Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 August 6

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.

August 6

I can't indentify this phrase...

I very, very vaguely recall seeing a quote (on Wikipedia, I believe) that dealt with fear. It was from a famous general or fighter of some sort who used to tell it to his troops before battle... I think. It's been a very long time since I saw it.

Anyway, I remember that it basically said "I will not let fear own me/I will let it wash over me" (as I recall that was a major part of it). I do remember specifically that the man who came up with it would have his people repeat it over and over before going into battle (or whatever it is that they did...)

Sorry for the ambiguity, but I can't remember anything else... Can anyone identify the quote? --ParakeetSong 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not thinking of the Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear from Dune, are you?

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. —Keenan Pepper 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This makes me happy. :D Zidel333 aka I'm a huge Dune freak

My son learned that and on several occasions recited it to himself to fend off fear - it seemed to actually work! SteveBaker 01:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How about the Wikipedia Litany Against Vandalism? I must not vandalize. Vandalism is the reader-annoyer. Vandalism is the little-irritation that brings permanent blockage. Clarityfiend 04:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Keenan. That's the one I was looking for. And I'm pretty sure that that's not what I'm looking for, Clarityfriend, but you never know. :P --ParakeetSong 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. -Piter De Vries(Brad Dourif DUNE film 1984) -Specialagent777 aka a wee bit smaller huge Dune freak than Zidel1333, I thought I'd add another mantra just for poops and giggles

What is the objective of.....

the environmental movement ? Is it to render society like that of the Old Stone Age caveman ? Will contributing to www.earthshare.org get me in trouble for supporting terrorists such as ALF, ELF, PETA and the like ? Is there a article on the Earth Share website/org. ? 205.240.144.180 02:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We do have an article about it, but simply put, its goal is to keep the Earth habitable for current and future residents, our descendants among them. (The cavemen weren't particularly environmental; there just weren't enough of them to have a global effect.) I don't see Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, Environmental Life Force or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals listed as one of the member groups, so that's not an issue. There's no now an article on Earth Share ...yet. Clarityfiend 03:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Those groups you mentioned aren't "terrorists" in the way that one usually thinks of terrorists. They never try to directly harm people (such as through violence). Compared to your average enviromentalist, however, they are extreme in their views. I'm not sure if the US government considers the support of those groups as equal to the support of terrorist groups. I'm sure there are a few people who would like to return to the stone age (such as the Unabomber), but most environmentalists generally want to protect nature and the environment, encourage people to live a "green" lifestyle, etc. There is of course a wide variety of viewpoints that make up environmentalism, so there is no exact definition. 69.40.247.76 03:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Though, to offer an opposite perspective, certain experts in terrorism and government agencies have listed the ALF and ELF as terror groups (see Operation Backfire (FBI)). Paul Wilkinson called the ALF and its splinter groups the "most serious domestic terrorist threat within the United Kingdom" (prior to 9/11) and Brian Cass may offer a different opinion on whether such groups directly harm people. That all said, Earth Share appears to be a much more moderate alliance, and your money will go to fund only organisations that do not "advocate illegal direct action." [1] Rockpocket 03:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope my answer didn't sound too biased. I was just trying to show that those groups aren't on the same level as, say, Al-Qaeda. Though they claim to never to directly harm people, they have caused great amounts of damage in other ways (property damage, arson). There is more on this in the eco-terrorism article. 69.40.252.8 13:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, your answer was fine. Its just that there are always different opinions on such controversial things, and I think its good for readers to sample both sides of the story. The interesting thing about these groups is that they can claim to never harm people by the virtue that they only claim non-violent acts in their name. There are plenty of violent acts carried out by the exact same people who do the ALF acts, but those acts are claimed in the name of other groups, such as the Justice Department (animal rights). So while it is technically true that the ALF do not harm people, it is kind of a meaningless statement because the ALF is nothing but a front (literally). (Some of) the people who are the ALF do harm people, but they do so under a different front. Rockpocket 19:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been environmental groups who have engaged in tree spiking, which has caused injuries to loggers. Corvus cornix 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article lists only one person injuried by tree spiking, and that wasn't because of an environmental group. According to the article, environmental groups who engaged in tree spiking warned logging companies so that they wouldn't try to cut the trees, and placed the spikes high so that they wouldn't be hit by the loggers cutting the trees down. Skittle 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"console tax"

