Miscellaneous desk
< July 24	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

July 25

Portable DVD players

I want to know if there are any Portable DVD Players on the market that will play DVD-RAM.If so what make and model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.225.146 (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Panasonic DVD-LS86 does. And that's just the first example I stumbled upon. There's bound to be more! Fribbler (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general try panasonic models since they are the 'inventors' of DVD-RAM, most other manufacturers seem to ignore it..87.102.86.73 (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York look and feel

What cities resemble New York most? (with skyscrapers, a huge subway net, modern, ...)83.52.209.197 (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filmmakers sometimes use Toronto. I read years ago, that several "NY based" cop shows were actually filmed in Toronto because it was cheaper to get filming permits, though they had to hire extra crew to dirty the streets with litter etc. for that authentic NYC look and feel. (edit) And they were under strict instructions to clean it up again when they were done. Astronaut (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that is a Canadian-born urban legend about America. Mr.K. (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes has a variation, though it's not so much about the garbage as the cleanup. -- BenRG (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Liberty City? --Worm | mroW 10:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty City, of course, has a slight handicap in that it doesn't exist. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading sometime that Slough could resemble parts of New York for filming? Can't remember where I read that though - probably in a film magazine or online somewhere so take it with a pinch of salt. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

São Paulo (at least the skyscrapers). It's actually bigger than New York. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham City...Forgive me, I couldn't resist and didn't want Liberty City to be the only fictional city mentioned. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OP doesn't say anything about filming. Toronto may resemble New York in certain respects, but that isn't the primary reason it is used so much to stand in for N.Y. Things like financing, quality of film staff and crew, proximity, etc. will influence this as much as resemblance. We also have to know more about what factors the OP considers important. If language and culture are big, then only the biggest eastern (or Midwestern like Chicago) U.S. cities would qualify. If not so important, then I would imagine any of the largest metropolises of the world would have skyscrapers, subways, etc. 98.206.9.211 (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I lived in TO I had no idea it was such a film city. I remember being fairly startled the first time I saw those star trailers on the street -- flashback to LA. I would imagine that the industry there is feeling the pinch right now from the loonie being so high, but that's just speculation. --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rail Franchising

Why are passenger rail routes franchised under short term contracts in the UK as opposed to having regional operating companies which own and manage all assets in their region? What is the advantage of this? Clover345 (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on rail franchising in Great Britain, although it is not very informative. The arguments given in favour of rail franchising are that it keeps the train operators competitive and allows the government to exercise some strategic control over the train operators without having to get involved in day-to-day operations. A less frequently stated reason is that it generates revenue for the government. Arguments against it are that it encourages a short-term approach by franchisees, discourages long-term investment and fragments the railway infrastructure, making it inefficient. Also, if train operators recoup the cost of winning a franchise bid by increasing fares, then this is in effect a stealth tax on rail travel. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing that theme - the strange multi-franchising/separation of interests creates thousands of new jobs in administration - helping people into 'work' and hence the jobless figures... Did you know that the railways in britain now employ ten times as many people as they did under British Rail, (and the trains are more often on time but actually run slower on average...)87.102.86.73 (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people consider it undesirable for one company to own the track and operate the trains because they see it as an anti-competitive vertical integration. I remember reading some years ago (sorry, no cite) that the European Union had prohibited such arrangements, requiring several countries to reorganize their nationalized railway systems into multiple companies. In countries whose governments actually believe that competition of train operating companies is desirable, they go further and adopt the sort of arrangements seen today in the UK in order to promote such competition.

A cynical person might say that the British government introduced franchising because they didn't like the passenger trains and hoped to make them go away: they had seen how poor passenger train service had become in North America since the introduction of Amtrak and VIA Rail Canada had separated train operations from track ownership, and wanted to repeat the experience in the UK. A cynical person might say that; I couldn't possibly comment. --Anonymous, 00:10 UTC, July 26, 2008.

Bristol Location

Hello, I have searched for an answer to the following question without success. Please may you help me.

For what reason was the city of Bristol, United Kingdom, built?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.31.105 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article on the history of Bristol? — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 11:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at the article New towns in the United Kingdom. Is there a reason you believe that Bristol was built for a reason? A quick a look at List of planned cities#England suggests Bristol isn't recognised as a planned city. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course Bristol's not a "new town", since it appears in the 11th century Domesday Book. But it is still reasonable to suppose that a city grew on that site for a reason, even before the advent of modern urban planning. Common reasons for establishing flourishing communities throughout history are transportation links, access to natural resources or defendability (or a combination of these). Gandalf61 (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol was built where the River Avon met the River Frome, thus providing excellent transport links. It was also there that the first bridges were built over the rivers, iirc. Its name is derived from Brig-stow meaning bridge town or something like that. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better question would be for what reason did the tiny hamlet of bristol develop into the city it is today? to which the answers is given directly above. Citys often develop on rivers, or at places that are suitable for ports, or at positions that are defensible etc.87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a Screen Play adapted from a book?

