Miscellaneous desk
< June 20	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 22 >

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.

June 21

What is the name of the movie?

I am trying to find the name of a movie starring annebeth gish and gena rowlands, but I can't find it. It's about them being prisoners in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp during word war II. I would really like to buy it if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.45.213 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the duplicate. RudolfRed (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a film called "Silent Cries". No article here (although it might well be notable enough for one, as it won a Writers Guild of America Award), but there is an IMDB entry here. FlowerpotmaN·(t)

(Quick addition) It's a TV movie and I'm not sure if it has been released on DVD. I can't find it available for sale online but you might have better luck FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDb entry is here. A DVD under the alternative name of "Guests of the Emperor" is available here. Alansplodge (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a porn movie.

It features two Indian girls in a classroom, one is a dominatrix who uses a strapon on the other. I saw it on the internet a few months ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.104.2 (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet would be to search your browser history. Or use a search engine. There will be thousands of videos that would fit that description, and we haven't seen all of them yet.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you find it, be sure to post a link to it here. --Viennese Waltz 08:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Indian or Indian Indian? Either way, the star might be the famous Princess Snap-on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Blue Jays and the 1998 World Series

The Jays didn't play in the World Series in 1998; they didn't even play in the American League East finals. So, I have an uncut block of 4 tickets for games 1, 2, 6, and 7 in the Skydome for the 1998 World Series and I don't know why or how. I've asked [1] Baseball Bugs and he doesn't know. Does anyone else know? (The tickets are real as far as I can tell, with all the right copyright notices, signatures and logos.) Bielle (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wild guess, but since they were only four games behind Boston for the wild card (see 1998 MLB season) it's possible they offered playoff tickets to season ticket holders in advance. Hot Stop 04:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting possibility. I did have season's tickets then, though the block I have is not for "my" seats -which is another part of the puzzle. Bielle (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since printing and marketing playoff tickets takes some time, at one point in mid- to late September, MLB gives permission to teams that are in the running for a postseason spot to print and sell playoff tickets (these are of course either fully reimbursable if the team fails to make the postseason, or the purchase price can be used as a downpayment for season tickets the next year). It seems that the 1998 Blue Jays were close enough to a playoff spot to have been given permission to print playoff tickets. --Xuxl (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, I failed to look at the wild card race. Tha Bombers won 114 games that year, leaving everyone in the dust. If the Jays had a shot at the wild card in September, they would have been given permission to print World Series tickets. And of course they would have had no idea who the NL opponent would be. As to it not being the same seating location, keep in mind that in the Series, the best seats are allocated to the bigwigs, and the regular-season holders of those seats are moved elsewhere - maybe unless they're bigwigs also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tickets such as those for games that are never played sometimes become collector's items, usually because most of the ticket-holders trade them in. The value usually is not great, but it could be worth looking into. And with electronic ticketing becoming more prominent, pre-printing of such tickets may not be necessary in the not-too-distant future. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything on line about these tickets, or any others for unplayed games, for that matter. My google-foo is not working it would seem. Thanks for all the ideas! Bielle (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Methodist kid

do u think its beneficial for me to have this page open. i want a biased statement from a christian methodist person please thankyou wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.160.36 (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i want you to keep my messages private even though u have my ip adress. if someone attacks me or finds me i will hold you all accountable sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.160.36 (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i want you ALL to know that i am a normal kid and that i am a man of god and a friend of jesus christ i feel more comfortable with a thirdperson view on my page aswell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.160.36 (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i like your complexity in this section it makes me feel more comfortable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.160.36 (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALWAYS contact me when receiving new imformation please thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.160.36 (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a title to your post. StuRat (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

