Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 August 18

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 18

spartagus blood &Sand

How can I obtain a copy of the last episode of this series? I saw the entire series and missed the last episode " Kill them all". Is there anyway I can download that episode?

Dorothy Reed

(e-mail removed for security reasons) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.233.242 (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean Spartacus: Blood and Sand. If you have a Netflix account, the episodes will be available for streaming in three days. Dismas|^(talk) 00:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be available through TVDuck: here. Dismas|^(talk) 00:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, at least, it'll be repeated several times over the next week, generally later at night. Take a look in a TV guide. I'm assuming you're more concerned with simply watching the episode than obtaining it from the way you phrased your question. 90.195.179.60 (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you can also see it on watchtvfreeonline.net. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Authenticate your account"? WTF is this nonsense?

OK, so I sign up for an account on IMDB. It tells me I must "authenticate" my account before I can post on any message board, which means using an Amazon account (didn't have one, so I created one, now I must place an order in order for it to authenticate my account, I'm not about to do that), a credit card (hell no, I'm not gonna give out sensitive information like that), or text messaging (those charges aren't cheap, so hell no as well). Why are those my only options, and what is the reasoning behind all of this? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes sure you are a real person, and not a spam-bot or other automated program which will quickly clog their message boards with spam to the point where it becomes impossible to use. --Jayron32 04:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that explain why I would have to place an order on Amazon in order for the authentication to go through? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of the Amazon account is only one option. If that method bothers you, then use the text message or the credit card. The Amazon authentication procedures are different from the IMDB ones and presumably have different reasons for existing. WRT Amazon, one way to ensure you are a real person is that you correctly ordered an item to be delivered to a real address and paid for with real money. --Jayron32 06:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP's point is that such elaborate procedures should not be necessary just to sign up on a friggin' message board. There are plenty of much simpler ways (e.g. captcha, or just responding to an automated email) to ensure that the person is real. IMDB's policy is completely over the top. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 07:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

IMDB have had problems with studios astroturfing their own films. It's not that hard for the PR dept. of a large studio to create a large number of webmail accounts, and then create one IMDB account for each webmail account. Presumably the studios were to do this, they'd use a small company grade line that's not publicly tied to the studio, or their PR staff's home lines. Tying your IMDB account to a credit card makes this a lot harder. As Amazon own (at arms-length) IMDB, they can do the credit-card check via Amazon. CS Miller (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This would be an example of how a few rotten apples trigger mass-punishment and inconvenience. Luckily, that never happens on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

I've contributed to a few IMDb message-boards and link-pages (outside reviews, official French site, etc.), and I didn't have to do any of that when registering in 2003 or 2004. But I can see that when a film is in release or approaching an awards season, its promoters might spam IMDb and more insidiously its rivals might also spam it with negative reviews. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Though strictly speaking, you only need a certain, relatively small percentage of "rotten apples" to render an entire system unworkable. I am betting that a clever sociologist or economist either could or has come up with a fairly precise "rotten apple rate" that is necessary to tank an organization's effectiveness (with variance, no doubt, in the structure of the organization itself, whether it can effectively screen out the "apples" or reverse their harm, etc.). If I were a sociologist or economist (or Malcolm Gladwell), this is something I'd probably find pretty interesting to work on. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Travel from China to US by boat?

I'm interested in traveling from China to America by ship. I don't care about stopping at exotic spots along the way, I just don't want to fly. I've tried Googling a variety of phrases but I can't find anything aside from the usual "Orient Cruise" type stuff. Can anyone help me find some basic information. Surely there must still be SOME demand for sea travel rather than sea-based sightseeing? Rates? Duration? Anything? thank you! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You can sometimes book passage on cargo ships; there is a large amount of cargo sent by ship between the U.S. and China. This google search has some general articles on traveling in this manner; no idea if it is possible to travel this way from China, but it is a viable method in general. --Jayron32 05:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Try Googling "Freighter Travel Voyages" this will bring up names of specialist agents dealing with freighter trips.--85.211.142.98 (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You could also check Cunard. Jørgen (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

...and seat61 has a lot of information on ground-based travelling (though not much trans-Pacific, though). Might be worth a look if you end up going via the trans-Siberian to Europe and from there across the Atlantic. Jørgen (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

