April 13

I heard that there is a high chance that marijuana will be legalized within the next twenty years (in the US). How much truth is there to this? 69.40.248.234 (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I myself wouldn't know, but I highly doubt it. To legalize marijuana would be the worst thing on the planet. The worst plan on the planet.

Cardinal Raven (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Actually it would be a great idea, there is a high possibility that with in the next 10 15 years that it will be decriminalized, it already is in some states, and most countries in Europe it is perfectly legal, keep a look out, until then, keep you cell phone ready. --Nick910 (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries in Europe it is perfectly legal? I think you're mistaken. It's legal in some but definitely not a majority, decriminalised in others although even though probably still not a majority. Bear in mind that Europe has a lot of countries. The enforcement of cannabis offences in Europe even where it remains a criminal offence is probably generally a lot weaker (if enforced at all) then the US, but that doesn't mean it's decriminalised, let alone legal. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to predict the future is a pretty futile endeavour. You may however find our articles

• Decriminalization#Cannabis see also
• Decriminalization of non-medical marijuana in the United States
• Places that have decriminalized non-medical marijuana in the United States
• Legality of cannabis

contain a number of useful references for further information on the topic. Note also the distinction between legalization and decriminalization in discussions on the topic.

Incidentally, I strongly urge any other editors who might wish to add to this thread to remember that this is the Reference Desk, and that we should aim to provide readers with links to useful, relevant sources. Editorializing or extended debate are neither helpful nor necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may well happen. The biggest reason is simply demographics. Many people who grew up in the drug culture of the 1960s are now serving in government offices. Convincing people who have personal experience with marijuana that it's harmful and should continue to be banned is much harder than convincing people who don't know anything about it. Even former President Clinton admitted to using marijuana. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with making marijuana legalized is there not anyway for it to be used without the user becoming impaired. Meaning, you can drink an alcoholic beverage without becoming impaired. You cannot smoke marijuana without becoming impaired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.133.60 (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your definition of impaired is, but alcohol must be the most 'impairing' drug available. Death and injury due to these legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco, outweighs by orders of magnitude the damage wrought by drugs like cocaine and heroin, and cannabis has been shown to be fairly benign in all scientific testing over the last half-century. Its criminalisation is more a political matter than a medical one. 121.44.244.114 (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading too much into the statement. So, I'll explain. You can go out to eat, stay at home, go to a party or sporting event and drink alcohol, without becoming imapired. The way you do that is to avoid drinking too much alcohol.

You can go out to eat, stay at home, go to a party or sporting event and smoke marihuana, where the only intent is to become impaired. After smoking marijuana, if you did not become impaired (which means to become euphoric or high), then you would not want to smoke any more and would probably be angry at whoever sold it to you. What would be the point?

Therefore, if marijuana was used in a social setting, like the ones mentioned above, then you would need to sit around for a few hours until you were no longer impaired, in order to leave and not drive while impaired.

This would be the definition of Impaired: Diminished, damaged, or weakened: Functioning poorly or incompetently: Having a physical or mental disability.

