Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 August 18

= August 18 =

Book publishers
What is up with them producing more then one book on a particular subject (human body and etc along those lines)? Then doing one complete book? Here is my review for DK Complete Human Body Book and Pregnant Book.

Glad to see that DK also finally did a book and CD-DVD ROM on this subject (Pregnant Body Book, 2011) as well. At the same time wish they covered this in their previous book and CD-DVD ROM. It also goes for their competitors as well. Instead of doing three separate (Body, `07, Brain, `09, Complete Human Body, `10) books and CDs-DVDs ROMs on all of this. As for me went ahead, got this book because I found its way easier to keep track of and etc along those then the other way around. As for the separate books I donated them to one of the local hospitals in my area medical library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I gather that your question is why publishers sometimes publish more than one book on the same topic. The answer, I think, is because they believe, for one reason or another, that they can sell them. Looie496 (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Companies that produce book series rarely have one set project manager for the entire series or one continuous philosophy over time. The company's interest is profit, not consistency. Books which sell get reprinted, popular books of yesteryear get second editions or different versions, books with little demand demand go out of print or with little projected demand are never printed. DK is a great publisher for the affordability of its books, if nothing else. A friend who worked for Time Life said that series like the Time Life Mysteries of the Unknown where a new book was to be shipped every other month might be sold to subscribers when only two or three of the volumes had actually been written. Time Life stopped printing book series, disappointing people who didn't have a whole set once the Aol, merger went through. The bottom line is that if you want a complete consistent series buy one whose volumes have all already been printed. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for both of your answers to my question. Yup, you got it right, looie.--Jessica A Bruno 05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs)


 * Seeing the above review gets me thinking that there should be reviews of reviews, on the principle of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Such secondary reviews could usefully point out, for example, substandard English written by a book reviewer. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Diesel cash vs. credit payment
Driving down the interstate from time to time I notice that some gas stations (but not all) sell diesel gasoline (and diesel only) for $0.05 cheaper if you pay with cash instead of credit. Why is this? --Ks1stm (talk) [alternative account of Ks0stm] 02:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because when you pay with a credit card, part of the money goes to the credit card company (typically 3%, if I remember correctly). See credit card.Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It likely has to do with the amount of diesel that a semi truck can hold in its tanks and the credit card companies charging a percentage of the total sale as a processing fee. For example, if you pull in with your VW Jetta and fill up, it's maybe $50.  The processing fee for the transaction, which the gas station has to pay, is maybe a few cents.  But if you pull in with a semi truck and their much larger tanks, that same processing fee could go into the dollars if not tens of dollars.  So a customer who pays with cash saves them real money.  Dismas |(talk) 02:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This fee is called an "interchange" fee. The money actually doesn't go the credit card company itself, but to the issuing bank. -- Daniel  02:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Some stations, especially those in poor neighborhoods, will do this for regular unleaded as well. Usually credit card companies have rules against this sort of dual pricing, but I guess those rules don't apply to fuel. APL (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Electricity Supplier on Reunion Island
Can anyone help Iam looking for the electricity supplier and tarriffs for Reunion Island — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.210.238 (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Réunion is a tiny department of France, pop. 800,000 so I expect that everyone who works with electric supplies there knows one another and has the answer. This article names Pierre-Yves Ezavin of Reunion's Regional Energy Agency (ARER) and several other people. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * French Wikipedia has a page on Electrical energy on Reunion. It says Syndicat intercommunal d'électricité du département de la Réunion (SIDELEC) is the supplier.  SIDELEC's website is here (in French):. I can't find any information on their tariffs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What Are These Things Called and What Are They For?
http://i.imgur.com/Nn1Yf.jpg  --CGPGrey (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a gasometer. --Viennese Waltz 07:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually more prosaically called a gas holder these days (as per the redirect). As you might guess from that, they are used for storing gas (i.e. domestic gas, not in the US sense of gasoline). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What you can see in your photo is the frame that supports the huge domed tank - as the tank fills, it moves up the vertical posts until it reaches the top. The second photo down on the Wikipedia gasometer page shows a three-quarters-full one; the third photo shows an empty one like yours. "Gasometer" is a word which is still in wide use in London at any rate. Alansplodge (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Microphones
The use of microphones baffles some speakers, without proper knowledge and techniques in speaking thru a microphone sometimes create noise that is not pleasing to listeners.

