Miscellaneous desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

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.

March 11

The Great Wikiblizzard, or the NSA chilling effect

Moved to WP:RDC#The Great Wikiblizzard, or the NSA chilling effect

So I just read this piece by JimboWales, and a colleague of his, about the WMF suing the NSA over their snooping through everyone's net activities through so-called upstream surveillance. If it's true that Wikipedia alone has 500 million unique visitors, then it seems like this would be kind of unwieldy. So how does it work? Do they have some programme that assembles—maybe using net crawlers—bits and pieces of info about users based on associated IPs from linked devices—like my phone will have a different IP from my computer most of the time, but I'll log onto FB and Wikipedia from the same device—and automatically constructs a profile based on all that? If so, is there believed to be a profile for every unique net user? And if this programme exists, does it raise a red flag of some sort when some element they dislike appears? Or is it something else? I'm curious. It all sounds rather scary, but I'd like to know the details we at least think we know so I know what I'm supposed to be scared of. The Wikipedia article is not very informative and we have no article on upstream surveillance. Also, on a more important note, could someone kindly institute a block on User:National Security Agency as per WP:CHILLINGEFFECT? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 20 Adar 5775 01:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible; the user doesn't exist. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading this article to aid in understanding the portion in small. Sorry about forgetting the closing small tag. Problem of editting on an iPad. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 20 Adar 5775 02:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry; you're not the only one to forget. I thought maybe a joke, but you could have always made some sort of mistake or misunderstood something :-) Some project pages frequently get requests for doing things to nonexistent pages; WP:AFC/R even has a template that says "we can't create the redirect you suggested, because the target doesn't exist"; perhaps you'd made the same error. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, haha, happens to the best of us. Ah no worries on that one. I was trying to figure out what was the best way to make a joke about banning the NSA for violating WP:NLT, and that was the best I could come up with. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 20 Adar 5775 03:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My misunderstanding seems to have shut down this thread by accident. Since your question's basically about computing, I'm going to move it over to WP:RDC (without the joke, lest someone else distract the discussion) with the same section header. Nyttend (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Labor shortage in Tuscon, Arizona police department ?

They are running ads on TV in Detroit ( > 1000 miles away ), offering $45K a year starting salary and free training for people with no training or experience and just a high school diploma. This seems extraordinarily generous. Is there some reason why this police department is so desperate ? StuRat (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 2,000 miles, actually. Are you aware of their canvassing elsewhere? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I could find various articles stating that the Tucson Police Department is hiring a lot of police officers after years of budget cuts [1] [2], and that other nearby departments are doing so as well (including the infamous one in Pima County), so that may explain the shortage of local candidates. The articles confirm the job conditions you state. I expect that they targeted Detroit because of its perceived economic difficulties; however the unemployment rate in Tucson was 5.9% in December [3], but it has been dropping steadily in Detroit (from 9.9% in July to 6.5% in December) [4]. I expect the advertising campaign was planned before that development. By way of comparison, the national rate was 5.5%, so both cities are above this. The problem may be that recruiters cannot find the right profile of candidates locally (the first article above states that the major recruiting drive was to start in 2013, so it's likely the police department was unable to fill all the slots locally and decided to cast its net wider). An older article from 2008 [5] explains that indeed, while there were many applicants, only a small percentage (19 out of 560) actually make it to training. As for Detroit, the city's financial woes did mean that they did not hire anyone for a decade, but it seems they are back recruiting police officers now. [6] So the targeting by Phoenix may be off on that count as well. --Xuxl (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any indication they might be trying to improve the ethnic diversity of their department? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Costs of living in Detroit and Tucson are almost identical - providing you're renting rather than buying your home. Combine that with the difficulties of living in Detroit compared to Tucson, I could see why they'd target Detroit in a recruiting campaign...especially in the middle of a record-breaking bad winter! But why Tucson is so short of cops is harder to say. SteveBaker (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Looks like it's still a mystery as to why they are this desperate, though. StuRat (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Private fighter jet ownership