...and couldn't resist doing some research: from Beijing it's six days to Moscow, plus three days to London, and then six or seven nights from Southampton to New York with Cunard. That is fifteen days of travelling, but of course these things don't depart every day (and you'd have to have some days margin as well). Might be faster than a trans-Pacific freighter, though (I have no idea) Jørgen (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a website listing freighter routes across the Pacific that accept passengers. The website mentions prices for trips beginning and/or ending in the United States, but presumably you could negotiate directly with the companies owning these ships to arrange a passage from China to the United States. Going directly across the Pacific will almost certainly be less expensive than traveling by rail to western Europe and continuing by freighter or passenger liner across the Atlantic from there, especially if your destination is on the west coast of the United States. Marco polo (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that piece of advice in conflict with your user name? In any case, you are probably right. By the way, train service across the US is fairly good, so your final destination in the US need not affect much which way is best. In about three days you can get anywhere in the States by train. (Or you could, of course, rent a car.) Jørgen (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean three days if there is a train to where you're going, and if you don't lose a day connecting between the western and eastern halves of the rather sparse Amtrak system. (Air travel, on the other hand...) --Anonymous, 21:24 UTC, August 18, 2010.

Wow! I have to say that I assumed that travelling by freighter would be a low-budget way to travel...but these guys are charging between $4000 and $15000 for a trip you could make by plane for $1000 to $2000. SteveBaker (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For a person, yes. But how much does it cost for a car or a bike? Therein lies the rub. I assumed the same thing while traveling in Japan and did some ferry trips but these weren't nearly as cheap as I'd expect. Then I figured out the only people that really use ferries for longer trips are bikers who can transport their bikes around on a ferry much cheaper than they would in a plane. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For a difference of several thousand dollars, you could throw your bike into the harbor and buy a really nice new one at the other end and STILL be a few $k up on the deal! You can ship a car half way around the world for $2,000 without you. It's still not looking like a good deal! SteveBaker (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve, freighter prices look expensive, but see what you get, bed and board, travel, sometimes free booze (depends on the line), anytime visits to the bridge, enjoy the sea air and different ports, restful days sailing. I've done this for £35.00 per day in a basic cabin and up to £75.00 per day, (that was 3 months around the world), in the Owners Suite. Beats flying and the airport hassles any day if you are not in a hurry.--Artjo (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the OP's reasons for not wanting to fly, but if it out of environmental concerns I think they will find freighter travel will use much more fuel than the equivalent journey by air. According to this page, a Boeing 747 consumes about 4 L (1.1 US gal) per second - on the 12.5 hour flying time between Shanghai and Los Angeles the aircraft will consume around 180,000 L (48,000 US gal) of fuel. According to this LA Times article, a freighter consumes 125 metric tons ~150,000 L (40,000 US gal) of fuel for each 500 nautical miles (580 mi; 930 km) travelled - on the 10,500 km (6,500 mi) journey between Shanghai and Los Angeles the freighter will consume ~1,700,000 L (450,000 US gal) of fuel. As others have pointed out above, freighter travel can also be more expensive than air travel. Astronaut (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The environmental costs of flying are certainly much greater than those of sea travel. While it takes more fuel to move a large freighter than a jet plane across a given ocean, the amount of fuel per tonne is much lower for the freighter. The amount of additional fuel needed to carry an additional passenger on the freighter is minuscule, certainly much lower than the amount needed for each passenger on a jet plane. Marco polo (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus the freighter is going no matter how many passengers it is going to carry. That is not the main purpose. Googlemeister (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Freighters don't carry a doctor so no more than twelve passengers are permitted.--Artjo (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The same arguments could be used the other way around: The fuel consumed per passenger km is lower when flying; and the plane will still fly whether or not the OP is aboard. If the OP has lots of time and money and is looking for a different travel experience, then travel by freighter; just don't kid yourself that you're saving the planet by doing so. If you want to save the planet, stay at home and use technology such as the intenet to make a virtual visit to America. Astronaut (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Marco is correct. What counts is the marginal fuel consumption, which is minuscule, probably not measurable.John Z (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The plane will not fly if 1 passenger is not aboard, but if 0 passengers are aboard, it will most likely not fly. The freighter could care less whether it has passengers or not since it's primarily a cargo transport. Googlemeister (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would think it depends. There may be situations where it will have to fly even with no passengers, e.g. if they need to pick up people on the other other side, and particularly likely if they're not in their home airport. A perhaps better point is that the number of flights, type of aircraft used, etc will generally vary over time depending on the passenger load each flight has. Nil Einne (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Indian TV audio problems

