Miscellaneous desk
< December 21	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 22

Recording television to PCs

Is something like this what I need to, say, record a news segment on television and then put it on my computer? 71.213.56.214 (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a customer service phone number on the webpage you site. It says, and I quote "Have more questions? Call us toll-free at..." with the number listed. Call them, see what they say. --Jayron32 02:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but what's the fun in calling a toll-free number when you can ask Wikipedians? Basically, what I'm asking is if I stick that thing into a TV, will I get a file of a recording from the program that's on that TV at the moment? I believe that's called a TV tuner, but I'm not sure. 71.213.56.214 (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ATI Theater HD 750 USB you linked to is indeed a TV tuner, but the way it works is you stick it into your computer and your computer becomes a TV. (It even comes with a remote control and an antenna.) You install the included software so your computer can make recordings of the TV signals from the device. It says it has audio/video input "with adapters" (not sure if they're included?), so you may be able to connect it to a VCR, DVD player, or cable box with audio/video cables, but it would still remain plugged into your computer, and it would still be your computer doing the recording. --Bavi H (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC) + 04:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did Knights Kill Each Other on the Battlefield?

Suppose two fully armored (plate mail with chain mail underneath, swords, shield, helmet, etc...) medieval Knights with plate mail are fighting each other with one-handed swords. What would likely be the cause of death of the defeated knight? Would the sword be able to penetrate plate mail and inflict penetrative injuries? Or would death likely result from blunt-force trauma arising from repeated bashing of the head with the sword? Acceptable (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armoured sword fighting was actually all about precision strikes. The knights would try to thrust the point of their sword into unprotected areas such as the face or armpits.

Medieval swords were actually rather light--most of them were about 3 lbs. Blunt force damage was definitely out of the question. Regular sword slashes with the edge of the blade would have been useless as well. Plate armour was simply too tough to slice through.

-Pollinosisss (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plate mail was also pretty expensive and wasn't really around until the late middle ages/almost early modern era. And even then it was often mostly decorative (think Henry VIII and Francis riding around trying to show off to each other, not something knights wore in battle every day). Normally they would just have chain mail and leather and a helmet. Technically a knight doesn't even need armour, just a sword and a horse, which was often expensive enough. But, supposing, as you ask, that they did wear all that heavy armour, the most likely strategy would be to knock the opponent over (with your own body rather than with your weapon), and try to injure him while he was unable to get up again. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons such as the pollaxe were developed specifically for piercing plate armour. An armoured and dismounted knight soon became exhausted in a melee and was then vulnerable to being disarmed and overwhelmed by even lightly armed infantry. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And then sometimes they didn't need to bother. One of the Book of Lists by the Wallace Family details the story of the unfortunate Fulk Fizwarne IV, who actually rode his horse into a bog at the Battle of Agincourt, the full weight of his armour forcing him to drown, in much the same way as Carver Doone did over 250 years later in R.D. Blackmore's novel. One of only a few English casualties that day. Once more into the breach ! The Russian.C.B.Lilly 12:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

In hand-to-hand combat the goal was not always to kill, but rather to capture. A high-ranking noble was worth far more alive than dead and therefore a killing blow was not always desirable. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading about small weapons being carried to pierce armour weak points as a coup de grace, like dirks, but I forget the source. Also, don't forget crushing weapons, like the mace and its derivatives, that (with enough strength and leverage/swing) would happily kill straight through armour, plate or mail. They would be used by knights, particularly those in holy orders, IIRC. The ultimate plate-mail killer was perhaps the crossbow, but a knight wouldn't have used one. At the battle of Bannockburn, a good number of knights were killed by drowning. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on stilettos says they were used to stab through chain mail or though gaps in plate armour, apparently more as an act of mercy than anything else - if your opponent was disabled enough for you to use a stiletto on them and not mortally wounded, you would capture them, as Medical geneticist says. --Tango (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of heavy cavalry combat, killing a knight took place in two steps. You used your lance to knock him off of his horse, then you crushed his skull with your mace. Even inside a helmet, you can do considerable damage with a heavy club. If the first blow doesn't kill him, it will disorient him enough that you can get in a few more and finish him off. There was probably lots of variation on this, but from my understanding their armour made light swords less effective (a knights sword was mainly for mowing down light infantry as you rode by on your horse, IIRC). --Jayron32 22:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pony Express Trail

