Miscellaneous desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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.

May 7

"How did this get here"

Does anyone know if this is shopped? It's probably already been answered, but I can't find it. http://catmas.com/images/2006/10/newspaper-filler.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyuubiSeal (talk • contribs) 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a university newspaper, so it's not completely implausible (the rest of the comics page is pretty low-rent). But the fact that if you search "Badger Herald how did this get here" (or "Badger Herald cheezburger" or "Badger Herald LOLcats" or "happycat newspaper") that only one image pops up, that makes it seem unlikely to me that it is real. One would assume that with the popularity of LOLcats and etc. that more than one person would have found this amusing enough to photograph or scan. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the question. What does it mean for something to "be shopped"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means "the image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® software", to quote a snippet of Adobe's 'please don't verb our trademarks' page. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That. You young'uns and your high falutin' lingo. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(offtopic) I can understand Adobe's upset with people saying that something has been "photoshopped" because that dilutes and genericizes their trademark (recall what happened to "Jello" here in the USA - or in the UK with "Hoover"). It's gotten to the point where I have to tell people that I "photoshopped" something even though I use the GIMP rather than the actual PhotoShop software to do it! (GIMP is free!) So I greatly prefer the shorthand "shopped" which simultaneously removes the connotation that I did it using PhotoShop and avoids the Adobe trademark dilution problem (which I greatly sympathize about). I like that 'shopped' kinda fits with 'chopped' and has connections with words like "workshop". It's a good verb that's long been needed. SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what kind of journalistic standards the Badger Herald has, but if it is anything like the student newspapers I am familiar with, a Lolcat would not be out of place. It also seems that it is easy to put any old crap in the Badger Herald for a small fee, such as an advertisement for a Holocaust denial group. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the lower left, there's a space that essentially begs people to send in whatever they can by email for the comics page. Apparently they have trouble filling up space, and either someone emailed it in or someone on the newspaper staff thought it was funny. I see no particular reason to assume it isn't genuine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet it's just filler. You see that sort of thing from time to time in university newspapers. In a pro newspaper they would have pulled out some old stock content and filled an empty space, or re-done the layout so that the existing items took up more space. It looks to me like someone here took the lazy way out and just googled for a picture of a kitten, threw a "hilarious" caption on it and was done with it. It's not completely spurious after all. Pictures of kittens with those sorts of captions are very trendy right now, and it is the comics page after all. APL (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a classic lolcat,the cat picture is happycat himself.It's been round for years ,I use it as an icon on some sites.So,yeah,just filler...hotclaws 19:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Call Resolution

Hello! I am very interested in getting information on First Call Resolution as it relates to Call Centers. I am curious what kind of metrics are used to determine this. (We are looking into it at my workplace, and I would like to know what we are getting into.) Any help would be appreciated! :) 69.241.97.178 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply putting "First call resolution metrics" into Google, like this produces a number of promising results. Dismas|^(talk) 02:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked in call centres in customer service and technical support contexts, and in both cases the seemingly obvious definition of "first call resolution" was along the lines of "the caller no longer had the problem when they hung up". Examples of what this meant, in my career, are;

the call centre worker solved the problem,
the call centre worker re-framed the caller's issue so it wasn't actually a problem in the first place,
the problem somehow resolved itself during the call,
the caller hung up before full disclosure of the problem to the call centre worker (or full disclosure of the resolution to the caller).

I always thought some of these seemed a bit crazy, but in reality they were real, contractual agreements between my company and the internal or corporate (in the case of outsourcing) client we were serving. I suspect how you decide in your case will be informed (if not determined) by whoever is considered to be your "customer", internally or otherwise. --Rixxin (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised I forgot my point on metrics themselves. Believe it or not, on both systems I used in the two jobs I've had, there was literally a "FCF" (First Call Fix) ticky-box on the case management system. This was how they tracked it in metrics. In my current job (where I am no longer on the telephone, thankfully) every ticket closed generates a automated feedback email to the caller, and they are polled via their response. --Rixxin (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uses for miniature amounts of heroin?