pc game makers obviously don't have to pay protection money to intel and ati to make games- they may have to pay microsoft for directx development tools or something but that's just a fair sale (actually as immoral as any controlled release of software but I'll let it slide). So why do console game makers pay such outrageous amounts of money to the companies who make the systems? Is there some kind of console mafia that breaks your kneecaps, or are they legally protected or what? Game systems throughout the ages have depended on kids in their basement hacking up the latest hit, and they sure as heck never paid a dime to the maker of the computer. Even in the era of small development houses like sierra the same business model held. So at what point did game developers decide that they needed to pay enormous amounts of money to the manufacturers of the system? I remember as recently as the game boy advance that independent development was encouraged. What's the deal? It doesn't seem to make business sense from the developer's point of view. --froth^t 03:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because most stores will not carry potentially illegal software. It's more profitable to just pay the fees they have to pay to work WITH the company. In addition, I'm pretty sure in the past that manufacturers have threatened to stop selling to stores that sell homebrew software- so if Wal-Mart decides to sell uberawesomegame that doesn't pay nintendo, Nintendo could just stop selling to Wal-Mart at all. It would be horrible business for everyone involved --L-- 04:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the "official Nintendo seal of quality" that came on all Nintendo licensed hardware and some of those NES games. I think the answer is that console licensing uses proprietary toolkits/SDKs (though this might differ on more modern, PC-like platforms) and also is supported by the console companies. Microsoft and Nintendo and such give the publishers licenses to say "HAY THIS IS AN XBOX/WII/PS2 GAME, YOU CAN SAY THAT ON THE BOX, AND WE WILL GIVE YOU ALL NEEDED MATERIAL TO DEVELOP ON THIS PLATFORM" and then the publishers give the console manufacturers big bucks. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 08:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone expand on the 'huge sums of money' - I know that developers must buy a kit - which is often very expensive, consisting of specialised hardware and no doubt a direct line to nintendo/sony etc for technical backup etc.

I didn't think there was a licensing fee - my understanding was that the manufacturer takes a significant cut on every game sold?08:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the games are where the profit is, the software is what people will keep buying again and again. It's the consoles, the hardware, that companies typically lose money on. Although apparently every Nintendo console has been sold at profit, which is fairly rare, but part of why Nintendo has been able to stay alive so long --L-- 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this an antitrust issue then? Nintendo holds a monopoly on nintendo games, and if as a retailer you attempt to sell non-nintendo Wii games, then Nintendo will blacklist you and refuse to sell you any of its monopolized products.. sounds like a textbook example of antitrust. Also, does the DMCA protect the consoles if it requires games to be digitally signed by nintendo to work? Does that fall under fair-and-square reverse engineering, or would it be illegal to try to get your game to work on a "protected" platform. I'd sure hope it's the former, since that would be patently ridiculous for it to be illegal to write software for a certain machine just because it works. Also I don't think the "kit" would be that helpful for the price you're paying- after developing a few games I'd think it would be trivial to make your own at far less cost. Or is that SOMEHOW illegal too? --froth^t 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't answer all of these - other publishers legally publish Wii games eg Ubisoft (that's not what you meant I'm sure)

As for the kit - I'm sure you could have as many PCs/macs etc as you wish to type in your program, make the graphics etc - the special bit of the kit (I have heard) is a specially modified console that allows serial transfer of the program code to the Wii, along with extra wires to monitor bus traffic, insert artificial interupts, even step through the program one instruction at a time - not easy for a software engineer to make, probably easy for a hardware engineer (but what games companies have these?). This all serves to ease debugging and optimise code (specifically where any bottlenecks might occur) The cost for a Wii kit is a few thousand dollars (again I've heard), you'll also get lots of boilerplate code etc, and maybe third party middleware that nintendo has licensed. Apologies if all that was just hot air.. Returning to your point - reverse engineering is often illegal (specifically if done for profit). After all it would be relatively simple to reverse engineer a whole console.. That is intellectual theft.

