Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 April 3

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.

April 3

Investigating and prosecuting rapists

There are countless real videos of girls being raped by guys on the internet. Many of them are pretty violent and involve several rapists. The rapists usually do not hide their faces. Are the Japanese and Russian law enforcement even doing anything to investigate these and prosecute the rapists? I remember hearing on the news in America once, teenage girls were caught and prosecuted after posting a video of them bullying a schoolmate. Those were just teenagers beating up a schoolmate and the police in America responded quickly and arrested them. The ones I'm talking about are violent rapes and the the Russian and Japanese police aren't doing anything? Also, some of the Japanese ones are in broad daylight in public places (like the JR trains and school elevators) and involve many perpetrators... shouldn't it be pretty easy to investigate those? 209.148.195.3 (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the answer, but a few points to consider...How do you know they're not staged? If they are real, also consider the the people involved may not wish to come forward and admit what happened to them, for whatever reason. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

More often than not they are staged. Rimush (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The first problem is to determine if they are real or staged. That's not easy. If they are real, the problem of identification comes up. This is a problem with Internet crime, in general, such as child pornography. Unless something identifiable, like a landmark or street sign, shows up on the video, determining the location can be quite difficult. Without knowing the location, there's no way of knowing which jurisdiction it falls under, and thus no way to know which law enforcement agency should handle it. So, we end up with what may or may not be a crime, in what is probably not their jurisdiction, so you can see why law enforcement puts more resources into definite crimes absolutely committed in their area, like when a rape victim shows up at their hospital.

As for seeing faces in a video, we are only now getting to the point where a computer can take a pic and sift through all the pics in a file to find the one that matches. However, having every person in a country in such a file for comparison would likely overwhelm any current program. Even sifting through "known rapists" might be difficult. StuRat (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention they wouodn't have pictures of everyone. The Dnepropetrovsk maniacs videoed some of their murders and one was leaked to the internet, yet that didn't aid int he capture in any way.--92.251.142.219 (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Folks, if you've seen these videos, they are clearly clearly clearly not staged. I know there are staged ones, some are obviously acted out and some are made to look real, but many video are clearly 100% real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.195.3 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you know? Vimescarrot (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Japan and Russia are both highly technological and strongly governed, and the Japanese (at least) have a conservative culture with strong taboos against sexual impropriety. I have no doubt that the police are aware of these videos, compare them to stories victims describe when they report rapes, and have very sophisticate systems in place for investigating such crimes. If the rapes were staged, no rape report would be filed. if the rapes were real, and reports were filed, there's a very good chance that the perpetrators were identified and caught (perhaps caught for other crimes, and then arrested for the rape based on identifying characteristics). There are also criminal laws in some nations against distributing material of that sort, but it is much harder to prosecute, particularly if it falls across national borders.

I suggest you report any such sites that you believe are real to the police so they can be investigated. I also suggest you stop visiting such sites - don't contribute to the problem. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

and the Japanese (at least) have a conservative culture with strong taboos against sexual impropriety - well, for suitable definitions of "sexual impropriety", maybe. Japan is the land of the pink film and Hentai, apparently has a sex industry that's as big as its defense budget, is the largest producer of pornography in the world, and has school girls upping their pocket money by selling used panties to adult men... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cracked claims that the USA is the biggest porn producer in the world. They cite a source which I haven't yet checked. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, they talk about "Internet porn", not porn in general. My claim comes from Pornography in Japan, which as a tag on that statement. But it includes "drawn and virtual pornography", two fields in which I find it plausible that Japan is a lot stronger than the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

While I cannot offer legal advice since your IP looks up to Canada you may want to look into Canadian law in particular note that "fabrication and distribution of “obscene” publications, or to possessing them for the purpose of distribution" violent pornography (whether stimulated or not) is potentially illegal [1] Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In countries like Ukraine and Russian I presume they would have picture of the vast majority of citizens above a certain age however (note I didn't say all) given the existence of compulsory identification cards. Of course the photo may be terrible out of date or not particularly representative of the person in the first place and I have no idea if it can legally be used in that fashion (or if it can, whether they're all digitised).

