Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 September 25

= September 25 =

Volkswagen scandal compared to General Motors scandals
Volkswagen emissions scandal Why is it that Volkswagen is facing serious punishments for their scandal yet General motors gets a slap on the wrist? Void burn (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is the VW fraud isn't easily fixed. They can alter the software either the make it fuel efficient or make it have good emissions, but not both.  So then, what can they do to "make it right" to customers ?  Buying all the vehicles back may be the only way.   And the number of people who were defrauded (everyone who bought one of the effected diesel models) is much greater than the number of people injured by GM's defect.


 * There may also be a difference in "crimes of omission" versus crimes of commission". While GM failed to fix a problem, VW, arguably, intentionally created one.  Many view that as worse. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The agencies that set emission standards were defrauded. But how were the customers defrauded? By getting better mileage than they should have gotten? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's some concern in countries which set their vehicle tax based on emissions that VWs are about to get more expensive to tax when the "real" figures come out. MChesterMC (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So the fraud foisted on the customers is kind of a "delayed fraud", in that they will start getting lower fuel economy than expected, once the catalytic converters are re-enabled? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * At an extreme I read a suggestion that owners could be forced to accept the recall, which could effect performance or economy or their vehicles could be declared unroadworthy. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The most obvious concern is that the resale value may abruptly drop. If that happens, customers may be entitled to compensation due to the loss in value of their cars.  Less obviously, some people are saying they paid a premium for "clean diesel" cars, and were defrauded because the cars weren't clean.  In that theory, just compensation would arguably cover any extra premium paid for "clean diesel" compared to similar cars that were not presented as low emissions.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @BBBugs: The problem is that when the car is "fixed" (as will almost certainly be required by law if you want to re-register it next year) - the car you purchased on the basis of having really good gas mileage and lots of acceleration - will suddenly have much poorer gas mileage and much worse acceleration. Also, if you are a tree-hugger, you'll be pissed that the car you bought in order to be kind to the environment has been spewing junk into the air all the time you owned it.  So some owners will be unhappy about the past performance of their cars - others will be unhappy about the future performance - most will be unhappy about both.  Then, when you come to sell your TDI, the world has been spammed to death with the news that TDI diesels are terrible...so it's going to be harder to sell, and the value will be much, much less than it should have been.  People who have them under lease agreements are going to be in an interesting position...who knows what happens to them?   If they leased through VW, then presumably they're OK - but if they get the recall done and turn them in, the lease-holder may well charge them a substantial turn-in fee because the car is not being returned to them with the acceleration and mpg that it should have had.  Owners can legitimately claim that the car was sold to them fraudulently (VW made claims for 0-60 times and MPG figures and (implicitly) that the car was legal to drive in the state it was sold in...which turn out to be untrue - and they can't fix that).  In some jurisdictions with 'lemon laws', owners may be able to demand to be provided with a brand new car that performs as advertised.  This may well result in VW having to buy back 11 million used cars that they won't be able to re-sell at a good price. SteveBaker (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * According to this article at The Federalist the outrage is selective and politically motivated. It claims that every diesel model by all manufacturers in the EU were shown to have better sticker emissions statistics than were found on actual independent road tests, and that the question of the programming of the engines is not an open and shut case.