I'm not saying either one should or should not be legal or illegal. I'm just adding a fact that most people seem to forget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.133.60 (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy it--frankly I think you're flat wrong. If you're drinking enough alcohol to get the positive effects (reduced anxiety, general sense of well being, reduced social inhibitions, etc) then you're also drinking enough to impair you in measurable ways (reaction time, for example). Maybe not enough to keep you from driving, but only because we allow people to drive at a certain level of impairment (as indeed we must for practical purposes, for if a driver had to be in top shape to legally drive, how many of us could get to work on a typical Monday?). --Trovatore (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment (sorry I can't find a wikipedia article on this topic) -- impairment depends on the task at hand. It is well known that cannabis can, not always but often, enhance musical perception. It may be true that if your task at hand is to drive a car, cannabis may result in impairment. But if your task is to compose music and play an instrument with other musicians -- well there are many musicians who have vouched for the power of cannabis in this regard. I searched wikipedia for an article on cannabis and music, but failed to find one. Isn't there one? The number of musicians who have vouched for the power of cannabis is at least notable. 09:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As some article I recently read put it -- just a decade or so ago a US presidential candidate had to go through great pains to claim that although they smoked cannabis they "did not inhale". Today, in the US, presidential candidates need no such weaseling and simple say they did in fact smoke cannabis when young -- as well as other drugs such as cocaine. And it does nothing to reduce their chances to win the presidency. Even McCain, as this article put it, expressed a kind of remorse in having to admit that he had not smoked, with the excuse that he was in a Vietnamese prison camp during the time when he would have had the greatest opportunity. If a presidential candidate can admit to committing what is still considered a serious crime without any meaningful stain on their character, one has to wonder whether this "crime" is as serious as some make it out to be. People who have committed the same crime rot in prison or run for president. Does this not sound like a farce? As for "within 20 years"? Who knows. We in the US should be so lucky, as taxpayers if nothing else. (I hope this comment is useful and not merely editorializing) Pfly (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember when I was younger, way younger, smoking pot just made me sleepy. I have a terrible time sleeping now. If it was legal, I wouldn't have to take so much medication. I could take a few tokes, eat a bag of chips, and ZZZZZzzzzzz for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JelloTube (talk • contribs) 12:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about twenty years, but I really believe that most Western democratic nations will at least be on the road to total legalisation within 30-50 years. From an economic standpoint, the war on drugs is unfeasible, and demand has increased rather than decreased in the last 10 years or so. Drugs are becoming more widely available and cheaper than ever, and it seems to me that governments will eventually realise there are major benefits to legalisation. These include the ability to tax sales on drugs (in the UK, over 60% of the price of cigarettes is tax), the fact that it would be taking the responsibilty for the supply of drugs out of the hands of criminals and therefore likely reducing drug-related crime massively, and the safety of users being ensured as there is little chance they will be buying drugs that have been cut. Of course there are downsides, including public opposition and the inability to know whether legalisation will result in more users, but if societies continue the modern trend of a slow march towards libertarianism-influenced social democracies, then it seems almost inevitable that drugs will become legalised, and almost certain that marijuana will be the first.