My local newspaper reported the arrest of a couple who were returning from a city an hour's drive away to purchase heroin — they were arrested after ½ gram of the drug was found in their possession. Would such a small amount really be enough for either of them to get high on it? If not, any idea why individuals might travel such a distance for such a small amount? Our article doesn't appear to discuss what amount is generally necessary for an adult human to become intoxicated. I definitely do not have any plans to use this drug, so please don't interpret this as a question of "how much do I need?". Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This government site states, "Recreationally, daily heroin doses of 5-1500 mg have been reported, with an average daily dose of 300-500 mg", so it looks like they had 100 small or 1-2 average size doses. Heroin#Recreational use says "A first-time user may ingest between 5 and 20 mg of diacetylmorphine [heroin], while an addict may require several hundred mg per day." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC) I fixed your link to the heroin article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC) That was no link, just my clarification of a quote. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, thanks. I ran a search for "gram" and " g ", but I didn't think to run a search for "milligram" or "mg", and I hadn't read the article in depth. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

exlibris early-time-exlibris wants description

I have some exlibris found in old western books, now we want to know the backgroud of this exlibris. so hope anyone who fond of it,can give me some suggestion.thank you ! we got about 200 types of exlibris,we can contact here. btw:i dont know how to post my pics online in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axitel (talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our thorough article about exlibris? There are plenty of suggested links there too.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to learn how to upload your pics, you can best do it on our sister project Wikimedia Commons (which Wikipedia can then use). We already have some examples of Ex libris and more would be very welcome. See : [1]. You can upload your pics at this upload page. [2]. The First Steps tutorial contains a brief explanation of what you need to know in order to contribute to Wikimedia Commons. [3] Do not worry if it looks complicated. Just upload the first one as best as you can and a more experienced editor will probably come along and give you advice on anything you don't understand.--Aspro (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government Whip

Where does the term 'Whip' come from in a political context? Is it simply the image that the whips essentially herd the MPs like a farmer with a sheepdog (or rider with a whip), or is there some other etymology? Prokhorovka (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 'Word Reference Forum' it evolved as shorthand for "whipper-in" – the member of a fox hunting party responsible for keeping the hounds in order (who no doubt used an actual whip). ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 12:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to clear it up, slightly disappointed it is such a literal history, but that's life. Thank you! Prokhorovka (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3d films, seem flat?

I've seen a couple of the more recent 3D films in theatres recently, and though I find the effect much more smooth and convincing than the 3D I've seen in the past, I've noticed that the 3D planes feel as if they are sheets of flat paper layered in a 3D arrangement, not necessarily right on top of each other, but something like the Paper Mario game would be if it used realistic characters. Basically, the objects seem correct in their placement within the 3D world, but many of the objects themselves (people, etc.) seem flat, as opposed to round, concrete, substantial. Has anybody else noticed this? Does anyone have an explanation for why I may be perceiving the films in this way? Could this be something to do with the fact that 3D films don't compensate for the accommodation of the eye? (the fact that objects out of focus do not, actually go out of focus). Thanks in advance! 210.254.117.185 (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some recent films have jumped on the 3D bandwagon by taking film shot in 2D with one lens and "making them 3D." This is a silly gimmick. For computer graphic content, and special effects added by greenscreen, or other postproduction optical trickery, effects or graphics can easily be made to "jump off the screen" but when you look at a face it will still look flat, with no parallax between the nose and ears, say. When true 3D cinematography is done, there are two lenses a slight distance apart which approximate the viewpoints of our two eyes, so that there is different parallax depending on the distance. When Hitchcock made "Dial M for Murder" it was shot in true 3D, and the films were screened with special projectors and polarizing filters on the projection with polarizing lenses for the viewers, providing good 3D effects in color (personal observation). There was usually some visual element in the foreground, like a plant, to make up for the effect that the farther away the actors are, the less parallax effect there was, In some closeups, like a telephone dial, the 3D effect was artificially enhanced. Accommodation (or the muscle effort required in the eye to pull the lens into focus) is indeed one way we sense distance, but that effect washes out at a small distance from the eye, with parallax having an effect much farther away. Edison (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been noted that some people have problems viewing 3D that others don't. This explains some of them.[4] However, we don't give medical advice here.--Aspro (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert has some problems with them as well. (With regard to the OP's question, see especially item 3.) Deor (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ebert's criticisms are a bit weird. And throughout this article he confuses the faux 3d with the real in-camera 3d, even though he clearly knows the difference. He's got some strawmen here (Did Casablanca need 3d? No. It didn't even need color, but that doesn't argue against progress.) He claims it "robs" directors of depth-of-field effects, even though he's clearly seen Avatar where they use those effects quite a bit. He claims that it's caused Ticket prices to go up by five to eight bucks. Around here tickets have been $9 for years and the 3d movies are an extra buck. APL (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only movies I've seen in recent 3D are Avatar and Clash of the Titans. The paper effect was pronounced for me in COTT, and the reason I presumed that I didn't notice it so much with Avatar was because of the visible complexity of each of the scenes; too much　clutter and distractions on screen to notice. I find it hard to believe that COTT was a faux-3D film though... it seemed pretty apparent to me that the objects were true 3D, they simply felt paper-like at times. I don't know for sure though. 219.102.220.188 (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is down to budget/time constraints for the CGI work. I can easily imagine that if each frame had to be rendered twice from slightly different angles within the computer model (once for the left-eye frame and once for the right-eye frame), then it could take twice as long and cost twice as much for each completed effect to be shipped back to the director/editor/production company. It could turn out to be significantly easier and cheaper to copy the same rendered image onto left-eye and right-eye frames with a slight displacement against the background to establish its depth within the image. If the CGI is fast moving, it might be hard to detect the paper-like effect.

