Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 April 23

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.

April 23

UK Act of Settlement

The above law was enacted to ensure that no Roman Catholic, nor any person married to a Roman Catholic, would ever be allowed to occupy the British Throne as Monarch. No mention was made in that Act of any other faith group such as Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Scientology et al. So my question in this time of multiculturalism and anti-discrimination and religious tolerance and inclusivity in the UK and the rest of the European Community is simply, would the European Court of Human Rights find the UK guilty of blatant religious discrimination and persecution by its persistence in maintaing that law on its statute book? And has any such action ever been raised in the ECHR in the past? Thanks. I expect that someone will reply that Wikipedia cannot give legal advice and I won't therefore be surprised when and if that happens. But I am not actually intending marrying into the British Royal Family - just curious. 92.30.75.103 (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Scottish main Catholic Bishop, last year, called for a change of this law[1], and again cited the reasons of European Law, as you give. He did not succeed, we believe. Catholics in the UK generally have not been forward in this argument as perhaps they are worried.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding a link to the news item you refer to. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it religious discrimination – both heads of church are Christians (?). It was the popes straying into the political affair of state that got Europe upset.--Aspro (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This law probably won't last all that long as plans are afoot to reform it, with cross-party support[2]. The purpose of the Act was to prevent a repeat of the reign of James II of England, which led to all kinds of mayhem and bloodshed. However, the only fly in the ointment is that this could lead, many years hence, to having a Roman Catholic as Head of the Church of England, being that those who marry into the Catholic faith have (I believe) to promise to bring-up their offspring as Catholics. However, there are a great many glitches like this in the British Constitution, and they usually get sorted out by some amicable compromise in the end. Alansplodge (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alan. The way attitudes are at the moment, it is likely the law will be quickly revised if and when a heir to the throne has a successful relationship with a catholic. Astronaut (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is blatant religious discrimination Aspro, because whilst it is currently illegal for say Prince William to one day ascend to the throne if he marries a Catholic girl (unless she changes to ANY other religion first), it would NOT disbar him from becoming the Monarch should he marry a girl of ANY other religion, and she chooses to remain a practising member of her (even non-Christian) faith. 92.30.75.103 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but don't get stressed about it - this is not a law that is going to be invoked and will be gone soon, whoever wins the election, unless it's the British National Party. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholics do have very clear rules on Abortion and Euthanasia and on Birth Controle, to mention just a few. So the issue is far-reaching. Catholics may have something to say if the law is changed.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, while the Act of Settlement explicitly bars only Roman Catholics or their offspring from the line of succession, in practice the bar is against other religions or religious variants too. Prince Philip was Greek Orthodox, but they made sure he was received into the Church of England (and became a British national) before he married, in order to avoid any possible difficulties. Times may have moved on since then, but I'd bet good money that, even now, if the monarch or an heir with a realistic prospect of succeeding did decide to marry a Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, Buddhist or whatever, there would be a lot of behind-the-scenes kerfuffle and a sudden conversion to C of E before the wedding. Karenjc 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider it from this point of view: if you're the young lady in question, would you rather be a Catholic commoner, or the Queen of England? I have no actual experience in this matter, but I'm pretty sure that if I had to choose one to the exclusion of the other, the Holy Father would be out the door in a heartbeat!

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Also consider another weird anomaly: the choice of new Anglican bishops is made on the recommendation of the UK Prime Minister, who may be of any religion he or she likes, or none at all. Imagine a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or an atheist PM - or, shock, horror, a Catholic PM - deciding who will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. In practice, it's an internal church matter, the PM agrees to whatever he's told, he/she simply forwards the recommendation to the Queen, who also agrees and signs. But in principle, a PM could object, or insert their own candidate over the heads of the Anglican church authorities. Crazy. Even if the PM is Anglican, it's still crazy in principle to have a politician involved in church matters at all. It'd be like the Pope being elected by the United Nations General Assembly rather than by the College of Cardinals. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Undead

In both Christianity and Zoroastrianism, there is the concept that in the end, the world will be destroyed and all of those who have died will come back from the dead.

1. Why is this
2. Why would you want the dead to come back to life
3. I think the bible mentions that all flesh will be reserected, so this must mean the physical bodies, hence zombies
4. Why do beleivers asume that the world will end while mankind is still around atall, the sun will die and hence earth but not for billians of years, and so it is highly unlikely that man will be around at that time anyway
5. In antiquety, they did not know for scientific sure that the world would end eventually so why scare monger people with the end of the world and zombies coming back from the dead.
6. how could people in ancient time, let alone now days beleive this tripe? Dead coming back to life, Adam and Eve and talking snakes, and other animals, etc etc etc not to mention a big invisible guy in the sky that no one has ever seen or ever will who controls everything, sees everything and who, if you sin will punish you for all eternity in a burning lake of fire...until he brings you back from the dead. Who in the old testament smote the Israelites time and again, with barbaric ferosity, and will do it again when the messiah comes, yet you have to love him like you father. Do people really beleive this? Or is it an example of the bigger the lie the more likely people are to beleive it as expressed by Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reformatted your questions, so they're easier to read and respond to (you had two No. 3's, but no 4. I assume that was just a typo). Incidentally, it sounds like you may be trying to start an argument with religious believers. While you may be succesful in that, it's not really what the reference desk is for. I exhort anyone who answers to stick to answering the questions as succinctly as possible, without other commontary, and preferably with references (i.e. papers by religious scholars, studies by anthropologists, etc.). Buddy431 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Scripture, The New Testament and The Old Testament have very definite and precise revelations on this. The first such is found in The Book of Job. The Nicean Creed which all main-line-Christian-Churches adhere to, is very precise on this issue, as is the Apostles Creed. The Final Judgement in Saint Matthews Gospel spells it out, referred to in the other Synoptic Gospels. A percentage of the revealed prophicies in the Bible (I would say 20%), have still to happen. All of this is a question of belief.

