Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 June 13

= June 13 =

Refusing the fill out the census
Is it a crime?--162.84.158.192 (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * C'mon now. hydnjo (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at  Xenon54 (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In some sense, the biggest "crime" is to yourself, by contributing to your state potentially being under-represented in the House. Anyone who tells you not to participate, is operating from a political agenda that amounts to helping you shoot yourself in the foot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The question was about legal rather than moral or civic responsibility. So,


 * Do I have to talk to the census taker?


 * Yes. Your participation in the 2010 Census is vital and required by law, (Section 221, of Title 13 of the U.S. Code). However, rather than rely on criminal charges, the Census Bureau is very successful in getting participation by explaining the importance of the questions we ask and how the information benefits our communities.     hydnjo (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The message seems to be that they are not going to arrest people for not filling out the form. But that misses the overall point. It's important to complete the form. If someone fails to do so, based on political propaganda, they are hurting themselves and their fellow citizens. That needs to be pointed out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it does and thank you for doing that :-) hydnjo (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We just went through this a few weeks ago. Dismas |(talk) 03:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand the part about representation in the House of Representatives, but the census also asks a lot of other questions which are unrelated to that purpose. The Christian Science Monitor had an article criticizing this on privacy grounds. 75.57.243.88 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Be very suspicious of organizations that don't want you to answer certain questions. The lack of those answers most likely supports their agenda in some way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Census short form is extremely short this decade. It's ten questions.  They basically boil down to Name,Sex, Age, Race, and Do you own this house?
 * You are required by law to answer all ten questions.  If you don't they'll send someone around to ask you in person.  If you still refuse to cooperate and don't answer they'll keep trying, and eventually they may send someone around with a cop.  Whether they bother sending a cop or not (And I don't know how common that is) there is a fine for not participating.
 * For what it's worth, I agree with Bugs, I would be very suspicious of anyone trying to encourage large groups of people to not participate or to not participate honestly. Regardless of their stated motives, They are almost certainly trying to taint the results. APL (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The questions on the extended forms are harder to fathom. In the 2000 census a friend of mine was selected for the full form, and it asked info about bank accounts and times of day they were home, which sounds like info of more use to criminals than the government. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your friend was joking with you.
 * I got the long form in 2000 and didn't remember anything like that. So, of course, I looked it up.  The 2000 long form is available here :
 * APL (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to have quite the things my friend listed; are you sure there is only one long form ? It does still ask some rather personal Q's, though, like if you have any emotional problems and what your various sources of income are (why can't they use tax records for this ?). StuRat (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'd rather answer a question twice than have them digging through my tax records. APL (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You raise an interesting point. I was involved in a discussion once with someone from the Finland Talk:Census who mentioned how they were conducted via databases in Finland (since 1990 evidentally) and how using forms seemed stupid and inefficient to them. I pointed out that I doubt many people in such countries would feel that way, and in fact I strongly suspect many of them would be horrified by the idea of the government making ways to easily query and collate the info from their databases. Your comment is of course in line with that. (I also pointed out some of the details collected may not be in databases like ethnicity and religion and languages and illegal immigrants.) It seems the Dutch also did conduct a virtual census in 2001 and apparently they plan to do it again in 2011, our article says they abandoned normal censuses in 1991 for privacy reasons. It seems they do something like that in Census as well.
 * BTW, is it really that surprising that a government may be interested in getting an idea of the emotional health of their population? Also beyond the the likely concerns many would have with tax records, isn't the idea of censuses to get complete information? In other words similar to illegal immigrants, wouldn't they be interested in income that you aren't paying tax for as well?
 * Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't anybody who lies on their tax forms, risking massive penalties, also be likely to lie on the census form, where any penalties are unlikely ? StuRat (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In Australia, the Census of Population and Housing is collected under the Census and Statistics Act 1905, which allows the Statistician to issue a directive instructing a person to fill out their form. Failure to comply can result in a fine, which in turn can theoretically lead to prosecution but I don't know of any cases that have actually gone that far (and like the US Bureau of Census, the ABS tends to rely more on the carrot than the stick when it comes to making people answer surveys). Interestingly, knowingly giving false information when directed to respond results in a penalty equivalent to refusing to respond for 10 days, but given the levels of confidentiality that are employed I have no idea how that would even be policed. The Australian census form is a lot longer than the US one, but developments are being made to reduce the burden (such as the idea of having multiple long forms so only, say, 1/3 of the questions are asked of a particular person). Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 01:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Book for bullshitting at parties
Hey gang--

