Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 May 3

= May 3 =

defenition of [intermeiaries]
''' The defenition of intermeiaries does not account for the role in law and religion ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlHensel (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean intermediary ? If so, you can complain on that article's talk page, or, better yet, fix it yourself. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Who can tell the time?
Do you think commercial free-to-air television networks need to buy a clock, or be given one, and/or be taught to tell the time, so they can actually start a TV show according to the advertised time? Is there any remedy for us hapless viewers who are left floundering, wondering what is going on? And, what happened to the social contract of trust between the network and the people, if there ever was one. Thanks in advance. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you a question that can be answered by references? --ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read between the lines you will see several, like the list of reasons why TV programs are delayed, and what technologies exist to allow for time-shifting of TV shows. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * With digital TV each station now broadcasts it's own time signal, and I've noticed they are all off a bit (and one station seems to broadcast a random time). If this is tied to their main clock, the problem might very well be that they just don't know what time it is. StuRat (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have noticed the digital time problem. Seems the digital time keeper is taking a nap sometimes. But I am thinking more of the 10, 15, or even 20 minute mismatch. Needs some legislation I reckon. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The only times I've seen those type of delays are when there's breaking news, or a sports game goes into overtime. After that, they must decide whether to join the program already in progress, or start it late.  If they start that program late, it pushes back the entire schedule. StuRat (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Buy or make a PVR, set it to pre and post record, only watch shows 40-50 minutes after they've supposed to have started (for a 1 hour show, normally you only have to wait 20-30 minutes but if you have such erratic scheduling I guess it can't be helped)) and don't be hapless viewer. Or just emigrate; concuring with StuRat, having programmes regularly start 10-20 minutes late seem rather odd, it doesn't happen much in NZ or Malaysia baring as StuRat said cases like delayed schedules due to sports broadcasts (which is rarely a problem here in NZ due to the dominance of Sky Television (New Zealand) in the sports market) or the very occasional breaking news. Presuming you aren't simply referring to similar cases (I understand FTA sports is a lot more common there for legal reasons, but even so it only seems likely in a few cases like cricket, racing and finals), I guess there's something very strange in broadcating in Australia. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Spot on, Nil Einne. The terribly old-fashioned notion of doing what you say you're going to do, at the time you said you'd be doing it, seems to gave gone completely out the window as far as certain commercial TV channels are concerned.  One daily quiz program always but always starts 5 minutes before the advertised starting time.  What would be so hard about advertising it as starting at 5:25, its actual starting time, rather than the fictitious 5:30?  Many "reality" programs go over time, sometimes up to 15 minutes over, but there is never, ever any explanation, apology or even acknowledgment of this fact.  The only program that can be counted on to start and end on time is the main evening news bulletin; after that, you're on your own and you take your chances.  I've lost count of the number of times a program I planned to watch was replaced by some other program - but again, never any explanation, apology or acknowledgment. This doesn't say much about the integrity of Australian commercial TV management, but it seems there's not much to be said.  These issues are constantly the subject of viewer complaints and feedback, but nothing ever changes.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  09:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The time issue is rarely a problem in the US, but we do seem to have a problem with them not telling us what's going to be on. The program info broadcast on digital TV is often wrong, or vague, like only describing the series as a whole, not that particular episode, or even worse, saying "TBD" or "DTV Program". StuRat (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Expanding on the DVR/PVR suggestion, I watch many shows (like South Park) on streaming video these days, which allows me to start it whenever I want, not when they get around to it. StuRat (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel like breaking out in song. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add that my dad works for a local TV station, and their technology is old/screwed up enough that their time is wrong fairly frequently. He tries to make sure that it's on time, but it takes a lot of work. The shows on the stations the network broadcasts never seem to be off-time, though. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you have some insight into this problem then. Why, in this age of cheap, accurate digital clocks, do they have so much trouble knowing what time it is ? StuRat (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * They know exactly what the time is. They have ... other agendas.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  05:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It does make me wonder if they're doing this deliberately to prevent viewers from recording programs and forcing them to watch live - which, of course, makes it impossible to skip the commercials. Seems counterproductive to me if viewers simply stop watching and turn to streaming video. --NellieBly (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the broadcasters are intentionally sabotaging their customers so they will move to other, more expensive, media. This might make sense if the same company owns both broadcasters and cable or satellite services. StuRat (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's more to do with treating viewers in as ultra-cynical a way as they can possibly get away with. One example: 7 out of 10 programs are now massively promoted as "New", even if it's just a new episode of a longstanding ongoing program.  Anything that's not "New" can safely be assumed to be a repeat, but that is never made explicit anymore.  If anyone complained of seeing a repeat, they'd say they never claimed it was new.  That way, they can avoid acknowledging when they show a repeat, as well as having lots of "New" programs for the lucky viewers.  But guess what, that has always been the default expectation anyway.  Any channel that showed more repeats than new material would quickly go bust.  So, the channels are doing nothing different from what they've always done in terms of new/old content mix, but they've manufactured a new way of making it sound special and cutting edge and state-of-the-art etc, by presenting so many shows uber-hyped as "New".  That's what I mean by ultra-cynicism.
