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.
I don't know if this would be better off in the science section or computer section but hey, when in doubt, put it in misc.
Anyways my laptop (ASUS Eee) was infested with red ants (ants in your lap is a bad thing >_<). Yahoo answers etc. told me to flush them out using canned air but I can't find any in my place. Instead I put in a bag sprayed with bugspray, and left my laptop inside for a while. The thing worked but it left me with some nagging questions.
How can I stop ants from re-infesting my laptop? I neither have any food inside the house nor eat near my laptop so the infestation was weird in the first place.
Could bugspray have damaged my laptop?
How could I get the ant bodies out of my laptop? It's been a few days since this incident so I don't know if they're decomposing bodies will further damage the stuff inside.
I've noticed that ants love to crawl down in my desktop keyboard, too. It's something about having just the right sized gaps between the keys, for them to get in, but to keep predators out, that seems to make them love it in there.
Perhaps freezing them to death might be a better strategy. I'd remove the battery first, then shove the laptop in the freezer overnight. Check the specs to make sure that freezer temps won't damage it.
As for keeping it ant-free, how about storing it in an ant-proof container when not in use ? Perhaps one of those big tins that comes with popcorn in it ? I don't think the dead ants are likely to cause a problem. Blowing them around is more likely to cause one to lodge in a bad place, so I'd either leave the bodies as is or take it to a professional to open it up and clean them out. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You get ants when you have Linux. If you had Windows, they'd be bugs... Now seriously, putting your laptop in a freezer may not be the best idea. Different materials tend to shrink or expand differently when cooled, so you may damage something irreversibly. Also, you will need to make sure all the moisture from condensation has evaporated (which may take many hours) before you power it up, or you will kill your laptop. Finally, old motherboards used to have a small battery on them; don't know if the new ones still have it or not. You can't remove it without taking the computer apart. Freeze and thaw it, and Bad Things may happen. --Dr Dima (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely don't put it in the freezer... that is a horrible idea that will probably damage the laptop more than the ants. (Insects are very resistant to being frozen in my experience.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd take it to some kind of computer repair shop and ask them to open it up, remove them all and remove anything which might have lured them there. They also might know how to avoid this in the future. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From http://www.sillanumsoft.org/ you can download a free "Visual Analyser" which besides turning your laptop into an oscilloscope includes a neat sine/squarewave generator which makes sounds on the PC speaker. If prolonged sinewave sound is as annoying to ants as it is to humans this is a way to make an insect's life in your laptop intolerable. You would have to experiment with ants and high frequencies to find whether this idea works.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True story: I tried loud rock music to scare a mouse out of my house. It didn't work, he seemed to enjoy it. Maybe I should have tried opera. StuRat (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can say, anecdotally, that my old Dell laptop survived trips to -20C and back to room temperature without harm (though the battery wouldn't provide much current when cold). Never took a laptop below that. Other electronics we had would work fine at -40 C, though some did suffer permanent damage about -30 C (crystallizing the electrolyte in the capacitors tended to be the dominant failure mode). All that said, I wouldn't recommend freezing your computer. Dragons flight (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What readily available toxic atmosphere could an electronic device be placed in to kill all insects and eggs, without damaging the electronic devices, and for how long? Nitrogen? Helium? Carbon dioxide? Hydrogen? Carbon monoxide? Moth balls? "No Pest Strips?" Various other relatively inert gases? Vacuum might work. In the U.S. and Soviet space programs, the space capsules were exposed to the very "hard" vacuum of outer space when the door was opened during extra-vehicular activities, and the devices and computers did not fail on that account, but ants would presumably have been killed. (That said, in my misspent youth, in high school chemistry lab, I trapped a wasp in a bell jar on a vacuum pump and operated it for all it was worth for several minutes. The wasp stopped flying around when the air was exhausted, but crawled around looking annoyed until I let the air back in and removed the bell jar, at which point he flew away). Wouldn't any of these kill the ants in a few hours? Do the eggs (if any are present) require oxygen to survive? Edison (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of oxygen should certainly kill them, but the question is if you can get the oxygen levels low enough to do the job. In the case of the wasp, I imagine it's oxygen requirements were greatly reduced once it stopped flying. Carbon monoxide would work, but that would be highly dangerous for any humans, too, so not a good idea. As for eggs, they do require oxygen, but at an extremely low level.
