May 17

I went out sea-fishing with a group a while back (my first time). We were out for a while and caught literally hundreds of mackerel. I also caught a bull huss - something I didn't even know existed - as well as numerous dogfish. I was told to throw the dogfish back, as they were 'not very palatable'. However, one of my mates in our group of five caught only dogfish, time and time again (we gave him a share of our catch at the end). I was just wondering, how inedible are these ugly little creatures? The bull huss was lovely when I cooked it later on at home, just wondering what a dogfish would have been like, considering we would have ended up with about ten each if we'd kept them all. The article says they are commonly eaten, but I was told to throw them back (I caught a few of them, myself).--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. The article on Bull Huss says it's also a type of dogfish. Doesn't matter.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this stub [1], Mmm, yummy, pass the ketchup! Richard Avery (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most (all?) types of shark are quite edible, but in general must be prepared differently than bony fish. Shark has no scales, but the skin is tough and must be removed. There are no bones to worry about, and the meat is quite salty, so do not add salt. Very small sharks are more trouble than they are worth. -Arch dude (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dogfish were for decades sold by traditional British 'Fish & Chip' shops and fishmongers, usually under the name of "Rock Salmon" to avoid putting off those who might have an irrational prejudice against dogfish/shark meat. I suspect that EU rules about labelling have largely ended this practice. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the article mentions that they are considered a nuisance by fishermen because they hunt in shoals and they would end up in the nets as well as the intended catch. It also mentions that they are endangered due to overfishing (even though, according to the previous sentence, the fishermen didn't want them in the first place). As for the taste, I noticed the Bull Huss was quite salty, but also vinegary. Just after cooking I sampled it (starving after a full day on the boat! Couldn't wait to eat!) and decided accordingly that I didn't want to add anything to it. Lovely, though! Best fish I've had in this country! Went down very well with a few cold beers! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know whether it depends on the species, but the Germans make smoked dogfish that is quite tasty. de:Schillerlocken71.236.24.129 (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do CRTC and FCC regulations ban or restrict the use of product placement, or limit the prominence of real brands, in shows targeting children? NeonMerlin 06:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that the system is set up to encourage the prominence of real brands in shows targeting children. 96.227.82.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Well, only if the product is also the subject of the show, and only if you are extremely cynical. Otherwise, if it's not banned outright, prominence is certainly limited; but this is "original research" based on watching Treehouse TV all day (which doesn't have advertisements, by the way). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember from my youth that during the Transformers cartoon, all the commercials were for Hasbro's GI Joe toys, and then half an hour later during the GI Joe cartoon, all the commercials were for Hasbro's Transformers toys. I assume they were restricted (perhaps voluntarily) to put on this fig leaf of the shows not being half-hour product placements. --Sean 13:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that according to Jean-Paul Sartre and atheistic existentialism, anything you do, as long as you clearly choose to do it and affirm it, it is morally right. Evil is in not-choosing, being directed by others, or being run by society. Sartre said "To choose is to affirm the value of what we choose because we always choose the good.".

Is that true? Is that what Sartre meant? If so, then there are clearly things that are done with eyes open that were dead wrong. For example, they include the killing of the Jews, the September the 11th terrorist attacks, and the bombing of the FBI building in Oklahoma. So how did Sarte and how does atheistic existentialism respond to this problem?

Bowei Huang (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Opinion Alert]: The idea itself is contradictory. If we do not choose to do something, yet others choose it for us, then still a choice has been made. The three examples above were all examples of choices being made by their superiors or their social groups or whatever, not the perpetrators themselves. No justification. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that definition of Sarte's view is true (which I'm not sure it is), it basically degrades the notion of "morally right" to mean "self-chosen" which is not what most people mean by it. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morality is an entirely subjective concept (well, there are some people that disagree with that), so Sartre can have those morals if he wants, but other people probably wouldn't share them. --Tango (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think Sarte's whole argument is that it is not a subjective concept and that he has a definition for it. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what he means. If you choose to do something, knowing what the result of that action will be, then it must by definition be in accordance with your morals, and therefore the "right" thing to do, under the circumstances. He didn't use words like "good", "positive", "beneficial" etc - just "right", and I doubt he meant it in that moralistic sense. Sometimes we're placed in situations where we have to choose the lesser of two (or more) evils, neither of which we would normally do at all. But in this situation a choice must be made, and our morals dictate which choice is made. I might choose one option, you another. Our own personal circumstances and inner feeling states come to bear. It fits nicely with a model used by Milton H. Erickson and others, which assumes that behind all behaviour - that's ALL behaviour, no matter how bizarre or destructive it may appear to others - there is a positive intention. Mind you, those guys spurn the use of the right/wrong paradigm, and are concerned only with what works/doesn't work. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I choose heads; therefore, heads is good. You choose tails; therefore tails is good. This works, but only until we flip a coin. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the novel Johnny Got His Gun the main character has lost both arms, both legs, his sight, his hearing, his nose, and his lower jaw (darn those artillery shells). Has there ever been a real life case of someone similarly disabled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.216.233 (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look for 'quadruple amputee' in our friend Google shows several cases of women having arms and legs amputated, as a result of septicemia, and one man losing 4 limbs in an industrial accident. In all these cases the amputations are partial, as only the extremities are affected by the gangrene. The novel character, in real life, should have had internal injuries as well, and not survived. I am assuming he is not an action hero in this book.KoolerStill (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google pentaplegia -palsy. Pentaplegia is also associated with Cerebral palsy, but it seems that your question is better answered by removing those cases from the search. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Randian who appeared in Tod Brownings Freaks is possiblt the most well known person without limbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrogWoolley (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people such as Jean-Dominique Bauby have been almost entirely paralyzed (he could only move one eyelid) but he seemed to have been able to see and hear. I don't know of anyone similarly paralyzed, blind, and deaf, for instance. --193.172.19.20 (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]