Miscellaneous desk
< July 27	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 29 >

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.

July 28

Lily Potter's eyes

"Spoilers concerning HP7. Just try to keep it quiet ;)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ignore the above warning, this is just to hide spoilers

Before the Deathly Hallows release, JK Rowling said that how Harry's Eyes looked exactly like Lily's was extremely important. I didn't get why....was it because it reminded Snape of her so he agreed to protect him?

You seem to have it right. There was nothing else in particular about them, so your deduction seems reasonable. Hark back to book 5, one of the wizards coming to rescue Harry noted that he looked like James, except for his eyes, which were "Lily's eyes" (sorry can't cite it; the book is somewhere in the disaster called "my things"); thus it's the only thing to remind Snape of Lily. Dumbledore then uses the issue of the eyes being similar to twist Snape into conceding on helping Dumbledore protect Harry (see U.S. ed. pp. 678-9). Of course, based on how the ending is constructed, the cooperation of Snape is of paramount importance, but it's more mundane than other elements I think (it's difficult for me to express the fact that the issue is important, but isn't particularly ostentacious). –Pakman044 02:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yeah, Dumbledore exploited that. When you really read into it, Dumbledore was basically manipulating Snape. The better question is "Who performed magic late in life, under desperate circumstances" --L^ie! 02:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click "show" to display the conversation, if you've finished the book --L^ie!

River-resectioning

What rivers have been re-sectioned so far? Can you provide any sources?

Can someone explain me...

... why, at the beginning of the British Empire (say, the 1600s), European civilizations were so technologically and scientifically advanced, while African civilizations were not? Thomas 8785 03:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Guns, Germs and Steel (the book, not the article). It's the entire thesis of the book. Put very succinctly, it's due to geography, the availablity of a wide range of large-kernel grain plants, and the availability of domesticatable animals. Corvus cornix 04:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, but what exactly has a domesticatable animal have to do with technology or science? Besides, while large-kernel grain plants are not certainly an African feature, Africa does have capabilities for growing varied crops of e.g. coffee, cotton and cocoa - plus an important amount of mineral resources such as gold, diamonds, and copper. Lots of fruits such as watermelons are all from Africa, so I wonder how the Europeans managed to develop their technologies faster and better than the Africans? Thomas 8785 04:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grain is much more essential. Coffee, cocoa, gold diamonds and copper are completely useless when it comes to starting up a society. Cotton is useful, but not as essential as food. Anyway, were all these present or available several thousands of years ago? That's the timescale you'd have to think in when you're talking about the development of civilisations. DirkvdM 06:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, "fruits such as watermelons are all from Africa", the Africans obviously were not completely without food, otherwise the Europeans would have found a continent without any people at all at the time of their arrival. --Thomas 8785 00:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were they so much more advanced? Certainly enough to conquer them, but the same goes for pretty much any other culture on Earth, even China. Just a few technological advantages can make all the difference. Gunpowder having been a really major factor. I think that the difference in technological advancement between Europe now and Europe then is much greater than between Europe then and Africa then. So the time factor would seem to be more important than the geographical factor. But technological advancement comes in leaps and bounds. Like I said, I think on a very large timescale. The European leap started a few thousand years ago (that's about one thousandth of the existence of mankind). China came before that, but came to a standstill when they ran out of challenges, I suppose. And the same is likely to happen to European culture, I suppose. On such timescales, what role has Africa played? Africans decided to spread over the entire globe, for starters. After that, I don't know. The sort of development that would have takes place before a few thousand years ago would not have left many traces for us now to find, so maybe Africa was once the most developed continent and it also declined in a spiral of complacency. DirkvdM 06:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is often said that necessity is the mother of technology. Perhaps this is the reason: Europeans were in permanent conflict, so the need for better weapons and tactics had its consequences. Probably rivalry between European kingdoms and the scientific revolution of the Renaissance gave Europe that huge advantage over the remaining peoples of Earth. --Taraborn 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like rather a dubious proposition to me. It is likely true in modern times, but it's hard to argue that something like the Hundred Years' War really advanced technology enough to outweigh the damage. Clarityfiend 15:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I said that, I was thinking in the peoples of the Amazon, whose members are often seen in documentaries as doing nothing at all. This is because they already have everything they need in order to survive, they have no truly needs, nature provides them with all they need. On the other hand, Europeans have been suffering from cold, war, famine and illnesses for centuries, which, in my humble opinion, may have led to the eventual development of science. --Taraborn 19:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's much simpler than that. Technology had to get started somewhere - there were various abortive starts in various places (eg China) - but the one that really took hold was in Europe. Once technology got started, it changed society very rapidly - in a matter of just a few hundred years Europe went from disorganised iron/bronze age tribes to organised armies with rifles, cannons and cavalry tactics. Over the course of millions of years of human history, this sudden exponential growth could probably have happened at any time - it just happened to happen in Europe first. If you drew a graph of technological ability versus time - and marked the time axis in units of (say) 1,000 years then over the last million years you'd see an alsost dead flat graph for Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia and the Americas - only from maybe 1000AD to 2000AD would you see this gigantic spike of progress. But there wasn't any really significant change between 2000BC, 1000BC, 0AD that lead up to that - it just took enough key ideas to take hold in one place at one time to launch this explosion of progress - and that happened to occur in Europe. The suddeness at which technology grows once it reaches a certain critical threshold is amazing - look how long it took to get from stone tools to copper/bronze - then from there to widespread agriculture - but at some point, we went from that to big cities to organized armies, printing presses, steam engins, tractors, cars, planes, spacecraft, electronice, nanotechnology. Heck the last three (or even four actually) happened in just one human lifetime! That exponential curve means that it's statistically very unlikely indeed that two independently evolving societies would happen on the trigger that set that off at exactly the same time - and if one society leads another by even 10 years - the effect is simply stunning. Just look at the way the US military took out Iraq in the first Gulf War - those technologies were probably less than 10 years apart - yet a few tens of thousands of men took out a nation with a million soldiers in uniform and access to 10 year old jet fighters and soviet era tanks. When the Europeans took an interest in Africa it was in an age of poor communications over continent-sized distance - the Africans simply had no chance to learn the technology before they were overridden. SteveBaker 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the memorable points in Guns, Germs and Steel (which shoulda been called Grains, Germs and Steel):