To get a lower oxygen content, first evacuate all the air you can, then fill the space with nitrogen, helium, or some other gas. Let's say that this reduces the oxygen content by 90%. You can then repeat the procedure to get to 99%, then 99.9%, etc. StuRat (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Texas, we have the oddly named "Paratrechina species near pubens" ant which (it is often claimed by local people) are sensitive to - and attracted by - electric fields. I've heard this said by many people, including a local exterminator. Our article claims (without citation) that all ants are somewhat sensitive to electric fields. I'm not sure I believe it - but I suppose if it is true - then that might explain your peculiar infestation - and suggest that the way to extricate live ants in the future is to give them something more exciting (electrically speaking) to swarm around. I'm unconvinced that this is true - it's hard to imagine an evolutionary reason for ants to have this electrical sense. SteveBaker (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that the ants use the magnetic field of the earth to help them find their way back to the nest while they're out foraging. While the pheromone trail they leave is probably their most famous method of getting home, I recall a David Attenborough special where he demonstrated that some species of desert ants use the position of the sun. Perhaps other species use a compass that is sensitive enough to go wonky from going too near a laptop. Conjecture on my part, but I'm less skeptical about the claim than Steve is; really, it sounds like the magnetic version of what happens with moths and night lights. Matt Deres (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compressed air is available in small cans with a thin straw you can attach to the nozzle to direct the blast exacly where it is needed. The place to look is specialist camera shops, the kind of place that does pro/semi-pro equipment rather than a mass market retail conglomerate, or a computer repair shop. You could Google for "canned air" to find a suitable supplier in your area. Astronaut (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the padlock off. It doesn’t need to be saved. I would prefer the hasp to be saved if possible. How do I extract the half key please? Kittybrewster ☎10:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a short stubby screw driver with which you can apply some torque at the same time that you 'bump' it - that might do it. Alternatively, you can cut out a shim and use that. I have chosen these to videos because their production quality proves that you really do not need to posses that many brain cells to do this successfully.[1][2]--Aspro (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the key is fully engaged (i.e. it would unlock the lock if you could just turn it) then a small piece of wooden dowel and something sticky (bit of chewing gum) should be able to turn the locking mechanism to open the padlock. Again, if you don't care about saving the padlock, you can just cut it off with bolt cutters or a hack saw. --Jayron3215:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to airport officials, the Boeing 777 aircraft that took off from Dubai at 4 a.m. struck a Clear Air Turbulence about 60 nautical miles away from Kochi and descended abruptly to about 4,000 feet from an altitude of 18,000 feet. All passengers not wearing their seatbelts were hurled around and the cabin baggage fell.
