Miscellaneous desk
< October 19	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 21 >

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.

October 20

Parachute Jump Doors

What is the name given to the section of the aircraft that a person would jump out of while skydiving? Is it the jump door? The jump ramp? Acceptable (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone can nail this, I get "aircraft door" with a further title depending on its location in the structure such as rear door of rear-door aircraft (eg, rear door Cessna 206) and "right hand exit" or "left hand exit". Aircraft doors seem to be descriptive: cargo door, fuselage door, access door. "Parachute door" relates to spacecraft. fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm skydiving it's generally referred to simply as the "door" as we we're solely using small 6-12man planes that only have one door anyway. On a larger plane Julia Rossi is right, it's generally referred to descriptively as in a normal plane - the "rear door", the "cargo door", the "side door", or whatever. These planes are generally slightly-modified normal planes so there's not really a specific parachuting door that needs a particular name. ~ mazca ^t|c 07:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

trade?

if all international trade stopped what would the us and finland have to live without? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.209.5 (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate. Pfly (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US would cope pretty admirably-there's a fair lot of stuff that they would be able to grow/make within their borders. Quite how all international trade would stop baffles me-there's always the chance of something being smuggled into the country or put on a little raft and floated onto a beach or dropped out of the sky... Lemon martini (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The United States would be unable to produce the electronic products and computers it consumes(including the chips and other components), without a period of several years to build factories. Such equipment has been produced for decades in countries where the labor is cheap. The U.S. would be at a loss for petroleum, since reserves are far to small to supply the present level of usage. Edison (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drill in Alaska. 216.49.181.128 (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Arctic Refuge drilling controversy , the U.S. consumes 21 million barrels of petroleum products per day, and produces 5 million per day. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be expected to result in production starting in 2018, which could reach a maximum of .78 million barrels per day in 2027. "Drill baby drill" barely puts a dent in the need for imported petroleum. Edison (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'd also end up with an appalling lack of cheap plastic lead-filled toys and clothing made in sweatshops. Poor us. We'd also be without decent cars, but we've got the best motorcycles in the world so I suppose we'd make out all right! (referring to the US here, just to clarify) --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 04:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sudden scaricty of oil would make other scarcities seem a lot worse. At least in the short term. USA might have plenty of corn, but it all stays in Iowa it doesn't help me one bit. APL (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the US might eventually arrive at some kind of self-sustaining situation - the short-term effects would be totally disasterous. There would be extreme shortages of some kinds of things - and wild excesses of others. Prices of anything that requires significant manual effort in construction would skyrocket because those things are currently built cheaply overseas. Whilst the US does produce its own cars (and, yes, motorbikes) - many of the parts they are made of are likely to be made overseas - so in all likelyhood, the supply of new cars (and probably motorbikes too) would dry up until new part factories could be built, staffed and the replacement parts designed, tested and ramped up into production. In some areas, these factories might be very hard to set up because designers and workers with the necessary skills might simply not exist within the USA. With "just in time" approaches to shipping parts and raw materials to manufacturers being commonplace - the effect of this would be immediate. In businesses where the US produces an excess (chemicals, corn, soybeans, electrical equipment) - there would be an instant glut of product resulting in a price crash and desperate problems for the companies that make those things. In businesses where even one teeny-tiny part or ingredient is imported, business would stall until alternative production could be set up. Since much of production relies on machinery - pretty soon the spare parts for some of those machines would dry up - so over a period of months, more and more factories would stop working until more factories to make those spare parts could be set up. Things would be extremely chaotic for years to come.

As to how this terrible situation could come about - well, in a sense, it's already started. With world-wide bank failures, it's going to be hard for companies to do international deals. How does company A pay company B when they are in different parts of the world? Without the flow of money - there can be no flow of goods.

