Miscellaneous desk
< April 15	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 17 >

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.

April 16

Infinite Regress?

The back cover of I Am America (And So Can You!) has a picture of Stephen Colbert holding a copy of the book. What is on the back of that book? Inter change able 00:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a riff on the fireplace mantle portait he has on his show, which is updated every few years. Here he is standing in front of it: [1] You get the idea. Just a reference to this little funny thing from his show. --Jayron32 00:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Post web site

I clicked on a news story at Google News just now and when I arrived at jpost.com. No big deal, I knew I was going there. But it was my first visit to this site and I was rather surprised at how busy and helter skelter the page layout is. To me, it's very cluttered. Is this site always laid out that way? Does anyone frequent it enough to be able to say with any authority? (Yes, I guess I'm looking for some WP:OR here) It just seems quite the opposite of the cleaner "everything under drop down menus of various departments" look that I'm used to. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at it too, and it does look kinda amateurish. Sad, for a website that seems to want to be taken seriously appears to have a webdesign team which has no clue how to do so... --Jayron32 04:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds familiar. Hot Stop 05:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than how bad it looks, it bothers me how slowly it loads, what with all the pop-up ads, banners, etc. It looks like a kid trying to impress his teacher by using every possible web design element on a single page. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's long been that way, as I recall. I'd visit it more often if it were easier on my computer and connection. Ha'aretz is closer to my personal views, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see others. Israeli newspapers in English have likely never been big money-makers, so I guess The Jerusalem Post feels the need to take on as many ads and promotions (including self-promotions) as it can. Ha'aretz has a Hebrew edition with no doubt a larger circulation, while I don't think The Jerusalem Post (The Palestine Post during the Mandate, and a fairly liberal paper until bought around 1990 by Conrad Black) does. Any corrections or clarifications welcome. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never quite understood self-promotion by the media, on their own outlet. Surely they would be more likely to retain an audience if instead of ads for themselves, they used that space to provide content. StuRat (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Local Hero' location in Google Street View

Because I'm a fan of the film Local Hero, I looked up the film's main location, the village of Pennan, in Google Street View. Those who know the film will know that there is a red London phone box there. I found the phone box in street view [2] but there are a couple of odd things about the photo. First, there is a white pick-up truck parked next to the phone box, but it is partly obscured due to the photo being weirdly distorted. Secondly, the actual word 'Telephone' on the phone box seems to have been (deliberately?) blurred out. Does anyone know why the distortion has occurred, and why is the word 'Telephone' on the phone box blurred? --Viennese Waltz 10:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both are artifacts of the way Google Street View generates its images - keep in mind that Street View is available for many locations, there must be millions of photos used to create the Street view images and there is no way anyone is manually checking all these photos - all processing of raw photos is done by software, which, while generally quite impressive, has a number of problems. Street View photos are taken with a panoramic lens, then the software tries to do all sorts of clever things like stitching together several images, projecting images onto a 3D model of the environment, etc. This works quite well in general but it causes the occasional weird distortion effect. The distortion at the lower end is very common in street view images, it's also noticeable on all the houses in the street. The parts that are distorted are practically directly below the Street View car as it drives around and takes photos, and apparently there's nothing the processing software can do to fix such heavy distortion.

The blurring of the word "telephone" happens because the software tries to automatically blur personally identifying information (faces and license plates) - this also generally works to an impressive degree, but occasionally the software will blur out something it shouldn't. In this case, the software apparently thought the "telephone" sign was a license plate. -- Ferkelparade π 11:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer, thanks. --Viennese Waltz 11:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the conclusion I reached by moving along the roadway. All the license plates are blurred out. And if you go one "step" to the left in the frame you linked, turn back, you'll see that one of the "telephone" markers is now readable, while the other one (which looks a bit more like a license plate might look) is still blurred out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be a little pedantic they are not London telephone boxes but Red telephone boxes. Richard Avery (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The box in question is a K6 Telephone Kiosk, designed by Giles Gilbert Scott in 1935. The 'Telephone' sign is white with black writing, and approximately 640mm x 107mm. In the UK, car front number plates are white with black writing, and 520mm x 111mm. The software obviously automatically blanks out number plates by looking for anything white with black writing around 500-700mm x 100-150mm (or so), hence its confusion here. There is a reporting tool to notify Google of errors in Maps and StreetView, although you might consider it to be a waste of time in this case. But at least we know how it works now! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, our Pennan article says: "The phone box was in fact originally put there only as a prop for the film, and then removed, but as a result of public demand a genuine telephone box was installed a few metres from the original spot, and has been a listed building since 1989." Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cat sneeze reflex?