The major axis of Eurasia is east-west, so agricultural civilization could readily spread over a vast stretch of similar climates. In the Americas and to a lesser degree in Africa, the major axis is north-south and so each civilization was more confined to a smaller range of compatible climates (I guess potatoes, originally Andean, don't grow well in the tropics).
Barriers such as the Alps prevented the rise of a large static empire such as in China, so "unreasonable men" (on whom all progress depends, as GBS said) usually had somewhere else to go.

Also (a point not mentioned in GGS) Europe's coastline is longer than Africa's, so trade, a driver of invention, was easier in Europe. —Tamfang 07:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

narayana murthy

there's nothing about narayana's murthy family and educational background here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.124.222 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 July 2007

Well, add it then. This is Wikipedia. Click 'help' at the top left, right above the search bar. DirkvdM 07:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N. R. Narayana Murthy - ha! SteveBaker 03:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal History

Do you know what the Aboriginis called the object they used to communicate? Apparently they used to whirl it above their heads and it would make sounds. Thanks Jess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.163.10 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 July 2007

The Bullroarer (well that's what we call it now, but bullroarer is hardly an aboriginal word; turndun sounds to be more aboriginal). --jjron 15:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with asking what the Indigenous Australians call something is that they have several different languages, and had many more in the past, so the term turndun is likely only one name of many for it. Confusing Manifestation 04:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also (if I remember right) their vocabulary shifts rapidly because any word that sounds like the name of a dead person becomes taboo. Or am I thinking of some other culture? —Tamfang 07:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diploma Dimensions

What are the dimensions of a doctoral diploma from Boston University?

I'm not sure that there is a standard dimension, it's probably whatever the print shop gives them a good price on that year, I would imagine. StuRat 23:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey

Whats the best way to injure a monkey without letting it know something intentionally injured it.