SteveBaker (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well nobody else has mentioned Finland, so why should I. Going back to the US I am puzzled that nobody has mentioned the obvious. With what is probably the largest military in the world coupled with a discontented population I would imagine that war and invasion of other countries would happen very quickly. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point. If for whatever reason the U.S. cannot trade internationally, the easiest solution would be U.S. expansionism. This wouldn't necessarily be through military conquest. Canada would be in horrible shape if they couldn't trade with their biggest economic partner. In such a state, they could be persuaded to join the U.S. peacefully and would provide the U.S. with a lot of needed energy and materials resources. Others might be forced into an expanded U.S. Venezuela and parts of Mexico might be seized for their petroleum. (Hugo Chavez seems to think this will happen any day now.) —D. Monack ^talk 01:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headshot

What happens if someone is shot in the head and doesn't die instantly? I'd assume if it isn't treated they'd die of bloodloss or brain rupture within half an hour or so. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Brady is an example of someone who was shot in the head and survived (although he was left disabled). --Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, this guy's girlfriend shot his wife in the head; she survived, though with some impairment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Unity Mitford. --Anonymous, 10:02 UTC, October 21, 2008.

Do not try this at home kiddywinks :) Lemon martini (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually if they don't die instantly then they die more slowly. Blood loss by itself can be fatal, or there can be damage to the portions of the brain that regulate essential processes (like breathing). Inflammation can case fatal swelling of brain tissue over the course of a few hours. While a gunshot wound to the head can often bleed profusely, it doesn't always. There are a number of cases in the medical literature of individuals who have been shot in the head (often while asleep or intoxicated) who don't become aware of it until they (or someone else) notices a bullet wound hours later. (I found a link to one such case recently; it's somewhere in the Ref Desk archives.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone I am aware of was shot in the head by a .22 when he was a kid. I guess it was enough of a grazing shot to not do too much damage, but it was in a place that doctors chose not to remove it. He joined the Air Force and never told any of the recruiters. He spent several years flying F-18s with the bullet still inside of his head. Anything is possible.142.104.142.186 (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Phineas Gage. A large iron rod, 1 3/4 inches in diameter and 3 feet long, was blasted through his brain,back in 1848, and he lived, although the brain damage caused some personality changes. Edison (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of a cite (sue me!) but I did read the story of a woman caught in a convenience store robbery. She was actually shot through the head by a gun pressed against the nape of her neck and survived without any lasting injuries- no paralysis, no mental retardation, nothing. It was amazing, though, pretty near miraculous, so don't bet on it happening if you get shot in the head!! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 04:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Health ran a special on a woman shot in the face by her abusive boyfriend. It was a .22 caliber handgun, and although destroyed her face, she lived to endure a dozen or so reconstructive surgeries. One of the adolescents claiming Judas Priest wanted them to commit suicide apparently did not account for kickback in the shotgun and it discharged and moved, it removed his face but left him alive for several years. --Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damage to wooden door

I'm responsible for a gouge (small, maybe four centimeters long, not deep) someone left in a wooden door. It's a beautiful old carriage house door, probably pine, painted glossy black. I'd like to try to fix this myself rather than paying the owner of the door to have it restored. My question is, is there a wood filler product, available on the American market, that is already stained black? Any recommendations on how to proceed? Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How artistic are you? We have articles Wood filler and Wood stain but as a painter type I like paint solutions to problems. Since pine is a light coloured wood, I would't go for short cuts like a black wood filler, but if it's under gloss black paint, personally I'd go for wood filler and a black gloss touchup paint like you'd find in a model/hobby shop. You can thin it to build up layers. There are clear gloss finishes to finesse it if needed. Suggest practising on a wood sample first and being patient, use a small soft brush, touching rather than sweeping strokes and take your time, fine sanding between coats. Good luck Julia Rossi (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking balance on prepaid vodafone uk

What is the code for checking the balance of a pre-paid Vodafone SIM in the UK? I've been using ＃＊１３４５ up until now, but yesterday it wouldn't work. It just tried to call the number. What is happening? Has it changed?