Hi everybody, I had my book published last year which was a true story,and I would like to adapt the book from non-fiction to fiction for more dramatic purposes that would make the movie appeal to American audiences. I have all the story in my head,and just need to know the correct way to write a screen play so I don"t waste time making mistakes,and it is done right the first time. Thanks, Fluter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this site may be just the (cinema) ticket! Fribbler (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in Syd Field's Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting, which is considered to be something of a classic book on the subject. You may find yourself disagreeing with Field's ideas on story structure and whatnot, which tend to be pretty formulaic, but the book'll certainly teach you how to properly format and write a script... as well as a couple of things about the Hollywood mindset. A little over ten bucks at Amazon. Well worth the price. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading some screenplays, too. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, talk with your original publisher or check your contract with them. They often retain the rights to adapt what they see as their book.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To plug a great site by a great screenwriter, John August has a blog [1] where he provides all sorts of screenwriting information and also answers reader questions. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic story from the Alps

See this. The question is: what's the point of roping together? It doesn't seem to have made things any safer. TresÁrboles (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's tragic, for sure. What you don't get to read too often is the many times roping works. If one of those people had been able to get an ice axe into the surface, they might have all been saved. Also, the rope can be clipped onto anchors, as in, lead climber works upward, puts in an anchor and clips on; last climber unclips from the previous anchor and moves up; then everyone on the rope is anchored at all times. Franamax (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how about a rule where at least one person has to have an ice axe in the surface at all times, or otherwise an anchor has to be set, and if that's not possible then everybody unrope. Or is that too slow and timid? TresÁrboles (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a climber (I pitch camp overnight just climbing stairs) and I can't comment on that particular climbing party, but I think the anchoring method is the rule on difficult climbs. The point of roping is that everyone works together on a mountain. If you're unroped, then your slightest mistake will result in your almost certain death; whereas by being roped together, there is the best chance that one climber can save everyone. The rule you describe is not much different than just solo-climbing the mountain, which very few people do. Franamax (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it's a question of having rules as much as it is a question of following them or using common sense. I mean, not to blame the victims here, but I'm pretty sure that there are established safety procedures that, had they been properly followed, would have prevented this from happening. Of course, it's also possible that these people did everything right and just had very bad luck. Perhaps they were properly anchored, but the anchors slipped or something. It's not unheard of, either. Still... a lot of the time, people don't do the smart thing -- they take risks because they misread the situation, or to save time, or because they think that under the circumstances it will be safe, or to show off, or any number of other reasons.

Also, I think accidents like this are one reason why climbing is popular -- or, more to the point, not the accidents themselves, but the potential for them. It's a calculated risk that attracts a lot of people, and every once in a while, the dice come up nasty. It's an inherently dangerous pastime, which is what makes the challenge thrilling and appealing, but that means occasionally some people are going to get hurt or die. You can't really get around that. -- 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC) (Er, apparently I typed five tildes instead of four when signing this, so you only got the date there. I seem to be strangely accident-prone today... Anyway, that was me.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very recently read Lene Gammelgard's account of the 1996 Everest Disaster wherein she mentioned a legendary save by a member of her party. I don't have the book anymore but it looks like we already have it described at Pete Schoening's article. That is why climbers rope together. Franamax (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the book, Touching the Void, or the film of the same name. An absolutely amazing story about what happens when you have to cut the rope. And the dangers of listening to Boney M. Matt Deres (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Safest Place in Car to Keep valuables

Suppose I'm bringing a valuable item, say a diamond ring or an expensive camera, and leaving it in my parked car. In a regular 4-door family sedan, where would be the safest place to conceal/hide/store this item to render it least susceptible to being stolen by thieves? Would it be in the trunk? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no safe place, but generally don't put it anywhere it's visible or easily found should someone break in. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say any place you would normally keep things in, like the trunk or the glove compartment, would be the second-least safe place to put things in -- the worst place being anywhere someone looking through the windows would be able to see. TresÁrboles (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the spare wheel? I can't see an opportunistic thief lifting that out. But don't forget "a motor vehicle is stolen in the United States every 26.4 seconds".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the spare tire would be a good spot - but only if you hide it there before you get to the parking lot. Parking the car, then opening the trunk, lifting the wheel and putting something under it, then putting the wheel back might turn out to be the best way of getting someone to break into your car.