However the case of Dnepropetrovsk maniacs doesn't seem particularly relevant. According to the article "The fact that Yatzenko's murder was captured on video was unknown to the public until a court session on October 29, 2008" and "leaked to a shock site based in the United States and dated December 4, 2008". Since "The three suspects were arrested on July 23, 2007" the video is obviously irrelevant since the investigators I presume only obtained it after they had suspects and/or made the arrests (and it was leaked by someone in the police or prosecution team or perhaps defence who had access to it). This would also explain why "eventually, the investigators selectively distributed sketches". It's possible the perpetrators would have eventually leaked the videos (there's some claim they were doing it to sell the video but the prosecutor claims there's no evidence for that and from my experience people like to tell these sort horror stories of snuff videos) but thankfully they were caught within a month even if sadly after they had murdered 21 people so we never got to know.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern-day descendants of Conall Gulban

Approximately how likely is it that musician Pete Doherty and voice actor Joe Dougherty are/were descended from Conall Gulban, and are any other notable people descended from him?--99.251.239.89 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that Conall Gulban had children who survived to adulthood, and that at least some of them had children of their own, it's virtually certain. However, there need not be any single demonstrated line of descent, and there's no way to insure pedigrees against unknown illegitimacies. It's worth noting both that there are no firm pedigrees dating back as far as the era in which Conall Gulban lived, and that gaelic monarchies did not necessarily pass directly from father to son. I'm not too familiar with the Irish situation, but the ancient Scottish crown often passed back and forth between lines of cousins. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read claims that virtually every person of European ancestry is descended from Charlemagne, but presumably anybody with children who lived that far back is probably an ancestor of millions of people. Woogee (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Illegal to force someone to fly?

Is it really illegal to force someone to fly, if that person is afraid of flying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.28.170 (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. (Allowing for parental authority over children, police authority over prisoners etc.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess the A-Team is in trouble, then, for forcing B. A. Baracus to fly in just about every episode. StuRat (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You would think that he'd eventually get wise to the fact that people were offering milk laced with narcotics every time one of their missions wraps up. Vranak (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If he ever gets wise to it, the authorities are the least trouble the others will be in... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is in the sense that it's illegal to force someone to do anything they don't want to do, again with certain exceptions. I bet you could be sacked from your job, though, if you were required to fly for a business trip or something, and refused to. Buddy431 (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't know of any specific laws against forcing people to fly, but forcing people to do anything is generally illegal. There is some ambiguity in the meaning of "force", though. One could be compelled to fly, for example to keep their job. Physically grabbing hold of someone and pushing them into a plane without appropriate authority would constitute assault and imprisonment, which are both illegal. --Tango (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is, "forcing someone to fly" would invariably involve common assault, kidnapping, false imprisonment, or any number of torts. It may also be against international aviation law (perhaps the Tokyo Convention?), I'm really not sure. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Under what circumstances could one be accused of 'forcing someone to fly' that did not violate other more obvious laws? At the very least, forcing someone to fly would involve kidnapping (which is a felony). --Ludwigs2 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A deportation would involve lawfully forcing someone to fly in many cases. --Tango (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the OP asked the question thinking about an employment related activity. There are cases where you have the slow and expensive option of going on a business trip by train or flying. Can companies force someone to take the plane? The answer probably depends on the country where you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would depend on the means by which one is forced. I mean, it's not like it's illegal to make kids eat their veggies or go home when it's time to go home... I would think that the principle applies here, too. My best answer wuold be, :It depends".

