Miscellaneous desk
< July 4	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 5[edit]

Sending Mass Photos over Internet[edit]

I have 105 photos (250mb in total) that i want to send to someone over the Internet without sacrificing image quality. I am using a PC and he is using a Mac. What is the best way to do so? What about vice-versa? Would WinRAR be a good choice? Would the compression and decompression of .rar files result in loss in image quality of the photos? Can Macs run it? Acceptable (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The compression used in WinRAR must be lossless data compression and will not reduce the quality of your files. If WinRAR caused file degradation, a binary program compressed with WinRAR would never work again! A Mac can open WinRAR (.rar) files using UnRarX, which is available from [1] unrarx.com. Sending such large files over e-mail is not very polite and sometimes impossible, so consider using a file hosting service such as Megaupload. Freedomlinux (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use The Unarchiver on OS X. It can handle many formats and is very good. Computerjoe 's talk 12:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say what format your camera saved the photos in. They are probably .jpg files. WinRAR will not change the files' image quality, but also will not be able to compress the files (WinRAR will report 0% or 1% compression). You didn't ask this, but one way to transfer large files is to use a service like DropSend instead of e-mail. Tempshill (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But WinRAR will "merge" all the photos into one file to allow upload onto sites such as Megaupload right? Acceptable (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just create a TrueCrypt volume and transfer it via DropSend. Another option (if security is not so important) would be to use Picasa and Picasa Web Albums. Just make sure when you upload the photos, you select "upload at full size". I believe the default is to reduce them to 1600x1200. Your friend will need a (free) Picasa Web Albums account as well, and then can download the entire album. When you create the album, you can specify whether it is to be open to the general public, or only to certain people that you specify. The advantage of doing it this way is that you can look at the photos individually without downloading the whole thing. --Mathew5000 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saving the files in '.png' format would guarantee no loss of quality - and compress them to pretty much the best you're going to get without some degree of quality loss. Most applications (including web browsers) know how to work with PNG files directly - so you'll never need to uncompress/recompress them again. Much easier then messing around with compression tools. However, if your files are already in a lossy format (JPEG most likely) - then they are already lossily compressed and quality has been irretrivably lost. There is no point in uncompressing them - and certainly no benefit to be gained from trying to compress them anymore or in any other way. SteveBaker (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a number of programs can further compress many JPEGs losslessly [2] [3]. JPEG is rather old and is not really that efficient a lossy compression algorithm. There are ways to be more efficient with JPEG, but most implementations are I believe fairly generic and not that great. (I'm lazy to find them but in the past I've looked in to various programs, some specialised ones are able to produced JPEGs which most people appear to perceive as of similar quality for a smaller size.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fast[edit]

If you watch films or tv shows at a faster speed, ie the play speed, do you get accustomed to it after a while? Does it start to sound normal? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have never tried this, it does sound daft to me. What is the point of watching a movie at double the speed it was made at? Watching a film is (in most cases) about being able to relax and get your mind off your work or anything else. I know that DVD players offering this kind of feature also compensate for pitch (meaning that the characters don't sound squeaky when speaking at double the speed). If you'd watch films like that exclusively it would probably start to feel more normal to you, and after a while you'd have the feeling that movies played at a normal speed feel slow and stretched out. Hope this helps. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do this all the time, especially for documentaries. I use software called PowerDVD, that came bundled with my computer; it will play DVDs at either 150% or 200% of normal speed while processing the sound so the pitch is normal even though the speed is faster. In documentaries where there are a lot of talking-head interviews, people usually are talking slow enough that you can still easily absorb the information when you speed them up. And yes, you do get used to it quickly. Of course if there's an interviewee who happens to speak quickly naturally, or the information is particularly complex, you can slow it down to normal speed. Certain narrative films such as The Day of the Locust also benefit from being sped up, in my opinion. Another use for this feature is if I've seen a movie and I want to listen to the director's commentary track, it's great being able to do it in half the time. --Mathew5000 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, done often on TV -- usually by eliminating gaps in the sound track and speeding the film up proportionately -- you can tell when you see a film where no one seems to take a second before speaking <g>. Collect (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Express rail franchises in the UK[edit]

National Express have just walked away from their biggest (of three) British rail franchises, after the government refused to negotiate more favourable terms. Transport minister Lord Adonis is now threatening to strip the company of its other, still profitable, franchises. NX says that would be illegal, and threatens to fight it out in court. Assuming NX is right (with the law as it stands), why couldn't the government pass special legislation to change it? Btw, this is not my homework or an attempt to get free legal advice (I have no connection to NX), but if it's still against the rules then I apologise in advance! 86.166.70.64 (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they could, but there are two things that might influence the government not to do it. The first is that we are at the end of the Parliamentary term: the recess begins on 21 July, and it is highly unlikely that legislation would make it through all its stages by then. The other is that they may wish to have the additional safeguard of case law, which would set a precedent for future instances. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, changing legislation to change the terms (or the interpretation of the terms) of a contract with the state would set a bad precedent. People would be very wary about signing contracts with the state in future. --Tango (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The government position is that there is an explicit clause in the NX contract which says, pretty much (but in legalese), "if you screw up another franchise then we have the right to relieve you of this one". The court will decide whether there is such a clause, and whether a default by NX on the ECML triggers the clause. Meanwhile Tango has it: a state which unilaterally changes the law to disadvantage a part of a market for no good reason, is not one which people will gladly do business. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe the NX position is that all the franchises are technically with different companies and NX is just an innocent shell company. Whether the law will fall for such a ruse, I don't know... --Tango (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you suggest would involve an ex post facto law. These are strictly frowned upon, and I think the government would be very wary of using them lightly. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spectral Plane[edit]