And as a reply to some statements above, "impaired" does not mean "to become euphoric or high". Alcohol and cannabis both have drastically different effects on the body, but both certainly qualify as impairment. I wouldn't drive a car stoned, but I certainly wouldn't do it after a few drinks (it's a moot point, I can't drive). For me the maor problem with the currently illegal drugs is that by virtue of their being illegal, they are controlled by criminals, and if you're willing to risk prison time to sell cocaine, it stands to reason that you may be more willing to use violence to enforce your business realtionships. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has me extremely puzzled, so I'm putting it out there for others to think about. I usually lock my bike to a street sign outside my house. I use a good D-lock and a cable lock, both connecting the slim pole with the bike frame. It was locked normally last night, but when I went outside today, I noticed the D-lock laying on the ground, still around the sign pole but no longer connected to the bike. The bike was also laying on the ground when usually it is stood up properly. The cable lock was still connected as normal. Upon inspection, I thought that probably the sign had been replaced due to fresh bitumen being present at the base of the sign. So I guess they saw my bike there, drilled into the base of the pole, then lifted the pole up through the locks, then kindly threaded the new pole through my cable lock when putting it into the ground, so as not to leave my bike unlocked. Then I realised, the D-lock was not connected to the bike anymore! What the hell happened? The bike is not damaged, obviously. The D-lock cannot be locked or unlocked without the key, so even if I had left it not completely locked, it could not be locked anyway. What's going on? The best I can come up with is that someone else with a similar lock tried out their key for fun, unlocked and relocked it around the pole, which is a pretty weak guess. Anyone have any ideas? 121.44.244.114 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two theories. 1 ) You were in a hurry and did not lock your bike as well as you thought. I've done this myself before. 2) You've got one of these locks that can easily be forced open with a ballpoint pen and someone is showing off. 3) Someone who's good at picking locks is showing off. These are only theories though. Maybe someone else can come up with a better theory. APL (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought about these possibilities. The lock is pretty much impossible to almost lock, as you turn a key to do so. The key won't turn if it isn't locked. I also check it every time. Also, if someone picked it with a pen, etc, how did they relock it? Or would that be possible using the same trick? 121.44.244.114 (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those locks do not lock in an 'open' position -- it is impossible to remove the key when the lock is unlocked. The tumblers only function at the shear line -- one the keyway has turned, the tumblers stay in their position without the aid of the key. So, once you have defeated the tumblers with the pen to get the lock open, you need not defeat them again to get the lock closed again. --Mdwyer (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Had just the sign been replaced, or the entire pole? Is it possible that as the sign was being replaced, workers lifted the bike, along with the locks, up through the pole to avoid damage to the bike during the construction? Or am I not understanding your question properly? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey, im looking for apartments for next school year, and im wondering if anybody who has experience with this can help me out. The ones that I think I want to live at are about a mile off campus, which seems like a long ways to me. Has anyone ever lived in an apartment that far from campus? Does it have any real negative effects or anything on your life? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.181 (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived a couple miles from (university) campus before. I was mostly bicycling at the time, not driving (on a campus where bicycling is a BIG thing; as in it would almost be pointless anyway to drive to campus, park, and walk to class). It can be more of a pain to get to class, and it's not as convenient to go home between classes for lunch or whatever, but you get used to adjusting your schedule to give yourself plenty of time. It's really going to be up to you, given your situation and preferences. Living that kind of distance from campus is hardly the end of the world, even if you are only walking. Keep it in mind when you create your class schedule. --Prestidigitator (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the weather like where you're going to school? If it's cold or rainy, it can be a pain. Especially if you drive that mile in the rain and then have to find a place to park. Dismas|^(talk) 06:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Drive that mile"??!! Richard Avery (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only a mile? That 15–20 minutes walk each way provides you with essential exercise.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, drive. Never did the OP say that they were a fan of walking or biking, everyone seems to just assume that they would walk/bike. They may not want to walk/bike in the rain/snow. Also, we don't know what's between the residence and the university. There may be some impediment to easily walking or biking the distance. Basically, we don't know all of their circumstances. Dismas|^(talk) 09:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be an encouragement to study in between lectures in the library rather than just go home and doss about. Also, do you have a subsidised canteen? The University I went to did, and you could get a sandwich at lunchtime for little more than the cost of making it yourself, and hot meals at reasonable prices too. I used to generally go in for the first lecture and stay in until the last (sometimes studying afterwards or visiting the bar. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In New York City it is not at all uncommon for people to have to walk a mile or so to get to a subway station. It is common for a great number of people of all ages and in a wide range of health. Now that I no longer live there I rather miss the requirement of walking a mile or so a day, or twice a day. It can be a pain when it is cold, raining, snowing, etc -- but it is, as they say, Good For You. Rather than negative effects of having to walk such distances 2 or 3, or more times a day, I rather feel it is an overall positive thing, even if most people would not do it if they had a choice. You get used to it. Then you come to appreciate it. Further, not only does it provide a minimal form of exercise, it is an opportunity to learn patience and meditative perseverance. You should be so lucky to have it foist upon you! Pfly (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an undergraduate, I lived about a mile from campus in snowy, rainy New England. I lived with housemates, and some other undergraduates lived similar distances from campus, so we had visitors fairly often and as much of a social life as we wanted. As others suggest, walking or bicycling that distance can really boost your mental and physical health. (Please don't drive it if you can avoid it. You and the environment will be better off if you don't.) By the way, my commute to work (still in snowy, rainy New England) involves nearly a mile of walking each way (in addition to several miles of subway/underground). Even in the rain and snow, I welcome the fresh air and exercise. Marco polo (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you live on-campus now, you'll want to look at the parking situation - my school has seperate permits for residents and commuters. We can only park on the streets nearby (2 hour max) or at the park'n'ride (WAY off campus) until after 2pm, so we're always rushing between classes to move the car. We're going to move closer to campus so I can bike to class instead. Kuronue | Talk 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my four years at WLU, I lived in four places: on campus, just off campus (could see the building clearly from my window), just a bit further away, and then about a mile away for my senior year. The best time was on-campus, of course - never a shortage of stuff to do and people to do it with and there were pubs, etc. right there. By senior year, the kinds of classes I took had changed and I appreciated the time spent in transit because it afforded me time to think about what I'd read or what I'd heard in class (this was back in the dark ages before I had an internet connection of my own). Also, the fact that I was further away from campus meant that the room was relatively nice and relatively cheap, which provided more funds for beer drinking. Not having a constant party going on outside your window also comes in handy for study times :). Matt Deres (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the mortar used in between the logs of an old log home made of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff is called chinking and is usually a type of dried moss, Pleurozium schreberi or whatever grows in the location. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most effective modern chinking is discussed here [1] and here [2]. There is not much moss used in North America anymore. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with caulking and oakum, used on wooden ships in days of yore. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One recipe: seven parts sand, one part portland cement. If you want the chinking to be white, add one part lime.