Most of this protection is simply there to prevent piracy, and bad code like worms and viruses etc. If you managed to get code up and running on a console (for hobby purposes) - I don't think you would be considered a criminal - there are examples of this happening on the xbox360 and the official word from microsoft was that they didn't have any issues with what the guy had done (I think he put a mac os on it or something).

The major issue seems to be one of return on investment, specifically only allowing official endorsed games (though there are other issues such as brand image - nintendo probably doesn't want you to port concentration camp manager onto the wii!)

I don't really get that there any clear antitrust issues here - unless sony/ms/and nintendo are in cahoots. The major issue I have is the mass-marketisation of computer entertainment - resulting in far too many movie tie ins, and sequels. You could describe the industry as a victim of it's own success. I don't think I've answered your main points but my conclusion is "mass market=no fun for geeks". I remain optimistic though, god knows why, good luck.87.102.34.140 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the reason that Nintendo put the Nintendo Seal of Quality and the lockout chip in their products (certainly the official line) was that people produced glitchy/shoddy/racist/sexist games for mainstream consoles (E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, which involved jumping in and out of pits for an hour, and Custer's Revenge, which actively promoted rape and racism against Native Americans being two notorious examples), and people who didn't understand the different between games manufactures and games developers attributed these to Atari and Nintendo. Of course, it didn't always work (just look at Superman 64, which was an officially developed game carrying a seal of approval), but Nintendo may have single-handedly pulled the games industry out of the Video Game Crash of 1983. Laïka 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the big issue here is that the consoles are sold for no profit or at an actual loss, meaning that the console manufacturers have to charge inflated prices for the games they sell, and induce third party game vendors to charge more and share the spoils with the manufacturers as well. If there was a critical mass of cheap games, such that people bought only cheap consoles and cheap games and never any expensive games at all, the poor console manufacturers couldn't get their money back. See this thread for more discussion/debate on this subject. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

European cars in North America

Can a european car (steering wheel on the right) circulate in North America? M.A.D.M.D. 06:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean a British car. DirkvdM 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

By "circulate" do you mean move in a circle? If so, the answer is yes. Rockpocket 07:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean, "Is it legal to drive a car, in the United States, that has the steering wheel on the right as on a British car?" Then the answer is yes. I see an older model Mini Cooper with right hand drive every so often on my way home from work. There are also (a number of?) vehicle models that are sold straight from the factory with right hand drive, though these are generally bought by postal carriers for their work. I know you used to be able to buy a Jeep Wrangler with right hand drive as little as 4 years ago. Dismas|^(talk) 08:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

there is some information on legal restrictions in different countries in the article Driving on the left or right. Jon513 09:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep - it's legal. I have a right hand drive '63 Mini (it's the one at the top of the Mini article!) - I was able to register it, it passed it's Texas state inspection, I drive it most weekends. No legal problems at all. There are a few practical problems - drive-thru anything is a pain - toll booths are impossible (I seriously consider reversing through them!), overtaking big trucks on two-lane roads is lethally dangerous, Texas license plates don't fit the Mini's quirky plate holder and cars as old as 1963 don't really like running on unleaded/10% ethanol gasoline. But there is no legal problem whatever due to the Right-hand-drive. For some reason, this surprises most Americans. SteveBaker 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For toll booths, either have your passenger handle the money, or if you are alone, get yourself a grabber. — Michael J 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Rural Postal carriers often drive left-hand drive cars so that they are able to deliver mail to roadside mailboxes without driving on the wrong side of the road. --Mdwyer 19:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Or get one of those purple things. 68.39.174.238 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mini is small enough that I could probably do a handbrake turn, reverse through the tollgate - then do a J-turn to get pointed down the freeway again! It's a front wheel drive car - so you could do it without stopping. If you could perfect that stunt, it would be amazingly funny! Sadly, my '63 car only has drum brakes and I suspect they are a bit feeble for doing tricks like this. SteveBaker 23:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You should practise it. In a new MINI Cooper S, it could become quite a marketing stunt! Xn4 21:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen parking cops driving english-style cars - it puts them next to the parked cars, so they can easily mark them with chalk without getting out of the car, thus telling when people have parked too long. Near campus, parking is a huge issue, since people tend to park in 2-hour spots for a 3-hour block of classes Kuronue 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Airport security in the UK

