| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 25 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 27 > |
| 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. |
December 26 Information
For a movie similar to Blazing Saddles. Same western style theme and general hilarity. However, this movie has a scene with a man in a freakishly tall white cowboy hat. He takes off the tall hat, only to reveal an equally tall skyscraper of red hair. The man was dressed in all white as well. Any help is welcome, thanks The Reader who Writes ( talk) 02:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is it a live-action film, or is it a cartoon? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Western (genre) comedy films would be a good place to start. -- Jayron 32 05:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- A live action film. The Reader who Writes ( talk) 05:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
why is there a delay between my tv and my hdtv? Accdude92 ( talk to me!) ( sign) 04:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Could you further explain what you mean? Do you have a standard television next to a HD television with both tuned to the same show? And there is a lag in what is shown on the HDTV when compared to what is being viewed on the standard definition TV? Dismas| (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is this the digital delay? It's a well-known effect, that there is a time-synch delay between analogue and digital broadcasts. It can be up to 30 seconds. I've just done a quick google for "digital delay" and can't find anything on it, but that's possibly because it's called something official which I don't know! -- TammyMoet ( talk) 17:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I get the same thing, with a standard TV and an HD TV on the same channel. The delay (on the HD TV) is probably less than a second but it's still noticeable. The same thing happens when flipping between a regular channel and an HD channel on the HD TV, there is a slight delay. (I have also noticed that there is no delay if I am talking to my parents on the phone (200 km away) and we are both watching the same HD channel, if that means anything.) Adam Bishop ( talk) 00:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- If your "tv" is an older receiver, it probably receives only analog television, but a newer "hdtv" receives digital signals. TammyMoet is correct about digital delay: The digital signal goes through a lot of processing on its way from the original playback or live source at the TV station to its transmitter. The delay is generally less than a second. Then, your receiver takes another second or so to decode the digital signal it gets in order to display it on the screen. By the way, what you refer to as an "hdtv" is actually only a digital TV with an ATSC tuner, capable of diplaying true HDTV programs as well as upconverted standard definition programs. -- Thomprod ( talk) 14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
[[TO WHOM EVER IT CONCERNS
I AM ANIL KUMAR from India(kerala).MY six year old son sarank dev have done a FIRE ESCAPE act on 24/12/09 in our home town named punalur.could you please inform me whether my son have set a record? If yes what are the procedures that has to be followed in giving his name in the world record list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarank dev ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds exactly like the stuff the Guinness Book of World Records documents. You should find a way to contact the publishers of that book, and see what their procedures are for getting listed... -- Jayron 32 05:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- A quick note of caution: because of the danger involved and the fact it involved a minor, Guiness might not allow a challenge such as this. Our article doesn't mentioned fire escape acts specifically, but mentions that sword swallowing was "closed" at least for a while. I'm sure they can fill you in on the details once you register. Matt Deres ( talk) 17:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I have for years been interested in watching Doctor Who. However, I can never figure out how to start. I hate getting into things in the middle. I like to start at the beginning and see it through to the end. Well... there were 26 seasons spanning 1965-1989. Then movies and specials. It started up again in 2005 and is still airing. At present there are 755 episodes in total. I'm at a lose of where to start, so I never have. As much as I would prefer to start at the beginning, with such volume that may not be realistic practical. How important is chronology to the series? Where is a good or acceptable point to get into the series? And what are the pros / cons for starting at a certain point? (Please no spoilers.) Thanks. Piyopiyo ( talk) 07:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, I don't think the early episodes even exist, as their tapes were wiped. The show has changed quite a lot over the years in terms of improving the technological look of it. I don't follow the show well enough to know, but it's possible there are DVD's available, and if they have any of the occasional specials that included several of the different doctors together, that could be an interesting place to start, to get a flavor of the show and the various ones who played the part of The Doctor. ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 09:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was like you and didn't know where to start. Then about a year ago, I got the first season (series) of the recent re-start. I suggest starting this way for a few reasons. 1) The new shows give you a good starting place if you don't know the history behind all the old foes. 2) The production values and "look and feel" of the show are what you would probably be used to. The old episodes might look so antiquated that the set design turns you off before you have a chance to give the story an objective view. 3) From what I've read, the part of the Doctor's companion is fleshed out more in the new series than it was in the old. The Doctor's companion used to be little more than a device for the Doctor to tell the audience what was going on and why it was important.
