Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 October 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miscellaneous desk
< October 29 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 31 >
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.


October 30

[edit]

Onions

[edit]

Are onions (typical white onions that you would buy in a grocery store in the US) less strong / pungent (both in terms of taste and smell) than they were approximately 15 years ago? Are children more sensitive to onions? Or is there some other explanation for the weak onions I have observed? 184.98.189.222 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you didn't luck out with some nice Vidalia onions, which are noticeably milder and sweeter than the regular ones? Onions being Texas's major crop, the Texas A&M website has a detailed history of the development of onion varieties over the past century. If that doesn't answer your question, you might email the good folks at the National Onion Association, who do a lot of public education. Or perhaps easiest of all: next time you are in the grocery store, ask to speak to the produce manager, who likely has vast knowledge of the particular onions being sold in your locality. Textorus (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without making rude assumptions about the age of the OP, this article: The Effect of Age on Taste says, "Scientists have known that as a person's tongue ages, it will naturally lose taste buds. Hendricks, Calasantiand Turner (1988) noted that the number of taste buds on the tongue do stay constant until the age of fifty when their numbers begin to decline. When this happens, any certain number of taste buds could be lost, thus causing a decrease in taste ability." Another article: The association between smoking and smell and taste impairment in the general population says, "Heavy smokers of 20 or more cigarettes per day had significant increased risks for impairment in both senses" (ie sense of smell and taste). May I suggest that you discount these factors before you blame the onions. Alansplodge (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is mainly economics. Farmers have been steadily increase the amount of potash fertiliser to increase yields and shorten growing time. Grow them in the garden with low-potash organic fertiliser and they'll make you weep. Plant early and leave them in longer and they can still reach the same size. See section here on Feeding Onions for the reason why.[1] This applies to a lot of crops, even apples orchards are best fertilised by sheep alone, since too much potassium leaves the apples tasting very bland because they grow too fast without taking up the other minerials that boosts the flavour. Also, I now remember from personal observations, that even heavy smoking (circa 60/day) does not provide protection against syn-Propanethial-S-oxide. Conflicting interests: I have grown onions – organically. So blame the supermarkets for putting profit before flavour. --Aspro (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's several possible reasons I can think of for an objective change in pungency. First off, there's been a rise in the popularity of sweet onions (low sulfur onions) over the years. When I was growing up, you could get them occasionally, but they were much more expensive than regular onions. Now with modern shipping practices, you can find them much more readily and cheaply. Another issue is location. I don't know if you've moved in the past 15 years, but I did to Washington state (home of the Walla Walla Onion) and here about half the onions in the supermarket are sweet onions, which cost about as much as the "regular" onions, so if you aren't paying attention you can easily pick up sweet onions instead of regular onions. (Sulfur content in the soil has an effect on onion strength, so even if it's the same variety, being grown in a different soil could change pungency.) A final point, you mention "white" onions. There is typically a distinction between "white onions" and "yellow onions". The more common yellow onion typically has a much stronger flavor than the white onion. So if you grew up using yellow onion, but are now using white onions, that may account for the change. -- 174.24.217.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Could I get any compensation for filming crimes in progress?

[edit]

You see, if the world doesn't end by December 21, 2012, I'll give society a 1-week grace period, in case they try to put off self-destruction in order to wait for a lot of us to crawl out of bomb shelters, or something.

Once that grace period ends on December 28, if my life isn't improving the way I'd hope, then I may go to Quindaro street or its vicinity; the worst part of Kansas City, Kansas, and try to film crimes in progress from my cameraphone as I either drive past, or am parked from a curbside.

If a perpetrator notices and shoots in my direction, I'll still attempt to flee, but if they make a successful hit, I will either get injured and race to the hospital, or have died a hero. Maybe my family will be compensated well.