Can people really be made to think they're chickens and the like by using hypnosis. It never rings true for me when I see stage hypnotists on tv. Are the audience members plants, just playing along for fun or genuinely that susceptible. Stanstaple (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has never rung that true for me either but my guess is that people are both 1. playing along to some degree under pressure, and 2. that people are just suggestible enough that through the pressure to perform they're actually going to, on some level, really feel that they are being compelled to do it, though if that pressure were suddenly relieved somehow (e.g. somebody bombed the building and everyone had to immediately leave) I imagine they'd "snap out of it" fairly instantaneously. But that's not a terribly scientifically informed opinion, though I think one can never really underestimate the ability of people to experience "real" phenomena of this sort when under pressure to perform. In looking over the hypnosis page I see that my view of it is pretty much what is known as the "social construction" theory of hypnosis. The hypnosis article has some interesting comments about "stage hypnosis" in general.

Note that I do think there's evidence that some forms of hypnosis are legitimate; I'm constraining my comments above to the stage-magic, "you are a chicken" variety. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I've heard is that generally hypnosis increases the subject's suggestibility, to the point that they do just feel like "going along with it". However, it can't be used to make a person do things completely against their personality, and anyone trying that will tend to see them either resist, or snap out of it entirely. I think I saw it described as being able to make someone do something they didn't want to do, compared to making them do something they wanted not to do. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per CRD point 1, maybe most of them are chickens pretending to be humans until the covers are off! ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the device on this girls hand called and where can I get one? [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.165.47 (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an arms expert, but to me it looks like Wolverine's retractable Adamantium claw. Googling gives you some commercial and how-to-make-your-own links. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur it's a Wolverine claw, Kari made it for the episode of Mythbusters where they were trying to see how many balloons it'd take to lift a 3 year old off of the ground. She used the claw to pop the balloons at the end. Nanonic (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to build an instrument this summer, and I'm just wondering about the strings I should use. I'm looking for an odd, Asian sound. I was planning on using banjo strings, but is there some other strings I could use? They have to be easy to find and cheap to buy because I play my instruments hard (It's not my fault! I just started by playing bass!), and I tend to break strings. Should I use banjo strings or is there something better I could use? Thanks! MalwareSmarts (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of instrument are you building? I would say that the shape, size, material and construction of the instrument itself would have much more effect on the sound of the instrument than whether you use banjo, guitar or shamisen strings. jeffjon (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The instrument I plan to build has no name, it's original. But it would probably be made of pine and oak because I can get that wood around where I live. I haven't really planned this much, but it should be basically a strip of wood somewhere between 24 to 30 inches glued to a box with holes in it with a string or two attached. It's not exactly a professional effort. More of a plucky toy than anything else. MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't be disappointed if it doesn't sound very good. All musical instruments are intimately and precisely designed and built by people with decades of experience. Artisanship, that's why instruments cost many, many times more than the total cost of their primary materials. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of traditional Chinese musical instruments mentions that "Since the very beginning, the Chinese have used silk for strings, though today metal or nylon are more frequently used." Traditional Korean musical instruments says "Most Korean string instruments use silk strings" You can probably find out more information on the type of strings used in traditional Asian stringed instruments by reading some of the articles linked on those pages, or on the pages linked to by Template:Asian musical instruments. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dynamic is the job of an anesthesiologist? After anesthetizing the patient at the beginning of an operation, the anesthesiologist's job is to continually monitor the patient and ensure that he/she is properly anesthetized. But this seems like a very passive role and during, for example, a 6 hour surgery would this be, for lack of a better word, boring? Acceptable (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it wouldn't be my cup of tea, but you'd be kept pretty busy according to anesthesia#Anesthetic monitoring. Also it does get quite exciting when the patient for whom you are responsible has a cardiac arrest.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there are a lot of highly-paid, highly-skilled jobs that are similar. The canonical description of such occupations is usually along the lines of "long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of intense panic". Airline pilots are in the same boat, as are the folks who operate nuclear reactors. Most of the time the work that they do is pretty much by rote, and often with a large degree of automation. The highly-educated, highly-trained person is very nearly redundant for much of the time, but is absolutely essential during those (hopefully infrequent) times when something goes awry.

Boredom is absolutely a concern. There are cases in the literature of both anesthesiologists and pilots falling asleep on the job (Google phrases like "anesthesiologist fell asleep" to find some malpractice lawsuits). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story is told that Michael Caine was talking to Valerie Perrine on a movie set. When making a movie it often happens that everyone else has to wait around while one specific group of people are busy doing their thing to prepare for the next shot. She asked him how it was that the waiting didn't drive him up the wall. And he said, more or less, "You don't understand: this is what they pay me for. I'd act for nothing."

