Miscellaneous desk
< November 4	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 6 >

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.

November 5

Meganekko

Why are anime characters cuter with glasses? --128.42.153.147 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger eyes are inherently cuter, see paedomorphosis. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual incest

I just finished reading Laws_regarding_incest#United_States, but do the laws indicated there apply to homosexual relationships, as well? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Occam's Razor would apply here; if it isn't explicitly excluded, you can assume it's included. And why would they exclude same-sex instances of incest? The law prohibits sexual activity between closely related family members. It's not just about the risk of producing deformed children. Just because same-sex relationships are behind the 8-ball in terms of recognition and equality, does not mean that the law is not aware that people of the same sex sometimes have sex. If it's consenting adults, that's generally accepted these days. But where these people are closely related family members, they're just as much in breach of the law as opposite sex people would be. A law that says a man can't have sex with his sister but is perfectly at liberty to have sex with his brother, would be a very dumb law. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the origin of the incest taboo is that incest leads to inbreeding. This can't happen in the case of homosexual incest, so it's a valid question. However, the reality is that when you combine the people who object to incest and those who object to homosexuality, you get more than enough to keep it illegal, in most places. Think of what would happen to the average politician, if he suggested legalizing homosexual incest. His opponent would have ads on TV claiming he is in favor of both incest and homosexuality (and probably sex with children), and he would be soundly defeated in the next election, or even recalled. StuRat (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, being dumb does not always stop dumb laws being created. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb? How often does homo incest produce inbred children? μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read my post. Particularly this sentence: "It's not just about the risk of producing deformed children".

(Ironico-synchronistically, while I was typing this I was listening to a piece of music by Enrique Granados called "El pelele".) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? Is that about homosexual incest ? StuRat (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Did you see the translation? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

After reading way too much of both articles, yes. It would be simpler if you just told us. To save everyone else the trouble, it translates as "The Straw Man", and, despite the link, there appears to be nothing ironic or synchronistic about the composer. StuRat (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Congratulations for making the most deliberately obtuse statement of the year. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

You're guilty of making the same assumptions as another poster in another Q today, which you commented upon here: [1]. In this case, since you provided two links, either could be what you were talking about. The composer could very well have been a homosexual incest survivor, for example, with the piece of music just mentioned in passing, versus the other way around. StuRat (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I'm sorry if I spoke too opaquely. Let me be clear: Medeis's question was getting into straw man territory. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Much clearer, thanks. StuRat (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

While the origin of the opposite-sex incest taboo was to prevent deformed children, same-sex incest tends to be seen as just as shameful as far as I can find. The closest I can find to acceptance of same-sex incest is modern western pornography (especially twins, because double your pleasure) which we all know is a perfect measure of a culture's moral standards. At least in the US, undeniable incest (as opposed to the debatable forms like cousin marriage) tend to be abusive. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ian's last point is the true problem with anyone getting the laws changed. An activity that could potentially be a victimless crime, but is almost exclusively practiced (in the public's eye) by child molesters, is unlikely to garner much support. The same thing is true of polygamy, which is most publicly practiced by communities such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and Warren Jeffs did a good job making the practice look like an excuse to have sex with teenage girls. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In the UK, for example, it's illegal to have sex with your step-father/mother/siblings, not because it would leave to deformed children, but because there would almost always be an abuse of trust involved on some level. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in my question did I say anything about adult-child relationships. What about same-sex incest between adult father and son, sisters, first cousins? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My response made no assumptions about the ages of the people involved. I can't speak for anyone else. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question to the poster: YES. I didn't look up all 50 states, just NJ since it was the first I found. You can read the statute here. It prohibits sex between certain blood relatives with no reference to the gender of the alleged perpetrator or the alleged victim (if the victim is under 16), so homosexual activity would also be criminal. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving of text messages

Following the latest rumours of "salacious" texts between David Cameron and Rebekah Brooks, I'm wondering about the archiving of text messages in the United Kingdom (not interested in other countries). If a recipient of a text deletes it from his phone (and if the sender also deletes it from sent items), is a copy retained on a phone company server somewhere, or is it gone forever? And if copies are retained, are the phone companies legally obliged to provide those copies to the police or courts if asked to do so? --Viennese Waltz 09:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A draft bill along these lines is currently in the works. BBC: Draft Communications Data Bill could lead to 'police state', This snooping bill is worthy of a surveillance state. However, the current legislation seems to be the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I can't understand legalese enough to really read it, but it seems police can get a warrant for such data already and presumably if there is a warrant the telecom company must comply. The other part I can't figure out is whether the RIPA legislation requires the telecom company to store messages so they can be subpoenaed for them. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it currently requires the sending number, receiving number, exact date/time and probably the sending and receiving cell identities to be retained, but not the contents of the message itself. (Similar with emails.) Even the new legislation under consideration doesn't cover message contents, I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Telecommunications data retention, the system in UK is largely 'voluntary' (which in these sort of things usually means it's clear to the companies if they don't voluntary do it, legislation will result which will likely make things more difficult). As 184 said, the contents themselves don't have to be retained. Generally speaking, because of the way the SMS system works, it could easily remain on servers for a few days (or even more) after being delivered but the length will depend on many things. (I won't speak more on this because I don't have any UK specific information and you specifically asked not to include info on other countries.) Do bear in mind that 'deleting' a SMS in no way guarantees it's unrecoverable from the phone or SIM (depending on where it was stored). Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casino NSW notable people

