Miscellaneous desk
< August 4	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 6 >

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.

August 5[edit]

Born Under Punches[edit]

</obscurereference>

So, while I was out helping my mother with chores, my younger brother spotted a black car across the street. A bearded man came out and took pictures of our house, according to him. Being a paranoid family, my mother called police, only to find that "taking pictures isn't illegal".

Is this the FBI investigating me for whatever reason? Google Maps? A cat burglar? People at the bank taking pictures? Yeesh. I have crackpot theories, most of which do not make sense...

Any clue on what the person's motive was? Mr. Raptor (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is your house interesting looking? TastyCakes (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except for a stone wall. And we just moved in. My mother's boyfriend says it's Real Estate taking pictures to show comparisons of neighborhoods. Mr. Raptor (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your neighbourhood has other paranoid people. They might be checking out the new guys on the block for suspicious behaviour (are your parents aliens? Perhaps you should check). Steewi (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I told you, I'd have to kill you. Mr. Raptor (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your family's profession may have something to do with this matter. Are "You" CIA, NSA, another one of the "alphabet agencies", some of which are REALLY BLACK? Foreign govt agency, like the British MI-5, MI-6, Israel's Mossad, Russian Secret Police? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.105.133 (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would any of these people have a big obvious beardy man in a big obvious car (black, ffs, just to complete the stereotype) who *gets out* just to make it more obvious still that he's taking a photo? 81.187.153.189 (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the "just moved in line" which leads me to think it's a recent sale, I would say that what you saw was a realtor getting a shot for a comparable listing ("comp") for either a listing or a brokers price opinion. With the forclosure market being what it is I would expect to see more of these over the next few months before they fall off. Leftus (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have your folks not paid their latest mortgage payment? Maybe the bank sent round a nice man to take a pic of the house for the Realtor ad when they foreclose. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a private investigator (albeit probably not a very good one) if you, your mother, your brother or anyone else likely to be at the house has any reason why there might be one looking in to Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I often take photos of residential houses. I work as an artist, and paint pictures of them, using the photos as reference. Grutness...wha? 07:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are all sorts of reasons someone might want to take a picture of a house -- artistic reasons (as Grutness has), reference material for some other completely legitimate work he's about to do, because it has features he wants in his house and he intends to show the picture to a real estate agent so it's clear what he's looking for, because he's just plain nuts, because he knows it'll mess with your heads and enjoys the thought, because he wants to break into the house later, because he's a photographer and just likes the way the house looks, because he lived there as a child and wants something to remember it by, because he's at the wrong address... I mean, it could be anything, and I wouldn't worry about it. And yeah, people are allowed to take pictures in public, at least in most countries. Good thing, too. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the U.S. I found a man taking pictures of my house, a year or more ago. I walked out to talk with him, and he cheerfully said he was taking pictures for "comps" -- as Mr. Raptor's mother's boyfriend suggested above, this would be to show comparable houses, possibly as part of a real estate agent's proposal for someone. "Here are some comparable houses, and here (from public information) is what they sold for)." One way this is used is to help you decide what price to ask for your house when you sell it; another is to decide what price to offer for a house for sale. Note that I have no idea what color the man's car was, nor whether he was in fact taking photos for a real estate agent. But it's not illegal to take photos of a house from a public street. OtherDave (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the photographer reads XKCD [1] and is suspicious of someone called Mr Raptor. (Not serious, in case you didn't notice). Steewi (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A well deserved Compliment , question.[edit]

Why don't you guys donate to Wikipedia? This place is one hell of a website. It has helped me.

How do I and others donate to a environmental cause without being arrested by the Feds, since I've heard that the Feds have started cracking down on environmentalist terrorists and environmentalist supporters, environmentalists? I don't want to end up in "Camp Hell" because I donated to an environmental group. I was told that PETA, ALF, ELF, Earth First!, others of that ilk were terrorists and mentally ill assholes by some friends.65.173.105.133 (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't donate to the ones who participate in ecoterrorism? I haven't heard of the World Wide Fund for Nature or Save the Rhino doing such things, among the many thousands of other sane charities. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Greenpeace. Also while I personally find a lot of what PETA does disgusting, they remain a registered charity in the US (I guess OP is referring to the US since I don't know of any other country where people refer to the Feds in that way) and I doubt you'd be persued by the 'Feds', let alone put in prison unless you directly advocate or support 'eco-terrorists' causes. Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpeace is iffy, as they sometimes do things which are illegal. Although I wouldn't call them a terrorist organization, they seem to have inspired France, of all nations, to engage in terrorism against them in a strange case in New Zealand: Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. StuRat (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarise yourself with French colonial history and nuclear testing in the Pacific before you make any more dopey comments like that StuRat. Mhicaoidh (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the Sierra Club or the Arbor Day Foundation, where you will find tree-huggers who don't make bombs. StuRat (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of believing the so-called Feds, perhaps you should investigate the actions and policies of an organization that seems suitable, and donate or join them if it matches your beliefs. If the Feds say they're terrorists, but you think what they do is right and just, there is always the option of standing up for what you believe in./Coffeeshivers (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake when sending directions via Google Maps[edit]

