Miscellaneous desk
< February 22	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 24 >

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.

February 23

Removing laugh tracks

There are some programs I would like to watch, but I simply cannot abide laugh tracks. I know some people say that they don't even notice them after a while. Me, and all my life, it's like nails on a chalkboard. I don't know how people can stand it (it is not the sound—I like the sound of people laughing—it is the obstruction, the fakeness of it that immediately twangs my nerves and makes me turn off the program). I've never watched many sitcoms everyone else knows because of it. Is there any computer program out there or something that would allow me to remove just the soundtrack but not the other sounds? Also, am I unique in this regard?--108.46.103.88 (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't picture a way to reliable tell laughter in the laugh track from laughter of the characters, for example. So, I think a human would be needed to turn the volume down when the laugh track comes on. Another option might be to read the transcripts, instead, as long as it's not visual humor. StuRat (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have an instant urge to hear the worst-offending sitcom laugh-tracks. I agree they are horrible but I crave them. Can you link to any good examples on YouTube? I doubt that any program can remove laugh-tracks if they are part of a mixed sound including something you want to hear. The sounds would be mingled. But perhaps I am mistaken, as I have zero expertise in this area. Thanks for the question. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any really bad sitcom will have noticeably annoying laugh track. One I found rather unfunny was Kate and Allie, but, by all means, search for your most hated show. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this question should be moved to the Computing reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bet some really smart programmer could figure out a way to distinguish the sound profile of multiple laughs that make up a soundtrack from a single laugh and could invent software to do this, but like many things, innovation and mass publication follows demand. I don't think I'm typical and so, even if this technology exists, it probably has not been put out there for me to even find. I wonder if the program packaged as "laughtrack-less" versions would have commercial viability. Maybe CBS should put out a separate DVD set for laughtrack-less, The Big Bang Theory (which I watched 30 seconds of once after hearing it was a very good show before turning the dial in disgust). Oh well. At least today there are some comedy shows without the laugh track (it used to be that almost every sitcom had one).--108.46.103.88 (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could also have multiple cast members laughing, or they could be watching a sit-com with a laugh track on TV within the scene. I think you might do best to reduce the volume on all laughs, since that wouldn't require the same degree of programming. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sitcoms are taped/filmed before a live audience, although (as pointed out here a week or two ago also) the laughter might be "sweetened" a bit. And keep in mind that with weird shows like Big Bang Theory, the laugh track might be necessary in order to be clued in on when something is supposed to be funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the laugh track, per se. It has it's uses, like when a sit-com normally filmed in front of a studio audience goes on location for an episode, where the sudden silence would seem odd (they could also show it to an audience later and loop the live laughter, I suppose). However, when they put excessive laughs after bad jokes, or even after every break in the conversation, that's when it gets annoying. StuRat (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is something funny about a laugh-track. Laughter is supposed to be spontaneous and irrepressible, not predictable and controllable. Real laughter is contagious, like yawning is. But a loop of the same uninspired laughing grates on one's ears. That alone could be funny if the jokes are unfunny and the laughter is obviously recorded and the same in each instance. But I think the Computer ref desk is where this question really should be asked. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I think automated solutions are likely to fail, here is a followup question: Does anyone know of a TV show with a laugh track, and when the TV show was issued on DVD, the laugh track was removed? Second followup: Does anyone know of a TV show on DVD where there's a menu option to turn the laugh track on or off? It's technically easy. I sort of doubt a lot of producers would want this because of the admission it is making. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be technically quite easy for them to do, as long as they still have the original recordings on separate tracks. This could be done just like alternate spoken languages, or descriptive video. A bit trickier would be the option to turn the laugh track up or down, independently of the main volume. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Flintstones was originally aired with a laugh track. According to the article, Turner Broadcasting stripped the laugh track from the episodes when it reran them in the 90s. They then changed their mind and not only added the laugh track back but gave some episodes a new laugh track. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M*A*S*H (TV series) had its laugh track removed when it was broadcast in the UK by the BBC. When I occasionally saw clips with laughter it seemed very strange and inappropriate. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, later seasons of MASH didn't have the laugh track, or at least they toned it down a bit. There were some seasons towards the middle where the producers agreed that scenes in the operating room wouldn't have a laugh track (due to the seriousness of the situation) and the writers, who hated the laugh track, would put all the jokes in the surgery scenes. At least, that's a story I remember thinking I heard once. Take it for what you will. --Jayron32 04:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried muting the sound and switching on the subtitles? I think that's the closest you'll ever get to what you are trying to do. Of course if enough people wrote to the producers and sponsors of these shows to point out how annoying the really quite ridiculous laugh track is (trying to convince us that people laugh after every single line?) it could make a difference.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that one reason for the laugh track might have been to help make a lone viewer feel like he had "company" - as with a movie theater, where (hopefully) the audience is laughing at the jokes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would be better off asking about comedy programmes you might not have heard of that don't have laughter tracks? Out of interest, are you happy with shows filmed in front of a live audience, where you can hear the laughter, but there is actual audience participation? What if you watch TV as part of a reasonably large group, so there are real people laughing as well? The only other thing I can think of is to try and persevere - maybe after a few hours of watching these things, it won't be quite so unbearable. 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@the OP: it's not much help, but you might find some solace in watching Annie Hall. There's a scene in a TV production studio where someone is adding a laugh track to their show and Woody Allen's character shares your attitude. Tinfoilcat (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Annie Hall were a TV show instead of a theatrical movie, it might have had a laugh track. Again, a theatrical film is (hopefully) a shared experience with an audience, and no laugh track is "needed". This raises another question or two. Theatrical film comedies don't have laugh tracks added when they go to TV. And I don't think pay-channels such as HBO add laugh tracks, but I don't recall for sure. Maybe someone here knows. But I'm thinking this is a phenomenon confined primarily to over-the-air TV in both the USA and the UK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

