Miscellaneous desk
< October 16	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 18 >

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.

October 17

Elbot

I asked Elbot to tell me a joke and it said, "A byte went to main memory and said "C3". Main memory thought a moment and replied: "08 B1 0D FF"!" Does this make sense? Could someone explain it to me? Nadando (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, it looks like it was trying to tell a joke using hexadecimal but converting those values from hex to decimal doesn't make any sense to me. C3 is 195 and 08 B1 0D FF is 552725434623. Dismas|^(talk) 03:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been a reference to the hoary old joke about the group of people who felt that life was too short to repeat jokes, so they decided to number them, and just say the number. The first person said "16", and got a good reception. The next person said "47", and everyone laughed uproariously. The third person said "31", but this time everyone just stared blankly. He asked "What did I do wrong? They all laughed at the other ones". Someone else said "It's all in the way you tell it". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative punchline: The third person said "98", and everyone collapsed in absolute hysterics. He looked puzzled, and someone told him, "Well, we've never heard that one before!" AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, you've failed the robot's Turing test! Soon we'll all be doing the menial computations they can't be bothered with. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance I thought, "Oh! 8080 humor!", since C3 is the "Jump" command on the 8080 architecture. But the rest is just nonsense in that dialect. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 12:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The joke is that the computer is telling a joke that only the computer would get. The funny bit is not that you are supposed to translate the joke to understand it. The funny bit is SUPPOSED to be in the process of telling. Its not supposed to be taken literally that what he says makes sense. Lots of commedians have gotten laughs "pretending" to speak a foreign language, when all they say is gibberish. This is no different. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. But I still considered it for a moment. Years of assembly language programming wired all sorts of opcodes in my head. 00: C3 00 00 --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elbot is weird. He insists that 2+7 = 10. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly wrong. Everyone knows that 2 + 7 = 11. --Carnildo (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distance from nucleus: d or s orbitals

Moved to Science Reference Desk for better attention. See here. Franamax (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video games

Do they sell video games in Hawaii? 58.165.17.100 (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. What leads you to believe otherwise? Acceptable (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard anyone play video games there. 58.165.17.100 (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they sell video games in Hawaii. Duh. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toys n' Joys has a couple of locations on Oahu, one in Honolulu and appear to have a wide range of product. Google them. Darkspots (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do they sell them, they develop them as well [1] [2]. Heck if you consider PSP games video games, they even play them on buses, sometimes [3] Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? I've never heard anyone play video games in probably 45 of the US states. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamestop Locations in Honolulu APL (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withnail and I

I am trying to improve the withnail and I article on wikiquote. There is a quote in the movie while still in London, where withnail tells I about thier plans, he says something like: we are going to take two capps of acid, three whiskeys, and some speed, that should knock us out until widnesday, we will then eat a pork pie and drop two pinks a red and a blue. I am paraphrasing. What was this quote, can anyone tell me? does any one know? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a direct source, and aren't sure, then its probably not a good idea to put it in the article. In general, additions made to articles based on the "I heard it once, and think I remember it" don't improve the articles in question. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB says it's "Right, here's the plan. First, we go in there and get wrecked, then we eat a pork pie, then we drop some Surmontil-50's each. That way we'll miss out on Monday and come up smiling Tuesday morning.". --Sean 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, but it's still not word-perfect. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An actual new video game - without a gimmick?

I was having a discussion with a friend over lunch about recent video games, and we were trying to think of a new style of game that has been released over the past 10 years. So many games seem to be old styles of game, reimagined with a different story, more abilites and better graphics. For example, you can trace GTA4 back through either driving style games or first person shooters. We did consider the Wii and it's games, but the innovation is in the control system rather than the games itself - a "gimmick" if you will. The best I could come up with are the games that you tap buttons along to music (eg guitar hero) - but even that could be traced back to games over 10 years old... Parappa the Rappa. Any thoughts would be appreciated, as I hate the idea that nothing new is coming out. --WORM | MЯOW 12:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought of one, Pikmin - can't think of anything like it! - but that's nearly 8 years old... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worm That Turned (talk • contribs) 12:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, The Sims was pretty revolutionary, it may be just within that 10 year limit, but there really wasn't anything quite like it when it came out. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, you can trace GTA4 back through either driving style games or first person shooters." Here's your problem. You're ignoring truly new aspects to games in favor of the elements you can trace back to previous games. The innovation in GTA (admittedly, itself an old game) is its "sandbox" freedom, not the driving or the walking around shooting things. GTA essentially created a new genre. You seem to be expecting a whole new genere that is not related in any way to an existing one. That's ridiculous, that hasn't occurred since Pac-Man.

