Miscellaneous desk
< November 24	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 26 >

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.

November 25

Depression

Whenever you feel depressed, what's a good way of getting your mind off of whatever's depressing you? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 09:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how depressed you feel, if you're just a bit down, have you got any good games or films? Maybe if it's a nice day get some fresh air with family. If it's serious depression then seek professional medical assistance. Prokhorovka (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the focus off yourself can help too. Volunteer for something, or do something nice for someone else. As Prokhorovka said, if it's serious depression then seek professional medical assistance. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation could be a way to go. Mr.K. (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion for a quick fix for mild depresssion when acute clinical depression is not suspected, is to play a really soaring piece of music such as Handel's Zadok the Priest, or his Water or Fireworks music - superb. But if you want a good giggle to lift your spirits, listen to any of the Irish Gag albums. You couldn't be depressed after that.92.22.18.125 (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this question a "request for medical advice?" Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is just a simple matter of "something depressing you", I don't think that is considered clinical depression, which is a recognized medical condition (and a featured article!). —Akrabbim^talk 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Just wondering. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post coitum triste omni est Dmcq (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise has been known as a good way to make you feel better mentally. My exercise of choice is to go to the dog park. A border collie will give you better results than a toy poodle in this case :) 206.131.39.6 (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for a ten mile walk. An urban walk will be good, but a walk away from buildings and people is even better. I believe that walking near trees or other greenery has been shown by research to lift the mood, but my take is that these walks remind you that there is more to life and the universe than just human society or just yourself. Another thing is to try "helicoptering", where you metaphorically rise above what is happening to you, and observe your situation and feelings objectively as if observing yourself from a helicopter. The tiring ten mile walk is an example of another thing - get additional interests and additional dimensions to your life so that you have extra areas of involvement.

For depression in general, if you are in northern latitudes at this time of year then you may not be getting enough Vitamin D from sunshine on your skin. Eating oily fish such as sardines, salmon, or mackeral is also beneficial, and should be regularly eaten for a healthy diet anyway. 78.146.237.244 (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A safe place to be?

During World War 2, when conflict seemed to affect all the continents, oceans, and countries on earth, I am curious to know where was the safest place to be, relatively speaking. I am thinking of a place least likely to be involved in any fighting, bombing, threats of aggressive invasion; most likely to continue to have unimpeded access to food, electricity, water, housing, sanitation, health care and education etc., and a place where one's sovereign status, personal and family safety, property and savings and investments would be secure, insofar as was possible. Was there such a place? And if so, does such a place exist in today's scheme of things? Thanks 92.21.224.236 (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mainland of the United States of America was pretty safe in almost all terms. You'll also be interested in Atlas of the World Battle Fronts and also United States home front during World War II. The casualties on mainland america were extremely low and standard-of-living wise I think you'd be hard pushed to have had it better. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. public was under rationing - there was more available then the English received but certainly no " unimpeded access to food, electricity, water, housing, sanitation, health care and education etc.," Many products including shoes and tires were rationed. 35 mph national speed limit if you qualified to buy gas and hadn't exceeded your ration. However Attacks on North America during World War II were very limited. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with the above (although Canada would be good too, for similar reasons). If you preferred a neutral country, you could look at Switzerland during the World Wars and Sweden during World War II; there was some risk of German invasion and blockades would have limited supplies of some goods but it would be better than most of Europe.

Less desirable: Spain was neutral (Spain in World War II) but in the grip of a fascist dictatorship, so you probably wouldn't want to go there; Argentina and Brazil were in a similar situation to Spain with fascist-leaning governments or military dictatorships, but more political instability. Australia was threatened with invasion; New Zealand was also threatened, but most of the fighting was well away from it, and it was never seriously attacked. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia was bombed, though. On the other hand, some parts of the country were out of range. But on the third hand, as a participant in the war I'm sure there would've been rationing going on. --Anonymous, 20:02 UTC, November 25, 2009.

Worth noting is that all of Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand had conscription — so if you were a male of the appropriate age, there were very distinct risks to your personal safety. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect conscription to be limited to citizens of the country (or maybe to British subjects in the case of Commonwealth countries). --Anonymous, 20:03 UTC, November 25, 2009.