What is the proper technique and how far (ideal distance) should a speaker use a microphone to create an acceptable sound and/or for a wonderful delivery Does a different classification necessary for different voice ranges ex. alto, tenor, basso — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.62.110 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It depends on the microphone. Different microphones optimally collect sound from different distance profiles, so a speaker would have to know the specifics for that microphone. The technician who maintains the AV equipment will know. 81.174.198.232 (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about that (usually) high pitched screeching whine that sometimes occurs, it's called feedback, and it's *not* the fault of the person using the microphone, but rather of the person who set up the sound system. What happens is that the room has particular resonant frequencies which means that the sound coming out of the speakers doesn't die down fast enough, and the sound from the speaker is picked up by the microphone, reamplified, and the cycle repeats. The feedback cycle will happen whenever that particular frequency hits a certain volume threshold. It normally can be fixed by geometry (putting the microphone behind the speakers), environment (more sound absorbing material in the hall) or by using an equalizer to bring down the volume of those frequencies which are causing the feedback. Distance in itself is not an issue - take a look at concerts sometimes. Singers will be screaming into a microphone which they are practically eating. The reason it's not a problem is that concerts usually have decent sound guys who know about equalizers, whereas the audio expertise of someone setting up a microphone for a talk usually ends at knowing how to turn it on (if that) . Distance only becomes a problem in poorly set up sound systems because the further from the microphone, the less likely you are to cross that volume threshold (but the less likely you are to get decent amplification). The ideal distance to a microphone to optimize amplification without distortion depends heavily on what type of microphone it is, how the sound system was set up, and at what volume/amplification the microphone/speakers are currently at. There's always some setup/fiddling required to adjust a sound system to a particular venue and conditions. If you don't have access/expertise to use the mixer/equalizer/amplifier, the best you can do is adjust your distance until it matches the (possibly small) range whoever set up the sound system allowed for. -- 174.24.203.33 (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto all that. Without knowing the specifics of the sound system you are using it is virtually impossible to say what the ideal setup would be. The presence of stage monitors, the size and shape of the room, the size of the audience, the shape of the stage, other amplifiers or musicians on the stage, and the design of the microphone itself are all factors. The short answer is, as stated above, get a good sound man. Or, if you have time, play with the setup in advance and try to make it produce feedback. When you can't manage it, you are probably close enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Point loudspeakers towards the audience, not the performer. A solo speaker should ideally speak towards the microphone at a fixed distance that is as close as possible without breathing effects intruding. Handheld microphone users such as singers need to develop their microphone technique that may involve varying the mouth-to-mic distance to compensate for changes in voice loudness. Some performers insist on using their own favourite microphone for performances. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Foldback speakers inevitably point at the performer, so advice amounting to "point loudspeakers towards the audience, not the performer" is of very limited use. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Foldback speakers are almost a recipe for feedback howls, which the article doesn't seem to worry about. I can't see them as useable with any other than fixed microphones that have been carefully set up. A headphone is a much better solution for a performer. Headphones are routinely used when recording in a studio where the artiste's appearance is unimportant. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It totally depends on the microphone being used. With some, like large diaphragm condenser microphones (looking something like File:Microphone U87.jpg) you usually do not want to be very close (a foot or more away); while with others, like many dynamic/stage microphones, close in is often better (an inch or so). But there are many kinds of condenser and dynamic microphones, and many other types of microphone, and there is no hard and fast rule. You are talking about using microphones for speaking, presumably through some kind of PA system. There are many types of PA systems and many different kind of microphones used for public address. Ideally there would be a sound technician who could tell you how best to use the microphone. If not (or even if so!), the chance to do a "sound check" might help in getting a sense of how best to use the set up. As for different voices, alto, tenor, bass, etc, I think it usually does not matter. But with some microphones, bass frequencies are stronger the closer one is to the mic. With dynamic/stage microphones, this bassiness is accentuated when a speaker/singer wraps their hand around the ball of the mic, so that their mouth and hand are very close. You see this all the time with handheld mic singing. Done well, it can add a "good" bass oomph. But too often it is done merely because it looks cool or something, and the sound suffers, turning muddy and boomy. With many stage mics, wrapping your hand around the top of the mic like that also makes feedback more likely. As a former live sound guy, I hated it when singers did that, but one can't stop them—looking hip tends to overrule sounding good. Pfly (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm in a little situation...
Well, I've signed up to a Japanese video uploading site, and I got an e-mail to verify my account. I came across a page to put information in. The problem is, that there's a postcode entry that requires a Japanese postcode, and I live in the United States. Is there any way to solve this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.151.139 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Look up the US (or British or Canadian etc.) consulate in some city in Japan. Their website will be in English, and will have their postal address. 81.174.198.232 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, List of postal codes gives the format for Japanese postal codes. Put in a dummy code and see if it works. --Viennese Waltz 13:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why Elizabethan_collars work?
I understand that too much scratching can be bad, but what's the problem of licking a wound? Wouldn't that be part of the healing process? 88.9.108.128 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wound licking covers this pretty well-- Jac 16888 Talk 13:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also Hot spot (veterinary medicine).  Acroterion   (talk)   13:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware of a case where the cat opened the wound of a hysterectomy and started pulling at her intestines... --TammyMoet (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yuk! Never had that happen, but all my female cats have inevitably removed the stitches from spaying. Vets in the UK use Superglue these days to avoid problems.  One of my cats had a Thyroidectomy, and managed to remove all the stitches in a 2 inch would in the course of 36 hours (she survived the experience). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Superglue?! I would think that they use skin glue.  Dismas |(talk) 02:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Superglue and skin glue are the same cyanoacrylate in different packages. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had my kitten spayed two months ago so I know whereof I speak! The vet used glue for the internal stitches, but dissolving stitches (which didn't dissolve) for the external ones. We used an Elizabethan collar for ten days after the op, until the wound had visibly healed over. The vet told me the story of the unfortunate cat I described above, who didn't survive. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on my original research of having a kitten who stayed in her lampshade for approximately three non-consecutive minutes.. From what my vet told me, normal licking would be okay if the cat understood that she couldn't lick too hard or bite the stitches. Which is exactly what their furry little instincts tell them to do. Foofish (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Royal Bank of Canada - Branding
Can I get a timeline for the different iterations of the name used by Royal Bank of Canada for its operations, e.g. 1) THE Royal Bank of Canada; 2) Royal bank of Canada (without the 'THE'); 3) RBC; and 4) RBC Royal Bank ??