However, if you're looking for wholly new genres it's true that they don't appear very often. (A bunch appeared all at once as the technology made them possible, of course, but you can't count that.) This is true in all art forms. It's rare for a whole new genre of film to emerge, and often it's not recognized until after the fact.(See Film Noir) Even when a new genre does become popular, there is usually a proto-example that existed before the genre entered the mainstream (Rhythm games, especially guitar games are big right now, but they existed for a while.)

Finally, if you're looking for unique games that probably won't spawn entire genres but offer genuinely unique gameplay, then I recommend Katamari Damacy. In fact, I recommend it regardless. APL (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say you're not interested in input method gimmicks, but if "Pikmin" had a mouse/keyboard interface it'd be one of many RTS games. If that's the sort of thing that qualifies you might look at Odama(GC) and Lifeline (video game)(PS2) two games that use voice input to make unique games. (Lifeline is not great, but it's interesting. You can find it in bargain bins now.)APL (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, proving that there's no lack of creativity in these matters, check out the Indie Game Jams. APL (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although you have already discounted Wii as an input gimmick, the new mind-controlled games may be worth considering.[4] Rmhermen (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an elitist snob, and I know there are fantastic games out there. I know full well that in general if a new game wants to stand out from the crowd (and therefore make money) it has to offer something different, but our discussion started me looking for new genres of games (even if they end up as a non-starter).

Having said that, I guess it's rather unlikely to happen. Publisher want to make money, and are unlikely to pay for something that might flop, and if there's nothing to compare it to then it's too much of a risk... Thanks for all your thoughts, I'll look into those games I haven't heard of. Would love to hear any other thoughts too! --WORM | MЯOW 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that you were a snob, but that if you trivialize GTA (Just over your 10 year mark.) to "a driving game" you've completely missed what made the game truly original. APL (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And note that the original GTA and GTA2 are really not the same sorts of games as GTA3 and its successors. Yes, they have violence and large sprawling cities but the combining of that with a first-person perspective is an entirely different sort of thing—it lends itself to a very different type of game and a very different type of experience. I don't consider the latter GTAs to have all that much in common with the first two, personally. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katamari Damacy? Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 07:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Katameri Damacy is pretty novel. Picmin (a great game) isn't that much different from things like Lemmings. I'd offer The Incredible Machine as a pretty novel game. Tetris - of course - is another.

But getting really novel games out into the market is exceedingly tough. The (not-especially-novel) game I've been working on for the past 18 months was costing the company an average of a million dollars a week to build (less at the outset - much more towards the end). The game would have taken three years to make had they not canceled it 30 months into production. Something on the scale of GTA or Halo would cost a LOT more than that. Consider spending $100 to $500 million on a concept that's utterly novel...firstly, how are you ever going to convince anyone that it's going to turn a profit? With a non-novel game, you can point to some other similar-ish game and say "Well, XYZ made $250 million - and our idea improves upon XYZ in the following ways....so it's worth making because it should turn a profit". If you pitch an idea that has utterly zero references back into the past - how will you convince someone to stake you hundreds of millions of dollars with absolutely no guarantee that the game will be fun...let alone sell in insane quantities. Note particularly that the game doesn't exist in any form when you first pitch it to the money men - and even if you make 'proof of concept' for much less money, it's well known in the business that the most 'fun' value is added at the tail end of the project - so very few games appear fun after only a year or so of work.

