May 14

Is there a reason all chicks at school bend each others' pinkies back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.235.222 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the girls at your school are weird? Seriously, did you ask one of them why? One of the people actually bending their fingers would perhaps have a better answer than anyone here. --Jayron32 02:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a Walkersville bonding routine, like they're members of a little club/group thing. Are you certain it's all of them? Caesar's Daddy (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A mechanic said that the idler arm on my car is worn out (the rubber, I think he said). It isn't too expensive to replace, but (1) what will happen if I don't replace it, or (2) what are the benefits of replacing it? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The steering idler? Um - well, lets see - if it breaks and you're really lucky, you'll suddenly have no steering whatever as you're driving along at 70mph...if you're not so lucky, then one of the front wheels falls off - and THEN you have no steering at 70mph. The benefits are: Not dying in a fiery car wreck, your loved ones not having to leave flowers on your grave for a few year yet, other motorists not dying in a fiery wreck that you cause...that kind of thing!

Really, a good general rule is to take anything to do with suspension or steering very seriously! SteveBaker (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

after glenn becks show on 5/12 asking for info on the man above, maurice strong, i searched and of course wikipedia came up (which might i add has a sorry way for people to ask questions! just let people ask a damn question without having to go through 20,000 pages!) but at the bottom it said the info on maurice was last edited today. why is that??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.245.114 (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Information is constantly being added to articles all the time. --Jayron32 03:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article in particular has actually been edited over 40 times during the last 24 hours. Some of those edits were vandalism and subsequent reversion of that (someone decided it would be amusing to call Maurice Strong "the anti-christ" instead of "a Canadian businessman" - nobody else agreed that this was likely to be true - so it was removed again soon afterwards). Someone else added the section "Views and Beliefs" - with about three paragraphs of new text...someone else removed that because (he claims) it was not adequately referenced...the section was replaced with better references. For some reason, this article became hotly contentious over the last few days. However, that is the price you pay for an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If it were not like that, it wouldn't have three million mostly-reliable articles - almost all of which change rarely because they say all that needs to be said. SteveBaker (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have suggestions for better ways to find information in Wikipedia, you are very welcome to offer them: WP:Village Pump is probably the best place. --ColinFine (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab in the dark and say the reason this article got a flurry of edits is the same reason the OP came here, i.e. people hearing about it on the Glenn Beck show and the associated publicity. Or perhaps Glenn Beck was repeating a name that was already much in the news. (But a read of the talk page and quick look at a general internet search suggest this isn't the case.) Whatever the case, it's probably resonable to expect many edits to an article if you hear about it on the news or something similar in the US. Particularly if you hear about it when someone is calling for information on the person to be sanitised or whatever. BTW if you have any suggestions for improvement to the Maurice Strong article, click on the discussion tab when on the article or follow this link Talk:Maurice Strong Nil Einne (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does a Tobacco seed look like? Can I grow, cure and smoke my own tobacco? Is it legal? Is it possible? Where can one buy Tobacco seeds? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the main article on tobacco and the related one on cultivation of tobacco? --- OtherDave (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

