Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 February 13

= February 13 =

Please help me identify the series
About six months ago I was listening to NPR and they were speaking about a series that intrigued me from the description. I filed it away on the back of my brain and as is the quirks of the human mind, I don't think I've thought of it once since, until a few moments ago it just popped into my mind. I thought I'd go order it on Amazon or elsewhere but I don't remember the title nor even enough that a Ggoogle search would be fruitful. I believe it was Japanese, or possibly adapted from the Japanese, and it was about a boy who gets some kind of book that gives him the power to kill people by wishing it essentially. I think at first he is not aware that his wishes are coming true and then, once it dawns on him, he starts using it purposefully. Well that's about as good a description as I can cudgel up, and I may have confabulated some of the elements, but I hope that's enough for it to be identifiable. Thanks in advance. 70.19.73.184 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Death Note The series has been on Comcast on Demand recently, and I caught the first few episodes. Pretty good show. Taggart.BBS (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also on Cartoon Network (mostly on the Saturday "Adult Swim" block). Dragons flight (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's definitely it, thanks you. At the same time I am disappointed that it is a cartoon. I only heard a five minute snippet and not from the start and didn't know it was a manga. Don't get me wrong, Spirited Away; Akira; etc. I'm down with great anime, but it aint my first choice as a medium.--70.19.73.184 (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, but DeathNote is a great anime! It was a manga originally, if you prefer that medium, and they did release the basic story in two movies (although they aren't nearly as great as the manga). I can't actually say whether the manga or the anime is better, as I've never seen the anime, but in manga form it's excellent, pretty much the best I've ever read. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 15:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You might also like the novels The Lathe of Heaven and The Neverending Story. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between anime and manga? Phil_burnstein (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See anime and manga -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a live-action film version too. Oda Mari (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal Loans
Where / how can one find information of the availability and typical terms associated with personal loans and lines of credit? I have existing accounts with two financial services companies and out of curiosity I went and looked at the loan options each would offer me. It turns out they were quite different on the rates and amounts available. So I am wondering how to determine what is "normal" and whether one of these represents a particularly good deal or a particularly bad deal. I have no plans to take on any added debt in the near-term, so this question is basically hypothetical, but I figure it would be good to know the right approach in case I do want a loan in the future. Is there any good way to get information on rates and offers without filling out a lot of applications? Dragons flight (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Normal" is rather subjective; it mainly depends on your credit score. Some services, in addition to providing a credit score, will suggest how your score would influence terms on credit. Unfortunately, such services are not free (unless your previous employer "accidentally" leaked employee information and felt so bad about it that they provided a few "free" months of credit monitoring). For less specific (but more free) information, you might try http://www.bankrate.com/, which seems at least somewhat impartial. –  7 4   07:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The different rates might come to pretty much the same if you go through all the fine print. There are fees and charges that are either included or may be significantly lower in the higher rate loan.  Look for things like "processing fee", "closing cost" and similar things.  The loans may differ in that the up front costs may be higher in one, while the monthly rates are lower and vice versa with the other.  Watch out for phrases like, "Our general terms for loans apply".  That means you'll have to read those, too.  There may also be stiff penalties if you would like to refinance later or pay the remainder off in a lump sum.  Don't trust the first info you get.  I recently tried to open an account with Bank of America (whom I had considered a reputable bank till now.)  The first rep. flat out lied to me about the terms, I went home, checked their pamphlets couldn't find any of the conditions he had offered.  I went back and the second rep. tried to hide the true costs in nebulous offers until I asked her to show me what she meant in their documentation.  Turns out I'm neither a student nor does my employer bank with them,  which were some of the conditions that I would have had to meet to make use of that offer.  (Guess who won't be back for a third try.)  So read twice, ask several times and don't believe anything that isn't spelled out in writing. --76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've heard that bankrate.com gives some pretty good information in the US. I've never used it before though (plus, I'm in Canada).  I'm sure googling for something similar would be helpful. NByz (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One reason why two lenders might offer you different terms is how much business they do with you. If you have a credit card and checking account at one bank, and pay the credit card in full every month (an excellent practice), let's say they offer you a 10% loan rate. At another bank, you keep $1 million in a low-interest account. My guess is that they would offer you a loan at something less than 10%. The reason is that you are more profitable as a customer to the second bank than to the first. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

M16 questions
I don't have much experience with guns irl, most of my observations are either second hand or from video games lol. 1) What's the proper way to pull the T-shaped charging handle on the M16? I've always used my right hand's index and middle finger to pull it back on my friend's airsoft M16, it seemed the most natural to me when I used it, but I've seen it done differently before. 2) How does one know the chamber is empty and when to tap the bolt release after loading a new magazine? Pulling back on the charging handle would also work since the bolt catch would disengage right? 67.169.118.40 (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you seriously expect Wiki RefDesk to help you kill yourself, or anyone else for that matter?! --Dr Dima (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems a rather bizarre response. As a counterpoint I'd like to try to give a sensible answer, but unfortunately I only know the British SA-80 family rather than the M16. So this is to some extent speculation, but it'll do until someone who knows for sure comes along.