definition of folder management

i couldn't find the specific definition of folder management in the wikipedia. Please assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.201.255 (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We may be able to give better help if you explain the context of your question. The pages Folder (computing), Computer file management, and Category:File system management may be of some help to you. Spinning Spark 08:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coffin shapes and calling coffins caskets?

So if I can recall, in America (and possibly Europe), there are coffins that are hexagon shaped or something, while they call the box-shaped ones caskets. But in my country, those hexagon shaped coffins are virtually non-existant, all the coffins I have seen are caskets, and we don't even call them caskets; we call them coffins. Is calling a box-shaped coffin a casket or those hexagon coffins common outside of North America or not? And why are they even shaped like that in the first place? For me, a box-shape is more logical. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "casket" actually means "small box", and was originally a euphemism for "coffin", which actually originally meant "basket".[1][2] As to the six-sided shape of cheap caskets/coffins, the bulge appears to have been designed to allow more room for the arms and shoulders, i.e. to more closely conform to a human's natural shape. If you google-image "six sided coffin" you'll see that that design is still in use, and one picture in particular, of a mummy case, illustrates what I'm getting at and suggests that design has been around for a long time. I suspect that coffins went to the rectangular shape for various reasons of convenience, not excluding the fact that they are less human-shaped and hence theoretically less "scary". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least according to wiktionary:casket, a casket is "the type of coffin with upholstery and a half-open lid". 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. In case you didn't know, they do close those lids before they plant the subject in the ground or the mausoleum. And after they take the tabloid photos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Django would have been such a bad-ass if he had dragged an upholstered rectangular box behind. Astronaut (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK I've come across "casket" more as a container for ashes than as a coffin that someone would be buried in. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The usual term would be "urn", although that usage of "casket" is closer to its etymology than the way it's used in the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so if they wake up, they might have room to cough in - cue drum roll KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you asked for it: It isn't the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I was indeed waiting for that one KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The differences between an urn and a casket, in the UK, are in their shape and material. A "casket" is usually a wooden box - an "urn" is usually a vase or jar-shaped metal or plastic container, with lid - random examples here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. And again, using a more accurate meaning of "casket" than the way Americans use it. I wonder if the wood and the pulverized bone ("ashes") would chemically interact over time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, as they are generally lined with lead - a considerable health risk to the person interned therein. An urn is generally made of porcelain. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping building or structure heights secret?

So I asked this question a few weeks ago, but I didn't get good responses, so I'm asking it again, while removing one question. So apparently there is this new building that will be built soon in Saudi Arabia called the Kingdom Tower which will be the tallest building in the world, and in true Middle Eastern fashion and in the spirit of Burj Khalifa, its exact height is being kept a secret (at least until it is finished, if it will ever be). I noticed that the recent buildings that keep or kept their heights secret like the aforementioned Burj Khalifa, the Nakheel Tower (now cancelled, meaning its height will never be known) and the Kingdom Tower are all in the Middle East, and the only other two that I know of (the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building) were built almost 70 years ago (which was understandable, because the two buildings were in a race for the title of "World's Tallest Building"), after which, the practice seemed to have died down, until Burj Khalifa (then called Burj Dubai) came along.

