Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 January 24

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 24

A way to reduce crime

I'm sure this is not an original idea but I just thought of it and I'd like to get some rough calculations on it.

What if we paid criminals to stop committing crimes? Released felons would be offered $10,000 per year for up to three years if they are not rearrested and hold a job. At the end of each year, the ex-con would get the check if the conditions are met. I know the recidvism rate is about 50% within 3 years and the cost of a maximum security prisoner in CA is about $35,000 per year. How much would this program have to lower the recidvism rate to save the state money?

Can you think of objections to this idea other than the immorality of practically rewarding crime?

Lotsofissues 08:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would they do this if they don't do all the other one billion obvious things that would make the world better? They (those with power) are idiots. That's why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The obvious one is that very few crimes are commited with the intention of getting caught. If imprisonment is not enough to deter recidivism, why would the loss of a government handout be? FiggyBee (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds cool. Are you asking to do that mathematically? Firstly there are probably hidden costs in maintaining a person out of prison anyway because it involves paying social workers/parole officers to monitor the person, programs to reintegrate them into society, and if they continue to be unemployed, the state benefits paid to them as support.

Though your idea tackles problems of recidivism due to low economic status, and the need for positive reinforcement it might be necessary to consider how the ex-con receives that money (or value) so it isn't reinvested in a life of crime rather than self-improvement. It might be worth considering how the money would be dispensed: outright check for 10 grand or vouchers, rent/travel assistance, scholarship/educational/retraining opportunities, even tax exemption. The calculation also needs to include what it saves society in terms of insurance, not increasing policing, reducing court case loads and other spinoffs.

The issues mount up, too. Recidivism is supposed to be affected by many factors such as opportunity (for repeat offenses), conditioning, social environment, social capital (as in ability to work, hold down a job, relate to non-criminal society by making new friends and start a new life), educational standards and low economic status.

For what it’s worth, I take it that if the ex-criminal is not re-arrested and holds a job it suggests the reward is not for crime (for having been a criminal) but for staying clear as you say and becomes a legitimate incentive rather than a moral issue. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this for an objection:I'm a law-abiding member of society,maybe retired,living on a small pension or a low wage.If I legitimately work a few hours a week,I might make a couple of thousand dollars(as when I work over a certain number of hours,my pension is cut).On my pension I might get a few thousand dollars over the year.If I go out and commit a crime,get locked up for a few months,when I come out and get a small job,I get $10,000.Surely some people will go out to commit crimes to get the money as they will be better off than working legitimately. Lemon martini (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As a law abiding tax payer, why should I pay people do not commit crime? lock them away. as for costing 35 000 a year, lower thier standard of living, and make it cost less, they lowered the standard of our living by commiting crimes in our society. Lock them away. 3 strikes and your out. Lock em away and throw away the key, especially the violent ones. Further more, most crimes are committed by teenagers, due to peer pressure, so... when they come out, make sure they do not go back to the same area. eg. Bob lives in Kent and always has, he has commited X number of crimes, so when he does get out of prison, he may not go into kent, ever again, there by eliminationg his peer group, he will have to make new friends, and they might be better people than the last bunch of hooligans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources? I’m especially dubious of your statement that most crimes are committed by teenagers. I’d think politicians and CEOs would be more likely. :) As for your statement about banishing people from specific areas surly you realize this is physically and ethically impossible. It would be unenforceable, cost millions in the attempt, severely violate civil liberties, raise suicide rates by several hundred percent, and especially wouldn’t work because people have little things called "cell phones" and "email." --S.dedalus (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The greatest portion of violent crimes are committed by men in their 20s. Comparatively few violent crimes are committed by adolescents. The only serious crime in the U.S. (not counting status offenses) that is predominantly a juvenile crime is arson. See the the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So, you want to create the Ankh-Morpork Thieves' Guild? --Mdwyer (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