It's the same as with movies. Making an entirely novel movie (think "Blair witch project" or "Cloverfield") can only happen if you do it on a shoe-string budget with shakey hand-held cameras and no-name actors. Big movies with big budgets are ALWAYS derivative in nature - and games are just the same. So the most likely source of a truly novel game is in the low-low-low-budget end of things. The nature of the way game-consoles are funded (they sell the game consoles at a huge loss - and make the money back by licensing rights to make games for it) means that nobody can make a low-low-low budget console game because the licensing costs will kill you. That leaves only PC games - and the market for those is falling off sharply because PC's are not sold at a loss like game consoles are - and it's tough to make a cutting edge game for a platform where no two computers are exactly alike. Just think of the cost of testing your low-low budget game on every kind of CPU, every revision of Windows, every kind of graphics card, sound card, joystick, memory size, disk speed...and all of the combinations of those things! So even PC development is a costly/risky process.

Sadly - this means that with the best will in the world, game makers have their hands tied behind their backs when it comes to innovative games. I am a professional game programmer - and I can tell you that our designers have some amazingly innovative ideas that they'd just LOVE to take a shot at making - but the way the business is funded, it's almost literally impossible. This (incidentally) is the reason there are so many sequels in both movies and games. In the movie business, it's an accepted rule-of-thumb that a sequel will make 50% as much as the original movie...there are exceptions (Like James Bond in the movies or like GTA in the games arena) - but that's nice for the producers - they know that if they can make a sequel for 50% what the original cost - they will hit the same profit margin. Even if the sequel costs the same as the original - if the original made more profit than it cost - then the sequel will at least break even. This goes double for games - where you can often use most of the software you wrote for the original and mostly just add new art to make the sequel. That makes the sequel both cheaper AND less risky.

What it takes to fix this is for people to steadfastly refuse to buy derivative games and sequels...and that's not going to happen. The biggest game blockbusters in all of history are GTA IV and Halo III. Sad...but that's in the nature of the business.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for all your help, and especially Steve for that very comprehensive reply. I'll keep an eye out for Katamari Damacy in the future! --WORM | MЯOW 07:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxation base for Personal Income Tax in US

I heard that you can lower your income base for calculating income tax when you show losses on shares. Can you decrease your income tax to zero? Is it true that you have to sell shares till end of October to show losses on shares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.197.100 (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For questions about how to comply with tax law, please consult a tax accountant or tax attorney. Darkspots (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound likely to me that this is a great strategy anyway - in order to viably show enough losses on shares in order to reduce your taxable income to zero, you would have to actually lose an amount equal to your income on shares. Beyond that, you'd simply be telling lies on your tax return and there are probably less convoluted ways to do it if you take that risk. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly a way of controlling when you pay taxes, rather than how much you pay. If you want to defer your tax payments you sell your shares that have lost money before the end of the tax year and keep the ones that have gained money until the next tax year, then you have a loss this year reducing your tax and a profit next year increasing it. --Tango (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tax law is pretty straightforward on this if you look at it from the right direction. Profits add to your income, losses subtract from it; you add up all your profits and losses on sales throughout the year and look at the net.

If you made a net profit in the year, you figure the tax on the entire profit and add it in.
On the other hand, if you have a net loss for the year, there's a limit on how much of it you can write down in a year.

So, the answer to your first question is technically "Yes", but only if you have lots of capital losses and very little taxable income from all other sources.

The other question is No. When you "do your taxes" for 2007, you're looking at everything that happened in 2007, and effectively balancing how much you paid during the year against how much you actually owe at the end of the year. Normally, you have to do this by April 15th, but you can get a 6-month extension by asking for it. Note, importantly, that it's an extension of time to FILE, not an extension of time to PAY.

-- DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In canada "Allowable Capital Losses" can only be used to offset "Taxable Capital Gains", so you wouldn't be able to use them to write off Employment Income. You are, however, allowed to look back 3 years for any capital losses to deduct against, or carry them forward up to 20 years. So if you had a whole ton of capital losses in past years, and a huge capital loss this year, you could make nominal tax liability this year "0".