 * In British Army practice, the cocking handle is operated using the left hand. The right hand should always be on the pistol grip; to do otherwise is considered not to have full control of the weapon. But this is the answer most likely to differ between SA-80 and M16, especially since the SA-80 is a bullpup and more or less balanced around the pistol grip, which I assume the M16 isn't.
 * I'm not quite sure what you're asking about the chamber being empty after reloading. You talk about a bolt release, so the principle seems the same as the SA-80 - the bolt locking back when the mag is empty. Barring extractor failure (which one would allow for when making safe, but not reloading), you can't have the bolt to the rear and a round in the chamber. As for when to activate the bolt release - um, after you've put the new mag in. Why would you need to wait for something to happen? You put the mag in, release the bolt, it picks up the first round from the new mag, away you go. And yes, on the SA-80 at least, pulling the cocking handle would disengage the holding-open device. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My response, above, is far from bizarre. Armies of developed countries only issue firearms to the servicemen & servicewomen after the aforementioned servicemen / servicewomen have received an adequate training and undergone at least rudimentary background check, as well as medical and psychological evaluatuion. The person who is asking the question has presented us with no evidence of any of the above. I believe that instructing a total stranger how to use a firearm is an irresponsible thing to do. --Dr Dima (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like the original poster knows to load a magazine and charge the weapon. Assuming he has figured out that the next bit is to squeeze the trigger, the ship on "instructing how to use a firearm" has pretty much sailed by now. Minutiae like which hand to use won't make much of a difference. With movies, video games, and airsoft (which you may have noticed we are talking about here), "let's not tell people how to use a weapon" sounds a shaky plan... 88.112.63.253 (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Understanding how a specific weapon works doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether you know how to handle firearms safely. You could very well be trained in the use of other weapons and yet find yourself wondering how something like this works with another weapon you're not familiar with.
 * In any case, the assumption (or, in this instance, the accusation) that this knowledge would be used to commit suicide or to kill someone else is... you know, I think there's a really good single word to use here, but I can't think of it, so I'm going to go with "stupid and offensive". And I'm not a particularly pro-gun person, for the record -- gun control strikes me as a great idea. But the idea that telling someone how something like this works leads to people dying is ridiculous, especially as this is something that someone could easily figure out by trial and error in a few minutes, given a certain basic understanding of the firearm in question, which the original poster certainly appears to have. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My reading of Dr Dima's response was not that the OP would necessarily use this knowledge to kill people, but that killing people is what this knowledge is for. An M16 has no purpose other than killing people, so teaching someone to use one is automatically 'helping them kill people' in this sense. Algebraist 12:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but I think it's far more likely that the OP is asking out of idle curiosity (an admirable quality) than an intention to actually use the knowledge (at least, for anything other than making Airsoft games more realistic). --Tango (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that guns are used far more often to coerce (by threat) than to kill. And some people fire military weapons only for fun.  —Tamfang (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm amused that you probably would have gotten a less hysterical response if you had asked for the arming sequence of a hydrogen bomb. Anyway, here's the operator's manual for the M16: .  --Sean 12:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored to conform to someone's notion that we should not answer questions about things which COULD be used for evil purposes, especially when it is as basic as how a particular firearm is properly operated. (edited)Edison (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Actually, a similar situation happened before (Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_September_26) when refdeskers were wondering whether it was a good idea to give someone tips to deliver a punch. In the end, Wikipedia is only offering information, not telling that person to use a gun or punch someone. --199.198.223.106 (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, that was interesting. Thanks for the link to the manual. I wasn't going to go out and kill myself or other people, if that's what you're wondering. :) I slightly agree with Algraist though, a gun is a tool imo, but a tool to kill people. So yeah, just curious about how a M16 works. Still, how do you tell if it's empty? On some of the more realistic games I've played have 2 reload animations whether there's a round in the chamber or not. On pistols you can see the slide lock back, but on rifles you can really tell if you're playing a video game. 67.169.118.40 (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I still have an op manual around here somewhere. I always pulled the charging handle with my thumb and index finger and held the bolt catch with the other hand. When firing, you either have to count or get the empty click when you run out of rounds. When you slap a magazine in, it usually trips the bolt catch; otherwise you just have to press it. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  03:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC) (who has pumped thousands of rounds of 5.56, 7.62, .50 and 25mm down range)


