Miscellaneous desk
< September 9	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 11 >

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.

September 10

is there any reason why "I, robot" and "Watch dogs" plays in Chicago?

I have seen two more hacker movies (I can´t remember the name) and I have also played yet once a video game on the PS1 in my life which was also about machines and IT and it was also "based" in Chicago. Does this City is "more dangerous" for cyber-hacker-war or Sc-Fi-Machine Technology than the silicon valley were quiet every high tech company have their residence? If I am good at remembering, Terminator and Robocop is also based in Chicago. I get the feeling that this City would be the first in the future with flying cars or high tech robotic, because of this movies.. But the problem is, I don´t see any company in Chicago what would be able to make "I, robot" or this other movies and video games REAL. And you?--Motorolakzrz (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many films and TV shows are set in or filmed in Chicago; as a major American urban center it can serve as both a real setting (as in, the film or TV show is literally set in Chicago, like the TV show ER or the film Barbershop) or as a location for films where the actual city is not named; or sometimes as a stand-in for another city, as in films like Payback. Each film production staff, including writers, directors, and producers, act independently, in choosing filming locations and settings for their film and there is no "grand plan" to use Chicago for specific purposes. For every film, TV show, or game with a futuristic setting set in Chicago, there's an equal number set in other famous cities, such as Blade Runner set in Los Angeles, or A.I. Artificial Intelligence set in New York. --Jayron 32 03:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see this and this

I would surmise that Chicago was chosen for these stories based on the idea of Chicago having a large economy and industry along with all the corruption that occurs there. Void burn (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robocop was set in Detroit and Terminator in LA. Rmhermen (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit and Chicago is quiet the same...(Or isn´t it? Central north states of USA?) And I have watched the Trailers of Blade Runner and A.I. Artificial Intelligence, both may have some kind of robotic and virtual intelligence but this 2 movies are not equal to watch dogs, I,robot or the other movies where is shown Chicago in the future and where is shown what bad can happen. --Jebactegojwbe (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People from those respective cities may object to your characterization. They are not at all the same. --Jayron 32 09:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, they are very different. But there are more similarities cetween Chicago and Detroit than there are between either of them and New York or Los Angeles. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By what criteria? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetically, apparently. Otherwise, I can't come up with any. Economics, local industries, settlement patterns, ethnic groups, local culture, recent trends, etc. I can't come up with anything more similar than "large American cities". Chicago has much more in common with NY than Detroit, if you ask me, in terms of how it is built, how it works, what its economy and ethnic make up looks like, etc. --Jayron 32 19:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the original I, Robot stories by Isaac Asimov, the company U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men, Inc. had premises in various US, and ultimately World, locations. One of them was explicitly in Schenectady, New York, but the others' locations are not specified, so Chicago is not inconsistent with the canon. The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and some of them also take place other planets and space stations. One of my favorites, Runaround_(story), takes place on Mercury. As far as I could tell the movie seemed to have very little to do with any of the stories in the collection... SemanticMantis (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course. They're following the First Law of Hollywood Adaptations: A screenwriter must mangle a book and, through their action, cause the book's reputation to come to harm. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The movie was originally called "Hardwired" and had nothing to do with Asimov. They rebranded it after Fox got the movie rights to I, Robot, but they barely changed the story. There's some more information here. -- BenRG (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schenectady was, of course, a standing joke in the Golden Age of SF - Asimov and, I think, Fred Pohl, would be asked by their fans where they got the ideas for their stories from, and would reply "a post office box in Schenectady" which they would write to when they wanted inspiration. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But will Chicago be the city where the future with robotic, flying cars and this all will start or was Chicago only abused for this games and videos and in fact there is no scienes projects or any high technlogy company what would be able to make I, robot or watch dogs real? --Motorolakzrz (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. You've, in your own head, invented this notion of the association of "Chicago = futuristic" based on a very limited number of data points (that is, there's a small number of games and movies that you like, that happen to be set in Chicago and are also futuristic) but this doesn't mean anything. Your personal experience is not a universal, and when one looks at all media, Chicago does not stand out as such a setting. I've lived in Chicago. It's a fantastic city. But there's nothing about it in particular that would make it a center for high technology (You'd be better off with the Bay Area, Route 128 outside Boston, Northern Virginia, or the Research Triangle Park as places where major high-tech innovation happens. But that's not really the crux of your problem here. The issue is that you're asking us a question based on a false premise. You've invented an idea on spotty evidence, and now you're asking us to prove your idea correct. We can't do that. --Jayron 32 11:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