I've not seen Clash of the Titans, but the I thought the 3D effect in Avatar was pretty convincing. However, it is worth noting that Clash of the Titans budget was about half of the budget of Avatar. Astronaut (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "Clash of the Titans" is not shot in 3d. The computer trickery they use to take a 2d movie and make it 3d really is a high tech version of cutting people out and placing them at different depths. (Although I'm sure the people at RealD Cinema would argue with that very strongly.)

Personally, I wish they'd stop doing that. The effect is usually pretty horrible, in my opinion. It's just as bad as colorizing a black and white film. APL (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really? Damn!! ... well that explains it then. I was totally tricked! Now I guess I'll have to watch Alice in order to reaffirm my trust in the new 3D technology. Thanks! 210.254.117.185 (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Ebert piece I linked above, Alice in Wonderland is faux 3-D as well. Deor (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I agree with Ebert that 3D movies are a load of horse droppings (paraphrasing slightly ;)). You end up with a dark and fuzzy film with a 3D effect that's almost unnoticeable unless the director sticks things in the camera's face. Stereopsis is a relatively minor part of depth perception, and all the others - motion parallax, perspective, etc - work just as well in a "2D" film as they do in a 3D film. FiggyBee (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be one of the roughly 5% of people in the world who can't see in stereoscopic 3D due to having a squint that went uncorrected during the first months after your birth. If so, you might want to consult a doctor because in recent years they have developed ways of retraining your brain to see properly in 3D - and from the responses I've seen from people for whom it worked, it's a life-changing experience! For me, 3D movies work rather well (albeit with some limitations).

Also, you're wrong about "all of the others" working - there is at least one other effect (the amount of muscle tension that is required to be exerted on the lens of your eye to keep things in focus) that the eye/brain uses to produce 3D - and that approach doesn't work with any of the 3D display techniques except true volumetric displays and hologorams.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the Depth of Field effect only sort-of works in cinema. In real life you can control your own focus to get a feeling of depth. You do this instinctively and automatically. In movies, Depth of Field only enhances your 3d perception if you're looking where the director anticipated that you'd be looking. APL (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Of course, to a director, Depth-of-field is less about depth and more about focusing the user's attention. It works great for that, of course.)APL (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it works great for that. Except in 3D movies, where they can't use it. Steve, I can see stereoscopic 3D just fine, but in the 3D movies I've seen (Avatar and AIWL) the 3D effect was always either unnoticeable or unnecessary. It has been said that the mark of a great director or special effects person is that you don't notice their work, and the 3D fad flies directly in the face of that. FiggyBee (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They use Depth of Field effects in Avatar with no problem. I think that proves that avoiding DoF in 3d movies was caused by directors being over-cautious and not by a technical limitation. (Obviously the 3d effect is weakened in parts of the screen that are out of focus. )

The 3d effect in Avatar was very strong, and made things "pop" even in scenes where people were just standing around talking. I enjoyed being able to make out the shapes of incidental parts of the set that would have been ambiguously flat in a 2d film. (I guess you could argue how much that adds to the story, but I say anything that makes me feel more immersed can only help.) If you really weren't getting that kind of level of information out of the stereo effect, then you're probably one of the one-in-twenty humans that aren't getting full use of their stereo capability. (Just because you still notice 'extreme' in-your-face stereo effects doesn't negate this possibility, so far as I understand.)

