Entertainment desk
< February 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 2 >

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 1

Router/Modem for Xbox Live

I always thought I couldn't get xbox live without high-speed internet, but I just read something online and it said I don't even need a computer to play xbox live. This is exactly what the guy said "You dont even need a computer to play on Live. Just get an ethernet cable (costs about $15 depending on the length of it) and plug it into your Xbox and your router (or modem) and you are all set". Now is what the guy said true, cause I have been waiting a long time to get high-speed internet so I can play xbox live and then this guy says I don't even need a computer. I live in a rural area and I have dial-up internet and I'm about to move to another house closer to town and get high-speed internet in 2 or 3 months, but could I have had xbox live this whole time. I always thought I knew what I needed in order to get xbox live, but what this guy said, I just don't know anymore. If the answer on this question is yes, can you explain step-by-step what I'm supposed to do and how I'm supposed to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.15.129 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a broadband (high-speed internet) connection of some sort, unfortunately - it's just that you don't need a computer _as well_ - you don't have to connect anything to your broadband apart from the Xbox. Your problem is the other way round - you have a computer (which you don't need), but you don't have broadband (which you do need). Tevildo (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to have a broadband connection. It's true you don't need a computer; you can plug your Xbox directly into your router or your cable modem or DSL modem (but not a dialup modem). I'd be interested, though, to find out if anybody has ever tried having a Windows PC with dialup Internet service share its Internet connection via an Ethernet cable. Windows may allow this. If this workaround did work, it would be horribly slow, of course. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Internet Connection Sharing. It just requires a crossover Ethernet cable. However, I doubt that even 56.6 would be fast enough for online gaming. Tevildo (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly this rig would be a disaster for online gaming — no publishers test their games' Xbox Live performance at such slow speeds, much less optimize performance at such a low bandwidth number — but it could let a 360 owner sign up for an Xbox Live account, log Achievements, text chat, and (very slowly) download Xbox Live Arcade games. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey strategy

One thing I don't understand about hockey is the importance (or comparable lack thereof) of strategy in the game.

In baseball and (American) football and to some extent basketball, the coaches are constantly making decisions on what plays to run. In hockey, there don't seem to be a lot of set plays -- everything seems (to my untrained eye) to be kind of spontaneous.

So what do the coaches do during a game? Do they do anything other than decide who's on what line and make broad tactical pronouncements (as in "let's forecheck aggressively")?

Also, when they're playing four-on-four, which position is removed (LW, RW, C, LD or RD)? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy in basketball, soccer (football), and hockey are very similar. The game is too fast for a coach to step in and say, "OK guys, lets get in formation X and try to do Y." The players must be trained to know what formation the other players will go into. They must be trained to know who will be where at any time. So, there is a lot of strategy, but there is little time to change strategy in the middle of a game. That doesn't mean that the coach can't start yelling some keyword from the sidelines to cause his team to suddenly change strategy. It just means that the coaches don't plan to be in the position to try and change a strategy in the middle of a game. -- kainaw ™ 05:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The positions (forgot you asked) are center, goalie, wing, and defense. Those are rather general positions. All it really means is you have a goalie, a guy on each end, and one in the middle. -- kainaw ™ 05:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When speaking of a "4 on 4" in hockey, the goalies are not counted. --LarryMac | Talk 12:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest strategy during play is determining which lines (left and right wingers + centre) and defence pairs will play next. The home team has last change (substitution) at stoppages, so they may try to create favourable line matchups, or have specific defensemen on the ice in certain situations. (Players may also change when the puck is in play, but whether players will change depends where the puck is). Additionally, they may decide to mix up the lines -- take a winger or centre from one line and play him on another. They are also suggesting specific strategies to players not currently on the ice. Typical shifts are less than a minute in a professional game. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further strategic considerations involve when to let the opposite team have the puck, whether to aggressively pursue the puck or to fall back defensively, whether to trust your goalie to stop the puck or to prevent shots in the first place. Playing to hit or playing to avoid being hit are all things to think about. Hockey is fast, especially compared to any other team sport, so it appears random to spectators unfamiliar with the game.

And, contrary to what Kainaw said above, coaches can change strategy in the middle of the game, though it's easier between periods than during the play itself. Aaronite (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kainaw meant that coaches get to set general approaches such as 'be more aggressive" or "guard against the breakout" rather than in baseball or football where they get to say "walk this batter" or "run pattern 23 now". For those of you watching the gold medal game last night, also note that the coach gets to decide when the goalie gets pulled. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teams do run (or attempt to run) some set plays during power plays or on face-offs. You may have seen in yesterday's gold medal game that, when the coaches called time-outs as time was running out in the third period, they both had boards in their hands showing diagrams of set plays. The idea is: "if we win this face-off, here's what I want you guys (or gals) to do". To get back to the 4 on 4 question, most teams will play 2 defensemen, a center and a winger in these situations, pulling the other winger. In rare cases, a coach will keep a regular forward line with only one defenseman. --Xuxl (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the OP is still checking in, but Category:Ice hockey strategy may be a useful starting point for research. Such topics as the 2-1-2 Forecheck and Neutral zone trap may also be helpful. --Jayron32 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Nash

In her cover of "I'm not gonna teach your boyfriend how to dance" by Black Kids, how is it played?

I can hear her guitar fine, and the chords appear to be F G C A7 but what about the second guitar that comes in? Is it playing the same progression with different strumming? Double speed? Is it the same but moved up an octave?

second guitar comes in at 0:21 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK4ysfwpC4U —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.151.159 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you send a message to the uploader of the video and ask them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delvenore (talk • contribs) 11:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bangin' Piano Choons

I'm in the mood for listening to some fast classical piano, something in the vein of Chopin's Revolutionary Study. Anyone have any suggestions? Thanks 195.60.13.52 (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well they don't come much faster than this. (Or do they? And is it classical or long enough)?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you pick Chopin because it's his 200th birthday today, or just at random? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here's a fast one - Liszt's Gnomenreigen. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight of the Bumblebee? Our article has a sound file. --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the big chap was 200 today, unless my internal musical clock is getting RSS from somewhere 195.60.13.52 (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read RSS, but I almost wish I hadn't. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other etudes from that same opus that are played at fast tempos and are fun to listen to. For example , nos. 4 and 5. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more modern: the 1st and 3d movements of Islamey, the 3d movement, "Scarbo", from Gaspard de la nuit. Quite a bit more modern, and insanely fast: just about any of Conlon Nancarrow's studies for player piano. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dusapin, Scriabin, Pasternak!, Ligeti, Lutoslawski not always fast, but bangin' meltBanana 23:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]