Miscellaneous desk
< January 13	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 15 >

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.

January 14

Whatzit?

What is the weapon in this photo (taken in 1968)? [1] -- (Caption: President Johnson called federal troops into the nation's capital to restore peace after a day of arson, looting, and violence on April 5, 1968. Here, a trooper stands guard in the street as another (left) patrols a completely demolished building.) —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1D4C:29E3:6313:60B3 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rifle with a bayonet attached. The rifle was moving while the photo was taken. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure -- there appears to be two "prongs" at the end, if it were a single bayonet that was "moving while the photo was taken", wouldn't it simply be blurred? —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1D4C:29E3:6313:60B3 (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This dude does not have a twin. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be some sort of digital artifact/effect -- the '68 photo is purely analog. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1D4C:29E3:6313:60B3 (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a photo taken of a TV screen while the camera was moving (and the images on the screen were too). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly M-14 rifle with bayonet and blurring. Rmhermen (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If its a federal trooper in 1968 then he probably had an M2 or M14 or any of the other rifles mentioned over at Service_rifle#United_States. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bit hard to tell, but the soldier in the background seems to have an M-14. Alansplodge (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it must be a glitch -- the dual-image threw me off; I was thinking of something like an electric cattle-prod -- perhaps as a non-lethal weapon, or something. ...but maybe not. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1D4C:29E3:6313:60B3 (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be awesome. I wish it was tbh. We have some people here who can probably explain exactly how the photo ended up like this. The bottom of the rifle wasn't moving much, but the higher you go the blurrier it gets. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, there is such a thing as a "stun baton", sort of a "taser on a stick":[2] —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1D4C:29E3:6313:60B3 (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a tesla coil. I am pretty sure this photo simply shows a bayonet. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a double image of the weapon, but I don't believe the photo shows a TV screen; the image is sharp enough that we'd see some trace of the 483 horizontal scan lines of that era's TV. Rather, I suggest that street lights are one of the types that flickers at twice the electrical power frequency, or 120 times per second, causing a stroboscopic effect on a rapidly moving object. Presumably the camera's shutter speed was about 1/60 second. --70.29.13.251 (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The TV reference relates to Quixotic Potato's link: "This dude does not have a twin" above. I dunno about the streetlight flicker -- interesting theory, but ... the streetlight shown in the background is not on. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1D4C:29E3:6313:60B3 (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's being illuminated from our left and not by a camera-mounted flash. Have a look at this strobe image to see the effect. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streetlights come on simultaneously -- and that strobe effect would require the "flickering" light to be the sole or primary lighting (as with the tennis photo), otherwise there would be a blurry image from the ambient light between the two strobe images. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1D4C:29E3:6313:60B3 (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streetlights do not necessarily come on simultaneously. Can you not see the proportional blurring of the image nearer to the hands, as would be expected if the weapon is moving? Dbfirs 12:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When there are multiple lights illuminating the same area, as in street lighting, if they're of a type of light that flickers at twice the power frequency then the flicker will be synchronous for all of them. What I don't know is which types of street lighting can flicker that way. --70.29.13.251 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A single faulty street light can flicker at a much lower frequency. Dbfirs 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts as to whether street lights contribute greatly to the lighting in this photographs. I think there is an unusually bright source of light brought to this emergency scene. Bus stop (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The movement of the gun could be a jerky movement, creating an effect in a photograph similar to what would be created by a strobe light. The gun may move quickly from a point to another point with the opening of the camera's shutter corresponding to one point and the closing of the camera's shutter corresponding to the other point seen in what seems to be a dual-image photograph. The "jerky movement" could consist of a relatively stationary point at the beginning and the end of the time period that the shutter is open, with a relatively rapid movement during the mid-section of the time period of the open shutter, thus burning in more distinct visual images at the two extremes of that time duration and less distinct visual imagery at midpoints connecting the two extremes. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is also possible, but I doubt he would jerk it in such a way as to produce equally strong images in both positions. Smooth motion and a strobe effect seems more likely to me, provided that it is plausible for the street lighting in use. Your opinion may vary. --70.29.13.251 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point—the upper and lower images are almost equal in strength. Nevertheless I think I do detect slightly greater strength in the upper image, especially lower down on the instrument. Bus stop (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note the evenly lit background, especially the street (in addition to the dark streetlight) -- this is a daylight shot; the sun doesn't flicker. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1D4C:29E3:6313:60B3 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The shadows just don't look correct for sunlight, but I agree that there may be no flicker present at all, just a significant exposure time. Dbfirs 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image shows a bayonet being pushed aside by Gloria Richardson in 1963. Bus stop (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an M-14 with bayonet, and the picture is a double image (probably strobe as mentioned above.) In 1968, by far the largest concentration of Army troops in the US was the MDW (Military District of Washington), and The M-14 was the standard rifle. The M-16s were (nearly) all assigned to troops in Vietnam as they were just beginning to be manufactures in large numbers. The units called in for riot duty were regular infantry, probably from the 3rd infantry, not any sort of specialized units. There simply was not enough time to do anything else. It is likely buy not certain that the rifle was not loaded, but the soldier had a magazine that he could load if ordered to do so. -Arch dude (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple exposure may be relevant. Iapetus (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shipping eBay items in re-used Amazon packages?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I am selling something on eBay. Is it OK to ship the item sold on eBay in an Amazon package? Obviously, the Amazon box has Amazon's branding, I'm guessing it should be OK, but want to make sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why you cant re-cycle the box, but make sure that all the original barcodes and the like are removed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The USPS does say this. Ebay has this commentary. And here is a discussion on Amazon. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there's no reasonable likelihood that someone will think you're holding yourself (or the products) out as a representative (or products) of Amazon, there's probably no trade dress issue. If you want to really look good, add a little note inside the package (or on the packing slip or receipt) that says something like "Thank you for buying from AQFK. To help conserve natural resources, your item has been shipped in a reused shipping box. Please consider the environment, and reuse or recycle this box where possible."

