Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 February 20

= February 20 =

Bateman's principle, the sex revolution and contraception/abortion
Does the fact that a girl knows that as a result of contraception and abortion being freely available mean that Bateman's principle does not really apply so much in humans and that she can have sex with as many guys as she likes and enjoy it?--I want to feel like a girl (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think for these arguments sex with contraception or sex with an intention to abort any pregnancies doesn't count as sex. Bateman's principle clearly only applies to sex that can result in a child. The existence of contraception does, therefore, mean that women can enjoy sex without the usual arguments applying. --Tango (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the idea needs to be applied carefully. Essentially worry-free sex is a relatively new phenomenon while Bateman's Principle refers to the past billion years or so of females "getting stuck" with the pregnancy and child rearing. While women can be consciously aware of their new options and enjoy them, there is likely a lot of "built in" hesitance. It's a little like the fact that we no longer need to consume fats, sugars, and salt as often as possible; our conscious knowledge of that tends to be overwhelmed by a deep-seated need to ahead and dig in. The enjoyment of the physical sensation obviously works differently in both cases, though. Matt Deres (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, most women are (and if not should be) aware that (i) the various methods of contraception are variously less than 100% effective; and (ii) even where legally available, abortion in some circumstances may be less than easy to obtain, may carry a non-negligable degree of risk to their health, may cause conflict with relatives and other community members, and can be an emotionally painful experience. Such awareness will probably affect their attitudes. [Disclaimer: I'm not trying to assert any moral/ethical position on these matters.] 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The pill" is pretty near 100 percent effective if they stick to the schedule. Skipping it for a day or two may fool oneself, but it won't fool mother nature. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The pill" may well be the most effective form of contraception available, but a woman's physiology may mean that she will get pregnant whether or not she takes the pill according to schedule. Similarly, STDs should mean that women take heed and use barrier methods of contraception regardless of whether they use the Pill or not. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, "the pill" won't prevent disease, so a condom and foam should be used anyway, if there's a risk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Foam? --Tango (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Contraceptive foam. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture question
How do I insert a picture into my question, as I would like to ask a question concerning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If the image is on the wiki-commons a syntax something like [[image:FILENAME|50px]] or [[file:FILENAME.jpg|20px]] will display it. The "50px" determines it's size, you may need to experiment to get it right. Use the "Show preview" button to see how it appears. Example[[file:Wikisanta.jpg|30px]] Otherwise if it is on Flikr or a similar photo sharing website then a URL/ web address or link is all that is needed. (Updated my post)220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

how about if I received it in an email and want to put it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You will need to upload it to a photosharing site and link to it here. Alternately, you might try going to Tineye, comparing your file there and seeing if your picture is already out there on the web somewhere. Obviously that's not likely if someone's sent you his holiday snaps, but it might work if it's some joke picture or something that's been emailed around a lot. Matt Deres (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

THANKS!!! see next Q —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Giants amd mermaids
Please can some one provide me with any information concerning these pictures


 * 1) http://www.snopes.com/photos/tsunami/mermaid.asp
 * 2) http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/Discussions/Loisirs/etonnantes-mairde-reposts-sujet_54384_2765.htm
 * 3) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/giantskeleton-pictures/index.html
 * 4) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/giantskeleton-pictures/images/primary/1_461.jpg
 * 5) http://www.worth1000.com/entries/10000/10494_w.jpg
 * 6) http://img.qihoo.com/qhimg/bbs_img/0_0/0/890/927/b02d2a.jpg