Nope, permanent resident aliens (green card holders) have to register for Selective Service in the U.S. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking The Republic of Ireland. They were neutral during the war, I don't know if there was conscription, but even if there were, the conscripts wouldn't be sent into a war zone. The Emergency Powers Act 1939 did allow the government to censor broadcasts and newspapers, though. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin was bombed in 1941, probably by accident (and that article notes a few sporadic accidental bomb drops in other parts of the Republic during the war). The Germans had a rather handwavey plan to invade the Republic as an adjunct to Sealion, and the IRA had their own plan to invade Northern Ireland (which would, had the Germans cared for it, surely have involved wholesale land battle on the border). In general, as the The Emergency (Ireland) and Irish neutrality during World War II articles note, Britain and the Republic both feared a German invasion of the South, and in turn the Republic feared the British would invade them to forestall the Germans. Had Sealion succeded and Great Britain fallen to the Axis, Ireland would surely have either had to Finlandise to the Nazi bloc, or (given the questionable nature of its neutrality, and the substantial numbers of Irishmen fighting in the British forces, numbering some 38,554 in the regular forces) been occupied wholesale. So I think the Republic entirely fails the OP's criteria "a place least likely to be involved in any fighting, bombing, threats of aggressive invasion". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you like the weather and lifestyle then south america was pretty untouched. Prokhorovka (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner also wants security, protection of private property, human rights, good housing and healthcare, etc, and most of South America would not offer that: most South American countries had military dictatorships or fascist-leaning civilian governments in the early 1940s (e.g. Brazil). Chile and Argentina had military coups, while Peru and Ecuador fought a small war in the early 1940s (see History of Ecuador). Colombia was perhaps experience a brief lull between violent episodes, and Venezuela was more politically stable, but it still may not have offered the luxuries and quality of life that would satisfy someone from the developed world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay? The wartime Irish Free State had personal freedom, but did impose censorship in order to preserve her fragile neutrality: for example, Southern Irish newspapers (unlike, say, The Belfast Telegraph) couldn't report the full circumstances of many Irishmen who died serving in Allied forces or on Allied ships, which would have been small comfort to their families. While Ireland was still a lightly-populated agricultural country that would't starve and didn't forfeit her crops to the belligerents (as did France, Denmark, the Ukraine and the Low Countries), anything she didn't produce was limited by U-boat activity and blockades (putting her in a similar position to Switzerland, Sweden and Iberia.) —— Shakescene (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom

I realize this is an almost impossible question, as freedom is subjective. But, overall which country could be considered the most "free" in terms of laws, government spying on citizens, cctv, internet censorshit etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.114 (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a List of indices of freedom article is what you want - see the 'summary' section with 'most free' countries on it. It's the usual suspects essentially. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say "the usual suspects", but I imagine many Americans would be surprised that the US didn't make the cut (it got as close as you can get without making it, though). --Tango (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not exactly what you asked for, but you may find it interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reporters_Without_Borders_2008_Press_Freedom_Rankings_Map.svg

Vranak (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough call because it's so subjective. One person would describe "The Freedom to Bear Arms" as a freedom - others would regard the inability to be protected from people with guns to be threatening and a kind of anti-freedom. Think also about the freedom to have an abortion - a highly controversial "freedom". How about the freedom to drive your car at any speed you want - versus the freedom to be safe while driving at sane speeds. These issues (and many more) mean that freedom isn't a quantity that you can measure and put on a simple 1 to 10 scale. It has multiple dimensions and will be evaluated differently by different people depending on what's most important to them at the time. SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom House's rankings may be the most comprehensive but there is always room for dispute as other editors have pointed out. But for what it's worth their latest charts and rankings are here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The right to bear arms is the right to protect yourself. As with the other constitutional freedoms, it is subject to abuse by some. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a right guaranteed by the US Constitution, but that isn't the same thing freedom in general, and it only applies in the US as such. The right to bear arms is only that; it doesn't specify that it's for protection, and it further specifies the well-regulated militia part.Aaronite (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are always restrictions on constitutional rights. The first amendment is unqualified, but freedom of speech and press are not absolute. You can be held accountable for libel and slander, and for inciting a riot, just as you can be held accountable for misusing a gun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The right to bear arms is the right to protect yourself" would be a very interesting debate proposition... ;) FiggyBee (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The extreme right takes it further, as "the right to protect yourself against a tyrannical government." That notion is more theoretical than practical, given that the government has tanks and atomic bombs and the like. Freedoms get abused. Free speech and free press are abused constantly. And the right to bear arms also gets abused. Although I like to fall back on the time that ersatz Presidential candidate Pat Paulsen was asked if he believed in the right to bear arms, and he said, "No, I believe in the right to arm bears." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching a TV programme last night in which some rich, cosmopolitan Russians were asked what they thought of democracy. They didn't really like the word as such, but apart from that one made a very interesting point. She said that when she went to the US or the UK or Germany, she felt very un-free because there were so many laws and rules, and so much regulation and surveillance. In Russia, she felt much more free because she could more or less live her life as she wanted without government interference - since she's not a criminal or attempting to interfere with the State, the State doesn't care what she does. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. A lot of cash will buy you a lot of freedom. Russia isn't so free for everyone else. --Tango (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fat cats have always griped about rules, because they think rules are for "the little people". I wonder what specific rules those Russians objected to. Maybe something horribly inhumane, like speed laws, or not smoking in public accomodations. In democracies, the rules are posted all over the place, whereas in dicatatorships they don't need to be posted because everyone knows that the only rule is, "Don't get on the bad side of the rulers." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laws confer freedom to some people and take it away from others - that's their very nature.