PS if it makes a difference, I am using a Nokia N95. --ChokinBako (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pre-paid Vodafone sim, but I always use the menu to check my balance rather than phoning, so I'm not sure what the number is. My top up card has the number on the back, though, "*#1345#", have you been missing off the last hash? Just tried that number, seems to work for me. --Tango (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Yes. Thanks! It's just I haven't done it for a while....--ChokinBako (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey tools in Spain

I'm looking at getting my donkey's to start doing manual labour with donkey ploughs, patato planters, levellers, etc... (what ever tools I can get my hands on) But Idon't know if or where these instruments exist (especially in Central North Spain)... Is this a feasable idea or are these apparatus unattainable in today's society? Thankyou in advance 87.111.102.134 (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't the language desk, but technically speaking donkeys would do ungual labour, since they have hooves rather than hands. ;) FiggyBee (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be impossible. The Southern States Mule and Donkey Association runs old-fashioned plowing days in the U.S. Perhaps there is a similar group in Spain that could offer advice? Google shows a couple how-to sites where people built their own donkey plows but Wikipedia's blacklist wouldn't let me link them. Rmhermen (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have a slight problem getting donkeys to pull a plough and suchlike due to their size and strength. Centuries ago man developed the mule for this purpose, a bigger stronger animal much better suited to the rigours of agricultural labour. If you ask around locally I will be very surprised if some farmer or other hasn't kept some old mule equipment which could serve as a model for a donkey-sized tool (pun not intended).

INTERNATIONAL MALE ESCORT

Hi I am just about to embark on a new career as a male escort,are there any guys out there already in this type of work? I don"t need any advice,as I am fully aware of all the risks involved in this type of work. Thanks, Pluto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer of course is yes. There are many guys working as escorts. If however you are trying to make contact with them Wikipedia is not the place to do that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There will, however, be websites dedicated to just such contacts. Try googling "male escort". --Tango (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never part with any money under any circumstances, especially if they are offering to give you bookings, and always, always ear a condom. And dont eat woman, this is unhygenic

Is there a canabalistic escort service I don't know about. Holy shit. Be careful who you pick up, fer real! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much Gere? I don· t think the eating part is the only thing un-sane in this enterprise?--Radh (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand eating women, but how does one "ear a condom"? What if it gets stuck in there? Plasticup ^T/C 23:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin Mary conceived when the Archangel Gabriel whispered in her ear.hotclaws 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation to human via ant

--== Radiation to human via ant ==

This is a serious question and so I would like a serious answer. Is it possible to put an ant in a microwave for two seconds at the most and expect it to give you super powers?(Remember serious question) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banna ant (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is certainly possible to expect it to give you super powers. You may, however, be disappointed. FiggyBee (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My serious question: What do you think? --Tango (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No like I read Spider man last night and just wanted to know.--Banna ant (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Banna ant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) [reply]

OK, my attempt to answer the question seriously.

Microwave ovens to not create ionizing radiation, indeed microwaves are less energetic than ordinary visible light wave; and thus are unlikely to create any sort of crazy genetic mutations. What microwaves do do is get absorbed by substances with a defined dipole moment and cause the molecules of those substances to go nuts, that is, to heat up. At best, microwaving an ant will cause the internal water in the critter to boil. He'll basically just pop.
Even a creature who has been effected by Ionizing radiation, such as the high energy radiation eminating from a nuclear decay source, is unlikely to be able to pass on any damaging effects of that radiation, unless the have directly ingested the source. It is entirely possible for, say, an ant to ingest some Plutonium, and then for you to eat the ant and thus take the plutonium into your body. Do not do this. Radiation sickness is one of the most horrific and painful ways to die. However, if the ant has been irradiated by the normal means, such as merely being in the presence of ionizing radiation, and then they were to bite you, it would have no way of passing on any radiation sickness it had to you. Radiation sickness is not contageous.

As a general point, its usually a bad idea to get your ideas on nuclear science from comic book characters, either the green or red and blue varieties. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

( After edit conflict)

First of all, microwave ovens do not emit any nuclear radiation. That's a common misconception. They work by emitting microwaves, which are just radio waves. Very similar to the radio waves used by cell phones. So all you'd wind up with is a warm ant.

Secondly, even if you did expose an ant to gamma radiation (from a nuclear reactor, perhaps), and even if the ant was the kind of ant that can inject venom into people, and even if you got some radioactive venom into your blood, and even if that radioactive venom caused a mutation in your blood, what do you think the odds are that the mutation would be something that gives you super-powers?