photogenicity

I am very good looking but dark in complexion.My colour and my eye region are deterrring me from looking good in photos.My eye region is a little bit expanded but my eyes are small in comparision.They make me look gloomy.And my face is also boxy in cut which makes it look large in photos.Please help me to look more photogenic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.2.51 (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• How To Be Photogenic at WikiHow.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's great – it even helps turkeys (see point #5)! But seriously, if someone has a darker complexion, the photographer needs to drop the shot a stop or two for exposure reasons. Anyone's beauty depends on the photographer mostly. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the person who digitally "touches-up" a photograph. I've had the opportunity to see photos of people for magazine advertisments both pre and post touch-up and the difference was marked, with blemishes and other imperfections magically dissapearing in the final product. - Azi Like a Fox (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Retouching photos for glossy oh-so-glamorous advertisement-packed magazines is as standard as breathing while walking. However, a good activity (when you're really bored) is looking through those mags for photos that hadn't been carefully set up. I do it from time to time. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it when the mags for some reason decide to publish their pet celebrities in all their wrinkled, weathered, naturally saggy glory just for a change. Maybe the retoucher quits (unlike Sisyphus) and this is allowed while they chase up another to take their place. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For a slightly exaggerated touch up sequence, see Evolution (Dove). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Julia's recommendation that "if someone has a darker complexion, the photographer needs to drop the shot a stop or two for exposure reasons" was apparently taken to heart but inexpertly applied by the photographer of my high school yearbook. Every single photograph of a black person in that yearbook is overexposed, and no photograph of a white person is. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dang. Where do they recruit those yearbook shooters from! I thought putting the stop back was meant to "underexpose" the subject. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it? I'm not a photographer, I wouldn't know. Anyway, if you were saying photographers should slightly underexpose photographs of dark-complexioned people, then the photographer was doing it bass-ackwards anyway. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No beer atom?

There is no such thing as a "beer atom", right? It would have to be a molecule (which is made up by x atoms, right?), right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Beer is not a chemical element, so there is no such thing as a "beer atom". Actually, there is no such thing as a "beer molecule" either - beer is a mixture of ethanol and other substances in water. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This explains why so many people view beer as a solution... Sorry. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a beeriodic table of the elements, though. :) --Sean 15:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Beer atoms? Of course. You need to split them to put bubbles in beer. Einstein invented Rock and Roll also. Gwinva (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, kudos on your pun Delt. --72.69.148.54 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ein stein voll Bier ist gut, zwei steins sind besser. — Michael J 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Time travel positions

One thing that bugs me about time travel is that it's rarely addressed that the earth rotates and spins millions of miles in orbit around the sun in time, so to appear in the same place and not floating out in the void is you'd have to calculate exactly when the earth would reappear under your feet, making it not possible to jump to whatever time you want to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. And? FiggyBee (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So you can accept travel through time, but not through the spartial dimensions O_o .... but anyway I know what you mean, some shows are done in stupid ways. What I hate more is the way inter/intra gallatic travel is done, its like that they always skip the most obvious way to perform the travel, by traveling at 0.9999999c. if you travel very very close to c, you practically instantenously appear at your destination. No shows use this because the downside is why you are travelling billions of years go by on earth. Still its much more likly to reach this travel than to reach travel that both breaks the speeed of light, and yet still isn't instantaneous but takes 'a few hours'--58.111.143.164 (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually to travel at even half the speed of light would require just about all mater in this arm of the galaxy as fuel. Still not that much more feasible. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, you wanna show us that calculation? --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a bit of an overstatement, but even so, at 0.5c, your mass would only be 1.15 times rest mass, so the energy of the craft would be $1.15m*c^{2}-mc^{2}$. If we assume the spaceship is roughly the same mass as the space shuttle, this equates to 10¹⁶ joules. This is a lot - to produce this much energy on Earth, we'd have to divert the power from every single power station on the planet for an entire day - we'd have to be at least a Type I civilisation to achieve this much power on a spacecraft over a reasonable timescale. Laïka 12:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I time travel all the time, but only ever seem to go forward, exept, when on a trip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that in the absence of special compensation you'd "stay in the same place" in some absolute sense, but all evidence suggests that there's no absolute space to give meaning to a notion of sameness of place. Your question could only be answered in the context of some well-defined scientific theory that allowed for time travel. I suppose exotic spacetime geometries in general relativity are the closest we have to such a thing. If you had a geometric wormhole whose exit was in the causal past of the entrance (and I'm not implying that such a thing is possible), then you could perhaps put both ends in orbit around the Earth. Then you'd go in one, and come out the other, and you'd necessarily be in Earth orbit because that's where the exit was. The point is that the entrance and exit points are themselves inertial objects which follow the same rules as everything else, including orbiting the sun rather than staying fixed with respect to absolute space. -- BenRG (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of that scene in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe where Zaphod asks to be taken to the nearest restaurant. As Arthur Dent points out, they travel millions of years ahead in time but don't move an inch. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to travel through time and space at the same time. If one is unlucky enough not to have a TARDIS then a Vortex manipulator should do the trick. Gwinva (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is addressed in some time travel stories. Traci Harding's Ancient Future trilogy addresses the issue (but not until the second book), as well as Bearing an Hourglass, the second book of Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality series. In these cases it involves a calculated movement or distortion in the time-space continuum to remove the spatial travel issue. I've heard of it as a means of fast (but not FTL) travel as well, by creating a time shield and letting everything else move around you. In other time travel accounts, the magic (rather than science) involved is Earth-based, so the magic keeps you earth-bound during the travelling. Steewi (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

