Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 July 26

= July 26 =

Can you name this author?
I read parts of one of his books some time ago, but I can’t think of his name. He writes about his sailing adventures, and these are very intense and exciting. I think he might be Welsh or Irish. He can’t swim. He sails yachts, often to deliver them to a customer, and often around the world. He was stuck in ice for about a year, and almost starved. He has written quite a few books of his adventures, and I think he’s retired now, after losing a leg. In the book of his I read, he had a couple of parodies, one of a Sherlock Holmes story, and one of a Joseph Conrad story. They were amongst the best parodies I have ever come across. I’m pretty sure he is still alive. Anyone know his name? Eric155 (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well he will, but sorry I don't.--Artjo (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tristan Jones --Viennese Waltz talk 07:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yearly number of deaths whilst climbing Mt. Fuji
I climbed Mt. Fuji recently and was amazed at the high level of risk involved, the lack of safety measures and the sheer volume of climbers, but I have been unable to find out the number of deaths each year from falls etc. Can anyone help? 150.49.180.199 (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Mark
 * Wikitravel tells us: "on average, around 4 people die and over a dozen are injured every year on Fuji by hypothermia or falling rocks." along with other dire warnings about the conditions. Astronaut (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

American car number plates
Why don't American cars have front number plates? In Europe we have number plates on both sides, but I was wondering why it was different in the US. Anyone have any idea? Chevy monte  carlo  - alt 07:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They usually do have front plates. Some do not, and others use joke or some other form of non-standard plates. I always assumed that the law in most (all?) states only requires state-issued "official" plates in the back. Rimush (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's me wrong then. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Chevy  monte  carlo  - alt 08:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many USstates in the South require only a rear plate: according to Vehicle_registration_plate 19 states require only one plate, and nine of 13 Canadian provinces require only one plate.  Acroterion  (talk)  12:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In case it's not totally clear, the individual states define the rules for the issuance of their plates (and it sounds like the provinces do also). Why no front plate in some states? Perhaps cost; perhaps the assumption that you really only need to see it when the car is "escaping". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be thorough and connect the dots, most U.S. states do require license plates (as we call them) on both the front and rear end of the vehicle. Certain states, however, do not.  Marco polo (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The plates are also called "license tags" in some regions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it's a state-by-state law. Thanks for helping! Chevy  monte  carlo  - alt 19:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To further complicate matters, some states' renewal stickers go only on the rear plate, even when there are plates front and back; and in other states the stickers go on both plates. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and in Texas (where you need both plates), the renewal sticker goes on your windshield - not on the license plate at all. SteveBaker (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where on the windshield? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Driver's side, at the bottom. You need two &mdash; one for registration, and one for smog/mechanical.  --Trovatore (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that second one an annual inspection sticker? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * SO WHAT HAPPENS IF A REAR-PLATE ONLY CAR DRIVES INTO A FRONT AND REAR PLATE REQUIREMENT STATE? IS THAT AN ARRESTABLE OR TICKETABLE OFFENCE?92.30.173.22 (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, but what I can tell you is that typing in ALL CAPITALS is a hanging offence around here. We take extreme displeasure at being shouted at, and that's how it's interpreted.   --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, all cars carry the stickers and plates of the state they were registered in. There's no problem driving from a state that only requires one plate to a state that requires two plates and a sticker.
 * There's some sort of agreement between the states that handles this. To prevent interfering with interstate commerce. APL (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * APL - Thanks. But that's what amuses and amazes me about the USA. I know it's a federation of 50 states each with their own Constitution, Senate, Congress, Supreme and Appellate Court Systems etc., but here we have a perfect example of how totally inefficient that proves to be. Each State rules what ID furniture its vehicles should wear, no matter how different that may be from neighbouring or other States in the Union, and then accommodates the other, different protocols adopted by vehicles from those other States. Imagine if we had similar systems in the UK whereby Manchester could adopt different protocols from say Leeds, 50 miles apart. What a load of unnecessary beaurocracy and expense that must cost. So why must that be when standardisation within a unified but multi-unitary political system must be patently and economically preferable - speaking logically of course? 92.30.174.61 (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not entirely comparable. If England were a US state, it'd be the most populous one, but not by a factor of two or anything.  In terms of area it would be number 32, between Louisiana and Mississippi.
 * The advantage of having such things determined locally is that it can be closer to what the residents of that state want, as opposed to the preferences of the whole country, and in fact if such a choice bugs you enough, you can move. --Trovatore (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 92.30.174.61, I'm not sure someone from a country with a House of Lords, wigs on barristers, and a mainly decorative hereditary monarchy comprised of displaced Germans ought to bang on too much about perceived inefficiencies in other nations. (Then there's Scots law versus English, something an efficient person might have gotten around to standardize some time in the last 303 years.)  More seriously, the individual states often cooperate on uniform practice in various areas.  Individuality is at the heart of the American mythos, and the independence of each state is a thing many Americans prize even more than a certain British crown dependency prizes the conceit that it's not really a part of the United Kingdom. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