Dismas|
(talk) 11:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- The producers were well aware that many of their target audience would never have watched the old series when they re-launched Doctor Who in 2005. So they designed it so that anyone who's not watched Doctor Who before can pick it up easily. Starting at the 2005 re-launch should work well.
Vimescarrot (
talk) 11:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Concur - start with the 2005 relaunch series with
Christopher Eccleston then go onto the
David Tennant stories. If you like these then you can consider going back into the 'classic' series.
Exxolon (
talk) 14:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. You don't need to have seen the old ones to appreciate the new series (although there are things in the new ones designed to appeal to people familiar with the old ones - you just won't notice these, they won't detract from the plot). This is, as Vimescarrot says, entirely intentional. -- Tango ( talk) 15:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Concur - start with the 2005 relaunch series with
Christopher Eccleston then go onto the
David Tennant stories. If you like these then you can consider going back into the 'classic' series.
Exxolon (
talk) 14:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- There was a lot of variation in the old ones with regards to companions (or assistants as they were often called in those days). Assistants ranged from 20th Century Earth humans (male and female) to Time Ladies to cavewomen to little tin dogs. Different assistants had different roles, some bigger than others. -- Tango ( talk) 15:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- The producers were well aware that many of their target audience would never have watched the old series when they re-launched Doctor Who in 2005. So they designed it so that anyone who's not watched Doctor Who before can pick it up easily. Starting at the 2005 re-launch should work well.
Vimescarrot (
talk) 11:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was like you and didn't know where to start. Then about a year ago, I got the first season (series) of the recent re-start. I suggest starting this way for a few reasons. 1) The new shows give you a good starting place if you don't know the history behind all the old foes. 2) The production values and "look and feel" of the show are what you would probably be used to. The old episodes might look so antiquated that the set design turns you off before you have a chance to give the story an objective view. 3) From what I've read, the part of the Doctor's companion is fleshed out more in the new series than it was in the old. The Doctor's companion used to be little more than a device for the Doctor to tell the audience what was going on and why it was important.
Dismas|
(talk) 11:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Part of the appeal of Dr Who is that it changes with each change of Doctor - so watch some of each and see which you like best. Overarching storyline is not a major feature of the show and there are often large inconsistencies (most often between Doctors). I would be hard pressed to name my favorite doctor.
75.41.110.200 (
talk) 15:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Given the fact that the show's been on for decades, I would guess that almost all fans started "somewhere in the middle". I started with
Tom Baker and
The Hand of Fear. The suggestion to begin with the 2005 relaunch is an good one. However, if you want to get more of a sense of the history of the show, you may want to do some time traveling of your own. See if you can find a list of the best episodes of all time (such as these:
[1]
[2]
[3]) and watch them in chronological order. While starting with the 2005 relaunch is convenient, nobody can possibly consider themselves a
true Doctor Who fan if they haven't seen
Genesis of the Daleks or
Castrovalva.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 17:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you are loath to start with the reboot, and want to get a feel for the 'classic' series without worrying about continuity, you could do worse than check out the film Dr. Who and the Daleks, which is non-canonical, and has the ever-watchable Peter Cushing as the Doctor. Also the audio adventures of the Eighth Doctor are very good, and are set up so previous knowledge is not really necessary. 84.13.235.199 ( talk) 18:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Given the fact that the show's been on for decades, I would guess that almost all fans started "somewhere in the middle". I started with
Tom Baker and
The Hand of Fear. The suggestion to begin with the 2005 relaunch is an good one. However, if you want to get more of a sense of the history of the show, you may want to do some time traveling of your own. See if you can find a list of the best episodes of all time (such as these:
[1]
[2]
[3]) and watch them in chronological order. While starting with the 2005 relaunch is convenient, nobody can possibly consider themselves a
true Doctor Who fan if they haven't seen
Genesis of the Daleks or
Castrovalva.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 17:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- While I love Dr. Who and the Daleks, I'm not sure how wise it is to suggest it as a way to get a feel for the old series. And it might have the unfortunate effect of causing them to watch the second film. You would not want to be responsible for that. I'd agree with starting at 2005, then watching some of the 'best' episodes from the previous seasons. I'd throw The Five Doctors out there: while it isn't great by any stretch of the imagination, it is quite fun and is full of bits from the first 20 years. 86.176.48.114 ( talk) 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the advice. There seems to be general consensus to begin with the 2005 re-launch. From the discussion, it seems this new series was designed without need for knowledge of the older series, so it may be a good place to jump into the series with minimal problems. I think that I'll give that a try. As I progress through the series I may look into some of the earlier episodes. Thank again, Piyopiyo ( talk) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Do you know the title and singer of this song of the 80's? Thanks. Michael Laurent ( talk) 10:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.169.247.106 ( talk)
- I would try and help, but I've got difficulties opening the .ogg file. Do you have the sound bite in a more user-friendly format?
