Welcome to the Wikipedia Science 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.
In reference to the premise behind the manner in which choke holds are effective, I find it difficult to understand how a chokehold such as the rear naked choke can "immediately deprive the brain of oxygen" ("safe application" section) if the vertebral arteries continue to supply blood to the Circle of Willis. I can hear that there's not enough blood flow, and so perhaps there's not enough oxygen for the victim of the choke hold to continue normal function, but to say that the brain is "immediately deprived of oxygen" suggests that there is no oxygen supply. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)06:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to my Chambers Dictionary (1979), the meaning of "deprived" is as follows: to dispossess; to keep out of enjoyment; to remove (as in remove from office). According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/depriveit means to prevent from possessing or enjoying; to keep from possessing or enjoying; to remove from rank or office. It seems that DRosenbach is correct and StuRat is wrong (again). Wickwack 120.145.140.205 (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That definition doesn't say to "TOTALLY prevent from possessing or enjoying", you just made that part up. See relative deprivation. You can't have a relative amount of an absolute, that makes no sense: "To relatively TOTALLY prevent from possessing or enjoying". A common phrase is a "deprived childhood", which means they had fewer material goods as a child, not none (they would have died in short order without any food, for example). Another common use is in the phrase sleep deprivation, which just means not enough sleep, not no sleep. Here's another example: "Excessive homework deprives children of time with their families" [1]. Obviously, this doesn't mean they don't see their families at all. And sensory deprivation, as our article states, includes a "reduction" in stimuli. Here are synonyms for "abridge" (meaning to reduce) which includes "deprive of": [2].
So, once again, Wickwack, in a blind attempt to attack me, you didn't bother checking your facts and sources first, made me waste my time to prove your wrong, and the time of everyone else who reads your incorrect comments. StuRat (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with StuRat on the 'deprivation' thing. However it seems to me all of these are somewhat approaching this from the wrong way anyway. We're talking about medical usage. If you check out Cerebral hypoxia and Hypoxia (medical), it's clear being deprived of oxygen doesn't mean completely deprived. If you don't like wikipedia, you could easily find other sources with the same usage. As the first article attest, particularly when it comes to the brain being deprived of oxygen even if it's only temporary and incomplete can have fairly bad effects. Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.
Here again we see StuRat come back when he has been refuted - he can't accept being disagreed with and can get quite ridiculous and silly. Silly because he tries to defend what was initially just a simple human mistake. If his time has been wasted then that is his choice alone - I neither requested nor forced a response from him. His comment about me not bothering to check my facts is bizare considering that I directly quoted from a highly regarded dictionary (Chambers) and backed it up with an online link. I also checked some other dictionaries but did not mention them as there was no difference.
I cannot see why StuRat linked to the relative deprivation article (Relative deprivation is the experience of being deprived of something to which one believes oneself to be entitled) as this is both a technical term and a completely different concept - "relative" used in the context of relating to reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.3.218 (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, as it is known that Wikipedia is read by folk whose first language is not English, I feel it is worth while to show why DRosenbach is correct and StuRat is wrong. Here's the relavent principles:-
1. As I said before, the dictionary meaning is dispossess, remove, keep out/from, and the like. These are all or nothing words.
2. DRosenbach is correct in that blood flow in the circumstances of the article is not completely cut off, therefore the word "deprive" has been used incorrectly. It was used incorrectly as because of it a reader can validly (under the rules of English) take it to mean total cutoff of oxygen, just as DRosenbach said. Even if you accept that partial cuttof is a valid interpretation, it is still not good English as then there are two interpretations when there should be only one.
3. Expressions like "Excessive homework deprives children of time with their families" is not particularly good English, but is a use different to the use DRosenbach cited and never the less is valid because time is not a singlular non-divisble object. A portion of the child's family time has been taken away, not all the family time and this is clearly what is meant. In contrast, the expression "immediately deprive the brain of oxygen" is validly understood to be total loss of oxygen.
Let's say you have a 3 x 45 mm steel nail. I can either take it from you wholely, or leave you with it in its' entirety. I cannot, not without cutting tools anyway, merely reduce your possession of this nail. It is appropriate to write "Wickwack deprived StuRat of his nail" and it means Stu lost his nail completely.
Let's say I reduce the water pressure to Stu's house. It is NOT valid to say "I have deprived StuRat of water" - he still has water. We could say, if Stu then has problems resulting from the low pressure, "Wickwack has deprived StuRat of his enjoyment of water", or (better) "Wickwack has deprived StuRat of full water pressure." See the difference?
It is quite valid to write "It deprives the brain of adequate oxygen" (which is how the articles cited by Nil Einne start off), but not valid to write "It deprives the brain of oxygen", unless the brain is totally cut off from oxygen. See the difference?
4. The word "deprived" may get some common use in a partial effect context, as do many expressions in common informal and spoken use. But in things like encyclopedias, wikipedia articles, scientific papers, etc, the correct dictionary meanings should be used. Otherwise, readers may be confused, as the non-verbal clues in human communication are not available. For example teenagers these days say "Cool" to mean "That's good", "I like it", "Thank you" and similar. In earlier days teenagers used the word "gas" in a similar way (as in "It's a gas!"). Both, in theory, are a misuse as neither word means "good". However, they have become common use, so it's ok to use in speech and informal writing. But not in formal writing.