Most people, when their DNA is damaged enough to be noticable, they don't get super powers, they get cancer. Given the ratio of the number of people with cancer(millions!) compared to the number of people with super-powers(Zero?), I don't like the odds.

Easier Answer : Of course not. If it was that easy, we'd all do it!

APL (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get even more precise gamma radiation, microwave radiation and radio waves are all just electromagnetic waves at different frequencies, so the distinction made above is entirely unjustified. Alpha rays and beta rays are entirely different though. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since frequency is related to energy (via Planck's constant), there is a fundemental difference as to the effect of these different waves on substances. Microwaves have distinctly different effect on things than do either radio, light, or gamma waves. While there is no fundemental difference in their cause, there is on the results of exposure to said waves. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some single celled organisms that derive their energy from the decay of uranium, e.g. see[1]. And many can live in very hot and toxic conditions with high radiation like in nuclear waste. I guess you might call these superbugs but I doubt any can or even want to zip round the earth at faster than light speed and turn time back like superman. Dmcq (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Deinococcus-Thermus can survive a vacuum so maybe they will eventually do that trick ;-) Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just tested it: no super-powered ant. Plasticup ^T/C 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You monster, the ants will have their revenge, you have doomed us all. Dmcq (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. Deor (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After two seconds of heating the ant didn't even seem irritated, but I'll let you know if it displays any revolutionary tendencies. Plasticup ^T/C 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The serious problem with all comic-book theories that radiation will do something amazing to you is that the radiation can't possibly mutate ALL of the DNA in ALL of your cells in the exact same way. Even if there was a gene you could hit that would give you super-spider-sense, the probability of more than one or two of your gazillion cells getting that mutation is small. Imagine: unless almost all of the trillions of cells in your muscles get the mutation for super-strength - you're not going to have much more than a super-strong microscopic twitch. Even if it's an insect or a spider that gets zapped - and then it bites you - a highly specific mutation in the little bug isn't going to affect more than one or two of it's venom-producing cells - so the amount of mutated venom you'd get would be almost zero. The only real chance for a permanent useful change is in your offspring. Since each child originates from a single cell from each of it's two parents, a single mutation in the gene of a sperm or egg cell would indeed affect every cell in it's body. SteveBaker (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, two seconds of microwave radiation (in comic books, I think they usually use stronger stuff, by the way... which would be much more likely to straight-out kill the ant than endow it with any special powers) isn't going to do much. Half a minute and you'll get fried ant (mmm, mmm, eat up!), but just two seconds... nah, not going to do anything. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 04:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I figured that two seconds wouldnt kill him but thanks for the help --206.80.28.33 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Banna ant[reply]

Seemingly ants can survive indefinitely in a microwave, see Microwave sterilization (the insect angle!!) The turntable is so food doesn't stay at a point of interference. Marvellous the useful information you fin on the internet. Dmcq (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography questions

Which reference desk should geography questions be posted at? Wanderer57 (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either here or at humanities is fine. Go ahead and ask your question. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Does the term "western nations" have a meaning that is generally enough understood that it can be used in Wikipedia without further explanation?

For example, I think India is not a western nation. But what about Ireland? Germany? The Czech Republic? Greece? Japan? Australia? New Zealand? Nauru? Are all the countries in the western hemisphere "western nations"? 17:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See the article western nation (and link to it where appropriate). Rmhermen (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article western nation reinforces my sense that the meaning of "western nation" is highly dependent on the context.

This paragraph from War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is what led to my question:

"During Operation Anaconda and other missions during 2002 and 2003, special forces from several western nations were also involved in operations. These included the Australian Special Air Service Regiment, the Canadian Joint Task Force 2, the German KSK, the New Zealand Special Air Service and Norwegian Marinejegerkommandoen."