look here:[1] and [2]. 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have read both and none of my questions have been answered. Please help further. Is it leggal in the UK for me to grow my own tobacco? Where can I get seeds? Is it possible for me to cure it myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typing "grow tobacco uk" into Google (without the quotation marks) gives this ([3]) as its first hit. Did you try using Google? --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't work. In the USA, I'm thinking that the growing of tobacco, while legal, is government-regulated - at least the commercial growing of it. I dunno about private growing. But if growing tobacco in the UK is legal in general, then the question of growing it for personal use should be answerable by some government agency, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much did work - the only problem was a mis-placed parenthesis, which I've now corrected. From the UK it takes you to a site which discusses all the issues asked above. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helping someone feed an addiction which has a high risk of giving them cancer, heart or ciculatory diseases is unethical. 89.243.177.111 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I made that argument, I would be rung up for it on the talk page. "It's not up to us to question the OP!" Yeh, right. However, there is such a thing as freedom of choice. And anyone who doesn't know the risks of tobacco by now, has not been paying attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The freedom to be sane and healthy requires that people are not encouraged to do stupid things, like smoking. 78.149.199.79 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a nanny. If he wants to shorten his life, that's his business, not ours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bit too vigilant of nannies bugs. He said "enouraged", not banned. That's what all those warnings on packets and advertisements are doing, encouraging.--92.251.177.200 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is legal to grow tobacco for your own consumption in the UK, there are limits on how much you can grow, I will have a look and see if I can find them. DuncanHill (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick search of the HMRC website, they appear to say that you must register your premises with them and pay duty on the tobacco produced. Now, I am sure that you could produce some without paying duty, but it is possible that this has changed in the last few years. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if they are making the assumption that you're going to sell it, whether you do or not, hence the tax. Anyone growing tobacco would essentially be a "commercial grower" in the eyes of the government. That assumption probably saves a lot of time and effort on the government's part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page [4] has some more information. It was an EU decision in 1992 which our government, with their usual efficiency, got around to implementing in 2001. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's less than 10 years. I used to hear that the British government had created a job position to put a guy in a shelter on the coast and watch for Napoleon... and that the job was finally abolished in 1945. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My ancestors grew tobacco, and from their statements, it is incredibly hard work, and the type you can successfully grow depends on the climate and the type of soil. Some tobacco growing regions only grew the wrapper leaf for cigars, for instance, and could not profitably grow the tobacco smoked in pipes or in cigarettes. Edison (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who grew up on a tobacco farm, I'm not sure why anyone would do this. Anyway, tobacco seeds are really, really tiny; a handful is enough for an acre of tobacco. It is possible for you to grow, cure, and smoke your own tobacco. It's a lot of trouble, though, far in excess of any financial savings you may have in mind. Also, I should give the caveat that I'm not sure how well tobacco would grow in the UK; in the U.S. the main tobacco-growing states are North Carolina and Kentucky, both of which are more southerly than the UK. A further caveat is that your resulting product will not be blended, as store-bought tobacco products are, nor will it have the licorice flavoring that gives American cigarettes their distinctive taste, so there's a good chance you won't like it. You can buy tobacco seeds in agricultural supply stores in tobacco-growing regions; I don't know about in the UK. John M Baker (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am a little confused regarding the direction to bend a guitar string when playing from a guitar tab (which I am viewing using Power Tab). I have been using a tab that uses arrows to indicate bends. The bend in question is a full bend of the B string on the 14th fret. The direction of the arrow is up the tab, towards the neighboring E string, which is obviously downwards on the guitar (i.e. bending down towards the floor). I have looked at the same bend on another tab and it is notated as 14b16, and I understand b to mean bend up. I am not sure that it sounds right when I bend it down towards the ground, but that it what the direction of the arrows seems to indicate. Could somebody please confirm whether I should be bending it upwards towards the ceiling or downwards towards the floor? Many Thanks SilverTrack (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter, which ever is most comfortabvle for you, both will produce the right sound, but bending up, towards you is more common, but it does not matter as either will stretch the string to the correct notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think of the "up" as being about the pitch being raised, not the direction of the pressure on the string (either way you go, the tension is increased, and the pitch is raised). In my experience it makes the most sense to bend pushing up. 198.161.238.18 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you, makes perfect sense now. It also explains why I couldn't tell the difference regardless of which way I did it! :) Thanks again SilverTrack (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that bending the string toward the center of the fretboard is the best way because if you bend the outside strings away from the center, you can accidentally pull it right off the end of the fret and get a 'bum note' or at least a nasty click. I agree though that if you can avoid doing that, the direction won't alter the sound noticably. SteveBaker (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JUst as an aside, a bend with a down arrow is what is known as a "prebend". Bend the string before you strike the note, then release the pressure. The effect is to lower the tone as you release tension. --Jayron32 00:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is worse for you, Tobacco or Cannibis, when 1, all effects are measured, and 2, when only the effects that they have in common are taken into acc. Thank you, please note, I do not need to know that they are both bad. I would like to know which creates more tar in the lungs, which is more likely to give you mouth cancer etc, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's like asking which method of suicide is better, while asking not to be told that they are all bad. 89.243.177.111 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, it's not at all like that, actually. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's addict talk. 89.243.177.111 (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the two things you've described have very different habits associated with them. Tobacco is usually smoked with a filter and people with heavy habits smoke very large amounts of it per day. Marijuana is generally smoked filterless, with more smoke per puff, but in more irregular intervals. Additionally the rates of usage vary quite a lot—we have a huge body of research known about the connection between cigarette smoking and death, but far less epidemiological research relating to marijuana. Additionally, there are other effects just besides tar rates—tobacco, because of the way it is grown, contains polonium, a carcinogenic element that derives from standard industry fertilizers. Marijuana may or may not contain such things—I don't know how it is grown or if that is even standardized. Tobacco is also addictive, which would factor into a qualitative assessment of health risks, but not a quantitative one. Anyway, Googling "marijuana v. tobacco" comes up with a lot of articles, though making the comparison is difficult because they are not apples-to-apples. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most cannabis smokers mix it with tobacco. Cannabis smoke tends to be inhaled more deeply, and held in the lungs for longer. I recall some research a few years ago suggesting that a joint was about 3 times as carcinogenic as a fag, if I can find it I'll post it here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's that again??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, if I remember right, you're an American. So, you may not be familiar with the meaning of 'fag' on the other side of the pond which is 'a cigarette'. Dismas|^(talk) 01:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you had me puzzled there. Kind of like the Brits were probably puzzled in the early 1970s when there were constant references to "Watergate buggers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful there, Bugs. We can't call them "Brits". The thin-skinned ones hate that and they'll go crying on the talk page. I did it once and there was a bit of a bru-ha-ha. I've just started referring to them as the people across the pond, people who live in (insert name of area that you're referring to), etc. We can apparently be referred to as yanks or yankees but Brit is right out! Dismas|^(talk) 06:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comes up quite often. We Brits do not mind being called Brits, because WE ARE Brits. What do you propose we rename the Brit Awards to? 'The People Across The Pond Awards'? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem also to recall from a previous Ref Desk question that holding in the lungs is actually not necessary (it doesn't transfer the THC at any greater rate) and is a behavior that should be discouraged amongst pot smokers (because it is fairly bad on the lungs). In any case, note again that the patterns here are quite different. Even if every marijuana cigarette is 3X more carcinogenic than every tobacco cigarette, it doesn't actually mean the net carcinogenic load is different. The addictive properties of tobacco seem to lead, on the whole, to people smoking more than three cigarettes a day, whereas I'm not sure the average person, even if they had legal access to marijuana, would smoke more than three joints a day. (I offer this up as someone who doesn't smoke anything.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why not, I'm a Brit and refer to myself as a Brit, what's the problem? Mikenorton (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go Cannabis smoke 'worse' than tobacco DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One could say pot is the worse of the two, since it could land you in prison, where you might get hooked on smoking conventional cigarettes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it lands you in prison depends on where you are (even in the US). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence "could" rather than "will". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An assessment by dozens of drug experts published in The Lancet, a leading medical journal, in 2007 found that tobacco was slightly worse than cannabis[5]. This took into account both effects on the individual and on society. This reflects the way cannabis and tobacco are typically used, so if you eat cannabis or chew/sniff tobacco, the results may be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.14.1 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just purchased a house where the previous owner had speakers installed in the shower and I'd like to know how to setup the system. There is one red and one black wire running through the ceiling to the adjacent room and I would like to hook up my ipod to the speakers. I know I can get a headphone jack to l/r splitter wire and hook them up but I don't think the ipod will have enough power for these big speakers...

