Miscellaneous desk
< March 11	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 12[edit]

sending pictures from my phone to facebook[edit]

can you tell me how or where to find a way to send my pictures off my phone to my facebook account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.59.168.226 (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: [1] ? RudolfRed (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What type of phone do you have? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss sex boxes[edit]

Yes, this question has something to do with sex. I'm a long time editor. Please don't delete it and brand me a troll, thankyouverymuch.

I recently read a story about a Swiss vote allowing for so-called "sex boxes". I searched for images because I was having a hard time (no pun intended) imagining just what they were. That search led me to this page which has a photo of a sex box. What I'd like to know is what the little area by the red and white bollard is. There seems to be a bit of an alcove or some such thing but I can't quite figure out what it is or why it's there. So, does anyone have more info on how these things are constructed or have a floor plan? Dismas|^(talk) 10:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Dismas; but I don't get why you issued a troll denial merely because the question had something to do with sex. We're not that prudish around here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The internet certainly isn't prudish, and the lack of coverage of this topic (beyond that article) suggests that it's a joke - enhanced by the notion that the famously stoic Swiss would be promoting it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's no joke Dalliance (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's real. There's a photograph of a sex box here. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pure guesswork, but I think the bollard is there as a safety measure, these are 'drive in', and the prostitute can stand to the side, behind the bollard, safe from over-eager drivers misjudging the entry. There also appears to be some shelter from the elements provided by the alcove. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't find much of anything about it on the internet. It must have a different "official" name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it from Germany, I suppose the purpose is the same. The idea is that the driver (sex client) cannot leave the car; contrary to the sex worker, who doesn't get his door blocked, and so has a escape route on the back. There should also be a panic button somewhere, on the bollard, I guess.XPPaul (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original link here implies it's from Switzerland, but it's actually from Germany. How interesting. And if it's for real, how pathetic. Now, if it had a car wash along with it, then they'd have something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me. After the millenia-old war on prostitution, perhaps it's time to give up on banning it and instead just try to keep it out of our faces. StuRat (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no millenia old war on prostitution. Sometimes it was tougher to be one, sometimes it was more respected. Some forms, obviously not the street prostitution, were even encouraged. And some forms, like the child prostitution became so uncommon in Europe that most people will claim it doesn't exist. Fighting some forms of soliciting, trafficking and extortion seems to bear some fruits to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.196.95 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, yes, I think we are. I've seen a number of questions from IPs get deleted with only a two word edit summary, "rv trolling". The farther from the mainstream of sexual intercourse the question is, the more likely it is to be deleted. Just last week I answered a question about rimming that got deleted soon after.
Viriditas, that's the same image that I posted.
Andy, I hadn't thought of shelter from the elements. Good point.
Bugs, they were just voted in in Switzerland, so it's no surprise that they couldn't find a Swiss one to photograph.
Stu, indeed!

Thanks for the responses everyone. As Bugs points out, it would be easier to find info if maybe we had an official name for them but lacking that, I appreciate the ideas and original research. Dismas|^(talk) 07:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany their official name seems to be Verrichtungsboxen (don't know how to translate this lovely word, something like "boxes for immediate performance" or "carrying-out-boxes". It does remind me of toilet stalls, as "seine Notdurft verrichten" is one way of saying "to relieve oneself"). And just to be precise, the vote was held in the city of Zurich, not entire Switzerland. Zurich got the idea from Cologne, but the first to introduce them appear to have been authorities in Utrecht (Netherlands). Afwerkplek is the word in Dutch, so googling that may help your research as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cow on pole[edit]

Just found this image in Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Is it a statue of a cow or manipulated photograph? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obviously a statue. Look at the tail — there's no real hair at the end of it, it's molded and painted. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mind boggles at the "contains materials that originally came from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties" statement - why does NOAA need a photo of this? Roger (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is something I'm also curious about. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I missed the tale part. Just wondering why someone will place a cow statue over a pole or what NOAA has to do with it? In the Maltese language Wikipedia, the image is included in the Surrealism article. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's from The Historic Coast and Geodetic Survey Collection which "will take you on a trip through time and throughout our United States with these men who surveyed the land and the marine waterways of America, helped form the present scientific infrastructure of the United States, and whose indomitable spirit and perseverance is captured in these many remarkable images."[2] I think it's a pretty clear indication of anybody's indomitable spirit, and Seattle is undeniably on a coast. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's some kind of folk art put on top of infrastructure (a utility pole). Looks like it is made out of plastic to me. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't anybody notice the moose rack on the front ? Cows (like this one, with a milk sack) don't usually have horns, and, while bulls have horns, they don't look like that. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language design[edit]

Most people learn to read and write within the course of a few months at an early age. This suggests there could be better (in some senses) ways (those with a steep learning curve) of being literate than what are currently in use anywhere. Have there been any attempts to create something like that? --145.94.77.43 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of constructed languages which are supposedly more precise at the expense of having a quite complex and precise grammar - for instance, loglan and lojban. There are also languages where learning to read takes a lot longer than a few months - English and Chinese are obvious examples - though I don't think there are any in which speaking takes that long. That said, the brain seems to be capable of adapting to any language if it learns it at an early age; while adults variously claim that (depending on their background) English, Japanese, Welsh, German or Mongolian are extremely hard to learn, babies of course pick the language up with no worries. I think you have this the wrong round; it's hard to know if there is a hypothetical language too hard for babies for learn, but easy for adults to learn. If an adult can learn it, a child will almost certainly learn it faster. Smurrayinchester 22:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why does it suggest that? And what do you mean by "better"? --Tango (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply untrue that children "learn to read and write within the course of a few months": it takes a highly variable time, but a few years at least, to master all the skills in reading, from realising that lines on a page can be converted into language, to recognising letter forms, understanding simple and complex morphological rules, learning to recognise words by sight rather than letter-by-letter, and increasing reading comprehension (our article Learning to read is vague, but describes processes that can take several years). Similarly it takes years to progress from basic writing of letters to cursive and producing neat handwriting.

I don't understand the rest of the question - maybe I've not fully learned to read even yet. Do you want to improve reading in children or adults, in first or second languages, and why do you think that should be possible? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all humans have the ability to learn one or more languages as a child, without significant effort: it makes little or no difference which language or languages (though I don't believe there is much research into how children learn artificial languages, mostly because very few have ever done so). Learning to read and write is very different. Everybody, even children, has to work at if they are to become competent, and many never do so. It is clear that the particular language (or at least, writing system) has an effect, as also, probably, does the educational approach taken. This is why Smurrayinchester's reply is almost completely beside the point. But like Colapeninsula, I am very dubious of the basic assumption in the question. --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]