 * It is my understanding that military units often load the last 3 rounds of a clip with tracers so that they know the magazine is nearly empty, but I do not believe such rounds are legal for civilian purchase in many locations. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Personality Disorder and Wikipedia
For fear of invoking any bean related issues, I was wondering what would happen in this particular situation. Say there was a wikipedia editor suffering from multiple personality disorder. One of those personalities operated a wikipedia account in very good standing, with thousands of positive contributions to the encyclopaedia. Another personality compulsively created multiple troublemaking trolls and sockpuppets, generally causing disruption. If the situation was discovered (say, by a checkuser), what would be the reaction from Wikipedia. Would it block the good account to stop the bad account, or would they be able to come to some arrangement to keep the positive contributions? Richard Hock (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If such an arrangement could be made (it would probably depend on the details of the case), then I'm sure we would try, but at the end of the day we are here to write an encyclopaedia. If a person is having a net negative effect on that, then they have to go, regardless of whether it can reasonably be considered their fault or not. --Tango (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I can safely say that the reaction would be an enormous argument, probably at WP:ANI. Algebraist 13:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Safely say is an understatement. :) I'm trying to recall the last time a decision was reached that didn't also include an enormous argument and coming up short. Come to think of it, the latter seems to happen whether the former happens or not. And if anyone out there disagrees with me...! Matt Deres (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest though - the 'checkuser' feature is defended vigorously and can only be used in the most serious of cases. When a sock-puppet is suspected, it is generally necessary to show some evidence of common interests, common modes of speech, and common vandalism types before a 'checkuser' is initiated.  In this (peculiar) case, I suspect that the total lack of corroborating evidence would cause the admins to refuse to run a checkuser in the first place.   Even if a checkuser proves that the two accounts come from the same IP address - that's not concrete proof that they are the same person because sometimes two or more people share a computer - and sometimes DHCP protocol results in the IP address formerly assigned to one computer to be reassigned to a second.   So I doubt that the 'good' side of this person's character would get a block - simply because we'd have no way to prove they were the same person.  However, if they were somehow shown to be the same person - I'm pretty sure they'd get a block on both accounts. SteveBaker (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The link would come to light when you block the IP address the troll personality is editing from and the nice personality complains that they're blocked. --Tango (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I suspect both accounts are likely to be blocked. And this sort of thing has already happened. Well not someone with multiple personalities as far as we know, but the sort of good hand, bad hand account you are describing has and is mentioned in our Sock puppetry article. While admitedly that's more editors who use one account to edit war, argue excessively, be uncivil, engage in personal attacks etc, there are definitely cases of established editors using another account to commit vandalism, sometimes even correcting the vandalism they engage in. Note that unless the person comes out and tells us, no one is even going to suspect multiple personalities are involved, they're just going to think 'good hand, bad hand'. In these cases, both accounts are usually blocked since engaging in this sort of sockpuppetry is a clear violation of policy, the fact that one account is good doesn't change matter. If the person does say they have multiple personalities there is likely to be a great argument but my gut feeling is it's not going to change matters since it's ultimately impossible to know what problems someone really has and it's most irrelevant if their behaviour is disruptive anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I seriously wonder what your limits would be. Would you let a serial killer edit from prison, (using his real name especially), regardless of how he behaved? Would you let someone send an administrator emails saying "Hey, post this for me please." How about someone with Tourettes Syndrome (yes the swearing kind)? I'm sure all of his bleeping edits could become a bleeping problem, but what if he sincerely couldn't help himself? Would you just quietly remove the offensive material? That last question might sound kind of stupid, but I sincerely wonder how this could be handled, and end with a sunshine day for all.21:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinyTonyyy (talk • contribs)


 * There is no such thing as "reaction from wikipedia". The wikipedia is more of a guided anarchy. Most rules say "usually", "in most cases", etc.