My questions are:

Was it Burj Khalifa that started this trend of keeping final heights secret, or did another building start it?
Why are most of these buildings in the Middle East?
Were there any notable buildings or structures built after the Empire State Building but before the Burj Khalifa that kept their height a secret?
Are there any other buildings or structures aside from the aforementioned structures that keep or kept their height a secret?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcq's answer to your earlier question seemed to sum it up: "...they might be able to stick a little extra on the top to beat a rival if they learn their rivals intentions". ie. it is largely vanity. You obviously don't want to announce that you are building the world's tallest, only to be beaten at the last moment by a rival country/city/sheik. As for your other questions I have don't really know, but Dubai in the mid-2000s and New York in the early-1930s were going through building booms where possibly prestige was more important than other matters like cost, environment or safety. Astronaut (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more than vanity. There are all sorts of possible tourist consequences to being "the tallest." I don't think "the second tallest" has the same ring to it. As a very small example, Burj Khalifa, not Shanghai World Financial Center, was the one that got to be in the latest Mission Impossible movie. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that NY was particularly environmentally unfriendly in the world's tallest building quest. When the buildings were planned, there was a boom in New York and it was expected that the new buildings would be lucrative. Yes, the Depression altered that, for a time, especially with the ESB, though the observation deck revenue was a big help there. There was definitely an element of promotion, but I can't put it in the same league as Dubai (where I visited in 2009, when the boom was still going on). I won't opine on Dubai, there have been many articles about its problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't keeping heights secret normally be difficult? Aren't there supposed to be laws that requires building details, including heights, to be public information. Oh and as a counter-example to Burj Khalifa, One World Trade Center's height is not only public knowledge, it's intended to be symbolic (1776 feet). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, you certainly wouldn't be able to keep the planned hieght a secret. Perhaps that's why it only happens in Middle Eastern countries. Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably get a reasonably close estimate by measuring shadows. But not close enough to be able to build one foot higher with any certainty, I suppose that to be the idea. As for 1 WTC, special case, they are not trying to beat the highest but are trying for lots of symbolism, to which, I suppose, the place owes its very existence.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could use a clinometer: "Uses - Measuring the height of a building, tree, or other feature using a vertical angle and a distance (determined by taping or pacing), using trigonometry." Alansplodge (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this place in Ireland?

Can you identify the place in this picture which appears to be the ruin of an old church or abbey, perhaps. I have reason to believe it was shot in Mayo, but I am not certain. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Burriscarra Abbey in Carnacon, which is currently a redlink on List of abbeys and priories in Ireland#County Mayo -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I first found a view of it based on your answer, by finding a roughly similar perspective in Google Street View, and then I found a photograph online taken very close to the same point where my original picture was taken, and that confirmed it beyond doubt. Thank you; I am grateful for your help. — O'Dea (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post the same question on more than one reference desk. --ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question straddled categories. — O'Dea (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many questions straddle categories; please pick one which seems appropriate. As it states in bold at the top of each reference desk, "Please, post your question on only one section of the reference desk." Warofdreams talk 17:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does say that, but there are 15 items in bold at the top of the page, in addition to heavy black section headings, so all that emphasis means that if everything looks important, nothing really looks important, like crying "wolf". Perhaps the instructions should be whittled down and less bold used. Wikipedia instructions are very prolix when all you want is quick guidance: life is short. Also, the instruction you refer to falls under the heading, "When will I get an answer?" and I didn't read that because I wasn't worried about when. Perhaps the instruction could be resited under another heading? — O'Dea (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy my man. Almost all other posters seem to understand how it works and have no problems with the system. Life is short - but not so short that you can spend time complaining. Richard Avery (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal remarks, "my man", and confine them to the matter at hand. I was not complaining; I was responding to Warofdreams to explain how easy it is to miss an instruction when it falls under a heading that did not concern me (how long the reply might take). I took time to reply as a courtesy because I was addressed which does not imply that time is not short. I have no idea why you decided to become involved. — O'Dea (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O'Dea, if you are not happy about the rules on this reference desk, don't use it. --Lgriot (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, Lgriot, that I am neither unhappy nor am I reliant on you for instruction. — O'Dea (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, don't be assholes. It's easy to miss all sorts of instructions on Wikipedia, it's full of stupid pointless little rules. And it does absolutely no harm to post a question on two Reference Desks. O'Dea, this is not a problem at all. I think the "rule", such as it is, exists so that we can keep all the responses together in one place (it gets confusing if two different threads are occurring on two different desks, sometimes with completely different answers and information), and it's easier to put the question in the archives later if it is confined to a single Reference Desk page. So just remember that for next time, but don't worry about it this time. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Adam. When I received the information I sought on this Reference Desk, I expressed my gratitude and instantly removed my question from the other desk. The internet causes unhappy people to discharge wholly unnecessary squibs of irritation which contribute nothing whatsoever to the experience of humanity. — O'Dea (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you edit and fill about biography of Myoma U Than Kywe?

Dear Sir/Madame, How do you do? I wish you are well and happy. Please you can amend and edit following biography about Myoma U Than Kywe with references. After you amend and edit, please can you fill the biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myoma_U_Than_Kywe

Thank you very much for your arrangement. Thanking you in anticipation. Many Thanks, Wikipedia!

Yours respectfully, Burmeseprincess Burmeseprincess (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the text as it seems to be copied from here. Please refrain from posting copyrighted text on wikipedia. Jarkeld (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made in U.S.A. logo

When did the Made in U.S.A. logo first appear on products? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.142.136 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a heading... --Ouro (blah blah) 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]