50 bn deal wrecked?
Why did the 50 billion airtel deal could not be completed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not provided a link to tell us what you are asking about, but I assume it's about this news story which is a report claiming that Vodafone may sell its 4.4 percent stake in Bharti Airtel, valued at around 52 billion rupees. This is just a rumor, from what I can glean from that article.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Genealogy
To whom It May Concern,

I've searched for months and I'm stuck.

Is there a way to connect a person to another person???????

Example - I've traced my tree back to Isaac Robinson (1768-1833).

I AM VERY SURE that there is a connection with the following:- Christopher Robinson/Priest/died for Treason in 1598, Henry Robinson/Bishop/(1553-1616), John Robinson/Mayflower organizer/(1575-1625).

I can't understand where they came from OR went to.

Thanks for any advice you can give me.

Once again,

Thank You, - (I don't know how to say 'Thanks' to the persons that have offered their help. However - I do 'Thank-You' all)!! Cathy

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Limeycat (talk • contribs) 11:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You have previously asked the same question. Did the answers you received back then not help?
 * It is worth noting that is a gap of some 160 years, perhaps 6 generations, and Robinson is a very common surname. Back then, records of births, baptisms, marriages and deaths were usually held at the parish church.  There are also the usual geneology websites that have copies some information from parish records.  We do have some articles: Christopher Robinson (priest), Henry Robinson (bishop), John Robinson (pastor) and with such prominent church people the records might be better.  Try following all the references and external links in these articles (in particular the 'Posthumous events' section of the last of these looks quite promising.  Other than that, I doubt there is much we can do here at the Wikipedia reference desk to bridge such a huge period of time.
 * As an aside, I share my less common surname with a noted writer from medieval times. Whilst a link would be an interesting fact in my family's history, the liklyhood of proving such a link is all but impossible due to the lack of decent record keeping until the 19th century.   Astronaut (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're at the stage where you need professional help with this. If you can get to the National Archives at Kew, then you may be able to enlist the help of one of their archivists. The only way I can see you being able to do this yourself is if you get to the local archives for where the family were in 1768, to see parish registers. Whereabouts are you, and where is Isaac Robinson's birth? You might also be able to get help via Rootsweb, if you join one of their communities. (By the way, congratulations at getting your Robinsons back so far - I've only been able to get my Robinsons back to 1893!) --TammyMoet (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

