Miscellaneous desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 5 >

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.

September 4

Meth and Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Why are Methamphetamine- a stimulant- derivatives used to treat Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder- a disorder characterized by restlessness? Wouldn't methamphetamine just increase the severity of the symptoms? Acceptable (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulants, like the amphetamines, can, in lower doses than drug addicts use, improve concentration. Even among recreational uses of meth concentration is not the issue though from the stereotypical "tweaker" image you would think otherwise. People on meth can famously spend hours doing entirely uninteresting tasks and be perfectly happy. A famous example from the Warhol "Factory" was someone who took the time to meticulously apply postage stamps to an entire wall. I imagine it is somewhat similar, though reduced in effect, for prescription amphetamines. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best Tickets?

I'm looking to buy tickets to the Dashboard Confessional concert in either Minneapolis, MN or Rosemont, IL (they are on Oct 21 and 22, respectively). I plan on using Ticketmaster to purchase my tickets. When I search for tickets on the site, I have consistently stuck to using "Best Available" when asked where I would like to be seated. The options that I have were the Ground floor (General Admission) and Section 138 (for the MN show), and section 115 for the Rosemont show. The problem is that I've never been to a concert, and I don't know which seats/tickets are better. Could you guys please help me? Thanks! P.S. I looked for pictures to help show me the location I would be at, but I couldn't find any. --71.98.0.102 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the names of the two venues? If you can give us those, someone might be able to find a seating plan which would help. General Admission normally means the standing area, so if you like standing at a concert, you might want to go for that option. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the seating chart for the Target Center in Minneapolis for the Rock Band Live show and here's the chart for the show in the Allstate Arena in Rosemont. Laenir (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People

I am trying to find pictures of old people in sepia, from every race on earth, maybe thats wrong, allow me to expand on that theme. I have a picture of an old Irish woman, a Native american man, I need a picture of an Oriental person, and African Person. In the least racist terms I have a White, a Red person. I want what I am doing to relate to any one that picks it up, who am I missing, broadly speaking. And where can I find them? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can try a Google image search, and restrict your searches to faces. Depending on what you want to use the images for, there may be copyright restrictions on the images you find (check the websites the images come from). Alternatively, you can search on Flickr, again, respecting copyright if applicable. — QuantumEleven 12:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in assuming that all images on Wikipedia, have no copyright? I can use them at will? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Some images, but far from all, are public domain. Most images are freely usable in some form, but may require attribution or other conditions. Some are not usable except under fair use criteria. In all cases, the copyright status of an image should be laid out on the image page (click the image in question to go to it). — Lomn 13:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Wikimedia Commons; Sepia in commons. - Phydaux (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All photos in Wikicommons are copyright free - but not all on Wikipedia are. When you want to use a picture from Wikipedia, you need to go to the image's own page and scroll down until you find the copyright statement. It should make it clear whether the image is freely usable (for one reason or another) or has restrictions - or is basically not usable except under "fair use". Whether YOU can use an image under fair use depends on an awful lot of things - so beware! SteveBaker (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A minor quibble, Steve. While all images on the Wikimedia Commons are either public domain or available under a free license, images in the latter category are not 'copyright free'. Their owners still retain copyright over the images, but allow distribution under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, one of the Creative Commons licenses, or some other free license. These 'free' or 'copyleft' licenses may impose conditions on how you reuse or relicense any copies or derivative works that you might create. Public domain images are free to use for any purpose. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in Race (classification of human beings). Most people would not agree that having pictures of "every race on earth" means having a picture of a white person, a black person, a Native American and an Asian person. --Allen (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concentration & Motivation Question

I am having a slight problem with a story I am trying to write. One of the characters has trouble with concentration and motivation, and a friend of theirs, who had the same trouble a few years earlier, has created a little book made up of a mixture of pages printed from the internet and typed pages of useful stuff she had found through her experience and research. However I feel the story would seem a bit odd if I didn't at least mention some of the advice the book gave her, but since I have hardly been able to think of anything to include, I was hoping someone here might be able to help me come up with some ideas, just a few things that this character could do occasionally that might help.92.21.50.138 (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I can't be bothered to answer your...er...whatever.