Actually it seems clear from the articles I cited the meaning is unclear whatever you say the dictionary says. Hence why for clarity both articles always make it clear whether or not they are talking about complete or total deprivation of oxygen rather then just assuming people will follow the definition used in some dictionaries and complicated technical arguments about what the word should mean in the context. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purely original research, but I used to do a bit of Judo and have been on the wrong end of this hold a couple of times. My memory is that you are still able to breathe, but after a few seconds a large black patch appears in your vision and you realise that it's time to tap for a submission before loss of conciousness becomes an issue. I'll leave you to argue over the wording. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand of the various articles on choking, there are two main types of choking described:
Blood choking
Air choking
The choking I was referring to, such as the rear naked choke, is described as a blood choke, in that the vessels supplying the brain with oxygenated blood are actively blocked by the position of the attacker's upper and lower arm, while the trachea is left patent within the crook (inner concavity of the elbow) of the attacker's arm. The point being, I believe, that the trachea remains unharmed (if it were crushed in the hold, permanent damage would ensue) and the victim is able to breathe normally -- the unconsciousness occurs not because the victim ceases to take oxygen into his or her lungs, but because the oxygen that diffuses into the victim's blood in the lungs is not able to get to the brain. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)01:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. However, blood flow to/from the brain is not cut off completely. If it were, it would be the same as cardiac arrest - unconsciousness would occur within 2 seconds or less. See also Wnt's comment below. It's not just a matter of obstructing the flow though. The sensors for blood pressure are in the neck arteries - applying external pressure tricks the brain into thinking blood pressure is way too high and it instructs the heart via the parasympathetic system (vagus nerve) to bring it down. It's the commanded drop in pressure that causes blackening vision and fainting as much as the obstruction, though the pressure drop in the brain is not as great as it is in the body. See http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Control-of-Blood-Pressure.topicArticleId-277792,articleId-277694.html Wickwack 124.182.165.212 (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a registered editor and in conformance with Wikipedia policy I do not edit articles. If DRosenbach (the OP) is not happy with the wording in the article he cited, he is free to ammend it to make it clear only a partial effect is meant. Clearly all except Stu would be happy if DRosenbach does so. However, Stu just likes to argue, but apart from that he's pretty smart and at the end of the day I suspect he would support clarifying it too. Over to you, Mr Rosenbach. Wickwack 124.182.3.218 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that circle of Willis explains that the anatomy is variable, so I wonder if some people may be more resistant to the maneuver than others based on the capacity of their brain vasculature to reroute blood flow...
The idea of 'totally' depriving the brain of oxygen is physically absurd - degassing a solution requires considerable effort and is never truly absolute. The issue is only whether the oxygen level is sufficient. It would seem unnecessary to say "partially" deprive, but if the point is otherwise confusing to the readers, then that is what matters. Wnt (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the phrase "immediately deprive the brain of oxygen" could be interpreted by one person (such as me the first time I read it) as "totally deprive" and by another person as "at least partially deprive". So why don't we just put in another wording that no one will misinterpret? I'm going to put in "immediately reduce the supply of oxygen to the brain".
(Spin-off question - separated from previous answers)
Over time atleast about 20 or so people have specifically requested that I register and take on the job of cleaning up certain Wikipedia articles that are in bad shape. Nearly as many have just requested that I register as an editor just to continue contributions to Ref Desk. Usually when this happens I provide an explanation on their talk page or on the Ref Desk talk page on why I'm not registered and why I do not edit articles. On occaison this has triggered spirited debate between various editors and admin folk, which is not a desired outcome. A search of archives will reveal that while you can edit articles without registering (which is one reason why I don't), most of the regular Wikipedia community do not like it, and it is against policy. A couple of years ago, after a spate of vandalism, unregistered editors were supposed to be prevented from editing articles, but never the less they still can, which I demostrated once by correcting a single word in one article. Incidentally, the reason why I do not edit articles is 1) because it is just too darn easy for work done with care to be undone by some peanut who hasn't done his homework, 2) certain admins have mistaken me for someone else and decided I should be blocked; 3) some articles are so bad it would take weeks of solid work to put them right. If anyone wants to know more about these articles or my reasons, invite me to your talk page. Wikipedia is an extremely valuable resource - it is a great pity that articles are subject to illinformed change and outright vandalism. Wickwack 121.221.229.133 (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, people will request that you create an account. I'll request it too! It's a good idea. But it's NOT a requirement...there are only around 4,000 articles (out of 4.1 million!) that you can't edit without an account. (See WP:SEMI for the rule and Special:ProtectedPages for a list of all protected pages). But you can edit 99.9% of articles without registering. Wikipedians tend to treat "IP editors" (those who edit without registering) with deep suspicion...that's unfortunate for you - but not without good reason. Almost all vandalism comes from IP editors and almost all IP editors (numerically) are vandals. So it becomes a knee-jerk reaction to suspect any IP editor of evil-doing. That's a bad reaction because there are without doubt a large number (albeit a small percentage) of excellent IP editors. But it is categorically not against policy to edit without registering. If it was, we could flip a switch in a configuration file and ban all editing by IP users in a heartbeat (I do that on all MediaWiki sites that I personally run). Your reasons for not editing articles are well-understood...but how can you demand that absolutely any idiot (specifically: any school kid with access to a school computer who should be doing a history class but is actually typing obscenities into the article about Barack Obama) be allowed to edit any article - and in the same breath demand that edits that you make should be sacrosanct and that nobody should ever change the golden words you've created? Don't you see that those are contradictory demands? Then you complain that people have "mistaken you for someone else" - well, duh! If your only identification is your computer's IP address and that address is given to you by your Internet Service Provider (using DHCP) - then the person with the address "121.221.229.133" is you today - and some horrible vandal tomorrow - and you again next week. It's inevitable that you'll be accused of all sorts of things that you didn't do. That's why creating an account here is a good idea. It's password protected, so the only person who can use it is you. Other editor's dealings with you will be consistent and your reputation will stand over long term. When people see User:SteveBaker - they see that I've been an editor for 7 years and made 25,000 edits and never once been blocked, banned or sanctioned. When they see User:121.221.229.133 - they know nothing about you and since people using that same "name" have been evildoers - it's just inevitable that you're going to occasionally be accused of doing evil. SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made NO contradictory demands. You are confusing Wikipedia articles with Ref Desk. You are also confusing altering text in Wikipedia articles with posting new comments on Ref Desk, leaving other posts as they are. I have never altered the text posted by someone else. I monitored the Admin Noticeboard and talk page for a while - it is quite clear that there are good admins and bad admins, and quite clear that folk get blocked who darn well should get blocked, and folk who get blocked because admins take a sloppy approach or maybe just don't like something rattling their cage. I think allowing unregistered folk to edit Wikipedia articles is stupid. I think allowing people to post questions on Ref Desk without registering is ok - there's no conflict, they are two different environments with different purposes.