The point is that most jobs are boring most of the time, and one of the reasons you get paid is so you'll keep working even though it's boring. If you can find any sort of work that you're competnant at and where even the routine stuff is kind of interesting to you, then that's the work you should be doing. But don't expect any profession to be exciting all the time. There's no such thing. --Anonymous, 22:25 UTC, April 13, 2008.

You might have the personality that likes attention to detail. As you'd be a trained medical doctor to become an anesthesiologist, I guess you'd have other options if it turns out to be too low-key for you. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, find anesthiologists to be boring...they always put me to sleep. StuRat (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is olympic or other sport gold medals 100% gold? what is the purity and weight of these medals? What is the most valuable gold medal in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HJB1 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, gold medals generally aren't gold, as far as I understand. This Google Answers result suggests that the Olympic gold medal is gilded with no less than 6g of gold. The Nobel Prize medal is, fairly famously, made of solid gold (although that's, obviously, not a sports prize). Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 17:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I stumbled upon this site a few months ago only today I found this question area, so I am going to go ahead a ask a question. I have a personal problem which I need advice to, but I can't talk to my family and its not something which I want to discuss in person with anyone. I would really appreciate some feedback because I am going out of my mind with this. When I masturbate I often think of my sister. I am 17 years old and she is 25. I need to know if this is wrong or does everyone at some point fantasize about their sister? Its not like I'm obsessed with her but this has happened on more than one occasion and afterwards I feel worried that I am messing myself up mentally by doing this. Please help. Mcflyfan101 (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference desk, not a forum for giving advice. All we can do is point you towards sources. I googled for terms I don't usually use (try "incest fantasies" or "teenage masturbation worries") and found question posted at Ask MetaFilter: "Are incest fantasies common? Are they healthy and acceptable?" The consensus seems to be that fantasies are fine in and of themselves, but that if the guilt they cause is distressing you, you may wish to seek professional advice. Certainly fantasies of one sibling for another are common. You ask if everyone has these fantasies: "everyone" doesn't do any sexual behaviour, but every sexual behaviour has been done by someone. See our articles at masturbation, sexual fantasy, and human sexual behaviour. Good luck! BrainyBabe (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say there is no instant cure for this. Neal (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

And I would stay just stop masturbating.71.142.208.226 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

You may as well say stop breathing. Really, that wasn't very sensible advice, your avian eminence. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm helping him with his trauma of seeing his sister. I have no problem with someone masturbating, but that is his private business. He shouldn't be putting it on the internet because he is afraid to tell the people he knows. What are we going to do about it? We aren't going to make him feel better. So he should just stop masturbating.Btw, I'm not breathing right now.71.142.208.226 (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

I'd just say that if you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to a question, it's best to hold your tongue rather than give unhelpful answers. Stopping masturbating is avoiding the issue, not even remotely dealing with it. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the refdesk turning into a self-help site instead of a help site? and doesn't this ever so slightly tip over into the medical (psycho/logy) advice thing? Or is it feeding time at the zoo and I don't wanto work at the zoo. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're 17 and the weirdest fantasy you have involves your sister, consider yourself lucky. When you start having fantasies about dead, maggot-covered racoons, then it's time to seek professional help. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<moved to science desk>

Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VIVID (talk • contribs) 20:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{Identical posting at humanities desk / timestamp 20:04. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

moved from humanities desk:<<Why? VIVID (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because. Daniel (‽) 20:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?>>

Why not? Useight (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why?! Why? X.x71.142.208.226 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Because, because, be-ecause. Good night, good night. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the wonderful things he does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.23.114 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? ! hotclaws 06:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because everything is nothing, and because nothing is everything. Love and hate are the same, to think is to be, and to be is to think. To exist is to exist for the sake of existing, and to die is because of existing. To die is to live, and to live is to die; to laugh is to cry, and to cry is to laugh. To be human is to ask why, and to ask why is to be human. Now, I ask you, why? --^LaPianísta! 03:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Malcolm is generally credited with inventing the modern telescopic rifle scope in the late 19th century. Can you point me to a source for biographical information and info on his company and products? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.69.187 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, a Google search showed results! Should I copy and paste the links, or can you go from here? Neal (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Wow! Google actually works.71.142.208.226 (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

So...this may sound weird but when you wear a condom...where do you cum? I just always kinda have this fear in the back of my head that if i cum in the condom while i am still in her...that maybe there will be a hole and get the girl pregnet.

