Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 August 17

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 17

sci fi story where "dogs" kill all the humans on a planet?

I read a sci-fi story (probably mid-or late 1980's) once where a character mentions a planet of human colonists who adopt intelligent dog-like "animals" as pets, and then one day all the humans are found dead, with the implication the "dogs" killed them, but no evidence. It is just a story within a larger unrelated story (I suspect maybe the author was alluding to a short story he had written). Can anyone identify the fiction? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It sounds familiar. I can't place it, but I seem to recall it being cats rather than dogs. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

They were probably described as sleek carnivores. Have you read Morphodite by M. A. Foster? μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No. I mostly gave up on later (later to me anyway) science fiction, with a few exceptions. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have the impression the story was either from that book or from something by Heinlein, like Friday, although it seems somewhat against his grain. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Mandarin in Iron Man 3

I'm sure that, at this point, anyone who was interested to see that movie has already done so, so my question shouldn't be much of a spoiler. But, if there's someone out there who wants to see the film and have not done so yet, don't continue reading. You have been warned!

As you remember, the movie begins with a terrorist leader, the Mandarin, who releases threatening videos in Bin Laden-style. But we find out later that this guy was not a terrorist, but just an actor (n-universe), the videos are fake and there is no Mandarin. In fact, the real terrorists who use the actor as a decoy leader keep him isolated inside a mansion, full of alcohol and drugs, so that nobody ever finds him... and worse, he's not even fully aware of the purpose of those videos, thinking that they are some type of advertisment or whatever.

And I wondered... if someone in the real world attempts a thing like that and gets captured, which would be the charges against the actor? Simple and plain terrorism, as if his character was real, or something else? Cambalachero (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In an American court, the prosecution would likely have to prove that the accused had any way of knowing that their actions were causing any harm. Since he was kept from seeing any news broadcasts, newspapers, etc., they'd have a hard time proving that he knew what he was doing. Given the current existence and scope of terrorism today, it's not that hard to imagine that someone might make a TV series that has a Bin Laden or Mandarin character recording such videos. So the prosecution would also have a hard time proving that he "should have known" that something wasn't quite right about what he was "performing". Dismas|^(talk) 03:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and this might get a more informed response on the Humanities desk since it's essentially a legal question. Yeah, it's drawn from a movie but the crux of the question is legal. Dismas|^(talk) 03:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Mens rea is probably the likely factor at play. There's a common law precident that unless you have a mindset to commit a crime (either deliberately, or inadvertently through negligence and the like), then you didn't commit a crime. I'm guessing that the actor's lawyer would argue that because the actor thought his portrayal was fictional, he didn't have the mens rea for his acts to be criminal. (Though if it came to that point, the prosecution might argure that the actor "should have known" that something nefarious was happening.) That said, a large number of crimes these days are strict liability, which removes mens rea from consideration. -- 71.35.121.78 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Names that make foul language in The Name Game

Should the name Daggett be included in the article about the song as one of the names that make foul language? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should attempt to make the list exhaustive. Dismas|^(talk) 08:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it too much to add just one more name? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That one is not "foul language" in the same way that names like "Chuck" work out to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a slippery slope. And before you know it we're having to trim the list to X number of items and it becomes a tennis match of editors coming along and adding and switching. It's best probably to just cut it down to 3-4 right now and leave it. I've been through this kind of thing on other pages and I've found it's best to just put in a representative sample and call it a day. Dismas|^(talk) 13:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it is better to just leave it as is to keep the list at a reasonable. I know it isn't the same as "Chuck". Besides, "Maggie" is already mentioned, which has to do with the same word anyway. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone like Dick Trickle (or any Dick) would run into the "problem" straight away. I guess that may not seem to count without a transformation, but it's still a "dirty word" in the song (and gets more lyrical emphasis). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanos

Any comic buffs here? I just finished reading Marvel: The End and after destroying time and space, Thanos realises that he has been "tricked". So he sacrifices himself and everything goes back to normal, albeit without that omnipotent pharaoh. The End was written in 2003, and set in the proper Marvel Universe (not Ultimate or any other alternate timeline...). I'd suppose such prominent characters can't stay "dead" for long, so what happened after that? How did Thanos resserruct? Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I haven't read that series; our article only says that "Thanos then uses the artifact to reverse Akhenaten's actions and also correct a flaw in the universe. Changed by the experience, Thanos advises confidant Adam Warlock he will no longer seek universal conquest." and simply cites the entire series as its reference. That kind of implies he was alive at the end. The next appearance mentioned in the text references the Thanos mini-series of 2003-2004, which I have read, and Thanos is alive and well at the beginning of it - no mention is made of him needing resurrection or recently having one. Are you sure you didn't miss a page at the end? :) Matt Deres (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure I haven't! :P At the end he meets Adam warlock, and agrees to restore the universe by sacrificing his power and himself. It is implied with the lines "Even the most cosmically astute are unaware of the titan 's sacrifice, his final grand gesture" that he did die. On the very last page Adam Warlock is seen paying a tribute to thanos before flying off. I hope my copy didn't have any pages chewed off... :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually if you read the Marvel: The End page it is mentioned that he died at the end. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The OP was saying Thanos is a major comic book character, who rarely stay dead. He's asking if he's revived since then, how. (Knowing Marvel, Thanos really won't stay dead.) --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 00:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

1985 Kansas City Royals players

Can anyone tell me who the players (or possibly coaches) are on the left and right of this image? They are both members of the 1985 Kansas City Royals team. I know that the guy in the middle is Dick Howser, but couldn't determine the identities of the other two. Thanks! Delaywaves • talk 23:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the man with the glasses is Joe Beckwith. He doesn't wear glasses in many other pictures, but compare to several pictures of him Here and you'll see a strong resemblance. --Jayron32 01:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The other man, the one looking at the camera, could possibly be Mike Jones, compare to [1]. --Jayron32 01:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both! Delaywaves • talk 15:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Both of me? --Jayron32 19:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)