TomorrowTime (
talk) 11:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Here is a
mp3 file. Thanks.
Michael Laurent (
talk) 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmpf, sorry, I can't help you :( Hope anyone else knows the answer to your question.
TomorrowTime (
talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I hope so. Thank you for your try! Michael Laurent ( talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmpf, sorry, I can't help you :( Hope anyone else knows the answer to your question.
TomorrowTime (
talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Here is a
mp3 file. Thanks.
Michael Laurent (
talk) 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to presesnt a movie RADHA the movie in Wikipedia and had asked the questuion a few hours ago, but I am yet to recieve the answer, when will iget an answer so as to post the details pertaining to the movie RADHA gthe movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muraligshankar ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, someone has already replied to you. In short, it is unlikely that an unreleased movie would be notable for its own article. However, if you can muster together enough reliable sources, it may be possible. Articles for foreign movies are certainly allowed on the English Wikipedia, but you may want to start with writing an article in your native language first, at least until you get the hang of how stuff works. A list of other Wikipedias can be found here. Good luck. Matt Deres ( talk) 17:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I have several SingStar discs for the PS3. Is there a way of looking at all my songs together - I would imagine there would be a way of pooling them all together, then picking one out and getting a 'Insert Disc 2' message for instance. 84.13.235.199 ( talk) 18:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 25 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 27 > |
| 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. |
December 26 Information
For a movie similar to Blazing Saddles. Same western style theme and general hilarity. However, this movie has a scene with a man in a freakishly tall white cowboy hat. He takes off the tall hat, only to reveal an equally tall skyscraper of red hair. The man was dressed in all white as well. Any help is welcome, thanks The Reader who Writes ( talk) 02:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is it a live-action film, or is it a cartoon? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Western (genre) comedy films would be a good place to start. -- Jayron 32 05:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- A live action film. The Reader who Writes ( talk) 05:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
why is there a delay between my tv and my hdtv? Accdude92 ( talk to me!) ( sign) 04:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Could you further explain what you mean? Do you have a standard television next to a HD television with both tuned to the same show? And there is a lag in what is shown on the HDTV when compared to what is being viewed on the standard definition TV? Dismas| (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is this the digital delay? It's a well-known effect, that there is a time-synch delay between analogue and digital broadcasts. It can be up to 30 seconds. I've just done a quick google for "digital delay" and can't find anything on it, but that's possibly because it's called something official which I don't know! -- TammyMoet ( talk) 17:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I get the same thing, with a standard TV and an HD TV on the same channel. The delay (on the HD TV) is probably less than a second but it's still noticeable. The same thing happens when flipping between a regular channel and an HD channel on the HD TV, there is a slight delay. (I have also noticed that there is no delay if I am talking to my parents on the phone (200 km away) and we are both watching the same HD channel, if that means anything.) Adam Bishop ( talk) 00:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- If your "tv" is an older receiver, it probably receives only analog television, but a newer "hdtv" receives digital signals. TammyMoet is correct about digital delay: The digital signal goes through a lot of processing on its way from the original playback or live source at the TV station to its transmitter. The delay is generally less than a second. Then, your receiver takes another second or so to decode the digital signal it gets in order to display it on the screen. By the way, what you refer to as an "hdtv" is actually only a digital TV with an ATSC tuner, capable of diplaying true HDTV programs as well as upconverted standard definition programs. -- Thomprod ( talk) 14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
[[TO WHOM EVER IT CONCERNS
