February 25

Frequently in movies, when a hitman-type character kills their target, they drop their gun. Why do they do that? I'm guessing it is so that the murder weapon won't be found on them later on. But can't they still track down the owner of the gun through the serial number, fingerprints, etc...? And what if they require further of the gun's service? Acceptable (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably they've 1. filed off the serial number, 2. were wearing gloves, and 3. have other guns. The reason you abandon a gun is so that if you do get caught at some point in the future, they won't be able to match the ballistics of the gun to the bullet that was involved in a murder. Holding on to a "hot" gun like that is more dangerous than just getting rid of it, the logic would go. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother messing with the serial number; just make sure you use a stolen gun. Here in America, there's a huge trade in guns that are, ahem, "no longer in the possession of their rightful owners" so tracing those guns back to the last legal owner is of very little use at all.

Atlant (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use a stolen gun? But that would be wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Akroyd's character in Grosse Pointe Blank did this a lot, to the point that I don't think he reloaded once during the movie. You can remove your own fingerprints permanently, by burning, without too much trouble (or you can just wear gloves), and you can acquire a gun through means that make tracing it more difficult than would technically be legal. After you've shot someone, or even just shot at someone, the gun becomes almost a liability. Especially if you've prepared properly by bringing extra guns, you drop the old ones without fear of them tracking you down, draw the new/loaded ones if necessary, and vanish swiftly away. Being able to disappear after killing is as important as sneaking invisibly to the target for the hitman who expects a lengthy career. (You ever think that it's weird that if you had a headache and asked for advice, it would be illegal to tell you to eat aspirin, but if you're wondering about the finer points of being an assassin...?) Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know burning does not remove fingerprints. At least not permanently. They’ll grow back. Skin transplants would work though. (Yeah, I know. That’s funny about medical advice. I suppose if the OP asked “How should I avoid the law as a hetman” that would fall under legal advice. . .) --S.dedalus (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Deltopia was talking about the fingerprints on the firearm and not the skin on the fingers themselves. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I was talking about the skin on the fingers themselves. I've seen in at least two or three movies where the bad guy, usually a soulless psychopath, would set his fingers down on the bottom of a hot frying pan and leave them for a few seconds to burn the prints off the skin. After a few days healing, you just have a mass of blistering, scarring tissue; the whorls and all are on the top layers of the skin that you burn off. Again, as a disclaimer: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. You risk enormous pain, infections, amputations, and (if dedalus is correct) frustration when the prints grow right back. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the burns have to be REALLY bad to permanently remove the fingerprints. John Dillinger tried to do it in the 30s but the prints grew back.[1] It appears that criminals still try it though and it may work temporarily. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fingerprints certainly grow back from abrasion. When I go square-rig sailing, I usually come back with no prints on my hands - they feel very smooth (though not soft). After about a week, though, the fingerprint scanner I use every morning at work starts recognising me again :-). However, I'm not convinced that Dedalus is right about them coming back from burning - scar tissue is different to normal skin, and I wouldn't expect it to have prints. So a minor burn that healed fully wouldn't "work", but something deep enough to scar would do the job. 81.187.153.190 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't think it would be "illegal" to tell someone to eat aspirin for a headache, just against site policy...oh wait, that could be construed as legal advice, disregard please..."Leave the gun, take the cannoli." - Azi Like a Fox (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people don't reload much in movies anyway. Incidentally when I did a pistol training course I was advised to rotate magazines at every opportunity so that they're about equally full, rather than sticking with one magazine until it runs out. As Callahan said, what with all the excitement you're liable to lose count. —Tamfang (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Original research warning) I have done various horrible things to my fingertips (all by accident) and can report the following. Burning them horribly by gripping a hot test tube caused the flesh to cook, but I still have fingerprints on those fingers where the pads have regrown. I can't guarantee that the print is the same as it was before, though. On the other hand, slicing through the pad with a sharp knife (cutting vegetables) has left a hairline scar across which the lines do not match perfectly. Puncturing with a lino cutting tool has left a wider scar with no lines in it. A lifetime of minor burns from generally picking up hot things does not seem to have left any discernible traces. SaundersW (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What penalties are given to drivers & their teams if they work on a car during a Red Flag in a NASCAR race? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzinct (talk • contribs) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. It must be pretty harsh if teams with wrecked cars still wouldn't do it yesterday, probably at least disqualification. It'd be a lot easier to answer this if NASCAR made their rule book public, but they don't want to do that for whatever reason. Recury (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they changed the rule for 2008 with regard to red flags? Or am I just thinking of the rules at the 2008 Busch Clash (Bud Shootout) ? The rule from 2007 to as early as 1993-ish was that you CANNOT work on the car during a red flag condition. The penalty, I'm not sure. For example, see Sterling Marlin and an incident he had while leading the Daytona 500. Guroadrunner (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last couple days wikipedia has completely removed the entry on G Edward Griffin, the author most notable for providing an expose into the true history and machinations of the Federal Reserve in the book “The Creature from Jekyll Island.” What happened to freedom based information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LKPAUL (talk • contribs) 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... This isn't the right place for this but looking at the AFD [[2]] it would appear that there was no consesus to delete it whatsoever. Could somebody look into this? Cryo921 (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The misleading bit is, AFD discussions are not votes but struggles for consensus, and the question under consideration is not, "Do people want this article here?" but "Is this article acceptable under wikipedia guidelines?" WP guidelines include Verifiability and Notability. The discussion in that AFD makes it look like Griffin is a self-published niche author, although fairly popular with a rabid fanbase, and he doesn't seem to have any reliable sources that can be referenced to write an article about him.

