Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 July 26

= July 26 =

Multiple murders in Scandinavia - precedent
(Starting from the vast and falsifiable premise that Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway are "all the same anyway...") Has anything like the Norway shootings happened before? Presumably a few cases of multiple manslaughter or murder happen each year: angry man kills wife or girlfriend and self; divorced dad kills his kids. But has there ever been a mass shooting, particularly one targetting minors? Have they previously endured a multiply fatal terrorist attack? Or a crime as gruesomely planned as this, which in a way reminds me of Dr Harold Shipman? Or many missing people (maybe prostitutes, drug addicts, or runaway children), who subsequently turn out to have been killed by one man, with or without his partner's knowledge and assistance? Another way of asking this is, what sort of cultural parallels are the Norwegian people grasping for now? I am reminded of the case of Silje Raedergard: the Norwegians (?= Scandinavians) have very different attitudes towards criminal justice than the Americans or the British. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been a couple of multiple shootings at schools in Finland, albeit with much lower death tolls - Jokela and Kauhajoki. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As well as the above, List of murderers by number of victims mentions the Swede Anders Hansson who killed 26 or 27 people in a hospital (though I can't find any English-language references); Arnfinn Nesset, a Norwegian nurse who killed over 20 patients; and Mattias Flink, a Swedish spree killer with 7 victims. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is some more detail about Hansson - described as "an odd and lonely person with learning-disabilities" - at this forum. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not aware that the Norwegian people are grasping for any cultural parallels. The physical scale of the car bomb damage and death toll are, when related to Oslo's much smaller population than New York, comparable to the September 11 attacks. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And a single murder in Coldfoot, Alaska would, when realted to Coldfoot's much smaller population then Japan, be much more devistating then the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. What is your point in comparison here?  Googlemeister (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which of those events has anything to do with Scandinavia? What is your point? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Googlemeister asked first. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me to answer Googlemeister's question. The OP asked about a precedent to the multiple murders in Scandinavia. I wished to point out that one finds a physical precedent in the 9/11 attacks, but it is only physical. Culturally the attacks are very different. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Try this CBC News Interactive. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 21:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

tracfone's
i have a tracfone that i need some advise about so i can get my problem fix. the problem is that i have 44569 minutes and no service days left the phones main screen says that my service days have been disabled so what do i do? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.196.99 (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Have tried contacting your provider? They are far more likely to know what is going on than we are. --Tango (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Go to tracfone.com. On the contact page, there is a fill-in form for questions and comments, including service. Or there is also a toll-free (in the U.S.) telephone number to call. — Michael J 12:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I take it you really should have more days and far fewer minutes ? Sounds like a bug to me, possibly a bad SIM card.  You can call them, but they will likely want proof.


 * Do you, by any chance, have the last message from them saying how many days and minutes were added ? I always keep those.  You could forward that message on to them, and they could add those days to that date to figure a minimum you should now have.


 * But, of course, there's no accounting for the days you already had when the last card was added. However, if you can offer some proof, they may believe you for the additional days.


 * I also suspect they will need to send you a new SIM card for your cell phone, or possibly a whole new phone. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anal sex advice
How do you make it painless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.18.179 (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read our article anal sex? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nina Hartley has a book that deals with this. You might want to check it out.  Dismas |(talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Try not doing it!--85.211.131.158 (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sam Houstons Birthplace Marker?
I know that Sam Houston was born in Virginia, but is there a marker or anything of that sort on or near his birthplace? I am asking this as he was born in the Mountain regions and not in an actual town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.155.171 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In our article on Sam Houston, there's a photo of the marker. More information about the monument can be found here. It is located on U.S. Route 11, 5.3 miles north of Lexington. It is on the east side of the highway, after the underpass for Interstate 81/64, exit 195. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hrvatska pošta
The logo of the Croatian Post Office (Hrvatska pošta) can be seen at. This looks to me like a stylized form of the Hebrew letters פש, but it seems unlikely that Hebrew letters would be used. Is there any info on the origin of this logo? --Taejo|대조 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like a stylised post horn, but this is just a guess. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The post horn page agrees with your guess (without any citation, though). --Taejo|대조 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh the frustration of the postman who finds his horn gorn. (video) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Could a "Writ of Mandamus" be obtained by ACLU to Force the US Congress to Raise the Debt Limit Ceiling?
A writ of mandamus or mandamus (which means "we command" in Latin), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly".[1] Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty.[2] It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 001Gberg (talk • contribs) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe if the Supreme Court issued one. Googlemeister (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Forcing Congress to pass legislation would be a clear violation of the seperation of powers. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) No. If you read the article mandamus, it only applies when the government official has a duty to do a certain thing. Congress does not have a duty to raise the debt limit, even if it would be a good thing to do so. Issuing such a writ would violate the separation of powers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Failure of Congress to raise the debt ceiling could violate section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution, and the the Supreme Court could declare the legislation that created a debt ceiling unconstitutional, but only if it was the only way to repay existing debt. That is not the case here.  Googlemeister (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on how specifically it would violate it? &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 19:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the items in section 8 art 1 is