STEPHEN NOEL  McCARTHY email:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.137.43 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the questioner's email address, as per the policy for this page. All answers will be made on this page, not by email. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's some information in our article: Royal Bank of Canada. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

News story of a child who was kept in a wardrobe?
I can't remember the details, but I remember a famous photograph of a federal officer or SWAT member bursting in and saving him with a gun. this image parodies it. Does anybody remember the name of this case?-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  16:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Elián González affair? -Mr.98 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And, for the record, not saving him. Scaring the sh*t out of him, more like. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Held in a wardrobe and "saved" by SWAT? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha.... Reno thanks you while Orwell weeps. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Woops. Yep, that's it. Fuzzy memory, you know.-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  17:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, he wasn't kept in the closet, they just hid in there when they thought the Feds were coming for him. (to reunite him with his father BTW, although I'm sure it was quite frightening for him.) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record II: the SWATs didn't have any purpose in mind - whether to save nor to scare the poor boy. They just do what they were told to do. Quest09 (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody questioned the motives of the SWAT team themselves, only the outcome. And I would always be wary of issuing a defense of anyone which boils down to "They were only following orders", since it will always make them look bad, no matter how noble their intentions actually were. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The outcome is not SWAT's fault. And they were not using the only following orders defense, why would they? What they did was right. The boy had to be returned. If his mother were waiting in Cuba, people won't be discussing that. Quest09 (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but, again, nobody was saying the outcome was the SWAT team's fault. Nobody at all, so you are arguing against something nobody is saying. But, in arguing against something nobody is saying, you chose to use an argument which is basically "They were just following orders", which introduces a negative perspective on the SWAT team which was previously completely absent from the discussion. So, in trying to defend the SWAT team from accusations nobody had made, your comment makes them look questionable by associating them with blindly following immoral orders, an idea only represented in your own comments. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please 86.163: Stop accusing the SWAT of looking questionable or of blindly following orders. One thing I cannot stand are false accusations. Quest09 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, you're just trolling. Right you are, carry on. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And to be fair to the SWAT team, the idiots holding the boy had intimated they were armed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I still can't understand how they believed they would get away with it. Quest09 (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They didn't consider themselves to be holding the boy illegally. His father, and President Clinton, saw it differently and so the swat team was sent in when they wouldn't return Elian voluntarily. The Cuban-American (obviously anti-Castro) community is a powerful political force in South Florida, they seemed to honestly believe they would be allowed to keep the boy despite his father still being alive and well and happy to live in Cuba. Conservatives didn't know which way to swing, against communism or for family values... it was a real mess all around. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Receipt question
