Miscellaneous desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

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.

October 24[edit]

Voyeur "porn" - porn or not?[edit]

I wonder wheather or not voyeuristic photographs of sexual acts (e.g. people having sexual intercourse without one/all of the involved knowing this is filmed/photographed) should be regarded as pornography or not. It it pornography mainly because it can be arousing, or does it have to be intended as pornography to be such?/Q'n'a-man 02:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's probably intended as porn by those who took the photographs, or those who distribute them. FiggyBee 02:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sentences of pornography makes it pretty clear. SteveBaker 04:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds odd to me that one can participate in porn without even knowing it./Q'n'a-man 10:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of pornography need not be aware of it; they need not even be a living person. The subjects in pornographic cartoons, for example, know nothing of their actions, but the definition of pornography doesn't hinge on that. Pornography is the act of duplication of the sex act (through media of some form), it is not the sex act by itself. Sex that nobody is watching or distributing is not pornography. --24.147.86.187 12:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The suffix graph in words like 'pornography' means "writing" or perhaps "drawing" (as in calligraphy - or by extension, in modern terms, telegraph, photograph, computer graphics, etc). That's why participating in something sexual isn't pornography. Pornography is the "writing" or "photographing" of those acts. (It's like the old joke: "Hey, Mister, ya wanna buy some pornography?...Sorry, no, I don't have a pornograph.") SteveBaker 13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome[edit]

Hello, I am currently looking for resources that highlight the differences between Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, such as differences in the politics and government, military, culture and society. I've found a few essays on the internet with this ([1], [2] and [3]) but they are all quite short and do not provide in-depth information. Is there anything like this on Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. 207.45.181.26 06:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic topics in classical studies might help. Btw, I found that by typing in 'greece rome' and looking through the list of results. Might be more there. DirkvdM 11:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question would probably get better answers on the Humanities desk. They live for this sort of thing over there. --Milkbreath 12:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were some major diffs:

1) Ancient Greece was a collection of city-states, with different forms of government from monarchy and military dictatorship to partial democracy. Rome was a nation-state/empire which also had various forms of government in different periods.

2) The warlike Spartans, uninterested in the arts, are often contrasted with the artistic and (occasionally) peaceful Athenians. In Rome, all these qualities existed within the same society.

3) The Greeks used columns extensively in architecture, while the Romans added the arch and dome.

4) The Romans are known for a number of military inventions, such as fixed troop formations, uniforms, permanent, professional soldiers, etc. Their technique to try to incorporate conquered territories by allowing the natives to continue their own religion and culture also aided Roman expansion. This combined to allow Rome to conquer much of the "known world", while the Greek city-states didn't control much beyond their borders for long. StuRat 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Romans stole many of their 'inventions' from the Greeks. Maybe a more important difference is that they put them to 'better' use. DirkvdM 09:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jiko[edit]

who invented the first energy saving efficiency cook stove(jiko) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.99.154 (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiko is Swahili for "a cooking place", according to Wikipedia. What kind of cook stove do you mean? Rmhermen 19:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keira knightley's religion[edit]

can anyone tell me to which religion keira belongs or follows —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakr12 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Kabbalah.[4][5] MrRedact 12:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to question Keira Knightley's religion, but I do find it odd how so many famous people follow the more obscure/non-traditional religions. Is it a consequence of being famous, a PR thing, just coincidence or something else? Of course I have no idea what Kabbalah is - it could well be very widespread, but certainly there is a theme in celebrity to not be part of the mainstream ones. ny156uk 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kabbalah is not a religion per se; it's a branch of arcane knowledge within the Jewish religion. If I recall correctly, before you're allowed to study it, you're required to be 40 years old, married, and have a beard. But I may not recall correctly. --Trovatore 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I must say, Keira Knightley has a fetching beard. --Masamage ♫ 05:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think with Scientology they deliberately seek out celebrity adherents, for money and marketing purposes, presumably. --Sean 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kabbalah is the word for Jewish Mysticism, a group of books long rejected by mainstream Judaism for being too 'old-fashioned' (they describe how anyone can achieve miracles and the such like, things modern religions, usually shun). However, the religion of Kabbalah was set up recently which claims these books as their holy books. In reality, a cynic would probably describe Kabbalah as a cult, since it advocates such practises as reading the holy books by running your finger rapidly down the page and drinking holy water and wearing holy string, all of which must be provided (bought) from the Kabbalah organisation for high prices. They have also been accused of taking people away from their families. As for celelbrities joining unusual religions, we cannot be sure. Certainly minor religions seek them out to gain their large cash reserves and fame to publisise (Maddona promoted Kabbalah as 'Estar' for a long time). However, I also suspect the celelbrity lifestyle encourages people to lose sight of normal life and seek the answers anywhere. I may be wrong, my spelling has certainly detereated rapidly.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.113.112 (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helium 3[edit]

