Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 March 25

= March 25 =

Very, very, very simple English.
I had cause today to dig out some pages from our sister site at the Simplified English Wikipedia (http://simple.wikipedia.org). I'm struck by what seems to be an excessive use of the word 'very'. Take, for example, the introduction to: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper - which is one of their "Very Good Articles"...


 * "A sniper is a person who has been given special training with sniper rifles, a special type of gun. Snipers are able to shoot at targets which are very far away, or are very small, and hit them accurately when looking through a sniper scope. They are also especially trained to be stealthy. Snipers are hard for the enemy to see when they are hidden or using camouflage.


 * Experienced hunters often share many of the skills that snipers need to know. The two jobs are very similar. The word "sniper" came from hunting "snipe" - birds that were very hard to see and shoot."

I thought at first that it was just this article - but it seems widespread throughout simple-English Wikipedia - and in any case, this is was a front-page featured article! So it should be amongst the best they have to offer. If you had that much redundancy in a regular-English WP:FAC - you'd get ripped to shreds by the reviewers!

Is this some kind of deliberate part of simplified English? I fail to see what it achieves since deleting the word "very" seldom makes any difference whatever to the meaning of a sentence - and one of the stated goals of Simple English is to have shorter sentences.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * They want to only use words which everyone knows, which is sure to lead to some repetition, but they could just omit the word, as you suggest, in many cases. There's also another reason to be repetitive, when talking to children, as it helps them to learn those words.  I'm not sure if that applies here, though, as I picture the Simplified English Wikipedia aiming at a slightly higher level of English proficiency than this.  BTW, I'm curious, why post this here instead of over there ? StuRat (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then there's Mark Twain's advice (paraphrased): "Whenever you're tempted to use the word 'very', substitute the word 'damn' instead, as in 'damn big', 'damn small', and 'damn pretty'. In the end, your editor will take all those obscenities out, and all will be as it should have been all along.". StuRat (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark Twain had the option of using a better word. (But, I'm not disagreeing that there are too many 'very's in that intro. The last two don't seem to contribute anything.) APL (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Their writing guide suggests starting with the Basic English list of 850 words. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would argue the first two uses of very are necessary, the third less and fourth less so. I think one of the problems is the text aims to be simple and therefore there is a need to compensate for the simple words which may not convey your meaning very well and words like very which give emphasis help, but this may have also resulted in an overcompensation. To use an example if you were writing the above in the normal wikipedia you might write "are tiny or at a great distance" and no one would suggest you change it to "are far away, or are small" Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "very" is an integral part of the spoken (colloquial) English; however, in scientific writing, the word "very" is to be avoided. Indeed, it provides no additional information. Statements "Target is located far away" and "target is located very far away" convey the same information exactly. "Target is located 800 m away" would be much better. The beginning of the "accuracy" section in the http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper article is excellent: "Most soldiers get training so that they can shoot a target that is 200 metres (656 ft) to 300 metres (984 ft) away and hit it half of the time.[3] Very well trained soldiers, such as the U.S. Marine Corps, can hit a target that is 400 metres (1,312 ft) to 500 metres (1,640 ft) away half of the time.[9] But a sniper is trained to be able to hit a target over 800 metres (2,625 ft) away almost every single time.[10][11]" - that is a proper writing style for conveying factual information (except for "but" which should have been replaced by "however", and "almost every single time" by "in most trials"). Also, "metre" is UK English; US English is "meter". --Dr Dima (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between "almost every" and "most" (but the word "single" is redundant). --Tango (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How big? --Dr Dima (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Most" means "more than 50%", "almost every" is a little less precise, but I'd say 90% is an absolute minimum, 95% or even 99% is more likely. --Tango (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At least 25 differenciters. Just because you cannot translate the concepts of connotation, context, approximation, emphasis, etc. into scientific values doesn't mean that they do not exist. Numbers are good in their place, but a paper containing only numbers isn't a paper, scientific or otherwise (we call that "data" instead). –  7 4   00:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And 'time' is better than 'trial' for simple.wikipedia, I think. Algebraist 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or "try" (or "time they try" is probably better English). --Tango (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A very large number of scholarly sources disagree with your statement that "very" should be avoided in scientific writing. –  7 4   00:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple English is more like Simple English for 5 year olds. Instead of being clear, it is condescending. It is an entirely awful endeavor as far as I can tell. It is one thing to encourage straightforward writing that uses only basic grammar and diction, it is something else to write as if everyone has suffered a recent concussion. They also seem to eschew the basic Wiki principle of letting people drill down for more information. Don't know what a "rifle" is? Let them click it! Telling them it is a "special kind of gun" conveys almost no additional information. --140.247.240.69 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I'm not a particularly strong French speaker, and I certainly wouldn't recognise the word fusil. On the other hand, I do understand Un fusil est un type particulier d'arme, which helps my understanding considerably. I do agree though that specifics are essential, not least because 200m 'translates' well for Western language speakers. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider myself quite advanced in English (I could have gone off with terms like prolific, adept, verbose, have a high vocabulary, astute, well-read, well-spoken, etc etc -- but suffice it to say usually my reading skills are better than my writing -- and I imagine my skills aren't that competitive here where many people have degrees in English), and my English skills are probably in the top 5 percentile of my peers again, notwithstanding Wikipedia. I have an above-average IQ and I am a software developer by profession. And Yet I begin sentences with And, I still occasionally refer to simple.wikipedia.org - in part because some Wikipedia articles are too complex, don't explain things properly, or simply require too much prior knowledge to digest - especially mathematics and physics articles. Granted, the Simple wikipedia lacks many articles that we have here, yet it remains an invaluable a very important enyclopedia. Go ahead and nitpick my post for English errors, I don't care anymore... Rfwoolf (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be a hyphen in 'nit-pick'? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Pedants' Picnic. Seems you added "And" to the start of the sentence as an afterthought, or to make a point, because you forgot to decapitalise "Yet".  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