OP, what are the cirumstances you describe? If it's a legal issue, we can't actually answer anyway.24.83.112.118 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a legal issue, a Friday night beer-induced discussion regarding a scene in Midnight Run, where Charles Grodin's character said it was against federal law to force someone to fly if they're afraid of flying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.28.170 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fictional movies are not necessarily authoritative sources of information. :) I don't know the plot-specific circumstances, but if someone's in custody, I doubt they have any say in the matter, and if someone's working for a business that compels them to fly, they might be told to "take it or leave it". Hopefully something like that would have come in the interview process, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Its just a plot device; Grodin and De Niro need an opportunity for an interesting journey or there would be no film. Besides, it's clear, even within the fiction, that Grodin's character is not exactly truthful—he'd say anything to delay having to face the law and/or his former employer (though he does manage to get them thrown off the commercial flight by "freaking out"). Deor (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't count the number of stories where someone does something illogical and the question arises, "Why are they doing that?" and the answer is "To advance the story!" Noel Neill's stock answer to "Why didn't you see that Clark Kent and Superman were the same guy?" was, "I wanted to keep my job!" Going farther back, if Captain Ahab weren't obsessed with the white whale, Moby-Dick would just be a collection of trivia about whales. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is too late to be useful, but it occurred to me (while reading something unrelated) what this is probably about. In the US Air Force there was a rule (and may still be one) that nobody can be forced to fly if they are deeply afraid of it. Normally you'd think this would not be a big issue—it's the Air Force, right? Who would be dumb enough to join while being afraid to fly? But in the 1950s it ended up being a big problem because a lot of reservists who enlisted during WWII or Korea were told by their recruiters that they'd get cushy desk jobs and not have to do any actual dangerous work. It turned out the recruiters were either putting one over on them or had no control over it. So there was a whole wave of Air Force enlistees who suddenly found themselves with deep-seated phobias about flying... because it got them out of being on the front lines. This was a fairly major issue in the Air Force at the time and garnered a lot of press at the time. I don't know how things worked out later, but one could imagine that if the rule wasn't changed, then this sort of thing would have been a problem in later wars as well (e.g., Vietnam). Anyway—my bet is that this is where the "can't force someone to fly if they are afraid of flying" thing comes from. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Driving a Ferrari for the first time

Throughout my driving career, I've only driven modest, family-oriented sedans such as Toyota Camrys, Nissan Altimas, etc... (The "fastest" car I've driven was a Dodge Magnum) In a few days, I will be renting a Ferrari F430 equipped with a traditional manual transmission (which I a very familiar with.) Is it advisable to practice driving it in an empty parking lot before going on the road? What can i expect in terms of driving characteristics? Suppose if I want to accelerate very gently, will that require me to touch the accelerator paddle very lightly? Acceptable (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no answer. I just wanted to say "Grats!" Dismas|^(talk) 22:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I clicked the F430 link. Are you really going to be driving a prosthetic group of the enzyme methyl coenzyme M reductase? If so, it is found only in methanogenic archaea, so you'd probably want to test drive it somewhere near there first... Vimescarrot (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the appropriate link: Ferrari F430. Buddy431 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The first thing you'll notice is the seating: you're reclined at what might seem like a crazy angle, and if you're in any way large or have an ass wider than Frankie Dettori's the seat will feel tight. Rear visibility is negligible and the blindspots are big. If you're unused to driving in a sporty car, it'll feel weirdly low for a while. The shifter is short and its throw small; the gate is fairly unforgiving. The clutch and accelerator aren't too unlike a regular car (neither is insanely delicate - if you've driven enough manual cars with old transmissions and rubbish clutches, you've dealt with far scarier things). The biggest difference is knowing when to gear up - you can drive in first gear up to some insane speed like 55 or 60 mph, but obviously you'd gear up before then. The trouble is that you're probably used to gearing up in a manual based on the engine sound, and the engine sound in the Ferrari is so different that it's hard to judge - a lot of new drivers gear up much too soon, even in ordinary driving. The brakes don't seem too bad unless you stamp on them, in which case the car makes a noise like a Tie Fighter running into a concrete wall, and stops very quickly. The ground clearance is very very low, so drainage gullies or navigating parking structures can demand attention (but who drives a Ferrari and parks it at the mall?). The weirdest thing is how other drivers treat you - you get lots of space, people smile and wave (it's so not like driving a Porsche, which is like wearing a "hate me I'm a tosser" sign), and all the times I've driven one no-one has ever made the slightest attempt to race me. People who overtake you (which they did on the motorway for me, as I was petrified of getting a ticket) all looked somewhat apologetic, as if they knew they were breaching the social order. 87.113.5.191 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