It seems odd that someone with a lack of concentration and motivation would have gone to all the trouble to research the problem...much less make a book of the stuff. But concentration can be "fixed" chemically - some of the Adult attention-deficit disorder (AADD) drugs are effective. Lack of motivation often correlates with depression - so again, anti-depression treatments might be effective. But I kinda sense you're looking for "self-help" solitions. Strategies for overcoming writer's block looks relevent. Many of those techniques would help concentration/motivation. Motivation and Attention both make interesting reading. SteveBaker (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea when considering advice your characters will give/receive is, what are their occupations? What is it that is making things difficult for the reciever of the info - is he/she trapped in a job that is requiring too much concentration? Colin Cowherd spoke on his ESPN radio program a few months back about how he felt he might have ADD, and that his job was the perfect fit for him because he could talk a lot and never stay long on the same subject. Along with him, your helper might look into other famous people with ADD, which might be on the ADD page.Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the booklet is of stuff he found on the internet, why don't you just google concentration and motivation and sum up a little of what comes up (assuming it's established, generally known, not copyrighted information)? - Lamba jan 01:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could summarize/paraphrase the contents of those pages without infringing copyright though. I agree - you should pretend you are de-motivated and having trouble keeping focus - and actually do what your character is supposed to have done. A couple of hours work will tell you much more and give your writing the feel of reality - because it IS reality. (Or MAYBE that's what you're doing right now! Why wouldn't your character ask a question on the Wikipedia Reference desk? I think we all need to see that in your book!) SteveBaker (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the character should write to the reference desk "Give 100 words on modivation plz site ur refs." Then later she can say that when we told her to "do your own homework" it changed her entire life. She finally realized that there's some things she needs to be able to rely on herself to do, etc. We'll probably joke that we hope this is the same one who wants to blow up Sumatra and she can start by spelling out her words completely. - Lamba jan 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GPS turned off for a country?

I used a Garmin Legend ( [1] ) in a lot of places in Africa. The device worked everywhere except Egypt where I couldn't get a signal. After Googling I find GPS is illegal in Egypt but nothing is mentioned about a switch hit for the entire country. There is nothing in my manual or notice from my device that says Garmin voluntarily blocked. So what happened?

Lotsofissues 22:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to jam GPS signals; they're relatively weak by the time they arrive at ground level. This wouldn't "turn it off" within the precise borders of the country, but if a government wanted to they could set up a series of jamming transmitters to ensure that signals were mostly blocked through most of their territory. It seems unlikely (from my superficial understanding of GPS) that anything could be done to the satellite signals themselves to blot out a certain area (the signals aren't directional and each footprint will cover way more than that area). I guess the receiver refusing to give a position when it knows it's within certain boundaries is possible (it's the technically easiest of the approaches) but I haven't heard of such. If a manufacturer did do this I wouldn't necessarily expect them to mention it in the manual of a device sold elsewhere in the world - it can only look bad on them. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to article on jamming a GPS signal. It was sent to me by a guy that I know online who works with the GPS satellites. Dismas|^(talk) 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong here.

