Miscellaneous desk
< July 26	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 28 >

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 27

How or where can one force a literal verbatim web search?

How or where can one force a literal verbatim web search? If, for example, you put "robotix blox" in the search field at Google, even in quotes, you will get results for "robotics blocks" whether you want a similar conventional spelling or not. I am sick of search engines acting as if I don't know what I want, even when I put it in quotes. What if you want only results for your deliberately idiosyncratic spelling? Is there a way beyond quote marks to force a verbatim search at Google, or some other site that offers literal verbatim results when you ask for them? μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried that and did not see any results containing the word "blocks". I do know that you can put a single word in quotes to stop it interpreting it any other way, so you can try something like "robotix" "blox", though you lose the phrasing capability that way, i.e. you may find results with only "robotix" but not "blox". dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 04:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for god's sakes, I can't even get an effed up search result when I want to. Ignore the specific example above. If you type in something close to a common word, even in quotes, you will sometimes get back only the common result, and not the one you typed in. Is there a way to force only the exact result you have typed in? (I will have to try to think of a recent result that went "conventional" on me.) μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying searches using various plausible typos in quotes, and thus far all of them are returning results with actual typos in them, and one video of Runescape graphics on YouTube, whose uploader cannot spell anyway—I searched for "gfraphics" and got "Testing RS Gfraphics Whatch in HD Full Screen". I'm tempted to read "whatch" as [hwɑːːːːːtʃ] (because one lengthened vowel sign doesn't cut it). I even tried chopping onions without "crieing" and barack obama is a "mnuslim", both of which brought only results containing the misspelled and mistyped words. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 05:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should withdraw the question until I can find an example. What usually happens is I am looking for something particular in a foreign language, and I put at least two terms in quotes, but get only proper English results that resmble the foreign terms I want. I am going to hat this question because I don't want people wasting ewffort when I haven't provided a viable example. One will occur soon enough, and I will repost it. μηδείς (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts to find a suitable example notwithstanding, on Google you can click 'More search tools' on the left hand side and then 'Verbatim'. That should give the effect you're after. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Weird, I don't have an option for "More search tools" on my Google home page. There's a black menu bar running across the top with Search, Images, Maps and so on, but nothing at all on the left hand side. Clicking 'Search' just takes me back to the basic home page. There's a drop down menu called "More" at the right end of the black menu bar, but clicking that does not lead me to Verbatim either. Nor does 'Advanced Search'. --Viennese Waltz 07:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I do a normal search on google.com, then on the first page of results at the bottom of the left-hand column there is something saying "show search tools" which, when I click on it, shows a list of options including "verbatim". Google seem lately to have started hiding a lot of stuff (e.g. try and find Google Scholar in a hurry). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. I'm sorry, I explained it poorly. Here's Google's page explaining how to do it. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. I was looking for it on the home page, not the search results page. Thanks. --Viennese Waltz 10:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever Google corrects my search, it gives a message at the top saying "showing results for [whatever they corrected it to]", and in a smaller font just below that, I can click on my actual search terms. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I was having was with Google giving synonyms, which using quotes doesn't fix. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Google, preceding a search term with "intext:" forces it to be in the result. intext:"robotix blox" would be the way to search for your given example. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! The verbatim tool is exactly what I was looking for, thanks CM! The intext cue is great too. BTW, on my screen the verbatim option shows up under "show search tools" on the bottom left. And yes, it is very annoying how they have made finding Google scholar a three day exercise. μηδείς (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of International Fund For Animal Welfare

Good day I would like to contribute financially to this fund, but am concerned about the "controversy" section on your Wikipedia page, where it says that this organisation has funded animal experiments. Can anyone tell me if this is a worthwhile organisation to contribute to? 196.210.131.244 (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can help track down whatever facts are publicly available, but we cannot make value judgements like "worthwhile". Only you can do that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any doubt, why not give to one of the many legitimate animal welfare organizations, like the Humane Society, ASPCA/RSPCA, or PETA ? StuRat (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of value judgment (e.g. "legitimate") that the OP has to make on their own (i.e. what Jack said above). For example (WP:OR warning) many ethical, animal-loving people find PETA's official stances on many topics far too extreme (e.g. pet breeding is by definition unethical). If you mean only that PETA is a legitimate non-profit organization, then of course it is, and so is International_Fund_for_Animal_Welfare -- But the OP has potential qualms about them as well. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's concern was that they don't want to give money to any organization which funds animal experiments. The list I gave should be safe, in that respect. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the RSPCA kills animals, so I don't know if that would sit right with them. And I happen to think that animal experimentation is worthwhile so... 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanizing animals is not the same thing as conducting experiments on them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...unless you use prussic acid. StuRat (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

~~Not sure what you're getting at their Stu. Are you suggesting that there is some valid research purpose served by giving animals doses of HCN?~~ 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh...I just noticed where the link goes...I get it now. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to mail without a sender address after mail forwarding ends?