References for all of these and others are readily available. However, I shall refrain from citing them here, as I fear that Buddy431 may be right in his assesment of your reasons.

Saint Catherine of Sienna said: "For those who do not believe no explination is possible, for those who do none is necessary".

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended any one, I just honestly want to know how people can beleive that this is reality? And why most organised religions seem to want to scare people? Specifically with the world ending. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe your questions assume the faulty premise that these religions believe that people will be walking the earth as zombies. While I can not speak for Zoroastrianism, I have never once heard of this belief within Christianity. When the New Testament refers to the dead in Christ rising, it is not stating that zombies will dig their way out of their graves to feast on the brains of the living. Googlemeister (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, not all major religions do believe that the world is going to end. I believe Hindus are somewhat well known for having a cyclic world-view, believing that the world is destroyed and recreated on a regular basis (does anyone have the Wikipedia article pertaining to this aspect of Hinduism? Because I can't find it, and navigating through all the Hinduism related articles is a pain). Buddy431 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See Yuga. It's also alluded to in Hindu units of measurement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Glorious Bodies is the word used. Please listen to Handel's Messiah. All the references are cited there.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My set of beliefs as a Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") teaches not that the world will be destroyed, but that it will be cleansed. It logically follows (for us) that those people and things not in harmony with God's commandments will be destroyed.

Latter-day Saints normally consider our spiritual existence to be like a three-act play, and that we are currently in Act Two. In other words, we came from a pre-existence without a physical body, we are now in mortality where we each gain one, and when we die, our spirits leave our bodies and enter the afterlife. We believe that the human spirit is immortal, and never dies. Our physical bodies do, however; and this is the part of the soul (for us, spirit + body = soul) that remains after death. So with this background, I can try to answer your questions, at least from my spiritual perspective:

1. We believe that the earth must be cleansed because it is to be inherited by the righteous. (See Matthew 5:5, for example.) We believe that those who have died will come back from the dead because for us, a righteous spirit reunited with a resurrected physical body is necessary for us to reach our eternal spiritual potential. (Or even more simply stated, we believe it because it's what our Scriptures teach.)

2. What we "want" is somewhat irrelevant, but Latter-day Saints believe that we all knew each other before birth, and this knowledge and these acquaintences have been veiled from our memories. I am really looking forward to visiting with my paternal grandparents, who both died before I was born. While it may be strange to say, I "miss" them, even though I never knew them.

3. Googlemeister above addressed this. Resurrection does not mean the random quickening of mindless dead bodies. For us, it means the reunion of a specific spirit with her/his specific body. Resurrected beings essentially retain their physical dimensions and personality.

4. There's not room here to delve into a "science v. religion" discussion here, but suffice it to say, for us, that given our belief in God, He can control the laws of nature, and perhaps even is aware of some that we aren't familiar with. We believe that the earth won't need billions of years to fulfill the purpose of its creation. Opinions (please note the word) vary greatly on this subject, and while Jesus himself did not know when he'd return (see Matt 24:36 or Mark 13:32), most Latter-day Saints likely feel that it will be within the next century or two.

5. Perhaps the simplest explanation, then, is to give the believers in antiquity the benefit of the doubt, and concede that they truly believed that at some point, the world (i.e. wickedness) would end. This end may be scary for some, but it is actually kind of comforting to those who feel that they are in harmony with God. Again, though, we don't believe in zombies.

6. Just as a belief in the things you list seems most illogical to you, a disbelief in them seems most illogical to us. It doesn't do to simply dismiss God as "a big invisible guy who no one has ever seen," because we don't accept this premise. Moses and several other prophets have seen Him, so the question becomes whether these prophets are truthful, deceptive, or insane. We tend to believe that they were truthful. You end a somewhat lengthy list of marginally accurate descriptions of God by asking, "Do people really believe this?" My answer, I guess, would be "No, not as stated." I do believe in God, though, because believing provides an explanation for this earthly existence that makes the most sense to me.

