Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 March 25
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 24 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 26 > |
| 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 25[edit]
Who can buy land/property in Cuba?[edit]
With the current softening of relations between the US and Cuba - I believe it's still not legal for US Citizens to buy land or other property there - but what about people from other countries? I'm a British citizen - I don't think the UK government disallows it - but what about the Cubans? SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- This explains some of the legalities.--Phil Holmes (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- We don't give legal advice here and this is an area where Caveat emptor means what is says. My barber bought a villa in Spain some years ago (we are all in the EU aren’t we?) only to find he didn’t own it! Same with Cuba. As the opportunities are really great for the early investor -so are the risks. One has to have both eyes open and WP is not the place to do your homework. Go up and visit the the Cuban Embassy in London. Stay clear of the sharks. Double check everything the embassy official tells you. Forget referring this to your family solicitor (he only understands normal house conveyancing), find one that understands overseas property purchase. Then go-for-it. If you have the odd £100,000 to spare, you can escape UK death duties and leave your dependents with some tangible assets that the taxman can't take away.--Aspro (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is little chance Steve will travel about 5000 miles to visit the UK Cuban embassy and sadly the Cuban embassy in Washington DC is not likely to be much help any day soon. Richard Avery (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. What I was inferring, that when buying property over-seas one needs info from RS. These days, we have the benefit of instantaneous-world-wide-communications and if the OP has relatives in the south of the UK (which for US reader, is a small insignificant island community just off the coast of mainland Europe). Then, if the OP is anything like an entrepreneur ( and face, it he must be, to up-root to now live west of Watford). He should have no trouble in either contacting the UK Cuban Embassy directly by phone or asking a relative to pop-in to pick up the necessary paper work. This is where the sharks have the advantage. They convince the unwary that this is all so very difficult and complicated– and they 'only' can cut through all the red tape. What red tape? Cuba wants foreign investment. Sharks what easy money. So, the process require only the same caveat emptor caution as when buy some other high value item. For a long term investment (35-40 years plus) a better investment may be in the lower town districts of Havana. Just look at the lower town districts of San Francisco during the 1960's. Because, rents where cheap they only attracted beach-bum that wanted to surf and hippies (that wanted to do, whatever hippies wanted to do). Now these areas have regenerated and the owners are sitting on millions of dollars worth of property. The difference between those that retire on a meagre pensions and those that don't is sometimes to do with the Parable_of_the_talents_or_minas#Parable_of_the_Talents Parable of the Talents. Unless one sows, one can not reap. But one has to take the risk of breaking new ground first, so that ones seeds have fertile soil in which to grow.--Aspro (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Photography density[edit]
I read somewhere that considering all of humanity, there are now more photographs taken per minute than there were taken per year in the 19th century. Is this true? I also remember reading something about more photographs being taken now per minute (or at least per day) than there were taken during the entire 19th century. Is this true? I would imagine the total number of photographs taken during the 19th century must be at least several hundred, but probably less than one hundred thousand. Nowadays, people take many millions of photographs every single year. JIP | Talk 22:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how you'd measure it, but there were certainly more than 100,000 photos taken in the 19th century. By the 1890s, photography studios were a thriving business, even in the small towns where many of my 19th century relatives had their pictures taken. I'm just one guy, and I have at least 100 family pictures dating to before 1900. I recall someone a few years ago, possibly Norm MacDonald, talking about how in the old days everyone had like one picture that they would carry around; and that today, everyone has hundreds or maybe even thousands that they can carry on their hand-held device. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cinematography entails taking multiple photographs in sequence. 19th century: In 1873 motion picture pioneer Eadweard Muybridge would have needed weeks to capture as many as 24 images on glass-plate cameras. In 1882 Étienne-Jules Marey could shoot 12 (occasionally 60) consecutive frames a second. The 1888 Roundhay Garden Scene is the a rare surviving film from the time before routine availability of 35mm celluloid strip movie film. 20th century: Following the popularisations of Edison and Dickson's Kinetoscope in 1893 and the Lumière brothers' Cinematograph in 1895, the century began with Movie theaters in operation in western capitals and continued with virtually continuous production of new movies by increasing numbers of cinematographers. It is unlikely that there was ever a moment in the 20th century when a movie camera was not taking pictures somewhere at 16 to 24 frames per second, whose accumulation outpaces all still photography both in the 20th and, of course, the 19th centuries. AllBestFaith (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest that the original claim more likely referred to still photos alone. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It seems kinda meaningless to compare movie frames in the past to still pictures in the present - and if you include movies in the present, YouTube alone would overwhelm movie production in the past by a spectacular margin. SteveBaker (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- JIP, your original statement that "I would imagine the total number of photographs taken during the 19th century must be at least several hundred, but probably less than one hundred thousand" is a spectacular underestimate. Photography became widespead in 1839 and only gained in popularity during the remaining six decades of the 19th century. Local business directories published in the 1840s sometimes listed more daguerrotypists than dentists. By 1853, there were 86 photo portrait galleries in business in New York City. On page 34 of his book The Daguerrotype in America, the eminent historian of photography Beaumont Newhall wrote: "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts officially reported in 1855 that 403,626 daguerrotypes had been taken in the state during the past 12 months", and he also states that in 1860, the U.S. Census reported that 3,154 Americans were employed as photographers. The U.S. Civil War that began in 1861 led to a boom in photography, and the inexpensive Carte de visite photo portraits became ubiquitous. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Considering this, I must have vastly underestimated the number. It must rank in several millions, at the least. Nevertheless, I think my point still stands, the photography density today is vastly greater than in the 19th century. "At least many millions per year" seems also a vast understatement. I myself have taken a quarter of a million photographs in five years, and that's just me. Professional photographers take even more photographs, and then there's the hordes of cellphone camera snapshot/selfie enthusiasts. I would imagine today humanity takes at least several million photographs per day. JIP | Talk 21:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again, your estimates are low, JIP. According to this article in The Atlantic, well over 600 billion photos a year are uploaded, which is almost two billion a day. Including those that are not uploaded, the figure probably exceeds a trillion a year. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Considering this, I must have vastly underestimated the number. It must rank in several millions, at the least. Nevertheless, I think my point still stands, the photography density today is vastly greater than in the 19th century. "At least many millions per year" seems also a vast understatement. I myself have taken a quarter of a million photographs in five years, and that's just me. Professional photographers take even more photographs, and then there's the hordes of cellphone camera snapshot/selfie enthusiasts. I would imagine today humanity takes at least several million photographs per day. JIP | Talk 21:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- JIP, your original statement that "I would imagine the total number of photographs taken during the 19th century must be at least several hundred, but probably less than one hundred thousand" is a spectacular underestimate. Photography became widespead in 1839 and only gained in popularity during the remaining six decades of the 19th century. Local business directories published in the 1840s sometimes listed more daguerrotypists than dentists. By 1853, there were 86 photo portrait galleries in business in New York City. On page 34 of his book The Daguerrotype in America, the eminent historian of photography Beaumont Newhall wrote: "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts officially reported in 1855 that 403,626 daguerrotypes had been taken in the state during the past 12 months", and he also states that in 1860, the U.S. Census reported that 3,154 Americans were employed as photographers. The U.S. Civil War that began in 1861 led to a boom in photography, and the inexpensive Carte de visite photo portraits became ubiquitous. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- It seems kinda meaningless to compare movie frames in the past to still pictures in the present - and if you include movies in the present, YouTube alone would overwhelm movie production in the past by a spectacular margin. SteveBaker (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest that the original claim more likely referred to still photos alone. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cinematography entails taking multiple photographs in sequence. 19th century: In 1873 motion picture pioneer Eadweard Muybridge would have needed weeks to capture as many as 24 images on glass-plate cameras. In 1882 Étienne-Jules Marey could shoot 12 (occasionally 60) consecutive frames a second. The 1888 Roundhay Garden Scene is the a rare surviving film from the time before routine availability of 35mm celluloid strip movie film. 20th century: Following the popularisations of Edison and Dickson's Kinetoscope in 1893 and the Lumière brothers' Cinematograph in 1895, the century began with Movie theaters in operation in western capitals and continued with virtually continuous production of new movies by increasing numbers of cinematographers. It is unlikely that there was ever a moment in the 20th century when a movie camera was not taking pictures somewhere at 16 to 24 frames per second, whose accumulation outpaces all still photography both in the 20th and, of course, the 19th centuries. AllBestFaith (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)