Entertainment desk
< January 12	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 14 >

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.

January 13

Hat

Where can I get this hat? On ebay? Will someone sell it to me?

Can someone link me to it?96.53.149.117 (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Deere hats are ubiquitous. I can go to the local Wal-Mart here in North Carolina and find one right now. Perhaps they are not as common in your locale, in which case teh intrwebz may be your best option. this was the very first (advertised) link in a google search for John Deere hats. Unless of course you mean that guys SPECIFIC John Deere hat, in which case you're probably going to have to figure out who he is and ask him for it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actors and Singers (cont.)

In my last question, what do you mean? Can you please just tell me the answer straight?

I am asking this because I can think of many female ones but not many male ones. I am talking especially about child or teenage ones.

Bowei Huang (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you under the impression that the the answer is known to us, but we're just refusing to give it to you? What Jayron32 meant was that your question had very, very specific parameters, which made it very difficult to answer. It's not something anyone would be likely to know off the top of their head, and the topic in question isn't something that would be likely to be interesting enough in itself to a lot of the people who frequent the Ref Desk that they would go out and start researching it -- especially as it's also something that's pretty difficult to research in any way other than compiling a list of all male (especially child) actors who have starred in a TV show or movie in Disney channel and then going through it one by one. The Ref Desk does very well with some types of questions and pretty poorly with others. I think this one is definitely in the latter category. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, we find many of our answers on the net. Having so many limiting factors makes it very hard to find a list that someone has compiled. You might be able to find lists of people who have appeared on the Disney channel but finding one that only lists those who appeared as a child or teen makes it an order of magnitude more difficult. Then on top of that, they have to be singers. Not even some topic specific magazines or television shows would take on the task of collating that much data. Dismas|^(talk) 06:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am just talking about some or most of the main or the more or most famous, well-known or important actors in Disney Channel who are just children or teenagers. If there are too many actors in Disney Channel, then can you please just search in and among those actors in Disney Channel? You just have to find out if there are these such actors who are also such singers and forget about other actors. Bowei Huang (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has to search anything. People who respond to questions on the Ref Desks generally do so because they have some interest or curiousity about the question being asked. In this case, it seems clear that after three or more postings/demands that nobody is inclined to do the research you are "requesting." --LarryMac | Talk 14:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree with Larry. It seems to me that you already know how to find out this information, but you don't want to do it yourself, because it's a lot of work. Why would we do it for you? You're not so much asking for knowledge as a compilation of very specific statistics that are not easily available anywhere; there's no easily accessible and well-organized raw data that could be easily combed for the information in question.

And don't get me wrong, the Ref Desk has been known to go to quite a bit of trouble to help people out, but that's generally when the question is interesting enough or it just somehow hits that obsessive button for one of us, or when it deals with an area one of us has specific knowledge of. In this instance, though, what it takes is a lot of boring and systematic work with the IMDB, Google and Allmusic (and probably other sites as well). Just compiling a list of the "most of the main or the more or most famous, well-known or important actors in Disney Channel who are children or teenagers" would be a pretty significant effort in itself (first of all, how would you gauge that fame or importance so that the criteria would meet your criteria for it?), and going through the list and figuring out which of them have released albums wouldn't be a very quick task, either.

Personally, the reason I'm not doing it is simply not what I geek out about, and the idea of spending what would at the very least be one full work day's worth of hours on something that doesn't interest me strikes me as a bad use for my time. I'm only speaking for myself, of course, but judging by the lack of response to your question, it appears I'm not the only one.

If you want to ask for advice on how to efficiently source and compile the information you're looking for, you'll probably get better responses. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title of short Disney film about Cambodian boy and an elephant

What is the title of a short Disney film about a Cambodian (?) boy and an elephant. I saw it on TV in the 1960s or 1970s. The film was in color. It was about a Cambodian boy who takes a baby elephant into his village where it causes mischief. I believe Angkor Wat appears in the film. Also, if you can, please let me know if it's available on DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.71.51 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Niok l'éléphant, see here. There doesn't seem to be WP article on it, and it's not listed on Amazon, so availability on DVD is not looking good I'm afraid. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an Intermondia Films production, Disney was just the distributor and Walt did the presenting of it, slipping him in after the fact. AnyPerson (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Office Space' printer real?

