Miscellaneous desk
< February 7	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 9 >

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.

February 8

Lack of gem quality diamonds from DRC mines

This article about the lack of gem quality diamonds from the DRC cites the lack of industrialized production as the reason. "The quality of DRC’s diamonds was very poor as mining had been dominated by small scale miners." [1]

But this article about artisanal diamond mining in CAR notes the abundant gem quality of the country's mines. [2]

So is gem quality diamond production based on geology or mining process?

Muzzleflash (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no lack of shiny stuff in the ground. Geological processes assure that. There's a lack of that shiny stuff getting out of the ground and into stores. That's down to the mining process. A superhuge corporation can plow Mother Earth harder, deeper, faster and longer than guys with tiny picks can. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There could also be something else going on, like if miners are paid by weight, say, regardless of the quality they produce, so prefer to keep the good diamonds to hopefully sell for more when conditions improve. (Or perhaps they are paid based on quality, in theory, but the diamonds are always rated at the lowest quality no matter what, so they refuse to sell the good ones under those conditions.) StuRat (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall there being no greater sin for a diamond miner than keeping even a bit of dust, let alone the good ones. But there's an (alleged) gemologist on a Straight Dope forum who says it goes on. Of course, some bosses can be much stricter than those who have things like accountability and regulation to worry about. They don't call them blood diamonds for nothing.

If you meant the mine bosses by "miners", nevermind. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess on that note, not being able to afford a proper security team would lead to a lot of theft (internal and external), and you can't export what you can't find. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious way to hide a diamond is to swallow it and "retrieve" it later. Perhaps that's why they are selling "chocolate diamonds" now. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Mmmm...dignified. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Is this song in this video sung by Bob Marley and what is the song about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PjycHgHbmo Venustar84 (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard this song before (and I know like 85% of Bob Marley's songs by heart and can and will sing along to them), but SoundHound says this indeed by Bob Marley and The Wailers. A demo version of Where is My Mother. More than that, I can't say, sorry. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 02:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human sexuality

OK, so we all know homosexuality is no longer considered an illness. Psychiatry manuals consider it normal. It can't be treated, cured fixed or whatever. Society in the West has become tolerant of gays and lesbians. But, what about other sexual conditions that people end up having. Zoophilia, (dare I say pedophilia) again like Homosexuality as I understand it the evidence points out to people just being born that way. And them then having to spend their life fighting inappropriate urges (and sometimes losing, sadly for the victims involved) In the bad old days people used to believe men or women became gay out of some sort of perverse crime of the mind and it wasn't just an innate part of their being. So what's the difference?

The only argument I can find that basically says homosexuality good zoophilia/paedophilia etc bad is the victim element. Other than that, whats not to say that those other sexualities aren't part of the normal human condition, either. Any thoughts on this?

I know this is a HIGHLY emotive subject, but as per wiki policies please respect AGF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.180.169.233 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any evidence that people with zoophilia, pedophilia, or other paraphilias are "born that way". If you know of any, please cite it, I would be very interested. My personal view is that paraphilias probably result from a window of brain plasticity that occurs near the age of puberty, but that's purely speculative -- unlike homosexuality, there has been very little scientific study of the biology of paraphilias (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3658696/ is one of the few examples). Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With homosexuality, while people are "born that way", whether they express their homosexuality outwardly or keep it deeply suppressed seems to depend on how accepting the society and their family and friends are. Perhaps paraphilias follow the same pattern. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also our article Lovemap; "a developmental representation or template in the mind and in the brain depicting the idealized lover and the idealized program of sexual and erotic activity". According to John Money's theory, " the formation of an individual's lovemap as similar to the acquisition of a native language, in that it bears the mark of his or her own unique individuality, similar to an accent in a spoken language". Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ref desk policy also says we do not engage in speculation or debate. AGF does not overcome this. Do you have a specific request for references or articles, other than "[What's] not to say that those other sexualities aren't part of the normal human condition, either. Any thoughts on this?" We cannot just give random thoughts. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, at least, it would be deviant behavior if we did. --70.49.169.244 (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a legitimate question here: why is homosexuality not considered a paraphilia? I'm aware that the topic makes many people uncomfortable, and also that it lends itself to trolling, but there is a very sizable literature concerning it, so in my view it is a valid topic for the Reference desks. Looie496 (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You sort of hinted at these ideas in your post, but the idea is not so much what is "normal" but what is legal or socially acceptable. For instance murder is a "normal" human behavior, in that any society bigger than a few hundred people is sure to see it happen. But most people wouldn't use that as an argument to say that murder should be legal. Many laws about sex have to do with "consent" - see informed consent, consent, Consent_(criminal law) and Rape#Consent. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, this is a highly emotive subject. With this in mind, it's worth noting that many people's reactions are driven by what is sometimes called the "yuck" or "ick" factor. As you will see from the linked article, some people believe that behaviour that is widely regarded as disgusting may be behaviour that reduces the probability of survival. Under this interpretation, our emotions of disgust are evolved responses to enhance our probability of survival. This is consistent with the more general idea that human emotions have evolved because they are useful to our survival. Like many others, I have personal thoughts on this matter, but I agree with μηδείς that the Reference Desk is not a place for personal opinions. RomanSpa (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with the "ick" factor is that it's subject to change, either over time or from society to society. Interracial marriage and homosexuality quite recently garnered that response in most of the West, while in Ancient Greece (and some would argue certain churches), men having sex with young boys apparently did not. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topical medicine on a cat