Sorry this is so long. Kingsfold (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to address the general nature of the questions posed by the OP. Despite all the specific differences, there is a common thread among many religions, namely the "belief" or "hope" that there is a life beyond this one. It's fair to say that, in general, religionists believe there is, and atheists do not. That kind of addresses points 1 and 2, specifically. Beyond that, the OP's questions reflect misunderstanding, to put it politely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I will address question #6. I am not a believer in the teachings that you mention (in some cases inaccurately), but I am sympathetic to believers. I think that this kind of belief starts from the experience, which I think most people share, of the vastness and complexity of the universe, which was completely mysterious in ancient times and much of which remains mysterious even to modern scientists. To make sense of this vastness and mystery, people accept the existence of one or more transcendent and possibly supernatural forces or beings, which may take the form of deities. Once people accept the existence of transcendent and supernatural forces or beings, it is easy to accept teachings about them that nonbelievers consider myths. Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Wikipedia has an article "Eschatology". The Greek word κόσμος can have different meanings. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/κόσμος) It can mean "mankind". (http://mlbible.com/john/3-16.htm) It can mean "world". In the Bible, Jesus referred to his followers as being no part of the world. (http://mlbible.com/john/17-14.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/17-15.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/17-16.htm) In the Bible, James said that friendship with the world meant enmity with God. (http://mlbible.com/james/4-4.htm) In the Bible, John counseled Christians that they should not love the things of the world. (http://mlbible.com/1_john/2-15.htm; http://mlbible.com/1_john/2-16.htm; http://mlbible.com/1_john/2-17.htm.) See also http://mlbible.com/matthew/24-14.htm. The Bible says that the earth will remain forever. (http://mlbible.com/psalms/104-5.htm) The Bible says that the wicked people will be removed from the earth, but that the righteous people will live forever on it. (http://mlbible.com/psalms/37-10.htm; http://mlbible.com/psalms/37-11.htm) (http://mlbible.com/proverbs/2-21.htm; http://mlbible.com/proverbs/2-22.htm) The Bible says that people who destroy the Earth will be destroyed. (http://mlbible.com/revelation/11-18.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed a lengthy list of Biblical citations that do not answer the original poster's questions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Close to your questions are much of the film Religulous, which features Bill Maher asking various religious people how they can possibly believe that there was a talking snake, that Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib, that Jonah survived in the fish's belly for three days, and so on. This mostly lampoons Biblical literalism. Your "zombies" interpretation does, too. Note that many religious people are not literalists. As to "do people really believe this", well, yes, many people do, obviously. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that this has some relation to the idea of the eternal return. Vranak (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Messiah

What are the criteria that need to be filled to be the Jewish Messiah? in point form so its easy for me, and what are the criteria that Jesus met, and which did he not meet, hence the schism between Jewdaism and christianity. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the Messiah is to be from the House of David. According to Jewish law, tribal affiliation is passed patrilinially, and although the Book of Matthew opens by tracing Jesus' lineage, it ends with Joseph, who was not Jesus' father. The various explanations of how it could be transferred to Jesus (adoption, via Mary, spiritual descendancy) are all incongruous with Jewish law, thus invalidating Jesus from being the Messiah. Moreover, the age of the Messiah will be one in which, as described by the Prophets, there will be peace, with no nation bringing war against another nation -- there has hardly been a day in the last 100 years in which there has not been war somewhere. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus referred to this in the Gospels.

Begin with Saint Luke's Gospel regarding what Jesus said to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke: 24: 13-35).

Jesus was very clear in what He said to indicate He was fulfilling what was said of The Messiah.

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Was God part of the house of David? Googlemeister (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

God created all, not one thing had its being but through Him (The Word): St. John 1:+

He also answered this question: "David called Him Lord; so how can He be his Son?": (Lk 20: 41-47)

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please listen to Handel's Messiah and follow the score for most of the references you seek are cited there.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is actually a list of Messianic criteria, with Biblical references, at Jewish_eschatology#The_Messiah, though you should also bear in mind that the Liberal movement rejects the idea of an individual, personal Messiah, instead focussing on the arrival of a Messianic age. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  Rabbi Jonathan Romain from the Reform movement in Britain (in practice near-identical to the Liberals mentioned above) has written, Reform subscribes to the idealised picture painted in the later books of the Bible of life in Messianic times. It is an era of peace in which justice and righteousness reign supreme and all live in harmony. In such a time swords will be beaten into ploughshares (Micah 4:3), while even in the animal world the wolf shall lie down with the lamb (Isaiah 11:6). The benefits will apply not only to Jews but to all people, and there will be universal tranquility and co-operation. (It is, of course, the absence of such world-wide peace that is one of the reasons why Christianity's claim that Jesus was the Messiah has never been accepted by Jews. Another factor is that in the Jewish understanding there is no hint that the Messiah will be an object of worship or divine, nor that the Torah will be abrogated by the Messiah's coming.) ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that you bring up what Romain states -- because he's certainly not an acceptable source of Jewish though or philosophy from an Orthodox or Conservative perspective, and according to Alvin Reines, Reform Judaism is a polydoxy, and the only thing able to be affirmed is each individual's right to decide what is true for them and what is not. That being said (however ridiculous from a non-Reform perspective), even Reform Jews are not bidden by it...so why bother quoting it? It's not like you're quoting the Rambam or Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, on the cross, quoted Psalm 22/21: "My God, my God, why have you deserted me?...". This a clear Messianic Criteria, and deliberately so by Jesus. (Mk: 15: 33-39), (Mt: 27: 45-50). To see it you need to read Psalm 22/21, all of it, the Psalm that begins with those words above. Oh, by the way, the end of the Psalm has yet to be fulfilled!