Anyone know if the much-hated printer destroyed in the movie "Office Space" was a real model? If so, what model/brand was it? I've never seen anything like it. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The model of printer is very similar, if not identical, to the HP Laserjet 3si. I have worked on many of these and can confirm PC Load Letter will bring the same reaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisquet (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but the "PC LOAD LETTER" message I recall specifically from real-world printers. It's like the people who wrote that message were speaking another language. For those who are curious, that means "Print ~~Cartridge~~ Cassette (PC) is out of paper, please LOAD with LETTER sized paper (8.5 inches × 11 inches)". StuRat (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PC=Paper Cassette. Article: PC Load Letter. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They must have been concerned that "OUT OF PAPER" wouldn't have been sufficiently confusing. StuRat (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pages around the web that state that the machine used in the "beat down" scene was a fax machine, not a printer; none seemed authoritative enough to link to. And of course a line of dialog saying "'Out of paper'; what the fuck does that mean?" would have made little or no sense. --LarryMac | Talk 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does any one know what model fax machine it is? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not criticizing the movie, but rather the makers of the printer (HP), for their daft message.StuRat (talk)

YouTube has the two scenes from the movie. It is obviously a fax machine— there is a scanner on top and a keypad. The early HP LaserJet printers used Canon print engines, which were used by other companies such as Apple, and were used in faxes. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a printer, a Samsung Finale 8000. See it in it's 90's glory here: https://books.google.com/books?id=tjsEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA35&ots=Zw5vGEAqVo&dq=samsung%20finale%208000%20laser%20printer&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.134.139 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the good old days on tv portrayed realistically?