So, here is my situation. A friend sent me a letter without sender address. I resided in a complex with what the USPS calls a "unique ZIP Code." As such, USPS cannot forward my mail and allows the controller of the ZIP code to do such. The entity controlling this zip code stated that they would a) forward my mail to my current address, provided it arrives before August 15th, b) return mail to sender after August 15th, and c) will not allow an agent appointed by me to pick up mail on my behalf. What will happen to my mail if it arrives after the 15th. I was informed there is nothing that can be done, including an extension of the mail forwarding (which was only allotted for 60 days despite the fact USPS allows longer) but was not told what happens when it cant go anywhere. I don't want them to throw my mail away but it seems they are leaving me no options and this letter has high sentimental value.--67.172.183.130 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might go to the Dead letter office. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. The chances of the letter not arriving by August 15 are essentially zero if all the other information is accurate, so why all the angst? Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's international mail.--67.172.183.130 (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where and when was it sent? If it's just a letter, it wouldn't normally take that long to arrive (parcels sent by sea take ages, but letters should be sent by air in most cases). --Tango (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was going to go the a dead letter office, the USPS would be able to forward it. The problem is, it will have been correctly delivered as far as the USPS is concerned - they delivered it to the complex it was addressed to, so they've done their bit. What happens after that is up to the complex. If the complex refuses to do anything, then I don't see what the OP can do (other than try and convince them to change their minds). The mail will most likely be shredded. --Tango (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is as clear as you think. The entity controlling the zip code is evidentally responsible for forwarding mail and set their own policies. It sounds like they return mail sender after August 15. Whether they return mail to sender if it doesn't have a return address isn't known. It wouldn't surprise me if they do so since they may simply stamp the letter/whatever as return to sender (perhaps with other info like recepient moved without forwarding address) and give it back to USPS if the sender isn't in their ZIP code which may include if there's no return address (as I expect this is what they normally do if someone else marks the mail as return to sender and gives it back to them). But the best way to find out would be for the OP to actually ask the entity responsible. Note that reason this has to change the fact the entity is responsible for forwarding and USPS will not forward mail addressed to that entity. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you contact a lawyer. If a private entity has your property you may be able to seek civil action to secure it, but you have to act promptly and through an expert who can help you; we are not those experts. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium specimens

