Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 27

= November 27 =

Bread machine motor breakdown
So we got a very cheap-but-new bread machine and after four or five successful loaves of bread it has decided to bite the dust. Now we're not out any money in this (it cost almost nothing, though it was brand new unopened—hooray for garage sales) but it'd be nice to have it working again. The misses would be happy.

I took a screwdriver and opened up the casing, and the thing is really quite simple underneath. The whole thing is really just a fancy plastic casing for a timer and a motor which then turns a little screw in the part where the bread gets kneaded around.

When it is on, the motor just goes "mrrrrrh. mrrrrh. mhrrrr. mhrrrrh." once a second or so. It's clearly trying to turn but it can't. I managed to turn the motor piece a few times manually (with it turned off) with a screwdriver and then plugged it in again, and it turned fine for a second (really whirred around like it was supposed to) and then it started doing it's locked-down routine.

The motor seems like just a standard electric motor—electromagnet coil around some sort of central axis. It is pretty small. That's the extent of my understanding of it — I'm no engineer.

Any thoughts about what might be going wrong? There's no physical obstruction that I can see, though I haven't removed the entire thing from the casing. What ought I do next? I've of course tried the standard turn-it-off-and-on-again, the jiggle-and-shake, etc. Nothing gets any different results other than having manually turned the motor axle a few times, when then can get it running for a second and then it locks up again.

Anything I ought to watch out for looking inside a machine like this, safety-wise? Obviously I'm not playing with it while it is plugged in, and there doesn't look like there are any sorts of capacitors or other "no nos", but again, I'm not experienced with electrical things, so I try to be pretty dang cautious. I thought I'd try taking the whole motor out tomorrow just to see if there's anything on the bottom side of it that would make it more obvious what was going on, but I thought I'd ask on here first... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just in case, you do realize that a bread machine stops and waits for the bread to rise at times in the process, right ? I will assume that's not the issue here.  It sure sounds like the shaft is rubbing against something, to me.  I'd disassemble it further and run the motor by itself to see if that's it.  (Be sure to wear rubber gloves and not touch it when doing so.)  Another possibility is that the motor has a tendency to stop in null positions.  A null position is where the electromagnetic forces trying to push the motor in either direction are exactly equal, so it doesn't move.  A proper motor design will ensure that it never stops at such points.  While moving, inertia carries it past those points.  The start-and-stop nature of a bread machine motor could be an issue, though. StuRat (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not the stop session. It won't start. Again, it worked fine until recently. Thanks for the suggestion! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, do not depend on rubber gloves to protect you while you're working on electrical things. Not unless they're marked with a voltage rating and a current test stamp, which your common Playtex dishwashing gloves don't have.


 * Second, it is notoriously hard to diagnose electrical problems over the Internet. Tinker as you like, but if you can't get it fixed, look in your Yellow Pages for a good appliance repair shop.


 * If the machine is unplugged, then in general you are safe to prod around. If this is really a cheap machine, I wouldn't expect to find any sort of switched-mode power supply inside of it, which would probably be the most dangerous thing to encounter with the plug out: they can hold a substantial charge. Still, keep your eyes open, keep your work area well-lit, and don't touch the metal part of your screwdriver while you poke around.


 * From here, it sounds like the motor is probably burned out, but it sounds like you've guessed that already. If there are any If you are lucky, this is a universal motor that has replaceable brushes, and I would check that first. If you are not lucky, you may have a shorted winding or a burned-out bearing on the motor, or possibly a messed-up control board, any of which are probably not worth repairing unless this machine has significant sentimental value. The other thing to check would be the bearings in the kneading mechanism: take the motor out and try spinning the kneading blade by hand. It should spin freely and not bind up at all. Good luck! Morrand (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Worm drive.


 * Is the gear business in the machine the same or similar to this, with the motor turning the spiral gear and it, when it works, turning the other gear (the spur gear) and the bread mixer?


 * If it is, the problem might be cheap gears, or the gears not properly aligned. If so, some oil or grease on the gears might help, or adjust the alignment, if there is any flexibility.


 * Or maybe the spur gear came loose on the shaft, so it turns but the mixing arm doesn't.