NTSC DVD playable in European movie theatre?
I'm organising a screening of short-films at a small local theatre for my student association. They have the capacity to display movies that are played from a DVD. The location is Netherlands, Europe but one of the DVDs is coming from the USA and is in NTSC format. Is it likely that the proffesional equipment of a movie theatre can deal with this sort of thing? Would they need to flip a switch or would it work automatically? Seans Potato Business 17:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's likely but not certain. I suggest you really need to direct this enquiry at them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only do you have to worry about NTSC v. PAL, but also the DVD region code. You should ask the theatre; they might provide the DVD model so you could look up the specifications. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Most newer DVD players can handle different formats. Some machines require you to change a setting or switch. DVD region code bypassing is also now common and legal in most sensible countries. To be sure, you should just try it on the machine beforehand. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

DWI Insurance increase.
My friend recently got pulled over in my car. She was driving I was the passenger and we were both drunk. She got arrested for DWI and my car got towed. My question is in the State of Minnesota is my insurance going to go up? Or hers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.154.193 (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both, probably. I can't speak for how things work in Minnesota, but insurers generally frown on this type of stuff. Tomdobb (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've shown you have poor judgement in deciding who to allow to drive your car. That will probably increase your premiums. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, if this was the UK, to my knowledge there would be no impact on cost of your policy. The offence attaches to the driver (her) not the car or to you. If the police are not taking you to court, I'm not sure I see where the impact on insurance would be. But maybe it's different in the US? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Tagishsimon is wrong. Here in the UK the passenger can be fined and get penalty points on their license for "aiding, abetting, or permitting" the driver to drive under the influence.  UK insurance companies then look at those penalty points when deciding what premium to charge you.  Astronaut (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. The car was towed by the police, not damaged in an accident, so there is nothing connecting the offence to the car. I was thinking about someone crashing your car while they were drunk, which isn't what the OP is talking about. Sorry! --Tango (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your insurance company will have no idea your car was impounded, and even if they did they wouldn't know why. Your friend's premium will go up if the insurer obtains her driving record at the next renewal. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with 161. Unless you were cited for an open intoxicant or a similar violation, your presence in the car actually has no bearing on the situation.  Your friend is the driver and she is solely responsible for the operation of the vehicle.  Your judgment in allowing her to drive the car is irrelevant.  (And candidly, that judgment was probably as best it could be under the circumstances, in that YOU didn't drive).  Note:  I am a licensed agent in Wisconsin and my current job handles insurance in 43 states throughout the country.  My employer would never surcharge your policy in the absence of a violation or an accident in which you were not the operator.  This is one area in which industry underwriting guidelines are fairly standard (i.e. underwriting action follows the driver, not the vehicle).  Even if your friend had crashed the car, for MOST companies, your rates would not be affected, as you were not the operator.Brewfangrb (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The judgement was best as it could be? The best judgement would have been to call a cab and leave the car behind or a dial a driver (or someone else who wasn't intoxicated) to drive you home. Letting your friend drive drunk with your car is extremely irresposible and extremely selfish (not just for your friend but for the other innocent people who could have been killed by your friend). Getting in to the car with a drunk driver is just plain stupid. And being drunk is not an excuse. If you are unable to make the right decisions when