Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 January 31

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.

January 31

Instrument Identification

In this video, what is the instrument in the background, behind Pavel Sporcl? It almost looks like some kind of harpsichord being played with some kind of mallet. It's hard to see in the video, but I think he's hitting strings (I could be wrong though). Thanks --Bennybp (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing cimbalom. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. It looks almost exactly like the one here. Never heard of it before. Thanks! --Bennybp (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

dollarization in Zimbabwe

so they have finally taken this step. considering how long it took and how bad it's gotten, there must have been a setback reason for not doing so. why did Zimbabwe avoid dollarizing for so long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glibdrops (talk • contribs) 08:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A major factor would have been the person of Gideon Gono and his "management" of Zimbabwean fiscal policy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No-one in power likes to admit they were wrong. Actually, I think that goes for most average people, really... - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

When you have a complete idiot in charge of your country - very bad things happen for very ridiculous reasons. This is a lesson that people around the world are amazingly slow to learn. SteveBaker (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And, unlike functional democracies such as the US, where complete idiots can be voted out of office, or otherwise peacefully removed; in totalitarian countries like Zimbabwe or China (under Mao) the only way for the general population to remove them is with violence. Failing that, they may need to wait until the idiots die of old age, and hope the next idiots aren't quite so bad. StuRat (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert, but hadn't the Zimbabwe-an government been financing many of its' federal expenses with printed money? That's a tough thing to stop.NByz (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why di— No, too easy... --Tango (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hijab shirt skirt sandals denim jacket skirt and khaki shirt skirt

I like Muslim ladies with hijab and abayas, nowadays I like them with skirt, either in cotton (with various colours), denim, or khaki, long-sleeve shirt(red, blue, teal, green, pink, purple, yellow, orange, white, grey, black and brown) and jacket made of either denim or khaki. Where can I find pictures of these wonderful Muslim ladies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.154 (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you get any responses to your request for Arab Butt Dancing Videos on the Humanities Desk??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.41.116 (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

With eneough time, can any animal be domesticated?

The housepets we have now were once feral, uncontrollable creatures. Whoever owned the first housecat had his work cut out for him. Is it possible, with eneough generations, to domesticate anything? I'm talking lions, chipmunks, and bombadier beetles! Or do some creatures just not have a trainable nervous system?--GarageShipbuilder (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I believe that the answer is no, some creatures simply cannot be domesticated (by the way, "feral" doesn't mean "wild". A wild animal is an animal that has never been domesticated, a feral animal was once domesticated, but has abandoned their human masters; compare wild horse and feral horse). Consider the fox. For the last half-century, Russian and Soviet scientists have been attempting to domesticate this notoriously un-domesticatable animal. The result is the Tame Silver Fox, which is domesticated to some degree. But consider what they had to do: they had to create a whole new species of fox, just to domesticate it. It would certainly seem to me that it is essentially impossible to tame the familiar red fox. He will never be ruled by human masters. Belisarius (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Add to this that with some animals, their brains are so small that there really isn't a behavior difference between "domesticated" and "wild". You, OP, mentioned bombardier beetles. What would your criteria be to call something like that "domesticated"? Taking them as an example, they'd likely never come when called, not be able to be housebroken (they'd piss in your hand, etc), etc. Sure, you could keep them in an aquarium or some such enclosure but that's hardly domestication. And if you kept them long enough, they may get used to the environment that they're in and not release noxious chemicals. But can that be called domestication? Or just an adjustment to a new environment? Dismas|^(talk) 01:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Guns, Germs and Steel, attempts to domesticate zebras was ineffective. There are just certain animals that can't be domesticated. AnyPerson (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd bet you could domesticate zebras with enough animals, supplies, generations, and patience, but I would choose some other equid first. You would have to select for more calm individuals. Since horses were already available I bet the effort to domesticate zebras was probably not as rigorously pursued. My guess is that people would rather try to breed disease resistance into the horses or simply put up with horse loss due to disease.