Are there any restrictions in the west in say buying up a high performance jet, building your own airfield for it and flying it anyway you want? Because... it seems like the financially endowed prefer helicopters or prop planes for their flight thrills. Whereas, there seems to be a distinct lack of fighter jets regularly flown by private interests for recreational purposes. I don't just don't often hear about people flying around at mach 2.0 for the heck of it. Which seems odd, because the rich are happy to flaunt their wealth in other ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.156.41.125 (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have move this desk from the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, private citizens are not allowed to own military hardware. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the blessed Harrison Ford, pilot of the Millennium Falcon and bearer of the sacred fedora, crash a WWII military trainer plane he owned recently? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 20 Adar 5775 13:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not likely to find planes like his in use for military purposes nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did say military hardware, but you didn't say anything about it having to be current. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 20 Adar 5775 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not allowed to own modern tanks or machine guns, but you might be able to acquire vintage equipment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, please provide a reference for your comment about the machine guns. Dismas|^(talk) 17:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check Gun laws in the United States by state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I guess I missed it. Where does it say that people can't own machine guns? Dismas|^(talk) 18:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where it says "NFA weapons are weapons that are heavily restricted at a federal level by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. These include automatic firearms (such as machine guns), short-barreled shotguns, and short-barreled rifles. Some states and localities place additional restrictions on such weapons." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly speaking, a holder of a Federal Firearms License may own fully-automatic firearms in the United States, and (with caveats) even in states where such weapons are not permitted by state law. These types of firearms are very heavily regulated, so it's a good idea to check with your local sheriff, or consult an attorney, or a local firearms expert. Some states have different rules about ownership and transportation. In the municipality where I live, we have additional local (city) laws that preclude large magazines - we are a national exception, though, as very few municipalities wish to embroil themselves in firearm politicking. This municipal law has drawn national attention, and it may very well be challenged in the United States Supreme Court in the near future. Nimur (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and David Gilmour have all owned (and flown) military jets. Dismas|^(talk) 13:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmour isn't secretly a Scientologist as well, is he? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 20 Adar 5775 13:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist. I don't think I could take it if he were ~~crazy~~ a Scientologist. Dismas|^(talk) 15:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the ref desk troll again. He/she is back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.118.166 (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can find clear examples of private ownership of military jets by typing the words "private ownership of military jets" into Google. One of the results is the Wikipedia article and section "Sukhoi_Su-27#Private_ownership". It seems that owning military jets is not illegal, so long as they have been "demilitarized", that is had all of the ordinance removed and been modified so as to not carry weaponry. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any restrictions I can find based on that Google search. --Jayron 32 13:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Multiple EC) Yes, modern military aircraft and their parts often require the permission of the government of country of the producer for re/sale [7] [8] [9]. Some countries are of course more willing to sell theirs than others Mikoyan MiG-29#In private ownership, and notably the break up of the Soviet Union meant a bunch of countries may have ended up with these aircraft and can basically do what they want with them ~~with~~edit: within reasons [10]. But still they aren't as easy to purchase as civilian aircraft. Many governments may forbid any civilian flight that produces supersonic booms that are heard on land or even all civilian flights at Mach 1.0 or above over land without special permission [11] [12]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are quite a few fighters out there in civilian hands - they have to have all their weapons (and possibly the places where the weapons can be mounted) removed first - but it's definitely do-able. As I understand it, the reason more civilians don't buy them is that they are hideously expensive to fly (need LOTS of jet fuel!) and they are difficult to maintain without a bunch of experts on hand with all of the correct custom equipment. SteveBaker (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual eBay listings#Military vehicles mentions $40,000 a month for 2-3 hours flight time for a F/A-18 Hornet. I'm guessing this doesn't include flight at supersonic speeds. The conditions imposed may make it difficult to fly at supersonic speeds without special permission anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to supersonic aircraft: in the United States, FAA carefully regulates this type of operation. 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 Aircraft Speed limits aircraft speed to 250 knots (below 10,000 MSL) and 200 knots in certain controlled airspace unless special permission is obtained. 14 C.F.R. § 91.817, § 91.819, § 91.821, regulate civil aircraft sonic boom (e.g. supersonic flight). Historically, those regulations were specifically passed for the Concorde (no other notable civil supersonic aircraft was worth the time and effort to regulate). The FAA has worked with other civil aircraft manufacturers on this topic, including Gulfstream. There is an FAA website, the Supersonic Aircraft Noise, dedicated exclusively to dealing with policies and regulations for civil supersonic aircraft. FAA has worked with NASA, manufacturers, and researchers. For most mortals, cost is the single prohibitive factor that precludes this from being a real issue, although now that "commercial spaceflight" is catching interest, that area may also be subject to supersonic aircraft regulation by FAA, as FAA has made clear for FY2015.

With respect to military hardware: in the United States, ITAR regulations (22 C.F.R. §120 and many other regulations) specifically regulate certain types of equipment and information - especially aircraft components that would be suitable for a military-style fighter aircraft. In broad brush-strokes, it is legal for a civilian to own a high-performance jet - like an L-39 Albatross, used by many civil aerobatic demonstration teams whose budgets are limitless; but it is not legal to own or operate or export an F/A-18 except in compliance with certain very specific regulations.

