Miscellaneous desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 7

Unclimbable wall

I met a climbing enthusiast at a party recently who claimed there is a wall that has never been successfully climbed. The amazing thing is that the wall is supposedly only 12 feet high. Does such a wall exist, and if so, where is it? Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to define what technique is being used. If you mean free climbing, then yes, a 12 foot tall wall without any crevices, hand-holds, or foot-holds would be unclimbable. However, if you can drill holes and install petons (did I spell that wrong ?) or crampons, or maybe use suction cups, or a grappling hook to something on the other side, then you could climb any 12 foot tall wall. StuRat (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant pitons. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did spell it wrong. In that case, let me add a redirect, in case others make the same mistake. StuRat (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hmmm ... NBA players can dunk into a basket 10 feet off the ground, so it's not unreasonable to think that they could grab the top of a 12 foot wall with their long arms and pull themselves up (as long as they're not Twiggy-like Shawn Bradley). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about a wall that is designed not to be climbed it could have razor wire or broken glass on top. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Shōji would also be a challenge. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth wall? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen people break the 4th wall, but to my knowledge they did not actually climb it. Of course that wall being metaphorical could have something to do with it. Googlemeister (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What can be dangerous is when someone in the audience breaks into the fourth wall. The Renaissance Pleasure Faire in California used to run a regular skit where a convicted poacher was about to be hanged only to be saved by a general pardon issued by the visiting Queen. The skit had to be drastically altered when some drunken patrons in Southern California who'd overlooked the line between fantasy (or film) and reality (see willing suspension of disbelief) tried to intervene and pull up the halter around the poacher's neck. ["If you prick me, do I not bleed?"] It was a bit like the semi-apocryphal tales of cowboy patrons at Old West music halls using real six-guns to stop a play's villain from abducting or molesting the heroine, except this came much too close to happening to actors I knew in a skit I'd been acting in (although in Northern Calfornia). ¶ In a less ominous form, this is apparently an issue in both directions in Children's Theatre, where the actors often break the fourth wall and an audience that hasn't yet fully grasped such distinctions as suspension of disbelief or reality vs make-believe becomes utterly absorbed in the action. Actors don't want to be physically attacked by such an audience or give any of its members months of nightmares. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, getting back to climbing... Crampons are only used for snow and ice climbing. Pitons (or "pegs" to most climbers) can only be used in existing cracks. They can be used in conjunction with an etrier or tape ladder for really unclimbable sections. This is really a big wall technique. However, 12 foot is firmly in the sub-sport of bouldering in which no technical gear is used, except maybe a crash mat. Good boulderers love problems that consist of tiny cracks and edges and little rough patches that are known as rugosities that allow a climber to get the smallest of purchases. The world centre of bouldering is Fontainebleau; The Roaches is a top spot in the UK. I would think that climbers would only talk about an unclimbable wall if there was some prospect of it being climbed but nobody has done it yet. The hardest graded bouldering climb at present is the The Wheel of Life in Australia; however climbs are named and graded AFTER they have been successfully climbed. If you Google "unclimbed bouldering problems" you'll see that there are an awful lot of these. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 12 foot wall couldn't be climbed if it emitted a thought control message that it was unclimbable. Most of us would just shrug our shoulders and give up without even trying, therefore it would be unclimbable. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cation is ded for the claim that "we" (who?) are susceptible to thought control. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I draw your attention to the Inaccessible Pinnacle which was successfully climbed in 1880 - obviously not enough thought control ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to get in touch with that acquaintance from the party? Methinks it's a trick question or riddle of some kind. (The ref desk obviously needs a new desk for "riddles".) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should ask Don Quixote: To reach the unreachable star, To climb the unclimbable wall, .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found The Impossible-Project in the Santa Monica Mountains, which I believe is not a million miles from Agastordoff's locale. "Tentative Rating of V13" so not really impossible but hasn't been cracked yet. Could be the culprit? Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Berlin Wall is 12 feet high...but lots of people climbed that. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wailing Wall although Sarah Palin put her hand on it in 2011. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang Zemin's health

I read about rumours that former General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, Jiang Zemin, maybe ill/dead. This has been denied by the Chinese government, but what puzzles me is the subsequent censorship. What does the government/party have to gain by censoring all mention of him or words such as "江" = "river"? Astronaut (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The purpose of power is power" -- George Orwell, 1984. Sometimes censorship is done just to maintain control of information without any specific concern about what it might communicate. i kan reed (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about some sort of automatic Internet filtering that targets that name? If so, it might be a clumsy attempt to stop gossip and conspiracy theories from finding a place online. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The death of a previous General Secretary was one of the triggers for unrest, and given that there is expected to be a broad change in the party and state leadership in the next 18 months, it is most likely that the Chinese authorities are nervous.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts?

do ghost exists??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.252.70.18 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the subject of much conjecture, scientific speculation, and traditional beliefs. Although there is no universally accepted answer to this question, the articles Ghost, Ghost hunting, and Anomalistics may interest you. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By method of understanding

Science No. There have been no scientifically verified stories of ghosts, nor any scientifically tested mechanism proposed. All valid science points to no.
Religion Depends:
- Protestant Chistrianity: Maybe, some denomonations have dogma that includes ghosts or ghost-like creatures.
- Roman Catholocism: No. The only official use of the word ghost in Catholic beliefs is the use of "Holy Ghost" as a synonym for The Holy Spirit
- Islam: I don't know, can't say for sure
- Judaism: Not typically considered an extant supernatural phenomenon
- Hinduism: Includes several specific kinds of ghosts.
- Other relgions vary
Philosophy: Generally no, but some cartesian dualists might hold that such a thing is possible.

