new dose brings a nearly uncontrollable urge for more. I think that a person trying to accomplish such a gradual withdrawal would be best off in a residential detox program, where he or she can receive constant psychological support and where his or her substance intake is controlled by others. My drug of choice was marijuana, and it is certainly addictive, despite the claims of some that it isn't. Fortunately, the addiction does not have a strong physical component. For me, the only hope was cold turkey, quitting completely and finally. I experimented with keeping a cache of marijuana somewhat remote from my home (buried in some woods), such that getting more involved an inconvenient drive and then hike through the woods. But I found myself organizing evenings or weekends around that trip, and I found that the drug was still dominating my life and impairing me socially and professionally. So I resolved to stop completely. Fortunately, I was involved at the time in a therapy group, without whose support, I don't think I could have done it. I think a person needs emotional support from a person or a group that also holds him or her accountable. (This could be, but I think need not be, a twelve-step program.) For several months after my last marijuana high, I experienced periodic intense craving, but the need to face my therapy group and my own commitment kept me from giving in. For more than a year, intense cravings would occasionally recur, but I reminded myself of how much better my life had become without recourse to marijuana. Even today, more than three years later, I still have occasional cravings, but they are milder, and the improvement in my life since giving up marijuana has been so dramatic that I am not very tempted to use it again. 24.91.137.158 (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used to play an online game called Neveron, and one of the game's great players developed a crack cocaine habit. He claims he quit when he realised how much he could buy on Neveron for all the cash he was spending on drugs. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding Young Woman of America Award

I received this award in 1979, but can't remember much about it. Do you know the name of the organization that gave this award, and if it is still in existance? The little I do remember is that you paid a fee to be listed in a book, and then you were sent a certificate (suitable for framing), and I always used the reference on my resumes with some interesting results!Torriekster (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been presented by the association of Outstanding Young Americans. But that's the only reference I can find for that organization. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to break it to you, but that's one of those vanity operations whose basic goal is selling you a book. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this was primarily a vanity operation, it did require the recipient be nominated and the nomination process was quite extensive.