I have traveled much of the Pony Express Trail and while in Nevada, at Rock Springs Pass, there was a sign that proclaimed that to be the highest point along the entire length of the trail. It was less than 8,000 feet and it seems likely that there are higher points along the trail elsewhere. I would like to confirm this to be truly the highest point or not. I have tried every resource I can think of and have never gotten an answer. I would like to know the location and elevation of the highest point along the Pony Express Trail.143.69.88.3 (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer you directly, but perhaps the USGS or some other US government organization has some detailed info on the topic. Given the right tools it would be easy to figure out, but getting those tools could be an issue. You might try throwing the trail into google earth and seeing if you can eyeball some high areas and see how high they get. All that aside, 8,000 feet is believable. So long as it avoided the mountains in Wyoming, and then again in California, none of the flatland areas in that route would hit anywhere near 8,000 feet. Shadowjams (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would buy that as well. 8000 feet seems perfectly reasonable. Of course, there are some very tall peaks near the trail, but you don't make a trail over a peak; you make it in the passes and valleys between the peaks. So even if you are surrounded by 12,000 feet peaks, it seems reasonable to have passes at 8000 feet or so. --Jayron32 22:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pony Express page has some info and leads on this. Rock Springs Pass is 7,900 feet according to the USGS GNIS. The route described on the Pony Express page, and mapped here indicates that South Pass was used between Wyoming and Utah, which is 7,550 feet. The Central Nevada Route from Salt Lake City to the Sierra Nevada sounds likely to be the place with the most gain--in part due to some reluctance to stick to the lower regions along the Humboldt River. Crossing the Sierras can be done at Daggertts Pass, 7,400 feet, and elsewhere at less than 7,900 feet. So my very brief research into this seems to suggest that Rock Springs Pass may well have been the highest point along the trail. Pfly (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar

Why do all guitars have little dots painted on the fret board? 117.194.225.79 (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you can see where you are supposed to go more easily. It's harder to count, say, 12 frets at sight, but you can easily remember that the 12th fret has those two dots. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary—lots of similar instruments do not have fret markings (no one seems to need them for a cello or a violin)—but they are meant to be helpful. I think if one removed them and taught someone guitar without them, they would not require them. Advanced players generally don't have to look at the guitar at all, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd likely cost more to produce versions with them and without them, rather than to simply offer them all with - given that some users will prefer to have them, but very few will willfully not want them (they might not need them but that's hugely different to actively not wanting them on it) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only because they are custom. You don't need them at all. If you learnt without them, you wouldn't require them in the slightest. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a good reason why violins and cellos don't have dots between the frets. Think about it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously they don't have frets, per say, but they could still easily have indicators of positions of notes, and they don't. They aren't necessary. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was referring to the fact that they're held in such as to make such things rather impractical. Matt Deres (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are fretless bass guitars (Bill Wyman claims to have invented it), but I've never seen a fretless acoustic or electric guitar. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fretless guitar lists a few players. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was also going to mention the fretless guitar link, but Adam Bishop beat me to it. Will mention that classical guitars generally don't have fret markers; I guess the supposition is if you're playing classical guitar music, you're sufficiently trained to have proper hand position and to keep your eyes off the fingerboard. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone mentioned fretless guitars, there are also in existance fretted bowed instruments, known as viols. --Jayron32 21:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dots on the side of the fretboard are far more important. One of my instrument has no dots on top, just on the edge. A friend has been using the guitar for a few years now, and she didn't even notice the lack of fretboard dots until I pointed it out. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even though mine's a classical guitar (I just bought it a few days back, no idea how to play), it's got dots painted on the fretboard, as well as on the side...Thanks... I was wondering what they were for... Can anyone tell me whether playing electric guitars are any different from playing classical guitars? The sound maybe different, but isn't the method of playing both the same? OR at least very similar?? 117.194.229.56 (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's broadly similar in that the same tuning is generally used - so the chords are formed the same way - and the actual mechanics of playing is the same - but there are wide varieties of subtle techniques that may be applied to electric guitars that don't work so well for acoustics because they are not so sensitive. Also, the steel strings of an electric guitar are harder on your fingers - so if you're used to playing acoustics, it may take a while for your fingers to harden up! But someone who plays one kind of guitar can switch to the other kind and feel right at home immediately. SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, classical guitars have a flat fingerboard, while electric (and steel-string acoustic, for that matter) guitars have fingerboards of various radii, which would affect playing somewhat. You'd probably find it a little easier to move from classical to electric guitar, in that respect. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true classical guitars have dead flat fingerboards - but "non-classical" acoustics tend to have the same kind of curve as electric guitars - which I suspect is due to the higher string tension required for steel strings. That demands more mechanical strength from the neck. The lateral curvature of the fingerboard would produce a stronger neck than the flat one found on classical guitars with gut or nylon strings. There may be some other reason for this - but I couldn't find one. SteveBaker (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will usually play an acoustic guitar with your finger tips and usually play an electric guitar with a plectrum. You will usually play an acoustic guitar without microphone or towards a single microphone or pickup, while an electric guitar is always played through an amplifier, often with additional devices to modify the sound such as a wah-wah pedal, equalizer, compressor, echo generator etc. A mediocre electric guitarist in a rock group stands with feet further apart than one would think necessary while no acoustic guitarist would be such a jerk. Maidens sacrifice themselves to electric guitarists but only give their hearts to an acoustic guitarist. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't even ask what maidens sacrifice for ukulele players. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no!! Oh no!! OH NO!!! I thought I was buying a classical guitar, but it's turned out that it's an acoustic guitar with steel strings, which means it's not classical. I bought it a few days back, and I've yet to start learning how to play it. I can't return it to the shop I bought it from. What do I do now??? Is there any way that the music people play on acoustic classical guitars can also be played on acoustic modern non-classical ones. To me, it seems that the sound quality if gut/ nylon strings are bound to be hugely different from the steel strings in my guitar (which, by the way, sounds exactly like the one in this . What do I do now?? 117.194.233.211 (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buy a set of nylon strings for it? Shouldn't be expensive. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A steel-string acoustic guitar, or "folk guitar," has a narrower neck than a classical guitar. Hence the solution of merely restringing it with a nylon set won't give you an instrument on which you can properly learn classical guitar. The methods are somewhat different, less so in the left-hand fingerings, more with the right-hand plucking (where folk guitar is mainly strumming with perhaps a walking bass line). A folk guitar is fine for playing chords, suitable for accompaning vocals. (Think of '60s American folk music.) Classical guitar's more of a solo instrument, with repertoire ranging from the Renaissance, Baroque, Spanish-style, and more recent periods including popular. If that's your objective, perhaps the vendor will agree to an exchange (rather than refund) and help you get the sort of instrument for the music you want to play. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's a Humpty Dumpty ?