In this context, I think deleting the word "western" would be an improvement. Other views? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Western fits in that context. Rmhermen (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion for the talk page in question. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going off Rmhermen's comment, I think "western" fits the context, but wikilinking "western nations" would be quite helpful to clarify what "western" means in the context. — Lomn 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I added a link in the article. I raised my question here rather than in the article Talk page since I see it as a specialized technical point regarding which I was much more likely to find interested and informed editors here. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that the reference point for Western is Britain, because they were the ones who coined "the East", "the Far East", "the Middle East" etc. Australia is to the east of the UK, more easterly than China and on a par with Japan, and is geographically part of South-East Asia, but nobody seems to get confused when we're regarded as a Western nation. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the whole thing confusing, which is why I raised the question. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember it's not a strictly geographic question. During the Soviet era, four people who defected, respectively, to Finland (due west), Alaska (due east), Australia (due south), or South America (south-east), would all have been said to be defecting to the "West". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a peer review for my personal/user page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TDTechFlex

I don't want to create an article without it being up to snuff or missing any guidelines. Can a more experience Wiki editor take a look at what I wrote and make some recommendations? I sure would appreciate it.

I searched Wikipedia for "fuel surcharge" and I could not find a definition, rather, just references to the term. The reason I even began my search is a client where I work was asking me about the term and I pointed them to the Internet and told them "if you'll check Wikipedia, chances are you'll get a good definition." Only to not find a definition or much helpful info.

Anyway, if someone could please check my article and let me know if it's ready to be moved over to a public sector, I sure would appreciate it.

Thank you,

TDTechFlex

TDTechFlex (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left some tips on your talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

106 year old votes

I was reading this article about a lady who's 106 years old and an early voter:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/20/centenarian.votes/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

My question is: If she dies before the election, does her vote still count? 206.66.66.1 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Any law to the effect that a vote would not count if the voter died between voting and the votes being counted would be absurdly impractical to obey under a secret ballot system. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Imagine if the woman voted on the official election day, and then died a few minutes later, before the polls closed. She would have certainly died before her vote could have "counted"; yet no one would argue that we should dig her vote out of the box and discount it because of that. I would posit that several hundered people will die on November 4th this year, several of those will vote and will die before voting is over. I don't see any difference between that situation and your hypothetical question. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. All votes are treated as if they were cast in person in secret at the ballot box on election day. People are allowed to vote early in certain circumstances, and certain types of early votes (e.g. postal ballots) have to be identified because otherwise it would allow the possibility of people voting an unlimited number of times for the same candidate. To subvert this knowledge in order to remove the votes of people who died before the actual election day would an affront to humanity because, as far as the law is concerned, they may as well have survived till election day. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very important for any democracy that it should be impossible for anyone to be able to find out how anyone else voted. It should even be impossible for the voters themselves to be able to prove how they voted. This is necessary to avoid practices such as buying or forcing votes. If I say "I'll give you $10 to vote Obama" - then so long as it's utterly impossible for you to prove to me that you voted the way I asked - then I can't know that my money was well-spent. That being the case, it should be utterly impossible for the authorities to redact the vote of someone who died - even if that were considered desirable by society in general. SteveBaker (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the situation in the USA, but in the UK the authorities can easily determine who a given person voted for. They are known to have used this power in the past to keep track of communist sympathisers. Algebraist 09:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? That might be able to with postal votes, but if I put a folded up piece of paper with an x marked on it in a ballot box there is no way of linking it to me... --Tango (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The piece of paper has a number on it. The person who gives you the ballot paper notes down which number you were given. See secret ballot#Secrecy vs. reliability. Algebraist 10:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing. They reference the number against your details in the ballot book when they cross you off so you can't vote twice. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I always thought the UK system was completely secret. Perhaps not with postal votes - but certainly with in-person votes. The same used to be true here in the US too - but with new voting machines and electors demanding a paper printout to verify that their vote was cast how they wanted - that vital safety feature may be about to go away. Now, an unscrupulous person could bribe or threaten voters to vote a particular way - insisting that they provide the paper printout as proof that they voted the way they were required to vote. Not being able to prove how you voted is a VITAL safety feature for voters. SteveBaker (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postal votes on demand really do undermine the system. Fraud is rife in this area, with payments and threats used to make people hand over the ballot paper [2]. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand the purpose of the printouts. I understand the risk of having an all electronic system. (A hard-to-find bug (or secret feature!) either destroys votes, or worse, biases them undetectably) But how is giving voters a printout supposed to help that? If there's a problem with the tally will they make a big announcement "Everyone bring back your receipts for a re-count!"? That's obviously absurd.