what do you guys do? (this is serious question)

also...what condoms do you prefer/use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgin McDumb (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cum right in the condom of course. If there is a hole, then you could know and verify it beforehand. I have no experience with condoms, so N/A. But since your username is Virgin McDumb, this is a contradicting fear of past experiences if you are a virgin of course. Neal (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Condoms can indeed have holes in them, though if you have purchased them yourself in a box and cared for and used them correctly then it is unlikely. As for ejaculation, it takes place in the condom itself and goes into a little fluid reservoir at the tip of the condom. Condom packages come with instructions on them, they're worth a look over if you're planning on using them and are really uninformed on the subject. Contraception is useless if you aren't using it properly. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That user name of yours isn't going to wear well, btw. And a pharmacist will explain how a condom isn't a preg-net. They talk to dumb mcvirgins every day. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A similar question was asked last month here. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that you can never regard a condom as a fool-proof answer to pregnancy, so your fear is justified. Creating new life is no trivial matter. Vranak (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's a fool-proof way of avoiding unwanted pregnancy.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you're a loser. Of course, abortion is always an option and if you're not a wimp, guilt-free, too.--71.108.64.72 (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This method isn't as fool-proof as the above, but it's close, and you don't have to mess about with any rubber things on your cock either ^^ Kuronue | Talk 14:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i was at YMCA swimming pool and me and this girl are good friends. So outside she was saying like we should go to family change room. I was wondering why, but i didnt question her. So when we entered i went to the change room, and she said she will stay outside at the lockers and change. Because nobody was there. And after i changed into my swimming trunks i jumped out of the changing booth and bam~ she was standing there exposing her but. Then she turned around to get something out of her swimming bag. and i saw her front body parts. It was my first time seeing a naked girl in real life, and i was shocked that her VAGINA had hair on it, and i didnt have any hair since im a late bloomer. She screamed at me and i ran out and said sorry on msn. And she wont even talk to me anymore! how do i get her to be my friend again...i dont want our friendship to be broken just cuz i saw her with fully naked??--Need help with friend (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, who cares. Neal (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

It's a set up/accident/big nothing, get outta there, write a short story about it for your "Wow" book. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forum. You bound to see a naked girl some time in your life. Go bother someone who actually cares.71.142.208.226 (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

How about showing a little civility, Neal and Raven? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you know, hair is perfectly normal on a girl's vagina. Not ever girl wants to look like a porn star badly enough to go through the pain of waxing. Kuronue | Talk 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding! I'm no expert on such matters but why not call Dr. Laura or Joy Browne? Vranak (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you like 12 or something? Most vaginas have pubes, get over it and just act like nothing happened. --124.254.77.148 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to just give her some time and don't speak about it again. You may also want to read our article on Puberty and speak to your parents or some other trusted adult if you have questions about the changes you and your friends bodies are likely to experience Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did kiwi's name come from? Did it come from its call, or did it come from its reletive,the kivi?Jamiedogpark (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)jamie[reply]

It's from the Maori word kiwi. According to the American Heritage, it might be of imitative origin, so maybe from its call? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is from its call - very unearthly it is too. Mind you, the "sigh" may indicate that the original question was supposed to be about the kiwifruit (known as a kiwi in the U.S.), which was originally called the Chinese Gooseberry, but - due to its popularity in New Zealand (and the export marketing potential) was given the name kiwifruit (the term "Kiwi" being used for things related to New Zealand, due to the use of the bird as a national symbol). Grutness...wha? 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is jamiedogpark,and I want to know if I got any answers yet.^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiedogpark (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the refdesk Jamiedogpark. Since it's a long way from your questions, I've quoted the notice introducing the page:

