Miscellaneous desk
< September 1	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 3 >

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.

September 2

Gods kingdom

How many animals in Gods kingdom will happily eat their own fresh vomit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.154.239 (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Do you mean how many individual animals or how many species? Also do you mean specifically here on earth or across the whole universe? Wanderer57 (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it in both dogs and cats. That's a start (anectodal as it is). Steewi (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been asked before (word for word, as I recall). I suggest you check the archives to see what responses there were that time. --Tango (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's some kind of a tradition - I believe the very first question ever asked on the Wikipedia reference desk was essentially this one. SteveBaker (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I say "before" I mean in the past couple of weeks... --Tango (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first question ever was a bit different: Why dogs it other dogs' poop? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - yes. That's right. I was close though! SteveBaker (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that they're doing it happily? Corvus cornix_talk 18:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well nobody's forcing them to do it. I duno about other animals, but dogs do this all the time; so much so in fact that the phrase "a dog's breakfast" has come to mean vomiting in the street after a night of drinking. It's probably instinctual behavior. In the wild I'd imagine any animal which eats it's own vomit does it for one of two reasons, either to leave no trace to predators and prey or to conserve food and energy. Also Dan Joyce is famous for this. JessicaThunderbolt 19:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

poster mysteries to solve

I'm trying to find copies of World War II era health protection posters. One is a baseball-themed prophylaxis poster. (I can't remember the exact title of it). The other is titled "You Can't Go All Out When You're Feeling All In". I've seen them somewhere on the Internet. But I can't remember where off the top of my head. If anyone has any information, please let me know. Thank you so very much.72.229.139.13 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching 'propaganda posters'? Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried several times. But I get thousands upon thousands of hits. It's time consuming to go through all of them. What can I do? Any ideas?72.229.139.13 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THe posters are probably produced by the Public Health Service, if that helps narrow things down. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would also help narrow your search if you have a specific interest in posters directed at military personnel (in which case, check the armed forces for their health archives) vs. civilians. -- Deborahjay (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please help me.

What is the sole purpose of a case study house???

We have an article on Case Study Houses, though I'm not sure if this is what you're asking about -- case study may be of more use. In either event, I think a sole purpose is unlikely. — Lomn 13:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of fibrous plaster board sheets as internal cladding

There is a house in country victoria (Australia)... One part is lined with large ,i think prefabricated, sheets of plaster board. These are predominantly fiber, possibly coconut, with plaster all through the fiber mat and creating a paintable plastered internal suface. I hope someone knows when they might date from.Merelyn saunders (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prefabricated boards which are "predominantly fiber" in an old house are very likely asbestos (ie, Fibro). If they're damaged or individual fibers are breaking off they are a serious health hazard, and you (or the owner) should get them professionally assessed and removed - do not attempt to remove, paint, drill holes in, or do anything yourself. FiggyBee (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this sounds a lot like asbestos - especially if it's in an older house. Asbestos fibres are really dangerous if you breathe them into your lungs. If there is any dust from these boards floating around in the air - that could be REALLY bad. If that's what it is, you need professional help to get rid of the stuff. Mixing fibres into plaster to make a stronger kind of plaster board (aka "sheet-rock" if you're an American) is a great idea - but fibrous asbestos would have seemed like a great idea before we discovered the horrible health problems associated with the stuff. Coconut fibres are a possibility - but they aren't fire-resistant like asbestos is - so that would be a less likely choice. SteveBaker (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre 1930's perhaps. The fibers might well be horsehair. Lath and plaster doesnt have much extra info. Asbestos (as used in cement sheeting later on) would have had to travel a long way at that time, (W.A or Queensland). Apart from dust a common hazard if you do any work is that the wall often doesn't have any other bracing apart from the laths, so the wall falls down when the plaster and laths are removed.

Just to clarify, plaster will be white and chalky, cement sheet will be gray. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

screaming old doll head

what material is screaming old doll head made of? and how can i get some Bradley10 (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of anything called 'screaming old doll head', and neither has google. What are you talking about, exactly? Algebraist 10:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a doll's head that is screaming? Pug power (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or is "screaming" an adverb modifying "old" which in turn modifies "doll head?" Edison2 (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew a lady who made old-fashion style dolls that even won awards at shows or conventions or whatever they have for those things. She used clay for the heads, hands and feet. Cloth, wire and stuffing for the body, and all sorts of things for the hair and clothing. - Lamba jan 03:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you based ?86.219.161.126 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

famous quote help

i need some good famous quotes on civil liberties, can anyone help?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.7.133 (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this and this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity in images

Are there any websites that publish nudity but NOT pornography. A large archive would be preferred. Both genders or single gender sites are both fine. --217.227.89.30 (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this site. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get a decent answer, you probably would want to more precisely define what makes something "pornography" in your eyes (or why you're looking specifically for non-porn nudity). The subject of what does/does not rise to the level of pornographic/obscene is highly observer dependent, to the point where it is the origin of the phrase "I know it when I see it". (Some people think that any non-medical nudity is pornography, whereas others don't mind it as long as it's "art", which brings in the whole question of "what is art?".) - I will note that WP:Wikipedia is not censored, so you may be able to find what you're looking for on Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of nude images at WP:BADIMAGES. Don't let the name of the link fool you. Dismas|^(talk) 23:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domai does, from what I hear on the Internets. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV maps

are there any links to maps that show where CCTV cameras are?? like the one's that show speed camera's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.7.133 (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a particularly country/city/place in mind? I doubt you will be able to get 'all' cctv - you may be able to find maps that document the location of 'public' cctv (or government owned) - this website (http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/sc_cctv_map_camera_locations.htm) looks like it is for one of the boroughs of the UK. I doubt a ordinance-survey style map exists as cctv cameras probably number in the millions, whereas fixed cameras for speeding (based on this site http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/Gatso.htm) is much more manageable at around 4,500 (GATSO account for 90% of fixed cameras and there are around 4,000 of those apparently). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ya, UK is the place. What about graphs that show an increase in surveilance over the years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.7.133 (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how many work legal work days per year are there in the states?