 * Unless it looks very solidly made, don't spend much time on it. Kneading bread is hard work and a lightweight machine is probably inadequate. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On the good side, if you can't fix this one, you seem to have found that a GOOD bread machine will be an ideal gift to buy for the wife, but be sure to also get her something suitably sappy, as women really go for that crap. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the replies. I figured it out though. Took off the bottom and saw, lo, that the belt drive had totally destroyed itself and was just a mess of plastic and string in a horrible tangle. Took off the dead belt and the motor works just fine (of course it no longer turns anything). If I can find a decent replacement should be a cinch to fix. Thanks, all! (And I note on the internet that a broken belt for a Magic Chef 250 is pretty common. Ours was used and the belt had clearly dry-rotted. Hmm. Sounds like the company is a pain in the ass about it too. Note to self: never buy Magic Chef.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Make sure that the paddle which kneads the dough, and any linkage between it and the belt, turns freely. If it was seized up, that could have caused the belt to fail. Edison (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I had the impression from your initial post that you had already looked inside. Could you see the motor without seeing the shredded belt? Good luck on getting a belt.  A local appliance repair shop might sell you one.  Some older shops have a lot of sizes in stock. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Largest democracy?
A moment ago on CNN the talking head pronounced India to be the world's second largest democracy. What metric was the network using? By population, India is second only to the People's Republic of China, which is certainly not a democracy. By land area, India is surpassed by Australia, Brazil, the United States, Canada, and (although I hesitate to call it a democracy) Russia. Is there another metric that I am missing, or was the news anchor mistaken?  Plasticup  T / C  05:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Was the announcer Maxwell Smart? --Trovatore (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, a charitable explanation is that he was going to say either largest democracy or second largest country, and got mixed up between them. Kind of like Lewis Carroll's description of the poor guy who had to answer under which king something happened, and was equally divided between Richard and William, so he said "Rilchiam". Or something like that. --Trovatore (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is generous but plausible. Thank you.  Plasticup  T / C  06:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe he thinks America is the largest democracy. Man, America invented democracy! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is the term totalitarian democracy (as opposed to liberal democracy). If this is applied to the Chinese model, then the CNN statement would make sense.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I found other web pages that seem to believe that because the USA and India are the world's 2 largest democracies, India must be second. NY Times correction: "An article yesterday about the Clinton Administration's policy on Haiti incorrectly described a remark by President Clinton about India, whose Prime Minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao, was visiting the White House. Mr. Clinton said India was the world's largest democracy, not the second largest."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Adam Bishop what a joker!!!! 90.242.193.191 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What is this object?
What exactly is this strange mystery object? http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K4-M/SS41gg8I2II/AAAAAAAAs8A/h6m5blIOGCA/s640/26620-181903-77908a62ed49a0e539e06a70cd4c9f26.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.237.183 (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what baseballs used to look like. Then MLB realized, "Hey, 3 players a week are dying in this sport. We have 2 alternatives - either we come up with some type of non-cancerous chewing tobacco, or we redesign the ball." It's an educated guess, to say the least. flaminglawyerc neverforget 09:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks a bit like a medieval ball mace, but they normally had protruding spikes. There is a picture in the article for flail (weapon).  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Could it be a round riot hand grenade with the pin out? The colour's military. Are those spin fins? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Could it be a pocket mace? You know, the sort you could pop in your pocket with the spikes folded down and then whip it out when you needed it. Richard Avery (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing it is a bomblet from a cluster bomb. Compare with the image to the right. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur, see this and this for other example images. Nanonic (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And this other one too Image:M139 bomblet 4.jpg. Nanonic (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Definite agreement. Do not drop.