You can read extensively about the back-and-forth politicking on this topic; for example, F-22 was not permitted for export, while F-35 was specifically designed such that it would comply with export regulations: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement. (Generally, "export" is ownership of the aircraft by an entity other than the U.S. government, which is a first step towards eventual ownership by a non-government entity, e.g. a private citizen). Many experts claim that F-35 Lightning II needs less restrictive regulation because it underperforms compared to Raptor. This topic was widely reported in the news a few years ago: Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine (2012); Time Magazine (2012); and many more.

Nimur (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are electricity, gas, and running water required to live comfortably nowadays?

Are electricity, gas, and running water required to live comfortably nowaday? Is it possible to buy a piece of land in an undeveloped suburban division and use one's saved-up money to plant a lot of trees and native flora and then live like a caveman there? 140.254.226.189 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many people nowadays choose to live "off the grid." Oftentimes they will employ some type of solar electrical system, however. Subsistence living via foraging, farming, and hunting is possible. You can buy a piece of land and build a shack and live off the land. Do a google search for "off grid living." Justin15w (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does taking yourself off the grid imply taking yourself out of the community, like choosing public schools (which are determined by physical location)? 140.254.226.189 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to live off the grid in a populated area. However, that may be considered child neglect by the local authorities and they may take your kids away. StuRat (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good chunk of homes outside urban areas use solid fuel with a back boiler to provide central heating, others use oil or gas tanks which are refiled as needed. Some houses use solid fuel fires in the most important rooms, and then hot-water bottles etc to warm beds on cold nights. LongHairedFop (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about migrating to a place with a warmer climate instead of staying in one location? 140.254.226.189 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those places tend to get too hot in summer, and require A/C then. An exception is for small islands in tropical waters, where the temperature can be reasonable year-round. StuRat (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Hunter-gatherer for "caveman" living. One of the key points here is that this kind of society requires... well, a society. It would be very hard to do this without a reasonably sized group to divide the labor among. AT this point you're talking about something like a commune or kibbutz. The other issue is space. Most hunter-gather societies were at least semi-nomadic. It depends on the environment but, without agriculture, it takes quite a good deal of land to support a single person's caloric needs. Thus pre-agrarian societies tended to move around throughout the year to find a continuous supply of food. I don't have a reference, but I'm sure a typical suburban lot planted with native plants isn't going to feed a single person for more than a few days out of the year. 76.175.68.81 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Fine. Then, is it possible to be intentionally homeless while working inside an office building, a hospital, a school, etc.? That may save money of buying a house, a car, and furniture. 140.254.226.189 (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, lots of people do it, see Working poor. I know a guy who held down a number of jobs while living out of his truck, as you suggest he was more or less doing this by choice in order to save money. That being said, the "Obstacles to uplift" section makes it clear there are many challenges associated with this kind of lifestyle. 76.175.68.81 (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, "finding a place to take a shower" is not in there. Personal hygiene is kind of important, because it is related to sanitation and disease. 140.254.226.189 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some workplaces provide shower facilities, whether for work-related reasons, as a general convenience for employees (e.g. those who cycle to work and arrive sweaty), or as part of company sports or gym facilities. I myself made use of the first of these at my previous workplace, for a period when my home hot water system was out of order. For someone in work but homeless, a gym or sports facility membership (especially of a less expensive, municipally run establishment) giving access to showers may also be economically feasible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you live in a van down by the river, you'll have a river. Doesn't work in winter, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know someone who lived in a camper van, and since he lad reasonable looking suits used to just walk into hotels, or camp sites, look for an empty room and have a shower. When that didn't work he'd go to public swimming pools (very cheap). He was living like this to invest all his money in a business and now lives in a huge house with an indoor swimming pool in an expensive part of Surrey, UK. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One issue you might run into is local building codes which may have minimal requirements regarding things like running water and connection to the power grid when considering if a dwelling is "habitable" (example). -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as living comfortably:

Natural gas certainly isn't required, as heat can be generated in many other ways, such as with electricity. It costs more that way, though.

Electricity pretty much is required, in some form, although solar panels or windmills can provide power and yet be off-the-grid (however, being on the grid so you can sell your excess power to the power company, and buy some back when you need more, makes economic sense and avoids needing batteries).

Water is pretty much required. You can use well water, but this usually requires water treatment to make it usable. Unfortunately, water softeners typically add lots of salt to the water.