I've had about five cats, but I've never seen anything like this. My current cat rarely sneezes, however, if he lays on his back with his paws up in the air, and I stroke him lightly either on his cheek, jowl, or under his chin, after about five seconds of this he will sneeze. Any ideas what causes this? Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly he's got the hang of what fascinates you. Damn smart these cats. Richard Avery (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen cats get so into petting that they drool. If, in this position, the saliva then drips onto the back of his throat from his mouth, this could make him sneeze (as a way of clearing the airway). StuRat (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No photography signs and the lack of other signs

This has bothered me for a very long time now, but why are there some places that have "No Photography" signs, but do not have any other signs? As in, there are no "No Smoking" signs, no "No Food and Drinks signs" or "No Pets Allowed" signs? For example, in my country, there is a construction supplies distributor called Wilcon. In their home depots, on their doors they have a "No Photography" sign (ironically, below a notice that says "Area monitored by surveillance cameras"), but no other prohibition signs, not even a "No Foods", "No Pets" or "No Smoking" sign, which are common in other shopping establishments. Why do these places care so much about prohibiting photography while not even placing a sign that says No Smoking? Photography doesn't kill, but smoking does. Photography doesn't litter the place, but foods, drinks or pets do. I know it is usually for security reasons, but why don't they place a "No Firearms" sign if it's a security thing? I don't get the point if photography is prohibited for security reasons if any form of weapons are not explicitly prohibited as well. And please, don't mention any places which ban photography, only say why sometimes they only place a "No Photography" and do not place a "No Smoking" signs or other similar signs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they don't want people to shop in the store then buy on Amazon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'No Photography' signs will be there to give them the option to bring sanctions against you (like removing you from the store) if you break the rules, and to remove the defence 'there wasn't/I didn't see a sign'. Any other behaviours would presumably be permitted (such as not wearing evening dress), culturally expected (like not spitting, or taking all your clothes off), or prohibited by law (smoking indoors). There is no need for them to display a sign prohibiting something you wouldn't do anyway. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why wouldn't they have "No Pets" or "No Food and Drinks" signs? Besides, I'm not aware of anyone who would walk into a furniture store only to take pictures of the furniture. What's the point of putting a "No Photography" sign if they probably won't do it anyway? Besides, even in some other places which prohibit photography they also have a "No Smoking" sign. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a sign that they regularly cheat their customers and don't want any reporters doing exposés in their store. If they have it posted, then they can justify ejecting the reporters, not due to having something to hide, but just because they violated the rules. They then typically say the reporters should submit a request for an interview through the proper channels (which they plan to ignore completely). StuRat (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Really? Seriously? Royor (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banning photography is completely separate from banning smoking. Why would the two be connected? And as to why they don't have a "no firearms" sign, maybe they support the right to bear arms or fear a negative campaign from the NRA (or are operating in states where concealed carry is illegal). Your best chance of obtaining information would be to ask the company which is prohibiting photography. If you tell them why you need/want to take photographs, they may be reasonable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion, including opinions from people purporting to be lawyers. Essentially, stores have nothing to gain from unauthorized people taking photographs and lots to lose. As for why there aren't "no smoking" signs, smoking is already illegal in public spaces, including retail stores, in many jurisdictions. Marco polo (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typical reasons for displaying "No Photography" signs are (off the top of my former-photographer's head):

to prevent the annoyance of frequent flashes to other patrons – common in places like stately homes but probably not applicable in the instances the OP mentions;
to protect flashes causing delicate colours in artworks, fabrics etc from bleaching – again not likely applicable here because frequency is unlikely;
to prevent unlicensed photographs of copyrighted/protected performances and artworks, or of artworks that the venue profits from by selling its own postcards, etc – possible in some of the OP's examples;
to prevent rivals from easily recording and copying proprietory or non-proprietory items, designs, layouts, display ideas etc – quite likely in some of the OP's examples;
to protect the privacy (and conceivably safety in these stalkerish and terrorist-ridden times) of the venue's staff and patrons – very likely.

In the UK, for example (and I think the US has similar rules), one has the theoretical right to photograph anything or anyone visible (with various exceptions) while standing in a public place provided the results are not used to an individual's detriment, but generally not in any privately-owned place, which includes business premises and many open-air apparently public spaces into which the public is permitted but does not have an absolute right to enter. I Am Not A Lawyer, so do not take this for definitive legal advice, but our article Photography and the law may be of interest. The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.163 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few years back, someone captured a shot of a Burger King employee bathing in the kitchen sink or something like that. BK's solution to this PR problem was to post "No Photographs" signs at their restaurants. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of them trying to prevent exposés. It definitely gives the appearance that they are more interested in covering up problems than preventing them. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What everyday objects are reasonably bulletproof?