I'm looking for a book which I hope exists. (If it doesn't, someone oughta write it)

I want this book to be full of 1-5 sentences about a whole slew of topics. The idea is, that if you're out-and-about and something comes up in conversation, cocktail party style not an in-depth discussion---you'll be able to make a passing reference to the topic.

So it's a book that has a tiny bit of relevant information on a lot of things.

Ideally, it would be written humorously--but that's not a must.

Any suggestions?209.6.54.248 (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you heard of Wikipedia? Read it and you should have no trouble at all.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have exactly what you want. It's called Cocktail Party Cheat Sheets, by mentalfloss.com.  They are also a magazine and publish several other works, all trivia and all humorous.  They are exactly as you request. Aaronite (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll also add that you should check out Uncle John's Bathroom Readers. They have a little bit of everything, and there are dozens of volumes.  I'm a bit of a trivia nut, actually, and this is almost all of what I buy when I buy books. Aaronite (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Related is the Guinness Book of World Records, which was allegedly first published to settle disputes at pubs. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Or try the "How to bluff in (various subjects)" series --Artjo (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Smugopedia has some potential. 213.122.51.118 (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Potter had several volumes of general advice (Gamesmanship, Lifemanship, and One-Upmanship). 75.57.243.88 (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a review of a book with exactly that aim. The review's pretty damning, but YMMV. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd also recommend reading up on current events before attending such an event. Nothing marks you as an idiot quite so much as saying "Yea, he's awesome" in response to "What do you think about BP ?". StuRat (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

if you have a BA in Culinary Arts how long would it take to become a pyschiatrist?
Thats what I will get first, before becoming a psychiatrist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.10.177 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK, psychiatrists have to first qualify as a medical doctor, then take a specialism in psychiatry. So I'm afraid the UK answer is 8 years. Oh and as far as I am aware you'd have to fund it yourself as you'd have used up your allocation of funding on your first degree, so you wouldn't be eligible for a student loan for example. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP address locates to the US. I think it is probably about the same, though. I think in the US, you usually do a 4 year regular degree and then 4 years of med schools - a key question is whether a Culinary Arts degree would be enough to get you into a med school or whether you need something more scientific (in the UK, most people do a ~6 year medical degree as their first degree and that's it, but you can do a 4 year version if you already have a degree, although some med schools will only accept a science degree). I'm not sure how long it takes before you can specialise, but it's at least 2 years in the UK. So, in summary, it's going to be at least 5 or 6 years, possibly as much as 9 or 10. And, of course, that's all assuming you good enough to get there - you need excellent grades to get into med school, whatever the country, and even that isn't enough (you may need to take entrance exams, and demonstrate commitment through extracurricular activities, etc., etc.). --Tango (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in the field of mental health, you might also consider clinical psychology or other mental health professions. Gwinva (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Murchison Promontory
A friend and I are toying with the idea of riding motorcycles from the absolute northern tip of North America (Murchison Promontory) to the absolute southern tip of South America (Cape Froward). Cape Froward looks relatively easy to get to - there's a major town nearby and I've read of people who have trekked to the south tip from there.