But if I survive regardless, could turning in video evidence of crimes earn me a reward for every crime I turn in? (What other results would occur, and after I upload them onto YouTube?) The idea here is to resort to catching crimes on video in order to pay off big college debts with the rewards, because in this economy, it's harder to have access to a "normal" type of income. --Geroya Riskami (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The Lord wouldn't confine me to hell for knowingly taking a life-threatening risk in order to turn my life around, would he? If so, what passage of the Bible and/or any religion's scriptures backs it up? --Geroya Riskami (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, bud, I think your chances of winning the lottery are probably as good as this dream scheme. You'd be almost certain to make more money, and make your family a lot happier, by mowing people's lawns or shoveling snow off their driveways, IMO. PS - I checked my email and God says, listen to good advice when you hear it. Textorus (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am already 9 years along in college. I wanted to quit long ago but I was already over my head in college debt. The last event I wanted was for it to come back early and overtake the little income I have after rent. --Geroya Riskami (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've been in college for 9 years and still haven't graduated? You need to learn when to quit! Drop out of college (you clearly aren't getting anywhere with it and are just building up more debt) and get a job. I know the job market isn't great the moment, but there are still jobs out there if you look for them and are open-minded about what you do. --Tango (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking the only way you're going to make money fighting or filming crimes is if there is a reward, or if you are in some form of law enforcement. I'm also a little confused by your conjunction of what appears to be Christianity and Mayan eschatology. Why don't you just become a police officer or something directly useful, if that's what you're interested in doing? --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre question. DO NOT ATTEMPT (This borders on medical advice) The only crime you are likely to find going on in broad daylight in that part of KC is drug dealing. Violent crime is too rare to catch on film without weeks of work (unless you bring it on yourself), even in the most dangerous neighborhoods. The police aren't going to give you money for videos of drug deals (insufficient evidence to make an arrest anyway). Drug dealers don't like to be filmed, believe it or not and if you carry out this plan the only result I can imagine is that you will become the victim of a crime. If you get your ass kicked for filming someone with their "custies," no one is going to call you a hero. As for the biblical legality of this "plan", I'd take a look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan and think about how it might apply. --Daniel 15:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Medical advice?! So what's the illness, what are the signs and/or symptom? Nah, I think you mean legal advice. Whacky ideas don't have disease classification AFAIK. Richard Avery (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I meant medical advice. I was joking, but the scheme is likely to land the OP in the hospital. --Daniel 16:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prevention is better than cure! Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Korea Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-goodness that some people want to get off their **** and explore the real world. Whilst one has a moral and legal duty in many countries not to withhold evidence which may be useful in the solving of crimes (for no reward), it is the normal day job for many free lance photo-journalists to work on the fringes of normal society to earn their honest dollar. 'Compensation' is in loose legal terms, a remedy for a loss suffered, which is not applicable in this scenario – so if your going into journalism, a good dictionary would also be of asset. News only has a sort life, so you might want (really need) to find organizations that can syndicate you footage both quickly and for the best price. Citizenside is one organization that comes to mind. Also, choose some suitable equipment. WiFi cards now exist so that even if you get the Camera stolen the footage can still be sent as it is recorded to a recorder securely bolted in the trunk or some place. Get and keep receipts for everything you spend so that you can claim it back against tax. Good luck and if it does work out badly, make sure your family lets us know where to sent the flowers. --Aspro (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best case scenario if you try this is to receive a sever beating and earn the ire of the local cops. Worst case is getting killed. Bad idea, don't do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can't be the same Beeblebrox that was voted "Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe" (seven times). Yeah, but maybe he's right Geroya Riskami. Stay under your rock and don't poke your head out. Remember that old adage: born under a rock, died under a rock. It's a dangerous world out here. So I'm going to treble-bolt my doors and blast away at anyone that tries to enter. Quick! Where's the bleach -there's a spider in my bath!--Aspro (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aspro, there might be slight difference between hiding in your house shooting anyone who knocks and making a unauthorized documentary about your local dope spot with the intention of showing it to the police. --Daniel 21:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you find you have hours to spare, want to do some work and earn money without being able to get a proper job, have you considered trying magic, learn something like telekinesis in your spare time. much less dangerous, and potentially greater rewards. My reccomendation would be to get two rather small plants, same species, same size, put them in the same pot, give them a couple of days to get settled in, then pick one of them and sit watching it, trying to induce it to grow faster. It may take some weeks to pick the trick up, perhaps a couple of hours a day at it, maybe more, not that long compared to some full time jobs. Then, once you have finally managed to persuade something to grow an extra few inches more than the other, I suggest switching over, trying to make the smaller one catch up, to effectively double check your results. My theory is that if you can do something three times in a row, and I would count that as two, then surely you must be having some effect (If it doesn't catch up the result may have been contaminated, so start again, though with all that experience to make it quicker). Having made that start, then you can move onto larger projects, but don't mke the mistake of trying them out for a month or so, finding that nothing much is happening and, having forgotten by then about the plants, just assume it is all a waste of time. 148.197.80.214 (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we save old keys?