unicycles + welding
Two questions in one post, because 2 posts in a row is just awkward. One - I'm considering buying a unicycle and have no idea where to start. Are there any brands that are nicer that others? I know what size I should get, but don't know anything else... It's for light riding, I'm not a unicycle racer or anything. And two - arc welding is the most cost-efficient method of welding, or am I mistaken? And is it suitable for welding bicycle frames/parts? flaminglawyerc neverforget 09:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree on posting two unrelated question together, that makes responding awkward. As for welding cost-efficiency, that would depend on what you are welding and how often you weld.  If you were going to weld things every day, then an high startup cost would be amortized over many usages, so might provide for a lower overall cost, if the per-usage cost is lower.  Also, if you have natural gas pipelines in your area, that's likely to be cheaper than electricity as an energy source, but I don't think that's commonly used for welding. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I think that they were related. Note the "And is it suitable for welding bicycle parts...?" While the first question is about unicycles. Uni- and bi-cycle. Might just be me though. Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that straightforward arc welding ("stick welding", "MMAW", etc) is likely to be the cheapest. The equipment is much cheaper than any other (I bought a 130amp machine for £45 earlier this year) and the only consumable is the rods. Most other forms of welding involve gas (either as fuel or as inert shield), plus some sort of filler (plain filler rods for oxy-acetylene will be cheaper than arc rods, but I expect most other kinds would be more expensive), plus in some cases consumable electrodes. That said, stick welding is harder to do - a highly skilled welder can produce good work even on awkward jobs, but a beginner like me will take a long time to produce ugly (though serviceable) welds and struggle with more intricate jobs. I would probably be a lot more effective with a MIG set, but I don't do enough welding to justify the £200+ cost.
 * I'd expect arc welding to be fine for bicycle frames, but only if they're steel. If you have aluminium parts you'll want to research further - arc welding might still be suitable (with special rods) but it might well not be. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See questions 3.3 and 3.4 of the Unicycling FAQ Mine is a Pashley which has an odd saddle, but are well made; mine has had 12 years of use and is still good.  My friend who is a unicycle god swears by his DM (Dave Mariner) but I don't think he makes them now.  With regard to bicycle frames, I thought Brazing was the way to go. --TrogWoolley (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

conservatives love capitalizing words?
I recently found that, for facebook users who declared their political views,the more conservative they are the more likely they are to use capitalized words, in the Activities and Interests sections. I've checked 500+ users. For example, liberals write something like: sleeping, hanging out, while conservatives write something like: Sleeping, Hanging Out. very liberal / liberal / moderate / conservative / very conservative -2% / 3% / 8% / 16% / 3% more users capitalized words.

any idea why? (and why very conservative folks don't like to use capitalized words?) Janviermichelle (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It could be all sorts of things, like age profile of users, the papers they tend to read, etc. The low count for the very conservative could be because they missed a change that went full circle. When I was young (in the 60s and 70s) there was a craze of using "ize" spellings instead of the "ise" spellings that are more usual in the UK. This really annoyed teachers and parents but I was quite surprised to notice that my Granddad ued "ize" spellings. I asked him about it and he said he had never got used to the new "French" way of spelling these words. It could be the same for capitalisation, with Liberals taking to the new uncapitalised style which maybe the ultra-conservatives never left! -- Q Chris (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Brits still say "capitalisation" as though it contains a Z, like Americans, or do they actually say an S sound ? StuRat (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All the "ise" words capitalise, realise, analyse, and so on sound as though they contain a "z". -- Q Chris (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, liberals are less formal in their thinking than conservatives. They are less likely to want to conform to rules, and that includes rules of grammar.  Yes, I know that in your example, words like "Sleeping, Hanging Out" don't require capitals, but in general I would say that being wedded to using capitals reflects a view of the world that is formal and hierarchical.  The increasing use of no caps in places where caps used to be required also reflects a less formal, less deferential view of the world.  In Britain this would be reflected in writing things like "prime minister" rather than "Prime Minister". --Richardrj talkemail 13:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm totally agree with your point. But it doesn't explain why 'very conservatives' use less capitalized words. maybe Q Chris got it right? 128.12.147.85 (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To me the capitalized version has a different meaning:


 * "Churchill was the Prime Minister who most resembled a bull dog."


 * "Our church has two ministers, but Reverend Boylove is the prime minister." StuRat (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there is no difference. Many newspapers and other sources now use "prime minister" in lower case when referring to the office of state. This is a conscious decision on their part, reflecting (like I said above) a less formal, less deferential society. --Richardrj talkemail 14:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but in Britain if you used "prime minister" in a way that referred to someone other than the Prime Minister it would be so unusual that personally I would use quotes, either:


 * "Our church has two ministers, but Reverend Boylove is the 'prime minister'".


 * or


 * "Our church has two ministers, but Reverend Boylove is the 'prime' minister".