*Be patient. Your question probably will not be answered right away, so come back later and check for a response. Questions are normally answered at the same page on which they were asked. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to four days". Thanks for being keen, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen our superb Kiwi article? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I checked it out, and didn't see any etymology. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sori, so impressed by the article, missed that bit. My pop-up dictionary gives "ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from Maori." How would I reference that in the article? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I've worked it out and discovered a new word that might be useful for a NZ page: Kiwikiwiki. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say someone is being mugged in a back alley in New York City. Two people are mugging the guy, stealing his stuff, etc., but the guy manages to fight back quite well, and incapacitates the crooks. Would it be illegal for the man to steal things from the crooks which did not initially belong to him? What would he be charged with? If more clarification is needed, I'll be happy to give it. Thanks. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He could be charged with theft, of course; he took stuff that didn't belong to him. In actual fact, he probably wouldn't get charged, but only because the muggers probably wouldn't want to involve the police. Matt Deres (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which world would that be right morally? There is more to life than whether it is illegal or not.hotclaws 07:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was a major part of the theme of the movie What's the Worst That Could Happen? starring Danny DeVito and Martin Lawrence, although there the valuable (a ring) was obtained by merely lying to the police that apprehended the thief and telling them that it was stolen. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that although thieves are going to be slightly miffed when you incapacitate them most likely most would just let it go but they're going to be even more annoyed when you steal from them. If you've managed to incapacitate a crook, I would either call the cops and keep the person incapacitate if you're reasonably sure you can safely do so until the cops arrive or call the cops and get out of them. Other then the legal risk, fooling around with people who are already nasty enough to try and mug you is not a good idea. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me and my friend have a review site in which we review video games. So I decided review Need For Speed: Pro Street for PS3, PS2, 360, and PSP (which everyone had been anticipating the PSP port). So when I bought it one week ago, I popped it into my PSP and saw this low res. car greeting me. Thinking I was seeing things I popped in my PS3 version and blamo! it was beautiful. Then I went back to my PSP and how disappointed I was. The level design was anything BUT spectacular, the controls were clunky, and worst of all there was NO story, just this lame career mode with events you do to unlock stuff. Also there was no body kits, no autosculpt, and NO vynls. After beating the whole game in about an hour I thought maybe I should check online, only three people were online and not ONE of them wanted to play. The PSP port was like EA just grabbed the name of the title and crapped in my UMD disc and sold it for 40$. This version didn't bring anything good to the NFS franchise but shame and humiliation, and I suggest anyone that has this game hurry and trade it in for the PS2 or PS3 version immediately!I eventually gave this crap game a 1 out of 5 for being the worst game on the PSP. What the hell is with this half ass porting? I've seen full auto games that deliver more than this bland piece of crap. --SlaveofBetrayal (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have an actual question? I'm afraid I can't see what it is you would like to know. 79.66.105.94 (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its mostly to do with money. The companies want more money. They know someone is willing to pay 40 bucks for a game that they don't know is half done. Its a win situation the customer thinks its NFS, but it isn't. The same problem with Katamari Damashi for the PSP. Its very hard to work with. I hate it I like the dual analog sticks not press the up button and the x-triangle buttons. The PSP is a wonderful machine some games are okay, but others are just plain and boring.

Always

Cardinal RavenCardinal Raven (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Whoops. My question is: Why can't developers make the same quality game for all version and ports?--SlaveofBetrayal (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do make the same game for all the versions ports. They just do something silly with the ports. Either they add in unnecessary fluff or to little fluff. Also because that is what it is. Its just a port. Thats all it is.71.142.208.226 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Um can I clarify something? NFS Carbon is waaaaay different from NFS Carbon on the PSP. Same with other games. The God of War game (famous with Play Station owners) for the PSP fails in comparrison to its predecessors God of War and God of War 2. I'll tell you what's wrong with the PSP version... ready? Clunky controls (not as smooth as its console counterpart). Also as you stated before the Katamari game on the PS2 is way better in comparison with the PSP version AND 360 version. Also another detail that game companies either add too little or too much. But in most cases for handhelds they seem to make the game terrible. Well FF Seven Crisis Core wasn't a bad game it did have its repetitive game play and random encounters.--SlaveofBetrayal (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its clunky controls. They don't have the analog anymore. I loved the dual analog. They port these games and keep the same system from the PS2 to the PSP.71.142.208.226 (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Why hasn't anyone said the true answer? The PSP has no where near the processing and rendering power of the PS3, and the UMD has no where near the storage space of a Blu-Ray disc. It is impossible to have the same game on both platforms. The PSP one will obviously be forced to be smaller and simplier. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the PSP has enough processing power to at least give a game that is PS2 worthy. I'm not saying it HAS to be the PS3 version at all. I'm not complaining about the UMD either. I'd just like them to do that same thing they did with NFS Carbon Own the City with NFS Pro Street instead of naming a game that is definitely NOT NFS Pro Street. Case Closed!--SlaveofBetrayal (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article on fatal bear attacks in the U.S., i got kind of curious about how an above-average human would do in a fight against an American Black Bear. I'm talking someone really massive, such as Shaq or The Great Khali. Is it physically possible for a human, even a 7-foot, 300 or 400 pound human, to fight off a bear in the wild? And when I ask this question, I mean a kind of desparate, hungry bear who isnt going to run off from one solid punch to the head (unless of course, that is their nature no matter how hungry they are). I realize this is a weird question, and the answers will be little more than speculation, but who knows who on here knows what they're talking about. Thanks. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever been threatened by a dog? If you have, you'll know that punching it in the head just doesn't work -- they move and react too fast. Probably the same with a bear. Wild things are just more comfortable in their skins than us humans. And punching a bear in the head would probably hurt you more than it -- their skulls are very solid in order to give structural support to their strong jaws. And provoking a bear by punching it is probably not wise. Better to keep a respectful distance in the first place, be submissive and move away if they grow perturbed, and play dead if they attack. If a bear does attack, he's already sized you up and decided he can beat you. Vranak (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Around feral dog packs, I was warned to be submissive. Luckily didn't have to test it. Aggression invites a no-contest as per Vranak's "in their own skins". I'd guess even famous wrestling bears (Rocky?) are trained to hold back somewhat. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bet Goliath could've taken out a bear. Or Samson. Or Andre the Giant. Useight (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nature gave us brains rather than defensive or offensive body structures. Too bad we can't bludgeon them with our brains. In a bare-handed contest, we'll lose. Human skin isn't that hard to pierce and human muscle is not as strong as those of the creatures of the wild. However with the right tools and strategy, even a small human can defeat bears or lions.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I watched a documentary about tigers. The female tiger chased down a bear. The bear ran scared for its life. So a Tiger could take down a bear. The documentary said that bears on the tiger's lunch menu.71.142.208.226 (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