Personally, I buy into the scientific approach which suggests there's no valid evidence for anything that matches ghosts as they are popularly understood. Seems absurd to me to consider. i kan reed (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Islam various kinds of Jinn (genie) have a ghostlike existence. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer depends to some extent on just what is meant by a "ghost". There are plenty of "haunted house" stories out there that seem to have a degree of credibility. But when someone experiences something like that, are they literally encountering the spirit of a dead human? Or is there "something" about the house that has somehow "trapped" some human trauma, and that that's what a visitor is sensing rather than an actual human? Or is it nothing more than the power of suggestion, i.e. if you expect a house to be haunted, you're going to look for "signs"; that cold chill you get in a certain room might be nothing more than a flaw in the ventilation system. But don't totally rule it out. Instead, approach it with an open mind and see if it holds water. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, adjust your TV aerial. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The normal answer is "no, there's no such thing as ghosts." Here on the Reference Desk, though, we embrace science, so the correct answer has to be "almost certainly not; nobody has ever shown any proper evidence that there is such a thing as a ghost." Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fund transfer to the US via Paypal

Hi there, due to my relative's request I want to make some money transfer into the US via Paypal from Singapore with an amount around 10k. So my inquiry is that is there any one here trying to do the same thing and getting the fund transferred successfully? As for what I have read from its site, money transferring into the US will be free from service fee if it's transferred from bank accounts; if this is the case how can they make money from the service?

In addition to that i also wonder if there are legal obligations that i have to follow when making fund transfer into the US.

Thank in advance.Torment273 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

$10,000 is a reportable amount. See Bank Secrecy Act or U.S. Customs and Border Protection Declaration Form 6059B if you bring it in personally. Rmhermen (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hire an american CPA. There are all sorts of potential legal pitfalls in doing this, and an accountant can do it quickly and cleanly. It sounds expensive but it's your best bet for a large sum like that. Also, they can help protect you from potential scams. Get a professional, not advice from the Internet. i kan reed (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is email SPAM worth the trouble?

Why do we still have SPAM? I am particularly referring to those e-mail messages like "Fr33 Ro$edex" or "Grow ur p3ni$ lrgr" that I get in my filter (and sometimes my inbox). Do women get the same "penis extending" SPAM? I mean, I understand 20 years ago how this might have duped some folks; but these days, everyone's pretty much "in the know" about these type of messages. And even if not, it is really worth all the trouble to dupe the 1 out of a million persons who responds to these messages...and what are they responding with that's worth so much trouble? Credit cards? Passwords? What's the point? Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 19:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no published data about this. My speculation, though, fo many years, has been that spam is most profitable for those selling spamming services. The spammer rarely breaks even. PhGustaf (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "selling spamming services?" (As opposed to the "Spammers." Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 19:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam is essentially free (especially compared to other methods of advertising) especially when the spamming is done using kidnapped computers and things like that. A big reason for viruses to exist is to infect computers and turn them into unwitting spam senders. --Jayron32 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the point? To take over your computer? To what end? What are they trying to get that's worth anything? Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 19:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buy off-market erection pills and pay for porn subscriptions. Even if it is literally one-in-a-million return, its still worth it because its FREE. If I told you that I could set up a service for you that didn't cost you a penny, and one out of every one million people to get pinged by the service would send you 100 dollars, what would you say? Zero cost to you, free money comes out. Why not? --Jayron32 20:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that claim is impossible because Pinging only sends an ICMP echo request that is imperceptible to the million peoples' e-mail clients and cannot tell any of them that you want $100 nor how to pay it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say "everyone's pretty much in the know about these type of messages". Maybe in your cohort, but definitely not everyone. There are still older folk just now being "forced" by society to use electronic communication as the older tools disappear, and younger folk encountering it for the first time as they grow up. I work with people in both categories. Plenty of new suckers. Maybe one every minute. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam sent to a gazillion e-mails is basically the "carpet bombing" approach to marketing. Pretty much like those mass-mailings of coupons and such that you find in your physical mailbox. They don't need to sell something to everyone, nor even to a large percentage, but only to enough recipients that the spammers/mass-mailers reach or exceed their sales goals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I find strange is that most of the spam I get is not even addressed to me! I would have expected Hotmail etc to have not delivered it. I've heard it said that they are not allowed to look at the displayed delivery address for privacy reasons, but I'd be willing to let them do this so that the spam stopped. 2.101.9.166 (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The To: and Cc: fields are not actually used to deliver the email. Instead it is the RCPT: (recipient) header in the SMTP layer that controls delivery; this allows BCC to work; the SMTP headers are stripped from the email on delivery and are not shown even if you select "show headers".

It is possible to filter on your email address not being on the To: and Cc: headers, and the sender being not known as a Bcc:'er, assuming your email provider allows complex filtering rules. CS Miller (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Hotmail would simply offer a tick-box (check-box I think in American english) option to do this. 2.101.8.57 (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been years since I used Hotmail and I'm disappointed they apparently haven't fixed the spam issue yet. I've been on G-mail basically since back when it was invitation-only and have never gotten spam in my inbox (nor have I ever found anything legit in my spam-box). At the risk of spamming a thread about spamming (!), you may want to give g-mail a try if you find your current levels of spam unbearable. Matt Deres (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This report from 2008 estimated one spam botnet could have made $2million a year. Nanonic (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This news story from a couple of weeks ago says that spam currently comprises 72.9% of e-mail, which is apparently the lowest level that it has been at since November 2008. I've said it before and will say it again: The solution is for everyone to adopt E-Mail 2.0, where you have to pay 1 cent to send an e-mail. If you don't want to spend 1 cent, then you can go ahead and send it via E-Mail 1.0, and see if the recipient is bothering to read it anymore. Spam will drop to next-to-nothing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]