Yes, "deprive" can mean either "totally deprive" or "partially deprive". In the case of oxygen deprivation it obviously means "partially deprive", no matter what Wickwack claims, but clarifying the article is a good idea, to avoid confusing people like him. StuRat (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wickwack, can you point to this supposed "policy" about unregistered users not editing articles? As far as I know, there is no such policy. Unregistered editors are encouraged to register, but the system recognises that many people do not want to, for any number of reasons. You are still just as welcome to edit articles as I am, and you are subject to the same rules and standards of general conduct as everyone else. What registered editors may feel about your state of unregistration is none of your business, and you should not let it prevent you from editing articles. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]05:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no policy forbidding IP's from editing articles; where Wick got this impression is well beyond me given A) how ubiquitous this type of editing is (I doubt more than one tenth of one percent of articles on the whole of the English Wikipedia has not had contributions from unregistered editors, most of them constructive and welcome) B) the massive amount of community discussion that went into forming the consensus that this was best all around for the project, a stance which has since remained the standard, with little serious challenge, since the earliest days of Wikipedia, and C)every major policy page concerning itself with the registration process and beginning editors makes it clear that, while there are significant advantages to registering (both for the editor and the project as whole), it is by no means required and anyone who can improve any article is encouraged to, even if they can't/won't register. I forget where in the Wikimedia framework reports on the exact figures are published (though I know the Signpost occasionally reports on them), but it seems almost a certainty that about half of all edits on this particular Wikipedia are made by unregistered users and mostly always been that way. Hopefully Wick can show us where he was misinformed on this matter, because if there's even so much as an essay suggesting a contrary consensus, it should be altered.
On a separate note, the degree of discussion above on a minor semantic point is asinine, bloated by petty conflict and not really doing much to assist the OP. For the record, my use of the word deprivation (and that of virtually everyone, I think) is without a doubt one that scales to context and does not necessarily mean absolute absence of the resource being withheld; I've never seen a formal definition in conflict with this in any dictionary, and I can't even begin to imagine how many times I've heard it used in my life, from countless individuals, in ways that are inconsistent with Wickwack's all-or-nothing interpretation. In it's common clinical uses, it's clear that it can refer to a partial absence.
Now, addressing the OP's question (and indeed the above absolutist debate on the definition of a single word is especially absurd given he refined the question for us further), yes, you are correct Rosenbach: "immediately deprives" is indeed an overstatement of the facts. As has been noted above, by Wick and others, a certain amount of oxygen will remain in the brain and, regardless of the hold, a certain amount will probably continue to flow into it; if the hold is successful in rendering the individual it is applied to unconscious, it is either the result of a certain threshold of oxygen supply not being met or, more likely, that the chemo- and baroreceptors involved have simply been manipulated to trigger this reaction. Indeed, the victim of the hold should hope for the latter since it doesn't take long for the brain to be deprived of oxygen (even in the sense of partial but significant deprivation) before there is significant risk of permanent injury. Snow (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for where I was supposedly "misinformed" - Ref Desk talk page. As I said above, if anybody wants to follow up what's wrong with certain articles, or my reasons for not registering or editing articles, they are welcome to invite me to a discussion on their talk page or admin talk page. This is not a discussion that should be here on Ref Desk. In fact this whole question, from the OP onward, should have been on the article talk page, not on Ref Desk. However, the OP did ask, he got the usual off the cuff unsupported crap from StuRat, which in this case was incorrect, and so I posted a correction and subsequent explanation in good faith. DuoDuoDuo corrected the article, so we have a good outcome. On this page, that should be the end of it - no further debate can be of any value to Ref Desk users at large. Wickwack 124.182.165.212 (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I posted many references which prove that "deprived" can mean "partially deprived". It is you who made the absurd statement that it always means "totally deprived", with no references which back up that claim. StuRat (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no "supposed" about it - you were misinformed; Wikipedia policy not only allows for IP edits, it encourages them in cases where registration is not possible or undesirable to the editor (assuming it is not a case of sockpuppetry or other abuses). I'm not really interested in your motivation for not registering or not or editing or not as that's entirely your business and of no relevance here. But you're right as to the appropriate placement of this discussion in the first place; it probably would have been better served by taking place on the talk page from the start, though I understand the OP's motivation in coming here to establish a technical definition of the terminology involved. And yes, Stu sometimes bites off more than he can chew with highly speculative responses here, but in this case I happen to think he was entirely correct and helping the OP. I'm equally certain your initial comments were in good faith (though things would probably have been better off without that antagonistic jab at Stu in your very first response). However, you both clearly quickly let your stances and your responses become personal, resulting in the acrimony and bloat above. But let's allow it to rest here as it seems we've all come as close to consensus as we will on this topic and the OP is presumably satisfied. Though I'd like to make one quick side-note here and request that you not format other editor's posts on this page (at least not in-so-far as such tools as </small> tags go); it's inappropriate to make that decision for another editor. Snow (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Argh! This discussion really doesn't belong here - it's WAY off-topic - but corrections of fact need to be made).
