Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 March 7

= March 7 =

Big in Oman?
"For all of these reasons, the two most accessed sites right now in the Middle East are al jeezera [sic] and Wikipedia." Source

Is this true? Al-Jazeera I'd be inclined to believe, but I never heard Wikipedia mentioned as a key or even popular information source for those in the Arab world oriented towards the ongoing insurgence. Any leads appreciated. 83.70.254.18 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is reputed to be an objective source of information and has the feature of being continuously updated. I checked when the following pages were last edited:
 * Libya 1 hour ago, Gaddafi 30 minutes ago, Egypt 4-1/2 hours ago, and Mubarak 5 hours ago. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All well and good, but I'm not interested in how objective or frequently updated Wikipedia is; I'm interested in credible indicators that show the extent to which it is considered important or popular in the Middle East. Thanks, 83.70.254.18 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The number of "hits" per given time period could be a good indicator, but is there any public information on that for wikipedia and/or other websites? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I wouldn't put a [sic] tag on "al jeezera". All transliterations from Arabic to Latin are approximations, there is no 100% correct. --Soman (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The English Language Version of Al Jazeera has a specific and uniform spelling that they identify themselves by. I think that, out of respect for the network, we should probably consider that the most correct transliteration. Buddy431 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Google Trends for Oman on the sites aljazeera.net, ar.wikipedia.org, and en.wikipedia.org shows aljazeera.net (the Arabic portal) in the lead only since late January (data not yet available apparently for Feb/Mar).
 * You might also be interested in The Most Popular Knowledge sharing App Per Country. WikiDao    &#9775;  20:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you WikiDao, that is some help at least. (OP) 83.70.226.11 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Document my life
Hi. Suppose I wanted to document my background (name, birthdate, job, weight, etc) and any trivial but provable details about my life that are even remotely quantifiable (including all my purchases of what I bought and how much I spent, all my travel, all my doctor's/dentist's/optometrist's/etc visits, everything I checked out from the library, etc) for a year in an organized spreadsheet form. Again, I only want things that can be verified and are about no more trivial or detailed than things like purchases (so not, for example, "I was happy", "I walked down the driveway to get the mail", "I got up at 6:00", or Wikipedia edits etc). Approximately how much computer memory (measured in (whatever)-bytes) would this take? Don't get too hung up on what exactly does and does not qualify for inclusion, I'm just looking for a very rough (but educated!) estimate. I thought about asking thsi on the computers desk but I decided this question isn't really about computers since I don't really intend to do it, computers are just the vehicle that I use to get my point across. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I supose, if done in Microsoft Excel, it would be around 900kb to 3mb. Which is not very much, compared to the memory a computer has. However, this could greatly vary, depending on how old you were when you create it, how much you have done, if you moved alot, or had other details that changed frequently. Sumsum2010 · T · C · Review me!  05:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For a related project, see the Feltron reports, where a guy actually did something like this. For your purpose, say you use 50 characters for a "record", including date, place and what you did? That's 50 bytes uncompressed. Then twenty events per day? That's one kilobyte per day. At 365 days a year, this is 365 kb. Of course, a spreadsheet will add some overhead, but still, "a relatively insignificant amount of data by modern computer standards" seems to be the answer. Jørgen (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a simple way to calculate this: log it for a day or a week, and then multiply. This is going to be far more reliable than asking strangers who don't understand what you want to do.  Without knowing even if you have to buy your own food or pay your own bills, there's no way we can take anything but the wildest guess.  If you live in an African village the answer will be very different than if you are a businessperson who travels regularly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The human limit to the amount of information one could collect in a year and type into a computer in real spare time must be about the same for everybody. Business travel is relatively uneventful with long waits for flights. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully all of the location information would be automated with services like Foursquare tracking you, and if you made 100% of your purchases with a credit card or debit card, that's a lot more stuff that doesn't need to be manually typed in. But, yes, the typing in sounds pretty horrible.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

find a friend
A friend come to Kenya in 1979, A security with United Nation name. Tony Green. State in Guyana. Please help me find him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.166.242 (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Email address removed 27.32.104.185 (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm reading your question to say "I'm looking for somebody named Tony Green, from Guyana, who worked as a security guard for the UN in Kenya in 1979". Do you know his age or anything else about him ?  Unfortunately, that's a common English name (although perhaps not in Guyana), so a general search would give us many hits.  If that's all you have, then it would be necessary to follow up with the UN directly, and perhaps they could give you more on where he was from (an address or city).  However, I don't know if they give that info out to just anybody, and they may not keep records that old.  Also, since that's 32 years ago, there's a fair chance he's dead, by now (depending on his age at the time). StuRat (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He might also be related to the infamous politician, Hamilton Green. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A Town Like Alice
Can you tell me the word count of the novel please? <;;e-mail address removed to prevent spam> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.203.202 (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 120 579 words. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A "photocopier" in my wallet. Is there a practical solution?