One millionth customer
It used to be a staple of TV cartoons and suchlike that an unsuspecting customer would walk into some store or restaurant or other to be greeted with the words "Congratulations, you're our one millionth customer!" They would then be presented with a car or showered with gifts. Is there any evidence that this actually happened anywhere? I can't see how a store would count the number of customers, for starters. --Viennese Waltz talk 11:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It happens all the time, as a quick Google search will show. As for how stores could count customers, receipts are a logical mechanism.  Any well-managed store will track their sales, and so even in the pre-computer era, it's far from unreasonable to have a store able to count (or at least reasonably estimate) how many customers they've had. &mdash; Lomn 13:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Google suggests it happens, although the gifts aren't that fabulous. The count is probably an estimate - "we had X customers per day in the 90's, now we have Y a day, so let's say the 20th person to walk in next Wednesday is it (or the next smily happy photogenic person after the 20th)." A more accurate - though not perfect - count can be had keeping count of how many receipts the cash register prints out, especially nowadays with computerized cash register systems. Amusement parks, theaters etc may also be easier to count, any business with one ticket per customer. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disneyland has, or at least used to have, a giant counter at the entrance that supposedly counted each visitor upon entrance -- every millionth or whatever visitor would get some prize, I think. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When they are like 20 away from the million do people in front try to cut to 19 (or whatever) places behind? Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Identify this mammal
What mammal is in North Caroina, USA that has a long hairless tail long whiskers and somewhat long fur/hair that was white with some grey,brown in it? It was not a squirrel, racoon, skunk, possum... I think. I looked up muskrat, didn't look like that either. It walked on all four, but sat on it's haunches and used it's front legs like hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.209.38 (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a rat, though it is not as big as the muskrat. Astronaut (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the good old opossum? Matt Deres (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OP already mentioned it wasn't a possum (and I assume with possum he meant opposum, because there probably aren't any possums in Wilmington, North Carolina). Rimush (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Possum is the usual name in the States, outside of a formal biological or veterinary context. Opossum is likely to get you looked at funny in North Carolina.  (The Aussie possums are named after the Yank ones, BTW.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh, right you are. I read squirrel, raccoon, skunk, and then skipped right over. To be honest, based on the description, I don't think it could be anything else, so I guess my answer still (kind-of) stands. Matt Deres (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I also skipped over the possum in the question at first. And when I looked at the picture in the opposum article it seemed like a perfect fit. Then I reread the question and the rest is history. Rimush (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be somewhere in our List of mammals of the United States. Might it be a kangaroo rat, cotton rat, a pocket gopher, vole, or shrew?  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't discount the possibility that it might have been a familiar animal with mange or some other skin or fur condition changing its normal appearance to some degree. Partly (or largely) bald bears, coyotes, racoons, etc, can look surprisingly unusual. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds a lot like a Coypu, which is more commonly called a Nutria in the US. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call. I've never heard of those things before, but my vote is now on beaver-rat.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the oldest people in the USA
I didn't see the name of Mamie Truesdale on your list of oldest peolpe in the US. Every year, however, there were always newspaper articles and local news reports about here on her birthday. She was born on September 6,1873 in Columbus, South Carolina. She passed away in August of 1990 in Morristown,NJ. at the age of 116. She received birthday cards from Presidents Carter to President Bush. I think Wikipedia should include her to this list. If the leaders of the free world acknowledged this wonderful women, then I think maybe you should too!69.160.224.34 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC) --Amiyra


 * For future reference, it helps to include a link to any article you mention. I'm guessing you mean List of supercentenarians from the United States. If you have a reliable source (which would probably include the newspaper articles you mention) for this person's age at death, then you can add them to the list yourself. --Tango (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) The best place to raise a query like this is on the talk page of the relevant article - I'm guessing you are thinking of either List of supercentenarians from the United States or List of the verified oldest people. Although there is very little online about her, there are a couple of news articles behind paywalls which confirm that she did receive news coverage. Warofdreams talk 14:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Free access to the internet in central London
Where can I get free access to the internet in central London please? I do not mean wi-fi, I mean being able to use a computer so that I can look at my emails. Thanks 92.15.0.178 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From your IP, I see you are a TalkTalk customer. Their Customer Experience centre in Soho is free to use for all customers (to sit down and surf) and their drop in area is free for everyone. Nanonic (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Public libraries will have computers you can use. You'll have to join the library first (since 2009 you don't need to have a local address for that) and probably wait in a queue til a computer is available. 81.132.217.90 (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Internet cafes don't cost very much if you only need the Internet for a half hour at a time, and there are plenty of them in central London. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Plant ID request
We saw this plant at Disneyland and was wondering what it is. Any help from an editor out there? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like a cultivar of Impatiens hawkeri or New Guinea impatiens - see here for more. It's become a very popular bedding and pot plant in the UK in the last ten years or so.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I know impatiens are pretty common, but these looked just a little different to us so I appreciate the feedback.  Alanraywiki (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had such good luck with my first question, maybe someone can also help me identify this flower? It was from a tree in a Huntington Beach, California park.  Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is Spathodea campanulata. --Dr Dima (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the future, please don't post the same question at multiple reference desk pages, as you did with Reference_desk/Science. Choose one and go with it.  If it's on the wrong page, we'll let you know, and you can choose to move it. Falconus p  t   c 04:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's the first time I've tried the reference desk. Thank you for the counsel. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem :-). I left the other question where it is with a note to come over here, and I'll copy the responses below.  Part of the reason for keeping it in one place is that that way we can avoid giving the same answers multiple times, and it's easier to build our responses off of the people's responses before us. Falconus p  t   c 04:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the responses from the other posting of this question: Falconus p t   c 04:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Impatiens, possibly. Maybe one of the New Guinea impatiens cultivars, see Impatiens hawkeri --Dr Dima (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. I feel a little dumb because we have some impatiens in our yard, but this looked a little different to us.  I appreciate your time in answering.  Alanraywiki (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * End of responses to other question.