Wickwack is somewhat correct - there are articles that (s)he cannot edit without registering an account and logging in to use it. Snow is also correct in that a guiding Wikipedia policy is that people should be able to edit articles without registering. The trouble is that widespread abuse of that policy means that we simply can't cope with every single part of Wikipedia being editable by IP editors. Hence, WP:SEMI says that some small number of "semi-protected" articles (those with a silver padlock in the top-right corner) can only be edited by registered users with at least four days service and ten prior edits.
So Wickwack truly cannot edit semi-protected articles such as Homosexuality, Computer or Wikipedia. That said, almost all semi-protected pages are templates, redirects or user pages. A few of them are articles that are being protected for the short term (days to weeks) against a short-term assault of IP vandalism (generally articles that are especially news-worthy and things that are currently on the front page). Generally, the only long-term semi-protected articles are about highly controversial or frequently-searched-by-annoying-schoolkids-from-school-computers topics (hence the three examples above). In one such article that I worked on for a while (Computer), we were getting vandalized to the tune of 40 edits per day by various "IP users" (people not using registered accounts) and over the course of an entire month that I searched, we didn't get one single good edit from an IP user. Over the same span, there was just one bad edit from a registered user and 30 or so good edits from registered users. The regular editors of that page became so overwhelmed by the effort in keeping the article readable that permanent semi-protection was deemed to be the only way to keep the article usable. Once in a while, some well-meaning admin will come along and remove the semi-protection from Computer and we're once again overwhelmed until we can persuade another admin to step in and turn it back on again.
This is unfortunate for people like Wickwack who edit in good faith from IP accounts - but in the face of such overwhelming abuse from IP editors - we really have no choice but to shut out the very, very few good guys in order to keep out the overwhelming amount of crap from the bad guys.
I don't understand why frequent good-faith editors who do good work and sign their posts with a 'handle' like Wickwack does wouldn't preserve their anonymity by creating an account (publishing your computer's IP address every time you post is very non-anonymous - I could almost certainly find Wickwack's real name and location from his/her IP address in under 20 minutes - but figuring out that information from a Wikipedia account name would be near impossible). But choosing not to create an account is something enshrined in Wikipedia principles that is unlikely to change. (IMHO, we should require registration for all article-space editing...but that's just me!).
As far as I know, none of the reference desks, or their talk pages are, or have ever been, semi-protected. It would be ridiculous if they were because almost all of our questions come from IP users. SteveBaker (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This really doesn't belong here on this page, but why don't I register? Simple - as I said before, certain admins think I am someone else (which was very clear from their discusion on the admin talk page) and have invested a lot of time and effort to block me. If I registered, that would make it easy for them. As for privacy, you can use an IP locator - that will locate me to Australia immediately. Big deal, there's only 25 million of us. And each time I access the internet, I get a different IP anyway, allocated from a national pool. You will be able to discover the internet providor. Big deal, they only have about 4 million customers. If I registered, then admins do know who I am, and if it is hackable, so do villains. Having said that, I think allowing non-registered folk to edit Wikipedia articles is stupid. See post on your other comments above. Wickwack 58.169.236.195 (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But if you used a registered account then nobody could mistake you for anyone else and this mess would never have happened. In fact, if you registered now (preferably with a handle other than Wickwack), nobody would be aware of any of this past confusion and you'd be able to edit as you with whatever respect you deserve from the quality of your posts. As for locating you, unless your computer has the security of Fort Knox, anyone with the right set of black-hat hacking tools will be able to reach the computer that you're using right now via it's IP address, prod it until they gain entry to it and from there all bets are off. If you use a registered account then the only way to connect you to a specific computer is via the "checkuser" extension which is only used rarely, by a few individuals (just 43 of them at last count) - and after considerable oversight. There are very few places where your IP address is made public like it is if you edit Wikipedia without an account...there is a good reason for that! SteveBaker (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. My experience is that there was someone that the admins didn't like. He tended to post a lot of comments of Ref Desk, but not anything that would justify blocking. He also participated in article talk page discussions - which I've never done. Judging from the admin page discussion, they think that each time they blocked, he re-registered with different data to get around it. Then when I popped up and posted on Ref Desk they blocked me. Sometimes they block an IP address, cutting me off - that's completely stupid, as the IP address changes from one session to the next. It might be in this case sometimes it wasn't me they were aiming at - that's what they said when I complained once. Wickwack 124.178.62.219 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your defense in the event that you happen to get handed the same DHCP IP address as some blocked Wikipedia vandal is to simply register an account. Problem 100% solved! SteveBaker (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the IP address is blocked, it's blocked, whether the temporary user of that address is registered or not. Either way, shut down one's internet session and start another - problem solved. My point was - admins sometimes do dumb things. And if they block a registered user, he can't use his registered identity regardless of his current IP address - but he can just go ahead and continue, either by re-registering or operating as an unregistered user. So if one can't post on Ref Desk, one doesn't really care why, just restart unregistered and it will work. Can you not see that? Wickwack 121.215.21.138 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking an IP does not necessarily block registered users who happen to have that IP. Blocking an account sometimes also automatically block various IPs that that account uses. But the ref-desk is decidedly not the place to continue this discussion. The technical aspects are well-documented, and the philosophical and pro/con debate wore out its welcome years ago. DMacks (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out the actual admin involvement (as admin) here in recent times has been limited anyway. A lot of the accounts and IPs blocked in recent times have been at the request of someone like me, a non admin. So blaming it solely on admins is somewhat missing the point. Right now there is a persistent sockpuppet who is back after being blocked about 1-2 weeks ago again after making disgusting claims about someone (after they were allowed on the RD for several months). In fact there is another editor who also appears to be a reincarnation of a minor sockpuppet who got banned for amongst other things continuing to ask the same offtopic and unanswerable questions (ironically also from Australia but generally using Optus and not from WA). Incidentally I'm unconvinced of the claim that Telstra only has a national IP pool. Whenever I geolocate Wickwack (and I did it again with the above IPs as well as one from May last year just to check), I always get Western Australia (actually Perth but that's probably false precision) which seems to correlate with information WickWack has mentioned before. I'm not saying Telstra geolocation is always entirely accurate but I do know there are plenty of Telstra ranges which do not geolocate to Perth (and again I seem to recall one or two instances where the geolocation tallies with the information revealed by the person behind the IP). This suggests to me the geolocation isn't entirely inaccurate and Telstra do actually have distinct pools based on some degree of geographical area (obviously the pools aren't constant although with IPv4 exhaustion perhaps they will start to be....) Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to claim my computer is a Fort Knox in terms of security, though I do use security software and a hardware firewall both from reputable manufacturers, and I didn't leave the settings at the default loose level of protection. Where there is a will, there is usually a way, so a clever enough villain could get in. Attempts have been detected and dealt with. The thing is though, such villains don't need the IP addresses displayed on Ref Desk, which mostly are only allocated to a user for one session anyway. They can just probe thru the range of IP adresses and the ports at each address. My security software shows such probing attempts nearly every time I display its' reports, and this is how it has been since well before I started posting on Ref Desk about a year ago. Wickwack 120.145.59.25 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am slightly disappointed, and surprised, to hear that IP editors are treated with 'deep suspicion'. Until registering about 14 months ago I was a long-term IP editor (about 26 months, just over 11,900 edits). My experience as an IP was 99.9% positive in interacting with other editors. Very rarely did I get 'nasty' messages. (The only one I remember was from another IP editor!) What really makes me suspicious is a new account with a name like "Suckmypen15123" or "Phuckinstick", both are real accounts!
I suppose I was fortunate to have a static IP for that entire period, also my first edit was undoing some vandalism (and I used an edit summary too!) I see what new editors (IP or not) get up to, and spend time reverting (and helping) them, when necessary. But they also do a lot of good edits. I think often they are newbies making their first edits and simply not sure what is the right thing to do, hence often in good faith putting un-sourced (but correct) information onto pages (As I see I did too, 40 months ago). I recently reverted an un-sourced IP edit to a towns population figure, which I soon found was exactly correct. I just had to source it correctly, The IP tried, but obviously didn't know the exact way to do it. - 220ofBorg17:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please identify this bug for me? WARNING: GROSS, click at your own risk:[3]. I'm in the Laurentian Great Lakes region. I found the bug indoors. Dncsky (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I bought a replacement synchronous motor for a microwave oven. The label shows TYJ50, AC 220-240V, 50/60Hz, <4W, 33r/min but no manufacturer. It is cylindrical, of diameter about 50mm and length about 15mm, and was a cheap online purchase. Before going to the trouble of installing it I tested it and though it runs at near enough the rated speed, the case gets too hot to touch after 5 minutes unloaded. Is that to be expected with this kind of motor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semiable (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unlikely that the motor is expected to get that hot in service - but perhaps it's supposed to be bolted to the metal frame of the oven - and that conducts the heat away and radiates it over a larger area to act as a heat sink. It's hard to tell. SteveBaker (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any creatures in existance that sport an odd (even just one) set of appendages? Suppose a "half" creature with just one brain lobe, one eye, one leg, etc. Or say a tri-lateral layout. Have any of these been observed, especially in the case of a single-sided organism?
75.220.96.17 (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Starfish have five-fold radial symmetry. They really don't have a single brain, but instead a ring of neural material that goes around the central hub. A starfish can be cut up (with a cut taking a whole limb and the associated central segment) and that single limb is a viable independent creature which will eventually regenerate back into a 5-fold starfish again.[5] -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk15:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adult flatfish are one-sided (example), having two eyes on either the left or the right side of their body. However they acquire this asymmetry during their youth, as they are hatched symmetrically. There are also the extinct Trilobozoa with tri-radial symmetry. - Lindert (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Male Fiddler crabs are asymmetric. (A wierd thing about these crabs is that if they should happen to lose their giant claw, the claw on the opposite side will rapidly grow to enormous size to compensate - and the missing claw will regenerate as a tiny claw.) But I suspect that symmetry is so common because it results in a huge saving in the amount of DNA an animal needs. SteveBaker (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of animals are bilateria, including even starfish (which basically start to bend right when they become teenagers, until they they have bend once around and lost the left half of their body). Some animals loose some of the symmetry during later developments. Animals which have no symmetry are e.g. sponges. And WHAAE, in this case Symmetry in biology. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, despite being called bilateral symmetric, (and this is sorely ignored in our article), no mammal is actually symmetric, and in fact imposing left-right asymmetry through Nodal is crucial in early embryogenesis. Fgf10 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. See also situs inversus, etc. Thinking about it, I would suppose one could almost come up with a sort of biological theorem here, though - we tend to think of animals as bilaterally symmetrical because they start off with a mirror plane and then adjust development afterward. The ultimate reason is that in order to have a plan of development, you have to define one axis (radial symmetry), then another - bilateral symmetry - but only with three separate axes defined do you break from that plan. So in order for an animal not to be bilateral symmetric at the beginning it would need to define all three axes, and do so immediately, and what is the selective pressure for that? Either that or, like sponges and plants, just not have much of a plan. Wnt (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point, and I can't imagine a workable system where asymmetry isn't generated through a 'disruption' of initial symmetry. You'd have to have very well specified polarised cell divisions from division 1 onwards, I guess. Fgf10 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is arguing that there isn't asymmetry in detail (your heart, liver, pancreas are all highly asymmetric). But please re-read the OP's question. We're being asked about animals with gross asymmetry - like having one arm on one side of the body and two on the other (like the fictional "Moties" in The Mote in God's Eye). I'm having a hard time coming up with real-world creatures like that (although the fiddler crab and adult flatfish are close). Nature loves symmetry - because it's efficient...but it's not perfect symmetry. Humans have two, symmetrically-placed, kidneys - which is great - if you lose one, you can still live out a fairly normal life with the other. However, we have only one (highly asymmetric) heart and one liver - and if you lose either, it's curtains for you. When you only have one of some organ, placing it symmetrically is difficult - there just isn't room on the center-line of the body to place everything in the middle.