 * Rather, the Obama administration gave VW two options. Either admit to intentional cheating and accept the fine that would be assessed, or face immediate decertification of all its diesel automobiles.  In other words, a plea bargain was coerced:"Hyundai-Kia, Mini, Mercedes and Ford have all had to restate their “official” MPG numbers in recent years after consumers complained that they had gamed testing so effectively that real-world efficiency didn’t approach what the government said it was supposed to. But of those, only Hyundai-Kia was forced to pay a fine ($300 million); the rest were able to blame “calculation errors” and restate their numbers without penalty. Though VW has admitted to crossing the line into actual cheating on the test, it was never actually caught by the EPA. Instead, the regulator confronted VW with evidence from a third-party test and demanded it admit its guilt or face the unilateral decertification of all its diesel vehicles."And while it is not possible to show any deaths can be attributed to this gaming of the system, VW is vulnerable to the possibility of an $18 billion fine, while GM was fine only $900 million for a defect which killed or injured over 400 people. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not how it happened. They're not that stupid, they're not going to accuse one of the largest car companies in the world of cheating without doing the test themselves. Especially not after screwing up with the Animas dam breach. If VW had any excuse at all they could've sued instead of fessing up as soon as they threatened to not certify when they ran out of excuses (which bought them a year). They wouldn't have admitted that cheating software is also in the European cars if it wasn't true, the CEO would have no reason to resign in a few days if it was just extortion, if the EU emissions were so great there'd be no reason for them to admit on Thursday to cheating on the EU tests either. This is all in the article. Even BP lied to create artificial controversy for weeks. Hyundai-Kia's mpg must've been the most overstated (15% too high) so that's why only they got fined. As fuel economy is likely not an exact science possibly it was close enough that they had plausible deniability that they only intended to exaggerate slightly and the rest was unintentional error. As for why VW's fine is bigger, it's common sense that if you put a "brick" on your car keys which a grandmother can turn off and drive on bumpy roads you're taking a risk of the car turning off for what, self-expression? That was an inexcusable thing GM did and a design flaw but at least they didn't build their long term business plan on cheating, the thing they lied about (by omission) just happened accidentally and they never gained large amounts of growth by claiming the thing they lied about was true, and it only punished the stupid who do risky things. Also $900 million is still about what you might expect from lawsuits for the 400 casualties, and they still have to pay the lawsuits. $18 billion is only the maximum possible fine anyway, and only $37,500 or so per US cheating vehicle, about the price of the car. Certainly they shouldn't have to pay less than their profits, that would only encourage this more. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in your opinions or arguments, I quoted a notable source whose assertions appear reliable, you have responded with contrariness and obvious inattention (when I said they were vulnerable to an $18 Billion fine and the source explicitly says this is the maximum cap), while you have provided no source to back up you counter arguments. This is not a place for debate, which is something I thought you had taken away from the open proposal to have you topic banned. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Re alleged lack of due process: EPA.gov: A lawsuit is required to enforce anything. So the EPA would be found out in court if they were lying so so what if they "coerced a plea bargain"? From Plea bargain (source: Crown Prosecution Service): "Many defendants in serious and complex fraud cases are represented by solicitors experienced in commercial litigation, including negotiation. This means that the defendant is usually protected from being put under improper pressure to plead." so I doubt thus poor world's biggest carmaker was extorted or tricked out of their right to a fair trial. It's not like VW's 1,000% to 4,000% exaggeration is at all comparable to Hyundai's 15% either (and the total penalties cost Hyundai about a third of a billion btw, not just the $100M fine). I don't see the problem with EPA's methods.


 * Re: avg wrongful death payout: U. of Chicago paper cited by 137


 * Re: GM: written by a Professor at the University of Chicago's Law School (U. of Chicago, 4th best law school (tied with Columbia))


 * Ref 4: Washington Post: "In all likelihood, though, the final penalties will be less than that amount." ($18 billion)


