Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 March 10

= March 10 =

Racing series never returning to a track after a fatal crash?
So apparently, IndyCar will not return to Las Vegas this year after the death of Dan Wheldon, and by the looks of it, it is unlikely that they will go back there anytime soon, or perhaps never again. Is it a common practice? For example, Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna died in the same weekend at Imola, but Formula One did not pull out until 2006, 12 years after that dark weekend, for unrelated reasons. And Greg Moore died at Fontana in 1999, but CART raced there for three more years, and CART's former rival and successor is returning there this year. However, there was a Moroccan Grand Prix, which had a fatal crash, and the race was never held again, although I don't think the discontinuation had anything to do with the crash. So is pulling out of a circuit permanently after a fatal crash common, or was the one at Las Vegas unusual? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In some cases there may be multi-year contracts which need to be fulfilled. Having a fatal crash is only one of many factors which may lead them to close down.  If they are already unprofitable, and then there's a fatal crash, they might use that as the excuse to close shop. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * MotoGP never went back to Suzuka after the fatal crash involving Daijiro Kato. Readro (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Following a fatal crash, they'll usually do something to prevent it happening again. The track at Imola was modified after the fatal accidents there (the details are in that article), for example. I guess if it was practical to modify the track (or the cars, or the rules) or if the owner of the track refused to make the necessary modifications, then they would stop racing there. There are plenty of other reasons for stopping racing at a particular track, though, so it the examples you give could just be coincidences (or cases where they were thinking about stopping anyway and the crash was just the final trigger). --Tango (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * At Imola, I assume immolation would be the main danger. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd say yes, it's unusual for a racing series to abandon a track after a fatal accident. Usually (if anything at all), adjustments are made to the track, or additional safety measures are applied to the car.  But in this case, it was the first race Indy cars had run at Las Vegas since they increased the banking at the track, and they literally ran 11 laps before having one of the worst accidents in the sport's history.  So their reaction is more like correcting a mistake, in that they should have never run at the track to begin with.    This is not just hindsight, as several of the drivers had expressed safety concerns prior to the race.  The Vegas track is a high-banked oval built for stock car races.   The 11 laps made it clear that it was not suitable for Indy car racing.  Sturat above mentioned contracts, and indeed in the case of the IndyCar series, they were contracted to run more races at Vegas, but some kind of buy-out was arranged. --SubSeven (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Upon the death of Dale Earnhardt Sr. in 2001, NASCAR certainly never considered abandoning its premier track, Daytona International Speedway, or its signature event, the Daytona 500. NASCAR implemented many changes in safety rules following the incident.   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To abandon a track due to a death seems a bit extreme. You'd run out of tracks.  After all, you can't just put a new one anywhere.  Dismas |(talk) 07:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Formula 1 racing never returned to the Nurburgring Nordschliefe after Niki Lauda crashed there in 1976, and he wasn't even killed, just very badly burned. gnfnrf (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Watch TV on PC
How do you watch Tv on PC? Not on web. (I've heard it's like avermedia) Unluckily when searching on google I only get spammy results... Do I need to have TV already? like connecting the Tv to the pc? OR it's done by internet? --190.158.184.192 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I will assume you mean broadcast TV, as opposed to cable or satellite. Here are some approaches:


 * 1) Hook an existing TV up to your computer monitor (not the computer itself), using an D-SUB or HDMI output from the TV for the connection, for example. If you want to use the same computer monitor for both TV and the computer, you will need a monitor which allows you to switch inputs, or you will need to unplug one connection and/or plug in another to switch.


