Miscellaneous desk
< May 13	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 15 >

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.

May 14

Scared of ET the Extra-Terrestrial

Hi all,

I know some people might think it's funny but as a child, I spent many horrible nights having big dreams about ET. I had to wait to be a teenager to be able to watch the film alone. Thanks to internet, I realized I was not the only one. Actually, many people had the same problem. ET is really creepy with his ugly face, his way of moving and his sounds. Is there any chance you could mention it in this article that the movie was considered very scary for some people? Thanks a lot. 203.111.224.71 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there's a notable published source that mentions this. Of course, as kids grow into adults, they replace their fear of ET the Extra-Terrestrial with a fear of EC the Extra Cholesterol. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or the ECG, the Electro-Encephologram. Films are films, not meant to be a depiction of any kind of reality that we know of. They are merely 'what if....' scenarios.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

05:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ECG = electrocardiogram. Electroencephalogram is EEG. --180.149.192.133 (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant EEG.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

07:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I've heard of or can recall any news stories about kids being frightened by E.T. Of course, the film is fairly intense at times, no matter what the creature looked like. Maybe you were a little too young for it. Kids have different levels of tolerance for intensity. I've read that a number of children were frightened when they went to see Disney's Snow White back in the 1930s, specifically by the witch. The witch in The Wizard of Oz was pretty scary too, and supposedly Maggie Hamilton, a kind-hearted sort in real life, never again played a witch, because she didn't want kids to think the Wicked Witch of the West had come back to life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a small child, I was scared of those flying monkeys (blimey, I wasn't expecting to find a WP article). Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you see it in high-def, observing that the distant shots of the monkeys carrying Dorothy away are just puppets, it kind of takes the edge off the anxiety. Not so evident when you're in single-digits watching on a small screen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on the big screen actually. I think we were more easily taken-in by special effects in those days. Alansplodge (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the flying monkeys. Around age three I hid behind the couch, and peaked around the corner to watch. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Uncanny valley. "Things" that are sort of but not entirely human can evoke a feeling of "creepiness", horror, or revulsion. This perception varies from person to person. It mostly applies to characters or robots, but some people, e.g., one of my granddaughters, have that feeling with regard to particular hominid reconstructions in museums. (She says that some of them have "weird eyes", and they do, because they are humanoid but not human. ET is less human than most of the humanoids that evoke the uncanny valley, which just illustrates that it varies from person to person. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had never seen a nonhuman mammal, would a dog's face seem "human" enough to reach your uncanny valley? Pretend I didn't ask for speculation. —Tamfang (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine the snout is enough to let the brain confidently put Fido in the proper folder. He's still similar enough to elicit the creepy Rockwellian psychic staring effect, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

If you can provide reliable sources about some children being fearful of ET, they can go into the article, but discuss on the article talk page first. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Common Sense Media (something like the Ned Flanders of film review), "Parents need to know that Steven Spielberg's classic has some scenes of mild peril that may be too intense for younger children." Also junk food advertising, slight tipsiness, strong language ("by today's standards") and white people everywhere.

Not exactly nightmarish, but a bit spooky. Doesn't criticize his fugly face or gangly arms, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though a user review (much less "reliable"), says: " As a three-year-old, I was summoned by my parents to the living room of our little apartment. They told me to look at the TV. I watched a boy offer Reese's Pieces to a figure shrouded in darkness. When the terrible head and neck were revealed, I was paralyzed in fear. I could not move. I could not speak. I wanted to scream and cry, but I couldn't."

You're not alone, OP. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought I was the only one scared to death of ET. I had nightmares about him for years in my kindergarten and early grade school years. But it stopped a bit before my teenage years. JIP | Talk 06:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of clowns

My daughter has long been fearful of clowns. She has said that she has learned that she is not alone, that other people also are fearful of clowns. It occurs to me now that, because clowns have "weird faces", they may also be in the uncanny valley for some people, sufficiently not-quite-human-looking as to evoke creepiness. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a moderately decent, but short, article on Coulrophobia, the fear of clowns, which has references to further articles outside of Wikipedia that could provide some good basis for your research. Notably, the connection to the uncanny valley concept is noted there as well. --Jayron 32 03:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster Clown is definitely common. A little too common, I say. Many just fake it to fit in. Sort of like how it's cool to say bacon is tasty, or whatever the current thing is. But it's not all fake. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia calls the Monster Clown the evil clown. That's a bit rude. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Gacy would be one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And who can forget the film classic Killer Klowns from Outer Space, such a cinematic masterpiece that a 3D sequel is now in the works. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion many times, search the archives. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See? Clowns are done to death. And if they come back as zombie clowns, zombies are more overdone than bacon. Nothing to fear, citizens! Make like Paul Anka, and just don't look. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, continue paying no attention to the literal spine-tingling, gut-wrenching and blood-curdling daily true horror story that is bacon. Or, safer yet, laugh at it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earthlings are the fucking scariest mostly hairless, big-headed wrinkly aliens, but that has nothing to do with clowns. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Fear of large birds with fur and teeth

Anybody talking about that? Or even have a name for those things? Google seems to suggest by its silence that we're OK with this, which doesn't seem right. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ornithodontodoraphobia is the proper term. Google did that much for me. But that doesn't explain much, and Googling it doesn't help. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It just occured to me, thanks to the main section above, that a large bird with fur and teeth is essentially a flying monkey, so this fear is just a manifestation of that, not truly scary itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

What is a combined HDMI/DVI port?