Sorry this old guy gives up surely whenauthentic articles are deleted you could in simple steps tell me where I am going wrong. I`m certainly not a World Champion at this caper. Good healthCasinoboy28 (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of other editors, the OP is talking about this edit [2]. Well firstly, you don't sign contributions in articles (that's just for talk pages and this reference desk). Secondly, you can't just add details of someone who you think is notable without providing some kind of reference. If you think Mr Browning is a notable enough figure to be added to the list, you need to be able to support that with references to him in already published books, magazines or newspapers. Good luck, --Viennese Waltz 11:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think you are wanting to continue the discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Casino NSW notable people, rather than start a new one here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, better yet, at Talk:Casino, New South Wales. —Tamfang (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

80's 90's wtf?

Okay,this question has been stepping on me for the longest,no one I know seems too no.HOW DID THE 80'S BECAME THE 90'S?74.178.177.227 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time advanced from 11:59pm December 31, 1989 to 12:00am January 1, 1990. --Daniel

I mean,did people start wearing their pants normal and got rid of their afro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.177.227 (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fashions change. Obviously they have changed since the 90s too. Fashions did not change suddenly, nor was there any other sharp change between the decades. Most people wore the same clothes and hair styles in 1990 that they wore in 1989. The late 80s and early 90s were very similar in many ways. When we talk about "the 80s" or "the 90s", we are generalizing about the most memorable or unusual events or styles that are remembered from some part of either of those decades. By the way, afros and bell bottom pants weren't worn much during the 80s. (Well, maybe afros in the early 80s, but not much after about 1985.) Those things were typical of the 70s. (Yes, I lived through all of those decades.) Marco polo (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only fashion,but technology,music,etc.74.178.177.227 (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC from the pinups of Phoebe Cates and Tom Cruise and Debbie Gibson on my sisters' rooms as a kid, the late 80s and early 90s was the era of men in leather jackets and aviator shades, and women with either big blown-away hair or boyishly cut ones, and incredibly corny music. No afros or bellbottoms.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as someone who was there (sorry, this is original research, not really allowed but it's the best I've got!) I remember changing my trousers about the 14th of November 1989, we all knew the 90s were coming and I decided not to wait, some people started even earlier, like 1987, Wow! can you believe those crazy front runners. But to balance it there were quite a few people who could not let go of those years and didn't change their clothes until about 1993. Unbelievable but true. I know someone who has not changed yet, 20 years later, like in a time warp. I got my Afro trimmed back slowly over about 6 months in February 1990, I had heard about that Sampson dude and I was like "no way Jose, am I gonna lose my strength and stuff". A lot of folks had their hair cut right back in the first week of January like the fashion columns said you should, and it was so weird seeing these people with really short hair, they were like almost unrecognizable, but we got by knowing the clothes they wore. It was crazy times. Yes, wtf? indeed. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question that has been bugging me about this is "Why the apostrophes?" HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking "Why is there an apostrophe in 90's?": Some American style guides prescribe it; some don't. Everywhere else in the world it's frowned upon. I'm assuming OP is American from his IP.