intoxicated to such a level, then I suggest you don't allow yourself to get intoxicated to such a level. I question whether even letting your friend drive instead of you is a smart decision. The only advantage is your less likely to get in trouble with the law and you'll have less on your conscience if the car crashes and kills someone. The disadvantage is perhaps the fine or whatever you would have got is enough to make you wake up and discourage you from doing something so stupid again (which is selfish since you're depriving your friend of that but still) Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nil. Just looking for an answer to the question not a lecture on the situation. We know it was stupid obviously.

Help Please
How do you put pictures on your user page? <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look here and see if it helps. Richard Avery (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Be careful about this, however (copied from WP:UP):

~EdGl  &#9733;  00:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And do remember that Wikipedia isn't like MySpace or FaceBook: playing around with your userpage is fine, but try not to make that sort of thing all you do! There's lots of stuff to be written, formatted and improved in the encyclopedia, which is fun too.
 * Oh, and consider this the obligatory "careful what personal stuff you put online" warning. Basically, particularly at your age, don't put any personal pictures or details up. I'm sure you knew that, but the gods of the internet make me say it :P 79.66.127.79 (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not Facebook. I just saw some people had pictures on their pages and I was wondering how they did it, was all. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're very responsible, it's more that someone had to give the generic messages and I volunteered myself! Enjoy playing around; setting up things on your userpage is good practice for setting up things in the encyclopedia. 79.66.127.79 (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are stores still selling Pentiums?
Why are tech stores such as BestBuy still selling Intel Pentium machines? Were those not superseeded by Intel's Core line of processors years ago? Acceptable (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pentium D only finished production last August. As there is now a replacement chip for all its market niches (either a Core2 or a Xeon) I'd expect anyone left with a stock of Pentium D systems will be selling them off at a discount to clear. Dog Day Today (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not everyone is interested in getting the latest most expensive machines. Why make something obsolete if people still want to buy it? Companies like Microsoft do things wrong. Rush Windows Vista, find out it's flawed then release a new operating system. I'll be waiting until they've perfected it (and until there is an affordable machine to run it on) - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It reminds me of how Walmart kept selling vcr cassettes until a few years ago (maybe they still do?), despite it seeming like the DVD had killed the medium. I guess the question is whether the Pentium machines you saw are still being made by Intel or if they're clearing out old stock.  I think a lot of people still hold a lot of faith in the pentium brand, perhaps they are not sure they want to kill it off just yet, especially if they can churn out the chips at low prices.  TastyCakes (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pentium Dual Cores are alive and well, and actually great performers for the price. They are only Pentiums in brand, not in architecture (they're based off of Core 2). Intel has probably stopped making Pentium Ds a while ago, since it's probably cheaper to make newer, faster chips with smaller manufacturing processes. 24.6.46.177 (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Pentium brand name is now used in the place the Celeron brand name was. As mentioned above they are modern chips based off the Core micro architecture.204.16.236.254 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Manga
Has anyone ever heard of a manga series called "He Is My Master"? <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't. But we have an article on it He Is My Master --JGGardiner (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How can a lonesome fella like me find a BOYFRIEND-FREE Girl?
Try going 2 places and just talking 2 girls. REMEMBER the most confident and disinterested looking girl may also be the lonelyest and just coming off/seeming that way. ^_- ( I should know this stuff I am a girl, talking from the heart)