If the news were true to state the magnitude of the descent, it would be truly a miracle, wouldn't it be? But the most of the papers said something like 200 to 1500 ft descent. Any chance of happening that miracle of a 14000 ft. swoop?--117.204.90.194 (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm with Dismas on this. I too fly small aircraft, and the atmosphere does not behave in extremes like that unless you are in a major thunderstorm (which is why we don't fly through thunderstorms anymore). Two hundred is much much more plausible. Falconusptc11:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's over 15,000 feet. I can't believe an instant drop that far (it would kill all the passengers and crew), but, a plane could lose that much altitude over time. StuRat (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And such a pocket would have to be massive. Assuming that the plane is in free fall the whole time and has a terminal velocity roughly equal to a human (I have absolutely no idea the true value), then falling 15,000 ft would take roughly 1.5 minutes, and by then, the aircraft would have traveled almost 15 miles. Googlemeister (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the aircraft isn't in freefall in a downdraft. It's still flying, it's just that the air it's flying through is moving downwards. But yes, it would still have to be an abnormally huge downdraft for the aircraft to descend that far, and in any case it wouldn't make any difference to the effect of exiting it (you'd get exactly the same "bump" whether you'd been in the downdraft for a minute or a second). FiggyBee (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out my awesome illustrative illustration :) -> as you can see, it makes no difference how long the aircraft has been descending in the air pocket; the deceleration on exiting it will be the same. Also, if you can imagine, it makes no difference if the pilots "climb" in the downdraft and maintain the same altitude; they'll get the same bump on exiting, only they'll be transitioning from level flight to climbing instead of from descending to level flight. FiggyBee (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reality check: it's not the exit bump that matters in this question. the exit bump would push people down towards the floor of the cabin (or rather, cause the plane to level out, making people in free fall move downwards in a relative sense) as the plane caught air and arrested its decent. people would only hit the roof of the cabin if the plane suddenly lost lift and began to drop - the inertia of the passengers would carry them in a straight line as the plane fell out from beneath them. you're right, though, that that would take a massive downdraft or loss of lift. --Ludwigs222:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's the entry bump that would make people hit the ceiling. Perhaps a larger air pocket would be better in that case, since it would be longer between the entry and exit. :) I still maintain that there's no "loss of lift"; if anything the air pressure must be higher in a downdraft, no? FiggyBee (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That just says what the picture is being used for; it doesn't give any indication of who it is (or what the original context was). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I drive a Mercuery Mountaineer and it was recently brought to my attention that something mechanical in my car creates the "tick-tock" sound when I turn my blinker on. I searched the Internet to find what this mechanism is and how it works, but to no avail. What is this mysterious contraption and how does it work?
Gate28 (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, the sound would come from a relay opening and closing, to turn the lights off and on. In some newer cars, perhaps the sound is generated electronically as a reminder to the driver than the blinkers are on. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice its changes ticking speed when you switch on/off all the lights, then its probably a
Bimetal Flasher Unit. Which is a heat operated relay. Simple and cheap [3]--Aspro (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "blinker", I presume you mean the direction indicators. Don't be tempted to by-pass, and place an non-audable one in, for if you forget when driving and go straight-on instead of turning you may have an accident. I've seen some people die because of a driver forgot that his indicator was not switched off. My car, it is very in-audable and I was contemplating putting in an audable indicator on the dash.
What date would a person have to be born in and place in order to have all planets in LEO? Meaning Sun/Leo, Moon/Leo, Rising/Leo, etc. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume by LEO, you don't mean Low Earth Orbit (which would be impossible for the planets to be in), but instead mean the astrological sign Leo. The first place to look would be planetary alignment#Astronomy and Conjunction (astronomy and astrology) which lists many alignments. You can check each one out, using some suitable astronomy software, to see which occurs in Leo. Set the date to be between mid-August to mid-September for each year to get the Sun in Leo.
As for where you would be able to see this alignment, pretty much anywhere on Earth will do because the planets, the Sun (which is obviously not a planet) and the Moon (also not a planet) do not move sufficiently far during a day to mess up the alignment; do note however, it will be very hard for someone to actually see this alignment if you want the Sun involved as well. Astronaut (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't take so long as I thought :-) From just after midmight on 14 August 1007 AD until around 9pm on 16 August, the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn (all the planets that were known at the time) were all within the boundaries of the constellation Leo, except for much of the 15th when the Moon cut across the corner of Sextans (times are GMT). This just happens to be the first I came across, there are undoubtedly other occasions when this happened. Astronaut (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that, because of the effects of the precession of the equinox since (the currently used western version of) astrology was formulated around 3 or 4 thousand years ago, the areas of the purported Astrological signs no longer correspond physically to the actual astronomical constellations (chance perspective-created groupings of largely unrelated stars) from which they were derived, and did not do so in 1007 either - celestial objects physically "in" the actual constellation of Leo probably are and also then were, I think, "in" the astrological "sign" of Virgo. If Astronaut is working from an astronomical program, corrections will have to be made to allow for astrological "theory".