As noted above, it's important to remove or completely deface all existing address labels and barcodes (so that the parcel doesn't inadvertently get delivered to the wrong place) and all markings and cautions related to the contents (so that your parcel doesn't get held up or returned to you for containing improperly shipped hazardous materials). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much for the links and advice. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you could do also is to apply a non-transparent stretch of tape to the Amazon logo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you not simply wrap the box in stout paper? In the UK wrapping boxes for posting in brown paper and tying string around all 3 dimensions used to be standard practice and in some circumstances a requirement of the Post Office. Hence the line in The Sound of Music's song My Favourite Things: "Brown paper packages tied up with string . . . ." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually a requirement for international parcels, so that the customs could open them and check the contents without damaging the packaging. Wymspen (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in general, I usually repurpose boxes that have been bought by or sent to me by dismantling them, destroying any existing labelling, inverting them, then cutting them to size and sealing them with packing tape, brown side out. I then wrap them in used brown paper shopping bags, similarly inverted, and preferably without a label.

I affix the shipping and address and hand directly to either a mail carrier (if not valuable) or postal worker and confirm they are properly packaged and have sufficient postage, and get a receipt if I go to the office. Notice, I have had a mail carrier "go postal" on me and yell at me for an unproperly sealed box (I had used some Scotch Tape, as well as shipping tape). She proceeded with great difficulty to pick the tape away from the package, and dare to say, "See, this could have come apart in shipping!" ("Yes" I thought, "if handled by madmen!") I resealed the box without any additional tape, dropped it off at a nearby facility, and it arrived without incident.

BE AWARE the USPS does have proper packing regulations, and regarding what materials can be sent, like hazardous or perishable materials--ask the clerk. I can't say what laws cover other unused freely-provided packing material intended for use by a company's customers.

ALSO the "free" USPS priority boxes and other brand-name envelopes/boxes say, for example,

This packaging is the property of the U.S. Postal Service® and is provided solely for use in sending Priority Mail® shipments. Misuse may be a violation of federal law. This packaging is not for resale.

Obviously you'll want the advice of professional services. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the regulations: [3], [4], [5]. 195.147.104.148 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That law may be roughly equivalent to tearing a tag off a mattress. I got a box recently in which it was padded inside with Priority Mail envelopes! The point being, if the Priority Mail markings are not visible, how would they know and why would they care? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BB the unassembled, ready-to-use, USPS boxes are given away freely at post offices and similar outlets on the express condition that they be used for the intended purpose. The USPS is a quasi-private governmental agency and misuse is in effect theft. If you want the details, contact a lawyer or ask at the post office.

But the mattress, once bought, is your property, and you can remove the tag. Indeed, I just got a wonderful new queen-sized Simmons Beautyrest (for 1/3 of what I paid for the same model in 2000) and the dealer explained that while dealers cannot remove the tags, meant for consumer education/protection, the buyer can, but should still save the tag in case of a later warranty issue. They are totally unanalogous situations. I am not walking into mattress stores, taking floor models with an implied promise of payment, and reselling them for my own benefit without paying. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The key point in the USPS regulations would seem to be reselling. There's nothing stopping me from re-using a Priority Mail container. I just can't sell it. PS: I always leave the tags on mattresses, "just in case." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BB, I don't want to engage in debate, and I think the plain language sexplains itself. But you are looking at only the fourth clause, and I think acting on that non-professional opinion alone would be foolish. To reiterate

This packaging is the property of the U.S. Postal Service®

and is provided solely for use in sending Priority Mail® shipments.

Misuse may be a violation of federal law.

This packaging is not for resale.

None of the italicized terms requires resale, and they all have legal import.

When I was trained at Ma Bell we were told the famous case of a woman who took advantage of our policy of sending customers free directories for any area in any quantity at no cost. A woman supposedly ordered enough and taped them together to furnish her house (think couch made of phonebooks) and became a one-time celebrity. The story may be apocryphal (I didn't find it on google), but the local Bells started limiting the area and frequency for which one could order books. The USPS is likewise unlikely to appreciate your using their boxes as kindling and heating fuel. Consult with a professional, not some random guy on the internet. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, then, I should take every Priority Mail container I've ever received, and return them to the post office.

Nah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, just look up wikt:obtuse and wikt:contrary and read all the relevant senses. Oh, and WP:DISCLAIMER, of course. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you just mean "received" as in, had something shipped to you thereby, you should ask to have your HS diploma rescinded, assuming it was based on an understanding of English vocabulary. Things people have sent you have been paid for already, properly. How you dispose of the trash is up to you, and various federal laws which you will need a Philadelphia lawyer to minxplain to you. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it the next time Boxing Day rolls around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]