Wrong you are,I am a brilliant hacker of the right age.74.178.177.227 (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking "Why did some American prescriptivist introduce extraneous apostrophes?": To denote plurals in non-English words. Suppose you discover a new animal called "xyz" in a foreign land and then proceed to write home about it. If you pluralize it as "xyzs" your readers can't tell whether you're about talking a single thing called "xyzs" or a collection of "xyz". Adding an apostrophe solves this problem. Some prescriptivist decided to broaden the rule to "add an apostrophe to the plural form of any non-English word". Since "90" isn't an English word its plural form must be rendered as "90's". A8875 (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught to render it as '90s, with the reasoning that the apostrophe goes before the 90 because it is indicating an abbreviated form. And let's just say that this is the first time I have seen that assertion regarding pluralization. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The apostrophe in "'90s" actually serves a different purpose. Going by the list on Apostrophe, '90s would be purpose #1: "marking of the omission of one or more letters"; 90's would be purpose #3:"marking as plural of written items that are not words". It's a pity that Google search doesn't preserve punctuations, otherwise searching for "'90's" could provide some good laughs on a rainy day. A8875 (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What bugs me is: when will we have a wildcard for digits, that doesn't look like a zero? —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic example of a question where the questioner assumes the reader knows what he's thinking. That's not a reasonable assumption to make. I'm not putting you down, questioner, but re-read both the header and the original question, and tell me if you can see even the slightest reference to fashion. It could have been about so many other things. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess the OP is young. I've noticed young people don't have a fully developed theory of mind. Thus, whatever they are thinking about, they assume everyone else is thinking about the same thing, and wherever they are, they assume everyone else is there too. StuRat (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong you are,for I want to known everything about how 80's 90's.74.178.177.227 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could learn to write a proper English sentence. Do you mean you want to know how the 80's differed from the 90's, how they were the same, or both ? StuRat (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps: wtf = Why the fashion?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to know the things of to day used to look like [link removed].74.178.177.227 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the pictures in those Yahoo Image search results has a trojan, btw, at least according to my AV. Not your fault. But I have removed the link just the same.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool.74.178.177.227 (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In international politics, the end of the Cold War was the defining event which separated the 80s from the 90s. Although it began in 1989 and ended in 1992 or later, the transition was most intense in 1990 itself. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the Singing Revolution in the Baltic states, the democratisation of Czechoslovakia and its subsequent dissolution in the Velvet Divorce, the increasingly violent collapse of Yugoslavia - the whole Autumn of Nations changed the face of the world. And the leaders changed too - from Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev to George H W Bush, John Major and Boris Yeltsin.

Home computers leapt ahead - genuinely effective home PCs and fast-moving games consoles became available. Popular music media (including the increasingly dominant MTV) moved from focussing on synthesiser-heavy styles to move 'rockist' guitar-based styles. Strongly political popular music became less emphasised as well - indeed, political apathy was the order of the day. Here in the UK, satellite TV offered a wide range of channels for the first time.AlexTiefling (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill clinton and the rise of Fox television in the uS are much more '90's than GHWB. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rising popularity of Grunge music in the early 90s was a major reason that styles changed. I sure remember that what I wore changed in the years after Smells Like Teen Spirit and others became popular in 1991-92. Also, what you see in movies and on TV as 80s style clothes wasn't what everyone wore, rather they are almost caricatures of the popular styles.Tobyc75 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, almost caricatures, but not quite because some people (on screen or in music videos or in promo shots) did wear those things. Equally, most people did not wear anything so extreme. At a different level of "not quite real", you can do a google image search for "1980s school uniforms", and yes, many thousands of children were indeed forced to wear those various types of odd-looking (to us) school uniforms, but equally, the image search throws up the images, and uniforms, that we or previous searchers have found intriguing. It doesn't rank the pics by how many kids were actually wearing that style of uniform in that era. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School uniforms? Surely a very parochial aspect. Where? And who is the "us" to whom they are "intriguing"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uniforms didn't become common in public schools (as opposed to Catholic and other private schools) until the '90's, in response to crime and gang activity. See the broken windows theory. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not till the 1990s? That may be true in the USA but it's very untrue for Australia and I'm sure many other countries of the Commonwealth. Change it to 1890s and it might be closer to our truth. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so, as a little clicking around those search results will reveal. And indeed, a search for "1990s school uniforms" will also produce some odd results, but many are clearly more about earlier Commonwealth-influenced eras than recent escape-from-gang-culture eras. There's a big difference between having to wear shirt and trousers to school, as opposed to having to wear short shorts and shirt and tie and blazer and cap and socks of a certain length to school. Still, if the more limited type of uniform helps to cut down gang problems anyway, all the better.

The UK, weirdly or not, disposed of a lot of uniforms in state schools between the late 1980s and the late 1990s... but individual schools are now bringing them back in enthusiastically... for mostly the same reasons. The ties are now elastic instead of ones you tie yourself, though.

Finally, in answer to HiLo48's question, the British public at least (a substantial fraction of our readership) seems to find old-era school uniforms fascinating - thus the endless "school uniform disco" nights for the 20-somethings. Of course, their rather older would-be peers also find wearing Nazi outfit hilarious, so it's not necessarily an indication of good taste. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never once saw public school students in America wearing school uniforms while I attended in the '70's and '80's, not locally, and not in conferences all along the East Coast. It was only with the general rise of charter schools and in certain urban areas in the '90's that they became somewhat common outside private schools. My mother never wore a uniform in Philly in the '40's or /50/s, but my father, who went to a parochial school, did. Wearing a uniform was pretty much the badge of being a Catholic school kid. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]