As for privacy, I suggest your create a Wikipedia account, and use this when posting, as that will hide your I/P address. StuRat (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether you should watch this page, that depends on what you want. If you only want to be exposed to things from the Christian Methodist POV, you won't find much of that here. If you are open to other points of view, then that's what we provide. Also, I should warn you that Wikipedia is uncensored, so we sometimes have rather graphic questions and answers on topics like sex. If you actually have questions about religion, then the Humanities Desk would be the best place for those. StuRat (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for us contacting you when we "receive new info", sorry, we don't do that. We just answer questions on the Reference Desk where they are posted, and it's up to you to come back and check for them periodically. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Registered users do have the option of receiving an e-mail anytime something on their watch list changes. IP's do not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although when I look at Special:Watchlist I sometimes see recent changes for which I got no notice. —Tamfang (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Christian and I go to a Methodist church (though I'm not a lifelong Methodist). I find it beneficial for me to look at this page because I'm interested in learning things and helping out if I can. Staecker (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The uncensored-factor has to be considered, i.e. there are areas of wikipedia that are definitely "not safe for work" - and definitely not for church, unless it's the Church of the Libertine. And even an article that you might think utterly safe to view anywhere can be compromised by vandals posting a photo of their naughty bits or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Does the mere exposure to naughty-bits make a Methodist unclean? I would assume according to Jesuit casuistry, as long as the intention was good, wikipedia itself would not be such an occasion of sin that merely exploring it innocently would be soul-endangering. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about "unclean", I'm talking about someone looking over your shoulder and saying, "Hey! What are you looking at?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you literally meant not safe for on the job? I thought you mean not safe for the Lord's work! μηδείς (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what "not safe for work" usually means. As regards the Lord's work, that's between you and Him. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, but due to the context I thought something like "Christian works" was meant, and given the OP is identified as a "kid" I did not think of a professional cubicled wokplace. μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, then, "Not safe to look at if someone is looking over your shoulder." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Cruise-Ship escorts in Alaska

Hi everyone. My wife and I took a cruise with NCL recently beginning in Vancouver and ending in Seattle. We sailed first to Ketchikan and then to Juneau and then Skagway where we spent a day in each port before heading back to Vancouver. But as we departed each Alaskan port we were escorted on both sides of the ship by US Coast Guard Boats carrying forward cannons that were manned. They stayed with us for some considerable time before leaving, and each time a float-plane or another boat approached us from the front, the Coast Guard boats would steer them well away from us. The question, arising from conflicting speculation by we passengers is, were they preventing anyone jumping ship on to US soil whilst still close to shore (there were over 1000 crew mainly Asian on board), or were they protecting us from possible terrorist attack from land, sea, or air? Thanks. 77.97.198.209 (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking the Coast Guard? Although my guess would be that the specific reason is classified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, thanks for that useless advice. Our ship, all 97,000 tons of her, was speeding up to about 23 Knots and the Coast Guard(s) were keeping abreast of us at about 50/70 metres from the ship's wake. Oh, next time I go cruising to the USA I will recall your advice and remember to pack my Loud-hailer. Oh, and apologies to everyone who spots this double entry. My mistake entirely. 77.97.198.209 (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be rude, I assume that Bugs meant you contact the Coast guard now, perhaps through their contact page [2]. All anybody here can do is speculate reasons, as you've already done--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from his snippy response that he thought I meant to literally call out to them, as in, "Ahoy, matey, what's with the escort?" I did, in fact mean to contact them now (as in a phone call) and see if they know anything about it. I expect Jpgordon's info, below, has rendered that call unnecessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; one can actually research stuff like this. Here's a 2010 GAO report on relevant security measures. It's a 9/11 thing. What they are doing is enforcing the security zone around the cruise ship. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community service?

Is serving on a group like a student union, getting student's opinions and feedback about the school and work out solutions with the teachers, considered community service? Another, is offering free tour-guiding to foreign travellers who visit my town considered community service (they don't pay me)?

Like the question earlier today about whether an investment portfolio is considered business or not, it is not possible to give a simple answer to this. It depends who is doing the considering, and for what purpose (and it might also depend on where you are in the world). For example, there might be definitions of "community service" for some purposes in your country - for example, in employment law, social security regulations, immigration law - and they might not even agree which each other. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a law question. I just mean in a general sense, is it typically okay to be called community service? does it sound reasonable or funny if I call that community service?

This would likely depend on where you live as well as the context. As our Community service hints at, the usage of the term varies between countries. In some countries, the term generally refers to work performed as part of an alternative sentence. Other terms like volunteer work or volunteering are generally used when referring to work people voluntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no objective definition. Community service is usually seen as criminal punishment or as an initiation ritual for statists and altruists. Assume that the activity must be boring, painful, tedious, thankless and unprofitable. Also see involuntary servitude. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends where you live. If you are writing a CV (resumé) in the UK, "voluntary work" is good, any reference to "student union/student politics" will put off more employers than it impresses and "community service" means youve been convicted by a court of a minor offence such as vandalism.

Uhm okay so community service has negative implications in your book. What I mean is community contributions. Are those community contributions?

The bottom line question is, in whose eyes and what sort of credit are you looking for? To feel good about contributing for a cause in which you believe? To get ahead in an organization you want to be a part of? To have something on your resume or to impress the family court judge?