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States", which coupled with, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." could possibly lead to the debt ceiling being unconstitutional, but only if it is set in such a way as to prevent borrowing to pay for servicing already existing debt. For that to happen, debt payments would probably need to be around 100% of government revenues, and by that point, it is probably an academic question since the whole system is already failing. Googlemeister (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Still not following you, but just because Congress has the power to do something doesn't mean they have to do it. In fact, they could do nothing for an entire term if they chose. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, even if the debt ceiling were unconstitutional, the remedy would not be to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Congress to pass a law raising it. A court would just declare the debt ceiling invalid. Larry Tribe recently wrote (what I found to be) a convincing op-ed in the NYT about how the debt ceiling is not unconstitutional. I'm not sure if there are prominent legal minds on the other side. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Legal systems don't like dealing with hypotheticals which is all I suggest that my scenario is, so actual case law would be unlikely. Basically, SCOTUS would need to view the second quote as manditory.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not mandatory - the text of the constitution says it's a power they have (something they can do), not something they must do. The drafters of the US Constitution knew how to make things mandatory--take the census, for example ("The actual Enumeration shall be made...").  They didn't make this mandatory.  It also makes no sense that "mak[ing] all laws ... necessary and proper" would be mandatory, because who decides what is necessary and proper? That would be a political question that the courts wouldn't touch. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one really knows because this has never happened. I think it's common in states where the state constitution requires the government to do this or that to get a writ of mandamus from a court ordering the country to do that thing. If this were to end up in court, I don't think the ACLU would be the plaintiff because they don't generally deal with fiscal issues. It's more likely it would be an owner of Treasuries that would sue the government. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between the executive and the legislature in these matters. It is very common for a constitution to require the executive to do certain things and a writ of mandamus can be used to force them to do it. I don't think it is at all common for a constitution to require the legislature to pass certain legislation. There would be no point in such a clause - just put whatever would have been in the legislation directly into the constitution. --Tango (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Courts have required legislatures to do stuff on occasion, such as when they rule that a state isn't fulfilling its constitution's requirements on education. This happened in New Jersey, for example. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The ultra-rightwing contingent of the Court, who put GW Bush in the White House,("Bush v Gore) and who issued the "Citizens United" ruling on behalf of corporations, are extremely unlikely to get in the way of the Tea Party zealots in Congress. A writ of mandamus is more likely to be issued by a judge to make an official do something he is required by statute to do, but he just doesn't want to do. An example might be to force a Clerk to issue a marriage license for a gay couple in a state where such marriages have become legal, or to force a racist Clerk to register a minority person to vote, or to force a city to issue a building permit for a mosque which meets all legal requirements, or to force a school district to register minority students to attend public schools. Edison (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that the article I linked above is by one of the country's leading liberal scholars. It's not just "ultra-rightwing" judges who would refuse to issue a writ of mandamus like this- no one would, because it would make no sense. (There's no way this case would ever get to the Supreme Court anyways - it would undoubtedly lose in the lower court, and SCOTUS would never take the appeal.) The best argument for the unconstitutionality of the debt limit is based on the 14th amendment, not Congress's enumerated powers.  That argument is at least somewhat plausible. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Southern California corporations
Need a list of phone numbers and addresses for Southern California corporations based in the Inland empire, LA and Orange Counties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belle voix (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * did you try the phone book? -- Jayron  32  18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's a phone book, and why would anyone with internets have one? Oh, right, they throw them on your doorstep without asking... --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you live in the US, you can now opt out of receiving phone books. Save a tree today! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask your local public library if they offer ReferenceUSA, Hoover's, or similar directories. There's no comprehensive free resource. Maybe you can tell us a little more about what you want the directory for, and we might be able to help you more effectively. 99.17.204.52 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