Evolution is all about optimizing efficiency. Having most things be symmetrical saves on genetic information to code the two halves of our bodies separately. But slavish attention to symmetry is inefficient in other ways - hence only having one liver and one pancreas and putting them on opposite sides of the abdomen is more efficient than having just one of each on the centerline or duplicating functions by having two of each, symmetrically placed like the kidneys.
Left/Right-handedness is a similar deal. We have a symmetrical brain - but there isn't enough computing capacity in it to duplicate functions and have things like manual dexterity or eye dominance in both halves - so we break symmetry to save space - and as a result, we have one hand that's more useful than the other and mathematical functions present in just one side of our heads.
Evolution probably took some complicated path to get to this situation - yet it's still a little surprising that strongly asymmetric exterior forms are so incredibly rare in nature.
Very good points. Yes, gross symmetry is efficient, but generating asymmetric localisation does not require extensive genetic differences in both halves, so is not a big efficiency loss. Asymmetric expression of certain key signalling molecules, Nodal and Lefty (yes, the gene is actually called lefty) is enough to promote asymmetry. I'd be surprised if this isn't the mechanism that forms the one large claw of a Fiddler crab, but I couldn't find the exact mechanism in a quick search. I couldn't see making even something like Moties as being impossible in this way. Maybe in the case of a Fiddler crab having one big claw is sufficient, so it's actually more efficient to develop it asymmetrically and not waste energy on growing a second? Fgf10 (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out before, the weird thing about the fiddler crab is what happens if the large claw gets amputated. In this case, the OTHER claw grows huge and the missing claw regenerates with a small pincer...what you end up with is a mirror-image of the original crab. It's tough to explain this with the Lefty gene. SteveBaker (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a standard case of positive feedback: a big claw keeps the other claw small, a small or missing claw makes the other claw big. Genetics tend to act more like a recipe than a blueprint; a single change often has multiple effects. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just nitpicking: The human kidneys aren't symmetrically placed: The right kidney is placed a bit lower than the left kidney.
The narwhale is an example of asymmetry trying to pass for symmetry. The "horn" is normally the left tusk, but is close enough to the center that it's not obviously asymmetrical, unless you look closely. StuRat (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that the more human hair is smooth\straight, the more it is likely to dropout?
In other words, can we generalize that populations that generally have UNsmooth hair, Like Non-asian Males in general, some African peoples, Yemeni Arabs, and Australian !!! Aboriginals, will tend to have LESS natural hair dropping?
what are the proteins \ chemicals that exists in straight hair, that contribute much to the odd of it's dropping?
I'm wondering if you might need to narrow down "Aboriginals" a bit. We all have ancestors who were "aboriginal" to somewhere once. I will agree, based on purely original research among lots of examples of friends my age (60+), that baldness is (almost?) non-existent among Australian Aboriginal men. I'm quite jealous. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Baldness and hair dropping are not the same.
I remember reading decades ago that the fairer one's hair, the thinner the hair, and the more likely baldness is, with the exception of red hair, which is the thickest and whose bearers are least likely to go bald. From what I remember I wouldn't call the book a reliable source, though, and a quick google search only gave info on either hairloss and hair dyes or what color bald men have on their driver's licenses. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fallacy in quantum physics that I've been thinking of, but I
haven't found the proper name for it yet. As a placeholder I'm calling
it the quantum fuse, because it acts like a fuse you light for say a
bomb.
Take a very pure block of some semiconductor, silicon will do, and
carefully dope it so it has a long line of holes in it, each of which
can comfortably hold one electron. Above all but the last hole is an
electronic circuit that will insert one electron into each of these
hole, all at exactly the same time. I.e. the first through the next to
last hole will be filled faster than a vacuum photon could cross that
distance. At the first hole there is an additional electron ejector
that can be set to fire at the exact same moment as all the rest. And
at the last hole there is a sensor that will read out if it has been
filled or not.
For a logical zero the additional ejector does not fire in that extra
electron, and so every hole except the last one will be filled at the
same moment and the last hole will read zero.
For a logical one the additional ejector does fire. The first hole
gets two electrons, but can only hold one so one of these tunnels over
to the second hole. Since any tunneling event is instantaneous, the
excess electron arrives in the second hole at the same moment an
electron is added to fill that hole. And so one of the electrons is
bumped over to the third hole and so on. Ergo the final hole in the
series gets filled before any signal could have arrived from the
additional ejector.