 * If you'd been paying attention Medeis you could've noticed that the only source you gave pretty much lied when it claimed that a NASA study concluded that "pedal misapplication" was the main culprit when the study listed that last of an unranked group of three and said others were possible. Do I have to read the rest of that long unreliable source? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There's another issue. Having lived in Denver, Colorado, a metropolitan area with emission standards possibly tighter than California's, it's a very real issue to the owner of a Volkswagen there whose software is reset to stop fooling the emissions testing gear - you either have to sell your VW, hand it back to the dealer, or move out of Denver.  Denver won't even tag a USED car that doesn't meet emissions specs (I went back and forth for three months trying to get my otherwise splendid 1992 Subaru Legacy wagon to pass specs, including an expensive trip to the best Subaru tuner in Colorado). If I still lived there, and owned a house or had to find a comparable place out in the adjacent counties (much more expensive, since Denver's city council, mayor and the Barkeep-in-Chief/Governor of Colorado have very successfully made Denver the place everyone wants to move away from), the last thing on my mind would be hanging on to my new VW.  I'd be pissed off. loupgarous (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the software could be "fixed" in on of two ways:
 * They could (as you suggest) simply remove the illegal "defeat device" settings - which would cause the car to continue driving with current performance and mpg benefits - but resulting in much more NOx emissions and a failure to pass emissions testing when the car goes for its next inspection.
 * They could (as most people believe they will) make the "defeat device" settings permanent, whether the car is being tested or not - which would result in markedly higher fuel consumption and significantly worse acceleration - but with NOx emissions being within acceptable guidelines.
 * Obviously, the first of these two things would result in people being unable to sell their cars - or even drive them legally - once their next emissions test is due. The second option would result in the car passing emissions testing just as it always did - but with less acceleration and worse mpg.  The second option makes it legal to drive and sell - but results inn a significantly worse car than people thought they had purchased - which will seriously impact the resale value and general utility of the car and result in outraged owners.  In the USA, at least, the latter is VW's only reasonable course of action.  Maybe in other parts of the world, VW will choose differently. SteveBaker (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The odd twist on this is that the current software produces far less CO2 emissions than the legal version would - and NOx actually acts to ameliorate global warming! Sadly, NOx is also responsible for smog, lung irritation and acid rain.  VW's cars are kinder on the planet in the long term, by being harsher on the local environment in the short term.  In a more rational regulations environment, we should be considering whether higher NOx emissions are a reasonable price to pay for lower CO2 and reduced fuel consumption.  That's not a clear-cut decision.  I'm starting to suspect that VW were doing "The Right Thing" despite having to break the law to do it. SteveBaker (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In hindsight "The Right Thing" was probably to invest in hybrid technology, which provides similar or better emissions than diesel in nearly all categories (though still at a higher price in many cases). VW bet big on diesel as a clean technology while most other companies seeing the same regulatory trends went towards hybrids (or more exotic technology like electric vehicles).  As a result VW produces nearly twice as many diesel cars as their nearest rival but have only a very small footprint in the hybrid market.  In retrospect it seems that after betting on diesel they were unable to compete fairly in the "clean car" space, and so they ended up choosing to cheat to keep up with the emissions profiles demanded by regulators.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hybrids are great for 'in town' driving - but over long freeway trips, they can be painful. Firstly, they drain the battery down until it needs the gasoline engine to turn on - and from that point the very small, low-power gasoline engine has to both push the car at speed and charge the battery.  The result is that it doesn't have the spare capacity to put much back into the battery - and until you get off of the freeway, you have (in effect) a gasoline powered car with a horribly low power engine.

