Miscellaneous desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

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.

February 13[edit]

The Killing Game[edit]

Out of all of the hundreds of Star Trek episodes in the ST universe, The Killing Game (Star Trek: Voyager) is driving me nuts. It just doesn't make any sense. Besides the ridiculous story, two scenes in particular are driving me nuts. My problem begins after the Doctor reveals there has been at least one death from the battle with the Hirogen; later Janeway is captured by the leader of the Hirogen. They establish a truce, but in that scene we can see skeletal remains hanging as trophies from the ceiling. Are we to assume that this is a member of the Voyager crew who died in the battle? If so, this is extremely disturbing since Janeway is acting quite cavalier at this point. Granted, she doesn't have very much of a choice, but the question remains, do these bones belong to the crew member who died? The other scene that drives me batty is the end, when the surviving Hirogen accept Voyager's truce in exchange for the holodeck device. But knowing what we know about the Hirogen, wouldn't they have said screw this and proceeded to hunt down every last member of the crew as prey? After all, their dead leader was the only thing standing in their way. None of this makes any sense. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction. μηδείς (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed this "fiction" retort before here, but I'll address it again. Good fiction is best thought of as a simulation or model. When the model doesn't work, the audience runs into problems. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not in the show, we can't know. Is there a novelization of it anywhere? (Also, matter transport and faster-than-light speed don't make sense either.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR: could the skeletal remains be ... a hologram? --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are bones in the background of several of the Hirogen scenes, so it's possible that those remains are from some other hunt. Dismas|^(talk) 16:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janeway and the bones: Janeway has seen so much death at that point she doesn't even care? Janeway is a Materialist, so a dead body is just a dead body? Janeway is very pragmatic and chooses to ignore what might derail the peace process? More Hirogen died then Humans, so any need for vengeance is satisfied? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hirogen suddenly willing to negotiate: Even Hirogen get tired of senseless killing after a while? The Hirogen wanted to walk away and pretend none of it happen, because even by Hirogen standards it was all pretty perverse? (Making your prey play dress-up.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

1) Deaths of minor crew members seem to elicit very little care from the senior members of the crew in all versions of Star Trek. I suppose this is a necessary plot device, since they want to convey that the situation is dangerous, which requires somebody to die, but they don't want every episode to be an endless grief-fest, either.

2) The holodeck should enable them to engage in endless hunts, albeit fake ones. If endless hunts is your goal in life, then this is quite a prize. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For more on Stu's point 1, see Redshirt (character). Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The holodeck can obviously arouse one. Can it also get you stoned? μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, you seem to have made the most important point in this thread. The fact that the death of these crew members doesn't elicit much of a reaction from Janeway and others has been noted by other critics. According to them, something like 25% of the crew died during the time it took them to travel from the delta to the alpha quadrant. We should have seen far more concern about these deaths than we did, and this troubles me. At least TNG showed Picard caring deeply about such deaths, and we had episodes like "Lower Decks" that explained how their deaths not only made a difference but directly impacted the lives of the crew. I'm sorry, but I really feel that Voyager jumped the shark with this episode. Like I said above, if we think of good fiction as a model or simulation, then Janeway should have gone absolutely beserk here after seeing the bones of her crew hanging from the ceiling. That she was all smiles in this scene doesn't ring true, and this is after she's been shot and stabbed and who knows what else. This is absurd. And the ending? No, this makes no sense. Up to this point we've been shown how the Hirogen are ruthless killing machines who delight in chasing their prey down and disemboweling them. But suddenly, one Hirogen has second thoughts and wants to start writing opera and drinking tea instead? This episode should never have been made. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Public restrooms in the US[edit]

I walked into one of my regular gas stations the other day to use the restroom. They have two. One labeled for men and the other for women. I've been in the men's before. I'm a guy, by the way. This day, someone was using the men's. Being a logical adult, I thought that I'd use the women's. There's nothing in there that I haven't seen before and really, there's no difference between the two restrooms (I'd just have to remember to put the seat back down). They even both have a Koala Kare changing table. So why have different labels? Is this a holdover from a bygone era?

I realize that regulations on this might vary from state to state and city to city but is there a prevailing reason for a separation even when the rooms are identical as far as supplied equipment and plumbing? Dismas|^(talk) 16:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider a couple who just started dating and both need to use the bathroom. The man, being gallant, allows the woman to go first. She then smells up the bathroom. Would she want her date to use it after her, and smell all that ? So, many people would just find it gross.

Another practical reason is that it makes peeping, flashing and rape easier if a man can legitimately be in the Women's bathroom. He can just say he thought it was empty or he can leave the door unlocked and wait for a woman to come in so he can flash her.

Then there are sometimes differences. Men's rooms often have urinals. Women's rest rooms sometimes have tampon dispensers and a place to sit down in front of a mirror to fix makeup. And they might also keep women's rooms cleaner and have a feminine decor.