What annoys me about the extremely stringent security measures in place at British airports is that they seem ill thought through and that no rationale is ever given for them by the authorities. I have two questions about these measures.

1. At the screening gate, you are sometimes asked to remove your shoes. Is this only because the case of the shoe bomber has alerted the authorities to the possibility of explosives being brought onboard in shoes, or is there some other reason? If there is no other reason, it seems an enormous over-reaction for thousands of people to be inconvenienced in this way simply because of the actions of this one man. After all, a determined terrorist wanting to bring explosives onboard will always find a way. If he knows his shoes will be searched, he'll simply hide his stash somewhere else. This measure brings about no increase in security, as far as I can tell.
2. The whole thing about liquids in hand baggage perplexes me enormously. You are allowed to carry bottles of liquid onboard, as long as they do not exceed a capacity of 100ml each. Presumably, therefore, a terrorist who required 200ml of liquid explosive would simply carry two bottles. And why are larger bottles of liquid available airside? Is the assumption being made that these bottles have been screened somewhere, and are therefore safe? If so, this seems rather dubious to me. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts echo yours. The latter question might somehow be answered by assuming smaller bottles are easier to inspect or something, but it seems that someone that was going to create a bomb would have two separate substances anyway, rather than mixing them both and using something else to start the "bomb" (that sounds like a very inefficient and dangerous method). And as for the very end of that latter question - supposedly, anything sold past the security check is "checked" already, but I doubt that a security agent would screen all incoming beverages, foodstuffs, and other materials a vendor might use. As for the first question, the problem is with security naturally being reactionary and one step behind, often it is not easy to think ahead of someone trying to breach security, so you just patch up whatever holes they used last. Perhaps someone more qualified and knowledgeable about airport security can answer your questions better, but I'm tempted to just say it's security sillyness. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not actually about ensuring the public's safety.. it's about making the public feel safe so they keep buying plane tickets.. and paying taxes.. --froth^t 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Schneier (a prominent security researcher) recently did an interview with Kip Hawley (the head of the United States Transportation Security Administration): interview link. Many of the topics that you bring up are addressed in that interview. Though obviously the TSA is an American organization, similar reasoning and rationales apply to practices in the UK. Equally interesting are the questions that Hawley doesn't answer; see security theater for another important perspective. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of the opposite pole of Wikipedia; the collective idiocy of masses. I particularly enjoyed seeing the mobile antiaircraft guns the UK mobilized around airports after the Glasgow attack. There's an appropriate response to somebody attacking in a kamikaze Jeep.

On the other hand, I do look forward to the day when somebody gets caught smuggling a weapon in a bra, after which everybody will have to take their bra off to travel.

Gzuckier 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been hoping for an attack featuring nitrocellulose underwear for several years now. --Carnildo 21:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let us know when you plan to fly next and we'll put in a call to the airport to let them know that. :-) SteveBaker 16:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is silly security. It doesn't make us safer but people go along with it because what else can they do? In the meantime real security measures (like better enforcement along the border of Afghanistan-Pakistan, like better foreign relations, like negotiation to improve security and infrastructure on old Soviet WMD strongholds) gets stalled because it requires lot of money and lots of politics and lots of negotiations. But forcing people to take off their shoes is easy, and it makes people feel like they are living in a security state, which for many I think makes them feel a little more secure, even if it is a false sense of security. --24.147.86.187 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

See El_Al#El_Al_security for a description of security measures which are actually intended to keep people safe, not just make them feel safe. StuRat 04:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Facilities

Which online universities in the UK offer bachelor's degree or diploma? Thanks.

