Miscellaneous desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

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 27

Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson

I am trying to obtain an address to correspond with Mr. Simpson. Anyone have a current address?

Thank you,

elliottn8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliottn8 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He serves as the co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. There's an email address for the commission listed here, you may have luck reaching someone there who knows how you can contact him. --Jayron32 02:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people litter?

I know it's not universal, but in the parts of Australia I frequent, especially in schools, people litter, despite rational argument and "legislational" pressure to do otherwise. And I hate it!

It happens when there's bins within very easy reach.

As well as hating it, I don't understand it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "not caring". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not caring about what? Many litterers obviously care an awful lot about fashion and how they look, or at least how they think they look. Why would you logically not also care about the look of your immediate environment? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not caring why someone else does care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it's logical? Why not do some OR and ask the litterer next time you see one? Why assume all litterers have the same motive? :) FiggyBee (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just ask them? I'm sure most of them will not hesitate to make clear their attitude. Googling "why people litter" brings up plenty of answers. This is an interesting one.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion affects them personally - people can see what they are wearing and judge them on it. Unless you actually see someone drop litter, you don't know who dropped it so can't judge them personally for it. --Tango (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was sitting on a bench the other day and some guy walked past a bin with a shut lid. Instead of opening the bin's lid, he dropped his rubbish next to the bin, and kept walking. Seriously. 203.206.101.76 (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He might have been lazy, or he might have been somewhat of a germophobe who didn't want to touch the lid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably understandable (not to excuse littering), but the lid probably had no more germs than any door handle or phone mouthpiece or workplace desktop or piece of fruit in a supermarket display. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logically true, but those other objects typically don't smell like trash cans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live and travel, the question is "What bins?" The local arms of the state being convinced to remove them by infectious security theatre. Surprisingly I found, the other day, a bin installed in a large piece of transport infrastructure, proudly boasting, "Your new bin." Now maybe they can reinstall the bins on the bloody trains. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to talk a bit about the psychology of littering. People litter when they think "it won't make a difference". This can happen in two ways:

1) They think the place is so messy already that their contribution hardly matters.

2) They think that, if they litter, somebody else will quickly clean it up.

Then there's people who don't want to litter, but feel like they will be punished if they try to do the right thing. For example, dumps which charge hefty fees inspire people to dump their junk wherever they can for free. The solution here is for everyone to pay the disposal fee for each item when they buy it, like the bottle deposit some of us pay now. That money would then go to the scrap yard when they collect the item. They could even give a portion of it back to the person who brought it in, to reward them, rather than punish them, for doing the right thing. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing that there's so much off-the-cuff speculation in this thread, and so little effort to find real research and proper sources. We're a Reference Desk, and we're supposed to help people to find references. Keep America Beautiful conducted a very detailed survey, published in 2009, which looked at litter occurrence and litter-related behavior. This page provides links to the full study and to an executive summary. The 'Conclusions and Recommendations' section of the full study (page 54) and the 'References' (page 59) may also be helpful; the latter section offers pointers to the scholarly literature and some non-U.S.-specific sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some other thoughts on why people litter:

A) The variable inconvenience of carrying the item must be considered.

B) As must the variable impact littering with that item will have on the environment.

So, a smouldering cigarette butt is quite inconvenient to carry, and not very harmful to the environment (unless it's fire season), so squashing it on the pavement is seen by many as a favorable option over holding onto it until you come across an approved receptacle. Similarly, bits of food (apple core, banana peel, sandwich crust) are messy to keep with you, and biodegrade quickly, so tossing them into the woods isn't all that bad.

For an artistic take on littering, listen to Alice's Restaurant, which is nominally about that topic.

The most recent littering problem is due to disposable plastic water bottles, which now litter the landscape. (Ironically, people buy them because they think bottled water is healthier, when tap water poured into a glass bottle (so it won't leach chemicals into the water) is often healthier.) StuRat (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish variants and their approach to Jewish Law

How do Progressive Jews, conservative Jews and Orthodox Jews approach dietary laws for Judaism? Do they all follow the exact same rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollie1661 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Jews follow all dietary laws as laid out in the Talmud and Oral Law; this is considerably stricter in many areas than the laws laid out in the Torah, since they do not want to run the risk of accidentally breaking one of these. For example, many Orthodox households have multiple sets of plates to avoid cross-contamination between meat and dairy. Many Progressive Jews disregard dietary laws entirely, or reinterpret them for the modern day. For example, the injunction to not "seeth a kid in its mother's milk" (Exodus 23:19) can be read literally, rather than the traditional interpretation banning all combination of meat and dairy products. Conservative Jews tend to fall somewhere in the middle, either following some but not others, or following all but disregarding some of the stricter 'optional' practices. Xindhus (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience (OR) the laws are acknowledged to be essentially the same for all traditions, but the degree to which they are observed is a personal choice. As an example, the only part of kashrut we observed at home when my father was alive was eating meat such as pig or shellfish at home; even though to an orthodox view there is little difference between food which is by its nature treyf (such as pig) and meat which has not been killed and prepared properly.

The correlation between adherence to a particular sect and observance is rather weak, though it is more than zero: if a family observes strict kashrut at home, I would expect them to belong to one of the more orthodox congregations, but this doesn't always follow. Many of my relatives belong to the United Synagogue, but most of them do not observe strict kashrut.

I think that's a fair summary. Most Orthodox Jews adhere to kashrut, most Reform Jews do not, and Conservative Jews generally some do, some don't, and those who care make certain not to eat over at the houses of those who don't. This applies only to North America.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More OR here: not only does this differ by country and by tradition, there's also an age difference. For example, older members of an Orthodox family might not think that the laws apply to candy and are shocked when their grandchildren aren't allowed coloured sweets when visiting. (This was a big to-do recently at one of the local Jewish seniors' centres.) Similarly, 100 years ago it was frequently remarked within the Jewish community that you could tell how poor a family was by how closely they followed the laws: the poorer, the more meticulous they were. On RMS Titanic there was no market for kosher meals among the Jewish passengers in first or second class - they're documented to have enjoyed the same fare as non-Jews. Only in Third Class was there a separate kosher cook. --NellieBly (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also observed the age phenomenon, but it's only true in my experience, on the fringes of Orthodoxy, and IMHO is strongly associated with lack of Jewish education available to or accessed by that generation. Among those who are more learned, or more from a more right-wing Orthodox background, the phenomenon is greatly reduced or not apparent at all. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Environment and recession

Does recession help the environment? Sumalsn (talk)

Because there is less production? You have to balance that against older cars on the road, more people burning wood to help with heating (if they can get it free or cheap) and similar.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that with higher motor fuel prices, more drivers are cruising slowly on the motorways to avoid using too much.[1] Alansplodge (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If fewer people work, there are fewer journeys to and from work to pollute the environment: if fewer people have to travel on business there are fewer journeys made. So I suppose in that way it could. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but then you have people staying at home and keeping the air conditioning or heating on High during the day with the TV or computer on, and I'd think it would even out. The big saving would I think be on the corporate side: less office space occupied means less electricity needed. --NellieBly (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're other of work, you may not use the heating or airconditioning much due to financial reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caffine

Does caffine constrict or dilate blood vessels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.66.46 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The technical terms (to help with searching) are vasoconstriction and vasodilation. The vasoconstriction article list caffine as a vasoconstrictor, and Health effects of caffeine notes that the vasoconstrictive effects are due to it blocking the adenosine A2 receptors, which normally promote vasodialation. -- 71.35.105.132 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]