I have a Samsung flatscreen TV that has 4 HDMI ports. Ports #2-4 are all labelled "HDMI," but Port #1 is labelled "HDMI/DVI". A casual visual inspection reveals that all 4 ports look the same. Can anyone tell me what the difference between Port #1 labeled HDMI/DVI is relative to the other 3 "HDMI-only" ports? If I want to plug in a Chromecast or Roku, does it matter which of the 4 ports I use? Acceptable (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See HDMI#Compatibility with DVI. An HDMI/DVI port would still need an adaptor to work with the Digital Visual Interface however, as the two connectors are different. --Jayron 32 16:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I don't have any DVI devices and want to use the "HDMI/DVI" port as a normal "HDMI-only" port, could I treat this HDMI/DVI port just like any other normal HDMI port? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try it. I'm pretty certain it won't explode and send shards of glass into your eyes. --Jayron 32 22:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But just in case, wear safety glasses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DVI to HDMI cables are not unusual. If you have a computer with only DVI output, you need to get a DVI to HDMI cable. Then, the connector on the other end needs to have an HDMI/DVI connection. It auto-detects the DVI and just works. If your TV didn't have an HDMI/DVI connection, you'd need a DVI to HDMI converter. Basically, they are simply doing the conversion for you inside the TV. 209.149.114.204 (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically wrong. HDMI to DVI adapters whether in the form of cables or plugs are completely passive. (Well except for some weird adapter for the Radeon 4xxx generation which appears to relate to something weird they chose to do.) They are simple connecting the right pins in HDMI to the right pins in DVI. At a basic level this should work together as stated below. The TV can't be substituting for the adapter if the port is still a HDMI port. Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware (and our article doesn't contradict me on this), HDMI and DVI are always compatible (at least for DVI input to HDMI output - you lose audio going from HDMI to DVI). So unless the manufacturer is just trying to fool people who don't know HDMI and DVI are already compatible, I'm not sure what the difference could be. MChesterMC (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can surely treat the port as a normal HDMI port for most purposes, As to the differences it's hard to say. As was said by MChesterMC, HDMI and DVI are cross compatible due to a few modes required to be supported by both. HDMI depending on versions does have audio, CEC, ethernet and other stuff that standard DVI won't provide and there's no such thing as dual link HDMI and each has their own modes which the other won't support. (Also I believe HDMI has always required HDCP, whereas it was only introduced later to DVI.) None of this is really likely to be the difference. It's possible that the TV will let you reduce processing on the HDMI/DVI port but not the other ports, to reduce latency and avoid the possibility of strange effects with text etc. (However most commonly such ports are labelled gaming ports or whatever, particularly since they will often be used with consoles with native HDMI output.) If your TV has analog or perhaps non HDMI digital audio input, perhaps (or by default) the audio input is assigned to the HDMI/DVI port, or may be it's assigned if there's no audio on the HDMI and not assigned to the other ports (or may be when multiple lack audio on the HDMI input) [1]. Alternatively and probably most likely, there is no difference and they labelled the port to try and tell people it can be used for DVI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

air pollution in Beijing and Delhi

The WHO says Delhi has the worst air pollution of all monitored cities as measured by level of PM 2.5 particles. Beijing isn't in the top 20. But then why does Beijing have so much more smog--thicker and on more days--than Delhi? If the smog is a different kind of air pollution then why on the smoggiest of days is the PM 2.5 level also the highest?

[2]

Muzzleflash (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an extensive article on Smog. The simplest answer is that, while particulate matter is an important component of smog, the mechanism by which smog forms is not a simple one-to-one correlation with particulate matter, and because of that you can expect differences between the amount of particulate matter and the amount of smog. --Jayron 32 03:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your premise is wrong. Delhi actually has more and thicker smog than Beijing (though it is often talked about less). In both cases smog varies both day-to-day and season-to-season, with late fall and winter being worse than other seasons [3]. One can certainly find images of ridiculous pollution from either Delhi or Beijing. Dragons flight (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smog is a combination of smoke and fog (hence the name) - generally, the 'particulates' are smoke-like solids, and fog (water droplets condensing out of the air) wouldn't be factored into the pollution statistics because it's a natural phenomenon. However when there is an incipient fog - the solid particles can act as nucleation sites that help the fog to form. Hence, in naturally humid air, the presence of particulate pollution will dramatically worsen the foggy conditions. So it could easily be that a city with very dry air could have severe particulate pollution without suffering from visibly obvious smog.

Hence, the differences between the smog levels between these cities could easily be related to humidity and relatively unrelated to the exact amounts of particulates. SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Door

What is the door mechanism on charity bins called? The one that allows stuff to go in but not to be pulled back out? Here's a picture http://www.wear2bank.co.uk/assets/Main%20images/Bank-donation.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.157.198.66 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when you try to take something out? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attached to the door at ~100degrees is a second plate of metal. You place your deposit between the door and the other plate then when you close the door your deposit slides in, same as a book return or a post box in Canada. 173.32.72.65 (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds something like the old US4176610, or "safe deposit apparatus". If not quite that, it may be one of the things in the Citations and Referenced By sections. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the same kind of trap-door mechanism used in some vending machines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably get the stuff out again by turning the container upside down, but I've never tried this. Dbfirs 13:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the design- On some of these systems, there is not an "open" position that allows throughput, i.e. a free path from outside to inside when the door is open. In that case, you'd have to hold it upside down, then repeatedly shake it whilst opening and closing the door. Here's an illustration for a design that does have a free path from inside to outside with the door open, but sadly no name for the design/part [4]. This product [5] has an "Anti-theft, gravity action door" - not very satisfying, but I think it would be a serviceable term for most purposes. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

off topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Bugs wouldn't know this but this is the mechanism on bins in ladies' toilets for disposing of used sanitary towels. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Because you don't want anyone stealing those out of the bins. Dismas|^(talk) 10:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of pervy people wouldn't mind a sniff, that's men AND women included. 188.138.247.175 (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Original Research? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]