Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2010 March 3

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment 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 3

Broadcast

Do governments allow individuals to set up their own broadcast stations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delvenore (talk • contribs) 02:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In most cases the answer is yes, if you purchase the appropriate license from the government's communications regulator. The huge cost of running a full-powered TV/FM/AM/shortwave station, though, often prevents most individuals from starting one (with maybe a very few exceptions on AM). Equipment alone probably runs into the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention power and programming costs. Most individuals interested in broadcasting experiment with ham radio or amateur television - these, too, require government licensing in the vast majority of countries. Xenon54 / talk / 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In the UK I participated in the running of a community radio station. It got a temporary special license for a few weeks and broadcast using borrowed (and fairly cheap) equipment which would be well within the price range of an individual. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Intresting, thank you. DJ Clayworth is there any special requirements for what you can broadcast? Obviouly noting illegal but could someone get a radio licence and broadcast themself talking 24/hours a day and nothing else? If they had the money of course. Or are there strict content requiremnets —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delvenore (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be standard for Shortwave radio. APL (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Individuals can and do set up their own liscenced broadcast radio stations. See Ham radio. Ham radio stations which are unlicened are called pirate radio stations. In terms of what can be broadcast, as long as you don't violate local copyright law, you can broadcast anything you want. So, you could just ramble on about whatever you feel like speaking; however in most cases you aren't (legally) allowed to pull out your CD collection and start broadcasting music without specific permission from the copyright holders of that music. --Jayron32 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Blu Ray Discs.

can blu-ray discs be played on pc dvd drives ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.48.11 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does a regular, TV-based DVD player play Blu-Ray discs?

Unless you bought a computer recently and specifically added a Blu-ray drive, the answer is "no". Xenon54 / talk / 02:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If your drive can play a blu-ray, it will state so right on the drive. Every blu-ray player I've seen has a blu-ray logo on the front. I seriously doubt anyone would make one that didn't have the logo because that is the selling point and marketing wants everyone to see it. -- kainaw™ 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's on there because that's the name of the technology. It's not a generic name, so it's not just a selling point but a requirement. Blu-Ray is proprietary of Sony.Aaronite (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer is no. The diodes are compleastly different it's like asking a VCR to play a DVD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delvenore (talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer is indeed no, but Delvenore's analogy is pretty poor, because while DVD players can't play VCR tapes, Blu-Ray discs can read DVD discs. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 WInter olympics wardrobe malfunction

I am surprise that you guys didn't mention about Great Britain's wardrobe malfunction at bobsleigh competition. Here's the video: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.81 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't at the Olympics, that's why.Aaronite (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to the story: Split pants —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronite (talk • contribs) 04:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should add it to the artcile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delvenore (talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to the Winter Olympics article as it happened during a World Cup run. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rugby Union popularity

It is often said that the sport of rugby union is the second most popular sport in the world. Is that true? The Six Nations, the Tri-Nations, Argentina, and Oceania, the countries where the sport is most popular, make up only a small percentage of the world's population... -hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Who says that? It seems very unlikely. What the most popular sports actually are will depend on your definition of "popular". Do you mean the most players? The most spectators at matches? The most TV spectators? The most money involved in the sport? --Tango (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be thinking of a UK poll in 2003 that showed Rugby Union as the second most popular sport in the UK, with 18% of Brits having an interest in the sport. Previous polls, before England's World Cup success that year, had Rugby in eighth place. See Rugby union in England#Popularity. This site[2] has cricket as the second most popular sport in the world.Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hipsters

What are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redigrey (talk • contribs) 14:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Hipster (1940s subculture) or Hipster (contemporary subculture) or Low-rise (fashion) (which a style of clothing, or rather the 'cut' of the way the clothes are made so they hang off your hips if my memory is any good). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For the modern use of the term, this [Cat and Girl strip http://catandgirl.com/?p=559] gives you some clue as to how it's normally used. APL (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Question re conjoined twins

Do siamese twins pay for one ticket or two tickets when they go to movies and concerts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendalonger (talk • contribs) 16:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Conjoined twins are two individual people, and thus are individually liable to pay for goods and services they use. This holds good even where the twins share limbs or major organs and could not both exist independently if separated. Abigail and Brittany Hensel, for example, share two legs and two arms between them, each controlling one leg and one arm apiece. To walk, ride a bicycle or drive a car, they must co-operate. However, when it came to getting licences to drive, both twins had to take and pass a driving test on separate occasions. Karenjc 18:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have thouoght the fact that they take up two seats is a simpler reason for charging for two. I have changed your heading to something more helpful, btw. Britmax (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But not all conjoined twins would take up two seats. Googlemeister (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Winter Olympics