Murchison is a different kettle of fish. I google it and see nothing but geographic/scientific stuff. Is it at all possible to get there, by any means, let alone by motorcycle? I understand it's well above the Arctic Circle, but we would be planning to go in summer. And northern Alaska is just as wild and remote, yet there's settlements and roads up there. Aren't there oil rigs in the northern seas and islands? I know it would be a near-impossible challenge, but surely there's some way? 113.165.143.37 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You might try asking on the talk page of User:Cambridge Bay Weather, who knows something about travel up there. To the best of my limited knowledge, the main way that people get to such remote locations in the north is by air. I doubt that you could get anywhere near the place on motorcycles, with no tracks to drive the things on and nowhere to refuel. I could be wrong, though. Deor (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time a question like this came up, someone mentioned there that might also be issues with the Darién Gap. 75.57.243.88 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Darien Gap is virtually impassable. People have made it through with motorcycles, but it can easily take months, because there are no roads, it is thick jungle, and there are numerous rivers, surrounded by wetlands, to cross, or to make long diversions around. In addition, the Darien Gap is a haven for mostly leftist guerillas battling the Colombian government. An outsider trying to pass through on a motorcycle could be a tempting target as an attention- or ransom-drawing hostage, or alternatively as a candidate for execution as a spy.  Because I value my life, I would stay away.  By comparison, the Murchison Promontory is relatively simple.  It would be extremely difficult to reach by motorcycle, not only because there are no roads, but also because the land surface in that region is hardly ever solid.  In winter of course it is covered in snow. When the snow melts, it becomes a sea of mud.  I think that parts of it would dry out by September or so, but there are extensive areas that remain marshy all summer until they freeze in autumn and quickly regain snow cover.  Marco polo (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting there is easy but expensive. You would need to charter an aircraft, probably out of Yellowknife, and a Twin Otter is best. If you go down the Murchison Promontory you need to keep to the east side due to the two large fiords from the west. The other problem is the number of lakes and rivers. And that is fairly hilly country which will cause just as many problems as the muskeg. However, a motorbike used from Yellowknife going south isn't going to work up there. You'll need a four wheel All-terrain vehicle. For many years I ran a couple of these and they worked great. Some people use Off-road machines but the narrow tyres can cause problems. It may not be too muddy but it will be marshy, boggy and wet. A major problem is the refuelling. You would need to have fuel and food caches all the way down to Yellowknife, via Taloyoak, Nunavut, but there's nothing in a line between them. There's little point in going down Hudson Bay to Churchill, Manitoba because the first road is much further south than that. I would think that your best bet is instead of a motorbike trip all the way is to do a combined snowmobile/motorbike journey starting in the winter. You could go down from Murchison to Taloyoak then to Gjoa Haven, Nunavut, then Cambridge Bay, Nunavut and down to Kugluktuk, Nunavut. People do drive from Taloyaoak to Gjoa and once in a while from there to Cambridge. The Cambridge to Yellowknife section is not a common trip but it has been done. You would get one of these and could carry fuel and food reducing the number of food caches required. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. A major factor in the appeal of this trip is that it would be done entirely on the same motorcycles; if Murchison proves impossible (which it sounds like it will) we will probably start in northern Alaska. That doesn't quite have the same zing to it as the travelling from one extreme point to another, but I don't think even the best bikes from BMW or KTM would be able to deal with Arctic bogland. Out of curiosity, though - if one HAD to try to do it - which would be the best time of year to be up there? I assumed June or July, but if we're talking terrain rather than climate (which will be freezing any time) is early autumn the best bet for "solid" ground? (By the way, I was already aware of the Darien Gap, but unlike Murchison I've heard of people traversing it, which is good enough for me. If it can be done, it can be done.) 113.165.138.150 (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * People have also survived jumping off Golden Gate Bridge so it can be done, but it is still pretty much suicidal. Googlemeister (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark_Beaumont missed the Darién Gap. Does this count as cheating?  The BBC program about his journey was good viewing (IMHO of course!).  Perhaps his experience might be of interest to you. --TrogWoolley (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not autumn. It will be very wet, snow one day then melts then rains. July/August is probably the best time. I was also thinking that you could make contact in Taloyoak and find out when people there think the driving conditions would be best. One other possibility would be March/April and drive down the west coast to Taloyoak. But then you will need something that you can start at -30 C and I'm not sure what tyre wear would be like. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

