Miscellaneous desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

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 3[edit]

How does this quadruple-amputee do the required rituals in life?[edit]

Watch from 15:10 of the 59:31 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crga3tjF5bQ&list=QL&playnext=17

He has no arms and legs.

How does he brush his teeth? I saw his teeth, and it looks GREAT. It's white, and appears to be well taken care of.

How does he feed himself?

Most of all, how does he wipe?

The last question might be morbid, but I really, really need to know here because I hate to make people uncomfortable by asking them this in real life.

That's why I must use the anonymity of my IP address (which changes every few days here, where I'm home for the holidays), so that there is no mutual discomfort between myself and the users here.

Thanks in advance! --68.95.73.128 (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he has people who help him perform these tasks? --Jayron32 03:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many disabled people have others to help them perform the tasks "normal" people can manage for themselves. Heck, I'm (relatively) normal, and I have a mechanic who maintains my car, because I cannot. I depend on utility providers to take away my sewerage and bring me water. We all depend on others to different degrees. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helper animals are quite common, and for this case a helper monkey would be indicated, which possesses the intelligence and dexterity to perform those type of tasks. StuRat (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A monkey would help wipe? Besides, since I think the last time we needed help wiping was in preschool, I'd feel epicly humiliated from needing help wiping later in my life. (At least I have my BioBidet/bidet seat/washlet. I'd rather have a machine help me than another warm body.) --65.64.191.135 (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK, and I suspect many other countries in the world, we have a care system which includes 24 hour care for people who need it. It is often paid for by the National Health Service but not exclusively. It is very likely that this person has a similar arrangement. So you "really, really have to know" so that you don't make the person uncomfortable? No, it is you that feels uncomfortable asking about something that is actually none of your business! Richard Avery (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Vujicic was born limbless so he is not an amputee. That see this article is an extreme example of the kind of birth defect that occurred when mothers took Thalidomide during pregnancy. The OP should get to know some disabled people and thereby find out that they all have names, many are more resourceful than one would expect, and they need human assistance in ways that vary with each case and should be obvious, You do not help anyone asking your personal questions covertly. BION Shit happens, that it does so is healthy not "morbid", and even uncomfortable IP users likely filled these at some time for someone else to remove. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the same question could be asked in reference to quadriplegics, of which I would guess there are more of than there are of folks physically missing all their limbs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only persons missing limbs, but a vast number of the elderly with senile dementia or Altzheimers, or physical impairments, need someone to help them brush their teeth, to dress and feed them, to bathe them and to clean them up after using the toilet, or e to change their adult diapers. I thank all the low paid, and hard working nurses or assistants who do this work for millions of people who once led independent lives. Edison (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a gross endeavor. I'd rather work on children, in whatever is their equivalent of a nursing home! Somehow, everything about children is much cleaner than the elderly... --68.95.116.192 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm officially a senior citizen, I resent that remark. :) Have you ever had to deal with a baby's nappy/diaper after a particularly nasty ... defecatory episode? It ain't no fun. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not babies; children aged 5-12. Wouldn't they be easier to deal with in their analog to the nursing home? --70.179.178.5 (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnology[edit]

I have a Collins field guidem to Spiders of the UK and northern Europe, but it is not what I need I am looking for a comprehensive spider guide with as many colour plates as posible for identification, my criteria is specifically for as many colour pictures for identification of as many spiders as possible, any sugestions please? Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.2.26.146 (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still concentrating on the UK, or are you looking for a guide covering a larger region? Googlemeister (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uk mostly but if it covered Europe too great, I dont mind buying a second book to cover the rest of europe. (same guy diff PC) My priority is for UK, and pictures. Much like a common bird book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Amazon "reviewers" of your Collins field guide makes the same point as you. They write: "this may not be the ideal book if you want to have an attempt at identifying the more obvious spiders in your back garden - if this is the case you might be better with the Field Studies Council laminated card guide to house and garden spiders." That FSC guide sounds like what you are looking for. It can be purchased here or there is another one here which looks more comprehensive. --Viennese Waltz 15:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Song Sample[edit]