I make a mistake when using Google Maps. I accidentally click "Send a copy to my email" and it has the address of someone's home. I type my E-mail address without a dot by mistake. I'm concern about privacy. It has someone's home address and it will go to a stranger E-mail address (wrong sender's E-mail address). I don't want the stranger to know the address. This is sensitive personal information that i send to a stranger's E-mail address. What should I do? Should I contact Yahoo! customer support for assistance? Jet (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would actually be in the email? Would it have any details about the person that lives at that address, or about you? If not, what exactly is the problem? The mere existence of a particular address is not sensitive information. Anyone can look at a map, pick a road name, and choose a random number on that road - they then have an address, but without any information about who lives there, who's interested in getting there, etc, what use is that address?

Secondly, does that email address (your own address without a dot) actually exist? If your own address is a common name with a dot in it, I guess there's a fair chance it might, but otherwise? If you're still concerned you could try sending a test email to that address (perhaps mentioning the map sent in error, in case there is someone reading mail at that address) and seeing if it bounces back to you. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And? You do know that said person's home address is in Google Maps, regardless of whether you searched for it or not, right? It's in normal street maps too. And probably the phone book, even. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, emails are delivered immediately. If you typed a valid but wrong email address, you've now revealed (possibly) your own and someone else's street address, so some random person knows you have some undefined relation to someone at the other house. They could in theory use reverse lookups to find out names and phone numbers. So what? Contacting Yahoo customer service will only help if you sent the mail to a Yahoo address, but it's very unlikely they would delete an email from one of their customer maildrops just because you claimed it was you who sent it from Google Maps. Generally, once their server receives it, it's the property of the recipient. And once the addressee gets it (which may have happened within seconds) it's all moot. Lesson: the internet works immediately, check before you click. Franamax (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A throwaway question[edit]

This is sparked by a comment I read in a thread about soccer/football articles. It's really a forum-style question so I won't mind if someone removes it. Anyway, does anyone have ideas? :

Is the current state of Wikipedia more reflective of evolution or of intelligent design? I don't mean the real-life debate, I mean Wikipedia itself. It certainly seems to be an example of emergence. Was it designed to be this complex? Franamax (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't think it's reflective of either in the context those terms are generally understood to mean. If I had to use either term to describe it, it'd be "intelligent design", though; just about nothing on Wikipedia happens without some sort of intelligence being behind it. I'm not sure if emergence applies here either, at least when we're discussing Wikipedia itself. I mean, you might as well say that a skyscraper "emerges" from pretty simple interactions, but it doesn't really count when building the skyscraper was the whole point of the exercise. That said, I guess you could say that Wikipedia's policies and communities are a case of emergence, though; they weren't the project's purpose, but rather the byproduct of people working together, and they've grown to be pretty complex over the years. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some elements of natural selection in the content of Wikipedia—content in articles has to survive certain hazards of the environment if it is to stay in an article. Emergence is definitely spot on, though—there's a lot of that here. In my experience on here there has been a huge correlation of policy-creation in relation to the number of actors taking part in the project as a whole. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to think in metaphors, then just maybe Wikipedia started off with an intelligent design and then evolved from that point on into something bigger and better then the original designer had ever hoped for. Astronaut (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out to be self replicating (a disease might be an better parallel) - As far as I know it hasn't really evolved - so perhaps intelligent design is the answer here (Mr. Wales could probably answer that question for you.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.5.5 (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gif dump[edit]

there was a really good site called gifdump that has completly dissapeared, does anybody know where i can get high quality movie,tv,adult,boobs gifs for free without having to join a site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.50.170 (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highest speed achieved by a human being[edit]

What's the fastest speed reached by a human being using only their body? Acheivements made on steroids count for the purposes of this. Ideally I'd like speed in metres/second but anything else is fine. Thanks in advance! 90.192.223.96 (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footspeed#Limits of speed mentions without a source the highest human footspeed ever recorded as 48 km/h which is the same as 13 1/3 m/s. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you allowing unpowered equipment such as bicycles, skates, skis etc. ? Luge competitors can reach speeds of over 80 mph (35 m/s). Joseph Kittinger achieved 274 m/s using a balloon and a parachute. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "using only their body" rules those out. (What's terminal velocity for a falling human? Let's see...one source says 76 m/s; that's 170mph.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody reaches terminal velocity without falling a considerable distance, which means they'd have to use a plane to get far enough above ground, so it wouldn't count. --Anonymous, 18:41 UTC, August 5, 2008.