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I put some line breaks in to make it easier to read --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An numbers, sorry if this offends anyone, I think it was necessary. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, what do you want to know? The Snopes picture gives you all kinds of information on it. Worth1000 is a photoshopping site that fakes pictures for fun. The picture of the giant skeleton is from that Worth1000 site. Your second link has dozens of pictures on it. Could you perhaps trim down this list into something remotely reasonable, do just a wee bit of research on your own, and then let us know what exactly it is you'd like help with? Matt Deres (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps see Cardiff Giant and Piltdown man for background on this sort of joke. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We also have an article on the Fiji mermaid. Deor (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty much all of the pictures you are referring to are fakes. Using software tools such as Photoshop or The GIMP (which you can download for free) and with a certain amount of artistic and technical skill, it is possible to produce any picture of anything your mind can imagine.  The process generally involves blending together parts of different pictures, adjusting lighting and tweaking the 'grain' of the image - and the results can often be impossible to distinguish from reality.  So before you believe that a mermaid was found washed up during the tsunami - consider the source of the photo.  Was this taken by a photojournalist with a reputation for producing reliable and truthful images - or did it just pop up on the Internet, seemingly from nowhere?  If the latter - then it's vastly more likely to be a fake than not. SteveBaker (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Cottingley fairies pictures predate computer manipulation but probably would meet with less success today. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah - it's incredible how people fell for that. They didn't even do a double-exposure to make them translucent or anything - just cut-out paper drawings stuck into the foreground of the scene.  The idea that a photograph could be anything other than the complete truth is a concept that's having a hard time dying! SteveBaker (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * People who want to believe in something will look for any apparent evidence supporting it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of news reports linking undiscovered giant creatures to the 2004 tsunami. For example, . ~ A H  1 (TCU) 19:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Right turn on red
This question concerns the concept of Right turn on red (in the United States). The general idea is this: if it is safe to do so, the driver may turn right on red (after he comes to a complete stop and if no other sign prohibits the turn). Now, sometimes, a sign will specifically be posted that says "No Right Turn on Red" (or similar). My question is why? What is the purpose of specifically preventing and/or prohibiting right on red turns at certain intersections? Especially since the driver is (otherwise) allowed to turn only when it is safe for him to do so. Any insights? Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC))