(I once had a boss who was in the one-in-twenty group. Too bad we made virtual reality software. Man was it tough to convince him that we needed the more expensive, stereo, VR goggles.) APL (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Bloody Valentine 3D made pretty good use of the 3D, I thought. Shots where we looked down mineshafts, for example, were fantastic. However, there are a few shots at the beginning which would have worked nicely in 2D but, because they forced focus, were extremely uncomfortable to view: I kept trying to focus on things which the camera had not focused on. That is simply an issue of directors not yet being familiar with how to film for 3D properly, which will need slightly different techniques than filming in 2D: I think you'll have to make sure everything onscreen is in focus. And the sooner people stop trying to do spikey-thing-poking-out-of-screen (which never quite works for me), the better. 86.180.48.37 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty barbells

I've recently discovered 2 of my weights sitting outside and getting quite rusty after a couple of months in the rain. I'm wondering if there's a simple, cheap way to stop them from getting rust all over my hands. Simple covering them with paint would do the trick, but if so, what kind of paint should I use? I'm not really concerned with the way they look, so if I could just get the rust to stop coming off, that would be great! Thanks again! 210.254.117.185 (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a paint called Hammerite (and Smoothrite) that can be painted directly on rusty surfaces and requires no primer - it's easily obtainable from DIY stores.83.104.128.107 (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good method but a tad pricey and messy. Why not get some glass paper, emery paper or wire wool and buff the rust off. Once they are back to metal either keep them dry or wipe them over occasionally with a lightly oiled cloth. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't gloves be the cheapest option? But you would probably want to sandpaper it or the rust could get worse... Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want cheap and quick: Coca-cola has phosphoric acid in it and will remove the rust. --Aspro (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soaking in molasses is said to remove rust also. 78.146.27.220 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandpaper off what rust you can, then cover the hand grips with tennis grip tape. It's about $2 or so and available at most sporting goods places. They'll be better than new. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, don't know why I didn't think of some of those myself! Thanks! I'll probably do a combination of all of the above lol. 219.102.220.188 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soaking it overnight in coke didn't do anything :( 210.254.117.185 (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not enough Phosphoric acid in Coke to do much, but it's marketed specifically as a rust remover under the name Naval Jelly (random commercial link -- no endorsement of site implied). Smear goop on, wait, wash goop (and rust) off -- simple as pie. After you've cleaned the rust off, a durable paint (Rustoleum comes to mind for probably obvious reasons) will prevent it coming back, and the tennis tape will keep your hands from taking the paint off. Note on the Naval Jelly: don't leave it on longer than the instructions say; I forgot about a Boy Scout knife I'd used it on for a week, and it sucked the temper right out of what would otherwise have been a perfectly decent blade. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sweat

Is zer any mechanism than can prevent a sweat that pores through our face in time of pressure or in crowd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.103.1 (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Anti persperant? Plus are you german? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Eritrean. IP location features are on the bottom of the User Contributions pages. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume German just because of "zer" :P Rimush (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is to be assumed by the use of "zer"? I would guess something, after all, it is not common English. Saddhiyama (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. Some Germans (and others) have trouble pronouncing the English -th- so they resort to -z- sounds; but typically they're aware it's spelt -th-, not -z-. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrean is to be assumed, apparently :P Rimush (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition [5] Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, antiperspirant, but if you use it as a spray -do NOT breath it in and keep your eyes and mouth closed.--Aspro (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to sound like medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Medical advice would be about what to do if you do happen to breathe it in or get it in your eyes. What Aspro said, unnecessary as it may have been, was no more than what might appear as a safety warning on a container of anti-perspirant, and that's not medical advice but sensible precautions that, if followed, would obviate the need for medical advice ever being required. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual "hedgehog" spherical device seen in Theobalds Road, London