housing violation

the city of toledo ohio sent me a citation for a housing violation .... i asked them who was the person that called the city of toledo ....??? their response was they didn`t know ????? i explain to them there must be phone records ???? they just acted dumb...!!!!!!! is there any way i can fill out paper work to find out ...??? I believe this is personal ????

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.202.86 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your phone number and name. it's generally a bad idea to share your phone number on a public website, particularly one like wikipedia where once it's been here for a while it's very difficult to permanently remove. Also there's no reason to do so, as no one here is going to call you to help you. You may want to consider the similar implications for your name too. Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are not allowed to answer legal questions here, but it would not be surprising if the city had a policy of not revealing the names of Whistleblowers. They want people to report problems so that these issues can be corrected and people are more inclined to fulfill their civic duty if their anonymity can be assured. My local Homeowner association has a policy of not even asking for the names of people who report violations - specifically so that their anonymity is guaranteed. SteveBaker (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the flipside, a standard concept in due process is that people accused of a crime are afforded the inalienable right to face their accuser. People cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal due process, and someone does have the right to face those testifying against them to cross-examine them and their evidence. Anonymous evidence of this sort is not usually allowable in American jurisprudence. In fact, it's a guaranteed Constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Confrontation Clause. --Jayron 32 02:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this, the "accuser" is the city, not the person who reported the infraction. I don't imagine the city would send out a citation without first checking the facts - so the city presumably sent out some kind of inspector or case worker to see the infraction for themselves - and THAT person is your "accuser" - who of course you could cross-examine if their evidence was presented in some kind of a courtroom. The person who first reported it is uninvolved at that point. SteveBaker (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the OP however, it's unclear whether you're referring to anonymous evidence or accusations. As BB has mentioned, "housing violation" is unclear.

For example, if someone reported you as having carried out illegal renovations, the city went to your house and saw that you were clearly carrying out renovations which would require approval and examined their approvals and determined none were granted, it probably doesn't really matter who reported you and in probably most particular jurisdictions there is no particular reason why you would have the right to know who reported you. In fact, they wouldn't even necessarily need to check the situation out yourself. If they sufficiently trust the complainant, then they may just assume they are telling the truth. If the complainant was lying, you can tell them you never carried out any illegal renovations, and they will then need some evidence so will probably visit your house themselves. And it isn't uncommon you are responsible for ensuring your house is up to the legal requirements, so if even if you try to argue it was a previous owner who carried out the renovations, it can irrelevant to the council or other authority as long as your property isn't compliant. (Grandfather clauses and similar may confuse things, and also if there are additional penalties if you were the one who authorised the renovations.)

Similarly for a noise complaintm although in that case they will normally need to check it out themselves at the time.

Criminal cases would often be similar. For example, if someone anonymously reports a rape, and the police either interrupt the rape or find the victim who makes a complaint, there is no reason why the reporters identity would need to be known. It may help if there is dispute over the identity of the perpetrator or whether a rape occurred, but the case could proceed with whatever evidence is available without the anonymous report having any real relevance, other than it happened.

Similar situation for domestic violence etc.

Ultimately, whether or not the person reporting had a personal grudge against you is largely a moot point if there's independent evidence you broke the law. It will only come up if the reporter's evidence is need to establish your guilty, rather than just being something that happened.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should add that, more controversially, in some cases an authority may simply assume most people aren't going to challenge the claim. For stuff like violating rubbish sorting rules, garden watering limitations or even some noise complaints, these will often have to be checked out quickly, or may be it will even be too late by the time they can realisticly get to the property. So it may not be worth their time indepedently investigating.