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That validity of that can be thoroughly called into question -- if Jesus was God, who was he talking to? If he was the Messiah, and he knew it, and this was the fate of the Messiah, why was he complaining? That was his destiny, by definition. And he did not say desert -- although that would have been the correct thing to have said. He rather misquoted the verse by saying zavachtani, which translates as "sacrifice me." DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone believes that Jesus was God. See Nontrinitarianism. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See Jesus and Messianic prophecy. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' words are quoted exactly as he spoke them: Mt: 27, 46: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" and again in Mk: 15, 34. He had to hawl Himself up to say them on the nails; painful. Psalm 22/21, v. 16 "...they tear holes in my hands and feet, I can count everyone of my bones..." (Written at least 600 years before Christ). If you read the Gospels with an open heart then all will be clear, if not they will remain shut.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that latter advice, and all, but this preaching doesn't address the original poster's questions (or anyone else's, as far as I can see). Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. It is a definite Criteria requeted. All set out in the article page mentioned above: Jesus and Messianic prophecy. Preaching would be expounding and applying these cited references.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's what the Jewish Virtual Library says:

Most significantly, Jewish tradition affirms at least five things about the Messiah. He will: be a descendant of King David, gain sovereignty over the land of Israel, gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth, restore them to full observance of Torah law, and, as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world. Concerning the more difficult tasks some prophets assign him, such as Isaiah's vision of a messianic age in which the wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the calf with the young lion (Isaiah 11:6), Maimonides believes that Isaiah's language is metaphorical (for example, only that enemies of the Jews, likened to the wolf, will no longer oppress them). A century later, Nachmanides rejected Maimonides's rationalism and asserted that Isaiah meant precisely what he said: that in the messianic age even wild animals will become domesticated and sweet­tempered. A more recent Jewish "commentator," Woody Allen, has cautioned: "And the lamb and the wolf shall lie down together, but the lamb won't get any sleep."

The Jewish belief that the Messiah's reign lies in the future has long distinguished Jews from their Christian neighbors who believe, of course, that the Messiah came two thousand years ago in the person of Jesus. The most basic reason for the Jewish denial of the messianic claims made on Jesus' behalf is that he did not usher in world peace, as Isaiah had prophesied: "And nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4). In addition, Jesus did not help bring about Jewish political sovereignty for the Jews or protection from their enemies. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/matthew/21-42.htm; http://mlbible.com/matthew/21-43.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

When referring to Judaism, the word "Mashiach" is generally used instead of "Messiah". (The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one".) This will help in your searches. :)

"The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15). " (Source:JewFAQ) See also:

• Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
• Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
• Ezekiel 38:16
• Hosea 3:4-3:5
• Micah 4
• Zephaniah 3:9
• Zechariah 14:9
• Daniel 10:14

Hope that helps some. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, without researching further at this stage; the word Messiah, means; The One who is sent, directly referring to these references in Isaiah. The word Christ means; The Anointed One, referring to those references in Isaiah. The words; Son of Man, refers to those references in Daniel.

Jesus and Messianic prophecy, has good references.

MacOfJesus (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Carry a knife? I do.

I'm going to see Lewis Black tonight at the New York City Center. I've been to NYC a total of 2 times in my life and don't go into large cities very often, so I'm not sure if this is a concern... Will I be able to carry a pocket knife into the show? I always carry one and I don't know what to expect. (if it's the same as planes and federal buildings, etc.) Thanks, 24.151.16.55 (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought your best option would be either to leave it at home if it's likely to cause a scene, or maybe call ahead? Their contact details are at: [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roydisco (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You probably won't need it for any protection. That theater is in Central Park South, basically in one of the most affluent part of New York, and I can't imagine you'll run into any trouble. Contrawise, theaters in nice areas don't often do searches for weapons, so you likely won't be stopped for carrying it (venues in bad parts of town often do). If you do have it on your person, and are caught with it, it could be seen as uncouth or inappropriate for the location, so my advice would be to leave it at home for this trip. --Jayron32 15:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What type of pocket knife are we talking about? Is it a big old Switchblade used for self protection, or a Swiss Army knife used for cutting open bags of chips? Buddy431 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the venue, but it is just possible that they have you pass through a metal detector. They probably don't, but they just might. Unless you are very attached to your knife, why risk trouble? You could phone and ask if they allow knives or screen for weapons, but that phone call just might alarm them enough to screen when they would not have done so otherwise. Incidentally, I grew up near New York City and have been there many dozens of times, and I have never experienced or even witnessed a violent attack. As others have said, the neighborhood of that theater is one of the safest in the city and well patrolled, so you really do not need your knife. Marco polo (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do people still believe the city is still dangerous and unsafe? Central Park south is not a bad area. Don't drive into the city unless you enjoy paying through the nose for parking at a garage. Take mass transit - or a Hertz rental car according to Google Maps - and keep your weapons at home. --Blue387 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you pass through Airport security with a Swiss Army knife, even the simplest one: The Spartan, you will lose it! The cost is £12 to £15 for the cheepest. Not worth it to lose it. A new one can be extreemly sharp! You may be allowed to bring it in boarding luggage, not hand-held.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

At almost every concert I've ever been to, I have been frisked or had to pass through a metal detector. Usually they are looking for recording equipment or drugs, but weapons will raise alarm bells. If your knife is found it is certain to be conficated. What happens next will depend on the type of knife - a small swiss army type of penknife will be simply confiscated and you might get it back at the end of the concert if you ask nicely; carry a huge bush knife and you'll probably be held by a couple of big security guys until the police arrive. Best advice is leave it at home. Astronaut (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OR here, but I went to a Lewis Black show, not in NYC, and there were no metal detectors and there was no frisking. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a cliche that carrying a weapon makes you more likely to be hurt, and I don't think it's a silly one. A willingness to hurt people will engender that same attitude in others, towards you. Vranak (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's three people that have reacted to the prospect of the original poster carrying the pocketknife as a weapon, though there has been no indication that is the reason he or she carries it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What other plausible explanation is there? Vranak (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As Buddy431 said above: "for cutting open bags of chips". I've carried a Swiss Army Knife for years, simply because you never know when you'll want a little knife, scissors, tweezers, screwdriver, etc., and difficult-to-open packaging is exactly one of the reasons. It is not meant as a weapon and would be hard to use as one. But since 9/11, when another sort of knife that's hard to use as a weapon actually was used as one, I am not allowed to take it on airplanes or into a few other places. But those other places have not included any theaters I've been to in New York or anywhere else. --Anonymous, 04:10 UTC, April 24, 2010.