As for lions and other large cats, they take a while to reach sexual maturity and will certainly require a lot of resources like food and space to keep a large enough breeding pool to enable choosiness. Of all the large cats, lions seem like the best candidate for domestication since they are social animals which will aid in both space and behavior towards humans. What a domesticated lion would look like would depend on what exactly you wanted to do with it. A domesticated lion meant may wind up looking a lot like a cat the size of a dog because smaller animals are easier to keep and train. (When a housecat gets in a good swipe you use rubbing alcohol and a bandaid; you don't have to go to the emergency room to stitch up several-inch-long gashes.)152.16.15.23 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Enough tough discipline over enough 100 years could probably do the trick for most, but the animal wouldnt really be the same by then. So you could probably skip the hard part and just get a dog instead of trying to make wolfs domesticated. I wonder if it might also have to do with how "smart" and "concious" about reality the animals are, the smarter they are, the harder to change them I would think. — CHANDLER^#10 — 04:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that domestication creates a new species isn't limited to the silver fox. Domesticated house cats and dogs are different from wild cats and dogs. The Egyptians had pet Cheetahs but I'd not call them domesticated. I guess the answer would be what you'd expect of a domesticated animal. If you'd just want them to not try to eat you or kick you, you might have more luck than if you'd expect them to do your bidding. Btw. cat's don't usually come when called. The first owner probably had lots of mice or meat scraps. There are dogs that don't have qualms about biting the hand that feeds them, athough those often get put down. It all comes down to definitions. OR I had a wild cat that experts will tell you can't be domesticated. I could touch her and stay close while she ate, but she'd go berserk when someone would close the door to the outside.--76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would call many lab animals fairly well domesticated because they are well suited to grow and thrive in lab conditions, are easy to manipulate, and display wanted behaviors and characteristics. It is true that many of the species used in lab settings already had these "good features" to start with. The effect is amplified because they are selectively bred for many generations. See laboratory mice, zebra fish, Xenopus, fruit flies, nematode, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. If you are talking about domestication and animal trainability, don't expect to be able to teach your fruit flies to come when you call them. I would bet that if the wild animal shows learning behavior and can be taught to follow a command, a tamed counterpart can probably also do the same and tasks along a similar vein. And don't forget plants when talking about domestication. They don't even have a neural system. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As Anyperson has said, in Guns, Germs and Steel Jared Diamond dealt with this at some length taking the view that some animals just cannot be domesticated, and that "Domesticated animals are all alike; every undomesticable animal is undomesticable in its own way." He makes the point that only 14 big species (including Yak, Mithan, Bali Cattle, Reindeer, Arabian Camel, Bactrian Camel, Llama/Alpaca, Water Buffalo, Donkey) were domesticated before the 20th centuary - out of a possible 148, of which only 5 became widespread around the world (Pig, Cow, Sheep, Goat & Horse). None of these 14 were domesticated later than around 4,500 years ago, which gives an indication that it isn't an easy thing (bear in mind 13 of the 14 were Eurasian in origin so if any animal could be domesticated you'd expect the Africans & Americans to have managed more than just the Llama/Alpaca in all that time). More recently in the 19th & 20th centuries attempts have been made by geneticists & professional breeders, using scientific principles and knowledge, to domesticate the Eland, Elk, Moose, Musk Ox, Zebra and American Bison but have met with little success & not resulted in any animals suited to commercial farming.

Are you sure about American Bison? I don't know much about this subject, but there were some on a farm near where I grew up. They seemed as docile as cows but more delicious.

The reasons why some animals just can't be domesticated are varied are that to be domesticated an animal must have a number of very specific characteristics, that is:

• Diet - They need to have a certain level of efficiency in converting their food to bodymass, so carnivores typically can't be domesticated (Dogs are actually omnivores, Cats may be an exception but its arguable whether they're domesticated anyway) as they'd require too much of other animals to eat. As an example to grow a 1,000 pound cow you'd need 10,000 pounds of corn but to grow a 1,000 pound Lion you'd need 10,000 pounds of cow grown on 100,000 pounds of corn - this wouldn't be sustainable in practice. And animals like Koalas or Pandas couldn't be domesticated as their diet is too specialised so they couldn't make it as farm animals/domesticated pets.
• Growth Rate - Domesticated animals need to grow quickly, Elephants take about 15 years to get to adult size, this wouldn't be practical for domesticated animals (or for the process of domestication).
• Captive Breeding Issues - Some animals just don't like to breed in captivity, like Pandas or Cheetahs. The latter have a somewhat rough wooing as the male chases the female for days to get her in the mood. That makes any captive breeding program almost impossible.
• Dangerous Animal Issues - Some animals are just vicious, unpredictable and tempremantal with nasty dispositions. Animals with a tendency to kill people aren't suitable for domestication, & those who try generally don't get a chance to persevere for long. Diamond uses the example of the Onager, closely related to the ancestor of the donkey and found in much the same area as the Donkey was whe it was domesticated you would expect people to have tried to domesticate it at the same time but it is well known for being vicious and biting folk whenever they can. They've never been domesticated. Zebras are a similar example, they apparently injure more zookeepers a year than Tigers do.
• Panicability - Nervous species which run off as soon as they're paniced aren't easy to keep in captivity, they'll either run away or kill themselves trying to batter the fence down (eg Gazelles). Thus they aren't suitable for domestication.
• Social Structure - Almost all domesticated species' ancestors: lived in herds; had a hierarcical 'pecking order'; and had overlapping territories rather than exclusive territories (tolerate each others presence). This suited them to domestication as they'd live in crowded conditions (in fields); humans could take the place of the head of the hierarchy; & they could be bunched up in the same location. Conversely solitary territorial species (with the exception of Ferrets &, possibly, Cats) won't tolerate each other's presence& don't imprint on or submit to humans. Cats and Ferrets are an exception as while they're territorial & solitary species (or ancestors were) we aimed to keep them as solitary hunters or pets rather than rearing & herding them in groups for food.

I haven't done Diamond's arguments as much justice as I'd like but short of plagerising his whole chapter thats probably inevitable, hope I've given the gist of the reasons why some animals are just undomesticatable. AllanHainey (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I must admit to being rather confused at this point. There seems to be an implied difference between "tame" animals and "domesticated" animals—our article on domestication helpfully supplies (without citation): "The term 'domesticated' refers to an entire species or variety while the term 'tame' can refer to just one individual within a species or variety." So if I have one animal, no matter how well behaved or how ingrained its behavior, then I have a "tame" animal. But if I have a separate variety of animal, with marginally better behavior than the base animal variety, the group of animals is "domesticated"? Then, to further muddle things, we have a quote from the article "domesticated plants that are essentially no different from their wild counterparts" which seems to state that no actual modifications to the "variety" are necessary to apply the term "domesticated".

Ignoring the ill-defined difference between a "tame" population and a "domesticated" population, the first three of Diamond's criteria are obviously resource issues. A lack of practicality does not constitute impossibility. Moving on then, we have criteria that require the animal to not be dangerous when some arguably domesticated animals (war horse, war elephant, some dog breeds, etc.) were chosen specifically for this trait; require the animal to not be panicable when nearly every animal (including those classified as "domesticated") will flee from danger; and require the animal to be social when high-profile "domesticated" contradictions are given outright. Since not a single one of his criteria manages to stand on its own, Diamond has failed to convince me that some animals are undomesticatable.

The way I see it, domestication requires a vast expenditure of time and effort; naturally no one is going to bother without a very good reason. Thus, the "lack" of domesticated animals isn't necessarily because they cannot be domesticated, but because no group of people were willing to invest the time and energy required. With the advent of genetic engineering we can theoretically create new varieties with relative ease. Then we have the argument about what it means to be domesticated: is the dog a domesticated wolf, or is the dog domesticated and the wolf undomesticated? If you choose the latter arrangement then, coupled with the definition of domestication, you've guaranteed that no undomesticated animal can ever be domesticated (because doing so would create a different variety *by definition*). So, if we sidestep that particular pitfall, we're left with the practical limitations of the animal's brain. But, since domestication doesn't appear to place any limits on the degree of changes (wolf->wiener dog, for instance), given sufficient time it should be possible to modify whatever animal we choose to whatever cognitive level is necessary to achieve the unspecified behavior that is required for "domestication". I am thus left to conclude that, given sufficient time and resources, any animal is capable of being domesticated. – 74  00:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Life expectancy and ageing