However they may still not expect the witness to testify if it is challenged. Instead if it's simply one or two complaints never repeated, they may just drop the case. (If they get more complaints, they'll probably be less willing to just let it slide.) Even if it's a civil case, and the standards of evidence are different (e.g. no assumption of innocence), an actual court case may not be considered worth their time.

And whatever the motivations of the complainant, they may not be willing to be identified let alone go to court. Even if they are genuinely annoyed with the behaviour, they'll probably consider a court case a waste of their time. Also, if it's a neigbour they complained about as it often may be, whatever their existing relationship, letting them know you complained would generally worsen it.

From the authorities POV, they'll probab;y hope in most genuine cases the perpetrator simply pays the fine (or whatever) and non genuine cases will be rare and the person will challenge it. (Realisticly, some people despite not having done what was said may not bother to challenge for a variety of reasons, and some people who are guilty of whatever it is are going to challenge.)

Note in particularly, if it's a well run authority, they will probably care less whether the complainant had a grudge than whether the report was true.

Also just to repeat what was said by others at the beginning, none of this is legal advice. I have no idea about, and don't want to know about your actual situation, or the policies and laws of the Toledo or Ohio that specifically deal with disputes of this sort. This also means I don't know what evidence may exist against you, or what is likely to happen as a result of the complaint. My point was simply to emphasise that just because you have a right to confront your accuser in court doesn't mean any authority has any legal requirement to tell you who made a house violation complaint against. Nor does it mean that any case which originated from the complaint is without merit.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you note is true, but there is a difference between "person X witnesses a crime and reports it to authorities, who themselves then go witness the same crime" versus "person X witnesses a crime, and is the only witness to said crime, but refuses to allow themselves to be identified". In the first case, the authorities are also witnesses to the crime, and so their willing to stand and be identified as witnesses against the defendant is sufficient: they would testify what they saw, and would stand for cross-examination. The second scenario would be inadmissable: if the only witness to a crime refuses to stand up to scrutiny in a court of law, then how can their testimony be counted as reliable? --Jayron 32 16:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that was the point I was trying to make. There are cases when they don't need the information from the complainant for any court case, this was what my first comment focused on.

But to avoid dispute from people who felt I was being too generous to housing authorities, I also later made the second comment namely there are also cases when the complainants' testimony may very well be needed but is uncertain, or at least it's all they actually have when they issue the citation. I was trying to acknowledge while second part may be more controversial, it probably isn't unheard of in these sort of things in some places. If there is simply two or three complaints, which the authority believes to be true, they may simple issue a citation, with the expectation that most people who are at fault will just pay the fine or whatever it is.

If it's challenged, they may consider what evidence they have, e.g. whether they are now able to independently gather evidence, whether the witnesses will testify etc. Alternatively and probably more for commonly for minor things where it will be difficult for them to find independent evidence, they may simply drop the case, not considering it worth their time to pursue further based on only a few complaints for what they may consider a relatively minor thing. Because of the unlikelihood they will ever use it, they may now always even bother to try and get proper records of the reporter. (They'll probably consider the reluctance of such people to testify, the likelyhood people won't report if they feel they may be compelled to testify etc.) Alternatively, perhaps they plan to ensure the complainants are willing to be witnesses, but often don't do this properly in practice

This is perhaps where there's a big difference between criminal cases, and housing violations and other such civil things. With criminal cases it's generally accepted that in theory anyway you can't bring a case if you don't resonably believe you have evidence that will stand up in court. With housing violations, it's probably far more common, whether or not it's legally acceptable, that such citations are issued without sufficient consideration of whether it will stand up in court. There is a related difference here, whereas a criminal case will generally always need to go to court for any action, even if it's simply a guilty plea and sentencing, the citation will generally only go if challenged.