skipping vs jogging

im trying to lose a little bit of weight at the moment and was wondering which of the two would be most beneficial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.110.226 (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jogging, unless you are moving around while you skip, then skipping. But if you skip in the same place, jogging.--58.111.143.164 (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't only jog! Crunches, weights, push-ups - anything to get you sweating and exercising different muscules at the same time. Let some of that energy get useful! --Ouro (blah blah) 14:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Ouro totally. If you're really committed to getting into shape, you'll need to do more than jog. A healthy, balanced diet is essential, along with consistent exercise. If you really want to lose weight, buy a membership at your local gym and ask for help from the trainers there. Another method (OR, oh noes!) I've found personally beneficial because it burns a lot of calories and is relaxing is swimming. Plus being in such skimpy clothing makes you want to lose weight even more =P. Hope this helped. --72.69.148.54 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This space reserved for a more thorough note on losing weight to be added in the morning, when I get sober. --Ouro (blah blah) 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Okay, this is as OR as it ever gets. When I needed to shed off those unwanted pounds back in 2004, I adhered to a very strict regime. First of all, diet - no fried food, no butter, no sugar, (almost) no chocolate, cakes and things, lots of food and juices, vegetables, no sauces, ketchupy things and the like. Second - exercise. Once on the morning, once during the day, once in the evening - 150 crunches, 30 push-ups and exercises with weights. Third - outdoor activities, long (70+ km) bike trips and long (20+ km) walks. At the end of the month I felt sooooo good... at first it's very difficult to submit yourself to something like this, but you very much get used to the fact that you are healtier and in shape. Good luck! --Ouro (blah blah) 07:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Semen as a name

Is Semen ever actually used as a name? I'm sure I've seen it before but I'm not 100%. In reference to this edit. I don't think it was vandalism --Tombomp (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There's the Russian Семён, which reads Syemyon, and the Ukrainian Семен, which should read something like Siemien (but pronounced somewhat harder than Russian), they are both translations of the English name Simon. That's the closest I come to the diff you mentioned. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

there was the famous German physicist Siemens, and of course the footballer David Seaman--TreeSmiler (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please to not be forgetting early Grand Prix driver Richard Seaman, known to his friends as Dick. Also see List of unusual personal names 161.222.160.8 (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Welsh version of "Simon" is Seimon ... Neıl ☎ 11:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a Governor of South Australia named the Reverend Sir Keith Seaman. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a bit corny but a long time ago I saw a definition of dancing (the old-fashioned way where the guy and the woman were in close embrace) as " A naval (navel) engagement without loss of seamen (semen)"220.238.74.36 (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC) . Get it.220.238.74.36 (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of the old saw "She was only the admiral's daughter - her navel base was always full of discharged seamen".  :) JackofOz (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How long time alone before you "go crazy"?