Because wikipedia is a Tertiary source, even if you and I know something to be completely true (like, "The sun rises in the morning,"), we can't publish that based on our own observations. We need to find reliable, third-party press on the sun and reference that -- for instance, we should cite a Solar System Weekly magazine article that discusses what time of day the sun rises. It's ridiculous in such simple cases as that, but it's absolutely necessary to prevent people who "just know" things that are wrong from entering them into the encyclopedia. Hope this explains part of the confusion. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the above explanation doesn't satisfy you, LKPAUL, you should discuss it with the deleting admin in the first instance. Wikipedia:Deletion_review is there as well, if you are unable to resolve the deletion by discussing it with the deleting admin. Please note that as Cryo921 says above, this is the wrong place for this. Tonywalton ^Talk 10:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review i found that all the keep votes on the article were by users that had few to no edits outside that subject. However had that not been the case than i would have supported a deletion review because there was nothing resembling a consensus in the votes. 13 keep to 7 delete. However the fact that they all appear to be accounts created just for that purpose then deleting it was the correct choice in my opinion. Cryo921 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

There is an extensive article about George Napier, his marriage to Lady Sarah Lennox and their children on Wikipedia. This article includes photo/postcard photos.

Where can I get a copy of the photos of Colonel George Napier, and his sons: General Sir Charles James, L-General Sir George Thomas, and L-General Sir William Francis Patrick?

Will you also please tell me : what is Wikipedia's source of these photos/postcard photos?

Thea54 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Thea54[reply]

Wikipedia sources images, from a number of places, but most frequently the images are added by individual contributors.

In terms of finding sources for images, you can click on an image to view it's information page. (also refer to questions asked on Wikipedia's Helpdesk)

Obtaining copies of images is in the case of many images, as simple as making a reasonable print-out of the image from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. However check the image licensing carefully, as breaching copyrights can be a messy, painful and expensive business.

If however you were looking for decent, hi quality reproductions of original postcards, photos, I would suggest contacting a specailst image provider.. 62.56.73.171 (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

62.56.73.171 (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The accompanying image shows a "nature's friend" label on the packaging of a tetra packed juice product, which I recently purchased, imported from South Africa. As a consumer, I would like to know from which organization/certification body this label might represent. I would also like to know whether there are any other sources which use similar pictures of ladybird on 'green' labels for food & beverages?