Your fallacy is that you depend on a fictional, hypothetical "electron injector" whose mechanism (which you did not explain) is inconsistent with any actual device you could actually build. Your entire thought-experiment depends on the guarantee that your electron-injector will put an electron into the circuit. Yet, you did not explain how and so you didn't consider the scenario that the injected electron doesn't go where you want it to. Diffusion of electrons depends on the state of the semiconductor; adding electrons will saturate the charge carriers. This reduces the current; or, quantum-mechanically, reduces the probability that an individual charge-carrier will actually move. But, this need not even be treated quantum-mechanically: we use the saturation model to estimate properties of devices without ever considering quantum effects. If you want to solve analytically at the atomic level, you will get even more accurate results because you'll derive diffusion coefficients for every single constituent charge-carrier. Nimur (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tunneling isn't instantaneous. It can appear to be faster than light, even in classical electrodynamics (where you can get tunneling of light between fiber-optic cables, for example), but what you're actually seeing is (I think) a quadratically extrapolated signal, analogous to the familiar fact that the electric field of a moving particle appears to come from a quadratically extrapolated "current location". Also, the exclusion principle isn't absolute—it's just the lowest-energy states that are filled, and there is always room for more electrons if you supply enough energy. So I think your fuse, if it works, will work by means of an ordinary pressure wave, like Newton's cradle. -- BenRG (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an intriguing question - I haven't answered it myself, but I can point out a few things. First, we have articles quantum tunneling, faster-than-light, and Raymond Chiao which express the root observation that tunneling is "1.5 to 1.7 times" faster than light. But the Chiao article expresses some doubt about it, and I haven't determined the current thinking on the point. I think that if it is true then there should be many other ways to get to the same end of making the effect macroscopic - for example, I think you might have what begins as a single photon pass through a long series of tunneling barriers, while being in a lasing medium to increase its intensity (to make up for reflection losses in tunneling). Wnt (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum tunneling is the same as tunneling in classical relativistic wave theory. The "tunneling" case is the case better known as "total internal reflection", where Snell's law implies that the wave number perpendicular to an interface must be imaginary on one side. This leads to exponential decay instead of oscillation in the perpendicular direction (e-kx instead of eikx), while the wave still oscillates in the parallel direction and in time (as required by the boundary conditions). This looks like the lower image on the right, where the medium on the left has a higher refractive index (the image is missing the internally reflected wave, though). If you put another medium of higher refractive index on the right, some of the wave will leak into it as an ordinary propagating wave (attenuated by an amount exponential in the width of the center region). The fact that the wave crests are horizontal instead of diagonal in the center region is what leads to the notion of "instantaneous propagation": it looks as though the phase of the wave simply skips over the central region regardless of its width. However it's a theorem of classical relativistic wave theory that you can't send a signal faster than light. In the quantum case everything is exactly the same mathematically, and so the natural conclusion is the same, but people tend to get all woo-woo as soon as you attach the name "quantum" to something.
A similar argument was once invoked to prove that the speed of gravity must be much larger than c: if the Sun's influence on the Earth lagged by 8 minutes, the Earth would be pulled toward the location of the Sun 8 minutes earlier, which would add a backward drag component to the total force, which would have long since led to the Earth spiraling into the Sun. But it doesn't work that way in relativistic field theory: although the force depends only on the Sun's position 8 minutes earlier, it is actually directed toward an "extrapolated current location" of the Sun. Likewise, a tunneling wave emerges with an "extrapolated future" shape. As long as the tunneling time is small compared to the effective time resolution of the wave, the extrapolated wave will be indistinguishable from the real thing.
All my life I've loved the basement - it's the coolest place to be in the summer and in the winter it's comfortable as well. A few months ago I moved in to a house that has a basement that seems to perpetually be just a little bit warmer than the outside temperature - in summer it's miserable, and in the winter I can almost see my breath (I live in Minnesota). How is this one different from literally every other basement I've been in for my entire life? I thought it was just as simple as being below ground. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could look up heat conductivity of various kinds of soil, but first, can you assure us that the basement is actually well enclosed from the outside air? (For example, you could look at the circulation of smoke) Wnt (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's probably drafty windows. Another factor is how much heating or A/C your basement gets. Some forced air systems leak air all over the place, down there, while others are pretty tight. StuRat (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For many years I have noted with amusement the following quirk of human nature:
Many engineers and technicians who do fine work with paper swear that cutting cloth will ruin their scissors. I saw one worker who trimmed filter paper for an aerospace application putting a padlock though the scissor handles when not in use.
Meanwhile, many people who do sewing swear that cutting paper will ruin their scissors. I have seen claims from both groups that one snip of the wrong material means you have to buy new scissors. I wouldn't be surprised if MDs made the same claim about surgical scissors.
I searched for anyone who had done actual testing. Didn't find anything but I did find this. I am thinking of emailing them if nobody here has an answer.
It's kinda-sorta possible for both statements to be true. I doubt they are - but let's play devil's advocate for a moment. Scissors are held together with a screw or rivet - when the scissors are badly worn, this opens up, gets loose and makes a bit of a gap between the blades - which makes them cut less effectively. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that cloth is thicker than paper and cutting it tends to bend/wear the rivet more quickly than paper...and let's suppose that phytolith (or whatever) in paper physically dulls the blades by wearing them out in ways that cutting cloth does not. It's then possible that cutting cloth with scissors that are only used for paper would bend open the rivet and make them less effective - and also that cutting paper with scissors that are only used for cloth would dull the blades and make them less effective too. If scissors cut well providing they EITHER have a tight rivet OR sharp blades - but fail to cut will if they are both dull and loose - then the result would be that mixing the two materials would indeed prematurely wear out the scissors.
Now - to be 100% clear - I'm not seriously suggesting that this is literally the case - merely that it's not impossible for two different materials to wear out the same pair of scissors in two different ways and thereby render this seeming paradox correct.