Open University. But you'd still have to attend once or twice a year. Neil ╦ 12:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Netherlands

1.Can you find out how old the history of The Netherlands is? 2.Are the people who are leading the country, the people whose country it was originally? 3.What are the major exports and imports of The Netherlands and to which country are they?

I believe that you'll find the answers to your homework questions either in the text that is supplied for the course that you're taking or in the The Netherlands and History of the Netherlands articles. Dismas|^(talk) 08:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Um I found the answers to question 1 but can you help me with question 2 and 3 other than that thanks Dismas

Economy of the Netherlands may help with Q3. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys but still no luck! Could anyone give me specific facts? Like for example, chocolate is the #1 import from Germany around 500 is imported every year or something like that. Can someone give me a website that lists that stuff?

Use Google to search for the CIA fact book. Or better yet, follow the link at the bottom of the Netherlands article. They'll have info about imports and exports. Dismas|^(talk) 13:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm Dutch and I haven't a clue what the answer to Q1 would be. Depends on what one can historically call 'the Netherlands' and that's a bit tricky. I suppose that in the sense of 'history' meaning 'written down' it started with the first (known) writings in Dutch, ie Henric van Veldeke. Btw, I went to that school that was named after him, which is the main reason I know this shit - the Dutch are not very nationalistic. :) DirkvdM 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "originally"? Originally there were no people at all. --Dweller 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mexico's Coastlines

How long is both Mexico's coastlines?

see List of countries by length of coastline, but keep in mind that there is no way to truly measure the length of a coastline (How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension). Jon513 09:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Calabria, Italy

1.What are the imports and exports of Calabria?

2.Who is the government of Calabria?

3.The history of Calabria, important events that have occurred?

1- Do not remove posts from talk pages. 2- We will not do your homework for you. Google it --L-- 10:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Sadly, our article on Calabria (I assume there's not more than one place by this name) doesn't carry the information you're looking for. However, if you scroll down to the "External links" section, I think you'll find some excellent sites. We won't do your homework for you, but we're happy to point you (and anyone else) in the right direction, to find the information for yourself. Just as well really - the rest of your classmatess could be watching this page too, and you really wouldn't want to hand in near-identical pieces of work... in my experience, most teachers are fairly smart cookies. Oh yes... and please don't remove other peoples' posts unless you have excellent justification. --Dweller 10:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you just give me answers! The external links lead to nothing but garbage! Also nobody is watching this page. Please I need the answers quickly for a project that is due very soon!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk • contribs)

Erm, no we can't, partially true, totally untrue and we're really sorry, but that's not our fault (respectively). A quick Googling (I presume you tried that) also turned (this) up, but I'm afraid that your rudeness (removing messages despite being asked not to, petulant responses to people trying to help) is making it increasingly unlikely that anyone would want to help you, in a hurry or otherwise. --Dweller 11:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of project needs information on Netherlands, Mexico and Italy, or are those your classmates posting questions? Whatever the case, please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) --Dweller 11:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw stuff u

The reference desk is not your personal research bitch. Please, next time, start your studying when you get an assignment, and use common sense, and if you still have trouble, ask us for advice. Nobody here is going to feel sorry for you for slacking off, take your fail and learn from it. Anyway, please pay attention to wikipedia policies when they are pointed out to you, such as WP:CIV and WP:SIG, you will be blocked if you do not follow them. --L-- 11:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

washing hands

I recently heard a joke about a marine and a sailor who went into a bathroom together, after using the toilet the marine walked towards the door, the sailor said " in the navy they teach us to wash our hands", to which the marine replied, "The Marines teach us not to piss on our hands"

Admittitly its not very funny, but It got me wondering is it necessary to wash ones hands after using the toilet, does risk of disease actually increase? (assuming of course someone hasn't urinated on their hands)