After reading the featured article on China's Moon exploration, and then the Heluim 3 article I would now like to know: 1 What colour is Helium 3 2 is it a gas? 3 Is it invisible? 4 can some one provide a picture? Thanks people 12.191.136.2 13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helium 3 is an isotope of helium - just like the stuff you find in balloons - but with one less neutron in the nucleus. So just like regular helium, it's an 'invisible' colourless, odourless gas at room temperature/pressure. It's hard to provide a photo of something that's invisible - although there is a photo of a bottle full of helium in our Helium article - it looks just like a bottle full of air or a bottle full of nothing. Helium 3 looks just like the regular kind (Helium 4). SteveBaker 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the color of a substance depends on the arrangement of electrons in it, and that won't be affected by the number of neutrons in the nucleus, that makes perfect sense. Still, I wonder if anyone's ever actually verified it. I mean, purified helium 3 is not easy to produce no matter whether you extract it from helium or from the products of nuclear reactions. Is there any report of someone with access to enough of it having filled a reasonable-size glass bottle and confirmed that it has the expected appearance?

(Isotopes don't always behave as identically as you might expect, nuclear reactions aside. The greater mass of its nucleus causes deuterium to behave differently in chemical reactions, with the result that if you drank only heavy water, it would kill you in a matter of weeks. But colors are another matter.)

--Anonymous, 21:51 UTC, October 24, 2007.

Helium-3 isn't that rare - people do low temperature physics using refrigerators running He³ for example. But I have no idea whether anyone ever had enough to look at. But since almost all elemental gasses are colourless and given that He⁴ is colourless and (as you say) different isotopes of the same atom aren't generally differently coloured because colour is more to do with electrons than the nucleus - it's really VERY unlikely that He³ would be coloured. SteveBaker 01:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature vs. Initials[edit]

My company advises customers to use their full signature when electronically signing off on legal documents rather than just their initials. I know that this is related to "Sarbanes Oxley" compliance, but I would just like to know more reasoning behind why a full signature is so much more valid than just initials. Does it have to do with being able to trace hand writing better? Why must you use your full signature on legal documents?

Thanks for your time, Wonderwoman7Wonderwoman7 13:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since signatures (and especially digital signatures) are utterly trivial to fake - and it's just as easy to fake a full name as initials, at it's roots, this can't be anything more than tradition. However, Sarbanes/Oxley is just full of ridiculous and pointless red tape - so it's probably required somewhere in there. SteveBaker 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One obvious reason is that there are likely to be many people with the same initials at any company, especially if only two initials are used. Regulators don't want to have to waste time figuring out which initials belong to which person. StuRat 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trailblazer starter[edit]

how do change the starter on a 02 trailblazer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.108.247 (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, you'd want to refer to a repair manual for an 02 Trailblazer (not an endorsement, just the first google hit). If spending $30 isn't what you had in mind, you could try swinging by your local garage and seeing if they'll let you take a look at their copy. If you plan on regularly working on a car, though, I figure one of these is a good investment.

On the other hand, you could grab a replacement and start looking at the car to determine how the replacement part matches up against the currently installed one, and then start pulling parts off. This is where the Car Talk guys tend to grade their callers' technical aptitude on the scale of "afraid to adjust tilt steering" to "builds nuclear reactors from cardboard", by the way. — Lomn 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the above responder basically said, just get a Chilton's or Haynes' manual from your local autoparts/book store or borrow a copy at the library. Dismas|^(talk) 20:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the Trailblazer, but starters are easy, generally. First, be sure the starter is bad. More often that not it's really the battery. Sub out the battery to test. Don't test with jumper cables, they're unreliable. Call parts stores to find a new starter. To replace the starter, remove the negative battery cable from the battery post. Really. They always tell you to do that whether you really have to or not, but this time you do. Chock the rear tires. Jack and support the front of the vehicle. Draw a picture of what wire goes where at the starter. Remove the wires from the starter. The bolts holding the starter in should be fairly large and obvious; remove them, writing down which one goes where, leaving the one easiest to get at for last, bearing in mind that the starter is heavier than it looks. Don't let it fall; use a second jack to get it down if you have to. Use a flashlight to inspect the teeth on the flywheel that you can now see where the starter came off. If they look chewed up or any are broken, put everything back and get towed to a shop. Wipe the starter off a little, put it in a box, wash your hands, and take it to the parts store. Buy a new one, and compare it to the old one to make sure. Ask the guy if he can tell you what the torque is supposed to be on the mounting bolts. If he can't, take your new starter home and call around to other stores until somebody knows. If the guy is a gal, and you're not, flirt. Motorhead girls are worth some effort, as a rule. Go home, put everything back together in reverse order with the new starter, start the engine, turn it off, let the vehicle down, and be happy. --Milkbreath 00:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CA Fires: Arrest and FBI Probe[edit]

Just seen on the news (FOX News and CNN, other news sources) that the police has a arsonist in custody and looking for more of them. Can this be placed anywhere in appropriate articles ? The arrest has happened literally minutes ago. 65.173.104.140 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait another ten minutes, and if it's verified, it'll turn up on one of their web pages, where it'll be more easily verified by other editors, then add it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you all have cable TV and/or Satellite TV, turn it on. This may be on the FOX News website and the CNN website by now. 65.173.104.140 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd place it myself, but my ISP keeps fucking up and shitting on all connections. I'm on one of those Wi-Fi units. Should be called "Why-Fucked" since it does'nt work most of the time. 65.173.104.140 22:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just calm down. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. When there are easy to verify details it'll get in, there's no question about it. --24.147.86.187 23:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Town Private Airfield.[edit]

Hi, A few months ago I remember reading about a town a think was in America where a lot of the houses owened aircraft and had hangers for them. Also the roads could be used as runways. I have not being able to find any reference. Can anybody help me?