What is a sprectral plane? Someone joked 'sprectral plane to rob' instead of 'earth to rob'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.215.180 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People talk of 'planes of existance'. They are fictional concepts - maybe talking of heaven and hell - maybe talking of other concepts like parallel universes. The 'spectral plane' would be one where 'spectres' live...spectres are ghosts. So (being very clear that this is an entirely fictional concept) the 'spectral plane' is where ghosts live. SteveBaker (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would call it a "fictional concept" (although by some definitions it is). It's a "religious concept". Fictional concepts aren't usually claimed to be true. --Tango (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Plane (esoterism) explains what "plane" means in this context. "Spectre" is another name for a ghost. I'm not entirely sure what "spectral plane" means but I would guess it means "plane of ghosts". It may be a bit like "astral plane".--Tango (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ If the joke was oral, rather than written, then maybe it was "spectral plain", perhaps alluding faintly to the often-quoted last lines of Matthew Arnold's poem "Dover Beach"

And we are here as on a darkling plain,
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,

While ignorant armies clash by night.

[Purely by way of an irrelevant aside, the last line gave Norman Mailer the title for his 1968 book, The Armies of the Night.] But if instead it was a reference to astral planes, then this is a complete red herring. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "spectral plane" is fairly obvious. Far less obvious, to this cultural ignoramus, is what is meant by "earth to rob". Unless you're talking about when someone "spaces out", and if their name is Rob, then "earth to Rob" makes sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that the original context intended to discuss the polarization plane? "Spectral plane" is not quite proper terminology, but if the wave is monochromatic, or if the polariztion is particular to a single spectral element, this might be a case of abuse of notation. It wouldn't be an isolated case, either: more than 1000 publications use that exact phrase. Nimur (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a job for Wonder Woman! Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edible Cherry[edit]

Is there a way to distinguish an edible variety of cherry from a non-edible variety without just eating one to see? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I eat sweet cherries as well as pie cherries. What are "inedible cherries?" Edison (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky...the main distinguishing feature of "non-edible" varieties is that they are very sour. Sourness is a measure of acidity - so perhaps you could distinguish them by testing the juice with some pH paper or indicator? I think you'd need to do some experiments to figure out whether this actually works before you rely upon it. SteveBaker (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even sour cherries could probably be sweetened and make a decent jam. They wouldn't be poisonous, as far as I know. However, in general edible fruits grow on limited varieties of trees. As in, you'd know if you have one in your yard. Decorative fruit trees, like crabapples and Bradford pear have fruit which is usually not edible. What exact variety of cherry tree are you inquiring about? If you know the variety, you could easily look it up... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crabapples are apples and are edible. Crabapple pickle, crabapple jam - and an important ingredient in many blends of cider. Rmhermen (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can make anything into a jam. I wouldn't want to just eat the fruit straight off of my japanese crabapple tree in my yard. They're about the size of blueberries and hard as rocks. I tried one once, they had no flavor. There are some varieties of crabapples which are more akin to heirloom tomatos in the sense that they are edible, but just not of a standard "breed" of apple. But back to the OP, if she gave us something more to go on, like which type of cherry tree she were asking about, we could answer her better. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to a page for "non-edible" or "inedible" cherries? Just like Edison I don't know what you mean. Sour cherries tend to be firmer than sweet ones. They are edible, though.71.236.26.74 (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly but Sour cherry, Wild Cherry, or Cherry might fit the bill. See also Acerola. Sifaka ^talk 07:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're all quite edible.71.236.26.74 (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has the original poster Googled this question? There must be information, in depth, about anything food-related that you can think of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you a bit more to go on, the backstory is that I was talking to a friend yesterday. We both have cherry trees in our gardens but neither of us planted them, nor dare we eat one in case the cherries are inedible and make us sick. We were wondering if there's a way to tell just from the tree, fruit and blossom. BTW we are both UK. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this google search which shows some promising hits. here's another one. There are online tree identification guides which could help. Also, if you post some pics here at Wikipedia, there are some botanists who patrol the science desk who have an AMAZING skill at identifying plants pretty well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late response but have you tried asking a local gardeners group?

You could always take a picture of the tree and post it (under a free licence) asking for identification over on the Science Desk(as suggested above there are people there that can identify stuff, even give full scientific names :) ), of course a picture of the blossom , leaves and any fruit helps :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the weather in the past[edit]

Is there a website where one can go to, and ask for the weather in a particular place in a particular date in the past? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking days, months, years ago? It might help. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and where in the world? E.g. here would be a start (by month, back to 1959 in a limited range of places) for the UK. But it depends. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, throughout the world. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine, and I can't find, a centralised repository. Anything close to the UK and and the Met Office can be asked, at least. I'm no expert but I think you'll have to do it case-by-case. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good place to start. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(double ec) Weather Underground's day-by-day historical data for some cities goes back to 1945—less far for other cities. Deor (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks, guys. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WolframAlpha does a pretty good job for these kinds of things. - Akamad (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ For what it's worth, I recall that a particularly severe recent winter in England was announced as being the coldest (or second-coldest) since records began in 1659! That would be under the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell's son Richard, during England's brief flirtation with being a republic (and before the restored King Charles II sponsored the Royal Society). So there are at least some records that go back 350 years, although I don't know if or how you could find them on the Web. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or how accurate a thermometer from 350 years ago would have been. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to defend the thermometer of the mid-1600s after reading this. Thermometer#Early history is good reading. Tempshill (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read that? It explicitly said there was no standard temperature scale back then, so comparisons to modern thermometers would not be possible.