Besides the airport, the only place where I wasn't allowed a knife was in a court house. Even then, once I was given a juror badge/card/whatever, they stopped caring if I had a knife. (But I should add that I don't go to a lot of concerts.) APL (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I, and most of my family have always carried swiss army knives or another multi-tool. We have all used them often and never as far as I am aware as a weapon. I use the screwdriver attachment regularly for tightening a screw inside my car that always works its way loose due to vibration, and I use the knife for opening parcels, prying up tins of paint and removing thumb tacks from my pinboard. My dad once used his to cut a piece of rope we found on the side of the road to length so we could securely attach a load to our roof rack when we discovered we didn't have enough straps. Without it we would have had to leave the load behind. At least in my experience (UK) far more people carry knives as tools than as weapons, you just don't hear as much about it. 131.111.185.69 (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Most multi-tools are useless (says the proud owner of a Victorinox SwissTool). But Swiss army knives have corkscrews! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Vranak, have you ever SEEN a Swiss Army Knife? It would make a poor weapon. I carry a Swiss Army knife at all times, and it's difficult to imagine a realistic situation where using it as a weapon would have a happy ending. I'd rather pretend I was unarmed than attempt to make a stand with a Swiss Army knife. Mostly I use it for opening things, driving screws, and occasionally prying something apart. One day I may even use the tweezers. APL (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether intended as a weapon or not, many security guys consider even a pocketknife a potential weapon and will confiscate it anyway. Security guys see the worst in everything and everybody - for example, at the last football game I went to, the cap of my water bottle was confiscated for "security reasons"! Astronaut (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have carried a knife every day (almost) for the whole of my life from age 12. I object most strongly to that freedom being taken away to the extent that even non-locking knives, nail scissors and such like are verboten. They must pry my knife from my cold dead fingers! (Except that I had to comply if I wanted to go on holiday!)Froggie34 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus fuck, people! I said a pocket knife. It's a tool. Not a weapon. I've carried a pocket knife of one sort or another since I was 12 and my brother got me my first Swiss-Army knife. I live in an area (don't bother looking up my IP, I'm far from home) where men are prepared and thus carry a pocket knife. Not so paranoid that we insist everyone else not carry anything. My normal tackle includes a Swiss-Army knife, a mini Leatherman on my key chain, a full size Leatherman on my belt, and a ~4" Spyderco lock blade. I leave some of that at home if I'm just going out to dinner with the wife but always have the Swiss Army knife on me. And yes, they all come in very handy and no, I've never used any of them as a weapon. Nor do I want to. The Spyderco is fast and easy for cutting open bales of hay, cutting rope in general, etc. The S.A. knife is handy for many things, including for the "server reboot tool" a.k.a. the toothpick. The Leatherman is handy for the pliers and the Phillips screwdriver. Among the other things I carry, because they come in handy are a Space pen, a bandana, my wallet (with a flat coin like screwdriver behind my driver's license), a pocket watch, and keys.

Thank you to those who kept a level head and had good suggestions. FYI, there were no metal detectors, LB was hilarious, the people in front weren't too tall, and, even though my wife said she had a fat ass, the chick next to me was pleasantly curvaceous. 24.151.16.55 (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay but, could she have used her ass as a weapon??? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If stopped and searched on the streets of the UK you may lose it, depending on the length of the blade.

If it is packet-knife length, you may clame it back from the police station.

If it is long and obviously not a pocket knife, you will lose it and be prosecuted for holding in a public place an offensive weapon.

So, it depends on the nature of the tool/weapon, the length of the blade, and where it is carried (i.e. a public place). Some small knives can be flick-knives or tools.

The police-officer has to make up his/her mind as to its purpose.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

difference

If a man is older than woman by 9 years does it look odd?? Means will it be acceptable?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If the man is 18 it might look odd, yea. If they are both adults, probably not. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It will look more odd at younger ages, and less odd at older ages. Googlemeister (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See File:Half-age-plus-seven-relationship-rule.svg for one cultural take on the issue. Males-older-than-females is generally more acceptable in many societies. On a personal note, my parents married when she was 20 and he was 32; I don't think they've ever been "looked at oddly" for the age difference. FiggyBee (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also culture plays a role. What flies in Saudi Arabia might not be viewed well in Canada or Mongolia and v.v. Googlemeister (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "cradle robber" is sometimes applied to a man who dates or marries a much younger woman. It may be a term of envy on the part of the man's contemporaries. The half age plus seven rule would say it is fine if he is 32 and she is 23. Or if he is older than that and she is 9 years younger (like he is 70 and she is 61). In general, it is no one's business but theirs, assuming she is legal age in the applicable jurisdiction. Edison (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

