Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2014 July 6

= July 6 =

107% rule in motorsport
The rules in Formula One says, if you don't set a lap time in qualification within 107 % of the best driver's time, you should not be allowed to start. Still, many drivers are allowed to start anyway, for instance at the 2014 British Grand Prix today. The information usually only say, they are allowed to start based on a decission of the stewards. However, it never says why they are allowed to do this.

I would like to know why. Can someone please help collect information about this or explain how the stewards argue? Outer Image (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The stewards generally allow a driver who fails to set a time within the 107% mark to race if:


 * the session took place in wet or changeable weather conditions;
 * the driver's times were excluded due to a technical or sporting infringement;
 * the driver was unable to set a time (or a quicker time) due to mechanical problems, a collision, or a driver error that otherwise prevented them from continuing;
 * the driver was within the 107% mark during free practice.


 * Basically, the rule is to keep out drivers and cars that are obviously too slow in all circumstances during a race meeting, not because they have encountered problems that have prevented them from going faster. This is reflected in the fact that the only time it has been exercised since its readoption in 2011 is when Hispania turned up at the first race of the season in 2011 and 2012 with an untested car that was in no fit state to compete.&mdash;  Midgrid  (talk)  16:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the accuracy and detail of your answer . Jeepers time goes by fast. I thought it was the start of last season when those cars were disqualified. I hope that you enjoyed today's race. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Manuscript (Sheet music)
I looked at manuscripts of sheet music by Bach, Beethoven and Chopin. There is something interesting how they wrote. When the note stem is below the note head, the stem is right not left as one would have expected. So it looks reversed. Did this convention change, meaning that even publishers printed that way, or was it just how they wrote? --2.245.79.34 (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * IIRC, in some very old editions (I'm not sure exactly when), it would indeed be printed this way, but by the time of Chopin it was mostly just a handwritten thing (because it's faster to write it this way) and would be printed the usual way. I'm not entirely sure about the chronology of this, though. Double sharp (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Somehow I don't see how this is faster. --2.245.117.245 (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you can draw the head of the note and the tail without lifting the nib from the paper. Remember, dip pens are easier to pull than push, and quills can only be pulled (I'm a rather bad calligrapher, not a musician). Alansplodge (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So you draw a note head and the stem should be below it. Does it really matter if it's left or right? You would pull in both situations because it's below and you wouldn't need to lift either. --2.245.207.139 (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true I suppose, but it I think it would mean forming the figure from right to left, which is counter-intuitive for those brought up with the Roman alphabet. You may be right, but it struck me that it would be easiest to write the note like a lower-case letter "q", rather than a "p" which is made with two strokes in many early scripts. Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Which casino games pit players against each other rather than players trying to beat the dealer?
I think Poker is one but there must be others I'm not thinking of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8051:4D60:F581:635C:F565:26EC (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Bingo. That's about it as far as I can see. In craps and baccarat, players want diametrically opposed outcomes, but they're still playing against the house. I'm guessing one reason is that the management doesn't want its patrons losing their tempers and attacking each other. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the casino wants games it can control the outcome of and generate cash for themselves. -- Jayron  32  01:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Even with Bingo, when there's money involved, the church or lodge or whatever takes a cut from the total cash, right? As with a lottery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you look at it. The bingo games I've known of charge for the card and part of the money goes to the house, part goes to the pot.  The money is still coming from the players, it's just a matter of if they take their cut from the sales or the winnings.  Dismas |(talk) 03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, my point being that it's not just casinos that play that game. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you consider sports wagering a casino game, the odds somewhat depend on how much other players put where. And one side has to lose for the other to win. But, of course, the math is all figured to benefit the bookie in any situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In California (except native-American casinos), where gambling laws mostly prohibit player-vs-house gambling, most games in cardrooms are indeed poker or poker-variant games like pai gow poker. But that article notes that some cardrooms operate a PvP system (where the house takes a fee or rake rather than being a participant) for casino-type games like blackjack, baccarat, and craps. Unfortunately the article doesn't specify the particulars of how those game variants are conducted in that setting (and as I'm in the UK, cardroom websites in the US aren't letting me read their info pages). I imagine that, if the "house" wins, those winnings are either redistributed or there's a pot. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 23:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)