Entertainment desk
< August 7	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 9 >

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.

August 8

Prohibition of recording devices in casinos

What is the reason given for the existence of laws or policies restricting the use of recording devices (such as cameras and even Google Glass) in many casinos? I'm asking this because I once went to a hotel which had a casino at the first floor (but not to gamble!), and there was a notice that said that photography was prohibited in gambling areas. Why do casinos have such policies? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, such bans are in place to help prevent cheating. Images or audio could be transmitted to give a player an unfair advantage. Imagine if a player and his accomplice enter a casino both wearing Google Glasses. While the player is playing poker, his accomplice could go around the table and secretly take pictures of all the opponents' hands, and quickly send them to his friend. The use of many of the other recording devices could be used in a similar fashion, in one form or another. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poker is just one game. This could be done with Blackjack as well. And with that game it would be easier to count the cards if you had many people watching through a feed from Google Glass. Recording devices are a veritable Pandora's Box of problems for a casino. Dismas|^(talk) 02:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) One possibility is that some of their patrons might not want it known that they're there, e.g. the accountant embezzling from her employer to gamble, the fugitive wanted by the FBI, the person who called in "sick". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recording devices can also be used to record movements and routines of security and employees to find and exploit security flaws for theft. --Jayron32 03:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading in a book (I think some popular science thing on statistics) about a case where someone in a casino managed to cheat at roulette by having a button in his shoe which he clicked whenever the ball passed a certain point, and a display somewhere (maybe his watch?) which gave him the number the ball would land on. Not totally accurate, but a lot better than 1/49. This would probably be relatively easy to do with a video camera and sufficient processing (e.g. Google glasses). MChesterMC (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My lack of gambling experience is going to show through here but I thought that betting was stopped once the ball was put into play. So how could anyone benefit from doing anything then? Dismas|^(talk) 08:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE - See Eudaemons. Tevildo (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And to cover the betting question: no, bets can still be placed while the ball is rolling around the outside of the roulette wheel 'pit', until the croupier declares betting closed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling aside, they don't want you bootlegging Wayne Newton, Siegfried and Roy or whatever else counts for "entertainment". What happens in Vegas like clockwork stays in Vegas like clockwork. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First video game where you can actually feel like you're touching something

I know that Moto-Cross (also known as Fonz) was the first video game to have haptic feedback, but you don't really feel like you're touching something; the motorcycle you sit on simply just happens to vibrate, that's all. But what was the first video game where you can feel like you're touching something? For example, there are games where you can feel bullets hit you when you wear a haptic vest.

So that's my question. What was the first video game where you can actually feel like you're touching something? Ebaillargeon20 (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember being absolutely blown away by touching the ~~left~~ right part of the cross and seeing small Mario walk across a TV screen all the way over there into a Goomba. It was plainly obvious that I held his life in my hands, and the fate of the Mushroom Kingdom. The slight spring of the B A button felt way more like I was touching a small jumping thing than buzzing in my palms felt like I was being shot by a cannon in later years, so I'm not just being figurative here.

As time went on, that feeling became less intense, but the feeling of the sharp controller corners in the soft parts of my thumbs is still there, if I think about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a compositor whose name sounds like Cheshpesh

All I have to go on is that he composed harp music which Nicanor Zabaleta played. Zarnivop (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does List of compositions for harp help any? --Jayron32 17:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks. Nothing sounds remotely similar. Zarnivop (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Jorge Gomez Crespo, who seemed to write mainly for the guitar. Harpists often transcribe works written for other instruments, but I can't find any hits for Zabaleta recording anything by Crespo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After browsing through Zabaleta's discography at allmusic.com, I found no better candidate than Crespo (whom I didn't find there, and the odd, not even semi-fit of López-Chávarri will only be mentioned for the sake of the gamble). I think some context might help us help you, Zarnivop ... regarding the pronunciation ... where did you hear it (radio, concert, mentioned by somebody, memory from a long time ago, ...) and what language (and if English, what type of English) was it uttered in? Also, did you hear the piece too? Performed by Zabaleta, or by someone else, and how (recording, concert ...) ? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heard it on the radio while driving. I live in Israel, so the speaker native tongue is probably Hebrew. I had to put some attention to driving, so I missed most of the introduction, and may have got the name wrong or even mixed up. I do recall a music phrase, but it will be far beyond my modest playing skill to recreate it. Zarnivop (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those hints led me to another wild guess. Depending on how you roll your r's and hiss your ich-Laut: Albrechtsberger [1] ---Sluzzelin talk 18:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check both. Thanks! Zarnivop (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettable (2011 TV series)