I have been "alone" for years now (no friends). However, I see mum daily and sometimes dad, my brother and sales people etc. I pretty much only cuddle with my cat for "human" touch.

When mum were on vacation without me in the past for like a week or two, or when I lived in my own place for almost two years, I began to feel really isolated. If that happens so quickly, even with access to the Internet, how would it be to spend years alone on a remote island or like Will Smith's character in the post-apocalyptic "I Am Legend"? Granted he had the dog, but I would probably start hallucinate in less than a year, and this despite me being anti social and a lonewolf to begin with... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no precise answer to your questions "How long before you go crazy?" and "How would it be to spend years alone on a remote island or in a post-apocalyptic world?" It depends a lot on the situation and outlook as well as on an individual's mental framework and options. Maybe the articles on solitude (and solitary confinement) can offer a start. As for film reference, when there is no dog, compressed air clad in leather will have to do. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have lived in a situation in which I spent 16-20 hours a day inside a 14 square metre room for six months and sometimes spent three days running inside the room. Ten days ago, I couldn't stand the stress any more (let's just say I had too much time to think) and went back to my parents' home... I can't give you an average figure, it's just my own experience. Hope it interests you.

On the other hand, I believe somebody in a post-apocaliptic situation would remain sane for a longer time (maybe indefinitely) as he would have many basic needs and problems to keep his mind busy and prevent him from retreating into his own mind too much. -- Leptictidium (mammal talk!) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You DO have friends, we are just here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnluckie (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It may depend on whether or not you break your reading glasses and/or have a volleyball with you.

Atlant (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would guess there has been academic literature published on this subject (or similar ones), with examples culled from the experiences of castaways, kidnapping victims, prisoners in solitary confinement, POWs, etc. Ask at a local university library for help finding studies. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this as an introduction? http://www.popi.tanos.org.uk/weblog/138653/ - 12 hours in isolation as the maximum you'd want to try, and really weird effects after 48 hours. Legirons (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How crazy is "crazy" to you? Say, for instance, you decide that for comfort you invent an imaginary friend - it's perfectly normal for children, not so normal for adults, but not totally psycho, either. It's just a little bit of craziness that you use to keep your sanity, and I think with such a friend the length of time you could survive would be a lot longer.209.244.187.155 (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Wilson!!!!!"

Atlant (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For it is he

What does this phrase mean? It's most commonly seen in Private Eye during transcripts, although it also appears with less frequency in other publications (this Guardian article for instance uses the phrase "George Bush (for it is he) turns to vice-president Dick Cheney"). Where does the phrase come from, and why is it so common in satirical works? Laïka 15:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Originated, I believe, by Private Eye, and was taken up from there. It implies a sense of unwarranted gravity/self-importance.86.197.148.206 (talk)

15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)DT

(ec) It goes back at least to Bleak House:

This fellow approaches as he speaks. Mr. Weevle softly holds up his finger, and draws him into the passage, and closes the street door. Then they go upstairs, Mr. Weevle heavily, and Mr. Guppy (for it is he) very lightly indeed. When they are shut into the back room, they speak low.

and it also occurs in the Nausicaa chapter of Ulysses:

Then all melted away dewily in the grey air: all was silent. Ah! She glanced at him as she bent forward quickly, a pathetic little glance of piteous protest, of shy reproach under which he coloured like a girl He was leaning back against the rock behind. Leopold Bloom (for it is he) stands silent, with bowed head before those young guileless eyes. What a brute he had been! At it again?

In both cases the idea is to identify a character who has been previously mentioned but not named. Its use by Private Eye etc is more clichéd and facetious.. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The meaning might be paraphrased in modern informal English is "(he's the one we've been talking about)" or more literally as "([I mentioned this name now] because the one we've been talking about is him)". --Anonymous, 20:00 UTC, edited 23:26, January 24, 2008.

Thinking about thinking, desiring desire

If you've ever been 13 this sort of thing might sound familiar.

I've been thinking (in circles, really) about recursive thoughts and desires.

I can't get very far without going crazy.

Here's what I mean by recursive Thoughts and Desires.