[edit]

The other day one of the door knobs at work was changed. The contractor keeps the original and cut ten for our use. On one keyring we have the truck key and two door keys. I went to use the door key and found it didn't work. I assumed that the key hadn't been cut properly and went to get another. I then noticed that there was an extra key on the ring that was for the new lock. The person putting the new key on had left the old key on even though the old lock had been thrown out. I realised that we had lots of useless keys around, including some that are for buildings we no longer use and now belong to others. I'm not exempt from this and have about a dozen outdated keys of my own but why do we do it? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot say WHY, but you are definitely not alone in this. I used to keep many old keys, keys I found, keys for places I no longer live at, keys from lost padlocks and suchlike. Okay, now that I wrote this sentence I kind of thought of a reason for this, though it's stupid: A large set of keys looks nicer (in what quantifiable terms I do not know) than a small one. This used to really piss of my ex-girlfriend, who said the constant jingling used to drive her crazy. Maybe it's a psychological thing: having keys means you can get access to places, or you feel secure because you have a tangible connection to your home, i. e. a place you go to that you can lock and keep safe from the outside?
Counterexample: my folks had bought a house in the country three years ago, and they, in principle, only have ONE front door key, which stays in the door most of the time anyway, because there's literally always someone home. So, they don't actually have a set of keys, they have ONE key. Now that's weird for me. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In olden days having lots of keys was of evolutionary benefit, increasing the number of descendants of collectors of obsolete unlocking devices. The relevant genes of compulsive-obsessive key-savers thusly survived.
Those who discarded useless keys snuffed it without progeny and became extinct. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost spilled my tea giggling. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spilled your tea while reading about someone trying to get a bit of crumpet ? How apropo. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Interesting question, Cambridge Bay. I think this tendency is widespread. Perhaps part of the answer will be found at hoarding? (Oh too weird - I went to check the link before saving, and found that what I wanted was Compulsive hoarding, whereas what I had almost directed you to, Hoarding, comes up on Google Search with the first line "A Thule culture food cache near Cambridge Bay, Nunavut Canada", its image caption.) BrainyBabe (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I keep them because I can't remember what they're for after awhile, and every once in awhile — one or twice in a decade — I find some lock and say, "how do I open this?", and sure enough, I find the key on my "giant old key ring". --Mr.98 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really know the key is for the lock that was thrown away, better keep it just in case. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Privilege and power are very closely connected. There does appear a strong psychological drive to hold on to keys because they can continue to serve as symbolic reminder to privileges of access once held. One friend, was a little puzzled (but felt honoured never the less) to be given a pocket book from his Grandfather, that contained all the old combination filing cabinet codes that were once in his charge. Not only were all the combination changed on his grandfather’s departure, but the cabinets themselves were long since deposed of. Yet they were a very important keep-sake 'witness' to the responsibilities Grandpa once held. This to me, explains why they have value beyond their current usefulness. One might ask: why keep old photographs. They are 2 D visual connections with their past that people use, to give themselves the feeling of continuity in an ever-changing world. Primitive societies (savages to use the old term) have only their oral tradition to tell of important happenings and individuals who was once very important. --Aspro (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the replies. I think we all compulsively hoard stuff to a certain extent so that may account for it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a noun missing there somewhere, or something else? --Ouro (blah blah) 06:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parse it as: I think we all compulsively hoard stuff to a certain extent, so that may account for it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, sorry about that. Thank You, Jack. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Old dinosaur says, "See? Punctuation does matter." Textorus (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We live in a small Arctic community where all perishable items, fruit, milk, punctuation, etc, has to be flown in. The weather was poor and the plane didn't make it in. Thus we ran out of commas and bananas by Saturday. A new supply was flown in today. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Old keys serve a psychological function, connecting us to days gone by. We save them to retain a connection to psychological states of mind that were dominant yesterday but just memories today. Bus stop (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your particular case, the person putting on the new keys likely didn't feel it was their job to remove the old ones, since you could just as easily do that as them. And, in general, not having a key you need is a far more serious problem than having an extra key. Myself, I tend to remove old keys from my key ring, but then keep them in a junk drawer. This is because the "old key" is invariably one I can no longer identify, not one I am certain is useless. On a side note, do you really want the contractor to have unlimited access to your office by retaining a key ? That would worry me. StuRat (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't our office but was the hydrogen generating shed. We only go there twice a day so it's easier for the contractor to have a set of keys for when work needs doing. He is well aware of hydrogen's interesting properties and takes the necessary precautions. Also, it's a small place, and everybody knows everybody, and what they are doing at 3:00 am going into her house. Actually it was a co-worker who put the building key on the ring. And it turns out the door knob used was a safety issue and it has been replaced again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee prohibition era news article -- chief won't fix dry agents' parking tickets

