Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 6 Humanities desk archive July 8 >


Which bands of rock'n'roll belong these logos?

[edit]

Thank you with the scholar who will be able to rafraichir me the memory. (I just love the Google translation!!!)

[1] [2]

A track to be followed : the logo with the heart transpierced by a stylized arrow, appears in a scene of the film “Familly Stone” (Spirit of family 2005), on a poster (with the name of the group!!! … haven't time to see… gasp!) in the teenager's room of the applicant of Sarah Jessica Parker… Thank's to the owner of the DVD which will be able to make a saving “pause”.

Sly and the Family Stone ? StuRat 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the first one, but I'm pretty sure the second one is Love and Rockets, if my memory from high school is reliable. --Joelmills 01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is Ratcat, an Australian band popular in the early 1990s. The second one is definitely Love and Rockets. --Canley 12:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you both...you make my day!!! A happy guy from Paris.

Pronounciation of Caedmon

[edit]

So I was reading the front page today, and came across this featured article: Caedmon. How do you pronounce it? Can someone put a pronounciation, both phonetic and IPA, in the article? Thanks JianLi 04:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Further: The letter that is giving you trouble is ash. Æ, in Anglo-Saxon, represents the unique English vowel heard in "cat, bat, fat, that, hat." It is not the European alpha nor the Greek æ dipthong. English is the only modern language, I'm told, to have that vowel (even though we no longer have a letter for it). Geogre 12:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not as common as some other vowel sounds, but according to our article on the "æ" sound (Near-open front unrounded vowel), it occurs in Finnish, Norwegian, Persian, German and Vietnamese. Some Slovak dialects also have the sound. -- Mwalcoff 23:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speak Persian and can tell you that Æ does not exist in Persian. In English, Æ is a 2-step sound: First you open your mouth wide and then you make it a ə (schwa) before closing it. In Persian, the second step is absent. When I first learned English, the second step eluded me. Next, I thought Æ is like e as in "bet." This was wrong, too. It took me four freaking years to figure this out.
Those who learned English in their pre-teenager years don't notice the 2-step subtlety of Æ. (I learned English in my teenage years.) They just say it right instinctively. --Patchouli 02:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to doubt the article, too. The article covers three different ligature vowels, not just the ash. Ash is a very odd sound, and it is very difficult for non-natives to get right. In fact, it's one of the easiest dialect markers for English speakers themselves, and it, along with the "oh" sound, is one of the sounds that native speakers can generally detect a foreign speaker by. (The British æ is closer to α than the American one, and Australian is closer to ε than the American one. Upper midwesterners use more head voice with it than other regions do, etc.) Maybe I'm wrong and it still exists in northern languages, but I don't think so. Geogre 02:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patchouli is partly correct. Some dialects of American English do not have a true "Æ" sound. Sometimes, it is pronounced "eə," especially in eastern and southern dialects. I'd be curious to know with english dialect you learned, Patchouli.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live in California. When George says, "Ash is a very odd sound, and it is very difficult for non-natives to get right," he is right on the money.--Patchouli 06:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music Terminology

[edit]

The musical scale "do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, do" is also designated the letters "c, d, e, f, g, a, b, c." Why does the alphabet designation start at "c"=do and not "a"=do? Thank you, Ian.


Because the simplest major scale (if you're playing it on a keyboard instrument) is the scale starting at starting at "do" or C, called the "C Major Scale". None of the articles on music notation seem to provide any indication why letter notation starts has "A" where it is; it's a fairly arbitrary choice; there is at least some logic at starting at "do". --Robert Merkel 08:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest minor scale on the piano is A minor, which starts on A, and goes in alphabetical order up to G, using only the white keys.