So if an Olympic athelete used a bus to get to the venue, it doesn't count? FiggyBee (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm sure that's exactly what Anonymous was saying. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we really want to be sticklers for the question as written, we'd have to disallow shoes, too. So, some of these records may not qualify. Friday (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that steroids are acceptable as part of "their body" but shoes aren't. Presumably we'd have to remove all forms of clothing. Somewhere there must be a link about "the fastest speed achieved by a naked human on steroids". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the highest building / mountain / cliff anyone has climbed up under their own steam (ie, no elevators or cable cars), and jumped off? That could well be your answer. Neıl ☄ 12:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More likely a cliff into water, like Niagara Falls. -LambaJan (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you assume the record holder has to be alive once gaining the record(!) Neıl ☄ 09:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Bombing Damage (burned in shadows?)[edit]

Back when I was first learning about atomic bombs and their effects I seem to remember being told about how the heat was so insanely hot and the flash was SO bright that peoples shadows were burned into buildings. I can seem to find any photos prove this actually happened. anyone know where I should look?

12.155.80.115 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno how reliable this is but it seems pretty good, and says that ""Shadows" were left behind where objects shielded a surface from the heat. Where this happened, the shadow is the original color of the surface, and the area outside the shadow has been turned to a different color by the intense temperatures." 90.192.223.96 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true and well-documented. The Making of the Atomic Bomb has some examples, and you can see an (alleged) example here. --Sean 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're called flash burns. (The "alleged examples" above come from official US government postwar reports on blast damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) Here is a classic example from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (""Shadow" of band valve wheel on paint of a gas holder at Hiroshima. Radiant heat instantly burned paint where the heat rays were not obstructed. 6,300 feet from ground zero (Japanese photo)."). It's not so much that their "shadows were burnt into the wall" but rather that there is a very brief amount of intense radiant heat when the bomb first goes off, and that wave of heat goes out so quickly (and stops so suddenly) that everything in the line of sight is instantly burned, and because the heat stops so quickly (it is just a fraction of a second long), things that weren't in that light of sight aren't burned. So it's a shadow, but it's not like their shadows were a concrete thing that was burned into the wall. It's an outline of whatever it was that was blocking that initial flash burn. More details on this can be found here. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A moment of silence, friends: August 6 is the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug Bombs[edit]

I have a carpenter ant (Eastern) invasion in my bedroom. It seems they are coming from outside but foraging inside. I am going away this weekend. Do you think that if I set off several bug bombs in my room, they would go away? It is sooo gross looking at them! --Anilmanohar (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of bug bombs has the potential to cause a significant explosion. As such, I would think it wise to use them within the proscribed amounts (I would think one max for a single room) and only while you're around to monitor the process. — Lomn 18:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, of course, you could get a professional (pest control / exterminator) in. They might be able to do a better job of finding where they're coming in from, that sort of thing. --Anonymous, 18:44 UTC, August 5, 2008.

With my personal experience with ants in my house, I've found that placing ant baits and similiar measures don't really do the job when the ants are coming in from the outside. Spraying diazinon around the house can be pretty effective for a while, but the ants always seem to come back sooner or later. Professional service is the best option for a job well done.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the use of boric acid/borax based ant poisons to be a safe and effective way of eliminating ants. Usually these are provided as a food substance which the foragers (the ants you see running around) take back to the nest, killing everyone there. If you are dealing with Black carpenter ant, you may have to be judicious in the choice of poison you use. As noted in the article, carpenter ants can eat a variety of different foods, so they may not like the particular type of bait you put out. I'll also note that there is more control information in the Black carpenter ant article, as well as in the External Links in the carpenter ant article. If you are worried about structural damage to the house, calling a professional may be in order. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this will work with carpenter ants, but I devised an effective solution to a problem I once had with ants. Typically ants travel along a scent trail that you can use (by following their paths) to trace them to their entry point. This might not work so well on a carpeted floor, but on a fairly smooth (wooden or tiled) floor, I laid down a thick, broad, semicircular smear of canola oil (but with a small diameter) around the ants' entry point into my apartment. I then covered the smear of canola oil with a generous amount of fresh, very hot ground chili pepper (like cayenne pepper, but from an Indian grocery) so that the oil turned into a thick paste. This created a very effective barrier against the ants. A couple of them dared to try to push across the barrier but seem to have died in the attempt, stuck to the chili oil. After a month or two, the potency wore off and ants began to find their way across the barrier again, but wiping up the old barrier and replacing it with a fresh one kept the ants out. Similarly, ants might find another entry to the apartment, but I could quickly seal that off. It did not take much of my time or energy to maintain the ant barriers, though there were a couple of small, odd-looking, maroon semicircles at the edges of the kitchen. Marco polo (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably go for a combination of Boracic acid bait, liberal sprinklings of pyrethrum (make a barrier of it around the territory you wish to defend), and boiling water on the nest. The Former People's Republic of Brent have some useful information here [2]. DuncanHill (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]