The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
How can I watch the PBS documentary Paradox on 72nd Street (1982)?[1][2] Oddly, the film has disappeared from the face of the Earth, and even stranger, in the linked reviews, the NYT calls it "fascinating" and "persuasive" while the WaPo pans it as unwatchable. That's about as extreme of a difference in opinion that you can get. But, I want to see it for myself. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It says in the last link I gave you ("Examples of OCLC partnerships"). The cover art is from the publishers. The OCLC (and libraries) are using licensed images. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they don't really need to claim fair use, because book covers are implicitly advertisements for the book, so these organisations are in effect performing free advertising for the publisher, who will consequently sell more copies.
I worked in bookselling in the 70s–80s and then publishing up to the early 90s (before internet advertising was much of a thing), and back then publishers regularly supplied copies of book covers to bookshops, as well as posters, etc., as promotional material. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not imply that the cover art was free of copyright. The recipient of a copy of a copyrighted work may own that copy, but not the right to copy it. Museums may supply posters promoting exhibitions for free to places that are likely to display them publicly while selling them to the general public. ‑‑Lambiam01:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Book cover art is often contracted 'work for hire' (whose copyright is owned by the publisher), and where not, the artist will licence it to the publisher for use as promotion, which the uses DMc75771 specifies fall under. And increasingly cover art is created by publishers' own art departments, using combinations of images from picture libraries.
I suggested "they don't need to claim fair use" because although there might be a theoretical copyright infringement, in practice such usages will be expected and acquiesced to (if not actually agreed by contract) by all parties. Book-cover scans include all the typography, so it's not as if someone could feasibly re-use the image for some other purpose. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using easily available technology, it is often not very difficult to remove the typography. The cover shown here, of an Arabic edition of One Thousand and One Nights, is a particularly easy case. While the text is in the public domain, I am not so sure of the cover art, by Laila Yousri. ‑‑Lambiam08:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting for a moment that such artwork is in the public domain, but rather that, whether in copyright to the artist or the publisher, the specific re-uses of covers that DMc75771 mentioned would be permitted (according to either contract, or custom) – I can assure you that publishers' legal departments are fully apprised of such usages.
If someone actually did edit and re-use such cover art for some other purpose, then I would expect the artist and/or publisher to take formal steps and if necessary legal action to stop them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any serious theories proposed by experts currently, beyond the obvious illegality of the killings in the Caribbean? My personal hypothesis as a European: He is planning a land-invasion through Colombia, as a débarquement by sea isn't logistically possible. However, it is illegal for him to use the American military bases in Colombia for this type of operation and Colombia's president is opposed to US-intervention in Venezuela. So, he is preparing escalation by calling Petro a drug boss after the latter denounced the killing of Colombian citizens in the Caribbean. The military bases serve to fight the drug organisations, and Trump has declared war on "the drug cartels". Seems all very clumsily planned, and hopefully it will fail. Is there any expert agreeing with my analysis (or giving a different one), beyond just "Trump wants escalation" (which is obvious to anyone)? 2003:EE:6F16:C1A3:DE7:D7D9:1F97:50BD (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of now the Polymarket prediction market says 13% chance, down from 17% at 2 am GMT.[10] As can be expected with the decision being in the hands of a waffler without impulse control, we see wild swings over relatively short periods. ‑‑Lambiam19:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At that point, everybody outside his idiotic circle of enablers would rise up and say enough's enough. Even the spineless GOP (a medical miracle!). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not something as patently untrustworthy as a crystal ball; perish the thought. It was my ouija board, confirmed by my goat entrails and tarot cards. Also, chicken TACOs is the special of the day in my fortunetelling menu. The POTUS (in particular, the IDIOTUS) can't declare war, and the military is not as craven as the politicians (especially since it would be their lives/reputations at risk), and finally Congress will acquire some gumption once the midterms flip it from red to blue. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on how exactly you defined 'computer' (and 'mainstream'). The modern digital computer didn't spring into existence fully formed, instead it took a series of developments, and several dead ends (e.g. Babbages analytical engine, a mechanical device that would, had it been completed, arguably have been the first.) I suggest you read the article on computers you have already linked, to get a better idea of what the evolution of the modern computer involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Timeline of computing, I think 1951 is a good answer for when computers started to go mainstream: the year of the first commercially available computer, and the first two computers for business use. But there are a lot of other adjectives like electronic and stored-program that go between "first" and "commercial computer". We also have Timeline of computing hardware before 1950. If we say that the year of the invention of the first computer is the year when a computer was first working, and programmed, and was both general-purpose and intended to be used in a general-purpose way, I think the answer is 1945 with ENIAC, which means it was also electronic. Card Zero (talk)02:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Do presidential Electors, generally, know the ballot of their state where they vote for the President in December, in the Electoral College? Thanks. 