Funny 3D things
When your looking at those weird images that make you see 3d, are there some people who can't do it? Is there a physical reason or are they not trying hard enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.15.3.229 (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Autostereograms, see Autostereogram for a quick list of reasons why some can't see the 3d image. Personally, I've never been able to get them to work for me. Nanonic (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can never get them to work either. --Tango (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw one, once. Never before or since.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel better, they aren't really that exciting. They make my vision really crappy and out of sync for awhile afterwards. Not worth it, though kind of an interesting effect the first couple of times you do it. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at any recently, but I remember when the Magic Eye books first came out in the early 1990s, I got tired of looking at marine and prehistoric creatures after a while. I would have liked to see other things, like a forest, a cave, the inside of a factory, even a manhole or purely geometric patterns. I guess others felt the same, for I recall once seeing one autostereogram book in a bookshop labeled "dolphin free" (alluding to the dolphin safe logo). Again, purely anecdotal, but, though I was able to see the stereograms, it usually took me much longer than others (up to over a minute) before I could actually see the images. I have no idea why. ---Sluzzelin talk  01:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dolphin free autostereogram book! Haha! Silly book store. Everyone knows that the only allowed autostereograms are Dolphins, Airplanes and Dinosaurs. Or possibly a combination of the three.   I wonder why the fad for these things faded out. APL (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I used to have some really good 3D books that used the red/green glasses, before the 'magic eye' thing took off. One was full of dinosaurs, but another was based on microphotography of minibeasts and was awesomely detailed in 3D (at least to my childish eyes), letting you really see something that you couldn't get with a flat photo. Another was a book of mazes and puzzles that you had to use the 3D to solve. They were really creative, and I've never seen anything like that with autostereograms. Were the people who owned the trademark Magic Eye obsessed with dolphins and dinosaurs? Even the car advert that was my first successful 'pop' of an autostereogram was more interesting than a thousand pages of dolphins. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is definitely a learning curve to seeing them. It's difficult how to communicate how to "diverge your eyes", like trying to explain how to roll your 'r's. You're left using metaphors like "look through the image".
 * But some people are literally incapable of seeing stereo images. No matter how much they try they're not going to get anything useful out of a autostereogram. APL (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've spend hours trying all kinds of different techniques to no avail (I once managed to see that there was something there, but wasn't able to bring it into focus). I have an astigmatism that I thought might be a problem, but I have glasses to correct it and tried doing them with the glasses and that didn't help. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Admitting the problem is the first step. This may be what think we should see. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also wear glasses for astigmatism, but I'm (now) able to see these things fine. Took me a while to see them, and even after I started seeing them, for the longest time I was crossing my eyes, not diverging them. Which is easier (for me) but results in the 3d effect being "inside out". APL (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I wear glasses for astigmatism (and near-sightedness), and I can only make them work with my glasses off. Something to do with letting go of the desire to focus, maybe? Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * About one person in 20 has a condition known as Stereoblindness which prevents them from seeing things in true 3D. This happens because (like many babies) they were born with crossed-eyes.  Almost all children grow out of that within weeks of birth - but there is a critical window of opportunity while the brain develops the ability to see in 3D using Stereopsis - if your eyes don't uncross within (roughly) the first three months of life, then that part of the brain doesn't develop - and you can't see true 3D using that mechanism.  There are other ways to deduce depth (by focus, relative motion, objects of known size, etc) - so the victim is almost never aware that they have a problem with depth perception.  However, things like 3D movies and TV - and those tricky stereograms - only employ the stereopsis mechanism - and if that's defective then the 3D effect is completely lost.


 * The tricky things about stereograms is that depth is the ONLY information present in the image (particularly in random-dot stereograms) - so if you can't do stereopsis, you cannot make out any kind of coherent image whatever - no matter how hard you try. For people who have this condition, there is actually a little hope.  In just the last few years, several stereoblind people have successfully trained themselves to see in 3D, indicating that there is sufficient brain plasticity present to learn the necessary techniques even into adulthood.  I believe there are now proper training materials available.  So if you can't 'get' stereograms and are unable to understand why 3D movies are so popular - then it's well worth checking with an eye specialist to see if you could train yourself.  Those who succeeded are completely blown away by their new-found ability - so it's worth the effort.