At the library there are old books, academic journals and magazines that, unfortunately, are not for loan. Often it is not convenient to sit down and read it all on the spot. (I may just not be well rested nor focused enough, at the time, to take in the information. Or there may be too much text (400 pages or more)).Therefore I would really like to have a "photocopier" in my wallet, so that I could read the texts and study the information graphics later, at home, instead. B-) Q: Is there any convenient solution, a tiny (flat) digital camera or a tiny handheld scanner, that will render readability close enough to that of an Image scanner to be practically useful? --Seren-dipper (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are tiny handheld scanners; I've never used one myself, though, and have always been dubious about their quality (I would imagine it requires a very steady hand, and you wouldn't know until afterwards if you did a good job or not). I have, however, found that small digital cameras can be used to good effect, provided that you get in the habit of being able to judge how much light is necessary (not a lot, but it must be even — contrasts, like shadows or bright parts, screw it up more than having low light) and holding the camera at a consistent angle. I use an old Canon Powershot Digital Elph for photographing documents and sometimes book pages. Unlike some cameras (and I checked this out at a camera store before I bought it), its focal length works just fine at the distance needed to photograph documents (e.g. 10 inches or so). The resulting photos can be fed into Acrobat Pro (though I usually run a Photoshop macro on them first, to enhance the contrast a bit), turned into a PDF, and OCRized with remarkable accuracy, even if the pages are curved. It's not as good as a real document scanner — there's no simple way to render it as just "black and white," and so the files are quite large, but if you are just doing this for your own usage, it works pretty well. The speed is much faster than a scanner — I can take one photo ever second or so, now that I'm used to doing it. (A large part of the research component of my "real job" involves photographing documents for my own use.) This is just my own experience; there may be better ways. What I like about this method (and I have tried a few others, like lugging around a small flatbed scanner), though, is that it is very quick, very easy, very small, very easy to verify it worked correctly (since the photo is immediately on the camera, so if I screw it up, it's usually obvious), and "accurate enough" for what I need it for. The camera I use isn't small enough for a wallet, but it is small enough for a jacket pocket. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Documents were photographed all the time during WWII and the Cold War, see Subminiature photography. The most famous example of such a camera would be the Minox. A quick skim of the latter article suggests that Minox cameras are still available. --Viennese Waltz 14:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The webcam incorporated in my laptop has limited resolution (e.g. Acer "Crystal Eye" resolves 640x480) but is handy for copying book pages because its fixed focus is about right, it can be adjusted for contrast, brightness and sharpness, results are immediately visible, and a huge number of images can be stored. With some effort at tiling partial images together, I can copy a sheet of newspaper. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have used a conventional small digital camera to succesfully photograph hundreds of books and documents in a similar situation as the one mentioned by the OP. Once you get the hang of it, you will even be able to photograph them faster than a photocopier or handscanner would be able to, and in excellent quality. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

iPhone cameras are sufficiently good that at least one bank uses images of checks for depositing into one's bank account. Collect (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Be aware that it is advisable to use a camera with anti-blur and especially anti-shake technology for this, since the camera would have to be handheld and the lighting conditions may not always be optimal. I don't have an iPhone, so I don't know if it has these features. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In most library conditions I think you are fine without anti-blur and anti-shake. I've never had trouble with mine, anyway. Adequate light for reading is usually adequate light for quick photographs. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The anti-shake function does come in handy after taking 300 pictures in a row without using a tripod, though. Then the old arms are not as steady as they were at the beginning of the session. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose arms do vary! --Mr.98 (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a Canon LiDE scanner that fits into a laptop bag and is USB powered that I have used it to copy research material. If you use a camera, there are tripods and copy stands available. I have a nice Manfrotto tripod with a long joystick head that rotates down 90° for overhead photos. I have been considering the Gorillapod for more portable use. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've used a LiDE scanner for a long time (so long, though, that it might be a bad comparison to whatever is currently on the market — I think I bought mine in 2002 or 2003, for about $50 I think it is a LiDE 20.). The one I've used is "OK." They are very light (they use LCDs as their illuminating lamp), though mine is a little large to carry around comfortably in a standard laptop bag. (And of course, you have to carry the laptop around as well.) The time it takes to scan is the same as a regular flat bed — so they're not very quick. The quality of mine is not as good as a regular flatbed if you are trying to scan at anything higher than 300 dpi.