Thought n+1 is a thought about Thought n.

e.g. Does John like Jen?

Thought 0 (John): I like Jen.

Thought 1 (Jen): I think John likes me.

Thought 2 (John): I think Jen thinks I like her.

...

Desire n+1 is a desire for Desire n.

(implicitly: not Desire n, but desiring Desire n)

e.g. Wanting to exercise

Desire 0: I exercise.

Desire 1: (I don't exercise, but...) I want to exercise.

Desire 2: I want to want to exercise. ...

We can define these thoughts and desires to the next level indefinitely, in some sense, but I can't imagine a meaningful situation much past the examples I give (which I've personally experienced).

(I have a bit of a theory that past a certain level "I think you think I think" and "I think you think I think you think I think ..." etc. are indistinguishable.)

My challenge, I guess: how far can you cook up a clear example of recursive thinking/desire to a level distinguishable from all previous levels? 207.148.157.228 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to want to want to exercise?--Dlo2012 (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You have quoted from the book Knots by r.d. laing it is basically poetry. and any way most of his theories have been shown to be dufunk. nul and void. he was a physcologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.35.90 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The examples are confusing. The "recursive thought" example involves two people. Do they know what the other thinks? Is the whole thing a thought experiment in a single person's mind? The "recursive desires" example seems to be about multiple things -- at least wanting both to exercise and not to. If nothing was stopping this person from acting on their desire to exercise they could just act on it. There would be no need for "desiring to desire" to come up at all unless the initial desire was not possible to act on, or was not really a desire at all. The example given sounds like the person doesn't desire to exercise but wishes they did. So I don't really understand the question precisely. I have two guesses though.

First, is this essentially the same as asking how many distinct ideas one can hold in their mind at the same time? The working memory page describes various theories and links to the wonderfully-named page The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two (short for ""The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information"). Leaving aside whether your recursive thought is useful, perhaps 5-9 levels of recursion, or 5-9 distinct ideas of any kind at all, would be about the limit of what you can hold in your mind at the same time and understand as meaningfully distinct. Whether it is useful is another issue. "I think I'm hungry", "I thought "I think I'm hungry"", "I thought "I thought "I think I'm hungry""", and so on, to 5-9 levels, may be a useless thing to think, but still "meaningful". But there's no need for recursion in this case -- any ideas will fill up working memory in this way.

Second, is this more of a "purely abstract" thought experiment? How many levels of recursive ideas can there be without being indistinguishable from one level less? In a purely abstract sense there is no limit. Each new "framing" of an idea results in a new and different idea. As a concrete example, take ancestry. My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather is quite distinct from my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.

Finally, I'm considering the "recursive thought" part of this only. I don't quite see how emotions can be recursive. The word is not well defined, as the emotion page makes clear. My usual understanding of the word is that an emotion is a physical feeling plus a thought. So, for example, pain is a physical feeling, while suffering is the emotion of being in pain and thinking about it. But that is just me. There is, however, the notion of meta-emotion.

See also Infinite regress and Map–territory relation. Pfly (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

may 2nd

i shaped the world and may 2nd is my day?what am i talking about? its a question i was given to research on the internet.am still researching on all famous things that occured on that date but no luck.assistance wud be nyce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.87.196 (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Take your pick. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision

Why is circumcision frequently associated with cutting off a part of the actual penis? I mean... not just the foreskin? Am I missing something here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Frequently? where is your source? If removal of part of the penis other than the foreskin happens then the cause could be negligence on the part of the practitioner. However, I think you may be missing something. Richard Avery (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope he's not missing something :) --Richardrj ^{talk email} 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

All it is is the foreskin. Castration is losing the testicles. I don't think there's an actual word for losing the penis. (However, the term female circumscision refers to removing the clitoris and various other parts, and is the sensory equivalent of penis-loss. For this reason, circumsision is a pretty ill-chosen name.) --Masamage ♫ 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Penectomy is when the guy looses the guyness. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hey, Latin roots. 8P Right, then, thank you! --Masamage ♫ 23:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Only one Latin root there; ectomy is all Greek. —Tamfang (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: Emasculation. That's right, kids. It's not just a figure of speech. It has a literal meaning, also. EvilCouch (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

snap "That's the word!" --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OR commonly know as a John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt--TreeSmiler (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it comes from a fear of losing one's manliness. Putting a knife anywhere near that area will make most guys cringe, so it's not surprising that it gets a little exaggerated. Steewi (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This question reminds me a lot of this [[1]]. Cryo921 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you jerk off once circumcised?