 * Another example: Channel 7 here now has exclusive rights to broadcast Australian Rules football on free-to-air TV. The Saturday afternoon match broadcast is followed by the evening news, which is scheduled for 6 pm. But this year they've taken to starting the news at 5:58 pm, a full 2 minutes before its scheduled starting time.  They've done this for at least the past 6 Saturdays, and it is clearly a ploy and not something that can be attributed to a one-off glitch.  Why?  Because they figure they'll be able to keep the audience they've already got if they can hook them on some dramatic or other eye-catching story, before they have a chance to switch to the other channels on which they might normally prefer to watch the news.  By the time the main story is finished, it'll be a few minutes after 6 pm, viewers will realise they've missed the start of their normal program, and most will choose to stay on Channel 7.  Now, I don't have a problem with using the "getting in first" approach; but I do have a problem with deliberately starting earlier than you said you were going to start.  You can bet that, if they didn't already have the footy-watching audience captured, there'd be no way they'd be starting the so-called "6 pm" news bulletin any earlier than 6 pm.
 * They might think that nobody would notice these ultra-cynical deviousnesses. Think again, TV people.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  09:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In the US, we do have some cases of that "starting early" approach, by which I mean before the hour or half hour. However, if the show starts at 6:25, it's listed as 6:25.  Another approach I've seen is all ads within each program and none between them.  So, right after one ends you are hooked by the next, without the ad break to check out the competition. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It makes complete sense to tell viewers when the program is going to actually start, and zero sense to announce it for a time some minutes after it actually starts. Anyone who turns on the news on that channel at a few moments before 6 pm is going to be instantly annoyed when they discover they've missed out on the first couple of minutes of what is, by definition, the most important information of the whole broadcast.  They run a huge risk of alienating current and potential viewers like this, but I guess they figure they can afford some collateral damage, given that the viewers are not actual human beings, but merely numbers.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  00:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I watch the first 30 seconds of the news to see if there was any that day. If they start with a "human interest piece", AKA "fluff", then I know there wasn't any news, and watch something else. StuRat (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Titanium Allergies?
I purchased a pair of glasses with Titanium frames and I was so impressed that they were not only attractive, but extremely lightweight. However, I would come to realize that after wearing them for a relatively short period of time, my face began to experience some discomfort. This discomfort only worsened as a rash appeared with-in a couple weeks and eventually, became open blisters. Again, this only occurred upon my face and only where my face came in contact with the Titanium frames, which began to resemble the outline of the Titanium frame on my glasses. I began to question this condition, as this problem worsened and began to experience electrical shocks upon my face, where-ever these glasses made contact with my open blisters. The condition got so bad that I changed back into my old plastic frame glasses, which eliminated the problem. My blisters disappeared and my face healed, completely! So, I switched back into my Titanium glasses, which I paid dearly for, only to have the condition re-appear. I then immediately went out and purchased a new pair of glasses without Titanium fames and disposed of the Titanium glass. Once again, my face healed completely and with no signs that there was ever a problem. When I explained this to my doctors they looked at me in amazement and disbelief; claimming they have never heard of or seen anything pertaining to an allergic reaction to Titanium. My only questions are: is such an allergic reaction to this material; Titanium, other than mine... possible, and if so, what are the stats of such? I cannot believe I am the only person to make such a claim and not able to find any statistics. Your time and assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated, as I am facing a total knee replacement in the near future and I've been told that they will be using a Titanium replacement. Thank you again, for your time and asssitance. Respectfully, Doug Thornberry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddthornberry (talk • contribs) 11:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We're not supposed to give medical advice, but if you type "Titanium allergy" into the search bar of Google, you'll find lots of information of varying quality. One site says: :"Titanium allergy is so rare that is barely recognized as such within mainstream medical practice." Alansplodge (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You MUST talk to your doctor about this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not going to give you medical advice, but I wonder if the spectacle frames have nickel in them which is used in such circumstances and which much more commonly causes an allergic reaction seen with cheap gold or the back plates of watches. See here. Check with the optician. Richard Avery (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Along those lines, the titanium may have some coating on it which you were allergic to. This could either be intentional, say to give them a nice shiny look, or some solvent left on accidentally.


 * And, since, you mentioned feeling an electric shock, perhaps they could pick up a charge and you would get a small spark. If working around electric fields or ionized air, this would seem more likely. StuRat (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My titanium frames are actually coated with a thin layer of plastic or maybe a lacquer-like substance. It is gradually wearing off now  after many years.  Go see your doctor and take along your glasses so the doctor can asses the materials they are made from for the possibilities of an allergic reaction.  Astronaut (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also note that it's not just the total weight but also the contact area of the glasses to your skin which determines the amount of pressure on your skin. So, if these frame are very thin, they might just put too much pressure on your skin. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Back to the electrical theme: I wonder if a less noble metal is also present, creating a galvanic reaction between the two ? This might cause the sensation of electrical shocks. StuRat (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As non medical advice, might I suggest that (like many metallic things you buy) the composition of the metal was misrepresented by an unscrupulous or careless merchant? Wnt (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If it said "made with titanium" or "contains titanium", these are clues that it's not 100%. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Along that line, check to see if they were made in China, which has almost no enforcement of regulations, allowing manufacturers to put anything they want into their products and claim they are something else. StuRat (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You should also notify the retailer, so they can tell you if others had the same reaction, and they can stop selling that product. StuRat (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)