Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 August 17

= August 17 =

Punkah fan
Where can I find woodworking plans to build a punkah fan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrellschafer (talk • contribs) 00:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

horror movie
can anyone tell me some of the best horror movies?
 * The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions. You'd be much better off googling that question. Vespine (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My favorite horror movies of all time are Fahrenheit 9/11 and Recount. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The top five horror movies of all time based on voting at the IMDB are Psycho, Alien, The Shining, Aliens, and Les Diaboliques. The full top 50 (and the 10 worst!) can be found here. -Elmer Clark (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd. I definitely wouldn't call Les Diaboliques a horror flick, and Psycho is marginal. (I haven't seen the other three yet.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the "so-bad-it's-horrible" horror movie?--WaltCip (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider that IMDB list to be very weak, as far as "best horror movies" go. What is meant by "best" anyway? Most commercially successful? I don't think that's a very good way to rank horror movies because they are on the fringes of mainstream. Best story? Scariest effects? Creepiest plot? Makes you have nightmares? These are all subjective measures. The IMDB list is made of "horror movies" pulled from a ranting system in which all movies are voted on by "film buffs". I think the "old classics" are way over represented in this list, there are 8 movies from the 20s and eight from the 30s and 14 from the 60s. Were horror movies better back then? Maybe if you were old enough to enjoy them but for the vast majority of people born after then those movies are dated and irrelevant. Many of what are cosidered seminal horror movies from later generations are not represented; Hellraiser, Jacob's Ladder and Ringu being a few that spring immediately to mind. Nice however to see "Let the Right One In" there, as well as some of the other foreign films. I think this list would look very different if horror movie buffs of today were asked to rate their fav horror movies. Hence why I think questions like this should avoid being asked on the ref desk. Vespine (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can think of two horror flicks that I have ample respect for: Aliens, and Dawn of the Dead. Vranak (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

blank discs
why do blank blue ray discs cost so much more than dvd-rw discs which cost more than dvd-r? they all look the same to me! especially dvd-rw and dvd-r. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.54 (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Costlier technology? More required precision? The willingness of the industry to squeeze money out of early adopters? --Ouro (blah blah) 05:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As with the other recordables, unit cost will come down as demand drives supply up. That was true of recordable CD's, recordable videotapes, and even recordable audiotapes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As production costs are usually pretty low, it is likely the very high Research and Development costs that need to be recouped (though machinery will cost a fair bit). ny156uk (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, to address what I feel is a key point in the original poster's question, even though they look the same, they really aren't. At a glance, you can't tell a CD from a Blu-Ray disc, but even though they both look like shiny discs, they have vast structural differences. It's a little like asking why a brown paper bag containing nuggets of gold costs more than a brown paper bag containing nuggets of lead, and the answer is simply that the price isn't based on what the product looks like on the surface; it's what's inside it that counts. Without going too much into the technical details, the information on an optical disc is stored as tiny, tiny indentations, known as pits, on the surface. On a CD, these pits are really small; on a Blu-Ray disc, they are -- to use a technical term -- hella small. That level of precision requires newer and more expensive technology not only in the reading and writing of the disc, but also in its manufacture to begin with. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking his question at face value, that's a fair answer. It's just not the whole story. The price will come down over time, as unit sales increase and as research costs are recouped. Think of the typical pre-recorded CD, which costs the same or often less in sticker price than it did when introduced about 25 years ago, which means that its real price, adjusting for inflation, is way much lower. Such is the case with pre-recorded DVD's, and will be for Blu-Rays eventually. Likewise with recordable media of various kinds. Pre-recorded VHS tapes used to cost close to 100 dollars and had a limited market. E.T. introduced the 19.95 price (later mimicked by DVD's) and the bottom dropped out of that market, as demand increased exponentially. Again, likewise with Blu-Ray. As more people buy, prices will drop. And as with the demise of pre-recorded VHS tapes, once a movie comes out only on Blu-Ray, you'll know the end is near for pre-recorded DVD's. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note another thing which Blurays have is a compulsory scratch resistant layer which again adds to the cost. Beyond the difficult making them, the cost of developing the dye is often also cited as one of the factors which make developing new optical media expensive. I agree though that the cost will come down over time although would note the question is primarily about recordable discs not pre-recorded ones which add a whole other layer of complexity. BTW in case the OP is unaware, CDRs and DVD-/+Rs used to cost more then recordable Blurays do now Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Driving a car that has not been driven for a while
When I left for vacation, there was a half-tank full of gas in my car. The car has not been driven for 6 weeks. Is it safe to drive it again without performing any safety checks or something? Acceptable (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How old is the car? If it is not very old (10+ years old) I would say six weeks wasn't a long time at all to leave a car. If you had said six months, or a year on the other hand.. Just to be safe it's easy to check the tyres, radiator fluid and engine oil, and test the breaks before you go at any decent speed. I'm not an expert, maybe a mechanic can confirm, but I'm pretty sure six weeks is not long at all for a car. Vespine (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the OPs car doesn't have any breaks. One should certainly test the brakes. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The car is 5 years old. Acceptable (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then that proves it doesn't have breaks. "Breaks" is what they called them until about 1880-1900.  --Anon, 20:29 UTC, August 17, 2009.