GPS is illegal in Egypt - but that law must be very widely ignored. There are numerous web hits for GPS being used by Egyptologists and pyramid hunters. I found this web site: [2] which specifically provides GPS units and digital maps for Egypt.
All I can find about jamming is some attempts by the Afghan army to do it when the Taliban were in control. The idea of jamming to prevent your opponents from using GPS to shoot guided missiles at you is "busted" because the US was easily able to take out the jamming units by the simple act of having their missiles home in on the jamming signal. It seems that anti-radar missiles are perfectly capable of taking out GPS jamming stations. So it's REALLY unlikely that Egypt would continue to do it for military reasons. It's very easy to jam GPS's - but you couldn't confine that jamming to just the borders of your country - it would either spill over into places like international waters and airspace (which would be REALLY dangerous!) or it would have to be limited to only working (perhaps) around your major cities. But nowadays, so many things rely on GPS (ships, planes, cars, mobile phones) that I doubt they'd really do that. Finally - I'd bet good money that the Egyptian army/navy/airforce relies as heavily on GPS as every other army in the world. That's a BIG desert to get lost in! So they won't jam it for fear of messing up their own troop movements.
There have been stories about some GPS manufacturers deliberately having them "turn off" when within specific areas of the world. Garmin might have agreed to do that - but I'm surprised there would be no message on your unit when it happened. But I can think of no reason for Garmin to do this - what do they care what Egypt do? They already aren't allowed to sell their units there - why would they care what stupid laws Egypt would pass? That's really stretching it...plus I get no search results from trying to find someone who says that Garmin GPS's don't work in Egypt...only that they are (technically) illegal.
So what about the US denying service to Egyptians? Nope - that's impossible. The way the system works, (and I'm simplifying here) is that each of the 30 or so satellites sends a super-accurate radio "clock" out in all directions to anyone who happens listening. By measuring the delay between the clocks of however many satellites happen to be nearby - and knowing where the satellites are in their orbits - the GPS unit can figure out where it is. So it's impossible to "shut it off" for any particular country - because even in the middle of Egypt, you are looking at the exact same satellites you'd be seeing in all of the neighboring countries.
A Google search on "GPS illegal Egypt" turns up lots of people saying that (a) they have used them successfully there and (b) that GPS's are easily available on the black market in Egypt. That says quite clearly that GPS's DO work in Egypt.

So I'm betting that you simply didn't wait long enough for the unit to "find" the satellites. When you turn off the GPS, then pick it up, put it in a plane and move it a few thousand miles, then when you turn back it on, it thinks it's been mysteriously "teleported" and it can take a LONG time (like 15 minutes) to find the satellites again. It first looks where it thinks they ought to be - based on wherever it was when you last had it turned on - and the current time/date. But when it fails to find them there, it has NO CLUE where the satellites are, it can take a very long time to relocate enough of them to begin navigating again. If you get impatient and turn it off again before you get at least a four-satellite lock, then the process starts again from scratch when you turn it back on again. It tells you that right there in the GPS manual - and I'd bet good money that this is what happened to you.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this depends on the unit somewhat. It's a little misleading to talk about the unit "finding" the satellites (as far as I know its antenna is nondirectional). What it's doing, during that time, is downloading their ephemerides (it can't use the data from a satellite unless it knows an up-to-date ephemeris for it -- doesn't do you any good to know "I'm 125734 meters from point A" unless you know where point A is). Better receivers do a better job of caching the ephemerides (and maybe extrapolating from them? not really sure on that point). Then if you've seen that satellite recently, even if it was thousands of miles from where you are now, you should still be able to make sense of its datastream.

I don't think it takes very long to download each individual ephemeris; it's just that each satellite broadcasts its ephemeris only every five minutes or so. So you have to wait until you've collected enough of them. --Trovatore (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm -- I may have had this a little wrong. Our GPS article says the ephemerides are sent out every 30 seconds. Not too sure exactly what the receiver is doing during those minutes. Maybe trying to tune the satellites in. I still don't think it's right to say it's "looking" for them as that seems to imply directionality. If it had to know the exact direction to the satellite then you'd be in danger of losing the lock just by moving the receiver. --Trovatore (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on GPS jamming - it would be profoundly stupid for a country to jam GPS signals except in wartime, as commercial aircraft use GPS to navigate. Unless they want to shut down their airline industry (and force aircraft to detour around their territory)... — QuantumEleven 10:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GPS jamming isn't detrimental to civil aviation, they still have VOR, NDB, DME, INS, ILS... Is GPS even in wide spread use in civil aviation right now? --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need advice, counsel, guidance...

Hi all. I've finally signed up for a real WikiID, and this is my first post using my new name. And, I need some advice, some "other factors to consider" in making a what's going to be a fairly significant decision in my life.

Something (which doesn't belong there) is growing in my head, and I'm not going to tell you exactly what so that you can't give me any medical advice. Nonetheless, it's below the brain and approaching the brainstem, so clearly it's a long way in from wherever one might start digging or drilling. It's noncancerous, and is growing slowly, but in the next 3-5 years, it will have to be killed or removed.