There is no skin to pull back and forth, so I assume it is extremely difficult. What do you say? And yes, this is a serious question, and no, I'm not a troll, and blablabla... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, circumcised guys usually use some sort of lube, like hand cream or Vaseline. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult at all; there is still a good amount skin available. Lube is not required. (I'm speaking entirely from OR here, sorry.) Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. --LarryMac | Talk 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, depending on the circumcision (and I believe this goes true for most), there is no skin available. Speaking from someone who received a medically necessary adult circumcision due to phimosis, I never got used to "jerkin it" without the foreskin. I actually ended up getting used to using my boxers as an aid to replicate the function of the foreskin, as I don't like the mess that comes with lubricant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rc251 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but what about the mess that 'comes' in your boxers? :). Any way this is why I believe males of the Jewish faith were originally circumcised: to stop sinful self abuse.--TreeSmiler (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't say it's impossible, but you're not going to find much evidence of it in the Bible. (In fact the Bible hardly mentions masturbation at all -- contrary to the popular notion, the sin of Onan was apparently that he refused to impregnate his sister-in-law, thereby failing in his duty to give his dead brother an heir. Or something like that.) What you're talking about sounds more like the justification that was used in the United States in, oh, the late 19th and early 20th centuries, I think. Same time frame in which breakfast cereal was invented, and for the same reason -- figure that one out. --Trovatore (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The mess doesn't come in my boxers. Most boxers have slits, so sticking "it" partially out, you can use the boxers to replicate the function of the foreskin and proceed as normal. I'm sure this isn't common among most people but I just can't get used to lubricant. And for people with tight circumcisions, there really isn't any skin on the shaft to use. --Rc251 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The skin of the shaft acts as a perfectly adequate replacement. It's all in the grip ;) --WebHamster 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Diagram?--TreeSmiler (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if you're looking for movies of circumcized guys jacking off, you can find them all over the internet! --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No I was asking for a diagram of WebHamsters grip--TreeSmiler (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am again shocked at the inadequate studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association. I don't -know- this, but I suspect most people are like Rc251 and me in that they can't be arsed to buy, apply, and clean up lubricants. I have heard, in occasional barroom conversations, talk of a "finishing cloth" which I surmise is used in the same manner as Rc's boxers. I hadn't really thought about it before, but I think the variety of replies here probably implies that there are variations in circumcisions (as, indeed, there are in wangs) so no one answer can be definitive. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer: you pretend you're a woman and do it their way!--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What? --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When a circumcized penis is erect it is smooth enough to just use the hand. You don't rub anything against it except your fingers themselves. It works just fine. I imagine it's just whatever you are used to doing. I think if I suddenly had a foreskin I'd be thrown off too. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

VHS-C to PC?

I have a bunch of old VHS-C cartridges. I have a VHS-C-to-VHS converter as well, so let's just say I have a bunch of VHS cartridges.

OK. I wanna get them into my PC somehow without installing equipment in the PC or using a VCR and elaborate, advanced stuff. Quality is NOT a priority.

I heard there is supposed to be a USB "magic box" for exactly this purpose, in which you put a VHS/VHS-C and plug it in via USB to your PC and it transfers video somehow. Do you know what it might be called so I can search for it? (I run Windows on the PC, if that matters.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a USB device that allows me to plug in a VCR's output and thus capture video to my PC (with the appropriate software). My device was from "Dazzle" which either was part of or was acquired by Pinnacle Systems, which appears to now be part of Avid Technology. I am not aware of anything that has the VHS(/C) drive mechanism built into it, that seems like it would be a highly specialized product. --LarryMac | Talk 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are going to have to buy equipment. There are tons of video capture cards and USB devices on the market. You can find them in any large electronics store. -- Diletante (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are there no PDO and DOM alternatives for procedural PHP?