Does anyone here watch that show? I'm trying to figure out what I missed on the "Stray Bullet" episode this past Sunday. Specifically, I'm trying to figure out the trail of possession of the murder weapon. I haven't found any online forums that might explain it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooter Movie Year 2007

Since those Guys killed Ethiopian Archbishop, is it because Archbishop was Going to Yell at President for allowing (U.S.) Army to destroy a Group of Innocent People in Ethiopia?

Did United States President know that a Group of Innocent People got Destroyed in Ethiopia for No Reason? (50.173.3.162 (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Shooter (2007 film) for our article. I've not seen the film, but our plot summary agrees with your assessment of the storyline. Tevildo (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're saying that our Plot Summary agrees with my Assessment of Storyline, what do You mean? The stupid Plot Summary doesn't Specifically say if (U.S. President) was Unaware about Innocent People getting Killed in Ethiopia? (50.173.3.162 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

The film is a work of fiction based on the novel Point of Impact. If the movie doesn't specify what was in the mind of the U.S. President character, then it is open to interpretation. Any interpretation of a work of fiction could be considered valid; but the intended interpretation depends on the views and opinion of the original source's author (Stephen Hunter), the screenwriter (Jonathan Lemkin), and the film's producer, director, etc. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Examiner

Is it possible for a Medical Examiner to Prove that a Female was Automatically raped Against her Will?

Is it possible for a Medical Examiner to Prove that a Female was Automatically having (Rough but Consensual) sex? (50.173.3.162 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "Automatically" here? That a woman was having consensual sex with, or being raped by, a machine or a robot? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The level of consent might be estimated in reference to the cause of death. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They can't typically prove anything 100%, but certain bruising and tearing is an indication of rape, as it would be unlikely any woman would choose to put herself through that much pain (unless she had a history of masochistic behavior). StuRat (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she hadn't a history, there's a first time for everything. May not have been looking for roughness, either, just a bit more than she'd expected, but still worth the trouble. Medical examiners can't determine intent, just facts about the body's condition. The human part's for police, prosecutors, friends, family, witnesses and the accused to figure out. And the victim/partner, if she's still alive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a weird question for the Entertainment Desk. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I suspect it's here because most of us, including the OP, will only ever encounter medical examiners in TV shows and movies. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. The ones who literally see the crime through the eyes of the corpses they touch set the bar a bit high. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

One thing to note: medical examiners, and other forensic scientists do NOT prove anything, ever. The only thing they do is to say whether or not some bit of evidence is consistent with a particular claim. For example, the medical examiner can determine whether or not injuries are consistent with sexual assault. A hair analyst will determine whether a hair in evidence is consistent with a suspect's hair. A fingerprint analyst can say whether a print left at a crime scene is consistent with a suspect fingerprint. Even DNA analysts will only ever say that DNA evidence is consistent with a suspect's sample. They never prove (or even attempt to prove) anything. It's the lawyer's job to attempt to establish proof, in the minds of the jury. The analysts job is to analyze, not prove. --Jayron32 01:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered about the use of the word "consistent" in trials:

"The bloody fingerprint found on the victim's neck is consistent with the print of the accused".

Court appointed lawyer asks no further questions here, while rich guy's lawyer continues on...

"Consistent in what manner ?"