The law against burglary takes away the freedom of burglars to make a living by stealing things from other people - but it confers some measure of freedom-from-burglars amongst those of us who prefer to make our living "conventionally". Should we respect the freedom of people who would prefer to make a living as burglars? It's hard to imagine any law that doesn't restrict someone's freedom. If the law didn't prevent someone from doing something that they would otherwise have done (or force them to do something that they'd prefer not to do) - we wouldn't need to pass it. You could argue that laws can increase freedom by adding to the freedom of the majority by limiting the freedom only of a minority.

But consider traffic laws. Here in the Texas, nearly everyone drives around 5 to 10mph over the speed limit. Clearly the vast majority of drivers would prefer to drive faster than the current limit - so the law is obviously restricting the freedom of the majority for the benefit of relatively few people who might become victims of high speed accidents.

This freedom business is really not a simple matter. SteveBaker (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a balancing act. There's an old saying, "Your right to throw a punch ends where my face begins," or something like that. Speed laws are a sore subject. Before the Nixon administration, there were western states that had no speed limits at all on rural interstate-quality highways. The rule was "reasonable and proper". Unfortunately, that's totally subjective. And have you ever been on a road where you were passing someone that was going too slow (say 55 in a 65 zone), only to be overtaken in the passing lane by someone going even faster than you, and pushing you to get over as soon as possible so he could keep going 90 instead of the 75-80 you were going while passing the turtle? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone famous once said, "The only way to be totally free is to want nothing." While that may be philosophically true, in reality everyone wants (or at least needs) some things. So the only way to be totally free is to be dead. I think there's also some confusion here between "freedom" and "rights". Anyone is theoretically capable of being "free" to do anything they're capable of doing - once, at least. In the burglary example, anyone is "free" to commit crimes. But the people collectively have decided, through legislation, that such behavior must be dealt with, by putting burglars behind bars for a few years so they can ponder how badly they want to keep on being burglars once they get out. You have the "freedom" to commit burglary, but you don't have the "right" to commit burglary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember it well. Had she not done herself in, she could have made some bucks by reworking that song as a St. Louis Cardinals theme in 1982: "Me and Willie McGee". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Life Expectancy Paradox

According to both the UN and CIA World Factbook, the life expectancy in the Palestinian Territories is around 73-74. This is 10-20% above the world average and a very respectable figure. How? I know a fair amount about the area and issue yet this still shocks me. I can't believe the Palestinians live so long, isn't the bombing, lack of food, medical attention, deaths due to internal conflict and so on a perfect storm of anti-life-expectancy problems? How do they overcome this? What am I missing?