I needed to attract a BOYFRIEND-FREE Girl, by any means necessary, with limited resources. I was afraid to even say Hi to any girl, so I made a simple sign that stated, "I am a (my age then)-Year Old, Single Male, seeking an 18-(my age then)-Year Old, Single Female Companion." I had the sign placed next to me, with an arrow pointing at me, and of course, I stood, or sat, next to the sign. Not only was I not able to attract any girls, but some Bullies (Men and Old Woman) did not approve my method of attraction. Also, I feel that they perceived me as a sweet, weak person, which I was then, but I am much, much saltier now.--Pie merchant (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Try a dating agency. Or a Personal advertisement in a newspaper. --Tango (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dating agency? Newspaper? Contemporize, man! Here in the future we use online dating services and classified sites like Craigslist. Tomdobb (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends what you intend to do with her. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  00:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sign up for a class in flower arrangement, macramé, embroidery, or some other pursuit favored by people of the female persuasion. Alternatively, ask your barber to make you look like Johnny Depp. Better, get yourself to look like Johnny Depp and then take a class in flower arrangement or whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never really understood why he's thought to be really good looking by women, or at least supposedly is.--Pie merchant (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Go to lots of parties and talk to lots of people?? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Go to funerals for young men. I find that the young woman who cries the most is usually available. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Get a life. I've found that it's great to just become an interesting person with a fun hobby. I like photography and travel, I hitch-hike d, and to top it off I shaved my head, and that was a great combination. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's true, you don't really need to be handsome. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, right. You need to be confident while talking to girls. Remember that girls are also looking for guys all the time and girls like confident guys. Get a hobby like some musical instrument, dancing, swimming (Swimming Pool can be a great place to start casual chat, sometimes better than bars and parties, but it would be helpful to check out your shape first). Take part in activities involving both sexes. Talk to lots of people (including guys). According to my experience, girls prefer guys with better social outreach, in terms of friends and contacts etc, but this is nothing strict. Go to parties or clubs. Being handsome although is a bonus, but it is not the only deciding factor. At the end, be sensible, interesting person and act smart (not over the top, be natural). I would recommend to try out the girls whom you see in your real life rather than trying out the social networking sites or online dating sites. It is better in terms of getting experience and having fun (and it works). You might get one or two rejections but not always. Eventually you will get a girl too. Good Luck. - DSachan (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth adding that these "boyfriend-UNFREE" girls don'y stay that way for life - they eventually break up, or find someone better. You need to therefore be around these people so that a) you can steal them away from their boyfriends, and b) when the boyfriend gets stolen away by a girl you'll be there to take his now single ex-girlfriend. Bottom line is, to get a girlfriend, you need to be around people. Rfwoolf (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to check out Rebound (dating) before following that advice too closely! (There are also moral issues involved with trying to break up relationships...) --Tango (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Get off the internet. awesome70.54.192.144 (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Logic problem

 * May be on the wrong desk.