 * I can't know for sure, but I'll bet that there are some editors who contribute from prison. If someone wants to help a person with Tourettes and they come to some accomodation, I don't think anyone would object. Phil_burnstein (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. On Wikipedia, nobody knows you're a serial killer with Tourette's. All that matters is the quality of the edits. - EronTalk 22:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do swearing Tourettes do that in writing? or only as vocalised tics. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was only vocal. When typing there is always the delete button, so even if they did have typed tics, they could correct them. --Tango (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Karl Marx
Is this qoute a fake or is Marx the new Nostradamus as it is uncanny to the present day.''“Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism” Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867.''  BigDunc  Talk 17:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to be fake. This seems to be the best discussion Google has to offer. Algebraist 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to fit Marx's thoughts very well. He thought the world would be divided between and enslaved majority underclass, who would be barely able to survive, and a rich overclass.  You can't "stimulate" people to buy things who are so poor they are starving, since they already spend all their money on absolute necessities.  And why would anyone ever lend money to someone like this, who would have no hope of ever paying it back ?  Marx did not foresee the rise of the Middle Class, which took away most of the incentive for the class struggle he envisioned.  Unfortunately, the Middle Class now seems to be shrinking in many Western nations, due mainly to international trade. StuRat (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several copies of english translations of Das Kapital available online. I've searched them all and I don't see any fragments from that quote anywhere within any of them.  However, a google search on the quote brings up hundreds of hits that claim it came from Das Kapital.  That suggests that this quote is just an "urban legend".  The only other possibility is that (because Das Kapital was originally written in German) everyone is quoting from a different English translation than the various online copies used. But that's an awfully long shot. SteveBaker (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not Marx's view of things anyway. Communism doesn't show up because the state nationalizes banks. Nothing even remotely similar to his view of how communism eventually comes about. It's also cute to imagine Marx talking about people buying technology but in Marx's day technology was not a consumer product, it was the means by which consumer products were made ("technology" for a 19th-century thinker is something that is installed in a factory—like a motorized loom). The idea of "technology" as a category of consumption is a very late-20th century thing. He did, of course, see speculation and such as leading towards destabilized banks, and saw this as a major issue with capitalism in general, but that's the only aspect of the quote which is anything Marxian in nature (and is hardly limited to Marx—anybody with a good head on their shoulders denounces "speculation" of that sort to the degree that it destabilizes markets). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In other news: Bill Waterson is the new New Nostradamus -  - Azi Like a Fox (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote doesn't pass my sniff test. What kind of "technology" was Marx worried about the working class spending their money on in 1867? The latest name-brand wringer that all the coolest celebs were hocking in the evening broadsheets? Matt Deres (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And the use of 'technology' in this sense (i.e. technological goods) has not even made it into the OED yet - their earliest citation of 'high-technology' (from which I think this derives) dates from 1964. Of course it could be a modern translation, but what of? --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a modern translation, it's just bunk. There weren't technological goods in the modern sense in the 19th century—it wasn't a consumer product at all, and not the sort of thing Marx was concerned with anyway. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Jacobs Bloodline.