I do hope you're not intending to commit animal abuse. --24.147.86.187 22:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a Beavis and Butthead episode, some have sought to spank the monkey, but zoo staff strongly discourage it. Edison 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good way to do this would be to place the monkey in the care of a local animal shelter or zoo. The monkey would have no idea what happened. --S.dedalus 06:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stand behind it and bounce a club hard onto your head twice. Then, if still possible, hit the monkey.86.219.166.122 14:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)DT[reply]

Poison is the most likely thing - but we really have to know why you need to know this. SteveBaker 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to know why he needs to know this. Maybe it's just a weird question he came up with. --Taraborn 17:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythbusters episode

When the mythbusters tested scuba diving & car capers, What type of car did they use, specifically? (I'm unsure of what specific episode, but they had to search a long while to find the car)thanks --PolarWolf 20:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Music

Does anyone know where I can find sheet music/tab/chords for the verse part of the song New Math by Tom Lehrer (as featured here)? Apparently his Too Many Songs book only has the part for the chorus, which is the part I don't want, and leaves the verses as an exercise for the reader. Thank you for any help you can give. --80.229.152.246 20:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an excellent Q for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat 23:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll go and ask there. --80.229.152.246 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana vs Tobacco

Why is it that in most countries in the world, tobacco is legal (given a certain age), while marijuana is illegal? From what I've read and from the Wikipedia articles, it seems like that tobacco is just as unhealthy for you, if not worse. Thanks. Acceptable 21:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason seems to be that tobacco was discovered earlier by Europeans. Those mood altering drugs discovered early enough, like tobacco and alcohol, became so throughly ingrained in European culture that it was difficult to change people's opinions of them. Mood altering drugs introduced more recently to Europeans, like marijuana, opium, herion, cocaine, etc., do not have the same history, so it was easier to ban those. StuRat 23:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As StuRat says, there are usually historical reasons, much more so than medical reasons, for current drug legislation. To take the USA as an example, the tobacco industry is historically financially and politically powerful and has ensured that tobacco remains legal. Marijuana used to be legal in the US however there was a political movement in the in the 1920s and 1930s to criminalise the drug (in all but name), resulting in the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act. There was certainly racial motivations behind this (as the drug was used largely by Mexican immigrants). Harry J. Anslinger popularised the idea that minorities committed violent crimes while under the influence of the drug and famously said: "[African American]s' satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others".

There were also economic reasons for restricting cannabis use. The US timber industry was wise to the growing threat of hemp for cheaper paper production, so William Randolph Hearst, for example, threw his considerable political weight behind the Act to tax the importing of hemp to the USA by foreign producers. The result of this meant that there was no-one willing to deal in the drug.