See Age disparity in sexual relationships. Dismas|^(talk) 21:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Name for a type of pot lid

Is there a name for pots where the lid rests inside the basin? Most pot lids rest entirely on top of the pot, but I need to find a 2q pot whose lid rests on an interior lip within the pot basin, like the lid here. (its for mother's day and mom's real specific). 160.10.98.106 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I reckon it is called a nested lid, there are not many references on google to support this, but somewhere in the recesses of my mind this emerged. Richard Avery (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a double boiler. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the only example of the type of lid I need I've been able to find. I need that lid on a two quart pot. 160.10.98.106 (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to buy her a pot lid, and claim I misunderstood. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Tefal make the sort of pots you're referring to. I have a Tefal stock pot, and the lid fits snugly on a lip inside the basin. I also have a smaller earthenware crock pot which fits the description. It may be a case of shopping around and asking the shop assistants. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Also known as T-Fal, in the US. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Are these two people related?

Is Austrian mountaineer Gerlinde Kaltenbrunner related to WWII Nazi war criminal Ernst Kaltenbrunner? ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario54 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaltenbrunner is a common name in Austria (see for example soccer players Ernst, Günter, and Josef Kaltenbrunner, or writer Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner), especially Upper Austria, where Nazi-Ernst (from Ried im Innkreis) and Gerlinde (from Kirchdorf an der Krems) are from. Politician Alois Kaltenbrunner (from Ottnang am Hausruck) and writer Carl Adam Kaltenbrunner (from Enns) hail from the same state. That's not to say that they weren't possibly (remotely) related, but I can't find any mention of it from a quick look (and I'm too lazy to look for more). Rimush (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

TV gimmicks

Many HDTV makers are offering refresh rates of more than 60 HZ. I've seen up to 240 HZ. Another weird thing is Sharp is now offering TVs with yellow pixels added to the RGB color model. What's the point of these features if the broadcast or source is only 60Hz RGB in the first place? Is this just a gimmick? Another thing that sounds kind of gimmicky to me is the upscale feature on some DVD players and receivers that outputs and HD signal from a standard definition source. It's basically resampling or stretching the image. Isn't that what the TV already does in order to fill the screen? Does it matter if it's done by the TV/monitor or the source player? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Three phosphors, such as RGB, only allow reproduction of those colors which fall within the triangle encompassed by those three points in the CIE color space or some more modern equivalent. The transmitted color signals may include hues outside the triangle of the three phosphors. Color TVs in the early 1960's for instance, had poor reproduction of reds due to the lousy red phosphor then used. A cherry red in the televised scene would be reproduced on the screen as mere brick red, Today the same transmission would produce more vivid reds on today's sets withe better red phosphors. Adding some phosphor outside that triangle could in principle broaden the gamut of colors shown on the screen, with appropriate circuitry to drive the fourth phosphor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs) 00:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense! Without changing the way color TV/DVD signals are encoded, there is absolutely no way for the TV to produce colors outside the RGB 'cube' meaningfully. There is simply not enough information in the incoming signals for the TV to do what you're claiming they do...and even if there was, our eyes literally cannot tell the difference between yellow light and a mixture of green and blue light.

The real reason for the gimmick (and I'm pretty sure it isn't much more than a gimmick or TV's would have been doing this for 20 years) is that each pixel in the TV's panel has to emit red, green and blue light - to match how our eyes work. So you have three tiny little glowing blobs - one for each color. But three is a very inconvenient number to pack into a nice dense square grid - so what to do with that fourth 'spot'? Some designs put a second green emitter there because our eyes are more sensitive to green than red or blue - and being able to emit more green light makes for a perceptually brighter picture. But our eyes are also more sensitive to red than to blue - so ideally you'd like to make some extra red light too. Hence, filling that slot with yellow is a way to make a somewhat brighter picture - but that's about all.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're making the assumption that a display device is capable of producing the full RGB gamut. I don't think that's necessarily a valid assumption; and if it's not, a fourth emitter could indeed broaden the gamut. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that, even if today your tv has extra colour-capacity that's useless because it's above the colour-information being broadcast, maybe in a year, or five years, your broadcasters will start sending more colour-precise broadcasts and THEN your tv will be ready for it! Duomillia (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only is that scenario very unlikely for bandwidth reasons, it wouldn't work. The TV would only know how to decode the format of signals now in use, not some new format with additional data. --Anonymous, 04:12 UTC, April 24, 2010.

The software would need to be upgraded, yes. Some TVs have internet access, and could be updated that way. StuRat (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no possibility whatever of broadcasters "widening the color gamut". Color is described in terms of three primaries - and that's how the human visual system works. Humans are physically incapable of distinguishing yellow light (meaning light with a frequency around 570–580nm) from an appropriate mixture of red (630–740nm) and green (520–570nm) light - we are biologically incapable of doing that. The color of a Sodium-vapor lamp (at 289nm) looks exactly the same to us as the color of a photograph of a sodium-vapor lamp displayed on a TV screen that is displayed as a mixture of (roughly) 47% red and 53% green light.