daniel o'leary philadelphia irish mob
Any additional information available on Daniel O'Leary Philadelphia Irish Mob is requested —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marycarmenpiglet (talk • contribs) 12:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably you have already consulted the rather short Daniel O'Leary (mobster) article, which lists one book of relevance in its 'Further reading' section? I ask only because you didn't link it in your question. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Casino chips
How does a casino regulate production of its bettig chips to prevent black market production.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 13:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In much the same way that governments control production and limit counterfeiting of currency: . The companies that manufacture casino chips employ many of the same techniques used in other tamper- and counterfeit-resistant products like stamps, cheques, banknotes, credit cards, and lottery tickets (indeed, they're often the same companies).  Precisely matching the weight, shape, colour, embossing, etc. of chips is nontrivially challenging.  Middle- and large-denomination chips will contain unique identifying markers, like serial number and (more recently) RFID tags.  Finally, the same ubiquitous surveillance that the casinos use to catch cheaters (and to eject any competent card counters) can also be used to identify individuals who show up at the casino to cash in chips without actually winning any games.  See also casino token.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My question was directed more towards how the casinos control the companies to whom they outsource chip production from making undocumented production runs, but I suppose serial numbers and RFID tags in the chips would make undocumented chips impossible to pass off, assuming that these identification mechanisms were always scanned.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 13:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I imagine that the answer to that question is the same as the answer to the question of "How do you ensure that any supplier is honest?" The usual answer is, work with companies that have a good track record; be prepared to sue the hell out of them if they screw up; make sure everyone involved has lots of the right types of insurance, just in case; and cooperate with police investigations if fraudulent tokens are produced.
 * It's worth noting that the companies which produce casino tokens often also produce things like stamps, stock and bond certificates, cheques, lottery tickets, and even coins and banknotes. (Countries will sometimes outsource the production of their currency to a private company with experience in secure printing, rather than have to deal with the hassle of maintaining their own equipment.)  Individual employees will be closely monitored, and production areas will be suitably secured.  These companies are used to dealing with products worth thousands or millions of dollars, and have security to match. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In some places, such Casino Niagara (and other casinos operated by the OLG), no chips are used; all transactions are done on special cards. Less sexy, but more secure. Matt Deres (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a long section of the film Ocean's Thirteen which shows how casino chips are produced. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I should mention that fooling the casino is far more difficult than fooling some random person on the street, so if somebody says "Hey buddy, I'm in a hurry, will you give me $100 for my $200 in chips for this casino ?"...it's probably counterfeit chips. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick question on football notation
Albania vs Slovenia game result is listed as " 0:1 (0:0) "; see. Doesn't appear to be overtime or shootout, what does the extra (0:0) mean? DaHorsesMouth (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Edit, added link.


 * Score at half time, perhaps? --Tango (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. For some reason the half-time scores are not given in all the matches, but that is presumably just an admin error or quirk of whoever was updating the site.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They've listed half-time scores for all the matches where a goal was scored. Where a match finished 0-0, it's superfluous to state that it was also 0-0 at half-time. Warofdreams talk 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You must be meaning Algeria instead of Albania. And, the Entertainment refdesk is perhaps a better place to ask World Cup-related questions - there have recently been, and surely there will be, many of those on this page. --Магьосник (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be "that page". --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe not. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   22:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