If I elect removal, I have the choice of two surgical teams in the region, both of whom I have visited, and both of whom seem competent enough. Both report that they perform about 100 of these operations per year -- two per week! The major difference is that one team is a couple of older guys, who have done this procedure a gazillion times; the other is two guys in their 30s whose education might be considered more "state of the art", or at least more recent. One team works at a University Medical Center, the other from a well-known Clinic.

For the life of me, I can't think of any other criteria or evaluation or questions to ask. Are there some among you who have faced a similar quandry; who have had some related experience you'd like to share; or who learned something (even after the fact), and said "If only I had asked...". Am I fretting over things are aren't relevant? Bottom line, I'm having a-hell-of-a-time just thinking about how to make this decision, more than actually making it. -- DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the two teams? Let them each make their case (assuming they both recommend themselves) and go with the one you find most convincing. One thing I'll point out is that a doctor's eduction does not stop when they leave Med School, or even once they finish specialising, the older doctors will have continued to learn new techniques as they are developed, so that probably isn't a significant issue. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - we CAN'T give medical advice. We can, however, give statistical advice...which is what I'm doing below:

The critical question to ask of the two teams of surgeons is: "What is your success rate?" - they must know this - and I'd hope they'd be able to give you exact numbers. Assuming that even the younger team has done enough operations to produce statistically meaningful data, that's really the only number you care about. I guess you also need to know their definition of "success" - does it mean "survival for at least 1 year" or does it mean "survival with all faculties intact, no paralysis, etc for at least 10 years"? When my wife was pregnant with my son, she needed an amniocentesis, we asked the "What is your success rate?" question of three different guys and (to my surprise) they were all happy to tell us their scores - both over the long term and the short term. There was a significant degree of variation - so we went with the one who had the best success rate...why wouldn't you?!

Then of course, there is always the question of risk versus benefit. Obviously neither I nor anyone else here knows either of those things (and if we did, we couldn't tell you because that would be giving medical advice. But if the risk is large and the benefit small - then maybe you don't want to do it at all.

A couple of years ago, I went almost completely deaf in one ear (for no well-understood reason). They did a brain scan. This told them nothing whatever about my deafness (Doh!) - but turned up the deeply terrifying news that I have a 1cmx1cmx2cm "growth" deep in my brain that's pressing against my temporal lobe. My immediate reactions was "Yikes! When do you operate?" - the answer to which was: "Never!". The risk of operating would be really high - and fortunately - it seems (from what they can see of how the brain has developed around the growth) that it's been there and has been about that same size since I was a teenager - so the "benefit" is zero. Removing it would not only be exceedingly dangerous - but even a successful operation might result in "personality changes". Yikes! But the point is that if it had been "caught early" I'd probably have had to have it removed when I was a teenager before anyone could tell how dangerous it was. If that had happened, I probably wouldn't have been any better off...zip, zero. Clearly, your case is totally different - but the message is that you have to trade outcome versus risk. Of course my wife wonders whether those "personality changes" might not be beneficial...and since she's an Operating Department Nurse with neuro speciality, I have to keep a careful eye on her and my power tools after we have any major arguments! ~~Personally, I think it's a Brain slug~~ (NO ITS DEFINITELY NOT).

SteveBaker (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be careful with success rates. For something like an amniocentesis, every one is pretty much the same (I'm sure there is some variation, but the principle is constant), the brain surgery it's different every time depending on exactly where whatever it is is positioned. You need the one most likely to succeed in your case which isn't necessarily the same as the one that succeeds most often. --Tango (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, the Freakonomics blog just did a writeup on success rates and risk-vs-reward for amniocentesis. — Lomn 12:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can offer a professional statistician's perspective on success rates. These may be misleading because one group may be choosing to take on more "risky" cases that the other group declines to operate on. So the "better" group may well end up having a lower overall success rate than the other group. Statistical analysis of this tends to get very tricky: gathering data is an ethical minefield. HTH, Robinh (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps relevant: the book Complications discusses the interesting case of the Shouldice Hospital, which runs a "hernia factory": all the surgeons do all day long is repair hernias. Compared to the average hernia repair, they do it for half the price, in half the time, and have 1/10th to 1/20th the failure rate. --Sean 15:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]