I'm currently at a computer which disallows browsing any websites except educational ones, like wikipedia. I need to find out all the performers at the 2010 Winter Olympics closing ceremony. Could someone please list them here for me? Many thank yous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lirvaerif (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See this article (2010 Winter Olympics closing ceremony) for the information that you are requesting. Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

Married couples and Academy Awards

I've put together a List of Academy Award Winning Families, inspired in part by this year's competition between ex-spouses James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow for Best Director. After reviewing the nomination lists for major categories like writing, music, and film editing, I'm reasonably convinced this is the first instance of a couple competing head-to-head for an Academy Award. Question: Did I miss someone?

--198.74.13.100 (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC) --Klantry01 (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated quibble: you've got too many capitals in the article name (WP:LOWERCASE) and section titles (MOS:CAP#Section headings; now fixed). Conserve them, lest they go extinct. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's good that you created such an article ... thanks! But, how are we to know who is and who is not related ... when we look at the list of Academy Award winners and nominees, going back some 80+ years? Just looking at the last names of individuals is surely not a catch-all solution. I would guess that there are many Academy Award-winning (and/or nominated) individuals that come from the same family, when you take into account the thousands of nominees over the years. Like I said, the question is how can we know who is and who is not related, other than by the most cursory glance of surnames? Many of those who are indeed related will not necessarily share the same last name. Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

The op was asking about couples, not relatives, so no need to compare someone now to someone 80+ years ago... Gazhiley (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, his article is called List of Academy Award Winning Families, which in the lead says it would cover relatives. --Kvasir (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, to Gazhiley's point ... even if we limited the discussion to couples only (which we are not), my point still remains valid. A husband (who wins a 2010 Academy Award) might easily be married to his wife of many years, who won an Academy Award in 1962. So, yes, we do indeed need to compare people of today to people from the past 80+ years. Perhaps, not all of those 80+ years, but certainly a good portion of those 80+ years (say, the past 30, 40, 50 years or so). So, my point remains valid ... even if we are only discussing couples ... although, as Kvasir points out above, the article is about all relatives, not limited merely to couples. Furthermore, certainly some "big names" (actors, directors) will be widely known by the general public. But, really, who in the general public "knows" the winners of the more obscure awards? Some (rather obscure) film editor or sound technician or screenwriter could easily be married/related to some other obscure film editor or sound technician or screenwriter. There are many permutations, and it is compounded by going back 80+ years. Who could possibly know all of these relationships over all of these (obscure) people over all of these years? Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

My question deals with a specific aspect: did any couple, married now or in the past, compete for the same award the same year. As far as I can tell, James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow were the first. Testing the proposition was relatively easy: search for female nominees in each category (excluding the gender-specific acting categories), then see who else was nominated the same year. Relatively few women have been nominated outside of the Costume Design awards.

There lots of spouses who collaborated and were nominated together, but I don't think any head-to-head.

Also, because I could confine my tests to specific categories, year-by-year, the multi-generation problem was negated. This is an issue for the overall topic, but I limited myself to direct descendants, couples, siblings, aunts/uncles, first cousins, and in-laws - and only winners. For instance, I was told Rip Torn was married to Geraldine Page and is Sissy Spacek's cousin. Torn has one nomination and no wins, so I didn't include the two Best Actress winners.

Sooner or later, the list will collide with some modern day norms. For instance, there haven't been any instances of a spouse having more than one spouse and/or ex with wins (Richard Burton was never a winner.) I had to scratch my head awhile over how to classify Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. And I'm dreading Brad Pitt winning an Oscar.

Thanks for your input --Klantry01 (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct in that your very specific question dealt with husbands/wives competing head-to-head in the same category in the same year. I agree with all that you have said on that point. My point was directed toward the broader issue of the article as a whole, in general ... that is, how can anyone really "know" who is and who is not "related" from this long list of many names? An interesting side note ... you also mentioned a collision with modern-day norms ... that will (soon) include men married to men and women married to women, especially in gay-friendly Hollywood and the artistic fields. Thanks. (64.252.6.148 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC))

No cable television in Italy?