I AM ANIL KUMAR from India(kerala).MY six year old son sarank dev have done a FIRE ESCAPE act on 24/12/09 in our home town named punalur.could you please inform me whether my son have set a record? If yes what are the procedures that has to be followed in giving his name in the world record list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarank dev ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds exactly like the stuff the Guinness Book of World Records documents. You should find a way to contact the publishers of that book, and see what their procedures are for getting listed... -- Jayron 32 05:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- A quick note of caution: because of the danger involved and the fact it involved a minor, Guiness might not allow a challenge such as this. Our article doesn't mentioned fire escape acts specifically, but mentions that sword swallowing was "closed" at least for a while. I'm sure they can fill you in on the details once you register. Matt Deres ( talk) 17:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I have for years been interested in watching Doctor Who. However, I can never figure out how to start. I hate getting into things in the middle. I like to start at the beginning and see it through to the end. Well... there were 26 seasons spanning 1965-1989. Then movies and specials. It started up again in 2005 and is still airing. At present there are 755 episodes in total. I'm at a lose of where to start, so I never have. As much as I would prefer to start at the beginning, with such volume that may not be realistic practical. How important is chronology to the series? Where is a good or acceptable point to get into the series? And what are the pros / cons for starting at a certain point? (Please no spoilers.) Thanks. Piyopiyo ( talk) 07:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, I don't think the early episodes even exist, as their tapes were wiped. The show has changed quite a lot over the years in terms of improving the technological look of it. I don't follow the show well enough to know, but it's possible there are DVD's available, and if they have any of the occasional specials that included several of the different doctors together, that could be an interesting place to start, to get a flavor of the show and the various ones who played the part of The Doctor. ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 09:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was like you and didn't know where to start. Then about a year ago, I got the first season (series) of the recent re-start. I suggest starting this way for a few reasons. 1) The new shows give you a good starting place if you don't know the history behind all the old foes. 2) The production values and "look and feel" of the show are what you would probably be used to. The old episodes might look so antiquated that the set design turns you off before you have a chance to give the story an objective view. 3) From what I've read, the part of the Doctor's companion is fleshed out more in the new series than it was in the old. The Doctor's companion used to be little more than a device for the Doctor to tell the audience what was going on and why it was important.
Dismas|
(talk) 11:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- The producers were well aware that many of their target audience would never have watched the old series when they re-launched Doctor Who in 2005. So they designed it so that anyone who's not watched Doctor Who before can pick it up easily. Starting at the 2005 re-launch should work well.
Vimescarrot (
talk) 11:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Concur - start with the 2005 relaunch series with
Christopher Eccleston then go onto the
David Tennant stories. If you like these then you can consider going back into the 'classic' series.
Exxolon (
talk) 14:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. You don't need to have seen the old ones to appreciate the new series (although there are things in the new ones designed to appeal to people familiar with the old ones - you just won't notice these, they won't detract from the plot). This is, as Vimescarrot says, entirely intentional. -- Tango ( talk) 15:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Concur - start with the 2005 relaunch series with
Christopher Eccleston then go onto the
David Tennant stories. If you like these then you can consider going back into the 'classic' series.
Exxolon (
talk) 14:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- There was a lot of variation in the old ones with regards to companions (or assistants as they were often called in those days). Assistants ranged from 20th Century Earth humans (male and female) to Time Ladies to cavewomen to little tin dogs. Different assistants had different roles, some bigger than others. -- Tango ( talk) 15:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- The producers were well aware that many of their target audience would never have watched the old series when they re-launched Doctor Who in 2005. So they designed it so that anyone who's not watched Doctor Who before can pick it up easily. Starting at the 2005 re-launch should work well.
Vimescarrot (
talk) 11:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was like you and didn't know where to start. Then about a year ago, I got the first season (series) of the recent re-start. I suggest starting this way for a few reasons. 1) The new shows give you a good starting place if you don't know the history behind all the old foes. 2) The production values and "look and feel" of the show are what you would probably be used to. The old episodes might look so antiquated that the set design turns you off before you have a chance to give the story an objective view. 3) From what I've read, the part of the Doctor's companion is fleshed out more in the new series than it was in the old. The Doctor's companion used to be little more than a device for the Doctor to tell the audience what was going on and why it was important.