My Sky TV package here in the UK lets me watch NDTV 24x7, the Indian TV news service. One thing I have noticed, that is not present on other TV news channels, is the audio is often distorted, like the amplification is turned up way to high. Is there a technical reason for this distortion? And is there a way I can remove the distortion without affecting the other channels or involving huge expense on my part? Astronaut (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You should call the SkyTV service center and explain the problem. There is unlikely to be anything you can do on your end of things and it's their responsibility to deliver quality audio to you. They appear to be one of those companies who are resistant to giving you a phone number to call - so perhaps start off by talking to them at their "Help Center/Contact Us" link here: http://www.sky.com/helpcentre/contact-us/index.html

It's likely that Sky pick up NDTV via another satellite link and rebroadcast it. It's quite possible that their tuner isn't correctly set up.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Zh.wikibooks pictures

b:zh:File:3.3.3.gif, b:zh:File:Fsockopen.gif, b:zh:Gethostbynamel.gif. (I think there are more but I won't bother finding all of them. :P) What are these screenshots licensed under? (I'm trying to tidy up zh.wikibooks.) Kayau Voting IS evil 13:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahh a question related to a Wikimedia project! Your links are dead Kayau, I think the real ones are: wikibooks:zh:File:3.3.3.gif, wikibooks:zh:File:Fsockopen.gif, wikibooks:zh:File:Gethostbynamel.gif. Unfortunately I am not sure about the licensing. English Wikipedia uses Netscape screenshots as fair use (eg). Perhaps the browser is de minimis in these shots. If you don't get an answer here, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions may be of some use.--Commander Keane (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Police are idiots

Why do the majority of childrens shows depict Police Officers as bumbling idiots who jump to wild conclusions based on little or no evidence, and often wrongly imprison (admittedly usually for only short periods until they're proven innocent) people without trail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.160.214.26 (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because it makes for a more interesting story? Or maybe it's a Commie plot to undermine authority? Can you name any specific shows? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoliceAreUseless 82.44.54.4 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty standard to have children's stories where the adults are oblivious to what's REALLY GOING ON, leaving the children to solve the mystery, catch the villain, find the treasure, or whatever.

You'll notice that the teachers in the Harry Potter books are equally useless.

A story where the children more realistically bring their concerns to their parents or guardians who then take their concerns to the police who then resolve the issue, would not sell as many books.