For me, I think it is common courtesy to not share the denizens of your crotch with someone (without their consent). Capuchin 13:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Of course it's not "NECESSARY", people did it for thousands of years without it obviously, but if you're avoiding germs than yes. In addition to bathrooms themselves being pretty disgusting places, and ignoring the fact that you're going to get 'sprayback' (disgusting as it sounds) no matter what, washing your hands every so often is just good practice, as any doctor could tell you. After using the restroom not only prevents the spread of diseases related to such, but also disease in general as it's an easy to remember biological signal to wash your hands, as it were --L-- 13:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cecil Adams covers this exact joke in this column. This line from the article is probably the most relevant : "The purpose of washing is not to get pee off your hands." 69.95.50.15 13:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

When you open the door do you negate much of the good work done by placing your hands on surfaces handled by the non-handwashers just after they have used the loo? Lanfear's Bane

Well, technically, urine isn't much of a health risk. What risk you get is probably from contact spread of organisms which originated in feces and spread in the warm and humid environment of your undies. As Redd Foxx put it, "If there's one part of the body which could benefit from being exposed to sunlight and fresh air...." Gzuckier 15:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "correct" way to wash hands is to dry your hands, then turn off the faucet with the paper towel you dried them with, and opening the door with them. This is problematic when they use air dryers though. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not wash your hands with a sterile liquid? Er.. like urine for example?

Although urine is sterile when it comes out, bacteria can grow on it. I don't know if it's any worse than anything else, though. I think tap water is not only sterile, but has enough chlorine to keep bacteria from growing on it. It isn't enough to hurt you if you drink it. — Daniel 23:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How long does tap water remain sterile?--SpectrumAnalyser 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Tap water is never sterile. In some regions of the world, chlorine is added to it, but even then it will still have living organisms in it. That being said, there is really no point in washing your hands every time you go to the toilet. You touch your body all the time, including your mouth, not to mention "dirty" surfaces of all kinds. If you had to "decontaminate" your hands after every such exposure, you would be spending your life in a padded room.

And here I thought it's because soap attracts stuff like dirt and germs and air and then gets carried away by water, not so much that water is sterile... I'm not actually sure tap water is sterile. In fact, I highly doubt it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that urine isn't much of a health risk, and that feces are. Unfortunately, everything you touch in the bathroom is likely to have feces on it, so you need to use paper towels when opening doors, turning on and off faucets, flushing toilets or urinals, and opening doors. Properly designed bathrooms don't require you to touch things, but few bathrooms are properly designed. StuRat 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think people are over fussy about germs. A few E coli ingested probably isnt going to do much harm (unless you are a baby or sick person) However, letting them breed by touch9ng food then eating it is not a good idea. Common sense says it has to be a matter of quantity of germs ingested--SpectrumAnalyser 11:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Using a paper towel to open a door is bordering on OCD. Touching a door, no matter even if it was caked in feces, won't kill you. As anyone who's had a kid knows, shit washes off. Neil ╦ 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I do exactly that yet I let my dogs lick my face. Lanfear's Bane

Door handles are AFAIK general believed to be a vector for diseases to some extent. But we're talking viral ones spread by contact here tho like flus and colds and it isn't just door handles but anything that a lot of people touch. Toilets would probably be safer in that regard. BTW, if you open toilet door handles with paper towels, I do hope you're closing the toilet seat before you flush [2] [3]. Mind you, one would assume there's a constant fecal matter aeresol in a busy public toilet Nil Einne 01:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Dead Sea

Why is The Dead Sea Called "The Dead Sea"? Are There fish or any animals that live in the dead sea? What Country Is The Dead Sea located in?

We have an article cunningly entitled Dead Sea. --Dweller 13:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ingenious! Lanfear's Bane

I stand in awe of your brillance. :) Zidel333 16:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The section you would be interested in is Dead Sea#Flora and fauna. To summarize, there aren't really any fish or other animals that live in the water, but there are microscopic organisms. It's located between Israel and Jordan (many bodies of water form political boundaries, like the Rio Grande between the Texas and Mexico.) — The Storm Surfer 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

that's no fun, i thought it was called that because it was easy to float in and so everyone could look like dead-bodies in the sea. Oh well ny156uk 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible not to float in the Dead Sea. But that's all one can do, float. The sea turns you and holds you, and you come out with salts that need to be showered off. Good experience, once.86.202.28.218 15:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

insightexpress.com

Hello! I got an email from a company that claimed to be doing a survey on behalf of Adobe concerning their products. When I Googled them, it appeared that they may be doing this for other corporations. Does anyone know if they are legit?

