Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 August 20

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.

August 20

Sending lots of photos over Internet

What's an effective way so send about 20 jpeg photos (~200mb in total) over to someone without using .rar or .zip? Acceptable (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dropbox? [1] Dismas|^(talk) 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Upload them to a site like photobucket and send your recipient a link to the album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of promoting one company over another, you might also consider sending the folder via a service like YouSendIt. It does have a number of no-charge options, and it does work rather well (from my own experience). --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

How good are you with computers? You could download Apache and serve the photos from your home computer. (An FTP server would probably be an even better choice; very easy to set up if you're running Linux). I wouldn't bother if you hardly send this many photos, but if you do this often or want to send the photos to multiple recipients, serving them yourself eliminates any middlemen, terms of service, and non-ISP bandwidth charges.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 04:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Some ISPs have in their terms of service that you are not to operate a server. I don't know that they'd really enforce that if you're just running ftpd (yikes! don't do that -- at least make it sshd) for a few friends to download stuff (assuming they even found out), but I also don't know that they wouldn't. --Trovatore (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt zipping them would help much, and at an average of 10 MB apiece, you might hit the upper bound on your e-mail. Do they have to be sent via internet? Certainly 200 MB will fit easily on a CD (or better yet, a little flash drive) and they could be snail-mailed. Also, if there's anything sensitive in those photos, you're better off not using the internet anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What about Flickr? If they have a 'private album' feature or something similar, you could upload it there and then send the person the link. You could use a 'private album' or a similar feature if you don't just want anybody to see the photos. Chevymontecarlo 06:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

One important thing to note (which may help to cut off some avenues of discussion here) is that JPEG files are already compressed about as tightly as it is possible to compress image data. So if you're looking for a way to compress them further, you are wasting your time. Compressing JPEGs usually makes them bigger - not smaller! Hence, all programs like ZIP and RAR (and TAR and BZIP and GZIP...and many, many others) are going to do for you is to package all of those files into one big one. If the person you are sending them to is technologically unsophisticated and might not be able to unpack them - then you're basically going to have to send them individually. I agree though that for most people it's better to put the images onto some kind of web site so people can look at them super-easily - and only have to save them if they need to. SteveBaker (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually some specialised models can usually further compress JPEGs. StuffIt was the first, but it seems others notably WinZip have now developed their own. I can't find any tests with multiple files but these two [2] [3] show StuffIt achieved a compression ratio of 24%+ (0% means n compression i.e. compressed file is same size as uncompressed). (StuffIt still seems to be about the best, perhaps because they have patents, Some PAQ variants may be mildly better but these are generally more research then intended for normal usage, and I wonder if they actually violate the patents anyway.) This isn't that surprising since it's a rather old format. See also JPEG#Lossless further compression. I think this has been discussed before on the RD as well. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

hjsplit is a little free program that can split your files into smaller chunks that you can send as e-mail attachments. The recipient uses the same program to reconnect the files. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Making food with just a water boiler

I'd like something that can be stored in room temperature and is healthy so I can just buy a large quantity and not bother about it anymore. It won't be my only source of nutrition, no worries. --85.77.220.201 (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Pot Noodles were healthy but they'd fit your bill! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dried soup mixes (particularly for legume-based soups) also qualify. Marco polo (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Couscous (the instant sort). Just add a spice or two. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