Off the top of my head, such complete near-conjunctions are quite rare, especially if you want to include planets (a term originally also encompassing the Sun and Moon and astrologically often including some 'minor planets', etc) only discovered since the classical era and 1007; i.e. Ceres and other asteroids, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and other 'dwarf planets'. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My astronomy program is aware of the precession of the equinoxes and accounts for it, but the constellation boundaries are fixed relative to the stars. That is why I explicitly said "...within the boundaries of the constellation Leo". I did a search for Uranus and Neptune both being within the boundaries of the constellation Leo and found such conjunctions very rare. Astronaut (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was probably the case, Astronaut, and intended my remarks for the benefit of the OP, Reticuli88, who might not have been aware of such differences between astronomical facts and astrological theories. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hi! i'm 17 years old, and i seriously want to increase my height, i'm currently 5'2, so that's very low for someone of my age. i've tried that "hanging onto a bar" exercise for about 3 months, but my height hasn't increased. plz help me, guys... anything, any exercise, any sort of therapy would help (as long as it's not expensive)
The only way to increase your height is to have different parents. Your maximum height is largely determined by genetics. There are environmental concerns, like diet, that can stunt your growth, but assuming you have been receiving adequate nutrition as a child, you will grow to your maximum genetically determined height. Also, by 17 years old, you have statistically reached what will likely be your full adult height. It varies greatly by individual (some people continue to grow into their early 20s, others stop in their early teens) but for most people, by the time they are in their later teens, they have reached their full height. You may want to read the Wikipedia article on Human height. The study of human growth is called Auxology, but sadly the article on that topic is little more than a definition. --Jayron3215:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Most people have reached over 90% of their adult height by the age of 17. Apart from radical, painful and expensive surgical techniques, there is nothing you can do. If your height really bothers you, I suggest you see you doctor for more professional help. Astronaut (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be seen emerging from small doorways. This is not a joke, it is a principle of set design explained to me by professional movie people. On one side of the street the doorways would be low e.g. for John Wayne to come through, and on the other side they would be high so as to make the female lead seem more petite. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also below average height, but I am older than you. You should make sure that you get good nutrition (plenty of vitamins and calcium, hopefully lots of fruit and vegetables) so that your body can make the most of any remaining growth spurt. (It is not unusual for shorter men to gain a couple of inches after age 17.) Aside from that, I strongly recommend making peace with your height. I am happy with mine. You don't have to be big to be happy. That said, you can work on developing a more powerful build through weight training if you like. But there are advantages to being short. You can fit easily and comfortably into spaces, such as airplane seats, that other people find cramped. You won't suffer from the issues that tall people have with joint trouble or issues of balance and falling. Also, I think there is just something cool about being compact. Why not embrace it? Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either learn to wear clothes and shoes and hairstyles which make you look tall, or try and get your hands on some form of growth hormone. I had a friend who was so short she was actually able to get this treatment on the NHS, so it isn't a lost cause. Prokhorovka (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, once a person has finished their linear growth, exogenous growth hormone will not be successful at increasing height but may result in acromegaly. This is a distinctly bad idea and an example of why we have guidelines against providing treatment advice on the reference desk. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two medical approaches to increasing height, but neither is appropriate for people who are merely short:
1) Administer human growth hormone. Usually done in childhood to fix certain deformities.
2) Cut the bones in your legs, attach them to an external frame, with thumbscrews used to slowly increase the distance while new bone grows in the gaps. (Sounds like fun, doesn't it ?)