I'm presently looking for any information you would have on the Jacobs Family Bloodline. My Great Grandmother was in the Montiganis Band and I'm trying to fine out more info. If there is any way you can help me it will be greatly appreicated.Her full name was Emma Jane Jacobs, belonging to the Montiganis Band. Thank you so much for your help with this matter. Sincerely. Maxine Mannchen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannchen (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 

Hi Maxine Do you know which country she came from? Online sites that may help are http://www.rootsweb.com and http://www.familysearch.org. If she is from USA then ancestry.com has plenty of data for a fee. I can't find Montiganis mentioned, is it a town or a surname, typo, or what? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think OP means Montagnais or Innu which would pretty much identify the country as Canada. Great grandmother might be the eighteen-hundreds.  It seems most of the population was still living as nomads then. Nevertheless you might find church records.  With a surname like "Jacobs" there's likely to be at least a record of a wedding somewhere.  I don't think there has been a re-naming effort.  The closer to the nineteen hundreds you get the more government records you are likely to find.  There seems to have been extensive relocation and settlement efforts after the second world war, which won't make your quest any easier.  If your Great Grandfather was a trader there might be record of that and some records of the native people he traded with.  If you can locate things a bit more precisely you might find the local equivalent of a "story woman".  Oral family histories can be quite as extensive as written records, but are by their very nature a lot harder to access.  You will need a translator and it's a good idea to bring a video recorder.  What they can tell you in French or English is likely only a sniplet of the whole story. Good luck 76.97.245.5 (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone with the same surname lives in Waskagonish. That might be a good start. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Is non DNA life possible?
Especially on other planets? Like a hydrogen molecule based life, for instance? Has there ever been a paper or some mathematical formula that's worked this out but never witnessed? Kinda like the 27th dimension?TinyTonyyy (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well first of all, hydrogen doesn't bond in a way to make the huge macromolecules that are needed for life. Carbon is good at this because it has four electrons in its valence shell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.241.6.21 (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are certainly other options than DNA, although for life anything like the life we know you'll probably need something quite similar. The next best option after carbon is silicon, but it has all kinds of problems. See Alternative biochemistry. I believe there are lifeforms (or maybe just viruses, which aren't always considered lifeforms) on Earth that don't have any DNA, and have just RNA instead, so it's certainly possible. --Tango (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On earth, the closest thing to nucleic-acid less life may be prions which may or may not meet the definition of "living" on their own. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing especially privileged about DNA as the genetic material. To be a decent genetic material, you need three things: (1) a way to encode information, (2) a way to decode that information and (3) a way to accurately copy it. DNA works well as genetic material because as the order of A/T/C/G nucleotides provides an easy way to encode information - but this is not unique to DNA. Practically any polymer with multiple subunits could provide this ability. For example, it is widely thought that life used RNA before switching to DNA (the RNA world hypothesis), and some have speculated that TNA or even PNA could have functioned as a genetic material. While all of those use the same A/T/C/G nucleotides as DNA, there's nothing saying that that has to be the case. Several labs have developed alternate base pairs that work in DNA, and if you're using a non-nucleic acid backbone, you certainly could use other "sidechains". I'd also note that, theoretically at least, you're not even limited to linear polymers. A branched molecule can also encode information, as long as you have a good way to easily create the branches when copying and decide which branch to follow when decoding. Which brings us to points 2 & 3; nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) are convenient because they can form base pairs and double helixes, allowing for a very simple way to read off and copy the nucleotide sequence. Nothing says that you have to use direct pairing, though. One can easily envision a polymer that requires extra binding "proteins" that mediate the copying, much like tRNAs mediate the translation from nucleotide sequence to protein sequence. (While tRNAs use base pairing to read out the nucleotide sequence, you wouldn't need to do so. For example DNA binding proteins can read a nucleotide sequence with very high fidelity without needing to use base pairing.) -- 76.201.145.29 (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Answers so far seem to be assuming that it must be chemical. Have a look at Evolving the Alien (the book, rather than the rather brief article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Second that - it's an excellent and fascinating book. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's perfectly possible to imagine a robot that's constructed from nanotechnological parts that could reproduce and meet the criteria for "life". The tricky question is how such a thing could evolve.  What makes DNA/RNA 'special' is that it is a bulk storage device that has the ability to reproduce built into its' structure at the most basic level. SteveBaker (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, any question that begins 'is it possible that...' or similar phrasing should be answered 'yes'. Phil_burnstein (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Such a policy would at least save time. —Tamfang (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)