F1 flashing lights
Why do Formula One cars have flashing lights on the back? And why do they come on when they are travelling at a fixed speed down the pit lane? Chevy monte  carlo  18:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They are warning lights so that cars behind them know that car is going well below racing speed. --Tango (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, so I presume that's why they flash in the rain as well, because they're going slower? Chevy  monte  carlo  15:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See also 14.5 Rear light and Safety Equipment which says that the driver can also turn it on and off at will. Nanonic (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about filming
I recently spent eight hours at the filming of a scene in an upcoming indie film, which will actually take about five minutes, at the most. I figure this is common for feature-length films, which last for several hours and spend several years in production. But then there's TV series like Star Trek, Frasier, Emmerdale or Ein Fall für Zwei, which show an episode lasting almost one hour every single week. If it takes about a hundred times as long to film a scene as how long it will actually last, then how do these TV series ever get their episodes filmed? It must be awfully stretching work for both the production crew and the actors. Don't they ever even get to sleep? Is there something I'm missing here, or how can the episodes be produced so frequently and for so long? J I P &#124; Talk 19:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, many of these shows feature an ensemble cast, which rarely appears together in a scene. So they're broken up into several units filming concurrently.  Secondly they're mostly studio work, and the same few studios (about 90% of a typical Friends episode took place in the same three basic locations). Pretty quickly everyone knows how to light a given scene, where the actors should walk and where they should stand, and how to photograph that. Scripting is much the same - things like Friends had more than a dozen scriptwriters - once everyone has the hang of how the characters behave and their interpersonal dynamics work, pretty much everyone can write anyone. It's the same for the actors - once they've done a character for a while, they need much less rehearsal, and there's much less worrying about "what's my motivation". Some shows film out-of-order (that is, they film all the scenes in a given set, for several shows, back to back). The end case, production-line soaps like Neighbours, can churn out 10 hours of product every month. It's all economies of scale. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Which, incidentally, makes Lost quite remarkable (and very expensive) because so much of it was filmed outdoors, and (because of their character-at-a-time flashback structure) a greater variety of "special" locations (even if they're all in Hawaii). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But the flashbacks often include only one main character, which means it can be done in parallel with other filming very easily. --Tango (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Babylon 5 went even further, and was apparently ahead of the industry in that the scripts for each episode were completed a month or so before the episode was filmed (the usual practice is that they're still being changed at the last minute). That apparently took quite a bit of discipline, but the benefit was that it allowed filming parts of several episodes concurrently.  E.g. if there was a special set or costume that was going to be used in several episodes, they'd film all the scenes using it in one session, saving a lot of preparation time compared to re-doing all the make-up, lighting, etc. for each episode.  Star Trek's advice to would-be scriptwriters was to write "bottle shows" (episodes set entirely aboard the ship) with no non-regular cast, for their initial submissions.  Such episodes could be filmed using pre-existing sets, resulting in less production time and lower budgets. 75.57.243.88 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Story outlines for ongoing soaps seem to be written months in advance. It's noteworthy that when an actor leaves at short notice, while their actual character "goes to Brisbane" (the purgatory of the Neighbours universe) they're replaced by a broadly similar character ("grumpy old man" with "grumpy old woman", "cute perky girl" with "feisty cute girl" etc.), to minimise the disruption to the scripting treadmill. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thing I forgot - there are lots of economies of scale that arise from shows being made by a production company that makes lots of TV shows and movies. Below the line staff and extras can be drawn from a central pool, as are scenery elements and props. So if you're filming your once-off film and you need ten minutes in "wacky new york apartment", you need to get all that stuff yourselves - but if you work for a big production company in Hollywood you go to an internal website, click a few links, and two guys deliver a perfectly acceptable "wacky new york apartment".  People who care about such stuff track these props for fun, and note (hypothetical example) a table lamp that featured in Friends was also in Columbo 20 years previously and later in the Starfleet Admiral's office. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, here's a look as the Wilhelm-scream of prop-masters - a newspaper. Matt Deres (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also a difference between filming styles. Most movies use a single-camera setup, where a single camera is placed, and much effort is made to get the lighting "just right". Moving the camera or changing the shot leads to a lot of downtime as all the lights are re-adjusted to the new camera angle. That 15 second conversation may be shot 3 times, once for the wide angle view, once for the closeup on actor A, and once for the closeup on actor B, with 10-15 minutes between each shot to change things around. Many television shows (especially sitcoms) use a multiple-camera setup. There the lights are set up to be even, and the three cameras can get the wide angle and the two closeups all at the same time. Stereotypically, movie directors also tend more toward the "auteur" end of the spectrum, demanding multiple takes to get the scene "perfect", whereas television directors, may be more likely to call it "good enough" after one or two takes. -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you turn the TV on randomly, you can tell what sort of programme (eg. soap, sitcom, weekly drama, drama mini-series, feature etc) you've hit within 30 seconds by the quality (ie. nature) of the work: lighting, art direction, editing, closeup/wide angle variation, camera angles, camera movement, set, props, dialogue delivery, makeup/costume, length of take, actor stance & movement (etc). The easiest/quickest/cheapest way to film a scene would be on a simple, three-sided indoor set, fixed cameras, full lighting, actors standing still, in front of camera, all in same shot, delivering dialogue in one take, however it comes, straight off script without rehearsal.  In such a style, actors don't try anything complicated, and you get standard "worried look", "angry face", "I'm very earnest" expression.  They read lines, regurgitate them, move on to next scene, which involves same set, same lighting, same camera angles.... The higher the production values, the fewer hours you get  Eg. soaps might air an hour a day; top quality drama series might have 13 45 min episodes a year.  Gwinva (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * An indie film might be made by less experienced directors than a commercial filming of a commercial motion picture, made for TV movie or a TV series, where there is a much higher pay scale for the talent and the crafts. If a TV movie or TV drama went over budget, they would fire the director, If an indie low budget director wastes time, what are the consequences? Many people on the set are likely to be low paid/unpaid volunteers. I watched a made for TV film being made, and several scenes were done in one take each. Amateurs might actually burn more "film" (or digital storage medium)  per minute of the program. Edison (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Another factor is that the actors become comfortable in their roles, and no longer need multiple takes with direction in-between to achieve the desired result. I would imagine that some of these benefits apply to a movie sequel, as well, as long as they use the same cast, sets, etc., from the first movie. StuRat (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