Dismas|
(talk) 11:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Part of the appeal of Dr Who is that it changes with each change of Doctor - so watch some of each and see which you like best. Overarching storyline is not a major feature of the show and there are often large inconsistencies (most often between Doctors). I would be hard pressed to name my favorite doctor.
75.41.110.200 (
talk) 15:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Given the fact that the show's been on for decades, I would guess that almost all fans started "somewhere in the middle". I started with
Tom Baker and
The Hand of Fear. The suggestion to begin with the 2005 relaunch is an good one. However, if you want to get more of a sense of the history of the show, you may want to do some time traveling of your own. See if you can find a list of the best episodes of all time (such as these:
[1]
[2]
[3]) and watch them in chronological order. While starting with the 2005 relaunch is convenient, nobody can possibly consider themselves a
true Doctor Who fan if they haven't seen
Genesis of the Daleks or
Castrovalva.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 17:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you are loath to start with the reboot, and want to get a feel for the 'classic' series without worrying about continuity, you could do worse than check out the film Dr. Who and the Daleks, which is non-canonical, and has the ever-watchable Peter Cushing as the Doctor. Also the audio adventures of the Eighth Doctor are very good, and are set up so previous knowledge is not really necessary. 84.13.235.199 ( talk) 18:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Given the fact that the show's been on for decades, I would guess that almost all fans started "somewhere in the middle". I started with
Tom Baker and
The Hand of Fear. The suggestion to begin with the 2005 relaunch is an good one. However, if you want to get more of a sense of the history of the show, you may want to do some time traveling of your own. See if you can find a list of the best episodes of all time (such as these:
[1]
[2]
[3]) and watch them in chronological order. While starting with the 2005 relaunch is convenient, nobody can possibly consider themselves a
true Doctor Who fan if they haven't seen
Genesis of the Daleks or
Castrovalva.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 17:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- While I love Dr. Who and the Daleks, I'm not sure how wise it is to suggest it as a way to get a feel for the old series. And it might have the unfortunate effect of causing them to watch the second film. You would not want to be responsible for that. I'd agree with starting at 2005, then watching some of the 'best' episodes from the previous seasons. I'd throw The Five Doctors out there: while it isn't great by any stretch of the imagination, it is quite fun and is full of bits from the first 20 years. 86.176.48.114 ( talk) 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the advice. There seems to be general consensus to begin with the 2005 re-launch. From the discussion, it seems this new series was designed without need for knowledge of the older series, so it may be a good place to jump into the series with minimal problems. I think that I'll give that a try. As I progress through the series I may look into some of the earlier episodes. Thank again, Piyopiyo ( talk) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Do you know the title and singer of this song of the 80's? Thanks. Michael Laurent ( talk) 10:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.169.247.106 ( talk)
- I would try and help, but I've got difficulties opening the .ogg file. Do you have the sound bite in a more user-friendly format?
TomorrowTime (
talk) 11:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Here is a
mp3 file. Thanks.
Michael Laurent (
talk) 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmpf, sorry, I can't help you :( Hope anyone else knows the answer to your question.
TomorrowTime (
talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I hope so. Thank you for your try! Michael Laurent ( talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmpf, sorry, I can't help you :( Hope anyone else knows the answer to your question.
TomorrowTime (
talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Here is a
mp3 file. Thanks.
Michael Laurent (
talk) 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to presesnt a movie RADHA the movie in Wikipedia and had asked the questuion a few hours ago, but I am yet to recieve the answer, when will iget an answer so as to post the details pertaining to the movie RADHA gthe movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muraligshankar ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, someone has already replied to you. In short, it is unlikely that an unreleased movie would be notable for its own article. However, if you can muster together enough reliable sources, it may be possible. Articles for foreign movies are certainly allowed on the English Wikipedia, but you may want to start with writing an article in your native language first, at least until you get the hang of how stuff works. A list of other Wikipedias can be found here. Good luck. Matt Deres ( talk) 17:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I have several SingStar discs for the PS3. Is there a way of looking at all my songs together - I would imagine there would be a way of pooling them all together, then picking one out and getting a 'Insert Disc 2' message for instance. 84.13.235.199 ( talk) 18:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)