• Caption1
  Caption1

According to this site [3], in regards to representing anything real or tangible, it is a meaningless label. Basically put there with the hope that you, as a consumer, take it at face value and don't check out its bona fides. No guilt-free juice for you!! - Azi Like a Fox (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one to feel saddened that such a nice little sticker means nothing? I mean, it has a little ladybird on it, who doesn't like ladybirds? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I CHECKED THE MUSHROOM ARTICLE BUT THERE WAS NOTHING THERE. thAnks.--Goon Noot (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing more precisely what you are looking for, that's a bit tricky, but try looking through the lists of topics here (what articles link to our mushroom article) and here (articles that start with the word "mushroom").--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Wonderland has mushrooms in it. As a classical children's literature book, reference to Alice in Wonderland in other sources of literature might be a source of information about mushrooms if you are seeking popular culture references.

i snapped the string of a certain guitar (which DOESN'T belong to my sister or anyone famous) and i need to fix it. I don't know much about guitars, but the string snapped is the lightest string. It seems i tuned it a little too much, and it snapped. Can i fix it with the same string? --Randoman412 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no, you need to replace the string. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You have to get a new string of the same kind. Take the broken one to a music store. A lot of times when they break it means they're old, and you should replace them all now. There is a certain way to attach them to the tuning pegs, so look at the way they're on there now, or get somebody to show you. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the above two replies. It depends where it has broken. Strings usually break at the bridge (music) or the nut. If it has broken at the bridge, you have a chance. Only if the remaining length of string is shorter than the neck plus the fixing length at at each end, does the string strictly need to be replaced.

If it is a nylon stringed guitar, then these are tied on at the bridge and wound around the rollers on the tuning head. Therefore, if you have enough length after unwinding it from the tuner, it can be reused.