37.159.42.102 (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't express myself clearly. I wanted to ask if they know the type of ballot paper, they use to vote in December as members of the Electoral College, not the traditional Election Day ballot paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.159.33.160 (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the ballots for casting a vote for President and those for VP to be separate. Other than that, there is no requirement on their form. When the electors meet to cast their votes, one may presume that – if they do not already know the form in which their ballots will be presented – they will become acquainted with the ballots during the meeting. It is not obvious that that form is already determined and fixed at the moment the electors are chosen, but one may expect the secretary of state of any given state to use essentially the same form as in previous elections if it has not presented any problems in the past. ‑‑Lambiam17:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a question about the "paper" used. I think this is a very badly translated question and the original question is if the electors know who they will vote for. If that is the question, the answer is yes. They pledge for a candidate long before voting. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original may have been scheda elettorale, which Google Translate translates as "ballot paper". I interpreted the question as not being about the type of paper, but about the form in which the ballot is presented to the electors. It will probably not be very dissimilar to the ones seen here (cast in the 2008 United States presidential election), here and here (the latter two cast in the 2016 United States presidential election) – but note the differences, which are not insignificant. ‑‑Lambiam08:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does - thank you. Presumably you get a pass because you'd have cookies indicating you'd been on the proper host page and are therefore allowed to see the image. Matt Deres (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if Pectus Excavatum changes how CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) is performed. I'm not asking how to do CPR, or how to do it on someone with the condition, but just wondering if you'd actually change the technique for it. For context, I'm talking about teens and adults with it. Thank you! TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A 2015 letter in Resuscitation says "Current AHA and ERC guidelines do not give any information about CPR technique (proper compression depth and hands position) in PE patients who have not had surgical correction and no cases have been reported in literature." I do not know if that ahs changed in the last ten years. DuncanHill (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone,
I am looking for ways to estimate monthly electricity bills for a small household in Pakistan.
Is there any standard calculation method or formula people commonly use? Like, how do units, peak hours, and tariffs typically affect the total cost?
Hi, I am reposting my request with the hope of better luck. Now, with the understanding that the thing itself is worthless as obvious, the image in the link depicts fake Arizona electors casting their “votes” on a fake ballot for Trump in 2020. If you look at the image, I even tried to enlarge it but couldn't understand much, how were these “electors” casting this fake vote? The ballot seems drawn in such a way that maybe they had to put their signatures on it, but you can't see much. It's just a little curiosity, but I want to take it off anyway. Thank you. [11]93.150.82.80 (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page you linked to is behind a paywall, but I think the photo seen here may be the image you are referring to. The fake electors are seen sitting in prayer before casting their votes; perhaps they were beseeching the Good Lord to grant them a preemptive pardon. Somewhat obviously (to me), the vote casting was going to be done by each signing the sheet lying on the table before them. It is not clear to me from the images whether the name of the candidate ("Donald Trump", or "Donald J. Trump") was pre-filled or still had to be written in, but my guess is the former. A sharper photo, or a photo of one of these ballot sheets after signing, could make this clear, but I did not find one. ‑‑Lambiam10:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These certificates are not the ballot sheets – one for each elector – but present the consolidated outcome of their votes, giving the tallies for each candidate voted for. ‑‑Lambiam23:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not unique to one election. Every election, people try to send in fake elector votes. There used to be a web page showing the silliest ones from the past 50 years, but I cannot find it now. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was not about some dispersed nut cases that have zero chance of changing the outcome. The 2020 Trump fake electors plot was a conspiracy involving several dozens of officials across seven swing states that went to Biden. Had it succeeded, it would have made Trump to be declared the winner. Also, this comment does not shed light on the question how these fake Arizona electors were casting their votes on December 14, 2020. ‑‑Lambiam10:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg?lang=en)