If humans didn't age once we'd reached adulthood, what would our average life expectancy be? 86.8.176.85 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Infinity? Belisarius (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You've got to take into account murders, illness, that sort of thing, haven't you? It's probably a very complex calculation but could be estimated from the number of people aged, say, 21, who die each year and then extrapolate as if they represented the entire population. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention starvation, as there would be huge amounts of 500-year-olds running around in peak physical condition with like 200 kids each. Not sure the global food supply could handle that. Belisarius (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, what would probably happen is something like in Orwell's 1984: war for the sake of war. Nations compete for food, and those who die lessen the burden. Nations could effectively conscript their entire populations... - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, according to this chart just published on Boing Boing, the amount of people at 20 who will reach age twenty-five is something like 97%-99% (presumably, most of the deaths are accidents, suicides, murders and the like). So, if someone smarter than me wants to do the whole calculation, maybe that'll help you. Belisarius (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

At a very basic level, 99% would result in half the population dead by age 90; 97% by age 44! I guess the latter is off because some of those causes are more likely to kill off 21 year olds than 40 year olds (traffic accidents etc). I'll be back in a sec with hopefully more accurate figures. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that even 99% is too low. these figures would suggest 50% of men would be dead by age (wait for it) 1320 and half of women could hold on until they were 2853! And that includes the increased risk of dying before 21... - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If people didn't age, then some changes would happen in our society that would effect life expectancy:

1) People would realize they could live much longer if they had a healthier lifestyle, so smoking, eating trans-fats, and riding motorcycles would been seen as suicidal behaviors, not just unhealthy, and might be banned. This would tend to raise life expectancy.

2) Overpopulation would cause warfare over resources, which would tend to lower life expectancy. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What does If humans didn't age actually mean? Even if we don't get systemically "older" on a cellular level we will still be exposed to the increasing burden of environmental toxins, carcinogens etc. So you might "stay young" but all the second hand smoke, the UV radiation and other nasty shit that takes a mutagenic toll will continue to do so, year after year, increasing your probability of developing cancer. Cellular aging clearly has an effect on developing cancer and separating that from accumulative environmental effects is difficult. But if you don't die of "old age" related organ failures, then you will die of cancer sooner or later. Currently abour 20% of American's die of a cancer, so you would need to factor that into your calculation. Rockpocket 02:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think things would be a whole lot different. Most people these days don't die of "old age" - it's usually a fatal disease or a car accident or something. The worst problem might be an increase in family sizes due to people remaining fertile for their entire lives. SteveBaker (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have statistics for that? Also, are those fatal diseases ones that would have killed a younger person? --Tango (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Menstural Cycle and Pregnancy

Is it true that you can only get a girl pregnant several days before to several after her ovulation? Does this mean that for the majority of her menstrual cycle, it is very difficult for her to become pregnant? Hustle (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We have several articles dealing with human fertility on Wikipedia. You may find Menstrual_cycle#Fertile_window of interest. However, please note that ovulation times can vary considerably in individual women and from month to month. We cannot give you medical advice, but if you are seeking to avoid an unplanned pregnancy, then we have a detailed article on Birth control. As a doctor friend once said to me, "We have a special term for people who believe they can rely on the timing of sex to avoid conception. We call them 'parents'." Karenjc 17:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Be warned: sperm can survive in the uterus for a long time, so even if she isn't ovulating when you're having sex, it's still very possible to get her pregnant. Timing sexual intercourse is not an effective method of birth control. If you want to have baby-less sex, rubber up, dude. Belisarius (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The method of contraception by timing intercourse not to coincide with ovulation is called Natural family planning. Have you ever wondered why catholic families are so large? It's not a coincidence... --Tango (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We have another article at Calendar-based methods - but it really MUST be emphasised that the technique doesn't work worth a damn. The article points out that even if you follow the method PERFECTLY, you've got a 5% to 10% chance of failure - and with 'typical' use, the chance is 25% of failing...which is better than doing nothing - but not by much. It means you're gonna have a baby - it's just a matter of when. There is a table at Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Comparison_table that bears careful review. Sadly, even condoms have a 2% chance of failure with perfect use and a 10 to 18% failure rate if you don't use them correctly - but have the HUGE advantage of avoiding most STD issues. SteveBaker (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you defining as "failure"? Getting pregnant from one act of intercourse (which I think is only about 14% with no protection at all)? Getting pregnant within one 28 day period during which you have daily intercourse? Or what? --Tango (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the table referenced, failure is "chance of pregnancy during the first year of use". The numbers for "single-act" intercourse would most likely be significantly lower. – 74  03:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been reported[1] that women, especially those in committed relationships, tend to be more interested in sex when they are at the most fertile point of the cycle, which also might hamper the effectiveness of the rhythm method. Interestingly, the study also looked at women's increased desire for handsome men other than their committed partners at the time they were most fertile. This was called the "dual mating strategy:" a good provider, plus a good gene donor on the side. Edison (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Rotaries question.