The objective theory [of morality] holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. . . The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? --Ayn Rand

μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As others have mentioned, it really depends on exactly who's asking and why. For example, if you volunteered to do such work, you'd be perfectly safe in referring to it as such on, say, a resume or job application. You know, something like "From June until September I volunteered at such-and-such and did this, this, and this." However, if this was something you had to do, for example as part of a school assignment or some kind of make-up work, you'd be safer to couch it in more generic terms like "From June until September I did this, this, and this for such-and-such group" where you're making no claim about the circumstances and allowing the reader to infer it. Matt Deres (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can couriers be sure they are not transporting drugs?

How can couriers (the legal kind, those transporting documents) cross borders? Do they have any right to review their packages or do they insist on having their package analyzed by border agents to avoid any blaming? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couriers don't need to be sure, they only need to avoid any chance of being blamed. Border agents have the right to examine anything they think is suspicious; I don't think very many couriers will feel it is their duty to encourage them. Looie496 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if the courier clearly ask to have his package inspected, that would exclude any blaming (that's just speculation). Alternatively, they could routinely be regarded simply as a postman, who happens to carry express docs (speculation again). OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's question is right on the edge of asking for legal advice. In any case, I know from some limited experience that getting anything across the border involves various processes, paperwork about the contents of the package, its worth, and so on. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a courier carrying an illegal substance could be detained by the border patrol, whether or not he denies knowing about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it's legal advice, it's also the kind of question an author might ask or just someone curious. In general I would say that this sort of issue is why most couriers work through agencies and would have their legal assets to protect them if it turned out a package they were assigned was illegal. Much like if I am told to drive the work shuttle between factories at work and it turns out to be full of marijuana, I would have some legal protection. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you mail something internationally, you have to fill out a customs declaration form [3]. Fedex and UPS incorporated this into their standard shipping form. These forms always contain some variation of "I certify the particulars given in this customs declaration are correct. This item does not contain any dangerous article, or articles prohibited by legislation or by postal or customs regulations.". I imagine this declaration absolves the courier of any wrong-doing if something illegal is shipped. Anonymous.translator (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term absolution is usually used in the context of Christian theology. In so far as the US Postal Service is a governmentally authorized entity its agents probably have a species of governmental immunity. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "absolve" means something different apparently [4].Anonymous.translator (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that absolution is not a legal term http://dictionary.law.com/ in common law, even though it might be relevant in a wider moral sense. The OP seemed to be asking about legal implications, not the morality of drug trafficking. μηδείς (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody used the word "absolution" in this discussion except you. I used the word "absolve" to mean "set free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt"[5]. If you think the word "absolve" means something else then I suggest you contact Merriam Webster.Anonymous.translator (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is your point that the OP would be more helped by looking up the word absolve in Merriam Webster than researching the concept of legal immunity? If so, you might want to provide a third link, just in case. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they ask you to carry the package by putting it a condom and swallowing it, I'd be a tad bit suspicious. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I don't know what kind of couriers are meant, but if diplomatic the article diplomatic bag might be relevant. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing here, but I think everyone else is too. There are a few major international courier companies, which sometimes, not often, have a person accompanying the package through its journey. Because they are major companies, they have lots of procedures in place to protect themselves. They reserve the right to open and examine all packages, and in fact they examine a random sample, using X-rays, sniffer dogs and other technologies. Their staff are trained to alert someone in the hierarchy if they have any suspicions, and they carry documentation that will avert them being blamed if an illegal package has slipped through the net. Then there are some smaller courier companies. They don't have the same level of checking as the major companies, and their staff may be more vulnerable. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is such a courier service regarded as a Common carrier? Common carriers are not held responsible for the illegality of the carried goods. Roger (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no certain way couriers can protect themselves. If they're to face criminal charges, then indicating that they followed procedures, the customer said there was no drugs inside, etc, may help in their defence. Couriers can't get an absolute immunity because some couriers might use "I'm carrying somebody else's parcel" to cover up their own drug smuggling. Big companies like FedEx will have large legal teams and may be able to stay out of trouble through having good procedures, audit trails, etc, but smaller companies will be much more at risk - if Joe's Removals transports something containing a bag of heroin, then it's going to be Joe's reputation against the customer's. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and trucks coming into UK ferry ports are frequently searched, not just for drugs but also for smuggled people, weapons, animals (UK very concerned about rabies), etc. The drivers are supposed to have checked their loads properly. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]