let's not get carried away, I think the question has been answered, and if not, the OP can ask it again in a way that doesn't require a professional opinion or a prediction μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't think this qualifies as asking for medical advice, but what would happen if a cat got Triamcinolone on its fur and started licking it? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 18:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would die. 82.19.76.217 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is authorised for use in cats and dogs, in pill form [3]. Standard dose is between 0.5mg and 1mg per 10lb of body weight (0.11mg - 0.22mg per 1 kg). What was the strength of the cream, and how much did your cat ingest? LongHairedFop (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked for information about ingestion in general and did not ask for advice. You're turning this into an advice question which would get it hatted. Dismas|^(talk) 19:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethan collar--Aspro (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us know, Jessica, if your question was not answered. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Henry as it says on my userpage. I asked about how to write the name Jessica in hieroglyphs because I wanted to make a cartouche for someone by that name (remember, Valentine's Day is coming up).... I was more wanting someone to point me to a resource I may have missed through googling (though probably should have been more specific). Someone I know uses that as topical cream and I want to give them the page so they know why they shouldn't touch a cat while wearing it. This is hopefully still within the bounds of the rules. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 21:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Astrology

Hello,

Does anybody no how to find out the planetary position according to day and date, time (not required)? Graphical illustrations would be perfect! -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Do you want the astronomical (and scientific) position or the astrological (and magical) position? Because they can be drastically different.

This site has the astronomical position. If you wanted the astrological position, you'll need to specify whether you mean sidereal or tropical star charts. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: The link you provided is good. There are no fields where I can insert 'present', 'past' or 'future' 'day', 'date' and 'time' in this site... I require a website that includes the mentioned fields... I also require the astrological (and magical) position along but trustworthy information. Both sidereal and tropical would be fine as, I heard the tropical one is thought to be more effective than the sidereal one, regardless some 'joytish' tend to make the sidereal one effective... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Western astrologers favour tropical ephemerides. There are plenty of these online, such as here, here, and here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, what I couldn't find is the graphical illustration along with the day and date field. Time field is not required as most website make it a must to enter it... This is what I am actually looking for. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Try the downloadable program Stellarium. There is a place to set date and time in the slide-out menu on the left side. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson and Michael J: Guys, this site is awesome! Thank you very much for telling me what to do, how to find it...

My head was not functioning... I thought the icon was a link directed to advertisement, in the first glance... Thank you.

Michael J, firstly, Thank you. The above link is enough, that's if it provides correct information. Secondly, the software you stated, its 125 Mb software! Before I download, I would like to know (if you know), will it provide the exact graphical lining as the planetstoday website? – I’ve viewed some images of this software; I have not seen any graphical lining of the star signs or the solar system's. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Angelos|Angelus, perhaps Stellarium is not for you. It shows too many stars to discern planetary motion in the detail you need. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 01:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you Michael J

-- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved

Dreams

Does anyone know anything about ‘dreams’? There are books which explain about the dreams you had... What I would like to know, what is the concept all about? How many people can/can’t you tell your dream to...? -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I presume you've read the article linked in the post heading. Only you know what your dream mean, nobody else and certainly you won't find it in a book. The reason for this is because a dream is purely a product of your own mind. You can tell a dream to the whole world if you can remember it, and if you'd like to! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have read the article, and yes I have also read a book, when I was young, which tells about the relative things that you may see/found in dreams... I did wonder at that time 'how on Earth he compiled it all...' Curious... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