[edit]

This is driving me nuts, and says something about the limitations of Google's news archive search.

Earlier today I came across an article in the archives. Later, I tried to find the article again using about a million different search techniques, but couldn't find it.

1) It was in either the Milwaukee Journal or Milwaukee Sentinel. 2) Federal prohibition agents, "dry agents," got parking tickets in Milwaukee for taking up all the spaces near a post office. They did this all the time, but finally were ticketed. 3) The police chief, Jacob Laubenheimer, refused to fix the tickets. The paper did a "humorous" bit about this, comparing Laubenheimer to Sitting Bull and saying "no fix 'em, no fix 'em" (20s or 30s stupid stereotype). 4) In the bit, the paper called the chief "implacable" and "inscrutable." 5) It was toward the second half of the prohibition era, not the first. No earlier than April 1924, and probably after 1927 or 28.

You'd think with all that, I'd be able to find the article again via Google news archives. But nooooo.

Would appreciate help.76.218.9.50 (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And something as simple as trying your browser's browsing history didn't help? --Ouro (blah blah) 09:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had cleared it without thinking.76.218.9.50 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google News didn't work for me, strangely enough, but after a few false tries, I googled this up on the regular Google page using "Laubenheimer agents 'post office'" - "Police Tags Bloom at Federal Building," The Milwaukee Sentinel, Feb. 27, 1932, p. 1. Textorus (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks. The mistake I made was using search terms in Google news ONLY (for more than an hour) -- I should have tried regular Google too. I won't forget that!76.218.9.50 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Yeah, I've run into that problem before too. It's a very odd bug in the system. Textorus (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can people spread a venereal disease, if they have never had sexual contact?

[edit]

Note: I use the term "sexual contact" to cover all types of sexual intercourse -- anal, vaginal, and oral. Can people spread a venereal disease, if they have never had sexual contact?