Is cable television nonexistent in Italy? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Television in Italy_noisy jinx ^huh? 21:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

highly unlikely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditreaium (talk • contribs) 10:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Amazing Adventures Of Spider-man Ride at Universal Studios Florida

Hi someone typed in that Dee Bradley Baker played the voice of Electro in the 1999 The Amazing Adventures Of Spider-man Ride at Univesal Studios article is that true or is that a not true I would like to know thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandrade77 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rock Video

Resolved

There was this video that was on MTV several years ago. I'm sorry,I don't remember how long ago. I think the video was in black and white. It began with a shot of a stage floor with all the wires for the electric guitars and other wires on the floor. Then the main guitarist, who was female, calming strolling amongst these wires playing her part in the song. But she had on these high heels but she was playing almost like a metal riff. The song, I think, was slow to mid tempo. I remember liking that song but I don't remember the band's name nor the name of the song. --Reticuli88 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply based on "years ago", "female guitarist", "high heels", and "almost like metal", it makes me think Lita Ford. -- kainaw™ 07:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not decades ago. Probably in the late 90's. Most of the video was on the bottom halves of the band, mainly focused on the female's legs (of course). I believe she was a brunette with short hair. --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember a shot of Paz Lenchantin wearing heels in the video for Judith by A Perfect Circle. However, she had longer hair in that video. 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

omg, that's it! why did I think it was in the 90's? thanks!--Reticuli88 (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. The song was released in the year 2000, so you were not too far off. I have it playing in my Ipod right now. Cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Planets

Are the names of planets in Star Trek just made up or are they real places somewhere the writers use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velderon4 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In Star Trek, why do many aliens call their home worlds by numbers, like "Cardassia 1" or "Mendees 2" etc. Surely they'd wouldn't call their planets that any more than huamns call earth "earth 1". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velderon4 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer to the first is, a bit of both. Plenty are named after known stars, (Rigel, Vega) although we don't actually know if most of them have planets or not. Others, like Vulcan are made up. Wikipedia has articles on most named stars, so you can find out which for any given planet.

The numbers in planet names are the planet order around the star, so Earth would be "Sol 3" in this system. The natives of a planet probably have a different name for it rather than the numeric one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Earth is Sol 3. The Universal Translator probably translates from their native names to the Earth-used numbered names. When we speak to aliens, it probably translates back to them as "Sol 3". Vimescarrot (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Or "Smooth-forehead homeworld". —Tamfang (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Cardassian homeworld is the seventh planet in it's star system so I suppose it would be Cardassia 7 in the Federation system but the Cardassians call it Cardassia Prime, though, as it is their homeworld. --Joe^Talk_Work 21:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia has Cardassia Prime as the seventh planet in the Cardassia but Memory Alpha has it as the first. Hmm. --Joe^Talk_Work 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In "Tomorrow Is Yesterday", if I remember right, the airman asks: "Vulcan? Isn't that supposed to be inside the orbit of Mercury?" – and Spock replies that Sol has no planet by that name. That's almost an example of "real places somewhere the writers use". —Tamfang (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wolf 359 is a real star not far (relatively speaking) from ours, and was also the setting for the rout of Starfleet forces by the Borg in "The Best of Both Worlds". Also, Vulcan is often (although never, to my knowledge, in actual televised or filmed scripts) described as being in the 40 Eridani system, another real star that is close to home. You may find Stars and planetary systems in fiction a useful article. Powers ^T 14:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the "star name + number" system is a science-fiction trope that predates ST. Forbidden Planet, for example, is set on Altair IV. Deor (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

<primary> + <number> is a template that predates science fiction; for example, until 198x (iirc) only four of Jupiter's many satellites had 'official' names, so the reference books said "Jupiter V (informally Amalthea)". —Tamfang (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Enterprise did not mention Vulcan's star, but there was one episode where someone said it was some number of light years away, which is actually how far 40 Eridani is...so that's the closest they came to acknowledging it. (But have you ever noticed that it takes vastly different amounts of time to get there in different episodes and movies? Sometimes it is only a few minutes away, sometimes weeks...oh well.) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure how time dilation would work if you are actually exceeding light speed since you would get an imaginary number in your result. Googlemeister (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh...well that's true. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In the Babylon 5 universe, they created wormholes to move great distances. And while the majority of the time, you could go where you wanted, there was a small chance they could dump you out at any random location. This could be a useful plot device if, for some reason, you needed a normally short trip to take very long. There were also scout ships which lacked the ability to generate their own wormholes, and thus were limited to the locations of fixed wormholes. StuRat (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Touhoumon

Where can I download the most recent English version of Touhoumon? --70.250.214.164 (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's available on youtube, just search for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditreaium (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)