 * From this blog - "As stated, the primary reasons for restricting a right turn are driver and pedestrian safety. There may be roadway or vision obstructions that are not readily apparent to drivers or there may be a need for a protected pedestrian phase." Granted, a blog is not typically a reliable source, this one appears to be written by a police department representative.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just anecdotal evidence here : You often see it at 'complicated' intersections (ie: anything other than a normal four-way stop) where it might not be immediately obvious which way a car is coming. (Or when.)APL (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's for safety, for example if it's hard to see the oncoming traffic (a "blind corner"). In that case, the department in charge of that kind of thing has decided that there are no conditions under which a right on red is sufficiently "safe" to allow it, even if the driver might think otherwise. Likewise with the "left turn on red" which can arise when one-way streets intersect. In some ways it's like the "No U Turn" signs. Typically U Turns are OK if done safely, but sometimes they are explicitly forbidden due to conditions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so in all jurisdiction. In British Columbia for example, U-turns are forbidden unless specifically marked at all controlled intersections (traffic lights, etc.)  You can only do them legally in uncontrolled intersections.24.83.112.118 (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OR here, but I've also seen this occasionally ("rarely" is probably a better term) to prevent cars from turning right onto a particularly crowded or busy road. Presumably it's rare because the right-on-red rules don't obstruct traffic much on the busy road.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In Southern California, the no turn on red tends to be for one of two reasons. Either the perpendicular traffic flow is unusually fast and/or partially obstructed from view from the person turning right. Thus its difficult to determine whether it is safe to turn. Secondly, no turn on red signs are often found around schools, presumably to better safeguard children as they cross the road. These often have time limits on them, though, so no turns are permitted only during the week and around school hours. Rockpock  e  t  20:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Rant Insight follows. The rule is stupid. If the intersection is difficult then having an extra sign with English text that drivers have to read and understand in real time which takes time, especially if English is not your natural reading language, just adds to the hazard. This does not happen in Europe where road signs are icons independant of language. How would you like your PC desktop icons taken away and replaced by wordy text? (Picture of an ape shaking head goes here.) Furthermore the idea that a driver must come to a complete stop before doing the turn is unreal. If you do that in heavy traffic the driver behind you, who knows the area and probably thinks this is a communist plot, honks angrily. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here in Ontario, and presumably some or all other Canadian provinces, "no right on red" is now in fact a pictographic sign. It consists of an icon of a red traffic light, and beside it a standard "no right turn" icon, all on a white background.  I have an opinion about this, but this forum is not the place for opinions.  --Anonymous, 05:45 UTC, February 21, 2010.
 * Sorry that you live in such a rude area. I have been behind people who sat through entire green lights and no one has honked at them. But the sign in question has four words and is read while your car is stopped at a red light. That isn't a major burden I don't think. But how do you make an image of a conditional like this? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Interpolated answer to the above) You don't have to. The menu of traffic lights in the UK includes double-arrow (up and right) green lights that give one a go signal for 2 directions only. It gives no instruction about left turns which can, if desired, be controlled by separate arrow lights. What I call stupid is signals that have to be interpreted conditionally. Consider what happens in these cases if a light bulb fails or a sign is obscured. I can imagine a queue of Canadians drivers stopping to admire or puzzle over the pictograph that Anonymous reports in Ontario. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the light is red, you're supposed to come to a complete stop whether you're turning or not, so the horn by the trailing driver is rude and unwarranted. The wordless sign is an arrow with a 90-degree bend in it and a red circle-slash superimposed. Just as the no-U-turn is an inverted U with that red circle-slash superimposed. That's how it is in the USA, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that means no right turn ever. --Nricardo (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here in Texas, they say "NO RIGHT ON RED" - no arrows or anything. Sadly, they put them in places where car headlights can't shine on them and where you'd have to stick your head out of the window to read them while actually stopped at the light.  So it's easy to mess up. SteveBaker (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the need for reading all the words isn't always there; many signs have certain shapes and color schemes which are supposed to be universal; of course, I'm not sure if this sign is one, since I haveen't the vision to drive, so I've never seen one (unlike the more common "stop," "railaroad, etc., which you often see just in pictures)209.244.187.155 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, when someone honks at me for coming to a complete stop at a red light, I tend to stay put for the duration of the red light and then a few seconds into the green for good measure. That's just the kind of friendly guy I am. APL (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just want to make sure you understand: You have a red light, so you would normally be stopped anyway. The first sign pictured in the Right turn on red article is unusual and wordy: The article text and image caption explain that in New York City, turning right at a red light is prohibited by default, unless a sign allows it. In most places I'm familiar with, a right turn at a red light is allowed by default (after a complete stop, and when safe to turn), unless a sign prohibits it. Preform a Google Image search for no turn on red to see what these signs look like. --70.254.86.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
 * As a point of fact, the cities of Montreal (and maybe some suburbs) and New York (city only, 5 boroughs) are now the only places the US and Canada where right-on-red is prohibited except where specifically authorized. --Anonymous, 05:45 UTC, February 21, 2010.
 * Can you source that please --Anon? Webmasters two years ago in Ottawa were still warning about crossing the bridge. You're making a pretty broad claim here and I might expensively drive my car through it some day if I believe in you now. :) Franamax (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a page from the Quebec transportation ministry on right turns on red: . -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Another place where right-on-red may be prohibited (other than getting in the way off cross-traffic from cars) is where any cross-traffic might be impeded or endangered. For example if a designated bicycle lane crosses in front of you, you need to be stopped 'til you get the right of way because you will be watching for cars when you pull out to turn and will miss the cyclist until they hit your driver door. Franamax (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always heard too that right turns on red aren't allowed in Manhattan, but I've never driven myself on that island so I have no personal experience. I don't think what a cabbie does is a good reference to what the traffic laws actually are. Shadowjams (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As an ex-cabbie, I take exception to that remark. :) Cabbies are more likely to be aware of the road rules than almost anyone else, because they're more likely to be pulled over for some perceived breach than almost anyone else.  True, there's a difference between knowing what the law is and knowing what you can get away with, but still .... --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another reason to prohibit a right turn on red is when the opposing traffic has a green arrow allowing them to turn left. A driver wanting to turn right on red generally checks for traffic coming from their left before proceeding with their turn.  They do not normally expect opposing traffic to turn left in front of them. --Thomprod (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's only an issue if the drivers turning right and left (1) will be turning into the same lane of the cross street, and (2) are blind or stupid. But, of course, (2) seems to apply to a large number of drivers. --Anon, 20:33 UTC, February 22, 2010.