The device was positioned on a utility pole on the pavement. It was a pale-grey ball with many very long rods radiating in all directions from the surface. On the ball itself were several small round things which might have been lenses. It was connected to an electrical wire of some kind. It did not look like a work of art, but some surveillance device. There were at least two of them. Does anyone know what they are please? The long rods might have been to prevent people from covering the lenses, if thats what they were. 78.146.27.220 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They remind me more of spiny sea urchins. Err... Doing a bit of Lateral thinking I've had an idea. One is directly outside a sandwich bar. They must know why the have a grey urchin climbing up their lamp post. Give them a ring and ask them. City Snacks. Remember to post back here with the answer. --Aspro (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of them can be seen in Google Street View for the WC1X 8SP postcode, looking south-west. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=WC1X%208SP&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl Isnt it charming that the government thinks we are all criminals or lunatics who need to be watched all the time, if that's what the devices do. 78.146.27.220 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not help your case if your refer to mentally ill people in this disparaging and ignorant way. What evidence do you have for mentally ill people being more dangerous than the general population? Do try and control your knee jerks. Incidentally, the evidence of a CCTV camera was crucial in the speedy apprehension of the man who attempted to explode a bomb in Times Square, New York. It is also pertinent to note that because the camera was not being observed 'live' the operators did not notice his activity at the time. Richard Avery (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, what I meant to imply was that Britain has become like a giant prison or 19th. century-style lunatic asylum, where the warders are constantly watching us. 89.241.144.51 (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the common term Lunatic is to be deprecated there is nothing wrong in noting that some mentally ill patients need close observation that is typically done via CCTV in a hospital. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a CCTV camera. I've got one outside my house. The long rods are anti-vandal devices. BTW I didn't put the camera outside my house: the local authority did. I had to ring them to ask them to turn the lenses away from my bedroom windows! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that protest mobs don't rip these things down, as with the poll tax. 89.241.144.51 (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV is being sold to the british public as a means to catch criminals in the act, provide evidence in court, help secure convictions and thereby reduce crime. Back this up with CCTV images appearing regularly on news items and shows such as Street Law and Night Cops, and some people insisting on calling the cameras "safety cameras". Then there's the often repeated mantra that "if you are a law abiding citizen then you have nothing to fear". It is easy to see why there is little widespread objection to the idea of the cameras (unless they are placed to see directly into your house). Astronaut (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those police surveillance shows always remind me of the very similar scene in the dystopian film Farenheit 451. It would be interesting to compare the predictions of dystopian science-fiction from the past with the reality of 2010. 92.24.17.70 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've read it remarked before (definitely it's something that occurs to me) that people in much of continential Europe find it strange British people are so strongly opposed to ID cards yet don't seem to care about such widescale usage of CCTV cameras (ID cards being used in a number of European countries of course). The UK also has a number of things which others may find odd no one seems to care about like compulsory disclosure of encryption keys if ordered by the police. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British bigotry laws

What particular act makes going out into the street and saying stuff like "homosexuality is disgusting and an abomination" and "muslims are retards" etc an offence?

what was the reasoning behind this particular act? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.252.172 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it's the common law offence of breach of the peace, but depending on the circumstances there may be statutory offences against Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Public Order Act 1986, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, to name but a few. FiggyBee (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was enacted, at least in part, to protect idiots from themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the general intent of such legislation is to balance the right of individuals to free speech (in general) with the right of individuals to freedom from assault, and the state's wider responsibility to maintain public order. It's closely related to ideas like incitement, and I think the general intention is not to restrict free speech overall, but to deny a platform to people who wish to disrupt public order. It's debatable whether these acts have had the desired effect, or whether they restrict free speech in such a way as to inhibit free protest and fair comment - but that's not the overt intent. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The anti-harassment element of these laws has also been used to prevent protesters from confronting company executives (in public) with questions about their professional conduct. [6] goes into some detail about the ways in which UK legislation has been used for apparently originally unintended ends. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Home Secretary has authority to block from entering the UK individuals such as Fred Phelps for allegedly having "engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think saying things like that is an offence. You are allow to state your opinions like that, it is inciting hatred and violence that is illegal. --Tango (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't say it to (or within earshot of) someone to whom it causes harassment, alarm or distress it's not a crime, no. FiggyBee (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images

Hello, I am Ziad Al Itani, Email: <e-mail redacted> I want to Know if I can export some images from my own to the Islamic art gallery? And how?

thank you Ziad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.65.169 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your e-mail address; we respond to all questions here on the Reference Desk. There is an "Upload File" link to the left that you can click. Note that by uploading, you'll have to decide to release your photos under a free license allowing anyone in the world to use the photo for any purpose, without paying you. If this is OK with you, go for it! Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the direct link WP:UPLOAD. Though you need to be registered at Wikipedia. If you "own" the picture, it would be helpful if you upload it to commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload). --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]