British court and wigs
TV shows about the British court show the judge and the barristers wearing cloaks and wigs all the time. I suppose this is because of hysterical reasons going back to the middle ages. But is this actually still the case today, or just something TV has made us believe? I've never actually been in a court of law, much less in the United Kingdom, so all reference I have is the TV shows. And if that's indeed the case, then what are the rules about who gets to wear what colour of cloak and which kind of wig? J I P &#124; Talk 19:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Much of this is covered in the court dress article. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But in short, yes, judges and (in more serious cases) lawyers almost always wear robes and/or wigs. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  ballotbox  ─╢ 19:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the judge is robed then the counsel will be, regardless of the severity of the case. --Tango (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite right—I think I mean the other way round. (As in, Supreme Court Justices just wear normal suits, but the lawyers wear robes anyway.) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  You may go away now.  ─╢ 19:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's not the severity of the case, but just the superiority of the court. Once you reach a certain level you're above such things as robes and wigs! --Tango (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yes, they really do wear them (with a few exceptions, in particular cases involving young children that might be intimidated by all the weird clothes). It was standard formal wear at one time, but only courts have kept it. See Court_dress for the details of who wears what. --Tango (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, they're called gowns, (though we haven't an article about gownsin this sense) rather than cloaks or robes. You might use 'robes' in a more general sense - the whole assemblage of a judge's attire - but the particular item is a gown. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't some early US president like John Adams or Thomas Jefferson compare a  judge wearing a wig to a "rat peering from beneath a bale of cotton" in recommending that US judges ditch the wig? Did British judges really put a black hankie on top of the wig before pronouncing a death sentence as I saw in an old movie? Edison (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. See Black Cap.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   23:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We have court dress in Canada too, except for the wigs. Check out these guys for the Supreme Court version. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, those bright red, fur-trimmed outfits are for ceremonial purposes only &mdash; when they're actually at work (as our article notes), the justices wear black robes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So if you are led in and see the judge with a black handkerchief (the "Black Cap") on top of his wig, you might as well make a break for it, without waiting for the verdict to be read (not presented as legal advice). Edison (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he would put the black cap on until he starts speaking the sentence. --Viennese Waltz talk 08:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But to get back to the OP, we are talking about British Court dress and it should be made clear that there is no longer a capital punishment sentence anywhere in British law (except historically for wilful fireraisng in a naval dockyard and also for treason - neither of which has been sentenced in living memory). So it follows that there is no "Black Cap". 92.30.101.166 (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The death penalty has been aboliched for all offences in the UK now. See Death penalty in the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And, on a minor point, the last execution for treason in the UK was William Joyce in 1946 so, while some years ago, it's not beyond "living memory". Warofdreams talk 12:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While Joyce was hanged after being convicted for treason, Theodore Schurch was hanged the following day for treachery - a similar offence created for technical reasons in WW2 which was essentially part of the ambit of treason. However the 'black cap' is still part of the full costume of a Judge. It was apparently not used during the suspension of capital punishment in 1948 when all prisoners condemned to death were reprieved, although it was used in the Isle of Man as recently as 1992. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Duncan - I wasn't aware of that development. 92.30.101.166 (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "because of hysterical reasons"? LOL that's so historical! -- 109.193.27.65 (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)