Sewage can be disposed of using a septic tank, but they require a fair amount of maintenance.

Communication in some form is usually required. Mail might not be enough, as employers, etc., probably want a phone number, at the very least. Many jobs might require an email address these days, too. And, since you are using the internet now, I would guess you would want to continue to do so.

Garbage collection isn't required, as you can drive your trash to the local dump. You might want a pickup truck for this, though, so it won't smell up the interior.

So, of the list above, communication is the only one that is both required for modern life and which you can't do off the grid (unless you can convince everyone you need to communicate with to get a ham radio). StuRat (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, being independently wealthy and living on a self-sustaining land is harder than I thought. Maybe living in a human community is just easier than living in the middle of nowhere. Plus, you are shielded from possible predators. 140.254.226.189 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to one study, cities are safer. Another suggests small cities are more dangerous than big ones or the middle of nowhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised that nobody has linked Off-the-grid. We have several people around Cambridge Bay that live in what is called a "cabin" all year round even now when the temperature is −35 °C (−31 °F). They are usually one or two rooms, although some are better than the houses in town, and may have a Engine-generator to provide some electricity usually for light and an oil-fired stove for heat. If there is no generator then a Coleman Lantern is used and if the oil-fired stove is not suitable for cooking then a Coleman stove, both of which run on White gas, could be used. What ever water they have will be melted ice or some they brought over. Showers will be obtained at a friends or relatives house. Depending on the amount of electricity the place may have a washing machine like this or done at a friends or relatives house. However, for many years people did live in places like Umingmaktok, again year round. In the picture are houses which are identical to the ones in any Nunavut community. They are capable of having electricity and running water but in places like Umingmaktok they would have had neither. Although pretty much deserted now there are other places in the Arctic that are still like that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think having to go to a neighbor to get a shower or do your laundry fails the "comfortably" test for most people. If that's allowed, though, in more populated areas truck stops often have both shower and laundry facilities, as truckers are in need of both. So, an off-the-grid house near one of those might be a good idea. StuRat (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Define "comfortably". All these off-the-grid things seem to require a lot of work (just as our pioneer ancestors had to do), and while some of us may be "comfortable" with that, a lot of us wouldn't be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the first while. But with time, you'd ~~settle in~~ settle in. Not just mentally, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no other option, you'd be resigned to it, which is not quite the same as embracing it. But deliberately making your life more difficult and tedious just doesn't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily difficult and tedious. Then just as much as a "regular day". All relative. Sometimes you have to adapt, but sometimes it's just the better choice. Rat racing is stressful. Some say rats don't need a break, but others say humans could use a bunch. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our ancestors, who may well have been used to the drudgery, nevertheless went for modern conveniences when they became available. If you want to live that way, sure, do whatever turns you on. But our ancestors didn't want to - they simply had no choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our ancestors were many people, spread over generations. They didn't just unanimously jump off the horses and into cars one day. Some got comfortable, some stayed comfortable. Same as today. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they chose to stay primitive, that's their right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've become accustomed to "All the modern inconveniences". Some things that seem like conveniences really aren't. For example, cars seem like a much better way to travel, but when people were subsistence farmers, they rarely left home, so spent fewer hours per week traveling to town and back than we do now, not to mention the time spent working to pay for the car, insurance, gas, repairs, etc. Or sewing your own clothes might seem like a chore, but if you feel you need to replace your entire wardrobe each year with this year's designer fashions, you might well spend more time shopping and working to afford those clothes and dry cleaning than your ancestor did sewing. StuRat (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just travel. The widespread availability of cars, especially after WWI, was liberating. You didn't have to "court" on your parents' front porch anymore. You could get away. The pioneers lived the way they did because they had to. The folks doing this "simple living" stuff know in the back of their minds that they can go back to normal comforts if they get fed up. Our ancestors didn't have that option. And once things like running water and electricity became available, they were all over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are substantial populations that stick with simple living voluntarily, such as the Amish/Mennonites. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's their thing. And they do use modern conveniences when necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All over it, indeed. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Our article on Simple living, as well as its "See also" links and references, may also be of interest. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is still going on? Any answer premised on the fact that the guy has a truck are assuming he has access to gasoline and electricity, it won't run with petrol and a battery--and his existence is still parasitical on others who do have electricity or running water. It's a lot easier to live on foodstamps and spend the whole day on the internet at the public library than it is to be a subsistence farmer in the dark ages. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have the best of both worlds. A man can sit on a semi-automatic horse all day, at the library on his smartphone, reading about agricultural subsidies. Or trolling the little guys at subsistence agriculture.