Is there likely a third power cable connected to the speakers somewhere (they're big 6" JBLs)? Or do I need an actual stereo to power the speakers via the L/R wires? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the speakers have their own built in amplifier (with power supply cable), I doubt an iPod would have the power to drive such large speakers. The previous owner probably had an actual stereo amplifier with two sets of speaker outputs - one for the normal speakers and one for the bathroom speakers. The amplifier is the kind of thing you might be able to get these days with an input for an iPod. Astronaut (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'm no expert but I was a DJ for many years in pubs and clubs and any speakers and any speakers I saw with those wires out the back would not work without an amplifier or stereo (with internal amplifier) attached... But you can buy stereos cheap enough nowadays that will have ports on the back for those wires and will also have a jack socket to connect ur ipod to, so it should be easy enough to get set up... Gazhiley (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - you need an amplifier. The headphone outputs only put out a pathetic amount of power - not enough to drive anything but the smallest speakers (and then too quietly to hear in the shower, I suspect). Get a cheap 'boom box' or something. Many of them have iPod connectors on them. Either that - or you can buy amplifiers specifically made for the iPod. Just Google for "iPod amplifier" and you'll get references to a gazillion of them! SteveBaker (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A friend had her cholesterol checked yesterday and it was high. She was then asked if she had been eating anything different. She could only answer that she had eaten Rhubarb Crisp in the very recent past. She was told that Rhubarb is VERY high in cholesterol, can anyone shed light on this?? I've always believed that cholesterol comes from animals and not from fruits or vegetables. My thoughts are that it's the other things added to make the crisp, your thoughts please. Thank you, WiggleWormWaggle63 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our cholesterol article has a "Clinical significance" section that discusses this a little, but it is surprisingly bad about explaining simple questions like yours. However, you are essentially asking a sort of medical advice question, and we can't answer those. Please do not ask random people on the Internet what to do to improve your friend's health. We are anonymous weirdos. If your friend is seeking dietary advice with the objective of improving her health, then she needs to ask a proper doctor, not anonymous people on the Web. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the simple question "Does rhubarb contain a lot of cholesterol" is not asking for medical advice, and has a simple answer: no. Perhaps whoever told her that it does was making a joke (expecting her to know that it doesn't). Or perhaps there's some other explanation. If she's worried, she should seek clarification. FiggyBee (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhubarb pie might. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it was in a crumble which is very high in cholesterol usually. meltBanana 21:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Rhubarb crisp", which was what the original poster asked about, has a bunch of other stuff in it than rhubarb, according to a quick google. Another reason I was uneasy about answering this question with a 'yes' or 'no' was a premise that the original poster seemed to posit, which was that an abnormal lab result might simply have been caused by eating something high in cholesterol at some point (when?) before the test. "Oh, there's nothing wrong with me; the Reference Desk said that rhubarb crisp has a lot of cholesterol in it, so that explains my abnormal lab result." Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unknown is how much was consumed, and at what point prior to the test. Without that information, even a doctor wouldn't have much to go on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be the custard and clotted cream used to make the rhubarb edible that'll have the cholesterol. DuncanHill (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhubarb is edible without custard or cream. Some brown sugar and low-fat yoghurt would cheer it up without adding cholesterol. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly (to me, anyway), there have been a number of studies done which suggest that consuming ground rhubarb fibre can lower total serum cholesterol and LDLs as it is a source of dietary fibre. See here, for an example. I would imagine your friend would need to ask for clarification from the medical professional who gave them this information. --Kateshortforbob _talk 18:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, archived while I was replying, again.Or not?Kateshortforbob _talk 18:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a labrador puppy (black, male, 6 months old) who has developed a habit of picking up things on our walks and carrying them home - old balls, empty coke cans, sticks...well, branches really...four foot long branches...with leaves on them!