One thing is which came first, and I don't know that. But various instruments have different 'central' notes, the root notes. I suppose the abc notation came from one with the root note 'a'. By the way, the piano doesn't have such a note because it has equal temperament. So the root note that has the easiest progression for a major scale was picked as the central note, I suppose, but then one might as well ask why that layout of keys was picked.
Also, the tuning fork of a guitar is in 440Hz. This has grown into the central reference note. And that's an 'a'. DirkvdM 09:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any note can serve as "do" in the Tonic Sol-Fa. See Solfege.--Shantavira 09:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought too. If you are playing a scale of E, or in a key of E, then E is "do". But I may be wrong. DJ Clayworth 15:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DJ is right. "Do" can stand for any of the notes on the staff. "Re" stands for the next note in "Do"'s scale. "Mi" stands for the next note in "Do"'s scale, and so on... Political Mind 19:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're right about solfege having any tonic. As to the reason it all starts with c instead of a... It took a long time to agree on equal temperament, many still disagree. Before that they would play songs mostly in a few common keys and tune a piano to sound good in them with mean tone or a variety of other temperaments. Before that they would just tune an instrument to sound good in one key.

The problem arose with orchestras. You couldn't afford to make several flutes and horns and such for each player so that they'd sound good in every key, or keep retuning or bringing in new harpsichords and pianos for different pieces. So for various matters of convenience here and there the instrumentalists and manufacturers generally fell into making instruments with C or F as the lowest note. This has changed somewhat and now Bb is more common than F.

The point is that this was all being sorted out before the relatively new standard of equal temperament. Back then most songs rarely strayed from the diatonic scale and instruments that bottomed out at C would be keyed to sound really good 'singing' solfege in C. Pianos were keyed to play along with these concert instruments. That's why there's all this inequality with 'semi-tones'. ;-)

When the theories of what to do with these semitones were being hammered out C was most likely (it's logical anyway) already the common concert pitch, the one whose scale has no semitones. Does that make any sense? This is how I understand the whole matter anyway... -LambaJan 05:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Budgetting

[edit]

My organization has several departments. Each has an annual budget. At the end of every fiscal year, there is a frantic spending spree to spend out the budgets. Then, everyone proposes padded budgets to senior management, who try to cut them to a reasonable level. This process rewards departments who manage to claim they need more than they do, and departments that spend out fully, even if the expenditures are not necessary. Can anyone suggest resources for more sophisticated budget processes to help manage this more rationally so that everyone gets what they need, and not what they bargain for? I know it's not a perfect world, and in our case it is unlikely that a solution that needs senior management to know more about the needs of each department than they do now is likely to work. Thanks!

Ultimately, you're up against tax law, I think, if you're in the US. The end of the fiscal year means spending, because any carry over is shown as surplus and taxable assets for the company. Otherwise, your best bet would be to allow some budget carry over of some percentage, if a justification were appended. Then again, I know bumpkis about business, so take my advice as such. Geogre 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you found the true source of the problem when you stated that senior management, which is responsible for granting budgets, has no idea what is going on, and rely on the managers under them for this info. This is a classic conflict of interest, where they are relying on people whose best interest is served by lying and claiming they need to spend more money than they really do. Particularly if across-the-board cuts have been used in the past, they may now feel the need to inflate all future budgets to prepare for this happening again. If senior management is unable or unwilling to actually learn the business so they can apportion funds in the way they are actually needed, then they need to hire an outside consultant firm who will do their job for them. If this is a corporation, perhaps shareholders will ultimately sack the incompetent senior management and hire people who actually know the business. StuRat 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a further and more insipid problem in that, said senior management have no inspiration or motivation to effectively downsize or even rightsize their perceived theatre of operations by realistically bidding only for what they can accurately forecast as their spending requirements. As a relatively senior budget manager for a large and highly visible civil service department I came across the problem year in and year out. I would use all the business tools of analysis to predict, forecast, quantify, assess and define funding requirements for year 1, 2, and 3 ahead, and in those years, by applying best principles and practice on just-in-time procurement, and life-cycle costing techniques etc., would usually make significant in-year savings that would be progressively reported to the Finance and other Directors. But at the end of the year, we would be directed to forward buy large stocks of stationery, or pre-fund other supplies and bought-in services, knowing full well that by so doing, we would inherit the same problem next year. Achieving an end-year saving was seen almost as a crime, and was also perceived by senior management as extremely embarrassing to them personally, as they would have to offer money back to Government Ministers who had subjected their bidding round in the first place to close scrutiny.