Stay cool; wearing a second white layer over a dark-colored layer?
Suppose one is walking in a moderately hot environment with the sun bearing down on them and with no cloud or shade cover. One is wearing a black-colored 100% cotton t-shirt. To stay cool, would it be advisable to put on a second 100% cotton t-shirt, but this time, white in color? In other words, would one be able to stay cooler with two layers of t-shirts with the outer layer being white-colored, or would one stay cooler with a single layer of t-shirt but black-colored? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am highly dubious of the idea of wearing any kind of layers in the heat/sun exposure. A single white shirt seems to be the best idea 01 02 Void burn (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The colour of clothing related to heat absorption is a matter of some debate, but the latest evidence suggests that black may be better. See The Physics that Explain Why You Should Wear Black This Summer. An often quoted example is the Tuareg people who may wear black from head to toe in one of the hottest environments on the planet.  Alansplodge (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Tuareg people article includes many pictures of them wearing white and various shades of blue, and a Google image search for Tuareg turns up more of the same. I don't trust The Straight Dope's answer. See also this thread on the Physics Stack Exchange. - BenRG (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Think it may be worth coming back to basics here. Half the sun's energy that reaches us (excluding gamer, x ray's etc.) is in the near infrared spectrum (700– 2500nm). The Tuareg people's glad rags work so well,  because  the surface of the material, not only reflect the much of the  near infrared from the sun rays but all that near infrared which is   radiating at them from the hot desert ground around them (a bit like standing in an oven than under an overhead  grill).  However, some energy 'is' absorbed  by the surface, and  that is carried away be convection. The thickness of the cloth behind the material's surface also has poor conductivity (like any other good clothing in other climes). Their clothes are also loose fitting, so allowing  air to circulated between body  and clothing and  allowing the bodies heat to escape via convection.  The white tee shirt, by its very nature will reflect some energy but it will also act as a further insulating layer to the internal heat if worn over the top of other clothing.  Any combination of tee shirts won't work, I'm absolutely sure, because as a teenager I thought I could design and patent  a heat-diode (a device that would only pass heat energy one way. But the physic proved that this was impossible).  So, if your a size S, just ware a blackish  XXXL thick track-top (unzipped) but not with a thin white tee-shirt over the top.--Aspro (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What is it about the surface of the Tuaregs' black garments that reflects heat better than white? Would they not be even cooler with similar loose layers of white?  I was taught that black absorbs heat better that white (as well as radiates better).  Was I taught wrong?  I agree that loose-fitting layers keep the heat from reaching the body by conduction, but does black not radiate heat heat towards the body faster?    D b f i r s   17:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Aspro is claiming that the garments may be black in the visible spectrum, but that if you were able to expand your perspective, you would find that they are strongly "infrared-colored". I suppose that is possible, but I am skeptical and would like to see some evidence. --Trovatore (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can imagine some hi-tech material that looks black yet reflects heat better than white, but are the Tuaregs' black garments not just a cultural convention? ( Unsigned reply by Dbfirs at 17:33, September 25, 2015‎ (UTC) Apologies for omitting the signature. )
 * @ Dbfirs.You were not taught wrong (teachers don't do that), Rather you were instructed how to give answers to pass your exams. I did the experiments at school too, where we  a black soot pasted on the back of one hand and thin aluminium foil  pasted to the other.  Then placed them close  to a kilowatt electric  bar. BUT the foil and soot was very thin and it glued to the back of hands so we felt conduction – which was explained to us.  Black-body radiation was introduced during this  period and this was over 50 years ago, so  I get the very strong impression that modern science education during  the 1970's had  schools just skimming over these details.  Their curriculum is so broad now that there isn't time real real explanations. This situation has to change or the Chinese and their education system will just take us all over. This is getting very serious – really very serious. Employers in the US are screaming for more and more Green Card employes because the US and UK education system is just churning out graduates, with heads full of facts but no real understanding which is of any use in the real world.--Aspro (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the gap between clothing and skin makes an enormous difference, but the only way I can see black working better for close-fitting garments is that it generates a stronger convection current of air (and that would not be sufficient to reduce the heating effect, would it?), though there might be other effects that I haven't thought of. By the way, I was educated over 50 years ago, too, not during the 1970s, and my question was rhetorical.    D b f i r s   23:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd advise any future respondents to read Alan's nice link above, the link therein to the Straight Dope discussion, and possibly even the journal article cited there . The conclusion, base on a study of animals, is that white is better than black only in zero wind. Once air motion comes into play, black seems to dump less heat to the body. Forget what the Tuaregs may have figured out, think of what evolution has "figured out" about keeping cooler in hot environments. The Ravens of the desert southwest USA are all black, not white. I'm not going to say they don't exist, but I can't think of any desert animal that is all or even mostly white. Here's a follow-up paper by Waslberg  on coat color and heat gain in animals, that is freely accessible. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, just like vulture are black. If the wind drops, the Tuareg only have to  go indoors (for shade) to avoid the heat, just like Inuits go indoors (to avoid wind chill) if the wind picks up and it gets ruddy cold. The white/black confusion is due to a misunderstanding of the basic  physics. --Aspro (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Good source! I do not however agree with the io9 and Straight dope articles. The article by Walsberg, Campbell, & King, and the later one you posted by Walsberg, only talk (as far as I can see) about incoming radiation. They say that light-color coating allows short-wave radiation to penetrate deeper. Dark coating absorbs more radiation, but mostly on the surface. Forced convection by wind will remove more heat from the surface, so the net result is that dark coating reduces the heat gain. So yes, in the sun, and with a little breeze, black clothes could be cooler than white.
 * They never claim that this also works in the opposite direction. The 1978 article states explicitly that they "continue to assume that long-wave radiation is absorbed at the coat surface". And according to the book "The Physiological Ecology of Vertebrates: A View from Energetics", the emissivity (and therefore the absorptivity) of arctic animals and birds in the infrared varies between 0.95 and 1, irrespective of coat color. In other words: In long infrared, the range where a body of 37°C would radiate most heat, white coats are "black".
 * The io9 and Straight dope articles claim that white clothes "reflect internal heat back towards your body" and dark clothes wouldn't, but that is based on the visible part of the absorption spectrum, which doesn't tell us anything about long-wave infrared.  Ssscienccce  (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not white, but Fennec fox, Addax and Saudi gazelle aren't (or weren't in the case of the Saudi gazelle) really that dark, nor for that matter some camels.
 * BTW the conclusion to your last source is:
 * "It is apparent that no general answer is possible to the common question of whether animals with dark or light coats acquire greater solar heat loads. Both theoretical considerations and empirical measurements demonstrate that there is no simple relation, even in a qualitative sense, between coat color and radiative heat gain. A darker coat may acquire either a larger or smaller solar heat load depending upon a complex suite of organismal and environmental properties that often are independent of pelage or plumage color."