 * Statistically, it's likely that at least a couple of people who are reading this have the condition - it's by no means a rare thing!


 * SteveBaker (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a very interesting topic; it's a bit of a shame that your brief overview is about ten times better our entire "article" about it. Feel like digging up some references? :-) FWIW, I can see 3D movies and such just fine, and I never had a problem with the old-fangled stereoscopes that required the viewer, but I've never been able to see those autostereoscopes and long harboured the suspicion that they're just a kind of snipe hunt. (And isn't it grand that our article on snipe hunting is so much more complete than the one about stereoblindness?) Matt Deres (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're mostly joking, but I suspect that if you're not entirely stereoblind, you could probably convince yourself of the legitimacy of autostereograms, by printing it out twice, cutting one pattern repetition off the left side of one copy, cutting one pattern repetition off the right side of the other, and then putting the copies in an old timey stereoscope and viewing them that way.  I haven't actually tried this experiment, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. APL (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK - well if 3D movies and such really work for you (noting that you could be kidding yourself) - then we would have to assume that you don't have stereoblindness (er, no medical advice, go see a doctor, yadda, yadda) and you should be able to learn how to use stereograms.


 * It's definitely not a 'snipe hunt'...but it's not easy to do the first time around.


 * Here is how I do it...there are a bazillion suggested ways to make this happen. Start off with something easy.  Look at the yellow flowers in the image at right.  If you stare at just one of the two flowers, you should be able to just relax your eyes and get it to 'double image'.  Now, the trick is to let both copies of the flower to double-image and to line things up so that the righthand copy of the lefthand flower lies precisely on top of the lefthand copy of the righthand flower.  You need the line between your two eyes to be parallel to the top edge of your computer screen or you won't be able to do it.  If you get this right - you should see three copies of the flower instead of two - and the middle one of the three will be three-dimensional (because the two images are not quite identical).  If you can master that - then take a look at ASCII stereogram - you'll see that these examples have two letter O's above the actual image.  You need to do the same trick that you did with turning two flowers into three to turn two O's into three - and at that point, the image beneath should jump into 3D.  With practice, you can do it without the O's by picking distinctive features in the stereograms that repeat and doing the 'turn two images into three' trick. SteveBaker (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing those 3-D things is pretty easy if you use the right technique, and you're right, they aren't all that exciting. When you've seen 2 or 3, you've seen them all. What you do is put your nose up against the picture and look "straight ahead", focused on infinity (albeit infinity is hidden by the photo). Then pull back slowly and don't try to use binocular vision. The picture will fall into place, and once you get the technique down, it's easy and fast. But it's simply that goofy dot pattern with a 3-D image made out of the same pattern. I'm sure somebody got big bucks for thinking it up, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah it would have been nice if you had acknowledged there the truth of Steve's posting above that there are many people who simply can't see them, rather than just saying it's "pretty easy" and implying that those who can't see them are just, like, doing it wrong. --Viennese Waltz talk 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just, like, doing it wrong too, until I figured out the technique. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, but some people (estimates range from 1% to 5%) have legitimate medical problems that stop them from ever seeing one of these images no matter how many silly-looking eye exercises they do. Most of them don't even realize they have the problem. APL (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and these are facts that BB is (for reasons best known to himself) choosing to ignore. --Viennese Waltz talk 13:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs' comment is inoffensive. His "if" implies nothing about the reason a person is not using the technique. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Inoffensive, but not strictly correct. A person who was stereoblind might be able to converge the image. That's the 'technique' involved, pointing your eyes at the right place. But even if they did they would not see anything meaningful, they would still just see random dots. APL (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not being able to see them can be a blessing. I can't look at a chain link fence without going crosseyed. --Sean 15:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Some rugs too! APL (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a repetitive desktop wallpaper on my PC - and when I get tired, my eyes drift into the position where the background pops into the background and the windows and icons on top suddenly look very 3D! I know that's the time to turn off the PC and go to bed! SteveBaker (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's worth mentioning that stereograms can equally be designed to be seen by crossing the eyes, though this is rarer. I find this much easier to do, but on conventional stereograms it reverses the 3D effect (so the dolphin or whatever appears to be beyond the 'background' field rather than in front of it).
 * I discovered (before printed stereograms became popular) that this technique can be used to make adjacent photos of, for example, Jupiter taken with a few minutes' time lapse (during which the planet has rotated sightly) to appear 3D.
