Miscellaneous desk
< July 1	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 2

Contre-jour vs. silhouettes

What (if any) boundary is there between silhouettes and contre-jour in photography? I'm not at all sure how to categorise File:Laughery Creek Bridge silhouetted against sunset.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Silhouette defines it as the image of a person, an object or scene represented as a solid shape of a single color. The image shows the bridge structure in shadow but not reduced to a pure silhouette, although it could be made so by increasing the contrast in an image editor. DriveByWire (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the boundary, if any? Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word single. DriveByWire (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contre-jour can produce silhouettes, but a silhouette can be made in many different ways, including drawing something in outline and filling it in black. It does not necessarily require photographing it in front of the sun. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

last name etymology

Moved to WP:RD/L. Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Causing Armageddon

What are the easiest ways to:

a) overthrow the U.S. government?

b) acquire 30 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, a tonne of C4, and twenty slapper detonators?

c) cause World War III?

--Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 19:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) Become president

b) Become Military higher-up

c) See a or b

--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - glad to see we're on the same wavelength!)

a) Run for president

b) See (a)

c) See (a)

Democracies tend not to get overthrown, since it is usually easier to just get elected. Even if you have to cheat, that's still easier than leading a revolution against the biggest military power on the planet (or second biggest by some metrics). The US president doesn't have absolute power, but could seize absolute power a lot more easily than anyone else could. Once you've done that, (b) and (c) are easy.

To turn this rather silly question into a more interesting one, can anyone think of a counterexample where a country with genuine elections (with universal suffrage, or at least a decent proportion of the adult population having the vote) was overthrown? There are plenty of examples of elected leaders seizing absolute power (Hitler is probably the most famous), but has anyone ever skipped the election phase and just seized power directly? If so, has anyone other than a military leader done so? --Tango (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA was involved in many coups and revolutions against socialist governments in the mid 20th century, some of which were democratically elected. One example with a non-military leader was the 1953 Iranian coup d'état - at the time the Shah was a constitutional monarch without any real power, but he managed (with a bit of help from his British and American friends) to overthrow the government and make himself an absolute monarch. For an example without American involvement, the last King of Afghanistan, Mohammed Zahir Shah, had instituted universal sufferage before being overthrown by his cousin Mohammed Daoud Khan, who declared himself president in 1973 - Mohammad Musa Shafiq was the prime minister at the time. Daoud himself was assassinated 5 years later in a Soviet-backed coup. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a thinkable counterexample of such an overthrow.

Date: Between 1700 and 1882 [1]

Government overthrown: United Kingdom

Form of government: A unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system.

Constitution: uncodified

Power holders and their mandates

Monarch, hereditary
House of Lords, appointed
House of Commons, elected

Suffrage: A decent (because male) proportion of the adult population has the vote.

Insurrectionists: A force of peris

Leading figure: Strephon, an arcadian shepherd. Son of the Lord Chancellor.

Contemporary reports from reliable sources: [2] [3] DriveByWire (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coup d'etats are not uncommon and come in about any flavor. Rmhermen (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's coups d'etat, you cretin. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! That's uncalled for! If you're in a nit-picking mood, you can start with capitalising "that's" and sticking an acute on "etat". What was that about motes in eyes? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the question of acquiring plutonium (which seems quite separate from the other questions to me — one poorly-designed atomic bomb will not allow one to overthrow the US government, and even without Jack Ryan probably wouldn't lead to an all-out World War), the things that the academic wonks are concerned with are:

Poorly protected stockpiles in the former Soviet Union. But these have gotten a lot more protected than they used to be, so that angle is probably not super straightforward anymore, unless you have some hardcore connections to the Russian mob.
The arsenal of Pakistan, under the control of a notoriously problematic/corrupt military/ISI. I wouldn't know how to make inroads there, though, and even they don't seem that interested in distributing this sort of thing.
Material unaccounted for in big reprocessing plants, like Rokkasho. These discrepancies, which are inherent to reprocessing, make it so that a clever insider could steal (reactor grade) plutonium undetected. It would take a long time, though, and you'd have to find a complicit insider.