The last few years, PHP has been promoting OOP heavily. I can't stand OOP and I refuse to code in it. Why do those two things lack procedural means of doing things when all others (that I know of) don't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well hullo, PDO is pretty explicitly OOP (hence the O). If you want to access databases without using PDO there are plenty of other database functions with procedural approaches.

As for DOM, well, there are plenty of XML parser functions for reading XML. If you want to create XML without using OOP (which is not a good idea in my opinion), you can always just treat it like a big string.

Anyway, the short answer to why-doesn't-everything-in-PHP-do-things-just-the-way-you'd-like-them is because, well, that's not how the developers did it. It's pretty clear that different people worked on all of the different function groups as they all have very different syntax (the only real problem I have with PHP is that it is very patchwork compared to most languages; there's no one reliable way that things are going to work with any given set of functions). Still, I think asking that two very explicitly OOP-heavy concepts (DOM and PDO) have non-OOP functions might be asking for a bit much.

And honestly, come on! Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you shouldn't figure out how to use it if it's something you need to use. I don't like the way PHP does a lot of things but that doesn't exactly give me the luxury of throwing my hands up and refusing to do things when I have to. --24.147.69.31 (talk)

WQXR

QXR means, I think, "You transmitted wrong". (Our article Q code doesn't say so, but see sv:Q-förkortningar.) Was the callsign WQXR meant as a joke?—msh210℠ 20:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

An explanation of the original call letters can be found at WQEW, which is what the AM side of WQXR-FM has been called since 1992. — Michael J 03:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.—msh210℠ 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

ADVICE PLEASE

I like a girl BUT I CANT tell her She knows me a little n only passes smiles when we meet or when she sees me When I try to be close by askingf for coffee or study she feels uncomfortable

Well she doesn’t like me or dislike me I guess

What shall I do to approach her or make her feel how much I like her deeply How can I attract her?plz help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are probably hundreds of websites that are appropriate for these Dear Abby type questions. This is not one of them. --LarryMac | Talk 20:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

People can ask about alien invasion but not about relationships?.

Indeed, I’m not sure how much we can do to answer this type of question, but there’s no reason as far as I know why we shouldn’t try. This comes up quit often here. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

False dichotomy. --LarryMac | Talk 14:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If she seems uncomfortable she probably doesn't like you. If you have really deep feelings for her and you can't pull it together and tell her to her face, try writing a letter. If you just want to approach her try being attentive, show her that you care by listening to her, finding out her likes and dislikes, etc. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't crosspost on multiple reference desks. --208.81.93.39 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Movie phone number?

What is the number always used in movies for phone numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.83 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They don't use one number, but they pretty much always start 555- see 555 telephone number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_telephone_number) ny156uk (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jenny's" phone number has been used a lot (see 867-5309/Jenny). You could also check out Category:Numbers in pop culture.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As you see at 555 telephone number, the numbers reserved for fictional use in the North American Numbering Plan are now just 555-01XX. With only 100 different numbers available, we now see the same numbers repeating in different movies. Of course, some movies use other approaches: never show the whole number, use an impossible number, use a number belonging to the production company (which is answered with an advertisement), or use a valid number and hope to get away with it. --Anonymous, 23:31 UTC, January 24, 2008.

In the UK, Ofcom provides a list of fictional numbers, which are less obviously made up than the 555 ones. (Can't get to their website at the moment to confirm an exact pagesee here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming your child