What's needed is a bunch of anonymous printouts all in the same place so that they can be recounted if needed. Giving receipts to the voters serves no purpose and introduces the non-trivial problems Steve mentioned. APL (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who would have thunk it... you learn something every day. That section you link to mentions the US system of making sure the number of people voting and the number of votes match but doesn't say what they do if the numbers don't match. Does anyone know? --Tango (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of the printout is that when some non-computer-literate person has messed around with all the pretty buttons, levers and flashing lights - the printout will give them confirmation that they did indeed vote for the person they intended to vote for. If they screw up and end up voting for the wrong person, it is presumed that they will be able to take their little scrap of paper to an election official sitting just outside the voting booth - and that person will be able to annul their previous vote and let them try again. Given that voters are notoriously poor at following instructions ("Make SURE the chad is completely detached from the hole"), you can see why this would be attractive to some people. It could even work - if the person is required to drop their bit of paper into a shredder before they leave the voting area. But I'm pretty sure the idea is that they get to keep them - and that's a recipe for all sorts of dirty dealings. But trying to persuade people that giving them a mere piece of paper - telling them something they should already know - could somehow be DANGEROUS to them...well, that's a hard sell. SteveBaker (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't limited to in-person voting, either. California seems to be moving to a pure vote-by-mail system. They keep sending me invitations to sign up for permanent-absentee-voter status and are pushing it pretty hard. In this election and the last couple (pres. primary in February and ordinary primary in June) they're not giving me a choice; as there are too few voters in my precinct who have not elected permanent-absentee status, they're just sending me my by-mail ballot whether I like it or not (though I can deliver it by hand to another precinct on Nov 4, which is what I plan to do).

This is at least in principle a potentially serious compromise of the secret ballot. Someone could thoughtfully come to your house, help you fill out the ballot, and even mail it for you. Is this a cost-effective way to influence an election, given the chance of getting caught? Probably not, I have to admit. But I still don't like it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it. The notion of ballot papers having a unique number, which could be used to identify voters, would NEVER get a run in Australia. We introduced the secret ballot to the world, and we're purists when it comes to what "secret" means. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Washington State, the vote-by-mail system is supposed to work like this:

You vote your ballot, seal it in the security envelope, seal that in the mailing envelope, sign the mailing envelope, and mail it off (or drop it in an official ballot dropbox).
When the ballot arrives, the person recieving it checks your signature against the signature on your voter registration, and checks you off as having voted. They then remove the security envelope from the mailing envelope, put the security envelope in with all the other absentee ballots, and destroy the mailing envelope. They can't know who you voted for, only that you voted.
When it comes time to count the ballots, the ballot is removed from the security envelope and run through the counting machine. The person who does this knows who was voted for, but cannot know who cast the vote.

In theory, this makes it impossible to link a given ballot with a given person. --Carnildo (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - but it doesn't prevent an unscrupulous candidate from hiring gangs of people with big muscles and thick necks who roam the district forcing people to make out their ballot in favor of their candidate, stuffing it into the security envelope, signing it and posting it right in the sight of the guy with the big stick. It also doesn't prevent someone from going door to door offering $10 to anyone who'll fill in their ballot in favor of their candidate while they watch. The point of a secret ballot isn't so much to prevent someone in government from finding out who didn't vote for them - it's to prevent up-front fraud. If you lived in someplace with a dictatorial minority in power who are determined to stay in power at all costs (Zimbabwe - and President Mugabe - for example) - then you'd be very glad of a bulletproof scheme whereby nobody could tell how you voted. SteveBaker (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sushi questions

I was recently at a sushi dining occasion, and even though I find sushi delicious, there are a couple of things that I have to ask about.

Even though I mostly know how to use chopsticks, I don't know how to tear them apart from each other. I ended up tearing half of one chopstick's bottom end (the end facing me) into the other chopstick. How can I avoid this?

