Entertainment desk
< June 3	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 5 >

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.

June 4

Surreal black-and-white web comic

I'm trying to rediscover a web comic I stumbled across a few years ago, but my memory and search engine skills have thus far failed me. Can anyone out there help me out? Here's what I can remember about it.

I think the title had the word "Radio" in it; possibly "Welcome to [Something] Radio." Despite that, the comic's subject matter did not have anything to do with radio.
The subject matter didn't have anything to do with anything, actually. I remember the plots being rather surreal and bizarre, with other-worldly scenery. The tone was surreal, but also a bit melancholy at times. Not so much silly or funny.
I recall two characters. One was a tall woman who wore a headband with Pac-Man and a ghost attached to it. The other was shorter, also a woman, and always spoke in any language other than English, including languages with non-Roman scripts like Chinese. I think the shorter character was often topless for unexplained reasons.
The artwork was black-and-white. Some characters were done in a manga style; others in a more cartoony style reminiscent of a US newspaper comic from the '30s.
Besides the comic, I think the web site had a vanity wiki where the author had posted a few articles about various things. I don't recall a blog or rants accompanying the comics like many web comics have nowadays.

Does this ring any bells with anyone? Garrett Albright (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer I'm afraid, but you could try looking through the names at List of webcomics, Category:2000s webcomics and Category:2010s webcomics to see if any of them ring a bell. As far as I can tell though, none of them have the word "radio" in the title. --Viennese Waltz 07:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything similar on that list, but I started thinking that maybe the title mentioned "kHz" or "MHz" instead of "radio." That allowed me to suss the answer out of a search engine; Listening to 11.975MHz. My rememberance of the characters was pretty far off; what I was remembering was a jumble of traits. But I sure remembered the style correctly. Garrett Albright (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who would have the better chance to win in a real fight?

Dear all.

I have two friends, a passionate sports fencer and a enthusiastic stage fencer. The sports fencer claims to have a really good chance to win in a real fight with sharp swords, because he trains his perception in his sport. But my friend, the stage fencer said to me, that stage fencers must have historical knowledge and are well aware of the "real" techniques, more so than a sports fencer. My question is: who is right? Which type of fencing comes closer to the "real" thing and could be more usefull in a real fight, in actual combat situations? Thank you for your answers and all the very best.--92.106.0.99 (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked variants on this exact question at least four times before: [1], [2], [3], [4]. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 10:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The winner will be the one who remembered to also bring a loaded gun. That's known as the Indiana Jones tactic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one who wants to win at all costs. There is a quote out the where an old Englishman laments that since young men have been learning from French fencing masters there isn't enough kicking in the testicles during fights. If you are dueling, stick to the rules of honor. If you are fighting, deflect the fencer's sword on the initial pass - or get hit - but then stab him several times in the kidneys with your main gauche or dirk or sgian dubh or kris. Or better sever his carotid as you draw your sword to start the fight as in Japanese techniques. Rmhermen (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This^^^. The answer is pretty simple; usually the winner in a "real" fight is the person who realizes that the rules in a "real" fight is "kill the other person anyway you know how"; the person who hesitates because they're trying to fight according to "honorable" rules of some sort usually ends up dead. --Jayron32 15:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Finlay McWalter, I have asked other questions, but they all dealt with fencing. I have never asked before for a comparsion between sports fencing and stage fencing.--92.106.0.99 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your sports fencer friend is a foil fencer, he will certainly lose a real fight, because foil fencers ignore touches to the head. If he is a saber or épée fencer, the outcome will probably be determined by the personal skill of the combatants. John M Baker (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of speculative question can have no definitive answer due to the fact that in a "real" fight the two people will be trying to hurt each other. In that case both would abandon any "rules" for either kind of fencing. Rmhermen and Jayron32 have given the most detailed and best answers that you are likely to get. MarnetteD | Talk 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear gentlemen, my question relies more on the technical details than on the statistics.--92.106.0.99 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out, more than once, technical details are meaningless in a fight. You have received the best answers you are going to get here. You might try asking at a website for a fencing club. MarnetteD | Talk 00:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it another way. Neither stage or real fencers are trying to hurt each other so it is hard to understand what you want of us. Most (maybe none) of us are not fencers - stage or real. Since no statistics have been given. There really isn't much more than we can do. Again you might try other places on the net than Wikipedia. MarnetteD | Talk 00:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bastards!

Does anyone know where the title of Lifetime's album "Hello Bastards" came from? The reason I'm asking is not because I have any interest in the band or the album, but because I'm sure this came from a British (?) TV comedy series that was aired a couple of decades ago, and I'm hoping to identify it.

As I recall, the words "Hello, bastards" were the calling card of a certain character, a woman of African heritage. When this woman made her first appearance each episode, this is how she always greeted whoever else was there. It's such an odd and unexpected thing for someone to say, I'd bet $$ that Lifetime borrowed it from the TV show.

But all my fancy googling has failed me. I can find no hits for any TV show that featured this line. Can anyone help me out here? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a hardcore punk band from the U.K. called Hello Bastards: [5]. No idea if there's a connection there. --Jayron32 12:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They give no clues about where their name came from. I might have to Facebook them. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this isn't it as it was an Australian show and the character was Swedish, but Jane Turner as "Inga from Sweden" would greet viewers from her "bloody Jacuzzi" with "Hello, bastards!" in her "My Body Natural" segments on Fast Forward. --Canley (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interview with the band Hello Bastards here, and they say that they named the band after the Lifetime album. My first thought was that it could be the gold standard of racial stereotype British comedies, Mind Your Language, but I'm pretty sure (and the Wikipedia article seems to concur) that there were no African characters on the show. --Canley (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ha! That (Fast Forward) rings loud bells. Is it possible I had my details hopelessly confused? Is my memory that faulty? Sadly, yes to both questions. In this case, absence of google-evidence is indeed evidence of absence (of my brain cells). Here's a clip of Inga. Ref Desk to the rescue once again. Thanks, Canley. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Dots used over the barline

When did the practice of using dots as well as ties to extend notes over the barline become obsolete? Why did that happen? Double sharp (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dotted notes still exist and are used... --Jayron32 16:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not over the barline. E.g. if you had a minim tied to a crotchet in the next bar, you wouldn't write it as a dotted minim. You used to be able to do that, some decades (centuries?) ago. Double sharp (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Current practice is that the number of beats between barlines should be constant - so, in a 4/4 bar, there should be 4 crotchets (quarter notes), or the equivalent thereof. I'm afraid I have no idea where to go about finding the answer to the question, though. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, saying that, the answer might be in our Bar (music) article: "Barlines began to be introduced into ensemble music in the late 16th century but continued to be used irregularly for a time. Not until the mid-1600s were barlines used in the modern style with every measure being the same length, and they began to be associated with time signatures" - Harvard Dictionary of Music, Second ed. (1972), "Barline" - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dotted_note#cite_note-5 says that dotted notes over barlines were used at least up the time of Brahms. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, found one: in this score, published as late as 1892, the minim chord in the right hand in the first bar page 19 (of the pdf, p17 of the score) is dotted into the next bar, and similarly elsewhere on that page. For extra confusion the chord in the last bar of the page is dotted over into the first bar of the next page. However, this notation, where the dots are quite a long way from the notes they apply to, is rather different from the style I was thinking of that is seen in older music. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. I wonder why there are ties between bars 3-4, 5-6, and on bars 2-3 on page 20, etc., but dots in other places. It seems a curious and inconsistent mix of the old and the new. In my Peters edition of these pieces, it's ties everywhere. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]