 * As for tripods, etc.: if you are looking for something quick and dirty, you don't, in my experience, really need to use a tripod. If you get the hang of doing it without a tripod (how to hold the camera consistently each time), it is much faster — again, about a second per photo, with almost no setup time between shots (other than turning the page). What I like about "freehanding" it is that I don't have to try and worry about whether the document is correctly aligned; I just change the camera based on the document. This is especially handy if you have documents of different sizes, or, god forbid, documents that have reflective tape on them (which can be very hard to photograph, but is only a problem one finds in an archive, not a library). Obviously if you need your copies to be print ready or something like that, the scanner or tripod works better. But if your primary concern is smallness of size and speed, then doing it by hand with a digital camera is ideal. When I do research at various archives, I notice a lot of people with what I would consider to be over-fancy setups for their document photographs. If you are doing it just for your own usage, I don't think all that apparatus is necessary. I prioritize speed over most anything else, because the most I can photograph in the least amount of time, the less time I have to spend in an awful archive reading room. :-) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of scanners that have a tiny, pocket-able form factor. this one for example is like a pen that you drag sideways across a page and it goes into the device's internal storage. APL (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but, 1. are those fast, and 2. are they any good? The reviews I've read imply that they are both slow to use (slower than a camera, anyway) and that the quality is really quite poor, and of course you can't see what you've got until after you've done all the work (so if your pages came out bad, you don't know until it is too late). I've never used one, though. They cost as much as a pretty good digital camera. This review implies that the ones you linked to are better than most, but even they have pretty crippling flaws — it takes 20 seconds per page to scan at 300 dpi, and even then you don't know if you have a good scan until you put it on a computer. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It'd be infuriating to not know if you'd scanned something properly.  Too bad, I like the idea of those scanners because they were described by Asimov in The Dying Night. APL (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Lots of great advice here on how to violate copyright laws. Must be something different about A Town Called Alice discussion above. . . or, not. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Does photocopying library books constitute a breach of copyright, if it is done simply for personal use? I'm no expert, but I don't think it is in the United States. Pfly (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I made note that the OP specifically stated it was "old" books. I can only assume that he meant "old" in the sense that their copyright was expired, and it would thus not be a copyright breach to copy them. All the books I have copied in this way has been more than two centuries old. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Photocopying reasonable portions of publications for personal use is likely to be kosher; photocopying entire books much less so. See fair use for more background.  Duplicating an entire book almost certainly runs afoul of the 'amount and substantiality' test. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are copying articles for your own use outside of a library, that generally falls under fair use. The mere act of photographing or scanning books does not itself imply copyright violation at all. Hence the fact that most libraries have photocopiers in them. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Be aware that fair use is not recognised in all countries. Although I would assume most countries would allow photocopying of parts of newer books for personal use. I am more doubtful whether copying or photgraphing complete books would be allowed in countries that does not accept fair use. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed and as ToAT has said, it's not clear that even countries with fair use allow copying whole books for private use outside the library except in special circumstances. In fact it's not that uncommon for libraries to actually have signs warning people about their local laws regarding copyright according to this happens in the US (where they do have fair use) as well. That website also mentions
 * Copying a complete work from the library collection is prohibited unless the work is not available at a "fair price." This is generally the case when the work is out of print and used copies are not available at a reasonable price. If a work, located within the library's collection, is available at a reasonable price, the library may reproduce one article or other contribution to a copyrighted collection or periodical issue, or a small part of any other copyrighted work, for example, a chapter from a book.
 * Although this is referring to cases when the library makes the copies, there's no indication I see it will be different if the person is making the copies themself and in fact from other things the ref says, it sounds unlikely. (I'm not sure if this has ever been tested in law but I've never seen any indication even from fair use advocates that copying entire works for private use is likely to be considered fair use in itself and in fact I would say this seems unlikely.)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From a practical point of view, the risk of running into legal jeopardy because you (an individual) have made a copy of some magazine articles on a library photocopier (or copied it with a camera) is essentially nonexistent. In any case, the fair use question is entirely separate from the "how could I copy" question. And yes, libraries post big warning signs around, because they, like everyone else in the United States, are deeply wedded to a CYA approach to copyright threats, thanks to the longstanding efforts of an over-litiguous media industry. Making personal copies of selections from library books for your own, personal research purposes, is generally considered fair use in most US legal contexts. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No one was talking about legal jeopardy but following the law. And yes some people do like to follow the law, even if they aren't at legal risk. Similarly, no one has denied that copying parts of a book for your personal use often okay in the US. However since some of the answers appear to suggest copying entire books (or at least a very substanial part) and even the question seems to suggest this could be a possibility, the issue of whether copying entire (or a substanial part of) books which are under copyright, is usually okay is relevant here. And the evidence from actual sources suggests it's not in many circumstances in the US. I'm okay with people providing help here, since it's resonable to AGF that they are not likely be copying enough to be a concern or the books may be out of copyright (although the question doesn't offer enough info for us to conclude they are and I myself when reading the question yesterday before anyone had replied decided not to help mostly because I was uncertain that what the OP was intending to do was legally ok). But I'm also okay with people reminding others that they may want to make sure what they're doing is legally okay (although decided not to mention the issue myself before it was brought up).