 * 2) Get a TV tuner card for your PC, and connect that to an antenna. Note that these play TV in a window on the running computer, while the other approach uses the entire screen. StuRat (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) :You can use NetFlix or Hulu to watch TV shows on your PC. You can also use a Tuner card or something like MythTV. RudolfRed (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Depends which channel. I subscribe to Eurosport TV which I watch on my laptop. I'm sure if you search you can find free TV streams for your computer! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that they said "Not on web". StuRat (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that they also asked about watching by internet. I couldn't think of any non-Web interet TV service, but maybe you can  RudolfRed (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is confusing. Perhaps they meant they don't want to have to do web searches and such, but want something with a more user-friendly internet interface, like an icon on their desktop they pick. StuRat (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well there are plenty of IPTV services which don't use what's commonly called the web but most of them are subscriber based and often come directly from the ISP. BTW, there's no reason the output of a TV Tuner needs to be in a visible window or not use the entire screen. (Of course you can do this if you want to.) If your program has such a limitation, I suggest you delete it and find something better like Media Portal. Incidentally, the OP may live in Colombia so I'm not sure that NetFlix or Hulu are options. Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's true. I meant to describe the window option as better, since you then can use your computer while watching TV. StuRat (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll be back
Arnies "I'll be back" as the Terminator has become such a meme that it was the expected answer to Channel 5's quiz question "who said 'I'll be back'?". However, I just heard Robert Shaw say it in Custer of the West. So how many times and in what films has this line been said before Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 plagiarised it?  Spinning Spark  22:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a common enough phrase, so no doubt it occurred in hundreds of movies. It's the way it was used in Terminator that made it special.  In particular, how he then smashed through the police station with a truck and killed just about everybody inside.  Saying "I'll be back" and then returning to the dinner table with a bottle of ketchup isn't quite the same thing. StuRat (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * General Douglas MacArthur said "I shall return" (admittedly not quite the same thing), and he did, with some friends and some nastier toys. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As Stu says, it's a generic enough phrase that it will have been said in 100s of films, and been utterly unremarkable. However, we do have a list of the various films in which Arnie has said the phrase.  AJ  Cham  00:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also as indicated by Stu, and if memory serves, it was in part the contrast between the mundane, calmly stated comment, giving utterly no clue as to the murder and mayhem that would arrive shortly. And also enhanced by Arnold's oft-mocked Austrian accent, as in, "I'll be Bach." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no video footage of Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game?
So apparently, one of the things that adds to the game's myth is the fact that there is no known video footage of the game, and photos (I think) were rare. But why? I think around that time, NBA games were already being broadcast, or at least videos were taken for posterity. Was photography banned at NBA games at the time? Was it part of the contract that no footage would be recorded? Or was the NBA not popular at the time, and only became popular because of the game? It is so unlike Kobe's 81-point game which was broadcast live and seen by many. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game: "The game was not televised, and no video footage of the game exists; there are only audio recordings of the game's fourth quarter. The NBA was not yet a major sports league and struggled to compete against college basketball. The attendance at this game was over half of capacity, and there were no members of the New York press at the game." --Tango (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it was not until the 1970s that the NBA became prominent in the media. As late as 1981, CBS was broadcasting the championship finals on tape-delay at 11:30 p.m., rather than disrupt their regular programming. See "NBA on CBS" for details. (Many speculate that the arrival of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird stimulated the public appeal of professional basketball.   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That always gets claimed, but its far more likely that the growth of cable television, specifically ESPN, is what fueled the growth in interest in the NBA. Prior to Cable television, very few leagues (aside from the NFL) had significant national TV coverage; most games were only shown in local markets, aside from an occasional "Game of the Week" or something like that.  The explosion of the popularity of ESPN in the 1980s worked alongside all of the growth in various sports, one of those "a rising tide lifts all boats" things.  Just about every sport, from NASCAR to NBA to College Basketball can trace their biggest "growth" period to the 1980s, when ESPN also experienced its biggest growth.  The NBA has always had stars; the reason why we speak of Bird and Magic as fueling the NBA's golden age is because they were on TV so much more; had we had ESPN in the 1970s, its quite likely we would have looked to stars like Dave Cowens and Gail Goodrich instead as fueling such a boom.  Stars still need a venue, and there just wasn't a venue to show basketball to a national audience prior to cable television.  -- Jayron  32  20:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Auggie Wren's Christmas Story
Was the short story "Auggie Wren's Christmas Story" by Paul Auster actually published in "The New York Times" on Christmas day, as is claimed in the story? Thanks! 190.138.191.163 (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently, in 1990. See the contents list here, final entry. Deor (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)