 * I doubt the adjective "prime" would ever be used in relation to ministers of the religious variety, simply because "prime minister" has such a strong association with the political variety that any cleric who claimed to be the "prime minister" of his/her church would be seen to be claiming an inappropriate degree of power or authority. Maybe "senior minister" would be better.  --  JackofOz (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

what does this statement refer to
' to distribute them while you are saving you can only go right.' 82.206.143.13 (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Afaict, it's impossible to say what the "them" refers to. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

my sick cat
is feline herpes virus and upper respiratory infection contageous to dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susie Monroe (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Were these diagnoses made by a vet? That would be the most knowledgeable person to ask. You might get more information from the Merck Veterinary Manual online about whether these are contagious cross-species (not just dogs, perhaps humans too...see under zoonoses). And in the future - a question like this might be more appropriate to post on the Science Ref Desk. I hope your cat recovers quickly and thoroughly!-- Deborahjay (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on what the dog is doing to the cat.--KageTora - the RefDesker formerly known as ChokinBako (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither legal nor medical advice required - just a shove in the right direction please.
For reasons that will become apparent, I cannot name either the product or the condition - but I have discovered, by accident, that a product I use frequently for its designed purpose, has had a dramatic and beneficial effect on a medical condition I have suffered from for years, that you would normally never associate with said product in a million years. The product is a combination of ingredients, branded into an over the counter sale item, so I cannot (not being a chemist or a doctor) say which ingredient or combination is/are responsible. So I can't patent this discovery as an invention of mine. But if I tell the manufacturer (or my doctor or pharmacist) I would have no financial reward for my discovery should it ever be researched, approved and marketed, as they would probably "adopt" it as their own. Equally, if I say nothing, and continue to use (and benefit from) the product for my own purposes, I could be denying the multitudes of other sufferers (and there really are that many)a "cure" for their condition. Any advice welcome. This is a really serious question. 92.20.1.41 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy question. What's your preference: greed or helping your fellow sufferers? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like you won't get any financial benefit whether you tell the world about it or not, so what's to stop you? Also, this might be a freak one-off occurrence in your case – it's by no means guaranteed that it would help others with the same condition.  Furthermore, the "dramatic and beneficial effect" you describe might not really be due to using the product, but due to some other reason.  --Richardrj talkemail 16:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You might be able to patent the idea if you can study and determine the process, or join forces with a pharmacist who is able to investigate it properly. However, all drugs are thoroughly tested, and all have effects other than those intended. I suspect the effect you've discovered will be known already.--Shantavira|feed me 18:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But there doesn't seem to be an idea here, just an observation. The product already exists and is almost certainly patented (although the patent may have expired). I can't see how you could patent using an existing product for a new purpose, since it's up to the purchaser what they do with it. I don't know of any kind of legal protection for such an observation and if there were, I can't see any way it could be enforced. --Tango (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not true. If a substance is in the prior art, you cannot get a patent on it—not as a "composition of matter". However, it is possible to get a patent on a new use of the substance or a new way of making it. (Disclaimer: this is not legal or professional advice.) --173.49.12.59 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Getting a product approved for use to treat, cure or diagnose an illness is a costly process in most countries (via the FDA if you're in the US.) If you are able create your own 'formulation', and front the capital to achieve approval, you'll have a big leg-up, even against the original company.  Also, if it's more of a 'process' than an 'invention', you could be able to get a process patent, as Richardrj mentioned.  Speak with an intellectual property lawyer about these ideas and make sure (s)he signs an NDA.  They'll cost you about $300 an hour, but it sounds like it could be worth it.NByz (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In fairness, it was Shantavira who mentioned the process patent idea. --Richardrj talkemail 19:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have to get drugs approved for each illness you want to treat with them? It's it's already available over the counter then it already has the appropriate approvals. (Obviously, that is separate to it being approved for use by public health authorities, eg. in the UK it would need NICE approval before the NHS could pay for you to use it.) --20:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on the country, of course. In the US, companies may not promote uses of drugs for things they've not been tested for; on the other hand, off-label uses of drugs are generally up to the physician and the patient. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably there are a fair number of other people using the same medication. So either a good percentage of them have also discovered this serendipitous benefit and the manufacturer will learn about it or has already, or you've had an idiosyncratic reaction to it. In either case, you're outa luck. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bomb-bay
After all thats seen,heard and happening relentlessly, does demilitarizing pakistan and initiating a preemptive bombing the likes of afghanistan the only solution to weaken the forces of jihadi. And if it is an effective way of dealing with it, why dont the nations join hands and crush the evil of death forever atlest starting from the epicentre i.e pakistan. Whats holding the world and their leaders back.If they could do the same to Hitler with allied forces.Are we lacking in character,motive,vision or inspiration,how are we still allowing this inhuman slaughter of humans? ...Vikram79 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Demilitarizing Pakistan and initiating a preemptive bombing the likes of Afghanistan is most unlikely to lead to peace. Nations do not join together as one might hope they would because they have sectional interests & rivalries & history & are run by humans. There's not a great deal of point in seeking to equate Al Quada-like organisations with Hitler's Germany.  They'll not disappear if you take out this country or that country. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

