Miscellaneous desk
< January 25	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 27 >

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.

January 26[edit]

People keeping their ages secret[edit]

I've asked questions about this over the past few years or so. One thing I noticed about this practice is that, except for maybe Japan (see my earlier questions), most famous or high-profile people who keep their ages secret: 1. are from an older generation (e.g. active in the 70's, 80's or 90's), or 2. are not that famous (for example, particularly famous movie stars like Brad Pitt have known ages, but actors and actresses who are somewhat less high profile sometimes do not). Why is this the case? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one has asked them? --Jayron32 04:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for how famous they are, those who are famous enough probably can't get away with lying about their ages. That is, if Brad Pitt lied, somebody would find an old interview or dig up his birth certificate, and prove he lied. For some minor actor, nobody is likely to take the trouble to verify their age. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you would find referenced material on the "Why?" In fact, you would probably need to produce better sourcing than your own perceptions that the people you mention DO tend to keep their age a secret. My view is that it would depend on the situation. As someone who is 60+, I can assure you that there is definitely discrimination against employment of people my age in most industries. That could a good reason. We probably all make assumptions about people based on their age. Some people may not (want to be expected to?) fit those assumptions. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery actress who sued IMDb over age reveals identity Royor (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Joke alert) I always thought the average willingness of an average (live) person to reveal their age x (on a scale of 0 to 100) could be expressed in terms of a function f(x). I'm not entirely sure what the exact function might be, but an approximate guess of mine is defined below:

x ≤ 0: f(x) is undefined (obvious reasons)

0 ≤ x ≤ 1: f(x) = 0 (as they don't yet understand the question)

1 ≤ x ≤ 20: f(x) = 100 − 1/x (to account for the small chance that they might not feel like revealing it)

20 ≤ x ≤ 60: f(x) = 200*log₁₀(2/x) + 300 − 1/x (it is at this point that the willingness to reveal one's age and identify as "old" starts to drop gradually, but severely)

60 ≤ x ≤ 99: f(x) = 239/x (at this point, no matter how you do it, your chances of finding out their age are small...)

x ≥ 100: f(x) = 100 (but once you pass this milestone, you are proud of your age and no longer wish to hide it)

(Graph the function if you don't understand immediately.) Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I was young I was told by the man next door that he was 96 and his wife was 26, like to calculate the chances those were correct? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this reminds me of the very ancient woman, well into her 90s, who went to a lawyer and said she wanted to start the process of divorcing her equally aged husband. The lawyer did a double take. "But you've been together for, like, 70 years. What has gone wrong?". She replied: "Oh, our real marriage ended decades ago. We just stayed together for the sake of the children". :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corollary to the OP's question: Why are some people so obsessed with wanting to know others peoples' ages? HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be "obsessed" is obviously a bad thing - but mildly interested isn't. It's useful information.

Suppose you want to have a conversation with someone - if they are a significant difference in age from yourself - then chatting about (for example) music may be difficult. Talking intelligently on the subject with either mom or my son requires speaking in very general terms because the music I care most about is basically unknown to them - where someone of my generation knows exactly what I mean as I name bands and albums from my teens and 20's. If I talk with my g/f about the Apollo moon landings (which I recall from watching live on TV) - the conversation is soon derailed by the fact that she was just a few months old at the time and has no memory of this except as a piece of history - it's as old to her as the Korean war is to me.

It's very useful "social lubrication" to have at least a rough idea of how old someone is. In the past, we could mostly tell just by looking - but when we communicate so much online these days, the need to ask someone's age becomes more crucial.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crop planting by the sign[edit]

There is a word that I,ve heard once that is in regards to planting by the signs. Planting by the signs usually refers to astrological phases, time of month, moon phases etc.