On thinking further about this, you might consider renting a roadster the day before (a Z4, Miata, S2000, or Boxter). They're not very like a Ferrari, but they'll give you the feel for being low, having stiff suspension, and having a healthy power-to-weight ratio. I think you'll find the handling, rather than the performance, of the Ferrari will be what will take getting used to. 87.113.5.191 (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't driven a powerful rear-wheel drive car before, I should warn you that they tend to fish-tail. That is, if you give it some gas and are in a turn and/or the traction is reduced for any reason, the rear end wants to spin around to the front. I had this happen to me while turning in a Pontiac Trans-Am. There was some rock salt on the road, which was apparently sufficient to put me into a spin. If that happens, let your foot completely off the gas and steer the way you want the front end to go, and it should correct itself. StuRat (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can, I would caution against taking your foot completely and immediately off the gas. That's a classic way of creating a tank slapper (not linked, since it's not a very helpful link in relation to a car). You actually want to reduce the amount of gas, but not immediately to zero. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please describe a "tank slapper". StuRat (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a "tank slapper" is gasoline hitting a wall of a partially filled tank providing an unintentional impetus to motion in an unplanned-for direction. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's where the car swings violently one way, which you then try to correct by steering, but it then swings violently the other way. It keeps oscillating in this way until it runs out of steam or hits something. It's called a tank-slapper by analogy with motorbikes, where either the bars or portions of your anatomy slap into the tank with the violence of the oscillation. It starts because the original slide was caused by the rear wheels having too much power put through them and therefore losing adhesio. When the power is abruptly removed, they suddenly gain traction and are at this point travelling at an angle to the road. As they gain grip, they push the car back towards the straight line, but this happens so quickly that its momentum carries it past straight and so it slides the other way. It's a bit difficult to describe in words, but hope you get the general picture. There's a small illustration of one here: [2] --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's just called fish-tailing here, because of how the rear end comes around on one side and then the other, just like a fish tail. I can't see the wheels having enough inertia in them, after the foot is removed from the gas, to cause the rear end to go past straight. I'd say that over-steering is the more likely cause of continued fish-tailing. And continuing to supply more power to the rear wheels of an out-of-control car, in the hopes that this will allow you to regain control, seems unwise. Although, ironically, if the rear end comes around on a front-wheel drive car, you do actually want to give it some gas, to pull it back into line. StuRat (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not the inertia of the wheels - it's the inertia of the whole car that causes it to swing off-line the other way. And you don't need to continue to provide power to the wheels - you simply try to avoid cutting the power off suddenly. It's the immediate change of power that causes grip to be regained suddenly. By lifting off gradually you avoid the problem. I seen it done and done it myself on skid pans. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The lack of forward visibility is also a problem. You are probably used to seeing through the windows of the car in front, which gives you a clue when the cars in front of him start to brake. Without that ability, due to your lower stance, you have less warning and need to increase following distances accordingly. (Ironically, you may actually be able to see under the vehicle in front of you, at times, such as with trucks.) StuRat (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Look out for sleeping policemen. Alansplodge (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am envious. If the road is empty, I suspect you will glance at the speedometer a few seconds after starting and be surprised to see you are already doing well over 160 km/h! Have fun. Astronaut (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The most visceral difference for me was not so much the acceleration in the 0-60 range - but just how incredibly ferocious it was in the 60 to 90 mph range. It actually made freeway driving kinda miserable - I always felt like I wanted another gear. Handling is good by rear-wheel-drive standards, but you don't really feel the freedom to chuck them hard into corners for the fun of it. These are truly magnificent cars - but I wouldn't want one as a daily driver. SteveBaker (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys for all the help. Can't wait. Acceptable (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Gas Versus Electric Cooktops