Someone at our local dog park said that this is a common thing with labs - and she gave a name to the behavior - which I've forgotten. Our previous lab (yellow, female, 12 years old) never did this...and there is no mention of the behavior on our Labrador Retriever article. Does anyone know what the behavior is called - and whether it really IS common in labs?

SteveBaker (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's part of being a Retriever to carry things around in the mouth? -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Seems like it could be related to the job they were bred for? According to the Retriever article, ideally these breeds have a "desire to retrieve almost to the point of manic behavior". FiggyBee (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly different note, are Labs and Golden Retrievers closely related? Rimush (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that they are both retrievers with similar personality traits, there is a very good chance that they have only relatively recently been separated, though their snouts and face shows significant differences so it could be superficial. You can't really know for sure (unless someone was there and wrote it down!) without closer inspection of their individual genomes. 210.165.30.169 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a neighbor with a golden lab puppy who does exactly the same thing. They (the humans) enjoy it because the dog seems to enjoy having a purpose. I used to have a lab who did not do this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though you didn't ask for solutions, consider choosing a "permanent stick" for your boy and keeping it in the house - thereby giving him something to carry for the duration of the walk. He'll be happy, and he won't be bringing home new presents... 61.161.170.254 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term I'm looking for isn't "Retrieving" - that would be kinda obvious - and it implies that the dog goes off, fetches something and then gives it to you. This isn't that. The lady at the dog park had a more specific term...and it's killing me that I can't remember what it was! SteveBaker (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the dog does go off -- with you, to the park or what have you. Fetching, well that's clear. Perhaps he deems his fetches as something that ought to be taken back home, for inscrutable Labrador puppy reasons. What happens when you get to the car or whatever -- do you have to pull the branch from his jaws and scold him for his reticence? Vranak (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it hasn't come up yet. Twice-daily walks are in a local park which is very close to our house. Car rides are to the dog park at the weekend - where the only things he can pick up are muddy tennis balls, old chewed up frisbees and the occasional Chihuahua. He's learned that a stern "LEAVE IT!" means to drop whatever he's got - and that works well...but since this habit is mostly harmless, I don't want to stress him out by stopping him from doing something he has a genetic predisposition for doing. SteveBaker (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lab trait but neither my wife or I can think of this word that you've been told. Labs can be rather mouthy in general. We have a German Shepherd who keeps a stick in her mouth most of the time she's in the yard. We've taught her that sticks belong outside though, so she rarely brings them in. I know you didn't ask this but my vet told me an interesting thing about dogs a couple months ago. Some scientist had a dog retrieve a ball over and over again waiting for the dog to give up. He wanted to see how high the dogs body temp would get before it stopped. The dog's temp was able to get up around the 110^oF mark without any issues for the dog. Normal temp for them is somewhere in the high nineties from what I recall him saying. Apparently, since they don't sweat (as much as humans), the dog's body is able to handle larger swings in body temp than humans. Dismas|^(talk) 01:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! WOW!!! (I don't mean about the temperature - the possibility that the dog might eventually give up fetching the ball is mind-blowing! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve is right in his earlier post. The dog is doing this mostly because you allow him to. Dogs are leaders or followers, your dog is obviously a leader and being allowed to do whatever it wants. Dogs with no discipline are unhappy dogs, unless they can take over everything. You need to let your dog know with firm and consistent commands that carrying home miscellaneous debris is not permissible - however amusing you may find it. The longer you leave it the harder it will be to correct it. I've known a few labs (UK) and they have never done that, I am not sure it is in the genes, except perhaps the predisposition to develop the "retrieving mode" which is not the same as "pick up any garbage and carry it home mode".Caesar's Daddy (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]