As I said, a doctor won't approve either one for somebody at your height. So, perhaps vertical stripes, big hair/hats, and "lifts" are the way to go. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the OP, there will always be people who are shorter than you. Your attitude towards them will shape how you come to terms with your own height. This (video shows a sick attitude that needs adjustment. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a friend through primary and high school who was the shortest guy in the class through 12 years of school, five feet and a few inches at age 18. He lived in a home with a somewhat overcontrolling mother. He graduated and joined the U.S. Navy and grew to 6 feet tall. Maybe it was a random fluke of metabolism, maybe it was a surge of hormones, maybe the Navy gave him enough calcium or some nutrient, or maybe it was just the change in psychosocial environment. Edison (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Height is less important than the perception that others have of you. If you're confident and self-possessed, people won't really notice your size; if you're defensive or worried about it, it will become a defining characteristic. Keep in mind that a lot of very famous people are much shorter than you realize. If I've heard the story right, Humphrey Bogart had to stand on a footstool to kiss Catherine Hepburn in the movies, and the Artist Formally Known as Prince at his prime was just about the height you are now. --Ludwigs222:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a big lake in the middle of Trenton, surrounded by multiple high fences? Is it a chemical plant? Water treatment facility? Public pool? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the airphoto and streetview, there's no way this could be a sinkhole. It may started out as a sinkhole as to why the site was selected. But with the manmade berm around the site it's clearly that it's a reservoir or a stormwater detention pond. Also, comparing the streetview and airphoto, the water level is near the top of the berm. After some research, the site is actually called the Trenton Reservoir. See [6]. Also see its history [7] as well.
Built just before the 20th century, this explains the ornate entrance gate columns. Surprisingly, this open-air reservoir has been used for treated drinking water since 1914 and just now they are considering building a floating cover over it. The white stuff in the airphoto you see at one end of the reservoir is water splashing out from the discharge inlet structure you see in the 2009 Report. --Kvasir (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zero Mostelhere would appreciate the two staircases one going up and one going down (video at 1:21). L. Ron Hubbard may have pictured the Trenton reservoir on his second visit to heaven: The pillars are scruffy. The saints have vanished. So have the Angels. A sign on one (the left as you "enter") says "This is Heaven". The right has a sign "Hell" with an arrow and inside the grounds one can see the excavations like archaeological diggings with raw terraces, that lead to "Hell". Plain wire fencing encloses the place.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can I get greater mechanical advantage on my caliper bicycle brakes
I have a standard... I guess its a city bike. It uses side-pull caliper brakes (the standard bike breaks up until recently).
I can't seem to find any information anywhere on how to fix spongyness with these brakes. I've replaced the caliper/pads, the linkage and the levers, to no avail. The levers are stiff, but the brakes don't grip and slow the bike down very well. From what I've read, fixing spongyness on other brake styles requires increasing the mechanical advantage. On centre pull brakes, this is simple. How can I increase the mechanical advantage on side-pull caliper brakes though? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢19:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article Bicycle brake talks about the maintenance that brakes need and notes that brake pads (brake blocks) are made in various rubber compounds that have different braking efficiencies. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I will be passing through Cape Town not too long from now and I have two questions.
As I have so far not seen much of the world's poverty, it would be interesting to see some of the poorer neighborhoods of the city, but I do not intend to go there alone. I could go on a "tour", but I am afraid this will not be a comfortable situation, being a rich tourist sightseeing in poor neighborhoods seems somewhat... tasteless. Is there any way one can get to see a broader picture of the city without engaging in "crisis tourism"? Any "good" organization that does something like a tour that is not a tour? Any way to help a neighborhood without actually being there for long? I understand that I might be asking of a logical impossibility here. By the way, I will only be staying for a couple of days, and so any large-scale "involvement" is out of the question (well, contributing to a charity after going home might be feasible).
I hear that ZA is famous for its diamonds. However, is there any way to buy, say, a diamond ring in Cape Town and be certain that I do not help financing exploitive diamond industries in civil-war-ridden countries?