I think what you are after may be what is known as 'zero-base budgeting'. --81.104.12.11 14:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US aid to Great Britain during WWII on condition of becoming 49th state

[edit]

At a dinner party here in Great Britain I was recently told that it has just come to light via the FOIA that U.S. offered Britain aid at the onset of WWII upon the condition that Britain become our 49th state! Everyone at the table nodded in silent agreement that this was so, even as I, an American, said it was ridiculous. I have googled it every way I can think of using the following terms : U.S./United States/America/American aid/support/arms/alliance/ WWII World War II/World War Two Great Britain/Britain/England 49th state FOIA/Freedom of information Act

and I have come up with absolutely nothing in every case. Can you find a reference to this?

I very much doubt a reference exists, because it's almost certainly nonsense. It may, possibly, be an exceptionally garbled version of Churchill's offer of political union with France in 1940 (which never got anywhere, but was on the table for about a week as everything collapsed)... but something like this sounds like fantasy to me. Shimgray | talk | 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the old "pull one over on the American" routine. I don't think there has ever been serious discussion of any sort of political "reconciliation" between the USA and UK, although if it is a genuine urban legend and not a joke, I can see why it would have currency in the UK. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may seem odd now, but at wartime people come up with funny ideas. What about this: If the UK were to be a US state then the US would effectively be at war with Germany and the Monroe doctrine would not have to be violated (or would it? - maybe not such a good example). Just a thought. This reminds me of a Dutch plan to confiscate a large chunk of Germany after the war, which would have something like tripled the size of the Netherlands. This plan wasn't approved by the other allies, but if the Netherlands had played a bigger role in the defeat of the Germans, who knows? DirkvdM 07:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False photos

[edit]

On [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350794/posts this site] (WARNING: gruesome photographs, not work safe) I viewed photos of executions in the People's Republic of China. his photos are flase for two reasons: in the PRC is and was forbidden executions of juvenile and this method of executions is false. And, in the impossible case of attendibility of this photos, in what year there were executions photographated? What is yoour opinion on my osservation? --Vess 18:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy... Um, adding emphasis to the above comment: URGH. If you dare that link, brace yourself first, probably with a few stiff drinks. As for the question, I'd say it's hard to say whether this is real or not. If they're faked, they certainly did a lot of work to make it look good. Tony Fox (speak) 21:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same remarks regarding the gruesome photos as the above editors. As for the actual question, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to accept these photos as true depictions of executions in the PROC. Sure there may be "laws" on the "books" forbidding these attrocities, but what makes you think that a despotic, brutal regime such as that of the PROC takes any of these laws seriously? Try reading the Constitution of the People's Republic of China or the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. These are beautiful documents, guaranteeing the widest possible of individual liberties imaginable. Yet these documents are a farce. They're not worth the paper their written on. Similarly, should the PROC's politburo decide that certain people should be executed in this manner, any "law" that prohibits the depicted attrocities would be irrelevant. I'm afraid we're all falling victim to the idea of the "Rule of Law" that we all have the pleasure of enjoying in the free world. Unfortunately, the "Rule of Law" is nothing more than a joke in countries like the PROC. Loomis 21:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no particular reason to believe that these photos are fake. Executions have been photographed before and they will be photographed again, for all kinds of purposes, some of which are morally acceptable and even commendable (such as documenting evidence of murder for journalistic purposes) and some of which are not (such as getting a kick out of the whole thing and snapping a memento). -- Captain Disdain 03:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these are genuine. I think the photos date from the late 1980's. When I first saw them, the captions said they were being executed for adultery, but it could just as easily be for drug offenses. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the sign in the picture, she was executed for "Premeditated Murder". --Vsion 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, gruesome, but no more than your average wartime atrocity, so I don't see why you get so upset. I've never seen an electric chair execution, but the movie depictions I've seen look a lot more horrible than this. And then there's the method of injecting some destructive substances that is said to be a really horrible death. But first some other substance is injected that paralyses the victim, so you don't get to see the agony. Now that is gruesome. At least the people in these photographs probably died instantly. DirkvdM 07:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little gruesome "don't open this in compromising circumstances" tag. (People can still click it if they want, but at least they are warned). --Fastfission 14:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like the execution of Nick Berg except that those Islamists proclaimed, "Allah is great," in Arabic in the middle of the scene where they cut the poor guy's throat. My opinion is that the probability that they are real is 99%. The resolution of Nick Berg video wasn't perfect but I still believe it.--Patchouli 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems perhaps like the execution of those 24 Iraqi civilians, including 11 women and children, by U.S. soldiers, which occurred in Haditha. Hopefully none of the young girls were sexually assaulted by the soldiers before being murdered, as we hear happened in Mahmoudiya. --J.Q.P. 12 July 2006