 * Personally, from the limited evidence presented here thus far, I would be reluctent to conclude that heat loss is a significant factor in the evolution of most animal colouration, or that we can be certain which circumstances it will be beneficial with regards to temperature regulation. The only thing I will say is that the simplistic physics assumption of white being better because it reflects visible light, is also probably not that helpful.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Consider the converse: many arctic animals are white (presumably to help with camouflage), despite the heat savings they'd apparently get from being dark-coloured. Heck, many animals molt into whiter coats during the winter. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The same theory would also explain that: light penetrates deeper through a layer of white coating, if they were dark, only the outher surface would be heated and that heat would be lost to the environment (wind). But camouflage may well be the main reason, in the winter there's not much sunshine to profit from anyway.   Ssscienccce  (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Got the feeling that there might still be a few Doubting Thomases out there, regarding the much over- simplified explanations that they were taught at skool. Here is a link to just one company that has a few graphs about their heat reflecting paint. How Cool Colors and Eclipse Work Their pigments (like other IR paints by other manufactures) are anything but white to our eyes.  As I said above, about 50% of sunlight  is  IR. It is the IR reflectance that maters, not what it looks like to our eyes.--Aspro (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I admit to being one of those! As I wrote above, I can imagine some hi-tech material that looks black yet reflects heat better than white, but are the Tuaregs' black garments not just a cultural convention?  Do Ferro market fabrics in the Sahara?    D b f i r s   16:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * With the Tuaregs it was more than likely a serendipitous discovery originally, that was adopted by virtue that every day experience demonstrated it worked. Those habits that ensure survival beget a cultural practice. Something that no one has mentioned yet, is that they where also referred to as 'the blue people' suggesting that they did not have access to mordants, the absence of which   may enhance the cloths reflectivity of IR over fixed dyed cloth. Desert Sheiks on the other-hand had cool shady palaces to dwell in and so could comfortably perambulate in expensive light colored  fabrics. The Tuaregs did not need any Ferro, ICI, Depont or any other modern company to achieve their discoveries. The Chinese did not understand chemical science when they invented gunpowder, nor ceramic science when they developed translucent bone china etc. It was just through mindful observation. This is the problem alluded to in the latest post on /. . Science education should not be  rote memorization (eg.,  white cool/black hot) in order to pass an exam and make one's school look good on the exam-pass-statistics but rather focused on learning to understand. --Aspro (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about desert sheiks in white, but I would be inclined to think that the Tuareg used black just because it was cheap, and found by experience that loose clothing of whatever colour kept the heat back. I still have to see any evidence that black cloth reflects infra-red frequencies better than white, though I agree that it is more opaque, and so will absorb shorter frequencies better.    D b f i r s   19:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would black cloth be cheaper though? I'm now wondering what fibre Tuareg people use. Wool, cotton or linen? In any case the simplest colour to make is ecru. Where are their textile-producing areas and what natural dyes have they traditionally had access to? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've unintentionally confabulated reflectance with Black-body radiation. Therefore, I will put it another way. If one places a piece of charcoal onto snow, it will slowly melt the snow below due to the change in phase from ice to water which takes out the heat that the charcoal absorbes from the Sun. It is slow because charcoal is a very poor conductor of heat (think of the conductivity  black cloth). If  one was to place the same piece of charcoal on a desert dune, the sand below would not get as hot as the rest of the dune.  This is because the upper surface of the charcoal would start to radiate back up into the sky whilst conducting very little back to the sand (think of the conductivity  black cloth). Second: You know how Day-Glo paper works. It absorbs invisible UV and  radiates it back as visible light making the pigment look brighter to our eyes. Likewise, the non IR and visible part of the spectrum heats the charcoal also and not pass through it (like white cloth will do), turning that energy into non visible IR and that energy is  also radiated back into the sky. So if one was to stand close to a wall of charcoal in the desert one would feel the heat radiating off it. Look at it with a thermal IR camera and it will appear brighter than everywhere else  because it is not conducting heat away into its interior  but radiating it away again. This was why I could never invent my thermal diode. Is this wound large enough for Thomas to put his hand in and cease doubting? Note: This question should have been posted on the science desk.--Aspro (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Our disagreement has radiated away!   D b f i r s   06:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What is this circular structure?
I've seen this type of circular structure at some old houses. What is it? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like a well which has been filled in, to me. They could have removed the well wall down below ground level, but that would cost more and might cause a problem in the future when somebody tries to dig there and runs into the well wall they didn't know about.  Also, the well wall makes for a nice garden feature (although they don't seem to have taken advantage of it here).  You could have a tree in the center, flowers around the edges, and use the well wall as a seat. StuRat (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why would anyone make a well about 7 or 8 feet across? Apart from the amount of material that would need to be removed, the safety aspect of pressure on the wall at that diameter and the likelihood of falls into the well are significantly high without a major structure to cap the well. Is this a typical size for working wells in that part of the US? I don't know what it is but it may well just be a structure that surrounded a largish tree at one time. Richard Avery (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a very old style of open well. They would dig a spiral staircase down to the bottom, and use that for people to remove material, and later water: .  The well walls weren't vertical, but an inverted stepped cone, making it more stable.  (The OP did say "old houses".  Perhaps we should find out how old they meant.)  I do agree that they are unsafe, but this was from a time when safety didn't seem to be much of a concern. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a poser. It looks like the uploader is still active. Have you tried asking him? Although he might not know either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is anyone not proposing that it's a decorative stone border around a garden? -- Jayron 32 10:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Or a filled in pond? -- Q Chris (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You could ask the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. The File name suggest that it's from the Hofwyl-Broadfield Plantation Historic Site. Contact information in the link. Sjö (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