I put entirely too much wasabi into my soy sauce, masking the flavour of the sushi. Can this be rectified in any other way than throwing the entire contents of the sauce dish away and refilling it?

The drink to go with the sushi was room-temperature sake, which I found very difficult to drink. I can drink a litre of cool beer in under an hour, and a full glass of wine in a bit over an hour, but two decilitres of room-temperature sake took me almost two hours. Is this only because of my inexperience, or should the sake have been either ice-cold or hot? JIP | Talk 20:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions in order:

I generally find that pushing outwards steadily but firmly as far as you can get from the stuck-together end generally works well. Occasionally you just get some overly-stuck chopsticks though, it's entirely possible you were doing it right but just had bad luck.
Not really. Just call it a learning experience - add the wasabi slowly til you have enough, rather than making a guess.
Generally I encounter sake either refrigerated or hot, but room-temperature isn't, for me, any harder to drink, it's just a bit less nice. That said, i'm one of those destined-to-be-alcoholic types that can drink anything quickly... It's quite possible you just don't get on well with sake - it's quite common. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with above. My numbers don't exactly match your questions. Oh well)I am a huge sushi fan, and have these general tips for you...

Rule number 1 is always ignore what everyone else tells you. If you have a way to enjoy the food which is enjoyable to you, do it. If you don't like sake, and like beer or wine or Coca Cola instead, drink that. Its your food, and anyone who tells you you are eating it wrong is being pedantic and stuck up.
As far as the chopsticks question, I generally break the chopsticks close to the point where they are attached, instead of just pulling apart at the free end. I hold the chopsticks far enough up that if they don't "split" correctly, the uneven ends don't effect how I use them. You could also just eat Sushi with your hands; most people in Japan do this anyways. Sushi is essentially street food; no one looks for a fork and knife when eating a hot dog. Its why good sushi restaurants give you that hot towel to clean your hands with. I personally use chopsticks, and many do, but it isn't required.
I try to play around with the amount of Wasabi. Sometimes I eat the piece without Wasabi, then try it with, etc. Play around with it; again see rule 1. As far as adding too much Wasabi to the soy sauce; your only remedy is to dilute it with more soy sauce.
This page Sushi Eating for Dummies explains some of the common traditions when eating Sushi. Some of these are a mere courtesy towards your host (such as not rubbing your chopsticks together) and are probably a good idea to follow; others fall under my "rule 1" above.

Good luck! Sushi is one of my favorite foods, and its always good to see others enjoying it as well! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do that with the chopsticks by accident, you can usually just break off the doubled-up portion of the chopstick and have a matching pair of short-but-serviceable chopsticks (depends on where the break happened). Darkspots (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about not rubbing your chopsticks together is more true for if you're using "real" chopsticks. If you're using cheap disposables, go ahead and give them a quick rub against each other to remove any splinters or fibres. Matt Deres (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding wasabi and soy - treat those like salt and pepper. Taste the food first to see if it needs it! A good sushi chef in a good sushi place will have already flavored the food the way he thinks is just right; maybe he knows something you don't about the combination he's prepared. (On the other hand, in America so many people are in the habit of automatically dipping in wasabi-laced soy that many chefs leave the food bland, knowing whatever subtlety they attempt will be wasted.)

However, if you do like the soy-and-wasabi mixture (like I do when I'm in a less than first class restaurant), here's a trick. Rather than pouring the soy in a dish and then adding wasabi, which results in little clumps of wasabi and an inconsistent texture, first put the wasabi in the dish. Then add a little bit of soy. Mix it up. Then add a little bit more soy. Repeat until satisfied with result. You get a gradually thinning, consistently textured emulsion, exactly as strong as you desire.

Different types of sake want different temperatures. Cheap sake is usually drunk warm; other sake is drunk room temperature, while my favorites are drunk chilled. (As is the unpasteurized variety, which I don't like at all.)

And as everyone says, ignore all rules. Eat with your fingers if you prefer. Or a fork. Tastes the same when it hits the mouth. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]