Also, the rule in Canada is that you can sell your shares at any time to produce a capital loss, however, if you buy back those same shares within (I think it's 30 days) it's considered a "superficial loss" (a loss only for tax purposes) and you can't write it off as a capital loss. I think the rules are probably pretty similar in the United States, but I don't know. NByz (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the circle without center

how to explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.160.155 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doughnut?

In R2, consider the set of all points a fixed distance from a central point C, but not the point C itself. 68.146.178.33 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not considering the centre doesn't make it non-existent. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A circle drawn in an annulus wouldn't have a centre (as long as you don't embed the annulus in a larger space). --Tango (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A great circle in positively-curved space has no center. —Tamfang (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the first quotation here. Deor (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the opposite of what's asked about. —Tamfang (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No circle has a centre. If it did, it would be a disk.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's getting into arguable territory. Does a circle have a diameter, a perimeter, an area, a centre, a radius, and many arcs and segments? Clearly yes. Are they "part of the circle"? To mathematician, no; but to someone who sees things in a broader context, yes. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A torus.Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 07:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a donut or a torus - those are both 3D shapes. Circles are 2D. In mathematics, a circle is a curve defined by the equation x²+y²=R² - so it is just a perimeter - a curved line. Wh talk (formally) about "the area enclosed by a circle is pi.R²" - not "the area of a circle" - which is just fuzzy thinking or informal language. So a circle with no middle is just "a circle". The area bounded by a circle is called a 'disk' - and a disk with another disk cut out of its center is an 'annulus' - which is the 2D analog of a torus. So "annulus" if you're talking informally about a circle, "circle" if you're being super-formal and mathematical about it. SteveBaker (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear

I am a fan of Top Gear and I live in the U.S. Why is BBC America so far behind with episodes? They were recently touting series 6 episodes as new, yet they aired series 10 episodes before that. Do they have to edit the episodes? 67.150.173.126 (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the episode guides, some segments are edited out. 67.150.173.126 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, we've seen:

odd bits of series 3 and 4
all of series 9 and 10
some of series 7
and finally all of series 6

It's not clear whether we'll ever see any more of the UK episodes because they are now making a series specifically for the US market.

They certainly do edit all that they show here - the original shows are an hour long - but on the BBC, there are no adverts. Here they are still an hour long WITH adverts - which (according to our article) means they cut 13 minutes out of each episode.

Frankly, it's a mess. Presumably, they initially aired some recent episodes - intending to keep the US show roughly in sync with the UK version - then when it became wildly popular here - they decided they could make money by showing some older shows. The result is chaos...and it'll only get worse when the made-for-the-US-market version appears. I'm dreading that. I can't think of a single BBC show that was even 50% as good when remade for the US market. SteveBaker (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you go on torrent sites you can find many old episodes available for downloading. Check the legalities though, --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take much checking, it's illegal. The BBC sometimes releases short clips from shows, but they rarely release the whole thing. If they did, the place to find it would be bbc.co.uk, not bittorrent. --Tango (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily illegal at all. If the content had been commercially released on DVD I could see your point, but some torrent sites make strenuous efforts to stay on the right side of copyright by only making available shows that have not been commercially released. In this case, the situation is analogous to me taping a show off air and lending you the tape. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Which would be illegal BTW) SteveBaker (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Really? IANAL, but consider the Supreme Court's judgement in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., specifically the passage that goes: "When one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work ... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact ... that the entire work is reproduced ... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use." That clears up the matter of private, non-commercial use. The analogy with filesharing is still being debated, see the last section of the article. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem though - there are people like you who think that just because something has or has not been released commercially - that they can copy it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unless the copyright has expired - or the owner has explicitly given you the right to copy the work - you're stuck with "Fair use" provisions - and those are not gonna protect someone who copies a video of TopGear onto a torrent site or the people who download it. It most certainly IS illegal unless you can show that you are using a small clip - or it's entirely for educational, or review purposes and that you aren't harming the possible future earnings of the owner and...about a dozen other complicated things. There is NO WAY that a torrent of TopGear is in any way legal unless the BBC explicitly say so...and AFAIK, they have not done that...and they are exceedingly unlikely to do so while they can still sell it all around the world (which they most certainly can). SteveBaker (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]