That being the case, adding a yellow source to the TV is utterly incapable of generating a different perceptual response in the eye compared to a normal RGB television...EXCEPT that in order to make sufficiently bright yellows, a conventional TV might need to generate (let's say) more green light than it's green emitters are capable of. Simply making brighter green emitters - or more green emitters - would solve that problem...but that's expensive. What you have to do is to dim down the picture generally in order that there is enough 'headroom' for the green emitter to be turned up high enough to hit the right red/green ratio to get the shade of yellow you're asking for. However, adding a true yellow emitter allows you to have less bright red and green emitters and still generate a vibrant yellow. It's not widening the gamut - it's increasing the brightness range of the TV, if it happens to be limited by being unable to generate enough red or green at high brightness ranges. However making red, green and blue brighter through other technological means would be a better solution since it would also allow brighter red, green, cyan, blue, magenta and white output. That's why the yellow emitter thing is a gimmick. If they actually relied upon the yellow emitter to reach the required brightness of yellow - they'd have a TV that couldn't produce enough red or green light when called upon to make a red or a green that's as intense as the yellow right next to it. This IS a gimmick...nothing more.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If pixels were infinitely small and infinitely bright, then, yes, 3 pixels with RGB colors would be just as good as 4 RGBY pixels. However, the pixels on a large screen are not so small that you can't see them individually, especially at 720p resolution. Therefore, seeing actual yellow pixels is better than seeing alternating red and green pixels, especially for thin yellow lines displayed on the screen. It would be better yet if they could create overlapping layers of clear pixels (when off) with 16 colors, or maybe 256. However, as we currently lack this ability, they should probably just fill in the "missing pixel" from the pixel square, and yellow seems as good of a color as any. StuRat (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If what you said were true - then what about cyan, white, magenta? All of those colors wouldn't be improved in the slightest by adding a yellow pixel. To the contrary, the inevitable reduction in the number of red, green and/or blue pixels would make those colors WORSE!! Also (as I'm sure you realize), it doesn't matter that the image is being transmitted at 720p - the number of pixels per inch on the screen is what matters when it comes to 'fusing' the red and green light into yellow. Most flat screen TV's have a dot pitch of between a quarter and a third of a millimeter. Remember that our visual acuity is much lower for color than it is for intensity, we have about 4.5 million cone cells - so if the TV image completely fills our field of view (you have to be sitting unusually close to the screen for that to be the case!) then you need around 4.5 million RGB triplets on the screen in order to be totally unable to distinguish the individual pixels. That's a resolution of about 2100 pixels. If the pixels are 0.3mm across then so long as your display is bigger than around 700 millimeters (27") you can't see the individual dots. The Sharp Aquos Quattron (the one with the yellow pixels) has a 52" diagonal screen. So this argument of yours is nonsense. Unless you are sitting so close to it that you can only see about a quarter of the screen at a time - you can't possibly see the individual dots even with perfect eyesight. For all that matters - they might as well be infinitely small...which means that your argument is still 100% wrong and the yellow pixel thing is still a gimmick. SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

1) People can see individual pixels. We have a Q right now which clearly demonstrates that: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#HDTV_stuck_blue_pixel. Not only did he manage to spot it right away, but it's a genuine annoyance. I've had similar experiences myself.

2) Even when people are seated too far away to see individual pixels, the image will still look "fuzzier" if composed of alternating different colored pixels than a single color pixel, especially if the pixels are not quite in line with each other:

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦  <- Single color, single line

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ <- Two color, single line

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ <- Two color, two line

3) I think it's a fair comment that other colors, which don't contain much yellow, may not be as clear or as bright if the 4th pixel is yellow, depending on what the alternative 4th pixel color is. However, fixing the deficiency in yellow may be worth a reduction in those other colors, but that's a judgment call. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For 60 Hz source, the TV may interpolate to create the missing frames. While that's not as good as 240 Hz source, it can be better than 60 Hz source on a 60 Hz display. Also note that the TV doesn't solely get it's video source from broadcast TV. There's also cable, computers, DVD players, Blu-Ray, etc., some of which may offer higher frame rates than 60 Hz. StuRat (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I have watched TV broadcasts on older sets with the inferior red phosphors, and more recent sets produce more saturated reds. It is due to a phosphor change, not to a change in broadcasting. The phosphors provided in a set do not automatically reproduce all the hues and saturations present in the broadcast signal, nor is the broadcast signal automatically limited to the phosphors present in the set. Edison (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I know what you're saying - but don't think you understand 100% of what's going on under the hood. Let's come back to the choice of phosphor in a moment. Ignoring that, it's a matter of brightness. The TV has to compromise between saturation and brightness. If it wants to be able to produce a fully saturated red (using only the red phosphor/LED/LCD/micro-mirror) - then it has to turn the green and blue outputs off. That means that the brightness of the picture is limited by the brightness of a single color element. However, if they are prepared to compromise and use a little green and blue mixed in with the red, they'll have a brighter overall picture - but less saturated colors. This is attractive because most natural images don't have much super-saturated colors - and not many colors that happen to be pure primary colors. By NOT reserving 100% red for 100% red, you can have a brighter picture overall. It's a compromise.

Having said that, the choice of phosphor/LED color does have an impact. The human eye's green sensor is still picking up color over the frequency range that a red phosphor produces. So picking a red phosphor that's centered on the human eye's red sensor doesn't allow you to produce colors that are closer to infra-red which result in your red sensors being stimulated - but not the green sensor. So you can make a better color between red and infra-red with a phosphor that's lower in frequency than the 'center' frequency of our eyes...although now you don't have a way to maximise the amount of stimulation to our red sensors, so again, you get a dimmer picture. That's also somewhat true of blue phosphors - where choosing a blue phosphor that's closer to ultraviolet gets you purer blues. HOWEVER, you can't extend that argument to adding a yellow phosphor (or, in this case, a yellow LED) because every possible color between red and green can always be produced with an appropriate mixture of red and green.