 * Just a comment, here. I'm usually grateful when I come upon a No Turn On Red sign. Sometimes they don't have them when there really should be one, and it's a little frustrating if you don't feel comfortable turning (for various reasons) but the person behind you thinks they can make your mind up for you by honking. Sadly, I live in a honking city (LA). –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  04:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the input ... it was very helpful ... much appreciated! (64.252.68.102 (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

Question on book sales
How many copies of Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe have been sold? What is the criteria for a book to be called a "best seller"? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Best seller" is meaningless Puffery. It could mean the best book with a blue cover and a title beginning in "D". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect "What are the criteria?" or "What is the criterion?" I would suggest that something like the the top 100 selling books at any one time could be regarded as best sellers. But there are multiple categories - fiction hard-back, fiction paper-back, non-fiction hardback, non-fiction paperback. I spite of that there are several lists produced by UK broadsheet newspaper literary supplements which record the current sales of book numbers which include the top 20 or 50 best sellers in these 4 categories. How 'best seller' can be meaningless within these wider descriptions is difficult to see. "Darwin's Black Box"? - No idea. It's been around for a few years and probably nowadays sells in lower numbers after its initial launch. Thissite claims it is ranked 2,323 in overall sales from Amazon. I reckon that is a pretty high number. Richard Avery (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Though logical, this definition is undermined by the many books which are described by their publishers, often on their own covers, as "bestsellers" on or before their day of publication. Speaking as a former professional bookseller, it was and probably still is a commonplace in the book trade that any book can become a bestseller if the publisher decides to pay enough for an advertising campaign to make it one, and "bestseller" is almost regarded as a genre in itself. Since a significant proportion of the book-buying public decide to buy a book because it is described as a bestseller, calling it one is an important factor in subsequently making it one in sales terms. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How does a claim of being a bestseller even before the book has been published survive scrutiny by the anti-misleading advertising authorities? --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   00:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because, as stated, the term doesn't mean anything. Dismas |(talk) 03:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - sadly the so-called "ideacenter" site seem to have slipped a decimal point in reading the Amazon sales rank. They claim 2,323 - but Amazon say 23,812.  Well, anyone can make a mistake - right?  Oh - wait...two mistakes.  They overstated the sales rank of "Of Pandas and People" by a factor of ten too.  Draw your own conclusions about the reliability of that web site - you can probably guess my opinion. SteveBaker (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you fail to notice that the page you reference was written in 2006? Is it possible that an Amazon ranking changes in four years? Of course. Please don't make conspiracy theories out of a simple change in data over time, or we will 'draw our own conclusions' over the reliability of your analysis. ( If you read the page its point is to compare the rankings of the two books, so their absolute values aren't even relevant to the website). DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you miss my point, Dismas. They call it a best-seller, in the hope of people thinking "Ooh, it's very popular, so I'd better get a copy and see what all the fuss is about".   But they give it this "best-seller" label before a single copy has been sold, and, by definition, before they know whether it will actually sell very well or not.  It's a blatant attempt to mislead people.  If it were not intended to influence people, what would be the point of using this strategy?  If it were not the case that a lot of people fall for this misleading ploy, why would they continue doing it?  That's why I ask where the authorities are when you really need them. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   04:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jack, you have absolutely nothing to back that up. Did the first printing of DBB have 'bestseller' on the front? You have no idea. You're just making stuff up. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then kindly take issue with 87.81.230.195 above, who speaks as a former professional book seller, and who tells us about "the many books which are described by their publishers, often on their own covers, as "bestsellers" on or before their day of publication" and how "a significant proportion of the book-buying public decide to buy a book because it is described as a bestseller", and how "calling it one is an important factor in subsequently making it one". --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to a sales rank of around 20k means that the book is selling a couple of dozen copies a week.  The highest selling books on Amazon sell around 70,000 copies a week.  No, this book is currently anything but a "best seller".  However, it may have shifted a bunch of copies when it was first published - that kind of historical data is hard to get. SteveBaker (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a citeable reference, but what I've read is that bestseller lists are based on how many copies of the books are sold to bookstores. So it is indeed possible for a book to achieve bestseller status before publication. It is meaningless as a measure of the book's quality, just as "opening weekend gross" figures for movies are no measure of the movie's quality. --Anonymous, 05:50 UTC, February 21, 2010.