I might also note that 30kg of plutonium is kind of a lot — about three bombs worth. It's a non-trivial amount to come by, or to handle. Frankly, the odds of getting caught or having your scheme detected in any of the above scenarios is pretty high. Personally I think the risk of nuclear terrorism is a bit overblown — it's not something your average joe on the street can do, from the standpoint of getting the materials, much less putting them together in a way which doesn't spoil the materials or kill the person trying to put them together. Most dedicated and successful terrorists have found far more low-tech ways of sowing death and mayhem. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there I was getting excited...and then I find out a slapper detonator is not at all what I thought it would be :( Lemon martini (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chile is another country that had a democratically elected government that was overthrown by a coup. thx1138 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine deliberately causing World War III would not be all that easy, even with 30kg of plutonium. World War I and II were part of a massively complex geopolitical story stretching back into the 19th century. It's hard to imagine such a sustained, widespread conflict could be caused by any one person or any one event, no matter how catastrophic. FiggyBee (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would condition that to say purposefully caused. It's possible that one person can be the catalyst; e.g. the guy who killeded Archduke Ferdinand, or Adolf Hitler. But it's not possible, I don't think, that anyone could have such a view of the landscape to see how everything will fall into place, and to put it into effect. Hitler is probably one of the few people who had that vision, will, and ability to pull it off. But fortunately he was a rare one. The guy who killed Ferdinand had none of those things; he was just the right catalyst at the right time, in a world of existing circumstances well beyond his ken. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do veterinarians have to deal with a lot of feces and vomit?

I've always loved animals and am very passionate about animal rights, and for a long while now I've wanted to have a career helping them. I'm pretty sure I want to have a job that would best be able to actively help eliminate companion animal homelessness, and being a vet with an excellent non-profit that does just that seems like a good option. I've grown up around animals and have a lot of experience with them, and most things about them don't bother me: saliva, mucus, urine, blood, etc. The only thing holding me back is the possibility of having to deal with a lot of feces and vomit; even with my babies I usually can't clean that up, or, if I have to, at least not without a mask with filters because it just really gets to me. I guess I can always try another career in that same vein if I wouldn't be able to handle it, but being a vet is my first choice.--96.60.175.237 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have to deal with every aspect of living creatures. If you're squeamish about bodily functions, any kind of medical profession is really not for you. Consider a career change to something totally sanitary, such as accounting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest that if you're very passionate about animal rights the being a vet may not be ideal. Some vets can work purely within that culture, but most cannot. You will have clients wanting to do different things with their animals than you think best, and those clients pay your way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean working in private practice though.--96.60.175.237 (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is, 'Yes. If you become a veterinarian, you will have to become very comfortable with poo and puke.' Heck, even if you just own a couple of pets you have to have a pretty relaxed attitude about poo and puke. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with most medical things, the nasty stuff is generally dealt with by low-paid technicians while the high-paid veterinarians stand by and oversee. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought about being a vet tech in a no-kill animal shelter? There's still some poop and puke but you'd be helping animals quite a bit. Dismas|^(talk) 01:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you take pics of animals up for adoption and post them to their web site ? Hopefully somebody else would hold them and clean up after them. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My wife does that for a local shelter. I help her with it. There is no clean up. The animals have already gone through the check in process and are clean. Only the animals who are going up for adoption get photographed. It's not like they get them in off the street and immediately get their photo taken. (though with some shelters it can appear that way). Dismas|^(talk) 01:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Sounds like the ideal job for somebody who loves animals but hates their messes. StuRat (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My partner also photographs animals for a shelter, but because it is such a nice job for an animal lover it's typically a volunteer role, rather than a paid job. FiggyBee (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you work with farm animals, the feces are less disgusting than with meat-eating animals like humans. But there is a lot of feces coming out of most grazing beasts. Also, animals vary in the amount they vomit - rats never vomit[4], and their poop is of managable size. But realistically, you'll have to deal with mess, certainly during training, even if you want to specialise in amoebas. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to read this, a good list of answers to questions around becoming a vet, although it doesn't directly deal with poo and wee as far as I can see. Something else you should consider is the fact that euthanasia is a significant part of a vet's role. There was a recent TV program in the UK discussing the fact that new vets, often people who grow up with a love for animals, can be surprised and dismayed about the number of animals which need to be put down. There's a study called The Caring-Killing Paradox - Euthanasia-Related Strain Among Animal-Shelter Workers which might be relevant. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An episode of QI was not broadcast last year because of some dickhead's description of how heartbreaking being a vet is; you go into it because you love animals but you spend most of your career killing them (and then you kill yourself). It may have been in bad taste, but that doesn't mean he wasn't right. Also, you shouldn't base your career choice on the most glamorous or attractive possible position. For every "vet with an excellent non-profit" there are a hundred people standing in the rain with their arm up a cow's backside. FiggyBee (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]