In all likelyhood, it's all an old-wives tale and it doesn't matter a damn which scissors get used for what. My impression is that most people who do sewing keep a "good" pair of scissors for their work and simply don't want them to go missing as other members of the household take them for other purposes. The story of the aerospace guy with the padlocked scissors is almost certainly that. I mean - just how often would someone in a aerospace engineering workplace take them to cut fabric?!? It's much more likely that they'd often be "borrowed" and simply not returned. Hence the likely myth of incompatibility would serve the scissor owner's needs and would rapidly become lore and passed on to future generations...true or not.
Well, if it's filter paper, the person using whatever has been filtered might be touchy about pieces of thread, paper, and tape turning up in his liquid. Wnt (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Along the same lines, there really can't possibly be a reasonable answer to this, if only because the umbrella terms "paper" and "cloth" can refer to any number of materials with varying physical properties likely to wear or provide stress on the scissors in different ways (to say nothing of the variables involved in the composition and form of the scissors, the cutting technique involved, maintenance of the blades, whether they are used continuously or intermittently, and just a whole huge mass of other factors). Certainly it's clear that, especially in an industrial context, many different types of scissors have been developed for specific tasks and materials. Snow (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so again, there isn't necessarily a paradox in the idea that scissors that are designed for cutting cloth might be ruined by cutting paper - and vice-versa. However, I still very much doubt that people who cut cloth using $10 scissors bought from the needlework department at WalMart would be able to detect any significant blunting from using them to cut paper occasionally. All I'm trying to point out to our OP is that the seeming paradox of opposing views on scissor blunting doesn't (by itself) disprove either of the opposing theories that the various sides of the debate are proclaiming. Someone needs to do some experiments. Take two identical pairs of scissors - measure their initial cloth-cutting capabilities - then use one to cut 100 meters of cloth and another to cut 100 meters of paper - then re-measure their cloth-cutting abilities. If there is a strong difference - then maybe there is something behind this. Then you need to re-do the experiment, reversing the role of paper and cloth. Obviously you'd need to repeat the experiment a few hundred times to be sure that the results were statistically valid. Since this is a whole lot of work - it's easy to see why we don't know the answer! SteveBaker (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the relative wear rates of paper and cloth, but I have a pair bought 37 years ago on a market stall and used for everything needing cutting, and they work as well now as when new. The key might be a domed spring washer keeping the blades together. Semiable (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also have a pair of fairly ancient scissors that were probably made in the 1950's for cutting wallpaper. They are occasionally useful because they have unusually long blades and don't suffer from left-hander-hostility like so many modern scissors! They also cut well - and (as User:Semiable says), the important part is the part that keeps the blades together. I have no idea what they were originally fitted with - my father had them held together with a wing-nut and bolt with a spring washer. I find myself replacing that nut and bolt every few years when they wear out and start to need to be re-tightened annoyingly often. I've occasionally sharpened them with a Honing steel - but for me, the sharpness of the blades is a small matter compared to getting the tension right between them. SteveBaker (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the section of the article you just linked to which mentions 'sawback' bayonets, you will find a fairly comprehensive answer. But in summary: they are more damaging, but not necessarily more readily lethal, and they have a tendency to get stuck in the wound, rendering the attached rifle useless and the attached soldier a sitting duck. They are also viewed as needlessly cruel: if you're going to stab someone on the battlefield, doing so in a way that does not deliberately torture them if you fail to kill them outright is considered a good idea. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read this after watching an episode of Futurama, and got a silly mental image of Fry (though Zapp would make more sense) swiveling a rifle with a dead soldier flopping on its tip. —Tamfang (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think they were only used by the German Austrian armies, where they were issued to pioneers and called a pionier-faschinenmesser ("pioneer fascine knife").[6] A fascine was a large bundle of sticks used in field fortification or trench-crossing. Otherwise, I agree with Alex's comments above. Alansplodge (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"During the day we loaf about and make war on the rats. Ammunition and hand-grenades become more plentiful. We overhaul the bayonets--that is to say, the ones that have a saw on the blunt edge. If the fellows over there catch a man with one of those he's killed at sight. In the next sector some of our men were found whose noses were cut off and their eyes poked out with their own saw-bayonets. Their mouths and noses were stuffed with sawdust so that they suffocated.
Some of the recruits have bayonets of this sort; we take them away and give them the ordinary kind.
But the bayonet has practically lost its importance. It is usually the fashion now to charge with bombs and spades only. The sharpened spade is a more handy and many-sided weapon; not only can it be used for jabbing a man under the chin, but it is much better for striking with because of its greater weight; and if one hits between the neck and shoulder it easily cleaves as far down as the chest. The bayonet frequently jams on the thrust and then a man has to kick hard on the other fellow's belly to pull it out again; and in the interval he may easily get one himself. And what's more the blade often gets broken off."
I should add that apparently there's some confusion on the web about this point, with people talking about it being variously improper to use notched, sharpened, dull, or rusty bayonets - one source ties it to the 1899 Hague convention against "To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;". If you ask the Humanities desk I bet you'll get a better answer. Wnt (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that quote Wnt. That explains why they weren't used after WWI; I haven't got a reference for that, but a thorough Google only revealed 19th and early twentieth century examples. Alansplodge (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a question about serration on swords on the Ask a historian subboard of reddit just yesterday, and it included a fairly long discussion on serrated bayonets as well. Consider looking there as well, if it's not precisely that discussion that started you on this tangent. 164.71.1.222 (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worth mentioning is that bayonets are almost never used for stabbing enemy soldiers. Some years ago, I came across a list dating from the American Civil War of things a bayonet was useful for (candle holder, utility knife, cooking spit, etc.), and most of them work better with a non-serrated bayonet. --Carnildo (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:White_maggot.JPG){kind=link}