I recall watching the Australian Movie The Humpty Dumpty Man some years ago, and then a couple of weeks back, Enemy of the State, where Jon Voight tells his men to assemble a couple of Humpty Dumpties. I remember years ago that the term is used in espionage, in much the same way as honey trap , and the one who performs one, known as a swallow. What then is a humpty dumpty ? C.B.Lilly 12:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be someone who will take the fall (get the blame) if an operation goes wrong. From some internet forum or other "In the 1998 spy film Enemy of the State, NSA character Thomas Reynolds requests "two techs with full electronic capability, two Humpty Dumpties. Get Fielder to organise it." In this sense, Reynolds attempts unsuccessfully to apply plausible deniability so that an investigation by 'all the kings men' will not identify NSA management complicity." --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. That sounds more like it. That seemed to be the idea of the original Aussie film, where I believe the main character was being hunted down - rather like Will Smith 12 years later. I think I remember a lot of people getting offed. Makes sense. It is scary knowing someone is watching you. We have a spy base about 200 miles north of here that records things. Who knows what they get up to ? C.B.Lilly 12:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Car Rental in US

Say you want to rent a car. You need it for 4 days but you tell the person at the counter that you only need it for two days. Then you call the next day, while you have the rental car and you say you need to add two more days. Will they let you do that? Do you know if they charge extra? --Reticuli88 (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'll depend on the specific rental agency and their specific demand. What you ought to do instead is say up-front that you'd like the car for four days, but might return it in only two. In that case, you'll only be charged for the time rented. Likewise, ask about what the charges would be if you need to extend the rental a day or two. In my experience, there's no problem with either scenario provided up-front notice is given. — Lomn 16:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) First of all, there are dozens of car rental companies in the US. Each one will set its own policies. Generally speaking though, at the very least you will be charged the amount listed on your contract for extra days and extra hours. Lots of other details will be written in the contract. If it is a busy time - a holiday, after a major snowstorm, etc - then by keeping the car longer than you agreed, you may be inconveniencing somebody who holds a reservation that the rental company can't fulfill. --LarryMac | Talk 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should definitely read the fine print of your contract when you rent. Different companies specify different charges for late returns. Some companies offer a short 'grace period' of a half-hour or more for those slightly late returns; after that, there's often an hourly charge. Some companies will charge a higher rate for extra days, a few will even retroactively increase the daily rate on the entire rental period if your return is more than a few hours late. (Here's a summary of the late-return policies of several major U.S. car rental firms as of 2007: [1].)