 * I have a precious thing which I want to send to Toby. I have the perfect box for the job. It is the only lockable box I have. To fasten it, there is a big strong locking ring to which I can attach padlocks. I have a padlock that fits it perfectly. Toby does not have a key to my padlock. I have only one key and am not prepared to send it to Toby or to get it copied. How can I securely get the thing to Toby using my box and padlock? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Put the thing in the box, then padlock it. Keeping the key post the box to toby. Toby buys a padlock of his own, attached that padlock too. Keeping his key, he posts the box back to you. You unlock your padlock and remove it, leaving Toby's (and so the box is still secure). Then you post the box back to Toby again, and on receipt he unlocks his padlock and retrieves the thing. Dog Day Today (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the essence of the Three-pass protocol. Algebraist 23:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Would not the Three-pass protocol article protocol benefit from the excellent lay-person's explanation above? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably. It's currently sitting at Public-key cryptography for some reason. Algebraist 23:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This relies on the ring being able to accommodate multiple locks concurrently; such a scheme allows order independent addition and removal of locks, as in the above case (a logical AND function); if you can chain one padlock with another that builds an order independent OR function. If you can have boxes within boxes (where inner boxes can't be touched unless the outer one is unlocked) than you get order dependent operation. Combining these allows you to do all kinds of fun things, wherein the arrangement of locks and boxes (and to whom you give which keys) lets you control the grouping and order of people that can do things: you can make people cooperate, do operations in order, or agree (or veto) things. Dog Day Today (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it. Now all the postman can do is steal the box and smash it open. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is the risk of a man in the middle attack, whereby the postman never gives the box to Toby, but returns it to you with the postman's lock on it. You really need a "secure side channel"- e.g. Toby confirms by phone when he receives the box the first time, and if you receive the box back and Toby hasn't received it, then that can't be Toby's lock. Dog Day Today (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as you have that secure channel, you can discourage the postman. Buy 20 (airtight) boxes, 20 locks and keys, and 19 fragile vials of flesh eating bacteria. Number each box, and put the precious thing in one box and the bacteria in all the others. On each write a note to the effect that there is a 95% chance that this box contains flesh eating bacteria. Then do the above 3-part exchange with Toby as before.  When he receives the boxes the 2nd time, you tell him which is safe (over the secure channel) and he can open it safely. The dishonest postman has to guess, and he has a 95% chance of guessing wrong and being flesh-eaten. Dog Day Today (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it. Where do I get the vials? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  00:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From Google, naturally. A nice feature of the methods Dog Day Today outlines is that the 'secure side channel' doesn't actually have to be secure against the postman listening in, just against him tampering with the messages (i.e. sending a fake message from Toby saying he's received the box, or a fake message to Toby to make him open the wrong box and get bacteriaed). Algebraist 00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The three pass approach seems unnecessarily complicated. Why can't the guy simply ship his padlock to you (in an open state) - you lock it onto the box and ship box and padlock back to your friend who has the key and unlocks it.  Your padlock is superfluous - there is no question of whether both padlocks will fit onto the hasp - and you only have to risk shipping the precious thing once instead of three times.  You might argue that I'm violating the terms of the question (which says that the thing must be shipped "using my box and padlock") - but the third step in the previously suggested solution also requires the third shipping of the box to be done without your padlock.  SteveBaker (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Which would be the analogy for Public-key cryptography, if I'm not mistaken. Under that protocol the receiver sends the sender a method of encrypting the data (locking the padlock) in such a way that it can only be opened by the receiver's key. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, SteveBaker's idea is MUCH better, in my opinion. My question is how does either of these methods prevent the postal carrier (or any other man-in-the-middle who may intercept the box) from cutting the lock or stealing the box outright?  Presumably, locking the box is simply a theft-deterrent, no?  