Start her up, see how she's running and like Vespine says taking it easy till you're sure nothing's wrong. You could check the oil and tyre pressure (a good idea at any time to be fair) but can't see 6 weeks being long. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your main issue may be that your battery has lost power, particularly if it has had to run any alarm/security systems during your absence. After a two-week trip without our car, I found that our car's battery was dead, but all it needed was a jump start, and it was fine.  Marco polo (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably the only thing that should definitely be checked is the tyres (spare also).86.197.144.53 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)DT


 * And you may find that the brakes squeal a bit as you drive off due to a film of rust on the discs. Just keep depressing the footbrake whilst in motion to get rid of it. You may also find that your handbrake/parking brake has stuck in the "on" position. That too can usually be freed by driving away slowly whilst pulling/pressing the operating lever intermittently/ And don't forget to check the windscreen washer fluid in case it was low when you went away. 92.23.193.35 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. What about gas vapours? Could the gasoline that was in my tank have evaporated and cause some sort of havoc? Acceptable (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Extremely unlikely. It's possible that you've got a hole in your gas tank (which would allow said evaporation and badness), but that's completely unrelated to letting the car sit for a month.  The tank itself is a closed system, and 6 weeks is far too short a time to be concerned with the gas deteriorating. &mdash; Lomn 14:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So I gave it a try; the car starts properly, but as I go to drive it, the back wheel will not spin. The car refuses to go forwards and backwards. The parking brake was applied when I left for vacation, could it have somehow rusted? But even then, before when it was working properly, the car can drive even with the parking brake on. Acceptable (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you take it out of neutral? Sorry, I have to ask.  Googlemeister (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Back to my seized brake response earlier - please permit a potentially stupid question - is the car in gear? If it is, and still won't move, is the car driven by the rear wheels or the front - or is it maybe a 4 wheel drive? And in any event, I still suspect your parking brake has seized on and the car needs to be FORCED to move when I would expect the brake/s to release. Try rocking it back and forth under power. If still no movement, I think you are looking at calling in a repair service.92.23.193.35 (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The car is in gear. Yeah, the parking brake is probably seized. Acceptable (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah - that's a pretty common result. As '92 said - release the brake lever and rock the car gently back and forth...it'll probably release pretty quickly. In general - don't leave the parking brake on when you plan to leave the car for a long time - and try to park it on level ground. SteveBaker (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another cause for one rear wheel freezing is the parking brake cables rusting into their guides. (Keep in mind that in the driving brake system, pedal force is transferred to the brake system by hydraulics, whilst in the parking brake system the force is usually transferred by good old-fashioned steel cables.)
 * Thus, even though you release the parking brake lever, the cable only releases as far back as a bad guide, and the rust is keeping the tension on the line back to the brakes themselves.
 * This is a somewhat more difficult problem to address; if its at all possible to get under the car and trace the cable, you can much more easily rule this in or out. Good luck! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a possibility - but the car was only parked for 6 weeks - if the parking brake was working OK before, then it's unlikely that the cable suddenly corroded to that degree. However, if the weight of the car leans onto the brake shoes for 6 weeks, the things can get wedged against the drum, and they do unstick fairly easily. SteveBaker (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

blogs
Hello wikipedians I'm thinking of starting a new blog but I'm wondering if there's such a thing as a blog that enables me to share the URLs with friends yet can be kept safe from googlestalkers even if the blog contains specific names. Side question, if there are, are they any good? Thank you. --142.132.6.29 (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Using the MediaWiki software, it is possible to set up a "private wiki" with restricted viewing: mw:Manual:Preventing_access. Provided only your friends have accounts, your blog would be invisible to search engines. Erik9 (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the cost, requirements or procedures needed to start a personal wiki? --142.132.6.29 (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Trust me, do NOT set up a private Wiki to use as a blog. There are a million better and easier ways to blog out there. Check out Wordpress.com, Blogspot.com, and sites like that. Free blogs, specialized software, already set up for you, can be made private very easily. Using a Mediawiki to blog is like... I don't know, trying to do something relatively simple and using an enormous and complicated tool to do so. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-noindex-behavior/ and http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35303
 * For more detailed info. please ask on the computing desk.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That approach will work so long as your "googlestalkers" restrict themselves to Google, but should they switch to Yahoo!, which doesn't fully respect the NOINDEX meta tag, you're out of luck... The only effective method of preventing indexing by any search engine is password-restricted viewing. Erik9 (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please forgive my internet cluelessness, but how do I do such a thing? --142.132.6.29 (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously - ask on the computer desk - it's a computer question, you'll get a full how to there if you need it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Social networking sites often allow you to publish notes which can be restricted as to who can view them. Would that do what you want? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * sites.google.com, ironically, can be kept private from "googlestalkers" with a checkbox. You specifically send invites to the list of people who you want to have access to the site, and mark them either as co-owners, contributors, or readers only.  The checkbox can mark the site private and shared just between those people; or you can change it so the site is visible to the whole world.  It's easy to edit the pages though is not a wiki.  Tempshill (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wowowow! What a bunch of waaay more complicated answers than the OP needs. On any of the free blogging sites (WordPress, Blogspot, Livejournal, etc.), you should be able to set up password protected blogs that only friends can view. It's the standard approach..., it's very easy, it's a basic feature of any of those sites to have private postings... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have a Livejournal account and it offers a RANGE of privacy options regarding who can see what. I love it I'm addicted to it. Besides my regular journal which I partially share with a select group of people, I have a totally private journal I used for taking notes. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