But as there are solutions to all problems, its effective when we know the best of the lot, all i meant was, is this not the most efficient way of dealing with it after knowing pakistan is the safest haven for them and their undisputed training headquartersVikram79 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See Unintended consequence. Take out one ~stan and there are twenty more, or Yemen, or other places. But the real problem is that your analysis is way too simplistic. The root cause of terrorism is not the availability of caves and Madrasah. Your presumption that all problems have solutions is naive in the extreme. Old age is a problem, as is death; we have solutions for neither. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * May we also remind you that Hitler had invaded many countries before the Allies decided to do anything? A few hundred people dead is not usually (I mean, in the history of wars) sufficient to declare a war that will kill hundreds of thousands more (or maybe millions if India is involved). You need some sort of cost / benefit analysis, before you start a war: how many more will die, because of terrorists, if the war is not happening? How many people will die if war does happen? --Lgriot (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest you read Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction? Sheesh! George W. Bush isn't even out of office yet and you already want to top his cowboy mistakes. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How would demilitarizing the democratic state of Pakistan help the situation? Surely that would only increase the power of the region's non-governmental terrorist groups. I don't think the OP understands the nuance of the situation.  Plasticup  T / C  06:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Pakistan is a vast country with close to 200 million people, most of them peace-loving and harboring no ill will toward non-Pakistanis. Furthermore, Pakistan is not really at war with any other country.  Invading, occupying, and demilitarizing Pakistan would be an enormous undertaking, probably requiring more than 10 million troops.  Think of Germany in 1945.  That was a nation of about 60 million people, one-third of Pakistan's present population.  Unlike Pakistan, it was also a nation disillusioned with its leadership, sick of war, and with strong institutions that could be subordinated to the desire of the occupying Allies to bring peace and stability.   Still, it took millions of Allied troops to pacify Germany.  Think how much harder it would be to pacify Pakistan, whose inhabitants would understandably see themselves as innocent victims.  The invasion would likely turn tens of millions of now peaceable Pakistanis into guerillas and resistance fighters.  The nation lacks strong institutions, other than its military, that the occupying forces could harness to bring order to the country.   This would be Iraq at its worst multiplied many times.  Marco polo (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the OP was getting at this point: terrorist movements like this flourish in places with weak government control, as they did in Afghanistan under the Taliban and East Africa in the 1990s. Would the attacks of the past few days have happened if parts of Pakistan weren't available as a safe haven for groups like "Deccan Mujahideen"?  That isn't clear yet.  But in the long run, I think the most effective way to eliminate lawlessness in countries and the terrorism that it spawns is to bolster the governments in those places, not tear them down.  Unless the existing governing institutions are irrevocably screwed up, I think it is better to use them as a base, rather than knocking them over and starting over as was done in Iraq.  I believe that to be the case for Pakistan in particular since their government isn't completely wrong-minded.  TastyCakes (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly, there are two many people thinking on the lines of the OP in my country (India) today :-( 124.30.235.62 (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek in China!
How widely distributed are Western movies in the PRC? Specifically, let's suppose I am leaving for China for 7 weeks, but exactly 3 days before Star Trek XI opens in theatres here. Will I have to wait 7 weeks til I get back? Or will there be a theatre in China (we're going to Hanzhou most likely) that will screen it? Thanks! Duomillia (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on legality. There are a lot of foreigners and a decent amount of foreign influence in Hangzhou. Chances are there'll be a theatre showing it, but it may be dubbed into Chinese. If it is subtitled, you should be aware that going to the cinema in China is different to the West. It's not impolite to talk over the movie. If it's not in Hangzhou, Shanghai is only a couple of hours away.
 * On the other hand, once it's been released, you only have to wait a couple of days before pirated copies will be available on the street. It's not difficult to find them. You might get duped by them into buying a thing labeled with Star Trek and actually being something completely different, but you shouldn't pay more than about 5-10yuan for pirated stuff there anyway (locals pay about 5). You didn't hear that from me, anyway. Steewi (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the seller doesn't have a TV and DVD player available for you to test it on before buying, find a better seller. --Tango (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)