I got to think today, a receipt is proof you bought a product from a store. But the receipt is only proof you bought such a product from the store. It is not proof you bought that particular instance of the product from the store. So I thought of a scheme. First you buy a product fully legally from a store and get a receipt. Then you go back to the same store, with the receipt, and steal another instance of the same product. When the guards catch you, you show them the receipt, as proof you bought it legally. Would this work? Not that I'm going to try it or anything, mind you. I'm far too honest for it, but I can't help it if I can think of clever schemes like this. J I P &#124; Talk 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't think it would work - the receipts (here in the UK, anyway) are generally date and time stamped. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are all kinds of scams that people try involving re-using a receipt. One common one is return fraud scam, where criminals buy a good and take it away.  They then re-enter the store, take another of the same good from the shelf, and "return" it, with the receipt, for cash.  That's one reason shops are inclined to record your information when you return something - on the principle that the biggest risk to them is not someone doing this once, but someone doing it repeatedly.  For your proposed scam, the security people can view your movements on their video recordings, which will show ample evidence of you removing the product you bought from the store and then trying to re-use the receipt in this way.   If (perhaps when) shops generally adopt unique radio-frequency identification tags on all products then this and similar schemes becomes much more difficult. The checkout equipment will record not just the line of product you bought, but the individual IDs of each, data that will be recoverable from the transaction ID printed on your receipt. That way they can say for (pretty much) sure whether this is the TV you bought half an hour ago, or a different one.  Part of the design of retail RFIDs is that they are integrated into the packaging of a product in such a way that removing or exchanging them is difficult and slow. Legitimate privacy concerns will probably mean that RFIDs integrated into the product itself (e.g. in the labels in clothing) will be fairly evident and removable, and I'd imagine the stores will set their return policy such that they won't refund on anything that has had its RFID destroyed or removed.   Real criminals will, of course, adapt to counter this, and surely will try to develop methods of deactivating, shielding, or cloning RFIDs, or interfering with the RFID readers. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The return fraud scheme you explained actually matches my scheme pretty much perfectly. But both it and my scheme seem to be defeated by the video surveillance. If the guards can see me pick up something and leave the store without paying for it on the video recording, they're going to be damn sure I'm doing it illegally, even if I have a receipt. There is no way I can get a receipt for something without actually paying for it, so the receipt I have must be for another instance of the same product. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, there are plenty of ways criminals can get a receipt illegally (or find illegal uses for a legal receipt), and stores have to be on the lookout for all of them. Receipts can be manufactured, so they have to have transaction codes and cryptographically-signed MACs. Goods can be bought with illegitimate means (stolen credit-cards, forged money or cash from a bank robbery) and then returned for clean money (that's a major reason why credit-card returns are processed as credits on the card rather than cash refunds). Criminals can try to get refunds on counterfeits (buy a $600 Gucci handbag, return a $20 fake one) or exchange old or defective goods for new and working (buy a job-lot of old computers then buy a nice new computer from the supermarket; swap the guts and return the new case with the old stuff inside; repeat). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Many many years ago (probably in the early 1950s), my dear old dad used to do something similar. A certain type of single use ticket on the London Underground used to be valid for a month. This ticket had a design printed on them a bit similar to the front of a Woodbine cigarette packet. So he used to cut a piece out of a Woodbine packet, write something on the blank side (a girl's name and phone number usually worked) and make his journey flashing this at the ticket collector. If the collector figured he'd been given a blind, my dad would apologise profusely and pull the valid ticket out, taking back the Woodbine packet with a sly wink and a comment about his prospects for a date. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Most electronic goods have the serial number attached to the receipt. The store records will show who purchased it and for how much etc. Makes scams much harder to pull off. Collect (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the sort of scam that seems clever, and would probably even work once, but it wouldn't be long at all before the guard notices the pattern. You can't underestimate that human factor.APL (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a family in my neighbourhood growing up who were renowned for pulling of just that same scheme the OP has suggested. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a similar "scam" (or at least the stores probably consider it to be):


 * 1) I buy an item, and either lose the receipt or don't discover that it's defective until after the exchange period has ended.