This is a question for any of the old codgers out there who were around in the 40's and 50's, (or earlier,-if there are any survivors). Was it really a wash your hands, call your pa "sir", tip your hat kinda time? Or were people just as rotten and selfish as they are now, just with slightly different customs?--THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say your skepticism is correct. Unfortunately, asking old-timers may not give you the correct answer, as there's a natural tendency for everyone to remember their childhood as "the good old days". I'd go with data like crime statistics to get a better idea. However, certain crimes, like rape, were less likely to be reported back then, so even they may be biased. StuRat (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two books of interest: The Best Years: 1945-1950 by Joseph C. Goulden. (Atheneum, 1976), and The Good Old Days--They Were Terrible! by Otto Bettmann (Random House, 1974). Bettmann (of Bettman Archive fame) shows horrific conditions of the 19th Century in pictures and text. Goulden did a social history of the post-war years but also inserted italicized sections of "happy days"-type personal memoir. Pepso2 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few random thoughts. World War II was raging in the first half of the 40s. In the 50s, there was the Red menace and the fear of nuclear destruction. Plus it wasn't so good if you were of the non-WASP persuasion. Seriously, human nature doesn't change much in a mere half century; we're just as rotten and selfish as ever, just in new and different ways (think cellphones). And two more words: no Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm from the "good old days" exactly, but I do remember a time when everyone sat down to dinner at the same time, we all washed our hands beforehand, men did tip their hats to women (who were assumed to be ladies), men did hold doors open for women and older people, men and children did give up their seats on public transport for women and adults. Families went for long drives in the country on weekends, taking a picnic hamper with them, which included tea/coffee in a thermos for the adults and cordial or soft drinks for the kids. Typically, we would arrive home having spent anywhere from 3 to 8 hours away from home, and having spent not one cent (or penny, in those days), on takeways, cappuccinos, etc. It was normal for a man to wear a business suit when travelling by plane, even if setting out on a holiday. In my country, no (normal) father ever expected his children to call him "Sir". But police officers who pulled you over would address you as "Mr/Mrs/Miss (there was no Ms) <Smith>" or "Sir/Madam" after checking your licence, not as "Murgatroyd/Gertrude". And you would address relatively senior people in your place of employment as "Sir" or "Madam", unless they invited you to do otherwise. But there was always crime, and rottenness, and drunkenness, and traffic accidents (far more per # of vehicles on the road than there are today), and stupidity, and narrow-mindedness, and prejudice, and lack of self-awareness. Drugs, on the other hand, meant one and only one thing - the pills your doctor prescribed for some medical condition. Marijuana has been around forever, but nobody I knew ever used it or even mentioned it in conversation. The only time cocaine was mentioned was in the song "I get a kick out of you". Heroine and the rest had no relevance to most people's lives at all. You could go to a night club and conduct a conversation at normal volume and have no difficulty in making yourself heard over the music. But banks closed at 3pm (5pm on Fridays), they didn't open on weekends, and ATMs had not been invented. I never heard about people running out of ready cash on weekends; they just seemed to plan better and have enough cash. People knew their neighbours and would regularly talk over the back fence. All the kids in the street would play with each other, mostly outside. Life expectancy was lower, though, and people died from things like pneumonia, whooping cough, diphtheria, uncontrolled diabetes, asthma. Women died in childbirth more often. But they had larger families than they do today. It was normal for kids to walk or bike or bus to school. There wasn't the fear of strangers lurking in dark places, and women had no issue with walking alone at night. Not that rape, child abduction, etc never happened, but it was not a generalised fear. I still remember the first kidnapping that ever happened in Australia - the Graeme Thorne kidnapping case in 1960. I'd heard of kidnapping before then, of course, from movies and the news, but it was always overseas. Boys were routinely circumcised, not just Jewish boys. (That's a bad thing, just in case you were wondering.) Lots of other differences, some good, some bad. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how were minorities treated then, like Aboriginees and homosexuals ? StuRat (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were treated very badly indeed. Until 1967, Aborigines were not even counted in the census, and they did not have to vote, as the rest of the population was required to - see Voting rights of Australian Aboriginals. But they were still citizens and still had to pay taxes (assuming they had sufficient income to warrant any tax being paid). Indigenous disadvantage in Australia is a vast subject, including various massacres and actual extermination of full-blooded aborigines in Tasmania. They were incarcerated in numbers out of proportion to their representation in the general community. In the 1980s there was a Royal Commission (our article tells you little of the detail) into why aborigines were grossly over-represented in deaths in custody, even after taking their over-representation in incarceration into account. It's not much better today for many indigenous Australians - see Northern Territory intervention. But for the general indigenous population it is better in a multitude of ways, and official acknowledgment and apologies have finally been given for the wrongs that were done in the past - see Stolen Generations. Still a long way to go, though. For homosexuals, it was simply not possible to be "out" to the public at large (but that was true most everywhere in those days). Certain people (e.g. Robert Helpmann and Patrick White) were widely known/assumed to be gay, but while it may have been not even a secret in artistic/theatrical circles, let alone an "open secret", it was never a matter of discussion in the media. I forgot to mention left-handers. This was seen as a serious problem, and many left-handers were forced to write with their right hands, often causing major psychological problems that lasted all their lives. Others were allowed to use their left hands, but often found themselves discriminated against in employment where the handedness of the employee was utterly irrelevant to their duties (but again, that was the case elesewhere as well). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, Jack, on balance would you say things are better now or back in the "good old days" ? StuRat (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, in general, better now. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'the first kidnapping in Australia'? Are you insane? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "it was the first known kidnapping for ransom in Australian history," so Jack's madness is shared with whoever wrote that. —Tamfang (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course, people are kidnapped for other reasons, too. StuRat (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik, Graeme Thorne was the first person ever to have been kidnapped in Australia, for any reason. Neither I nor the article's authors are mad. It was, in that respect at least, a very safe society. I'm (only very slightly, given that Australia is one of the most multicultural nations on Earth) comforted by the fact that the perp was born in Hungary. A Hungarian-born Australian was also responsible for vandalising Michelangelo's Pietà. Maybe it's something in the goulash. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish memoirist Frank McCourt can't be accused of prettifying his family life in the 30s, 40s, in Angela's Ashes. I don't recall people in his family's status bothering with "sir". POV but when I meet people from less progressive (sorry) countries they seem to be more polite, but they have their share of petty crims and opportunists. The likes of Gordon Gekko have a lot to answer for as attitudes go, though. Talking through my cap here. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like much of JackofOz's long list is either A) Still applicable in many suburban,middle class/upper-middle class environments. or B)Not qualitatively 'better'. (ie: Air travel was more formal because it was more expensive, greeting rituals have changed, etc.)

That said, I seem to recall from an old Cecil Adams column that there was a noticeable dip in (USA) crime statistics during the 1950s that returned to normal levels shortly after the decade ended. I can't find the article right at the moment, however. APL (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving the Thorne case it's impact on white Australians, it was official, changed a law, and somewhere in the ghits was "the first kidnapping for ransom". Missing persons and the Aboriginal experience, blackbirding are probably but not necessarily, something else. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little OT, I remember seeing a Doris Day movie from the 50s (His Girl Friday?) and there's a line about "schools being overcrowded, politicians being corrupt, crime rates going up..." Sound a tad familiar to today's headlines? The "good ol' days" never existed. --69.151.28.135 (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]