rhubarb
Not sure if I am doing this the correct way, but here goes! I have been told that rhubarb (stalks) should not be used for consumpsion after the end of July as it is a bit dodgy healthwise. Is this so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.108.91 (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where? I've never heard such a story; the leaves are always poisonous, but the growing season (as the article points out) varies widely depending on climate. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Small quibble, but the leaves are more specifically toxic. Googlemeister (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair 'nuff. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone confused rhubarb with pokeweed? The two share some very superficial similarities, especially late in the season, where both have red stems and deep green leaves; though I daresay pokeweed is significantly larger and bushier.  Poke salad is a known foodstuff, but requires careful preparation due to the inherant toxicity of pokeweed; usually only young poke is used so perhaps that is the source of the late-season prohibition here?  Just a WAG.  -- Jayron  32  19:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is because the stalks, if not used when young, grow tough and inedible? There is, apparently some oxalic acid in the stalks to start with - it's what gives rhubarb its characteristic acidity. In the leaves it is concentrated in toxic proportions. It's possible therefore that older stalks also have higher concentrations of oxalic acid, but not as much as in the leaves. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any support for that theory online, but it's hard to prove a negative. I'm originally from Alaska, where there's a late growing season. Pretty sure we ate rhubarb picked after the end of the July all the time, but I guess I can't be positive. (Also, I suppose the deadline for picking could depend on the climate?) Anyways, even the leaves aren't that toxic - according to our article, you'd have to eat 5 kg of them to reach a fatal dose. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I eat new shoots of rhubarb picked in August and even at the beginning of September. The taste gradually changes as the season progresses, and earlier stalks certainly have a better flavour.    D b f i r s   06:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are they sold with the leaves on, if they're at least inadvisable for consumption? Why aren't the leaves removed prior to sale?  Why do we have to pay for stuff we have to throw out?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Try chopping the leaves off some stalks of rhubarb and then leaving the stalks for a few days before cooking. The ends where you've lopped the leaves will be dry and tough. DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the cooler climate where I live, rhubarb leaves are always removed before sale. Any slight drying out can be remedied by standing the stalks with their root ends in water for a few hours.    D b f i r s   06:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, in the US (currently New England, previously Alaska), I've never seen rhubarb sold with the leaves still on. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think you pay extra for the leaves? If anything, you would have to pay extra for someone to go to the effort of cutting them off. --Tango (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Produce is typically sold by weight. If the leaves are on, you're paying for them. However, if the leaves were cut off previously, I assume wholesalers (and therefore grocers) would just charge more for the stalks to compensate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, they usually charge MORE than enough per pound to compensate for the labor. Taking a different item for comparison; I can buy a whole chicken for about one dollar per pound.  If I buy boneless/skinless breasts of chicken, I pay 4 dollars per pound.  In order to break even, that would imply that my chicken was 3/4 unusable material, that is patently not true.  When I buy the chicken, even if I don't use the bones (not true, bones are very useful, but bear with me) it is STILL less expensive per pound of meat, by far, to buy the chicken whole and butcher it myself.  -- Jayron  32  01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But how much is your time worth? I assume the packaged chicken producers have to pay their staff. Also, are you allowing for wear and tear on your tools, and how much does it cost to dispose of the bones? DuncanHill (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am quite confused by your response. Are you actually claiming that I have some moral obligation to buy pre-butchered chicken just because the company that sells it needs to pay its employees?  Why, in your eyes, am I not allowed to purchase a whole chicken and butcher it myself?  Why do you insist that I bear some personal responsibility to the employees of that company that I be compelled to buy pre-butchered meats from them, instead of purchasing the availible whole chicken which is availible right next to it?  I am thoroughly confused by your stance on this... -- Jayron  32  16:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading this, I think you are all violently agreeing with each other, but without noticing it ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I stand apart (as I am wont to do as I pass through this vale of woe). I never said we pay extra for the leaves, per Tango.  I asked why we are charged for something whose only value is compost fodder.  It's essentially no different from paying for oranges by weight: we pay for the skin, which (apart from orange zest) is routinely discarded (not into the compost, I hope, because citrus is too acidic for composts), but in that case it's inappropriate to remove the skin and just sell the pulp, unless it's canned.  However, that constraint doesn't apply to rhubarb, because the leaves can easily be removed without doing any damage to the edible stalks.  The growers can keep the leaves and use them for their own mulch or whatever, and we consumers only pay for what we can actually use.  Win-win.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, so long as you're prepared to pay for the time and effort involved in removing the leaves, that is. DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even at my exalted salary (*cough*), the cost of my time in spending a few seconds removing rhubarb leaves is significantly less than the cost of purchasing them. But that still reinforces my point.  I have to pay money for the leaves, then I have to pay in time (= money) to get rid of them.  What a dumb and pointless process.  I'd rather not get the leaves at all, and not pay at all, than pay twice for the privilege of throwing out that which I've just bought.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Or you can pay in money for someone else to cut them off. DuncanHill (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My point earlier is was that you basically have to pay for the leaves in money no matter what--whether you're getting them in the supermarket or not. A rhubarb plant will cost X to grow. The buyer is going to have to pay Y over the cost of production for profit margins, distribution, etc. No one is going to buy the leaves once they're cut off. So the leafless stalks should cost X+Y, and the leafy stalks should cost X+Y. If rhubarb is priced by weight, you would expect the leafless stalks to be more expensive to compensate (and probably more than compensate, because you have the new expense of cutting off the leaves). Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) In the UK you can get rhubarb without leaves in supermarkets, and rhubarb with leaves in smaller shops and street markets. Same with carrots. Fresh shiny leaves make the rhubarb look good for the customers. In gardens where rhubarb is grown out of doors, you get fewer new stems as the summer goes on and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that there was more oxalic acid in them. The North of England is known for its forced rhubarb in early spring, finished in sheds without light. Rhubarb in supermarkets is presumably mass grown in identical conditions throughout the year. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I remember the childhood mythology of Indian Inkweed berries being poisonous, and remember assuming the plant's warnificatory coloration color confirmed this. Reading the article on pokeweed was enlightening. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)