It seems that bears and tigers have an interesting relationship.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bears? Humans don't even stand a chance against chimpanzees! The "average chimpanzee has over 5 times the upper-body strength of a human male". Dunno about Oprah though. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Goliath and co, but Chuck Norris beat a bear in a fight quite handily, I believe. And I do know that Timothy Treadwell couldn't handle a bear, although he was probably outnumbered and a little bit nuts. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents? A black bear could walk right up to and simply start eating the best human fighter ever known without even dealing with his futile attempts to defend himself. Look at the best human-on-human fighters, say the Brazilian jiu-jitsu guys or the sambo guys. They often take several minutes to hurt one another much, and the fight usually goes to the ground right away. Bears go on all fours and can't be knocked down, whereas we don't and certainly would be, so we're really talking about human ground game vs. ursine ground game, a dismal prospect for the human. Too, it's important to bear (pun) in mind that a human has no way of crushing bone or ripping off massive chunks of tissue and swallowing them before the horrified eyes of his opponent. The sort of damage a bear can do takes the starch out of a human pronto; once the man started to lose, and start to lose he would in short order, death would ensue in seconds. I'm going with flight or bluff if I'm ever at odds with a bear and unarmed, but I don't expect ever to be. I'm with Stephen Colbert and Ted Nugent. Bear-o-phobia makes strange bedfellows. (By the way, did you know that Winnie the Pooh is a black bear? Makes you think.) --Milkbreath (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The human-on-human fights you're comparing to are limited by rules that say you're not allowed to kill or cripple your opponent, which severely limits the moves the fighters are allowed to use, and tends to encourage grappling. True no-holds-barred fights are usually over after the first or second blow. --Carnildo (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe, but exactly where should I karate-chop my bear? I don't want to try to hit or kick him anywhere near his mouth because I don't want to pull back a spurting stump. I did read of an eskimo who managed to emasculate a polar bear by letting it have his left arm while he reached down with his right, but that's a draw, not a win, even if. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One general comment on predators: Any injury can make them unable to hunt and result in their death from starvation. As an adaptation to this threat, they're often far more timid than their capabilities would seem to indicate. When confronted with even a modest threat, they often back down, rather than risk injury. Even if confronted with the unfamiliar, they may think "what the heck is that ? I don't know, so I'd better play it safe and attack something I'm sure won't injure me". Tigers, for example, can be kept from attacking people merely by having the people wear a mask on the back of their heads. They always attack from the rear, since it's safer, and won't normally risk a frontal attack, even against a puny human. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw that that link was to "hunting Ted Nugent", I really got my hopes up... Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you, by any chance, support the "right to arm bears" ? StuRat (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess I've never read them so I can't claim to be an avid supporter, but the concept has indeed got me interested. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relieved to know that a bear only can't be knocked down because it's on all fours, and that a mask is a must for the ol' backpack. Lucky we only have koala bears over here and they're mostly high on euc. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]