All these historical reasons notwithstanding, marijuana is much more psychoactive than tobacco. The establishment generally takes a dim view of psychoactive drugs lest we all Turn on, tune in, drop out and stop paying our taxes. You can read the whole story at Legal history of marijuana in the United States. Rockpocket 23:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the US. He was asking about the world. However, it's quite possible given the esteem the US had at the time in the world, that other countries blindly followed them. Or maybe they were in some way coerced. Economic leadership ca be used as a powerful source of political power as well. Anyway, one other such cause that I've heard of is the discovery of nylon by Dupont (follow the link). Both hemp and nylon are used for clothing, so Dupont started a hate-campaign against marijuana, calling it a 'killer drug'. DirkvdM 07:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, hemp has been known in Europe for many centuries. It's the stuff that the ropes for the sailing ships were made of. And of course people must have pretty soon figured out that smoking it had an effect. I once read a book by a German guy in which he told how once he was in Bavaria, a very conservative part of Germany, in the 1970s. At one table were a bunch of hippies and at another some older locals who were talking about 'the youth these days' and such and how they probably smoked marijuana. When one of them asked "what is that anyway", the writer turned to them and said "well, that's hemp". "What do you mean hemp, we've smoked that a lot when we were kids." "Yeah, and did you feel anything?" "Yes, of course, that's what we smoked it for." "Well, then, that's marijuana." "oh .... ." As in many other parts of Europe, this had been a hemp growing region. This illustrates how easily those with bad intentions can get their way - the gullibility of most people. When a government (or large company, especially back in the first half of the 20th century) say something is evil, then people will just accept that, without doing even the simplest further inquiry into what it is. Makes me wonder, though. There must have been large interests of other powerful companies in keeping hemp in production. So why didn't they start a campaign of their own? All they would have needed to do is point out that marijuana is hemp and people would have understood. At least the farmers. Maybe not the population in general. DirkvdM 07:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the cannabis legislation in the rest of the world can be traced back to the 1925 Geneva International Convention on Narcotics Control. Prior to this there was no control of cannabis as a drug in Europe. While it was widely used in Bengal, few people in the West associated the drug with hemp, which was used to make rope and paper. The convention was principally an attempt by the League of Nations to control the flow of opiates and cocaine, and cannabis was not originally on the agenda. However quite late in the proceedings Egypt and Turkey proposed adding cannabis to the treaty, since there was a culture of 'Hashism' in these countries under Islamic law, and the newly secular governments were keen to stamp it out. There wasn't a huge amount of enthusiasm for criminalising cannabis from Europe (there was support from China and United States), but neither did many countries drastically oppose it, except India. The provision to outlaw hashish completely never made it into the final treaty. But a compromise was made where countries would "exercise an effective control of such a nature as to prevent the illicit international traffic in Indian hemp and especially in the resin." In the end, the convention was signed by 57 countries, and subsequently was passed into law. In the UK, parliament ratified the convention with the 1925 Dangerous Drugs Act which served to control "Indian Hemp and all resins and preparations based thereon". There was no lobbying or debates, and with that - almost as an aside to the main purpose of the Act - marijuana became a controlled drug.

The process was repeated, later, at the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to update laws and further tighten the control of cannabis. In this treaty cannabis was much more of a germane issue and control of the drug was essentially "locked in" for all signatories, effectively criminalising it globally. Rockpocket 07:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a matter of history. If Tobacco was unknown in our society and someone tried to introduce it today - I think it would be studied and banned immediately for it's addictive and negative health consequences. The same would probably be true for Alcohol - although there are benefits to using it in small quantities and not everyone gets addicted to the stuff. They both fulfil all the problem criteria for other illegal drugs - I doubt very much that they'd be legal. However, we have millions and millions of users of both - and most of them (in the case of tobacco, certainly) are addicts. It would be a very brave politician who would attempt to pass a law banning those drugs. In the case of Marijuana, the problem is in finding a politician who will un-ban them - and in that case you are looking at millions of people who don't want to add Marijuana to the problems we already have with Tobacco and Alcohol - and it's unlikely that this will happen either (although it's definitely possible as more US states push to legalize the stuff).

Personally, I really wish a politician had the nerve to ban Tobacco - it would be a huge public benefit...but it's just not realistically possible. I think it could be done - you'd just have to require people to have a 'Tobacco User' card - with their photo on it in order to l buy the stuff. You'd give these away to anyone who wanted one for the next ten years (say) - then refuse to give out any more. As existing users die off - the number of cards in circulation would gradually ramp down. This process would happen slowly enough that the producers and farmers would be able to plan to shift their resources elsewhere. No existing seriously addicted smoker would be forced to give it up - but newer smokers would have a strong incentive to kick the habit because by the end of this process - when only a few thousand smokers are left - the cost of cigarettes will slowly climb until it's uneconomic. The USA would also have to commit to not 'pushing' their product overseas...perhaps only selling Tobacco to countries that have a similar smoker-reduction scheme.