It's interesting to look at what TV's and computer monitors put out for various primary colors. I've been using a blank CD-ROM as a "poor man's spectrometer". You can use the CD-ROM to break the light from your screen into individual colors. I did that experiment a while back on my DELL flat-scren computer monitor. When I display pure green on the screen, I get a mixture of mostly green and a small amount of red and blue showing up on my CD-ROM spectrometer. Clearly the designers favored brightness over purity and decided to create a slightly desaturated green in order to get a brighter overall picture for "natural" images. In the monitor's menu system, there is a selection widget that lets you choose between "Graphics" and "Video" settings and presets for "Multimedia", "Game", "Warm", "Cool" and "Standard". These all seem to alter the degree of saturation/brightness compromise.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

While this is unrelated to the original question since the discussion has been sidetracked by this colour discussion, I thought I should point out first, when it comes to TVs, the YCbCr colour space is usually used, the relationship with RGB is explained in the article. Now the primary reason for this interjection is that HDMI 1.3 onwards support xvYCC and Deep Colour. However not that many devices actually support either, only some expensive displays & for output devices in particular Bluray does not (although AVCHD supports xvYCC) although some computers and gaming consoles may (they also have their own alternatives for a wider gamut). The reason why I mention this should now be obvious, if you want a wider gamut, there already is xvYCC (and equivalent on computers) which you may want to combine with Deep Colour (i.e. a larger sample depth), no need to worry about the future (and as with others, I highly doubt a display which doesn't already support these will later be updated to support them. Yellow pixels isn't necessary or helpful unless you decide to only expand the yellow gamut but ignore the rest.

Now in terms of this yellow thing, a/some? DLP systems do use yellow filters, e.g. the Texas Instruments' BrilliantColour [4] [5] [6] as mentioned in our Color depth#Television color article (the section on BrilliantColour is fairly misleading IMHO but I'll let someone else with more experience in this deal with it). However this is different from the LCD case for reasons somewhat explained in the earlier linked articles and could I think potentially make a difference to the brightness perhaps allowing brighter DLPs to be made at a lower cost (the gamut still being irrelevant) brightness of course being generally quite important for DLPs, because of the way DLPs work. For a simplistic explaination see this. This could work for LCDs too as SB mentions although I don't know how much of an advantage it is. There's someone who actually saw the Sharp commenting here (see last post)

Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I came across this while looking at the yellow thing

Others have done this and continue to do so. 720 to 1080 sets - in a blind test nobody could pick the 1080 set. 120 to 240 hz sets - again, no visual difference except on your credit card statement from buying one

There's also some mention there of a well known and hopefully fairly obvious thing. Many displays in shops are contrived or even misleading, choosing the source which shows off any advantage is an obvious thing but far more insidious is screwing up the settings and calibration of a cheap TV so it looks far worse then the more expensive one then it should. And similar some of the changes may make the more expensive TV stand out and look better in a crowd, but may screw up with the accuracy of the reproduction as SB hinted at above so some people pay for a professional calibration of their TV according to the defined specs.

In terms of upscaling, the quality of upscaling definitely varies. Being close to the source may also help since it ensures nothing has happened to the signal inbetween as mentioned at Video scaler#Upscaling/upconverting DVD. I don't have a HDTV but from my research for a friend, the PS3 is said to be one of the best upscalers. Surprisingly most specific PC software including GPU supported ones (combined with the various filters GPUs generally have themselves) still aren't generally rated as good although the GPU deinterlacing options in the mid & high end ATI & Nvidia cards are fairly good. However there are various filters available for the PC which can give good results, e.g. [7] (and there are also fancy deinterlacing filters which can do better then GPU ones). Note that deinterlacing is more of an issue for broadcast sources (including HDTV e.g. 1080i for example as well as some SD broadcast TV) and older TV sources then it is for movie DVDs.

Of course you don't have to take my word from it. For example, there is a deinterlacing test pattern I used [8], while this is partially artificial, some of the stuff are clearly things you may encounter with real videos. I used it with the various GPU deinterlacing options and the difference is clear (this wasn't a double blind test but I have sometimes realised there was something wrong when the settings got screwed up). I see the above link also has a test disc for upscaling. A key point of course is it will generally vary from source to source and from viewer to viewer depending on what they prefer.

However most of my research is about a year old and I don't actually know how big the difference is in general and how many people will notice it and in particular how this compares to the displays native filters (I do have experience with deinterlacing as mentioned but IIRC I never set up the system I was testing to use the display deinterlacing or even worked out how to).

Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A key reason for 120 Hz, which I haven't seen mentioned yet, is that they can display 24 fps movies using judder-free 5:5 pulldown, instead of 2:3 pulldown. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not 100% sure of this, but might a multiple of the usual 60 Hz refresh rate not also prepare the TV for showing 3D content? If not sufficient, it's at least necessary, in order to enable flicker-free display of 2 images from different viewpoints each at 60 Hz, in combination with shutter glasses. JH-man (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)