Seinfeld

[edit]

In many episodes of Seinfeld a certain man is in the background. He has pale skin and light red hair. In a couple very brief speaking parts, he speaks with a British accent. Who is he? See him, for example, in The Chinese Restaurant.66.213.33.2 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His name's Norman Brenner.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world did you know that?

Because I didn't forget it when I heard it. ;0)  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  19:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EU human rights in the UK

[edit]

hi, the UK doesnt have a bill of rights as such but we do have (since the 50's) the European convention on human rights. i was wondering to what extent this is analagous to the bill of rights/supreme court in the US. E.g. if our governent is found to be breaching our human rights, does it then HAVE to change that law? also, does that automatically pull other signatory countries who are guilty of the same thing, into line? thanks 201.32.177.211 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Human Rights Act 1998 and the links therein. --Mathew5000 19:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I can give a fully informed answer to the first half of your question, as I'm not entirely sure of the constitutional status of the convention. (Though my best guess is that NO, it doesn't enjoy constitutional status among the member nations at all, making my following remarks moot.)
However, if it does indeed enjoy constitutional status among the member nations, then yes, if the UK is found to be in breach of human rights, it would follow that all other member nations would be forced to conform as well.
You made the analogy to the US Bill of Rights, which is a good one. For example, Roe v. Wade was a case involving American Constitutional law that involved a statute of the state of Texas alone. However, once the (anti-abortion) statute was declared invalid, the effect was that similar statutes were constitutionally invalid in all 49 other states. The same can be said of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Though it was concerned only with segregation in the state of Kansas, its result was that ALL similar stautes imposing segregation in every other state were made invalid. Hope this helps. Loomis 21:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your initial statement is incorrect. The UK does have a bill of rights, the Bill of Rights 1689 was originally an English bill of Rights and became U.K. legislation with the formation of that kingdom. It is still in force.
If the UK was braching the EU convention through its law it would have to change its law (usually after appealing) but this wouldn't affect any other European countries law, it would require a seperate ruling to require any other country to amend its legislation. AllanHainey 12:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. Yes the UK has a "Bill of Rights", but the status of this "Bill of Rights" should in no way be confused with the American "Bill of Rights". The former is a mere statute of Parliament, having equal status with all other acts of Parliament, whereas the latter enjoys "constitutional status" in America.
All that is to say that if an act of the Parliament of Westminster breached the UK "Bill of Rights", the result would be a conflict of two "acts", both with equal status (though it may be argued that the Bill of Rights would win out due to its higher "prestige"). Nonetheless, the UK Bill of Rights is nothing but a statute, and as such does not have the authority to invalidate any other act of Parliament.
On the other hand, the American "Bill of Rights" enjoys constitutional status, meaning, that any act of congress that violates it (according to the Supreme Court) is declared null and void.
Finally, if any UK statute were to breach the EU convention, the question would be be more of a political than a legal one. The EU is not (at least not yet) a sovereign authority. It all depends on how far the UK is willing to delegate its sovereign powers to the EU. The UK already has special status in the EU as the only country to not adopt the Euro.
As I've said, the issue is far more political than legal. In practice though, to be brutally honest, the UK could, and very possibly would, if the issue is important enough, simply ignore any ruling that it's in breach of any EU convention. This would surely cause a certain degree of political hovoc in the EU, but is not at all outside the realm of possibilty. Loomis 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original questioner referred to a bill of rights so I gave some info on this. You are right that it doesn't have any special status like the U.S.A. bill of rights as this is incorporated in their constitution. I never said that the 2 were of equal status or weight in law.
It should be noted that Britain is one of the most diligent of the EU countries in implementing & complying with EU legislation. Other countries (France, Italy, Ireland I think are the main ones) routinely ignore EU law & don't implement most of such laws into their national law. Whether some have just ignored national court judgements that national law breaches EU law I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised. AllanHainey 11:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