E-bay is selling uranium specimens to individual consumer.[1] Is this legal ? Terrorist can use such things for making bombs ? Irontaker (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natural uranium can't be used to make a bomb: that's why centrifuge separation plants are so much in the news. See enriched uranium, not to mention autunite. Acroterion (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely legal and not at all dangerous from a terrorism perspective. You cannot use such small amounts of natural uranium for making anything hazardous (the uranium are those tiny green crystals on the rock specimen, and even then the crystals are less than 50% uranium). To build a bomb require tons and tons of the stuff, either enriched or in a nuclear reactor. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty in generating a nuclear bomb is refining and enriching the uranium, not acquiring it. Iran has had enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb for many years, but still hasn't finished one. There's not much chance of a ragtag team of terrorists pulling it off even with unlimited amounts of the stuff. It takes far too much infrastructure. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more realistic possibility is that they could make a dirty bomb from it. They would still need to acquire large quantities, but wouldn't need to enrich it. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; the half-life of uranium -- particularly U-238 -- is far too long to represent a credible radiological threat. Our article notes 9 usable isotopes, none of which are uranium. — Lomn 20:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a dirty bomb is more about propaganda than actual harm. If a bomb went off in a city and spread uranium all over it, people would be reluctant to go there, regardless of the actual threat. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still want enough to prompt the authorities to send people in hazmat gear out with Geiger counters. People expect to see things like that when there is a radiation scare, so won't be particularly scared without it. A bit of Uranium-238 (which you can find in the bedrock that most cities are built on, although in very low concentrations) isn't going to produce enough radiation to prompt that. --Tango (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most people associate uranium with nuclear weapons, so think of it as deadly. The only way to keep people from avoiding an area contaminated with uranium would be to lie to them and tell them there isn't any. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium is deadly, even if it's not particularly radioactive. It's very toxic. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natural uranium would be a poor choice of dirty bomb material. It's misleading to confuse the two. Nobody believes a dirty bomb would be made out of natural uranium. The ideal dirty bomb materials are much more radioactive substances, such as those found in medical facilities. It's not that toxic — it's about as toxic as lead. Which isn't good for you, but it would make a lousy choice of poison. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When someone asks "Is this legal?", I always want to know which legal jurisdiction they're talking about. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When someone asks "Is this legal?", I always wonder why it's not being closed as a request for legal advice... 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people would be shocked at what's illegal to talk about in certain countries. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the US Ebay site and says it it shipping from the US. It is quite clearly US jurisdiction that applies. --Tango (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but is it US federal law or the law in whatever state it's being shipped from? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding plenty of material on laws that regulate uranium mining and uranium waste disposal, as well as the international legality of uranium weapons. However, I'm finding precious little (re: nothing) on the legality of simply owning the material. I should note that there are materials found in consumer products that are far more radioactive than uranium ore. But recalling the case of David Hahn, I don't think he was even charged with possession of dangerous quantities of radioactive material (whatever crime that would classify as). He was only charged with larceny for stealing the material. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything that makes it specifically illegal, but it is certainly not easy to find. That said, Theodore Gray seems to have acquired some pieces rather publicly, and further links to resources such as 'United Nuclear that don't seem to concerned about doing so. Both are located in the US. Mingmingla (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that United Nuclear have been fined for their breaches of federal law in the past. More details here. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That particular case has nothing to do with them selling stuff. The other stuff does show that the interstate laws are complicated. But none of this impacts the question being asked. The laws on the ownership and sale of gram quantities of uranium ore are pretty straightforward. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of gram quantities of natural uranium is completely legal under federal law. If you are exporting or importing quantities greater than 500 kg, you need to declare it to the appropriate agency.[2][3] Nobody cares about quantities less than that. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owning sample amounts of uranium ore is legal everywhere so far as I know. Large amounts of natural uranium are regulated in some jurisdictions (natural uranium in large quantities is regulated by the EU as a "nuclear material," but the IAEA does not consider it to be relevant to proliferation). The quantities that one can easily buy online are not relevant from a security perspective. I hasten to emphasize, again, that there is no security risk whatsoever with small quantities of natural uranium. You cannot do anything dangerous with it that you couldn't do with an equivalent piece of lead. It cannot be made into a nuclear weapon (there is not enough U-235 in a sample of that size to do anything interesting, and even if you miraculously could turn the entire thing into plutonium it still wouldn't be enough to do anything with), it is not very toxic, it is not very radioactive, it is not usable in a dirty bomb. It's completely innocuous. The worst that could happen from small quantities of natural uranium is that they will, over time, secrete radon gas, which in high concentrations will statistically increase your chances for lung cancer. So if you were storing barrels of natural uranium in your home or workplace without proper ventilation, there would be a long-term occupational health issue. But you'd still really need a lot of it for that to be a concern. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the Radiation Safety Officer at my workplace and as such have had some training in the different classification of radioactive substances, their industrial uses and the regulations including registration of radioactive sources. I'm not in your jurisdiction, so I can't comment on how things work there, but here in Australia the relevant pieces of state legislation refer to the ARPANSA National Directory for Radiation Protection which gives a threshold of 1000g of natural uranium above which that material is considered a radioactive material for the purposes of the legislation. Amounts smaller than that are not considered radioactive material and therefore do not require registration or a license. Sources, such as the ones you saw on eBay are often found in educational settings and there is an ARPANSA guideline their use. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote the text of the NATO treaty?

Is it known, who the persons were who wrote the actual text of the North Atlantic Treaty, the foundation document of the NATO?

I mean, sure, it were representatives from the founding states. E.g. for the Declaration of Independence we know that large part of the text was made up by Thomas Jefferson.

Who wrote the NATO treaty? Are there some names of the most important authors? --88.130.125.48 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Achilles chaired the drafting committee in the Washington talks. There were also earlier secret talks at the pentagon 22 March--1 April 1948 of which Achilles said:

The talks lasted about two weeks and by the time they finished, it had been secretly agreed that there would be a treaty, and I had a draft of one in the bottom drawer of my safe. It was never shown to anyone except Jack. I wish I had kept it, but when I left the Department in 1950, I dutifully left it in the safe and I have never been able to trace it in the archives. It drew heavily on the Rio Treaty, and a bit of the Brussels Treaty, which had not yet been signed, but of which we were being kept heavily supplied with drafts. The eventual North Atlantic Treaty had the general form, and a good bit of the language of my first draft, but with a number of important differences.[4]

—eric 00:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and from the same interview discussing John D. Hickerson.:

More than any human being Jack was responsible for the nature, content, and form of the Treaty...It was a one-man Hickerson treaty.

—eric 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric,

thanks for your answer!

I have added this to the article. :-) --88.130.88.200 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]