Hi all, I'm getting ready to move and the kitchen in my new apartment has an electric stove, presumably with the coil-type burners on the cooktop. I am used to cooking with gas, and what I'd like to know is how the coils will make a difference versus the gas burners I'm used to. I'm mainly concerned about the coils' ability to get enough heat into my cast-iron frying pan so that I'd be able to get a good sear on stuff. ANyways, thanks for the help!169.229.76.114 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that electric stoves aren't as good as gas. You want to make sure that neither the burner nor the pan is warped, as that may result in contact in only a couple spots, which will result in burning there. Also, you will have to learn which spots on the burners get the hottest and adjust your cooking style accordingly. To some extent, you can tell by the color of the various parts of the burner. Also, some pans are far better at distributing heat than others, so you may need to get a new frying pan, if yours isn't up to it's new duties. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I second StuRat's motion about the warping. Warped burners really suck. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You get less immediate heat control from electric hobs, which is annoying in at least three situations: where you want to cook something really quickly, where you want to remove something from the heat but forget to move it off the hob and it burns, and where you're doing some kind of advanced cookery that involves delicately tipping a substance over from one state to another by adjusting the heat carefully (frying spices for a curry, maybe). 81.131.48.116 (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

YOu haven't lived until you have cooked on an Induction Electric hob I have had them all - spiral, solid, ceramic, gas and induction while house siting for the past 7 months. Induction is king for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.22.120 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I miss is being able to put two pans on the same ring, which is more economical for simmering if you are in a small household (things like cooking two vegetables separately). I prefer gas for its immediacy, though. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all the above and therefore suggest doing what I do much of the time --- eat out. And if that's too expensive, go to hospital canteens - brilliant food at really budget prices. 92.30.13.64 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are totally joking, aren't you?! Not even the canteen staff eat at the hospital canteen I frequent...--TammyMoet (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No joking at all Tammy. Our local hospital in Falkirk, Central Scotland does great cooked meals and bistro snacks. Their freshly made sandwiches and baguettes are every bit as good as I can buy in Edinburgh, and for half the price. I always compliment the staff on the quality, variety, and price of their food, and they are all so very cheerful all the time. I have had to visit the hospital quite frequently recently for family reasons and it's interesting to see a lot of "regulars" who eat their by choice rather than go to in-town places. It's also something of a meeting-place for some. Seriously. But Stirling General Hospital is another story all together..........92.30.7.196 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, in the US, some hospitals don't have enough patients to remain viable, so try to get more by advertising and offering things like better food. StuRat (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Cooking on electric isn't so bad. In my experience, you'll get enough heat, it's just that it'll take much longer to get there. Cast iron is an excellent cookware to use on electric in the sense that it redistributes heat so well, but will be a bit of a pain because it will take so long to heat up (for the same reason: it's very dense and heavy). So, if you're the kind of person who gets a little impatient with cooking times, you may want to get a good steel frying pan. Look for something with a fairly heavy base, especially the kind that has a different metal "sandwiched" into the bottom to redistribute heat more effectively. Matt Deres (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions, guys!169.229.76.114 (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's an old-fashioned electric cooker, you'll find it's a lot less responsive than gas, e.g. when you turn the temperature down, it takes a while to cool. In my experience, it can lead to things burning or boiling over. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The upside to electric is that they are way, WAY easier to clean than gas if you have a flat ceramic top and not the ugly coils. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)