 * The term bestseller by itself, as others have noted, isn't particularly meaningful.  Often, however, there will be reference to a specific bestseller list; by far the best-known and most influential in North American markets is probably The New York Times Best Seller list.  A New York Times Best Seller will have been in the top 15 best-selling hardcover nonfiction books (or top 20 paperbacks) for at least one week, sometime between the date of publication and the present day.  I can't find easy, free access to historical NYT list data, so I can't check this case.  Note that the Times doesn't actually track the total number of retail sales of a book &mdash; their numbers are based on a sampling of brick & mortar booksellers and wholesalers, with their exact algorithm shrouded in secrecy.  There have been reported cases of manipulation of the Times list, even then. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To being an answer to the actual question, this article (written in 2000) says it has sold "more than 100000 copies since 1996"). Behe's main period of fame was after 2000, so it probably sold at a higher rate just after that, and then dropped off in recent years. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's compare that with The Selfish Gene which is an unquestionable unstoppable blockbuster of a book (in the field of biology at any rate), which our article says "has sold more than a million copies". That probably means Darwin's Black Box has between a third and a fifth of the sales of The Selfish Gene, having been on the market less than half the time. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The after 30 years, "The Selfish Gene" is still selling at a page rank of under 2,000 - so it's selling a few hundred a week. SteveBaker (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ballista
Where online can I find how to build a ballista? --75.25.103.192 (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Curiously if you put 'How to build a Ballista' into Google you will get 87,500 hits . That would have taken less time than posting the question. Be careful where you point it, you might have someone's eye out. Richard Avery (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, is there anything functionally equivalent to a torsion spring which doesn't use metal? --75.25.103.192 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Offhand, I recall that some ballistae and similar mechanisms used twisted ropes: that is, two or more taut parallel cords or ropes had a lever inserted perpendicularly between them which was then rotated around to twist the ropes together; designs of ballistae you will likely find will doubtless include details. Others designs utilised counterweights and levers, and might be simpler to construct. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I saw the picture of the mousetrap at torsion spring and assumed that all torsion springs were metallic, or that metal was somehow necessary. --75.25.103.192 (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Modern makers of siege engines (like for punkin chunkin competitions) sometimes use bungee cord or surgical tubing (which is fantastically elastic) as an alternative to rope. Same principle - modern materials.  SteveBaker (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We made one with just pioneering poles and rope. Worked rather well. DuncanHill (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that when you are putting things under high levels of tension, there are more dangers than just popping it off in the wrong direction. If the structure itself is not strong enough to support the tension, you can get bad and potentially dangerous results. Just be careful if you are going to mix and match materials... --Mr.98 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely; if you're building a full-size ballista, there's a lot of energy in there, and if it goes in the wrong direction... FiggyBee (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a site partly in German with some English in their guestbook. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just cheching - you don't live anywhere near me, do you? -- Ludwigs 2  03:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)