Erm... personally I would never trust it. SGGH ^speak! 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the chances are exceedingly high that it's some kind of a con trick to get information out of you. Don't do it. SteveBaker 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Swiss chocolate with gold dust

I've read in some food magazines that there are extremely expensive and high-end Swiss chocolates with gold dust and gold flakes sprinkled on them. Is it safe to eat them? From what I know, gold seems inedible... Acceptable 18:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Its called Gold Leaf, see Gold leaf#Culinary uses. I have had it at a 5 Star resteraunt before although it wasn't on chocolate. It's perfectly fine to eat as it is so thin. See also this [4] external link. Zidel333 18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gold is a heavy metal, but it's also very inert, so I wonder if it could do any harm. DirkvdM 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that consuming enough gold to cause significant harm would be prohibitively expensive for most everyone. An interesting tangental topic is homeopathy, the alternative medical practice of using small amounts of poisons to treat disease. — The Storm Surfer 19:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gold is a very inert metal, however enough of it can be harmful simply by being there, regardless if it reacts with something. How the rich lead their life... SGGH ^speak! 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(2x EC) If you ate lots of the stuff, it can accumulate in fatty tissue, just like any other heavy metal, and is a potential side effect of gold-containing drugs such as sodium aurothiomalate (as happened in the House episode "Clueless"). Gold leaf at culinary quantities however is officially safe, and has even been granted it's own E number, E175 (silver is E174 and aluminium E173). Gold as a medicine is not excessively expensive; see gold salts. Laïka 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters in any way but bear in mind in homeopathy the treatements are so diluted there's basically nothing left, whereas with this gold stuff you are at least eating gold even if very little. Nil Einne 01:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer Goldschläger :) Corvus cornix 20:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had chocolates that were not extremely expensive, nor especially high-end, that had gold leaf on top. They weren't exactly Dairy Milk, but neither did a couple of the chocolates cost me more than £1. Just little specks on top. Skittle 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gold doesn't taste of anything - it does neither harm nor good - and a few hours after eating your gold-laced chocolates, you can have the dubious pleasure of shitting gold too. If this excites you - go for it...otherwise it's just a waste. SteveBaker 22:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So when the Israelites had to eat/drink the powdered gold from the Golden calf, it didn't have any ill effects?--SpectrumAnalyser 22:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

At a guess, the material the Golden Calf was made from would not pass current food standards. I would imagine it was not pure gold. Skittle 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To balance this articles neutrality I must point out that the events that occured in the bible are also considered by many people to be fictional. We should not worry about heavy metal poisoning in the bible any more than we should worry about the general health of Jack Sprat or his wife. Lanfear's Bane

Gold leaf is sometimes used in Indian Cuisine. See for example asiafood.org/glossary.--Eriastrum 16:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is Al Sharpton?

Heard about him in the news.

Luckily, we've got an encyclopedia just around the corner. See Al Sharpton for an article on this guy. Friday (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia? On the internets? What? Where? --24.147.86.187 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Click on "Al Sharpton" above. It is a blue link that will take you to the article. 205.240.144.180 22:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You misspelled teh intranets. Corvus cornix 06:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about that series of youtubes? --L-- 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how the presence of an intarwebcyclopedia has dulled my googler skilz. —Tamfang 07:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seemed to have harmed anyones tendency towards annoying sarcasm. 68.39.174.238 21:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

ANNOYING SARCASM WILL NEVER DIE! Rock on, rock off, and then rock on again!! —Tamfang 00:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Annoying sarcasm? On the internets? What? Where? --24.147.86.187 21:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, there! 68.39.174.238 02:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)