 * 2) I buy an identical product, and use it's receipt to return the defective one.


 * This usually works for cheap items, but on higher-end items the receipt might also have an instance ID of some type. StuRat (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't find the reference now, but some years ago I recall hearing about two women who were found guilty of theft and conspiracy for stealing from a major UK supermarket. Apparently they had agreed a list of items to shop for.  The first goes in and buys all the items on the list, paying at the checkout as normal.  She then hands over the receipt to her friend who then steals the exact same items.  If the second woman is stopped by security, she makes the excuse she had just popped back into the store for something (accounting for the small time difference).  If I remember correctly, it was successful more than once, but they were caught out when the guard then checked the security tape footage.  Astronaut (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like a very profitable scam. After all, they only get 2 items for the price of 1, and any good sale would get you that without the risk of being arrested. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There was an incident in my town a few years ago that, like many retail thefts, was an inside job. This is a fairly small town, and the return desk at the hardware and outdoor equipment store would sometimes take returns on small items without a receipt. A clerk who worked at the returns desk participated in a scam with another person who would simply come in, take something off the shelves, and proceed to "return" it. They stole over $10,000 this way before being the store management finally noticed that this one clerk was breaking records for returned items. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Films about an individual overcoming alone all odds through ingenuity
Like I Am Legend (film) or Cast away. Any more? Quest09 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to check out some of the tropes in both films at the excellent & highly addictive TV Tropes website, to find some more examples. Central tropes include The Aloner and the Sole Survivor ... sadly I cannot find an example of the ingenuity trope. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Home Alone. The Naked Prey. Murphy's War. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The last man in the world posted a question. There was an answer at the reference desk ... Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

and you might enjoy 127 hours. ny156uk (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to be a movie spoiler, so no precise information here. I just want to say that not all examples above match the criteria: individual, alone, overcome all odds, ingenuity. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How about the somewhat ridiculous TV show MacGyver?
 * There are the various adaptations of Robinson Crusoe (before Friday), including my personal favorite, Robinson Crusoe on Mars, and the first half of The World, the Flesh and the Devil. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The following don't quite fit the criteria perfectly, but they all have elements of extreme isolation and/or ingenious survival (most of them are science fiction): Pandorum, Eden Log (in French), 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Moon (film), The Quiet Earth (film), Sphere (film), The Abyss (1989 film), Enemy Mine (film), Red Planet (film), Stephen King's novella The Langoliers (supposedly made into a TV movie, but I haven't seen it), and Alive (1993 film). The survival horror genre is also more common in video games.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   03:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Since The Langoliers had a group of 10, I wouldn't call that exactly "extreme isolation". The TV movie wasn't bad, once you make peace with Balki as the evil guy.  The CGI effects are quite dated, though.  StuRat (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never seen the TV movie but from reading the novella (<3 Stephen King), the sense of being alone is palpable imo. Especially when they first woke up and discovered that everyone else was gone. A number of the other films I've mentioned also involves groups of two or more people. The Quiet Earth also has very dated (and very weird) CGI, heh.


 * It depends on what the OP was looking for. I Am Legend is post-apocalyptic, and that genre, while not exactly all about the "Last Man" scenario, usually involves isolation and survivalism (my favorite of that genre would be Robert McCammon's Swan Song (novel), though it's a book not a film).


 * Dunno... guess not a lot of movies have been made of a lone individual surviving in a hostile environment. They almost always meet up with other people later on. Showing a lone character thinking in a film isn't very interesting, LOL, and it's usually best depicted in literature. I've read a good number of them, most of them short stories or novellas, from men who went into cryo-sleep and woke up to a civilization of cockroaches to starship pilots slowly going insane isolated in deep space. But I can't for the life of me, remember most of the titles or the authors. Those I can remember though is Book 2 of Jean Auel's Earth's Children series - The Valley of Horses (excellent, imo) and Clarke's Childhood's End (only applies to the last parts). --   Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   00:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, being completely alone in a film can be boring for the audience. That's probably because they introduced Sam, the dog or Wilson the volleyball. Quest09 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The CGI is the best bit. Papillon (film) fits the criteria, sort of, if you accept seven years of solitary as close enough to "alone". Card Zero  (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Silent Running. (Langoliers was not that bad.) μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You may want to try WP:Reference desk/Entertainment. (I too was going to mention Papillon btw) -- &oelig; &trade; 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)