(There are other cases where differences may come up. E.g. the possibility differing standards of evidence and possible lack of assumption of innocence may mean you can't simply ask the authority to prove it. Instead if they have some evidence, you may at least have to testify. So either be willing to lie, or tell the truth, as the case may be.)

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying anonymous testimony is generally accepted in courts for any case. Rather that anonymous testimony only definitely comes up if it actually gets to court.

Also I'm not saying this applies everywhere, in some places they will definitely require either existing independent evidence (i.e. they themselves witness the violation), or complainants willing to testify if it becomes necessary.

(There are of course other possible complexities I didn't mention, e.g. photographs or videos.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by a "housing violation"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A housing violation could be many things. Things get even more strict with a HOA or Home Owners Association. Housing violations may include eyesores, poorly maintained housing, abandoned vehicles in the yard, using your home as a boarding house without proper permits, etc. I had a friend in college who, in high school, kept getting letters from the town because his neighbors thought that his car was abandoned. It was a 1950 Dodge and this was in about 1997 or so. The car ran. He rebuilt it himself. But he didn't drive it to school, so it would sit for the whole week without moving. The calls eventually stopped when his father, a lawyer, sent a letter to the town. Dismas|^(talk) 21:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to answer this last night, but figured it bordered on legal advice. So first, the OP should contact Division of Code Enforcement

Cindy Geronimo, Commissioner 419.936.2363

Dennis Kennedy, Manager, Administrative Services 419.245.1234

James Stvartak, Chief General Inspector 419.936.3611

One Government Center, Suite 1600

Toledo, Ohio 43604

Main Phone: 419.245.1400

Fax: 419.245.1413

They will be able to tell him how to contest a citation if he wishes. There may be some form of legal aid, and of course the OP should contact a lawyer if necessary.

As for municipal citations in general, and none of this may apply in your case, we do not know, they are almost always issued by a citing officer, whose signature, for instance, would appear on a speeding ticket for a driving violation. This is normally the person who will appear in court as having witnessed the evidence upon which the citation was written: not any person who may have called a tip line to lodge a complaint.

The right to face one's accuser, as Jayron mentioned above, applies to questioning the plaintiff and his witnesses or evidence at trial. Since housing citations are usually issued by housing inspectors or officers who are trained to determine if your, e.g., unmowed lawn, illegal tree house, illegal tenant, broken sidewalk, etc., is in violation of code, that officer alone will normally be your accuser.

Unless you are being sued by your neighbour, or accused of a crime, rather than a code violation, you will only see the officer who wrote the ticket. Again, this may all vary by local practice. Expecting to find out who narked you out is most likely a lost cause, but you can expect the citing officer to appear in court if you contest the citation according to the time sensitive terms for disputing the citation normally found with instructions on the ticket itself. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Office Related Query

We do not answer requests for legal advice

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

An assistant manager with a state government owned company in india has been given verbal order in a meeting by the senior manager of the department that he is to follow the verbal instruction or order of another assistant manager because he has joined 5 years earlier and is thus senior and he must not approach the senior manager for orders.He has been verbally put under the assistant manager who has been verbally designated as Team Leader . However the assistant managers was official joining report required to report to GM/DGM.Also had very badly humiliated for copying engineering manuals for self study whereas laws like Right to Information etc are extant.How to respond to this >is the assistant manager wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichgab (talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An assistant manager with a state government owned company in india has been given verbal order in a meeting by the senior manager of the department that he is to follow the verbal instruction or order of another assistant manager because he has joined 5 years earlier and is thus senior and he must not approach the senior manager for order. He has been verbally put under the assistant manager who has been verbally designated as Team Leader. However the assistant managers was official joining report required to report to GM/DGM. Also had very badly humiliated for copying engineering manuals for self study whereas laws like Right to Information etc are extant.How to respond to this >is the assistant manager wrong Ichgab (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parney Albright's middle name

Looking for the middle name of Parney Albright. Not super important or anything, would be nice to have though PixelatedVolume (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]