going from South orange county to Santa Monica avoiding the 10 Fwy
Is this possible to get to Santa Monica main place without taking the 10 Fwy? to just via the 405 straight? Then which exit should I get off if I don't want the take the 10?--69.229.39.33 (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Might this question get a better answer from one of the automatic mapping tools like Google Maps?   Clearly there are dozens of alternative routes, depending on how comfortable you are taking surface streets vs. freeway.  Nimur (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If for whatever reason, you aren't comfortable using online mapping services, the answer is, yes, you can take the 405 to Santa Monica without taking the 10. Just stay on 405 one exit past the I-10.  The next exit is Santa Monica Boulevard.  After you exit the freeway, turn left on Santa Monica Blvd, which will take you into downtown Santa Monica.  Marco polo (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Pacific Coast Highway, good 'ol California 1, is a fine alternative, if you have the time. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

to get from Tustin to Ventura via the 405, avoiding the 101 passing Downtown LA?
If I'm ging from Tustin to Ventura if i want to avoid taking the 101 passing Downtown LA and if I want to via the 405 will it be faster to take the 5 to the 55 to the 405 to the 101, or take the 5 to the 22 to the 405 to the 101 or take the Jamboree Blvd. south straight to the 405 to the 101? Which one would be the most convienient if I want to eventually take the 405 to Ventura?--69.229.39.33 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on exactly where in Tustin you are starting from. From some parts of Tustin (north of the 5 and west of Newport Blvd), it actually makes more sense to take the 55 north (instead of the 5) to the 22.  In any case, Google Maps recommends taking the 22 to the 405, so unless you happen to know that the 22 will be stalled with traffic at the time when you are leaving, that is probably the most efficient route.  Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Universities Near Stockholm, Sweden: Undergraduate Programs in English?
Are there any universities in or near Stockholm, Sweden that offer undergraduate programs in Business and/or Engineering, that are conducted in English? - Vikramkr (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but if I recall correctly, Swedish Universities do require nopn-native students to have proficiency in Swedish. Your local Swedish consulate may be able to give you more specific advice, as may the Swedish Institute (website at http://www.si.se/English/ ) DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A friend of mine (who speaks virtually zero Swedish) participated in an exchange program at Lund University, where he took some engineering and business classes, in English. I'm not sure if it is possible to obtain your entire degree in English, but it's worth checking out.  Here is their exchange-student webpage.  Lund, Sweden is not very far from Stockholm (by American standards of distance, at least).  You can try contacting Srvora on his talk page, too; he will gladly share his experiences.  Nimur (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would just point out that Lund is 375 miles from Stockholm. I suppose that is not far by Texas standards of distance.  It is about a 7-hour drive without traffic.  By standards of distance in the Northeastern US, that is pretty far.  Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm Nimur's friend who studied at Lund University. Marco polo is correct in that Lund is quite far from Stockholm. It is an hour by train east of Copenhagen though, and 4 to 5 hours by train from Stockholm. As far as studies go, I found that some courses have English support, and some are not. The course bulletin of the university stated which courses would be offered in English. I believe this is done in support of the study abroad program agreement (called ERASMUS?) that many European countries have adopted. I took an engineering course in Lund, and while the primary lectures were given in Swedish, the professor taught a separate class in English for us; all the labs, homeworks, exams, and textbook was in English too. Other courses I took where entirely taught in English. Saket (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, very few entry level undergraduate programmes at Swedish Unis are accesible for English speakers. As the levels progress, more and more lectures, books etc. tend to be in English. Since the Bologna reform, almost all Swedish Uni programmes are organised on a 3+2 year basis, with the 2 latter years being a Master's Programme. These Master's Programmes are far more likely to be outright in English, and many Unis offer students from abroad to apply to them without any sort of exchange student deals. They are commonly labelled as International Master's Programmes, or similar. See e.g. Linköping Universitys' site: []. Other Unis near Stockholm that may be interesting are Uppsala University, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm University, Stockholm School of Economics, as well as Mälardalen College and Södertörn College./Coffeeshivers (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)