So one of the chief myths that films have about guns is that when the protaganist hides behind a table or a car they are suddenly safe, despite the fact that even a pistol can easily shoot through such things with ease (and even some walls so I gather). My question is, in the extremely (I cannot stress this enough how unlikely this is) unlikely situation that I encounter a hostile gunman and am in a position to find 'cover' what is it worth me hiding behind? Or should I just treat everything I'm likely to encounter as not being there in this situation, and just try and survive by other methods? 130.88.172.34 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a brick (solid, not veneer) or cinder-block wall provides a fair amount of protection (a house without brick walls may still have a brick fireplace) and a solid wood door offers some. Also consider that they aren't likely to hit you if they can't see you, so even a flimsy door offers protection in that way. As for a car, hiding behind a car door won't help much, but you should be safe behind the engine block. A ceramic on steel bathtub should offer some protection, but not a plastic one. If you know ahead of time that somebody is going to shoot up your house, the basement would seem to be the safest spot. Of course, if you don't know until the firing starts, then you might want to take cover wherever is closest, like the tub. If caught outside, a large tree offers good protection, as does a ditch or hill, since the bullets won't go through many feet of dirt. A light pole or telephone wire/electrical wire pole may offer some protection, but they usually aren't big enough to hide behind. Support poles for large signs sometimes are. Hiding behind an above-ground pool would work, as would a full tank of fuel oil (contrary to the movies, they do not explode into a fireball when shot up). Hiding underwater would work, but, without gear, you can only stay down for a minute or so. Might be enough time to survive a drive-by shooting, though. StuRat (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to MythBusters, the following could be bulletproof:

Under 3 ~ 8 feet of water depending on bullet velocity

If you are lucky, behind 3 pizza boxes in a warming bag/Bathroom tiles covered in a fiber-reinforced gypsum cement

Royor (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, do not get a pan and wear it all the time. :P Mr little irish —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ned Kelly would disagree. Royor, you missed the Mythbuster episode on telphone book armored car and the mulberry paper armor. What is bulletproof will vary depending on what you are facing. Air marshall bullets are less penetrating than hollow point which are less than full metal jacket which is less than armor piercing rounds. Black powder weapons less than handgun, less than long guns, less than specialty machine guns and sniper-type weapons, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It depends on the thickness and brittleness of the material and the force of the bullet striking that material. While plasterboard / MDF is dry and brittle and likely to explode from a heavy force striking it, a maple or oak table that is 2 inches thick will probably stop an average handgun shot (not a magnum, shotgun or high calibre rifle obviously). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you Rmhermen, but the OP did ask for "everyday objects". PS: Yes it very much depend on what you are facing, which is why I used the weasel word "could" Royor (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The British Army Field Service Manual gave these figures for the penetration of a .303 British rifle bullet:-

Bullet Steel plate, best......................7/16"
Steel plate, ordinary mild, or wrought iron....3/4"
Shingle.................................................6"
Coal, hard..............................................6"
Brickwork, cement mortar.........................9"
Brickwork, lime mortar..........................14"
Chalk...............................................15"
Sand, between boards or in sandbags........18"
Sand, loose........................................30"
Hard wood, e.g. oak.............................38"
Earth, free from stones (unrammed)...........40"
Soft wood, e.g. fir.............................58"
Clay...................................................60"
Dry turf or peat................................80" [3] Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But note that the standard .303 bullet is a full metal jacket rifle bullet. It's much more penetrating than anything reasonably fired from a handgun. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The penetration values stated are surprising, if the claim is that one bullet of that type will consistently penetrate a typical 9 inch thick brick wall, or 40 inches of dirt, 60 inches of clay or 38 inches of oak. Soldiers in combat have generally used lesser thicknesses of dirt or other materials as protection from rifle fire. What army felt it necessary to put a wall of sandbag over 40 inches thick in front of their positions to guard against rifle fire? It would have been possible to fire down at a slight angle at trenches or foxholes and penetrate the several feet of dirt or clay and kill the soldier sheltering low in the trench. This article tested various bullets and none penetrated more than 6 inches of sand (they did not test the .303)Edison (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the tabulated values aren't the thicknesses that a single bullet will penetrate (consistently or otherwise), but rather guidelines for the construction or evaluation of fieldworks that are expected to see lots of such bullets. If someone has a copy of the Field Service Manual, we could see what the chart actually is intended to represent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know little about science and even less about firearms, but I'd guess that two factors that haven't been mentioned so far would additionally be crucial:

the range at which the target was struck. I suppose bullets reach terminal velocity, but then begin to lose their fight against the friction of the air. If it's begun to slow down, (or hasn't yet reached terminal velocity - but I'd guess that happens pretty instantaneously) it will penetrate less.
the angle at which the target was struck. Maybe a .303 bullet will penetrate oak to 38" of depth when fired at the perpendicular, but if it hit an oak surface at an angle of 30° or more, I'd reckon on it barely denting the surface before it ricochets.