SteveBaker 17:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an interesting conversation and I learned useful things from reading it. A.Z. 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so have I. Thank you everyone for clearing this up for me. So from what I've read, the main reason is that tobacco and alcohol was used in widespread popularity before marijuana was and it is this deep-seeded root that the latter is illegal in most countries and the former is not. Acceptable 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one aspect. The other would be, as noted above, that cannabis is considered more harmful than tobacco, mostly because of the stronger psychoactive qualities of cannabis. Where I live, in Switzerland, the harmfulness of cannabis is the central issue in the ongoing legalisation debate. Sandstein 09:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayak in thunderstorm

What should one do if they are kayaking in the middle of an open lake and suddenly there is a thunderstorm and lightning. Assume the kayak is made of of plastic and the paddles are plastics as well. The rainwater should be able to bail out with a baililng bucket and so the main concern is the lightning. Acceptable 21:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you should row for the nearest shore and keep as low as possible until you get there. StuRat 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A function of this issue is how much time you have and the surrounding area. Your first priority obviously is to get off the lake. However I'm not really at all certain that stopping at shore is necessarily the place I'd stop at. A strong permanent structure is really where you need to go to, or perhaps a car (cars are very effective for this purpose since the metal frame will help conduct the lightning strike to ground should the car be struck). At the shore of the lake, you're still likely to be in a fairly flat area (guess who the tallest object likely is?), and if there are trees, taking shelter under them isn't a smart idea either. Getting down is really only a good option if there are no other good options (see among many websites, this one from the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Albuquerque).

The best thing you can do is pay close attention to the forecast and take precautions as the situation changes (e.g., listen to NOAA Weather Radio in the US). Of course, many days in the summer there's the standard risk of convective thunderstorms, but minimizing your risk is always a smart idea. –Pakman044 00:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how a car will transmit lightening to the ground as it sits on rubber tyres. However, a car is a safe place to be, for that reason. But be careful not to become the bridge!!!86.219.166.122 14:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)DT[reply]

As a note, cars are a somewhat safe place because the lightening will travel along the exterior, not because of rubber tires. A far safer place to be in is actually an airplane in the middle of the storm-- modern jet aircraft are built to take a direct lightning strike with no real harm done -_L^ie! 07:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If lightning can go from the clouds to your car, it can get from the car to the ground. There's quite a bit less air insulating it. By the way, would it be a good idea to go next to a tree, so the lightning hits it, rather than you? I thing you should also lay down if you're in a relatively flat area. — Daniel 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you have heard the widely deseminated advice stay well away from trees during a thunderstorm; do not shelter under them, precisely because they are likely to be hit? If you are next to a tree when it gets struck by lightning, you will most likely be showered with splinters moving very fast. If you lie down flat, if lightning hits you it will travel to the ground across your whole body and could well pass through your heart. There are a variety of positions recommended by professional organisations to survive a lightning strike; they tend to involve crouching in such a way that if lightning hits you, it will travel to the ground through your arms, legs and toes, avoiding your torso. To re-iterate: do not stand anywhere near a tree during a thunderstorm. Skittle 22:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if you were in an open field by the edge of a forest? Would it be safer to crouch down (but still be the tallest thing around) or run into a stand of tall trees? TresÁrboles 04:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it likely for lightning to strike the surface of the water? If so, do I stand a risk of being electrocuted by electricity passing through the water and into my plastic kayak? Acceptable 00:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the topic, but frequent lightning gave me painful eye damage for a few days after sailing in a storm.Polypipe Wrangler 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would

Take a very deep breath
get out of the kyak and dive to about 10 ft
swim under water until you reach the shore then adopt the squatting position for the remainder of the day.

That way you are unlikely to be damaged by any lightning striking the surface of the water.

Hand gesture

What does it mean when someone puts the tip of their pinky on the corner of their mouth? I think I saw it on America's Next Top Model, but I didn't know what it meant.

I think they're being Dr. Evil. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks.

Alternatively it had in the past been regularly seen to mean "thinking". Kinda like pausing for thought. I

ny156uk 23:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming someone in America's Next Top Model engaged in "thinking". That doesn't sound very likely :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the slanderous insinuation against the intelligence of the contenders for the prestigious position of our nation's highest model; I have seen the pinky thing used by females to signal a kind of coy sexuality. So: *smoldering eyes, half-smile flitting, pinky slowly to the corner of the mouth*, I can think of something more fun that we could be doing kind of thing. Is it hot in here? Context always helps of course. 38.112.225.84 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was perhaps this (Mr. McWalter's) year's stupidest response in the desk. --Taraborn 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]