[edit]

i have an assignment to write a biography on any famous person. Can you suggest me some of the names of people on whom I could write a biography. and could you please give me some clues to write a biography as an assignment. I would be very thankful to you.

Some prominent figures are people such as Oprah Winfrey, Albert Einstein, one of the various U.S. Presidents, etc. All of these can be found in Wikipedia. Maybe biography can help you. --Proficient 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What astonishes me is that a biography of a famous person was the featured article today: Cædmon -- the first poet we know about in Anglo-Saxon -- and it's a feature quality article, too. Geogre 22:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the assignment is to "write a biography on any famous person", it is probably a primary education assignment, in which the first Anglo-Saxon poet would neither be the most interesting or most accessible subject. --Fastfission 01:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I make a a suggestion - pick a person who is famous but may not be so familiar to your classmates. One that comes to mind is Howard Florey, whose work has saved many millions of lives over the years but is not super-famous. Whomever you choose, remember that you should use more sources than just Wikipedia; go to the library and ask the librarian for help finding other sources of information on the person. --Robert Merkel 23:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Darwin is always a good biographical subject, because he had a very interesting life which breaks into many simple pieces. Also, a very good biography will allow you to talk not only about the subject of the biography, but also about the times in which they lived, how they changed the world around them, and how they relate to the world today. --Fastfission 01:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
  • What, no women?? Susan B Anthony,Florence Nightingale,Emily Dickenson,Sylvia Plath ,Angelica Kaufman,Aphra Benn,Flo-Jo,Marie Curie,Elizabeth Fry,Emily Pankhurst(next ten thousand names deleted in mercy to you)hotclaws**==(81.133.206.137 08:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Alright, I'll be nice. Benjamin Franklin just had a 300th birthday, and he has a classically perfect biography. Charles Dickens is another with an exceptionally narrative biography. If American, look to Mark Twain and sort of play down the later years. If British, check out Benjamin Disraeli and Robert Walpole, or Winston Churchill, of course. Robert E. Lee was a favorite when I was in early grades. Geogre 02:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask like this you're bound to get rather obvious answers. In stead, you could try clicking 'random article' at the top left until you hit a famous person. The first one I encountered was Martin Luther. Or you could try someone who should have been more famous, like Francis Bacon From the article: "Bacon was ranked #90 on Michael H. Hart's list of the most influential figures in history". Don't we have a list of famous people? Aaargh, we do! I knew it, we've got a list on just about anything! You have to make a choice there, though. What about some explorer? One of those should go down well with your classmates. DirkvdM 07:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's really not many clues to give. Simply collect information and tell the story of their life. What famous people do you find interesting? If you pick one of those, it would make the assignment a lot more fun to do. - Mgm|(talk) 12:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US casulties at desert one Iran hostage resuce

[edit]

I just finished GUEST OF THE AYATOLLA about the Iran hostage crises 1979-1980, I have not heard from any source if the US military men who were killed the debacal at desert one ever where repatriatied for next of kin's disposal. Any idea what happened to them? Thanks 22:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)(Hobgoblen)


I choose to copy and paste a short discussion about Iran Hostage Crisis that can be found on Talk: Ruhollah Khomeini.

hostage crisis

Some Iranians considered this to be a miracle caused by divine intervention this quote from the article should not be in an encyclopedia, at least not in a political one. trueblood 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? trueblood 12:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you say SOME. And it's like this everywhere. SOME fools don't represent everyone. Persian Savant 03:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't laugh, please.--Patchouli 10:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2006_July_7&oldid=1138599294"