OK, ignorance on the table, scientists and gun experts, please demolish my thoughts! --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC) PS Did Mythbusters look at the "bible in the pocket saved my life"? And do we have an article about that meme?[reply]

They have indeed tested the myth before (though they used a regular book rather than a bible). A thick book stops a small caliber bullet, but not a .357 magnum. Smurrayinchester 10:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal velocity doesn't apply because the bullet isn't undergoing constant acceleration. All the acceleration happens in an instant at the beginning. The bullet will be going much faster than its terminal velocity would be if it were just dropped from a height, but that isn't relevant. --Tango (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... so from the moment the bullet is fired, it's slowing down? If so, it makes my point 1 all the more pertinent. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By what means would you expect a bullet to gain velocity after it leaves the gun's barrel? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By means of my ignorance ;-) I thought it might accelerate from its stationary start rather than instantly reach top speed. I never was any good at physics --Dweller (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it isn't quite instantaneous - it accelerates all the way down the barrel - I was being a little lazy when I said "instant". Once it has left the gun, though, there is no force acting on it that could accelerate it and, by Newton's first law, if there is no force there can be no acceleration. (There is gravity pulling it down and air resistance slowing it down, of course.) --Tango (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My own O.R: a 22 long rifle bullet easily penetrates full thickness 1 inch seasoned lumber. It will penetrate about 1.5 inches into the end of a pine timber. Edison (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you refer to finished softwood lumber. But I'd be very impressed if you can penetrate 1 inch of seasoned Ironwood, southern live oak, or even plain old German/English/European oak. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're able to further the OR (safely!) but if you are, is there a distance from which the bullet no longer penetrates? What if the wood is at an angle? --Dweller (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would all depend on the angle. Naively, it would seem that the force applied to the wood would steadily drop from 100% at 90 degrees to 0% at an angle of 0 degrees, but there actually seems to be a certain critical angle, below which it will ricochet off the wood, only leaving a dent/divot. How the bullet hits WRT the grain direction also matters. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, the table quoted actually says: Sand, between boards or in sandbags: 18". The US Army Engineers Field Manual 1909 says: "The thickness of ordinary earth required to resist penetration at ordinary battle ranges is 3 ft. (ie 36 inches) for rifle fire..." (p.358) Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen versus canned veggie prices

I've noticed recently that canned vegetables have gotten more expensive, relative to frozen. That is, while the same vegetable, in frozen form, used to cost around twice as much per ounce, the cost is now about the same, at least here in Detroit. Specifically, it seems to me that the price of canned veggies has gone up, while frozen veggies have stayed the same. I have therefore moved my long-term veggie purchases from canned to frozen, since it's easier to get quality, salt-free veggies in frozen form (with fresh preferred over both, of course). So:

1) Can anyone verify this ?

2) What caused this ? A surplus of frozen veggies ? A shortage of canned veggies ? A price war between frozen veggie makers ? Increased price of can metals ? New technology for freezing veggies less expensively ? StuRat (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the price of metals has risen sharply in recent years, as have transport costs. Canned vegetables are heavier (and therefore more expensive to transport) than frozen vegetables, partly because of the metal in the can but also because the cans tend to contain more water than bags of frozen vegetables. Of course, there is an added cost for refrigerated transport, but maybe the weight savings is greater than the cost of refrigeration. Another thought is that there may be a space issue. It may be possible to get more vegetables into a given truck in frozen form than in canned form because bags can pack more tightly than cylindrical cans. This would distribute the overhead associated with each truck over more units. Meanwhile, abundant supplies of cheap natural gas (as an energy source) may have held the initial cost of refrigeration down. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to 1) Yes, I've noticed the same tendency in the UK. I commented on it only last week. Dbfirs 18:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suppose that's good, in that frozen veggies tend to be healthier, but bad in that they could all be ruined in a power failure. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Victim of Prejudice

Is this novel available for download anywhere online? I don't mind if it isn't free. 149.169.108.238 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Play, US$12.95: [4]. StuRat (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]