Cheers, Prokhorovka (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Palestinian Territories healthcare and violence aren't that bad by world standards, and 73 isn't that high. The world average life expectancy is dragged down dramatically by the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa; the only non-African countries with a life expectancy at birth below 60 are Laos and Afghanistan. Consider also that accurate statistics don't go back very far (the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics did their first ever census in 1997), and the data the CIA and UN use may well be incomplete or just plain made up. FiggyBee (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also likely that the bombings, etc., are given disproportional media coverage compared to their actual effect on the lifespan of the population as a whole. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine has modern high-tech hospitals, just as the rest of Israel does. Those hospitals aren't always operating at 100% due to bombings and blockades, but even 80% of a modern high-tech hospital is better than the essentially non-existent healthcare in rural Africa, for example. --Tango (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli life expectancy is 78 male, 83 female against Palestinian figures of 72/75 (list of countries by life expectancy - UN figures). Lebanon is 70/74, Syria 72/76, and Egypt 69/74, so Palestine is below Israel but not far from the regional average. Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Casualties suggests casualty figures in the 1990s were less than 100 deaths per year, and even in the past few years maybe 500 per year, from a population of 4 million, so the conflict is not killing a demographically significant amount of people. --82.41.11.134 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Palestinians also receive more foreign aid per capita than any other people, although this may have changed with all the money the US is pumping into Iraq and Afghanistan now. And there are a bunch of NGOs working there. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US provides less that 10% of Palestinian aid, so I wouldn't imagine any change in that contribution would have any serious effect. Fribbler (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble: the US also provides indirect aid in the form of UN dues that then goes to Palestinians, which would raise that percentage. Also "The US" might mean "The US government" or might mean "The US government and US citizens"; which do you mean? Tempshill (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to bilateral government aid. The UN dues aren't affected by commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fribbler (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mwalcoff was suggesting given the amount of money the US is pumping into Iraq and Afghanistan they may now be receiving more aide par capita then the Palestinian territories because they've overtaken it (rather then the Palestinian territories dropped below). On the other hand, I believe the Gazan blockade has negatively affected the situation there so perhaps they've gone down as well for other reasons Nil Einne (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine has 22.3 physicians per 10,000 people, which is slightly lower than Egypt or Jordan (26.3 and 26.7), but while 60% of Egyptians have access to antenatal care, 100% of Palestinians do; similarly 100% of Palestinian births are attended by medical staff, while 80% of Egyptian births are. All Palestinians have access to local healthcare, as in neighboring countries. Palestinian vaccination rates for BCG, diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus, oral poliovaccine, measles, and hepatitis are all near 100%, slightly higher than Egypt or Jordan (though Palestine scores less well for tetanus in expectant women).[1][2][3] If you want real poverty, Yemen has life expectancy of 60-62 years, far lower vaccination rates, 3.0 physicians per 10,000 people, and half the population has no access to local healthcare.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, it's that list I found this out from. So does this mean the Palestinians don't have it that bad, or they do, but it doesn't harm their LE that much? Because I was strongly of the opinion they were starving, is this untrue? Prokhorovka (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starving is obviously not true, as mentioned there is always the massive aid to fall back on. But dirt poor and unemployed, yes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filling a kettle through the spout

Is it a bad idea to fill a kettle through the spout if it has a filter? Or does it not matter? I'm not entirely sure what the filter is for - filtering water as it enters the kettle or as it leaves or both? I guess it is useful for filtering water as it leaves because of calcium carbonate deposits that build up with boiling. 86.147.229.239 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably depends on the quality of water you have in your home, or if you use bottled or spring water. My kettle doesn't have any opening other than its spout (without a filter), so I have to do it that way, and I have seen no problems from it. (OR) — Michael J 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which?, the UK consumer organisation/magazine, says the filter is to prevent limescale (calcium carbonate) getting into your cup from the kettle[5]. My personal guess is that pouring water in through the spout might clean the filter of limescale clogging it, but the limescale would remain in the kettle, and it would not do any harm. Which? also suggests that you clean the filter by hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have very hard water and regularly fill the kettle throught the spout to wash the limescale back into the kettle. I then have to rinse the loose limescale out through the lid from time to time. I also have a problem with hard limescale deposits on the bottom and sides of the kettle, which can be removed only by large quantities of concentrated phosphoric acid, or, much more cheaply, by heating the kettle without water to almost red hot. I suppose I ought to invest in industrial grade water softening eqipment! Dbfirs 22:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The question then is, do you get more limescale coming out of boiled water (inside the kettle) than you do out of fresh water (going into the kettle)? Otherwise you're just going to get limescale on the outside of the filter which will go back into the cup. 86.147.229.239 (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put one of those stainless steel scourers in my kettle. The limescale attaches to that rather than the element or the rest of the kettle and I wash it out periodically. Cleaning the filters is problematic. They are very delicate and usually break. -- SGBailey (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the limescale gets deposited as the kettle boils, not as it is filled. In the UK, one can buy special stainless steel rolled mesh (stronger than scourer steel) to place in the bottom of the kettle. The limescale then attaches to this first (I'm not sure of the chemistry), and can be rinsed out under the tap. Dbfirs 09:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]