"Well, it was too smudged to read any of the ridges and do any meaningful comparison, but it did appear to be a human fingerprint, so, inasmuch as the accused is also human, it's consistent". StuRat (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, the word consistent has a very specific legal and technical definition, the burden of calling evidence consistent with a claim is different than claiming it cannot be eliminated. Basically, forensics experts make basically one of three statements on the nature of physical evidence. Evidence can be said to not match the suspect evidence (i.e. they can say "the print does not match the suspects print"). They can say that the evidence "does not eliminate the suspect", which is generally reserved for the sort of low-quality evidence you describe, that is the evidence contains nothing which contradicts the notion that it is connected to the suspect, but neither does it have anything to support it. Finally, they can say that the evidence is "consistent" with the suspect; that means there are definitive points of matching between the suspect's sample and the evidence sample, and there are simultaneously no points that eliminate the suspect as a match. Your example of "no meaningful comparison possible" would be reported exactly with that phrase, or possible "does not eliminate the suspect", to which any defense attorney who can find his own ass would ask "does that also mean it doesn't match the suspect" to which the expert would have to note the ambiguity of the evidence. I know this is OR, but I have intimate knowledge of someone in the business... --Jayron32 03:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're screwing a married lawyer, Jayron. Whoopee! Does your wife know about this affair? ... Oops, she does now. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

No, I'm screwing a married forensic scientist. Thankfully, she's married to me. --Jayron32 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what would happen if an "expert" did just what I said (assuming he got caught) ? Would he be imprisoned ? Banned for life from acting as an expert ? Even fined ? Or would he just get a slap on the wrist and go on doing the same thing, to make the Prosecutor who hires him happy ? StuRat (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

hm? --Jayron32 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope This isn't Offense. Since you People are Saying that It's impossible for [Police, doctors, & CSU] to Prove that Rape automatically occurred 100%, I believe You people but Please answer my Question at Bottom of this Screen? Whenever I watch TV, I listen to [Police, Doctors, CSU] who are Specifically saying, "Rape" & that causes Me to Believe that Rape occurred 100%. Although they're not Stupid, how come [Police, Doctors, CSU] don't Specifically say, "We're assuming that Rape occurred. If we ask the Suspect if He/She had Consensual Sex, then that Suspect might Lie about Consensual Sex." (50.173.3.162 (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Sorry, what makes you think they don't ask that? Britmax (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my Question was too Vague. I never Said that Cops should ask Suspect if He had Consensual Sex. I agree that Cops should Not ask Suspect if He had Consensual Sex.

On tv, I hear [Cops, Doctors, CSU] specifically saying, "Rape." It causes Me to Believe that They're 100% Positive that Victim was Raped.

On tv, are [Cops, Doctors, CSU] actually trying to say, "For any Victim, it's Impossible for Us to prove 100% that those Victims were Raped. For now, we have to Assume that the Victim was Raped."

On tv, how come [Cops, Doctors, CSU] don't Specifically say, "For any Victim, we have to Assume that the Victim was Raped."

My email's (redacted)(50.173.3.170 (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Well, in private they get lazy, and those TV shows sometimes show what they might act like in private. However, when making public statements, they tend to be very careful, even to the point of calling the suspect a "person of interest". StuRat (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, TV shows are fiction, and CSI is about as accurate portrayal of the work of actual forensic scientists as Harry Potter is an accurate portrayal of actual British residential schools. --Jayron32 20:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty accurate about boarding schools for wizards though. DuncanHill (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, the circumstances make it almost certain. If a half-dressed body is found in a far-from-home field with multiple stab wounds, in addition to vaginal damage, it would take a pretty stupid detective to surmise she went to that field for corn after some rough consensual sex, then was killed in a pants robbery gone wrong. If there's semen, they can test it. If it's not from anyone she'd known, that's a huge clue. If the victim's very young or very old, that's an even bigger hint. If she was last seen with a known rapist, it might very well be rape. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, that's for lawyers to argue and juries to decide. It isn't the job of technical experts to make pronouncements of guilt or innocence or to prove things as true or false. All they do is decide if "a" is consistent with "b". --Jayron32 12:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not their real life job. I thought we were talking about TV now. There, anybody can play the "official" at the "We Interrupt This Program" press conference, to establish what "authorities" believe at that part of the story.

Or are we talking about when actual press conferences are televised on the real news, OP? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about TV, all bets are off. That's the idea behind fiction, someone makes it all up. And for anything someone makes up, than can, you know, make up whatever they want. That's how fiction works. --Jayron32 04:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are still standard practices. Film and TV writers can write whatever they want, but that doesn't mean what they write will survive the assistant writers, focus groups and producers. Knowing this, many writers eventually save themselves the trouble and just go with the usual from the start. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]