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.70.82 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Airpark. Dismas|^(talk) 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardest/easiest drug to make[edit]

Please note that the question is purely for curiosity purposes. Which of the popular illicit drugs (MDMA, cocaine, heroin, meth, etc...) is generally considered the hardest to make? As well, which is considered the easiest to make? Thanks. Acceptable 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few of them are found in nature - magic mushrooms for example. They don't need any effort to make...you just kinda find the only ingredient growing someplace and you're done. SteveBaker 01:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chemists at my place of work tell me meth is pretty simple to cook and to get hold of the materials. MDMA is more tricky, but still well within the grasp of a decent chemist (if you can get hold of the materials required). Crude forms of crack cocaine and heroin (essentially morphine) are also not that difficult, but high grade heroin is more technically challenging, as you are likely to blow yourself up if you are not careful, likewise freebase coke. They tell me, and I quote, "it depends whether you mean 'hard in terms controlling reactions to get good product' or 'hard in terms of the risk of burning your face off'". However, a poll of them suggested meth was easiest and high grade heroin was the hardest (though, to be honest with you, only one of them looks like he may have practical experience to speak from). Rockpocket 04:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that magic mushrooms are not necessarily illegal, which is what the questioneer was asking about. Undried, it is (still) legal to trade in mushrooms in the Netherlands. In the UK, I've heard, it is illegal to pick them, but not to eat them. So the only legal way to take them would be grazing. :) Which illustrates quite nicely Steve's point. They don't need to be made - they're already there. The same goes for coca leaves and qat, but again, those are not generally illegal (I think). But cocaine is illegal and production is fairly complex. As a very rough rule of thumb, as the production gets more complicated, the higher the chances are it's made illegal in various countries. Raw opium is probably an exception, because harvesting that isn't too complicated - just cut the plant and scrape off the dried sap a while later (I think). Marijuana is also quite easy - after picking you just need to dry it so you can smoke it. Or if you can't wait for that, you can put it in a cake (it has to be heated to become active) and eat that. Wine is fairly easy to make, even though it takes some time. But alcohol in only (largely) illegal in some muslim countries afaik. DirkvdM 09:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coca leaves are not generally legal. See Coca#Legality. Rmhermen 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol is quite possibly the easiest to make. Lots of people make it accidently when their fruit juices ferment in the fridge. --Mdwyer 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or indeed on the bush. —Tamfang 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange instruction of flight attendant[edit]

On being about to land on a recent flight, a flight attendant noticed that I had a sweater tied around my waist (by the sleeves) and told me to take it off from there and put it on over my head. I was so taken aback by this strange instruction that I meekly complied without query. What possible safety reason could there be for having to do this? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 23:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why you would take it off is probably because in an emergency situation the knot of the sweater around your waist would be very uncomfortable, and maybe even a safety risk (interfering with the seatbelt). Why you should put it over your head I don't know. Maybe they thought you were cold? Steewi 00:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "over my head", do you mean wearing it or literally wrapping it around your head? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that that meant 'in the overhead compartment'. --Masamage ♫ 06:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that meant "put it on in the normal way, by pulling it over my head". FiggyBee 06:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He meant "put it on", but on reflection that may not actually have been part of his instruction to me. He may just have been suggesting something to do with it. As for the fact that it was around my waist, I really can't see that there is any safety justification for that. The chances of it interfering with the seatbelt are infinitesimal to zero. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately prior to takeoff and landing, flight attendants are required to check that all passengers have their seat belts securely fastened. Depending on precisely how or where the sweater was tied, the flight attendant could have had one of any number of concerns.

The sweater could have concealed the belt buckle, making it impossible to check that it was fastened.
The attendant could have been concerned that the sweater might have been snagged in the buckle in a way that was not immediately obvious, interfering with its function.
In the event of an evacuation, the sweater could snag on the seat belt (or something else) delaying you or others in your escape from the plane.
If the sweater were under the belt, the attendant could have been concerned that the extra padding would prevent the belt from holding you securely.

There may be other scenarios that I can't come up with off the top of my head, as well. In any case, the flight attendants are usually pretty busy, and will tend to err on the side of caution: "What's the quickest, simplest way that I can be sure that this passenger is as safe as possible on landing?" TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]