Can you name your child anything you want? Like something without vowels or constinents. Also can you put a number in there name? Or even spell the entire name with numbers. And can you spell your childs name "johnny" and insist you say it like "rasputant". Well ive come to the RD after NONE opf my teachers could awnser. BonesBrigade 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This will depend on the jurisdiction you are in. If half-remembered anecdote is to be trusted, in Germany the official you register your child's name with is empowered to refuse really stupid names. Algebraist 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true, and I think it's true in other European countries, too. Check out Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 for an example from Sweden. I also vaguely remember a story about parents in Roussillon wanting to give their son a Catalan name rather than a French one and the authorities wouldn't let them. In the U.S., on the other hand, I think anything goes. When my grandmother was a little girl, she knew twin boys named First Thessalonians and Second Thessalonians. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is dependent on the country you are in. In the U.S., you can name your child anything you want, including numbers, strange pronunciations, etc. See Jennifer 8. Lee (although her legal name has it spelled out as "Eight") and Jon Blake Cusack 2.0. Other countries restrict the names to those that will not cause the child undue embarrassment or difficulties in life. Germany is pretty restrictive, there's a bit about it in German name#Rufname. Sweden has restrictions (see Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116), as does New Zealand (see 4Real/Superman). jwillbur 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging by this story, Spain seems to be extremely restrictive. jwillbur 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In France it's up to the official you register with (like Algebraist said). It can be anything you want as long as it's not something completly ridiculous or degradant. If after a month the parents have not chosen a proper name, the people from the registration office will choose one for them.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember a reference to some jurisdiction allowing children to sue their parents for excessively embarrassing names (fake?). Korean name and Japanese name both imply restrictions to the writeability of personal names into hanja or kanji. Steewi (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was at school with a lad whose legal name was 'Jhonathan'. There had been a typo at some point when registering his name. Also see the second paragraph of the Davey Boy Smith article... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldnt the parents Technically just go and change it citing a typo on the johnathan thing? and my sig is so much more awesome now BonesBrigade 02:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I once met a woman named Diania pronounced Diana – a nurse had miscopied it. Why she kept the misspelling is beyond me. I informally changed my middle name from Anthony to Anton and officialdom never batted an eye. —Tamfang (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I read that Quebec is unique in North America in having the ability to refuse ridiculous names for kids. They don't use the power very often. But apparently, one couple tried to name their daughter "Spatula" or something similar. That was rejected.

In the Czech Republic, on the other hand, the authorities have traditionally been very strict with names. It used to be that you could only name your kid something on the calendar of saints' days. Now, it's easier to choose another name, but the authorities will reject anything too radical. You could never invent a name like Nevaeh in the Czech Republic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In Poland it's also quite strict, however right now the Polish authorities are allowing the use of non-Polish names like Angelika or Jessica (or Jessika) - in those spellings, which have no tradition of use in Poland. Thought-up names are not allowed. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Iceland is another with a process of approving new names: see Icelandic name. One of the criteria is whether the name can be declined grammatically. Telsa (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the U.S. military doesn't seem to have any regulations on what their members can change their names to. For reference, see Optimus Prime#Cultural influence. Dismas|^(talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of any restrictions on the spelling of a name, the pronunciation is not something that can ever be regulated by a bureaucracy. For example, if you name your child Siobhan, which is pronounced Shi-vawn, be prepared for lots of people to call her S-eye-o-ban. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

IIRC France and Belgium up until about 1984 had a list of about 2000 names that you had to choose from-you couldn't choose a name that wasn't on the list... Lemon martini (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As for using a number, see Jennifer 8. Lee for an example of someone relatively famous. 204.10.160.194 (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there is no rule against this in the United States, or celebrities would not be able to name their children "Pilot Inspektor" or "Kal-El". Adam Bishop (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Or Moon Unit. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Obligatory XKCD link. Ojw (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WII

I put an avi video on my sd memory card and then put it in my wii, but whyen i tried to watch it, it said that the wii does not support that kind of file. When i checked both the wii manual and wikipedia, they both said that it does play avi files. Then why is it that it won't play my avi video? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlo2012 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably doesn't have the right codec --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Download the SUPER converter and convert the file to flat .avi, sans codec. --^(FNM) _(BANANA!) 02:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

An AVI file NEVER has a codec. AVI is simply a container. The video and audio is stored in some method and the FourCC helps the program to recognise what method. It then passes the data through an appropriate codec (if it has one). I can tell you straight away that you will not be putting uncompressed video in the avi. What you probably mean is a more compression format that the Wii supports. The codec is in the Wii not the AVI file. The AVI file simply has the data the codec decodes. Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)