That lifestyle needs gas. The van down by the river doesn't move, and the river runs without a bill. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They bathe in that river, then? Yuch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not every river is the Detroit River. Freshwater is still often fresh water. But yeah, depends where you are. Some stenches won't get you hired. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The Detroit River is fresh water out of the Great Lakes and provides the drinking water for millions. In 2007 it was judged one of best in North America.[13] Rmhermen (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After treatment, sure. The best thing in that article was the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department. But the river itself is (or was) "aesthetically impaired" by trash, scum and oil. But yeah, it's a big river, and some parts are cleaner than others. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My "yuch" comment was actually in reference to stinking primitives dunking their bodies (and who knows what else) into the water supply. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't speak to your locality, Bugs, but here in what we like to think of as "civilization", water destined for the public supply, which is required to be of potable quality, is extensively treated between leaving open watercourses or reservoirs (where bathing, angling and sailing may be actively encouraged) and winding up in the pipes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Bugs. Most lakes, reservoirs, and water courses used for public water supply are open and available for recreation. Not just people dunking their bodies in it, but also boating as well. Falls Lake provides the drinking water for my house, and people regularly swim and boat in it. Of course, like nearly all open water supplies in the developed world, the water goes through extensive Water treatment so it is clean and safe. Also, don't forget all of the things that the fish are doing in the water. --Jayron 32 15:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If primitives are drinking from the public water supply rather than the streams they're next to, they're compromising their lifestyle theory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be shifting the grounds for your "yuch" from" 'dirty people bathing in the water we drink', to 'dirty people bathing in the water they drink.' The general theme of the OP was about one person living cheaply, not an entire population doing the same. One person would (a) be very stupid and (b) find it physically difficult to bathe in a flowing river and then drink some of the (slightly) dirtied water, and even a small community of same would likely have the wits to take their drinking water upstream from their bathing (and/or elimination) point. As for larger populations doing it, see the Ganges and note that we do not seem to be running short of Indian citizens. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate assumption was that the guy's fellow primitives downstream might not be happy about it. This is kind of a corollary to the Paradox of Saving. If one guy lives primitively and no one else does, then all is well. If a population does, then all is not well, and that's why we don't live primitively if we can avoid it. (And if you're recommending drinking out of the Ganges - no, thank you. If I want to poison myself I'll find another way.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Fran Water Manager Frequently Peed In Reservoir At Work And Won't Be Fired. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These river people have it well, and live the way they do to avoid the modern way. They associate the comforts of the newer world with death and destruction, and rightly so, in their neighbourhood. But they'll still take a gun or machete when it suits them, the same an "urban primitive" will use a drinking fountain without shame.

As for drinking bathwater, the ratio of flowing water to human stank is pretty huge. Even in a creek, you're unlikely to ingest any part of anything that once lived (or died) on your neighbour's balls. There are many other things that can make you sick, though, always good to boil it first.

The current can certainly drown you (or just make you fall on rocks) in places, but if you find a good eddy, you've got a half-decent (cold) Jacuzzi. And something like hot tub residue. Don't drink the eddy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they use public drinking fountains or any other modern convenience, then they're compromising their supposed principles. Pioneers didn't have drinking fountains, they had to pump their water from their well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed by you. The idea usually isn't casting aside every aspect of progress, to make some Luddite point. It's living cheap, with less stress and leaving a small footprint. If the land you're living off had a fountain when you got there, the best case scenario is the same fountain staying there. You don't see city pigeons pass up an apartment building vantage point and stray French fries because their ancestors got by with trees and bugs.

Whether we chose to be free, or were never hooked up, we can't avoid habituation, whatever the habitat. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Free" is a slippery term. If much of your day is spent on drudgery due to a lack of modern conveniences, that's not very "free". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely means a ton of things. I meant it in the on/off grid way, but none of us have free time. There are 24 hours for everyone. If your boss tells you to show up 9-5, Monday-Friday, whether you and yours are in need or not, that seems less free to me. You gotta pay a lot of people you never met with the fruits of your modern drudgery, too. More stuff, more rules. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was stranded at Shanghai Airport once, doing a Tom Hanks impression, and lived comfortably for a week there. They had bathrooms (well, toilets, but with sinks to wash and shave in), and the staff were really nice. I got to know a lot of them, and they would bring me food and drink. I could plug in my laptop and get on the internet. Chat to people, or go for a walk. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 15:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]