There is another word definition that has to do with planting by the signs that relates to soil temperature and water content. This is deduced as to what wild plants are starting to grow and bloom. For instance if wild roses are blooming then it means the dewberries are ripe and its time to plant corn. There are old books where this information has been preserved, but I need to know the word or phrase that decribe the above. My refence librarian could not help me This may be common knowledge but it has eluded me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.6.23 (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's "for instance", not "for instant". StuRat (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Do you mean biodynamic agriculture? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orginal questioner76.31.6.23 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks StuRat I missed that, never proof your own question.[reply]

Thanks Tammy, biodynamic agriculture seem to be using the zodiac. I'm looking for information that uses the resident plants to tell the soil temperature. Knowing that the rose is blooming or an easly reconizable weed is starting then soil temperature and water content is deduced or its time to sow the sorgum seeds. This type of information is akin to whats in the FoxFire books by Eliot Wigginton. Now retired.

There's a problem doing it that way. What farmers want to know before planting is the future weather, while the presence of plants tells them the past weather. You could have an early thaw one year, and thus get plants blooming which normally bloom later. Planting crops earlier than usual, based on this, is unwise, since a late frost could still wipe them all out. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters[edit]

where can i get more help in paralnormal and poltergeist activity and how to get rid of the spirits, who should i contact74.71.226.3 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a title. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Have you tried a Google search ? What terms did you use ? Exorcism ? We also have a list of exorcists. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

www.ghostterminators.com (though they look pretty scary themselves).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well, this may be a shock to you, but it just so happens that poltergeist and ghosts don't exist. There is no possibility that any phenomena you experience is the result of paranormal activity. I'm happy to charge a fee to make your non-existent ghosts go away though. ---- _nonsense ferret 11:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, but it's not 100 percent certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's only because nothing that we think we "know" can ever be 100% certain. Fortunately, that also applies to your answer (and this response to it).

However, the real question (in a world where there perhaps a one in a billion chance that all of science is wrong and that ghosts exist) is: Should a rational, thinking person spend a significant amount of time (and money) chasing something that only has a one in a billion chance of being true? Worse still, even if that one in a billion chance turns out to be true - how sure can we be that "exorcism" would be the correct "fix" for such phenomena? That's a one in a billion leap-of-faith WITHIN a one in a billion chance of the phenomenon existing in the first place. That puts the odds so remotely that it's truly negligable. Worse still, without any serious effort to measure the existence/nature of these things - we have an utter impossibility of knowing whether any particular course of action would be effective at removing them. The odds are precisely as good that whatever bullcrap these "exorcists" do will attract more evil spirits as that they will remove them. Maybe the right way to get rid of a ghost is to offer it a nice slice of cake and discuss where else it might go over a cup of tea? Maybe waving an 0.71 meter length of nyodemium/ytturbium alloy in a lissajous figure is what works? There are an infinite number of possible answers - and all of them are equally probable. So, the most rational thing to do is nothing - even if Baseball Bugs is right. SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"That's only because nothing that we think we "know" can ever be 100% certain." Um, I suppose you are 100% certain of that? μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend playing a bunch of Jerry Vale records. If that doesn't drive the spooks away, nothing will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't play Harry Belafonte or y'll ne'er get rid of 'em. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is the same chance of the existence of ghosts as there is the existence of santa claus or the tooth fairy - that is none. ---- _nonsense ferret 00:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I was a kid, my Christmas gifts were signed "Santa Claus" and my quarter was in an envelope signed "Tooth Fairy". And that evidence was good enough. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your point Ferret? That Beetlejuice must actually be a demon or an alien or a time-travelling robot, maybe? μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you suspect a ghost or poltergeist, this what you do (based on what a parapysch shrink told me):-

Document ALL incidents.
Try to determine the history of the property where the incident's occur..
Call the plumber, and make sure they really do check EVERY pipe, bolt and fitting.
Seal the house against draughts, and interference from intruders.

And if that fails, you have a quiet word with your local minister XD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the correct answer is call 555-2368. 122.56.22.145 (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]