The above question got me thinking. I've always heard rumors that the rotaries in Massachusetts flow in the opposite direction compared to rotaries in the rest of the country. However, since I've only ever seen them in MA, I've never been sure.

Which way do rotaries go in the rest of the USA? APL (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Here in New Jersey, where they are called "circles" and where we're proud to have our own article on the subject, and where, as the article says, we have no rule whatsoever concerning their proper use, something, at least, being left to the judgement of the individual instead of being prescribed by a committee of cheap suits, whom if you set out to select a group of people with no qualifications whatsoever for the task you could hardly do worse than, it's counter-clockwise looking down from above. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Roundabouts (as we call them in the UK)can normally only operate in one direction and this direction is dependant on which side of the highway (or roads as we call ... etc) the car is driven. In the UK they all circulate in a clockwise direction viewed from above. However if you ever visit Swindon, UK, you can experience the mother of all roundabouts euphemistically called Magic Roundabout (Swindon), in which it is possible to circulate clockwise or anti clockwise, it has been referred to in other terms. Richard Avery (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I've got to make a mental note not to ever drive through Swindon if I'm in the UK. APL (talk)

Wouldn't having a traffic circle in the opposite direction completely defeat the point of one, which is to not go across traffic with left turns (assuming driving on the right)? 67.169.118.40 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. It's only going to rotate one way, so there'd be no traffic to cross. But I can see how it would be counter-intuitive if the drivers had to make a hard left to get onto the circle. The kind of circle where the roads connect on a tangent seems like it would be just as intuitive either way. APL (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

But the entrances and exits of the circle would conflict with left turns. I can't figure out how the tangent thing would work though, anyone up to do a Paint sketch about it(maybe one for the article too)? 67.169.118.40 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In case it's not clear from the above, all traffic circles in the US (and other right-side-rule areas) are primarily entered and exited via right turns, circling counter-clockwise as viewed from above. — Lomn 22:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC) (note: added "primarily" so as to include stuff like the above Magic Roundabout)

Well, not a lot of places in the US have rotaries besides Mass. Don't know why they haven't caught on as much in the rest of the country. All the rotaries that I have been through outside of Mass though, have been the same as those that I've driven/riden through in Mass. Dismas|^(talk) 01:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all. It looks like the rumors I've heard (that seem to be pretty common in MA) are completely false. Now I know. I feel smarter already. APL (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know of three traffic circles here in Virginia. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, could some American improve the rotary article? Perhaps it's just because I'm tired, but I'm still struggling to understand what the difference between a rotary and traffic circle is compared to a roundabout (which is the only thing I'm used to as I expect with people in many commonwealth countries). Edit: Nevermind I understand the traffic circle bit. It's simply the right of way. Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardinal raven

Some time ago, there was a User:Cardinal Raven here. What does it mean? (there is no bird called cardinal raven, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.97.125 (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is a fanciful name like many Wikiusers. If you click on his user page he explains a bit about his name. I too have missed him recently, I used to enjoy his idiosyncratic contributions. Hope you're well CR. Richard Avery (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)