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyhammaker (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. There is no day on which it is illegal, per se, to work. --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Most jurisdictions in the U.S. do not impose limits on what constitutes "work days". That is, there is no requirement that certain days of the week, or certain holidays, be days off, nor that employees receive any certain amount of vacation or sick leave. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant articles: Public holidays of the United States 40-hour week 40-hour work week (oddly, the last two do not redirect to the same article) --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed!) SteveBaker (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Glow sticks

Why does the article omit the fact that there are glow sticks that emit WHITE light? I have these, and you could get them from Sportsman's Guide and other Sporting/Emergency Preparedness outfitters. 205.240.146.95 (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. It mentions that white glow sticks can be made using a mixture of 2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl 1,4,5,8-tetracarboxynaphthalene diamide and 9,10-diphenylanthracene. Algebraist 22:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Armourtrading

Why did she chose the name of a weapons dealer for her stage name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.154.239 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably be better off asking her. See if you can find an official website, or something. --Tango (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Joan Armatrading? If so, it seems that it is her birth name and not just her stage name. Dismas|^(talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Are you referring to Joan Armatrading (whose name has nothing to do with weapons or dealing in them), or to some new person on the scene who doesn't have a WP article yet and who based her name on Joan Armatrading? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography

Is it, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.154.239 (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that different people enjoy or do not enjoy different forms of pornography, yes. --Tango (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. In that some people think things are pornographic whilst others do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.154.239 (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of pornography is relatively straightforward—there are only a few gray areas. The definition of obscenity is much more contentious. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because very few people like gray areas in their pornography. :-) SteveBaker (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember my father reading and quoting with relish "Pornography is in the groin of the beholder" long before I was able to understand the joke. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See I know it when I see it. Corvus cornix_talk 02:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As 98.217 says, that's about obscenity, rather than pornography, which are different concepts. Pornography is basically any visual media intended to cause sexual arousal. Whether or not it's obscene is far more subjective. --Tango (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the Bigger Threat?

Lately, a lot of people have looked to the Middle East as the future source for a WW3 type conflict, what with everything going on now. However, there are others who cast a wary glance at North Korea, China, and even the United States, but I think the ones we should be worried about are Nazis. After WWII, there have been indications that the nazis were far from finished in accomplishing their goal for Lebansbraun(?) or world domination and since then rumors indicate that future members are striving for a "Fourth Reich". Things happening now are almost similar to what was going on prior to WWII: international strife, worldwide economic pressures (albeit more serious than now, but still), and despondent people, all of which served as fodder for the Third Reich to feed upon and grow stronger while we ignored them. Can we afford to ignore them now? I know terrorsists everywhere shouldn't be overlooked, but to me the nazis just shouldn't be ignored, I mean there's more of them now then during the war or maybe I'm over reacting to this. Is there any real reason to worry about a future war with a "Fourth Reich"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.47.173 (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, you're overreacting. "Neo-Nazi" is synonymous with "mostly powerless cranks". They have no real relation to the National Socialists of WWII either other than misguided ideas. The founders of the actual Nazi party were politicians and organizers. Current neo-Nazis are fringe rednecks. Your account of the causes of the rise of National Socialism are vague to the point of uselessness. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, before you make up these theories, you should be familiar with the topics that you're basing them upon. It's evident that you don't considering your spelling of Lebensraum. Dismas|^(talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(from the page header:) Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are more Nazis now than during WWII (and I'm not convinced that's true), it's only because they're more widespread. There is certainly no country in Europe (I won't generalise to the rest of the world due to limited knowledge, but I don't know of any country outside Europe either, although some may come close) with a large Nazi party (or other party with similar ideology). To fight a war you have to be in charge of a country (or a large part of one), a few isolated groups of extremists cannot fight a war (despite the propaganda used by the current US administration, the "war on terror" is not a war). --Tango (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for anyone who lives in Guatemala

I read that the average height of a man in Guatemala is 5 feet, 2 inches at that the average woman is 4 feet, 6 inches. How accurate is this? 67.150.126.178 (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Human height. The source for this statistic is an anthropological study from the 1970s [1], which says that Maya people in Guatemala average 5'2" for men and 4'8" for women (not 4'6" like our article says). This leaves out everyone in Guatemala who isn't Mayan. What the percentage of Mayans versus non-Mayans is, I don't know. Darkspots (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Guatemala, which cites the CIA world factbook, 40.3% of the population are classed as Mayans of various types. Algebraist 11:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which would imply that the other 59.7% of the population of Guatemala would very likely have a different average height. I wouldn't put much stock in any of these height statistics. Darkspots (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]