How about pasta and rice? Googlemeister (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Mie Goreng is ultra cheap, rather tasty and really good with different sauces and spices.Jabberwalkee (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are willing to do some work, and not use the water boiler but sunshine, then rather than buy the factory made crap then mipku is always good. Once you have that you could then go on to make Pemmican. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Missed a bit the first time. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cup a soup? Chevymontecarlo 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Many types of meat, starches and vegetables, as well as fruit and milk are available in jars, cans or plastic retort pouches, and can be stored at room temperature. There is no reason to stick to dried instant meals or weird exotic foods. Crackers have a long shelf life as well. So does cereal, rice, and instant mashed potatoes. Peanut butter is an old favorite. Velveeta is a cheese product that does not need refrigeration. Edison (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nit picking: the article says "As is the case with most processed cheeses, the manufacturer recommends Velveeta be refrigerated after opening." 92.29.119.106 (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good information. One website claimed it did not, but it certainly makes sense to refrigerate it after opening, and I accept your statement that that is what the manufacturer m. I could not find any info relative to this on the Kraft homepage. One possibility would be to find some meal-sized packs, so that you only open what the family or individual can consume in a meal. Edison (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the suggestions that have been made are devastatingly high in dietary sodium. Unfortunately it seems to be extremely difficult to get convenient staple nutrition in a way that is even remotely within the sodium limits that are even borderline acceptable. The pasta and rice suggestions are not bad provide you don't add salt or salty sauces; similarly you could consider using oatmeal as a decent fraction of your daily calories (I like to get the steel-cut oatmeal, and add fresh or dried fruit to the boiling water before putting the oatmeal in).

But unfortunately there's no substitute for lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, and they have to be bought every two or three days. There is no healthy way to buy a lot and forget about it. --Trovatore (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of fresh fruit and vegetables, dried and frozen fruits and vegetables can provide a good alternative. Dried fruits can keep, if stored correctly, almost indefinately at room temperature. A properly maintained garden can provide a nearly year-round source of fresh vegetables in most climates, if the proper vegetables and fruits are planted at the right times. Excess fruits and vegetables can be canned and stored as preserves, and you don't need anything more than boiling water to sterilize the mason jars. People did manage to eat year round before the advent of prepared foods and microwaves. --Jayron32 05:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Energy bars meet your criteria with the added advantage of not requiring any additional preparation at all. There are many brands all with different nutritional profiles so read labels carefully. —D. Monack ^talk

Help in identifying a golf cart.

The unknown golf cart in question.

I know I've asked this before, but I've been searching Google for months regarding info on a certain Yamaha golf cart. It had no inbuilt roof, and had handlebars for steering instead of a typical wheel. I don't know the year or model, and my dad returned it to the dealer due to technical problems. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's YAMAHA TurfMate G6-A. See [4], [5], and [6]. Oda Mari (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Helping me find a sticker the size of an asterisk.

I am applying stickers to a scale model, and I just lost a shiny, circle-shaped modeling sticker that is only like, a millimeter in diameter. How am I supposed to find it in my carpeting without ruining or destroying it by accident? 64.75.158.198 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Try a lint roller. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Turn off the lights and try shining a bright flashlight over the area and see if you can pick up a reflection. Matt Deres (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Static electricity is your friend here. Googlemeister (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do I see the number 22 or 2.2 on cars

I see a lot of cars with chrome numbers 22 or 2.2 added as aftermarket trim. Can anyone tell me what this means?23:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.66.7.18 (talk)

Numbers on the sides of cars, unless it's in some sort of race, normally indicate the engine displacement in liters. Although 2.2 is rather low to be proud of it... Dismas|^(talk) 01:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, in these carbon-conscious days, rather high to be proud of it? (Enquires 1.2-driving 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

2.2 being low is very culture dependent. American cars tend to have very high capacity engines - e.g a current standard Chevrolet Corvette has a 6.2 engine and 0-60 in 4.2 secs. On the other hand a current top spec Mitsubishi Evo manages 0-60 in 3.5 from a 2.0 engine. The capacity of an engine is a very unreliable measure of performance. Exxolon (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, these are people bragging about the size of their wheels, not engine. Which is rather silly.. they're hurting the safety and performance of their cars with these ridiculous wheels. I don't see where this is something to brag about. Friday (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking about everyday sort of cars the 2.2 would definitely be engine displacement. Sure it's not a huge engine, but when someone's choosing between a 1.8 litre and 2.2 litre engined car, the 2.2 litre will have noticably better performance (and the 1.8 litre noticably better fuel economy) --Psud (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)