Regardless of the effort taken to secure the box from being opened, it's impossible to ensure it arrives safely and unmolested--aside from physically taking the box to Toby yourself.Brewfangrb (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if the point of these postal stories is to be analogous to secure communication protocols, you have to assume that reliable encryption is possible, which is equivalent to the padlock being unbreakable. --Sean 12:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that the postal carrier can easily subvert either of these protocols by a man-in-the-middle attack. In the case of the public-key protocol (SteveBaker's) he just replaces the shipped lock with a different one to which he has the key. He can then walk away with the contents of the box or ship it onward to Toby (using Toby's lock, which he retains) after examining and possibly altering the contents. In the case of the three-pass protocol he plays the role of the recipient using his own lock, then (if he wants to send it onward to Toby) plays the role of the sender with Toby. The three-pass protocol is a little more secure against this because there are extra ordering constraints. If Toby can communicate with you by telephone he might complain about not getting the box after you've completed the exchange with the postal carrier and before the postal carrier has started the exchange with Toby. That can't be dismissed as a mere delay in the mail. Or, if you ask Toby to send a handwritten note with his shipment and you know what his handwriting looks like, the postal carrier can't complete the protocol with you without forging the note. -- BenRG (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If the mailman can't be trusted, couldn't he just steal the package and saw it open in his own good time ? StuRat (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. As was noted, you have to assume that reliable encryption is possible. See anything from Brute force attack to Quantum cryptography for aspects of the state of the art in box making & breaking. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As much $ as you are going to spend on your vials of bacteria and shipping 20 boxes, possible several times wouldn't it be cheaper to just deliver it personally? This seems like spending $3million on a pen that will work in 0g instead of using a pencil. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to read Space Pen before your next use of the pen/pencil analogy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps the $3million is an exaggeration, but I will guarantee you that those pens cost more then a pencil, so the general idea still holds true. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Sidetrack, sorry.) NASA buys the pens at the same list-price that they're available to the general public for. (Now under $50, I think.) The development was paid for by the owner of the Fisher pen company.  It's a good thing, too. Standard pens from that era didn't work well in zero-g, and pencils were considered too dangerous for use (pencil shavings can screw up equipment in zero-g), so the astronauts were using carpenters' wax pencils, which are pretty much worthless. APL (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus, using a graphite-based pen in zero-g would be a stupid thing to do. The graphite dust from the pencil would drift through the air and end up getting stuck in some small niche - such as inside a critical switch or something.  Graphite is really conductive - so the danger of shorting something out would be a grave risk.  Things that create conductive dust of any kind have to be studiously avoided.  So these 'pencils' were actually 'grease pencils' that have non-conductive waxy cores and are wrapped in paper that you can progressively peel back to avoid creating wood shavings when you sharpen them...and both the Russians AND the Americans used them.  However, if you've ever tried writing with a grease pencil - you'll appreciate the strong desire to use a ballpoint pen!  So the story is definitely apochryphal.  No, nobody used graphite pencils, no, the Russians weren't super smart - both groups used grease pencils - no, the Americans in NASA didn't spend any significant money on developing a zero-g pen - they paid $50 each.  However, it is true that during that first US/Russian linkup in space, the HP pocket calculators that the Americans had with them each had more computing power than the entire Russian spacecraft - which used paper tape sequencers to time things like launch and re-entry timing.  There are other similar stories - the $400 hammer for example.  This one is true - but consider that the hammer had to be tested over huge temperature ranges - it has interchangeable weights on the head so that the astronaut can carefully control the amount of force being applied - the grip is specially shaped to fit that bulky space-glove and it has to have a tether attachment point.  It also has to be stowed in a special case so it doesn't bounce around inside the spacecraft during launch and reentry.  I think $400 is cheap considering all of those issues (especially when you consider the cost to get the darned thing into orbit probably exceeds it's cost). SteveBaker (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I know this is probably a hypothetical situation, but here's a more true-life answer: Firstly Toby can cut the lock open. Secondly, the padlocks are usually off-the-shelf types that can be replaced -- all you need to do is tell Toby which padlock or key number to purchase and he/she will be able to open the box upon arrival. Also the box itself might could probably be pried open using a crowbar - depending on whether it needs to remain intact. Also the postal service might xray it to determine its contents which might pose a security risk -- a courier service might be the best option, although they too might xray it, but certain couriers may have a solution for this Rfwoolf (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC).


 * OK - so first take two quantum entangled padlocks....
 * :-) SteveBaker (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Use a combination lock, and tell Toby the number by phone. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the basic concept of symmetric-key (as opposed to public-key) cryptography. It has the weakness that it requires a trusted channel for key exchange: how do we know that the mailman (who we don't trust with our mail) is not also tapping our phone? Algebraist 08:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesnt matter if you are never using the padlock again. Livewireo (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This right here is why I love the RefDesk. Extra-terrestrial tangents, quantum entanglements, and all.  Plasticup  T / C  18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah - that and that such a question is neatly sandwiched between "I'm pathetic...how do I get a girlfriend?" and a "666 is the number of the beast" question. SteveBaker (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)