South Africa is a signatory of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, which means there should be no conflict diamonds sold there. But Kimberley is leaky, and diamonds are very difficult to trace or identify, so you can't be sure. And buying gemstones (about which I guess you don't have much technical knowledge) abroad can be tricky, so going to a foreign country and buying something that someone claims is a South African diamond may be a risky prospect. Cape Town has, of course, a jewellery district, but I rather doubt you'll find a significantly better deal there than you would in say Antwerp. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk20:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I visited Cape Town about 10 years ago on the tail end of a lengthy business trip to Johannesburg. From Johannesburg, it was possible to take an organised tour of Soweto, but I was glad to have the opportunity instead to visit one of my co-worker's relatives who lived there. We also went on a drive around the city's districts and visited a couple of popular bars with her cousins. So, if possible, I would definitely recommend getting to know one of the locals and visiting their home, rather than taking a tour. TBH though, I am unsure if the tours are still being run or whether they were ever run in the Cape Flats area. If the tour doesn't happen (or even if it does), you might find the history in the Bo-kaap area of interest, as well as the obligatory view from the top of Table Mountain and the tour of Robben Island. If you have a rental car, the trip down the Atlantic coast of the Cape Peninsula is nice day-trip (though the Cape Peninsula National Park closed surprisingly early the day I visited, so I never got to actually stand at the end of Africa). Astronaut (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the largest Internet forum in terms of average logged in users (general discussion if possible)? Many forums, unfortunately, don't provide such information, so the highest I've ever seen is like 15000 simultaneous users. --Belchman (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Something Awful is pretty high for general discussion, but I have no evidence to back that up. 2chan is (or was) supposedly the biggest and most active forum on the internet, but most users post anonymously (and in Japanese; you didn't specify English-language, but is that a requirement?). FiggyBee (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lines between forums and social networking have been blurred more and more since Livejournal gained popularity. That and Slashdot would be my first two guesses. caknuck°needs to be running more often05:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people say "masturbation makes you blind", "masturbation makes you lose genital sensitivity", "masturbation makes you crazy" etc? Do they actually believe that (I read about some laste 19th century scientist that did), or do they have an agenda? If so, why do they want to discourage masturbation? And how come so many people believe this stuff without reasoning that it would also apply to vanilla sexual intercourse?--92.251.185.187 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. "Life is a job. You get $14.50 a day, but after you die, you have to pay for your sins. Stealing a hub cap is around $100. Masturbation is 35 cents (it doesn't seem like much, but it adds up). If there's money left when you subtract what you owe from what you've earned, you can go to heaven. If not, you have to go back to work." "And I came up-a 35 cents short." PhGustaf (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an agenda. For example, Joycelyn Elders was removed from her post as Surgeon-General of the US, in part for comment, "I think that it <masturbation> is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught <as a form of safe sex>." Many religions are... well, "anti-sex" isn't quite the right word, but its close... in that they feel that carnal pleasures, of which sex is surely one, tend to distract people from doing more constructive things, such as working in soup kitchens, healing the sick, and burning people at the stake for believing in a different religion. However, they grudgingly recognize that sex also creates more believers, which is usually seen as good for keeping up recruitment quotas. Sex that doesn't result in more adherents has no such side benefit and can safely be called sinful (as with anal sex, homosexuality, etc.). In places with a Puritan-style moral background, such as the US (and to a much lesser extent, Canada, and to an even lesser extent the UK), the concept of sex for pleasure equating sin is still quite strong. Matt Deres (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, it's something about "spilling your seed on the ground" being a sin. If that's the case, then probably 90% of men are sinners and the other 10% are liars (which is also a sin). Astronaut (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to modern medicine, illness was often associated with imbalances in bodily fluids. Masturbation (done well) stimulates the release of bodily fluids, and if done in excess (so it was believed) could deplete the body's resources and create imbalances that could foster a number of different kinds of sickness. Not very scientific, but mixed with the prevailing religious proscriptions against masturbation the idea took on a life of its own, and still persists as a modern concept. --Ludwigs221:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Masturbation has also had a place in Egyptian mythology, where Ra-Atum is said to have created the other gods by masturbating [8]. Aleister Crowley developed various rituals in Sex_magic involving masturbation. So it's not a global religious prohibition on masturbation, merely a Christian one. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that Hinduism or Islam had some kind of prohibition on masturbation, in addition to Christianity. Not 100% sure, but I believe masturbation is looked down upon in Indian culture. 24.62.245.13 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