See dream interpretation. People have been interpreting dreams for millennia, and most writers of dream books have copied the interpretations of those who came before them (or have just made up ones of their own, of course). Deor (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think of dreams as a sort of disk defrag (in computer terms). It's your mind trying to organize the information that it has recently been exposed to. Therefore, all of it comes from, and is based on, your own experiences. Never throw money at so-called (and self-styled) dreamologists, because they have no more superpowers than a palmologist or astrologist. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 22:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol. okay

-- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Like that reply. I couldn't post earlier because what was going through my mind was a lot of psychology gobbledygook that no-one would understand. Yet 'defrag' and 'never throw money at' sumed it up perfectly.--Aspro (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The science isn't 100% solid - but we know that our brains don't have enough storage space to keep all of our memories. What we do to cope with that is to gradually reduce the fidelity of unimportant memories. We seem to do that while we sleep and the mechanism appears to be that the memory is pulled into short-term memory, simplified, then pushed back out into long-term memory. Generally, we don't notice this happening - but if we happen to wake up while the process is happening, we discover a whole bunch of random stuff in our immediate memories. This makes us believe that there has been some very weird story being told to us.

If that's true (and the 'defragging your hard drive' analogy is a great one) - then dreams are truly, utterly meaningless. Interpreting them is pointless. They have no meaning. SteveBaker (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless things still require meaningful analysis to determine whether they're pointless. The journey toward understanding is important, the promise of knowledge at the end of the rainbow is just a dangling carrot. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a sense of what the things in your dreams stand for, to you, then they're not meaningless at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Bugsy and Hulky are right! Like KageTora said, "all of it comes from, and is based on, your own experiences", and mixed with extras. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

As for who you can't tell your dream to, many people. They're hard to explain, and usually end in "You just had to be there." While a hamburger, a whale and a staircase can seem pretty damn poignant while you're in your head, you really can't put it into words, and quite a few people won't even bother trying to actually listen. It's sort of rude, but understandable, because you're only describing the manifest content, not the latent content. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, me trying to explain how absolutely beautifully this dinosaur plays the notes between the notes would probably just make me sound lame. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

"It seems to me I am trying to tell you a dream — making a vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation, that commingling of absurdity, surprise, and bewilderment in a tremor of struggling revolt, that notion of being captured by the incredible which is of the very essence of dreams." --Shirt58 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you dream, you're holding the key. It opens the door and lets you be free. To find the sacred heart. Somewhere in the night. Between the sacred silence and sleep? Disorder! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And so he was quiet; and that very night,
As Tom was a-sleeping, he had such a sight, -
That thousands of sweepers, Dick, Joe, Ned, and Jack,
Were all of them locked up in coffins of black.
And by came an angel who had a bright key,
And he opened the coffins and set them all free;
Then down a green plain leaping, laughing, they run,
And wash in a river, and shine in the sun.
--Shirt58 (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably want to look at our articles on Dream interpretation, Oneiromancy, Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams, and Jung's Analytical psychology.

Interpreting dreams tends to be a matter of perspective. Oneiromancy is the purportedly supernatural interpretation of dreams. For the most part, Freud is known for assuming that most dreams are just symbols of repressed urges (especially those relating to sex and death), while Jung saw dreams as symbols of different parts of our personality trying to lead us to a more complete life.

You mean 'emotions' in general. What drives us in total. -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I've not heard anything regarding a number of how many people you can tell your dream to, but that sounds more like Oneiromancy. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard 3/4, but this was when I was a child. Probably a 'crap' if you guys don't know... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

How do you talk to three-quarters of a person without the other quarter finding out? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Lol. You had to come up with that... I meant 'three' or 'four' people. I'll be more careful next time...

-- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I restored the above reply which was accidently deleted here [4]. I'ved added it to the bottom due to the risk it may be missed otherwise. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks peeps, I'll read through the articles... -- (Angelos|Angelus (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Stuffball

What is Stuffball?--87.7.180.204 (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.180.204 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the usage in a sentence to give context. If English is not your mother tongue then you may not know that a 'stuffball' is a ball that is made from stuff. Me thinks, you're asking about something which carries a definition for a particular use and I can't guess what it is without more information.--Aspro (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives this. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

$9.07 ?!!! --Aspro (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, a little expensive for something you might only use once a year for two years until your kids are old enough to 'learn' to stay at home and play on the Xbox or PS3 or something. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google only finds rare meanings. The most common English term which might be misheard as stuffball is Softball. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard the term in use, but it makes me think of the Kong (dog toy). -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me think of calvinball or sportsball [5]. "Stuffball" is not a common term anywhere in the USA I've lived or visited... SemanticMantis (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]