What song is sampled that the beginning of this song? I'm not talking about the electronic breakdown at the very first, but the rhythmic (violin?) sound right before he begins rapping and then throughout the entire song. I've heard it before, but I just cannot remember it. I hate to ask this here, but it's driving me nuts. link to song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhIsdykpML4 72.173.160.50 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on that video refer to Fort Minor 'Believe Me' video here. Sussexonian (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming foam from lentils[edit]

When boiling lentils some foam often appears on top of the water. Many cookbooks advise skimming and discarding this foam, but rarely give any reason for doing so. I'm wondering if there's any legitimate reason for this skimming and discarding of lentil foam? I've run across one claim that removing the foam will reduce the gas-causing constituents in the lentils, but I wonder if that's really true or if it's just an old wives' tale. Anyone here know the facts? -- noosph e re 22:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some people it is unappetizing. The foam (or scum) often appears when boiling any protein-laden foodstuff, including (but not limited to) beans and lentils. I'm not sure it is harmful or bad for you, but if you are serving a dish to mixed company, it may be nice for presentation if your lentils didn't have it. --Jayron32 22:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The advice in the UK is to always vigorously boil lentil for ten minutes, simmering afterwards to complete the cooking, The vigorous boiling is to remove some poison found in them. During the vigorous boiling you get a lot of foam appearing, but after a while it disapears. 92.15.22.77 (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page suggests the "poison" is Purines which some people are sensitive to. Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The linked pages I've just read say that cooking increases the amount of purine, so it's unlikely to be that. 92.29.123.173 (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he was thinking of phytohaemagglutinin, which is "is present in many varieties of common bean but is especially concentrated in red kidney beans." Look herefor more info. I'm not sure if phytohaemagglutinin is present in lentils, though. Of, if it is, if it's present in enough quantity to be worrysome. -- noosph e re 01:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the coldest major city in Canada?[edit]

by major i mean it has 50,000+ people or it has an NHL team! :-D--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be Winnipeg. What do I win? --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, I'm afraid. We actively discourage guessing around here, this being a reference desk and all. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [canada cities temperatures] and this[1] is the first item that came up. It appears that Winnipeg is indeed the answer, at least among NHL cities. Yellow Knife is much colder, but it's in the NWT, and lacks an NHL team. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg doesn't have an NHL team either. Phoenix stole it. Aaronite (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. They used to, but the team moved to a well-known hockey hotbed. But I think they qualify on the 50,000+ option. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To judge by the data in our articles, there's not much difference between Winnipeg, Saskatoon, and Regina with regard to winter temperatures. The latter two have populations well over 50,000, and the record-lowest temperature of each is colder than that of Winnipeg. Deor (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Of course Winnipeg is quite a bit bigger than either of them. 50K seems a little small for "major city". --Trovatore (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some statistics, and here is a more personal opinion Winnipeg Is a Frozen Shithole meltBanana 04:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by coldest? Do you mean yearly average or coldest ever recorded? Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Fort_McMurray is colder then the others, and has a population of 60-70k. However, I don't think it is technically incorporated as a city. Googlemeister (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Vancouver is the smallest city in Canada with an NHL team at around 600,000 people. Googlemeister (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to hear that vnacouver has an NHL team. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Vancouver only has 600,000 people is misleading because many the cities that we would be comparing Vancouver to have merged with the first level of their suburbs. For the sake of comparison, we should either count Greater Vancouver as one city or only count the downtown population of the other cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.96.10 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it is misleading, it is because that is how the Canada Census Bureau counts the populations of cities, and I did say city, not greater metro. Googlemeister (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about the population base of an NHL team, I would count it in one of two ways. First, we could count everyone close enough to the stadium to go watch a game as a day trip. Second, we could count it the way we count mountains: include every person on one side of the low point between summits (summits being teams, in this case). 205.193.96.10 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Hygene[edit]

