Entertainment desk
< April 21	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 23 >

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.

April 22

Virat Kohli

products and fairness creams that virat kholi uses!!

how to maintain a nice skin tone like virat kholi even by playing cricket all day exposed to sunlight by not getting tan!!

what is schedule of virat kholi gym trainning,endurance training,strength training,weight training etc and his batting tips and skills!!

whai is virat kholi diet that he takes daily and regularly!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.66.73 (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the Virat Kohli article? This article and/or its extensive references may answer some of your questions.--Dreamahighway (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback amplifier

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question and also the nature of the question may not fit the governing policy, who knows. In case any violation I don't mind it to be expunged.

Singers of pop music wear small earphones and I believe they are connected to some amplifiers that give them an instant feedback. I wonder if such devices are small enough to be carried by a person without connection to large electronic equipment, they should be battery powered. If such exist, where can I get one? Also what is the proper term for them? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Bluetooth headset ? Why would you want one ? Are you a singer ? It would be easy to just amplify the sound of your voice and play it back in your ears, but they generally want to mix that with sounds of other singers, instruments, etc., and play the mix on the headset. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The earphones musicians wear on stage are In-ear monitors. They've become industry standard over the past 2-3 decades or so. All performers need to hear what they and their fellow compatriots are playing so they can play well together. Prior to the widespread availability of high-fidelity ear buds, large speakers called stage monitors or "wedge" monitors directed the performance back at the performers. For various reasons, including audio feedback with the microphones and guitar pick-ups, bounceback from the back of the stage interfering with the front-of-the-house mix, etc. etc. has led to a more widespread use of in-ear monitor systems. I play in a musical group that uses the Aviom system, and it's a wonderful thing compared to working with Wedge monitors. --Jayron32 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow compatriots? They need to hear what's being played by any two citizens of one country? —Tamfang (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you get for living in a transparent society. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, thank you. StuRat, hi. You are a great guy. You've helped me a lot in the past but this time you failed :-) "Why would you want one ? Are you a singer ?" was not expected, barring stronger words. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to understand your need for the device, which might suggest alternatives. I'm not aware of those being used for anybody besides musicians, so I'm also interested to know if there's some alternate use. StuRat (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Funk as an opening act

I had heard that Grand Funk opened for Led Zeppelin early on but got kicked off the tour supposedly because the crowds liked Grand Funk more...yes? no? – — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.114.49 (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to an interview with Don Brewer: “They kicked us off the tour (...) They didn’t like the fact that we overshadowed them.". See also this discussion at Ledzeppelin.com's forum. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Stanislaw Lem

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen.

I am currently reading "Solaris" by the famous polish author Stanislaw Lem. A friend of mine, who studies biology and physics has told me, that Lem was both arrogant and ignorant when it came to science and that he lacked scientific knowledge despite his claims that he was "the smartest child of poland" and his self-proclaimed status as "inventor of the internet". I would like to get some more informations about Lem and his alleged unknowingness.

Thank you for your answers.

Cheers.--178.194.109.174 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to do some more searching to find actual criticism expressed by scientists, but for now I'll just give you my personal point of view, having read that famous book-long interview with Lem over two decades ago (and having read more than half of his work), I believe I can say that Lem wasn't as much interested in scientific accuracy as he was in looking at how things might change cognitively, psychologically, socially, philosophically in the course of science's progress (what is sometimes called soft science fiction). In that sense he was irreverent toward natural sciences (but not necessarily ignorant; he did understand them, had studied medicine and worked as a researcher), and particularly critical of literature that gave a lot of (sometimes pseudo-)scientific detail at the cost of literary ideas and their exploration. He never liked his works being categorized as science fiction (he just wanted to be "that Polish writer", not "that Polish science fiction writer"). I do agree that he often came across as quite arrogant, and his harsh criticism of "American science fiction" angered a lot of people (we have a bit under his article's section on SFWA controversy). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R. A. MacAvoy said she overheard at a con in Britain, "American sf is just Red Indians in space" – and so she wrote The Third Eagle, about a red Indian in space. It's not bad. —Tamfang (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sluzzelin! Thanks a lot for your response. I remember, that Lem had a low opinion of American Sci-fi (which makes little sense, given that his books are often imitations of American works) and bashed it frequently. It seems that he hated American movies and tv shows even more than sci-fi literature. I have read a interview with Lem in German from the 1990s, where he calls the famous tv show "Star Trek" "braindead garbage, written by idiots who lack a proper understanding of science".--178.194.109.174 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No scientific accuracy is required from a Science fiction writer, nothing is expected and perhaps not needed. He had great many interesting ideas and his works are highly readable. Personally I don't like science fiction but Lem is the only writer I could read. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he had a point on Star Trek. I listened to a director's commentary on a Star Trek episode or movie where he admitted the scripts would say "Captain, the tech is down to 13% and the tech is about to collapse !". They would later have somebody fill in the "tech"s with something plausible sounding, like "Captain, the warp core efficiency is down to 13% and the containment field is about to collapse !". This shows that actual science was literally an afterthought on that show. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to someone who served as a science consultant on STNG for a season or two, in the episode where Wesley creates intelligent quasi-life that threatens to eat the ship, "nanites" is dubbed over "dust mites". —Tamfang (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are three reasons to write sci-fi. One is to realistically predict the future. Another is to explore the human condition, without restraints of the actual world. The third is to have fun and shoot space lasers and meet cat people. Pretty sure Azimov, Clark, and Lem were all squarely in the second camp. Star wars is the third, Star trek is debatable. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Mantid put it far more succinctly with "to explore the human condition without restraints of the actual world" than I could have. (That's what I meant though :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, Lem had actually a more positive view of "Star Wars": in a German interview he gave when he lived in Vienna in the 1980s, he called "Star Wars" from 1977 "astounding" and said that he thought that it is a great idea to create a never before seen fantasy world that has its own rules and mythology, more so than to do over and over a "unscientific and pretentious vision of the future". Lem said, that he thinks that there are 2 ways to create sci-fi: "a detailled fantasy world, where nearly everything goes" (much like "Ijon Tichy") or a well researched, realistic portrayal of the future, aliens and science (like "Solaris"). I personally think he was too harsh when it comes to "Star Trek", some people talk about it like it is a realistic and well done vision of the future... I personally think we should see it as what it is: a 19th century discovery story in space (which includes security officers, helsman and a brave "captain"). "Star Trek" is about as realistic as the "steam world" people imagined during the latter half of the 19th century. But it does not have to be accurate when it comes to science: it is simple entertainment.--178.194.109.174 (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]