If you ask for the rental for four days and are told the car is only available for two, then if you hold on to the car for extra days you're probably inconveniencing someone else who made a legitimate reservation. Please don't do this, because it would make you a jerk. On the other hand, if you book two days in good faith and then ask for an extension, many companies are willing to grant one. (You've got the car, they don't need extra paperwork, and they avoid the risk of an unrented vehicle on the lot.) Be aware that the extended rental may not be eligible for the same rates (lower or higher) that you might have paid for the first two days; depending on the contract, there may even be an effect on the rate you pay for the first two days' rental. The best thing to do is what Lomn suggests — be honest at the time of booking. Minimizing surprises on both sides of the transaction usually results in the least all-around aggravation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they can extend the reservation probably depends on whether someone else is waiting for it or not. They will probably charge you a fee in either case, but in the latter case they will probably regard it as "late", which is quite a fee. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It always (in my experience) says right on the rental contract what the fee will be for additional days you keep the car beyond your reserved days. (Call in advance to find out about this, of course, and whether there are other fees for inconveniencing them.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, find out how the company does things. In my experience, which is mostly with Hertz but also companies like Budget and Enterprise, there is a daily rate and a weekly rate. If you go more than 4 days or so, you'll get the cheaper (when computed per-day) weekly rate. And they are typically flexible about when you return it, but for courtesy it's best to tell them if you intend to keep it longer. Returning it sooner is no problem for them, of course, and it might or might not cost you more depending on the number of days you kept it. As a quick example, renting a car for 2 days and turning it back after 1, I was only charged for 1 day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are counterexamples, though: A guy in front of me in the line at Enterprise was returning a car he was supposed to have rented for a week, after three days. He ended up having to pay almost twice the amount, since full fees for three days were a lot more than the discounted weekly rate he would have paid according to his original plans. He was not happy! /Coffeeshivers (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At that point he could have said, "Fine, I'll keep it for another 4 days." P.S. I don't rent from Enterprise anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arab world tv court

I notice that Arab World media has almost everything that U.S. has like singing idol contest, but I notice they don't have court tv like Judge Mathis, Judge Alex and Judge Judy. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.214 (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there small claims court in any of the Arab countries? Thats pretty much what these court television shows are (although I don't think they are actual courts of law, more like arbitration or mediation.). Livewireo (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that they don't have the ability to outsource justice in the same way as the US? For example, the rather complex legal documents people going on those programmes have to sign. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that some of that stuff is not originally American (singing idol contests, for example). What about the rest of the world that also has American-ish TV shows? Canada does everything the US does but we don't have any Judge Judy-type shows either. Maybe it is unique to American law. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not unique to the US - we have 'De Rijdende Rechter' (the driving judge) in the Netherlands, who will usually deliver his final verdict in the TV studio. He's a real judge, but formally it's a binding arbitration procedure too, not an actual court of law. Unilynx (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen Judge Judy-type shows in India. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia law is applied in Islamic arab societies but televison companies have been slow to realize the popular entertainment potential of amputating the hand of a thief or stoning an adulterer to death. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Judge Judy or the rest of the shows you mentioned but The People's Court had a disclaimer at the beginning (and end?) of the show which explained that it was not an actual court of law and that Judge Wapner was not a judge at the time. The people simply signed contracts saying that they would not take their issue to court and would live up to whatever Wapner decided. The bailiff, courtroom, and such was just a stage and actors. It's possible that Arab countries don't have any laws that say that small claims can be settled outside of an actual court of law. Dismas|^(talk) 02:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Please do not guess. Comet Tuttle (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Judge Judy the parties to the case don't even pay the compensation they are ordered to pay, the production company does (the source is linked to in our article, Judge Judy). (They do transfer other property as ordered, though.) Maybe Arabs are not as easy to fool as Americans? ;) --Tango (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if Judge Judy had the authority to have the loser's right hand removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/18/lkl.00.html. Thanks, 174.114.4.18 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Meryl by codec(Metal Gear Solid)

It says I need to contact her and her frequency is located on the back of the CD case. But this is a psp download. what is this codec? please do the needful. Thanks

142.176.13.22 (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you've heard of this amazing new website called Google? --LarryMac | Talk 23:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]