A friend recently told me that a man should shave under his arms. I laughed at first, but soon realised my friend was being serious. She stated that many man prefer a woman to have shaved underarms, this I agree with, she stated that for exactly the same reason women generally want their men to have clean shaven underarms. She stated that it is a matter of hygene, and that when a woman is lying on your shoulder she does not want to see hairy armpits. I did not beleive this atall! We then asked a female friend who said that 90% of the men she has slept with, (thats alot!) had shaved most body hair, groin as well as armpits. I have never heard of this before. Is this a new development? Is this a European thing? Is it more hygenic? Do most men do this? Is this something to do with sportsman? If this is so common, and such an accepted thing why would I have never heard of this before. She wants me to shave. But I think I would feel femenine. what would my friends think if they saw this? Or are they doing it already? My father does not shave his armpits, and never taught me to. My mother does, but I am a man. Are my friends trying to trick me into some sort of practical joke? Or is this the new Black? I noticed in porn that in the 70's most actors and actresses had hair, and that now days they do not, I always assumed this was to get a better view of the action. But this is in pubic regions, what about under the arms? Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard of large numbers of men shaving their armpits. It's not the norm in Britain, certainly. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on what the woman likes. I think competitive swimmers tend to shave their entire bodies, but that's for "hydrodynamics". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BB pretty much beat me to the punch. I was going to say it all boils down to personal preference (for both parties) and then in a lighthearted tone suggest that maybe your friend's friend just really likes professional swimmers and that's why most of her men were shaved. But no, as far as I'm aware it's not a major thing, no. TomorrowTime (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I am about to type is beyond the usual ambit of the Reference Desk, and the only reference I'm going to include is that picture there; but have you considered that she is plotting to get you to shave your armpits so that she won't have to be near a hairy armpit after she sleeps with you? Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. That pic looks to be from the 40s or 50s, when the "muscle beach" types did indeed shave their chests and pits in order to better show off their overdeveloped musckles. In fact, I'm thinking it was a Hays office standard that men could be "topless" in movies provided they were hairless. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have shaved his legs as well. --Trovatore (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan it is pretty common for young men (20s and under) to shave all of their visible body hair. They don't tend to have a lot anyway, but it seems to be considered nicer-looking to have none whatsoever. But that is Japan. And so is this :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what it boils down to: If the person (or people) you wish to have sex with want your pits shaved, you shave them. If they do not, you do not. Same for both sexes. Men and women will do what is necessary to land and maintain a mate. Once you have found what works for you, go for it. Hairstyle is still just hairstyle, even if its pits hairstyle. To each their own, whatever floats your boat, eye of the beholder, etc. etc. --Jayron32 01:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common practice for Muslim men. More at Underarm hair and here's a how to. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section title is misleading. This issue has nothing to do with hygiene. It's all about whether people want their partners to look pre-pubescent. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with looking pre-pubescent. Hairstyles and bodyhair styles are a matter of personal taste; implying that those with different taste than yours are into people who look "pre-pubescent" is ludicrous. --Jayron32 05:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Is it more hygienic?" is a question about hygiene, so the section title is not misleading. --Anon, 07:27 UTC, January 4, 2011.

That would be in the same way that men who shave their beards do so in order to appear prepubescent? And don't get me started on the men who shave their heads entirely.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, on the beards. You've heard the phrase baldface lie? That's because, if a guy'll scrape all the hair off his face trying to look like a little boy, you just can't believe anything he says. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you trust that reference? Why, the writer probably didn't even have a beard. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barefaced on Etymonline shows 'shameless' as a nuance. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can be perfectly higienic with or without amrpit hair, you just have to wash frequently in both cases. It does make a big difference to how you look when topless, however. Oh, and there is a health question regarding the use of a razor in places where the skin is very sensitive. --Lgriot (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]