I suppose a really good writer would get the adults out of the way in some really believable way, but making them stupid is easy and moves the plot along. APL (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If the authorities are not useless, or corrupt, then most plots would be resolved pretty quickly. "Oh no, someone has killed Mr. Body!" "Well, just call the cops." "OK, problem solved." I mean, how much fun is that, especially when you're a hard boiled private detective who won't stop until he gets his man? In any case, these things generally reflect (and feed) larger cultural concerns. For example, after Watergate the "daring investigative reporter who uncovers the official conspiracy" became a major trope in films. In the 1940s and 1950s, the "G-Men" (FBI) were all good guys; in the hangover from McCarthyism and Vietnam, they were often as not sinister figures. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I guess I just wondered if there was some specific, social reason for it. After having watched so many shows during my childhood where the police lock up the heroes of the story based on zero evidence I developed a strong dislike and distrust for the police. But if it's just lazy storytelling then that explains it maybe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.160.214.26 (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a social reason, its a story telling reason. Story telling is about escapism. Almost all of us lead boring lives, and if our entertainment reflected reality, it wouldn't be as entertaining. Most police are very good at their jobs, and most kids, while clever, aren't really capable of solving crimes and taking down criminals all on their own. If we told a story exactly as we would expect it to go down in real life, no one would watch it. If instead, we use caricatures of the bumbling cop and the clever kid who solves the crime, its more entertaining. Its not more complicated than that. If we accurately reflected reality in our entertainment, it wouldn't be all that entertaining. --Jayron32 01:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It probably does have a social reason, though. Our tropes do reflect our anxieties, underlying moods. Americans since the 1960s at least have had ambivalent feelings about police, that's pretty clear just listening to people. There have been real-life reasons for feeling that way — and media based on said real-life reasons (e.g. Serpico). But a cultural trope need not be popular because it reflects reality itself to any great degree. But a trope's popularity probably does reflect broader social and psychological resonances, and the fact that some of these don't translate well to other cultures (and vice versa) are good evidence of their specificity. The "children solve things, adults bumble" has been noted by many, in regards to the Harry Potter series, as being an ideal recipe for the target demographic — children. It's easy to forget how boring and alienating adults and "adult conversation" can be when one is a child, how parents just don't understand, and so on. That particular trope is pretty clearly just a translation of that deep-held feeling into a fictional structure. That such tropes have become cliché at this point just shows how deep it goes. Compare with something like the young girl in Kick Ass, which is a pretty "edgy"/foreign/non-standard trope (a child who is a foul-mouthed, killer ninja) — and one which many reviewers noted (with horror) as one that did not resonate with them. I'm not saying one has to get all Bruno Bettelheim on this, but to acknowledge the likely social/psychological reasons for a trope's popularity is not a very radical idea. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dislike of the police did not originate in the 1960s, it just became more open. For example, there's Tom Joad's speech in the 1940 film, The Grapes of Wrath (film), which includes the comment, "Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there." Then there are the Keystone cops from the silent film era, constantly made to look like buffoons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's true. I'm thinking as well though about regulations in the 1940s and 1950s, at least in comic books and probably elsewhere (e.g. Comics Code Authority, Motion Picture Production Code), which prohibited against depicting criminals as ever getting away, police as ever being anything other than noble, etc., and the backlash you get to that by the late 1960s, 1970s. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Going through some books from childhood, I have to say: the policemen really have been bumbling for quite a while. In Pippi Longstocking, but also 19th century cops Duff and Blathers in Oliver Twist. In Cops and kids: policing juvenile delinquency in urban America, 1890-1940 (Ohio State University Press, 2005, p89), the author David B. Wolcott mentions the Keystone Kops in connection with the Detroit police who, despite a lack of corruption scandals, nevertheless were seen as inefficient, "an image they resented deeply". The author suggests that the bumbling image prompted thoughts about "professionalism" which contributed to police reform. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's not really a definitive answer to this question. Sociologists would say that it's because police in modern society (since maybe the mid 19th century) is a 'functionary' job filled filled by people from relatively low social classes, who are then portrayed as bumbling and inept for class-distincton reasons (compare with 'detectives' who are generally cast as relatively urbane, educated, leisure class individuals). Psychologists would say that it's a natural childhood rebellion agains parental authority (where the 'policeman' becomes an archetypal authority figure who can safely be mocked in a way that parents can't). The story-writers probably see it as a useful marketing trope - making the target audience feel empowered and superior is always a useful sales tactic. and I'm sure there's a double dozen variations on those themes. who do you want to believe? --Ludwigs2 14:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

More than that, I'd say the 'bumbling idiots' stereotype is a common middle-class view, whereas the 'wrongly imprisoning', more threatening, stereotype tends to be a working-class view. Presumably based on the interactions people have had with the police, and the stories their friends and relatives have told. You can watch it happening in the UK, if you watch people with their little children when a police officer walks past. (Some parents don't say anything.) Some point out the police officer and tell their child that, if they aren't good, the nasty policeman will arrest them. Some smile and point out the police officer to their child, as a nice thing to see. Some parents tell their child that police officers are safe people to find when they're lost: some give the opposite impression. And, in very broad strokes^{general trends, not true of all individuals}, this follows class lines. If you're writing a story, you tend to include your own worldview and the worldview of your intended readers. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How about: Because children are more skeptical and see through lies better than adults, so you have to tell them the truth? ;-)John Z (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I find that many teenagers dislike police officers. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

manufacturing of nuts for gluten free diet

i have recently been diagnosed with celiac disease. a lot of the recipes call for nuts, which I love. However, i cannot find any nuts that have not been processed where wheat has been processed.

Even the fresh nuts at places like Whole Foods have been manufactured where wheat has also. Any ideas where or how to find gluten free nuts? Coolel01 (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your disease. Have you tried looking online (though it it isn't easy), like Amazon? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The article Celiac disease links to the US Celiac Disease Foundation - I'd be surprised if they did not have any advice on this on their website, and if they do not, you should be able to call or email them. This is assuming you are in the US (as you mention Whole Foods), I guess most Western countries at least will have national organizations that have information on this, there are some more links on the Wikipedia page. Good luck! Jørgen (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nuts grow, they are not manufactured. You could always buy nuts in their shells, although I think that is overkill. 92.28.255.53 (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Obvious the OP is talking about the fact of cross-contamination issues. If you don't actually know what you are talking about, please don't offer explanations that verge on medical advice. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)