 * Either technique can also be used for 'spot the difference' picture games (the differences appear to shimmer or glow) and for comparing star fields without a blink comparator apparatus - a slightly shifted asteroid or whatever may appear above or below the general field if it's moved in horizontal direction, and other differences (e.g. larger and non-horizontal shifts, absented objects or magnitude changes) appear to shimmer or glow as previously mentioned. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Age discrimination campaign groups in the UK
Just wondering if there are any British charities or pressure groups that support *genuine* age equality. There are well-established campaign groups for the elderly such as Age Concern, which have campaigned against compulsory retirement and age discrimination in the job market, and I agree with them on that. Trouble is, they also want old people to receive taxpayer-funded care home places without having to sell their houses. As a 26 year old with a lot of university debt and no chance of inheriting a house, that really isn't something I can support. 81.132.217.90 (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Age_discrimination says Among the advocacy organizations created in the United Kingdom to challenge age discrimination are Age Concern, the British Youth Council and Help the Aged. SteveBaker (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Help the Aged says It merged with Age Concern in 2009 to form Age UK. So I think the answer is "no". 213.122.65.209 (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to wonder if people want genuine complete age equality. Assuming that it only came in at adulthood this would mean that anyone would be entitled to retire on a full state pension at 18, and car insurance for an 18 year old driving a porche would be the same as that for a 40 year old. You would also probably find a lot of older people wanting to join youth clubs and going on club 18-30 holidays, the end to concessionary tickets, etc. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course nobody should get a pension they haven't contributed to, but why shouldn't older people be able to do studenty things like a clubbing holiday in Ibiza? Because some younger people wouldn't want them around? You could say the same about different skin colours or religions. Cod Lover Oil (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually, when we talk about discrimination, we mean unjustified discrimination. Charging teenagers more for car insurance makes actuarial sense. Expecting people to pay National Insurance for a certain length of time before claiming a pension is also justified by simple fairness. Forcing people that are perfectly able to work to retire just because of their age is not justified. --Tango (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Forcing people that are perfectly able to work to retire just because of their age is not justified." How would that differ from saying: "Forcing people that are perfectly able to retire to work just because of their age is not justified"? 92.24.183.5 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's different (at least in the UK) because we also have very widespread private pension schemes, so if you wanted to you could plan and save for an early retirement. You would still get the state pension once you reached the qualifying age. True, someone living on a very low wage has less ability to save for anything, but that is a much wider issue. Those people will not have a comfortable retirement on just the state pension, so they really are screwed whichever way retirement turns out. IMHO the best thing the UK government could do about poverty is to sort out the housing shortage. We currently have far greater demand for homes than our planning laws would allow to be built, so housing is very expensive. Today's young working poor have no serious chance of ever owning property, and in many areas an entry-level wage is too little to rent a flat, so they end up with a room in a shared dosshouse. Or aged 30 and still living with parents. Just my opinion of course. Cod Lover Oil (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the compensations for getting old is that you usually get richer. Being old and poor is a lot worse than being either young and poor or old and wealthy. Removing people's ability to save and accumulate wealth as they get old would remove a lot of the satisfaction and some of the purpose in life. We'd all be aimless hippies achieving nothing. 92.29.116.34 (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Accumulating wealth by your own efforts is one thing, but in the OP's example (which I think is correct), all working age taxpayers would be forced to cover the care home expenses of these generally richer oldies, leaving intact an inheritance which would not be shared out equally. Cod Lover Oil (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There must be statistics about skin colour or sexuality which could also be relevant to the cost of insurance (which I assume would be illegal discrimination), so I can't see how you can derive the fairness of charging young people more from the fact of statistics about them. (Is this the is–ought problem?) 213.122.59.85 (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd doubt anyone serious in the UK would propose "genuine age equality". 3 year olds given the right to consent to a sexual relationship? 8 year olds driving? 11 year olds not having to go to school? --Dweller (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess what the OP meant was equality except where there's indisputable evidence that discrimination makes sense. Minors have different rights because they are physically still developing, and car insurance for teenagers costs more because there's many decades worth of hard evidence they drive less carefully. I really doubt that sort of compelling evidence exists to back up other common types of age discrimination, such as with concessionary tickets. Cod Lover Oil (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)