My family used to have a filled in garden pond that looked very much like that. It too was considerably deeper on the inside than outside. --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Decorative stone border sounds about right. See the V-cracks, indicating a lack of foundation.--TMCk (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * See Raised-bed gardening for why such high barriers are useful for these cases. Smurrayinchester 13:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've seen many new homes that had a thin, spindly young tree planted into a circular arrangements of brick...a year later, the tree dies because the builder didn't plant it right - and the resulting circle of bricks doesn't get properly maintained by the home-owner. SteveBaker (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Shallow wells that I've seen are a lot smaller. Maybe it contained water and maybe fish. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The heavily built fence in the background is in a couple of the photos on the website for the Hofwyl-Broadfield Plantation (located near the Georgia coast), therefore this old masonry structure appears to be a feature of this rice plantation. Given that it's on an old rice plantation (1800s-1913) located next to barns perhaps it's the foundation (the large cracks would be due to its age and unstable soil) of a grain silo used for storing the rice. According to this source, silos in the mid1800s were essentially stone or straw lined pits and these only became tall round towers around 1890.  The earliest tower silos were built of wood and being tall and exposed to the elements these were subject to rot (which is why we don't see it now :-)), and there also appears to be an embedded guy anchor that would have held a guy-wire to help stabilize the structure (it's the metal loop poking through the surface on the right front). -Modocc (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Right. It has no fondation b/c it is (a shallow) one for a wooden silo. I should've known since back in Kansas we were surrounded by them. Doh.--TMCk (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(1) I asked the uploader and he said "Of course, it's a stone circle! :) Specifically, no. Don't remember any signs for it. I just took lots of pictures at the plantation of anything that looked interesting."

(2) This photo is from a house from the early 1850's but another one I've een (on Google Earth) is from 1756 (both are plantations). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Emojis
Doesn't it just annoy you when people use this emoji

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

It's as if theyre trying to do a smiley face but cant be bothered with the semi colon and need to over empthasize the smile by dropping dozens of brackets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.27.47 (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt there are any reliable references for whether or not it just annoys me. —Tamfang (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)