 * The point of the signs, whatever you may think of them, is to make it clear that even the libraries themselves acknowledge that the existance of photocopiers in the library doesn't mean you are permitted to copy anything and everything you want, whatever the libraries reasons for having the signs may be. I would repeat what I said earlier, that no one has ever suggested or came close to implying that you are not allowed to copy anything in a library. While Dor's statement in itself may be ambigious, in the context of the question it's resonable to presume that they were aware of what was being discussed and came to the conclusion it may violate copyright law (even if other's don't agree with that). And they were therefore not trying to suggest that you are not permitted to copy anything in the library anywhere in the world and the photocopiers are just there for drunken staff parties even in Saudi Arabia.
 * P.S. I admit when I originally replied, I was under the assumption that the original question had strongly implied the OP wished to copy an entire book or close to that so both my replies partly reflect the assumption that the thing of main relevence here was whether copying an entire (or close enough) book in copyright was likely to be okay. Re-reading it I realise it's more ambigious, so the issue of whether copying articles and small parts of individual books is more relevent then I thought. I apologise for any confusion and offence caused because of this. Even so, I still feel it's important to emphasise the point that there's no evidence copying entire (or close to) books in copyright is usually okay and in fact evidence exists to the contrary.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we can resolve the ethical and legal concerns here by advising the OP that before they start photographing or scanning any books in a library they should, of course, consult the library staff to ask how much they are allowed to photograph, and whether there are any restrictions on when and where they can do this. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for sharing your thougts and experiences! It was especially encouraging to hear that a handheld digital camera probably will be good enough for the job.:-) About the practical solution: I think it was a very good point, made above (thank you!), that I will probably want a screen to preview my "scans" right away to make sure they are readable enough. After a quick web searc it seems that most of the wallet-size cameras do not have any screen at all. In fact I only found one camera (and no! I am not affiliated with that company in any way), the POCO Pro (by Iain Sinclair) that almost, but not quite, meets the "requirement" of fitting nicely into my wallet. It sure has credit card hight and with, but it is nearly seven times as thick ;-( The other drawbacks are1)The built in rechargeable battery is not changeable (at home anyway).2)It is not available just yet.3)The retail price is estimated to be "north of" US$300,- which is quite a bit more than the price range that I had in mind (Less than a hundred US$). About the copyrights issue: (I have asked a librarian about this:) Where I live, when copying for personal use, the problem of collecting and distributing royalties to copyright holders, is already taken care of by compulsory negotiation of agreements beween one or more Copyright collectives and all schools, universities academic institutions, government agencies AND YES: also the public libraries. (I presume this is done to facilitate both public self education and academic research) Maybe there already are such arrangements made in your area too? (see: List of copyright collection societies).-- (OP) --Seren-dipper (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

name that movie
What is the name of the movie about Earth blowing up meteors that at the end of the movie, Nasa learns that the meteors are actually an attack on the Earth by a faraway alien race. First there's one meteor/asteroid that is nuked. Then days later theres another, so it's nuked. And another and another. At the very end of the movie (possibly a made-for-tv movie) the screen is filled with meteros entering Earth's atmosphere with the Earth defenseless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.73.249 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't sound familiar, but we have Category:Impact events in fiction. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 20:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the upcoming film Battle: Los Angeles?  Corvus cornix  talk  20:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It sounds a little bit like This Island Earth, except the doomed planet is Metaluna. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually have vague memories of such a movie. The only difference between my memory and the description (well I'm not sure if it's NASA) is that the first asteroid/comet? wasn't actually intended to attack earth but rather just some sort of scouting or even friendly gesture (possibly it wasn't actually going to hit earth) but the aliens weren't happy with its destruction. I don't think it was ever explained why the aliens didn't think an asteroid would come across as a threat but that's movies for you. But I searched quite hard earlier (before anyone replied but since I didn't come up with anything didn't reply at first) and Starship Troopers (film) was the best I could come up with and the premise isn't that similar. And I did look in Asteroid impact avoidance and Asteroids in fiction. Searching is not helped by wacky conspirary sites which think aliens have already sent asteroids/comets and sites discussing aliens fossils etc on asteroids. In my case I don't think the movie was that old, perhaps 90s-2000s may be even 80s or at a stretch 70s but I doubter older than that. Of course perhaps I'm remembering wrong or thinking of a game or book or something. (I did find one or two books but their plot was different.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Footfall features 1 or 2 asteroids guided at Earth as weapons; but I had assumed the original poster was indeed referring to Battle: Los Angeles, a movie none of us has yet seen. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell from the IMDb viewer comments, It looks like Nil Einne (and maybe the OP) is thinking of Without Warning (1994). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, we have an article: Without Warning (1994 film). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)