Let's imagine a hypothetical case. Person A and Person B never have sexual contact before for whatever reasons. They fall in love; they marry; they copulate to procreate young. Can Person A spread a venereal disease to Person B, or vice versa, upon first sexual contact with his or her significant other? Can Person B die or become gravely ill from the venereal disease? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it may be possible to spread syphilis in this situation, if one of the partners has congenital syphilis. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some STI's are not exclusively transmitted sexually. Like herpes.124.170.121.252 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a remote chance that one partner could get infected via a freak accident, like receiving an unscreened blood transfusion. But if both people remain totally monogamous forever, the likelihood is very low. There is no spontaneous generation of VD bacteria, if that's what the OP is worried about. Disease results from infection, not from sex itself. Textorus (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (see below). Dualus (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are all the conditions needed to maintain a 0% chance or near 0% of spreading a venereal disease? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete isolation from humans. A number of venereal diseases such as herpes and HPV can be spread through non sexual contact. --Daniel 15:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In short, you'd have to dig a hole, completely disinfect it, shield it from any contaminated air and live there until you die. Good luck with your food-supply. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can a person still spread a venereal disease, if he or she fulfills these conditions?

-the person's mother has never been infected by any known disease, and the person in question has never faced such an illness in childhood. The person may have had illnesses like chicken pox, cold, flu, pneumonia, but that's it.

-the person donates blood, but never receives blood

-all blood donations use needles that have been sterilized, as required by law

-the person maintains absolute abstinence from all sexual behaviors and feels perfectly fine with this lifestyle, because it is his or her personal choice to remain healthy and live as long as possible

-the person is obsessed about a cleaniness

-the person does not use finger-genital contact

Now, if these conditions apply two both partners in marriage, then can the couple still spread a venereal disease? Also, can chicken pox, cold, flu, and pneumonia spread sexually? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "complete isolation from humans" and the dig-a-hole story already answered that. If you're seeking more detailed medical advice, please consult a doctor or licensed practitioner. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the conditions that the OP mentions are likely to decrease the chances of contracting an STI, but the fact remains that STIs can be transmitted without sexual contact. The non sexual infections you name are spread through physical contact, so it is certainly easy to spread them to your sexual partner, but they aren't sexually transmitted diseases as such. --Daniel 16:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HSV can technically spread via a handshake (see PMID 15623779) and hepatitis C can spread on shared razors or toothbrushes. Dualus (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that HIV is not a venereal disease as such, but isn't it possible to acquire it non-sexually and spread it sexually? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, the HIV virus is transmitted by contact with another person's blood, semen, vaginal fluid, or breast milk; the virus is also detectable at extremely low levels in saliva, sweat, and spinal fluid, but - again, last time I checked, some years ago - no cases of infection via those fluids had been documented. So yes, doctors, nurses, lab workers, etc., who come in contact with the first four and have a skin tear that allows the virus to get into their bloodstream, can indeed be infected non-sexually. See HIV#Transmission. Textorus (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also via an infelicitous blood transfusion or a pre-loved drug syringe. Having got it this way, a person can then spread it sexually. Or vice-versa. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not just drug syringes: there was an article in the Guardian just this week that claimed the number of deaths due to infection from reused needles was higher than the deaths from mosquito-borne infection, and pointed out the discrepancy between number-of-injections and number-of-needles-imported in many developing countries. Stories of parents being asked to choose a pre-used needle to be used on their child from a tray of them. It should be noted that this isn't generally true for vaccines, as the organisations that run global vaccine programmes generally send out preloaded syringes. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Origin of AIDS, it looks like that the origin of AIDS comes from eating bushmeat. So, it may be possible that SIV is transformed to HIV, when a person, who has eaten bushmeat, copulates with another person. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can chicken pox, cold, flu, and pneumonia spread sexually? I suggest you read the articles common cold, Chickenpox, influenza, and pneumonia. Most spread via the air, though pneumonia has a wide range of causes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but just as easily through non-sexual close contact. Dualus (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guatemala syphilis experiment is a pretty nasty case of sexual disease being spread deliberately and very probably some of those spreading it were obsessed with cleanliness and never engaged personally in risky behaviour. 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)