At highway rest stops, in addition to multi-stall Men's and Women's rest rooms, I've now seen handicapped accessible (gender neutral) and family bathrooms. The later is for families with babies or small children who need assistance from an adult, not necessarily of the same gender. Before those, it was common for small boys that needed help to go with their mothers to the Women's room, but small girls that needed assistance going with their dads in the Men's room was more iffy, since they might see men at the urinals, which was not ideal.

One problem with "separate but equal" in bathrooms is that women often need longer, due to having to sit to pee and spending more time on fixing their appearance, and may also visit more often. If there are an equal number of men and women, this results in the need for larger Women's rooms than Men's rooms. This is often an architectural problem, if they want a symmetrical design.

I like the idea of many "single stall" bathrooms, but with much better ventilation and self-cleaning, so women don't sit on a toilet seat to find some man didn't flush or left pee on the seat. StuRat (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood or I wasn't clear enough. These are single person rooms. There aren't several stalls/urinals. There's only one toilet in each. Dismas|^(talk) 16:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understood, and addressed that, as well as the broader question. It's my contention that nobody should be forced to smell, see, or sit in other people's waste, regardless of gender, but people somehow seem more accepting of it if it's their own gender which left the mess. StuRat (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a cite for the latter part of that claim, Stu? If there's a "mess" on the seat, I couldn't give a damn about the sex, age, height, religion, nationality, political orientation ..... of the perpetrator. I just want it not to have been put there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The only thing that can make a shitstormed bathroom more or less pleasant is diet. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it's got to do with the customs of a given culture. In France, for example, they might not create separate restrooms. Also, in smaller stores in the US, we increasingly see unisex restrooms, clearly marked as such, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many men are complete slobs in the restroom, and the minimum wage people who work at a gas station aren't expected to go in and clean up the mess left by the guy who was just in there. I totally understand women not wanting to be subjected to that. I find it somewhat offensive myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That gross generalization does not bear out in my workplace where the women's washroom is consistently nastier than the men's. Mingmingla (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the minimum wage worker is male, hence he doesn't go into the powder rooms, just the pissoirs. μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there an informal study released a few years back that reached the same conclusion? My pet peeve is people who don't wash their hands. I suspect that about 10% (maybe more) of all people who use public restrooms don't wash afterwards. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask where you work, Mingmingla, but I think I'd rather not know.... μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which means, Viriditas, that if you touch the door handle on your way out, you've just defeated the point of washing your hands. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and one solution is to make bathrooms without doors, but rather a couple strategic turns to hide the innards from the outside world. US highway rest stops are often set up that way. One disadvantage is that a wayward toddler might wander into the wrong one, making it difficult for the parent of the wrong gender to retrieve them. StuRat (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the only "gross generalization" would be yours. I said "many men", not "men". You generalized from your workplace to the world in general. Or, if you only meant to provide one data point among millions, that would be insignificant. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dismas, did you look at Sex segregation#Contemporary policy examples which contains the sentences "Some sex segregation occurs for reasons of safety and privacy. Worldwide, laws often mandate sex segregation in bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and similar spaces, based on a common perceived need for privacy.[5] This type of segregation policy can protect against sexual harassment and sexual abuse.[33]" and includes references. Some more information is to be found at Public toilet#Gender and public toilets ("Amnesty International includes segregated toilets among its list of suggested measures to ensure the safety of girls in schools.[7]"). There are also Unisex public toilets available. I just looked and both the men's and women's at work have the Koala Bear Care changing tables (for some strange reason our much newer Health Centre has no changing tables at all). Interestingly the door to the janitors room can only be accessed by stepping through the door to the woman's. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the dirty handles issue, before you wash your hands, dispense some paper towel, but leave it hanging from the dispenser. After you turn on the dirty knobs and push the dirty soap dispenser, wash your hands well and thoroughly. Use the dispensed towel to wipe off. If that is not enough, dispense more towel using the towel in hand to do so without your skin touching the mechanism. Repeat as necessary, in the last step using the pre-dispensed towel to open the door, and throw it back into the wastebasket if possible while propping the lady'sroom door open with your Manolo Blahnik's. Voila! Feel no guilt if the paper lands on the floor, or the water is left running--people get paid to take care of that for you. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That works for casual neglect, but won't stop determined pigs from peeing in the soap dispenser. Way easier for a man than a woman. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, in at least one girls' bathroom, the alleged pee soap was determined to be an anti-pig precaution. So rest assured, girl students. There is no threat of pee in your dispensers. Just dark sarcasm in the classroom. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly good advice. I hope the end of that was tongue in cheek though. People are poorly paid to clean up after the slobs in public restrooms. Urinals and toilets aren't substitutes for waste baskets either. --Onorem (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply said don't worry if you leave the water running or drop the paper on the flood unintentionally while avoiding touching anything while cleaning up/departing. Others are gainfully employed doing that, and they can always go look for an easier, below-minimum wage job if they want, like being a waitress. At this point, if people are peeing in the soap dispenser or you have active ebola and are dropping you used towels on the floor, then we are beyond good and evil in the realm of public toilet etiquette. μηδείς (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying turn off the water and properly dispose of your waste. You're not going to die from touching the door. If you were, you'd die from touching the first common surface outside the restroom so get over it. --Onorem (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]