On a steel stringed guitar, the top string (E) is a single filament, and depending on the remaining length, you could try to repair it by reattaching the 'ball' the the new end by wrapping the wire around it then twisting it to make a secure connection (in the manner you see at the broken end). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.211.150 (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you and I both know nothing about guitars. I'd suggest you just take the whole dang guitar to a music shop and throw yourself on their mercy (ie ask them to replace the dang thing). No idea where you live, but in my experience, experts are often only too happy to protect things they love by stopping an ignoramus from making a bad thing worse. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! take it to a music store and ask them to fix it! You cannot reuse strings as said above, it will never sound right! As a musician I am always willing to change some one elses strings, just for the love of holding a guitar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question was: can i fix it with the same string? The answer is plainly yes (subject to the provisos I gave) as I described above. The questions about how it will sound or if it will play in tune were NOT asked and therefore should only be given incidental (if any) consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.200.140 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Rolls eyes). If you can't play it, then it's not really "fixed" by any realistic definition, is it? Anyway, as said, take it to a music store, they'll replace it for you, it'll cost you a dollar or so. Strings are cheap. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else has mentioned it: If you play the guitar, I'd suggest you learn to restring a guitar. A quick google search will turn up a bunch of how-to's, and you'll be that much more self-sufficient and knowledgeable about your instrument. If you're not comfortable learning it on your own, then ask the folks at the aforementioned shop to show you how. jeffjon (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Shakes head) Sorry to be pedantic. He didnt say he wanted to play it. He said it was not his guitar and he had broken the top string by over stretching it. He now wants to fix the string so the person he borrowed it from will not be angry. It is far cheaper to repair (if possible) then to buy a new set of string for someone elses guitar. Anyway maybe he has no money. Did you think of that one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.200.140 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I reading the same OP you are? I don't see where he says it's not his guitar, or anything about the person he borrowed it from not being angry. A single guitar string costs well under a dollar. Anyways, nobody is saying you're wrong that it's possible to fix a string, just that there are other solutions that they recommend. jeffjon (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the right way to restring a guitar. There are a lot of sites that have it wrong out there. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heres the way to tie nylon strings to the bridge. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.200.140 (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if the person knows you borrowed the guitar, then the best thing is to just give it back and tell them the string broke, it happens and they won't be mad. if you "borrowed" the guitar in secret, then you can follow the above, but they'll probably know something's up when it needs retuning for a while. Gzuckier (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you could tell them that the string just broke while you were (or were not) looking at the guitar without touching it. Sometimes strings do break when you are not looking (or toching) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.241.79 (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will having a PhD make it easier to get a publishing deal for a book, even if the PhD is in computer science and the book is on heretical theology? NeonMerlin 04:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised how much clout a PhD can heft. People are so impressed. Theses at this level in the arts and humanities anyway, tend to end up being published in book form and the process involves being published in associated journals. I'm just guessing, but if you've put all that research into any science or field of knowledge, it would have to be an advantage in getting a book deal. Just make sure you've got a really nice proposal worked out with a strong outline and a distinctive angle (and be sure no-one else's doing what you have in mind). You could ask some publishers even by email. You might have at Mike Dash – PhD and writer on many subjects. (And his user page here[5].) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might impress a publishing company and would help if you are trying to write a best-seller. But if you are looking for academic credibility, you would have a harder time, I think. If the research was good, then ideally you and your book would be judged on its merits, but it wouldn't be surprising if theologians looked at a degree in computer science in a suspicious "not one of us" sort of way. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does a PhD help? Yes and no. Major publishers are dubious about PhDs by themselves, as they don't exactly connote great writing ability, great sense of a broad topic, or marketability. The things that go into getting a PhD—scholastic tending to a subject, learning a particular jargon, being able to work on a topic nobody cares about for six years without stopping—don't at all translate into "great author for a general market book." If you are talking about non-major publishers, small things, then sure. Academic presses, of course, are a bit more picky, but there isn't much expectation of profits there. More important to these people will be some demonstration of writing ability and the ability to choose a hot topic. The PhD might say that you're serious, but you're going to have to overcome a bit of the expectation that PhDs bring along with them the worst excesses of academia. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add — all other things equal, I'd be suspicious of a guy with a PhD in Computer Science writing on a subject like theology. If I were a publisher, I'd think, "Oh great, another one of these science types who thinks that because he knows one subject he can write on anything." That might not be fair, but it'd be a first impression—having a PhD in an entirely different subject might not be a helpful thing at all. Think about it in reverse: if I had a PhD in Religion, would it help I was trying to publish a book in Computer Science? Would it look like an asset or a liability? --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from circuses and the like, has there ever been an instance of human bodies being used as cannon ammunition? --12.169.167.154 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do plague-infested corpses flung with catapults qualify? Weregerbil (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've learned something today. Suggested caption: "When he decided to leave his body to science, Otto could hardly have foreseen how very useful it would one day prove to be."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human bodies aren't very aerodynamic, so I doubt they would be used as ammunition. However, I read an interesting story set in the future where one man "rediscovers" math, and they decided to use humans instead of computers to guide missiles (to save costs). Anyway, human "cannonballs" are actually propelled by a spring-loaded board with pyrotechnics to make it look like they shot out. If you tryed it with a real cannon you'd probably end up with a spray of blood and organs. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story is The Feeling of Power by Isaac Asimov. One of his most ironically amusing short stories. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon fodder gives a whole new meaning to midget submariners[6] and human bombs, if cannon ammunition is used metaphorically. Human guided ammunition is already saving costs (addn). Perceptive Asomov. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Came across an interesting medieval picture, which appears to be a person launched by catapult. It's the last illustration but one on this site. I don't know Russian so I can't read the caption (!). Is the person dead or alive? He looks quite animated and rigid! Gwinva (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI! I need to know when Tae Kwon Do was introduced into the Summer Olympics, please!

Piojo 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Samantha K. Payne

Our articles on Tae Kwon Do and the World Taekwondo Federation indicates that Tae Kwon Do was a demonstration sport at the 1988 and 1992 summer Games, and a full medal sport in 2000. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the other day about an athletes mom who went to his son's first contract signing instead of working on a plane that crashed on September 11th. Do you know who the athlete is?Joebogey4 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]