Hiding the expensive camera under the seat and leaving a cheap camera in the glove compartment would be one strategy. A diamond ring could be left inside a crushed coffee cup on the floor. Franamax (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trunk is usually the best place. It's not terribly easy to break into and you can't see into it no matter how hard you try so it's going to reduce opportunistic robberies. Your best bet here is security through obscurity—keeping things in a place where no one will see them and know they are there. If someone wanted to steal something and new there'd be something there to steal, they could do it. So don't let them know there's anything to steal. --140.247.240.228 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most vehicle breakins involve this situation - someone looking to pay for their next fix sees that handful of change in the cupholder, breaks the window, and takes whatever's in there. Putting valuables someplace out of sight and locked up is the best way to protect them, so just keep them in the trunk. Don't have *anything* of potential value showing in your vehicle, and it won't be broken into. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had someone break into my vehicle for the groceries that were inside. I wonder what the street value is on a container of hot oatmeal ? (It's better when it's hot, isn't it ?) StuRat (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: in the higher vehicle-crime areas of Greater Vancouver, it's not uncommon to return to your vehicle and find a form stuck under your wiper with an assessment. This is on the lines of "I could see money", "I could see valuables", "Your window was left rolled down an inch". There may also be a tick-box for "you left the keys in so I took it" but I don't think it's that kind of program. Point is, there was activism from the other side and vehicle thefts are way down compared to five years ago ('tho still off the scale) - worth considering if you are discussing car break-ins in your own community. Franamax (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next to your pit bull (or a doberman, in a pinch)? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once owned an old convertible VW Rabbit on which I never put the top up, and when my radio was inevitably stolen, I left the guts and wires hanging out of the gaping hole in the dashboard, and constructed a very discreet black fiberglass box with a flip-up lid between the seats for its replacement. That one was never touched! --Sean 69.134.125.191 (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buying a new car in the US.

Two simple questions on buying a new car in the US: (1) how can one determine where the car was assembled? By determine I mean "find printed somewhere in the car documentation or on the car body proper" when I am at the dealership but BEFORE I buy the car. (2) What should I ask the dealer before I buy the car? I know which model of car I want and which way I am going to pay exactly, so I don't mean the choice of car or the financing options. I mean the stuff the dealer may fail to include without telling me; the standard dealer tricks I may be unaware of; or the common caveats when buying a new car. --OcheburashkaO (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they still put where it was assembled on the sticker, along with the MSRP. However, bear in mind that where it was assembled doesn't mean much, as the parts used to assemble it may all come from other nations. I strongly recommend you fully research your car online first, both at the manufacturer's site and also at a neutral site. You should know exactly what you want and are willing to pay for it before you walk into the dealership (bring a print-out). They will, of course, try to get you to buy items with huge markups, such as "dealer add-ons" (aftermarket GPS, underbody rust protection, and fabric protection come to mind here). I stay away from extended warrantees, myself, as they usually exclude anything likely to fail and things which are expensive to repair, or they just claim you abused the car to avoid paying for anything actually covered by the warrantee. The trade-in can be another big rip-off, since they know people will take pennies on the dollar to get rid of the old junker. The more they tell you how honest they are and how much they like you and are giving you a "special deal", the more you should keep your hand on your wallet. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bring a financial calculator with you. It will help you calculate how much you're really going to pay for the car. You can enter the monthly amount, number of months, and interest rate and see what the total cost is going to be. I have one, but I forget exactly what it's called, something like HP 10 II B. Useight (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let them rush you. Take the time to read every paper you put your signature on and don't take their word on what it says. And while you're reading, take some moments to reflect on what they said to you and determine if it's fishy or not. They can be very misleading. I had one guy convince me through his choice of words that a support package for taking it in for repairs and such was included in the price of the car. It was a bit overpriced to begin with so I believed him. What he actually meant was that it was included in the new price of the car after I signed off on it and he tacked it on to the cost. I returned that car and got my money back it was such a rip-off. Those guys can be sneaky. If they have a problem with you taking your time to read stuff you should leave and get your car somewhere else. -LambaJan (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

real estate and construction.......HELP

i cant' find a common definition or any definition at all for "structural damage". This boggles me because it is terminology used in my mortgage contract. i have a general idea of what it is but i need a concrete definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.41.121 (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you contact the bank you have the mortgage contract with and ask them. They can undoubtedly tell you exactly what they mean by that; anybody else's definition is going to be guessing. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game site

This site shows every GameCube game in order of Australian sales. Is there a similar site for Nintendo 64 games? 58.165.52.72 (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nessie17 (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]