Humanities desk
< October 21	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

October 22

"Joe the Plumber" airtime

Hi all,

Does anyone have any idea if there's a way to find out the number of minutes devoted to "Joe the Plumber" on the major news networks? Or if there's anything that suggests any one network devoted more time on it than another?

Thanks!

— Sam 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.120.108 (talk)

Have you looked at Joe the Plumber? Some of the cited articles might help. Gwinva (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Which historical Pharaoh would be a possible candidate for the one Yu-Gi-Oh! makes mention of.

I was wondering what historical Pharaoh could possibly be the one Kazuki Takahashi makes reference to in Yu-Gi-Oh! that lived or died about 3,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago depending on which anime you are going off whether it is the Japanese version, or the english version, and it would help to know how many years back, and from what date, because with all the research I have been doing I have really not improved that much, or gotten much accomplished, and one link is that of "Howling: Atem vs. Atemu", and the guy that wrote it said that Takahashi basically disrespected the way Hieroglyphs are supposed to be interpreted, and I have found that a lot of possibilities arise with the pharaoh being Akhanaten, or Amenhotep IV, but also I don't know why, but I see a possibility that Tutankhamen could be that Pharaoh it is just that the dates seem to be what gets in the way, because, " Takahashi started working on his Manganka I believe about 19?2, meaning that I can't remember what decade, and Yu-Gi-Oh! was created 1996 I believe," and it is the year 2008 by now, and I am interested to find this out because I have a millennium puzzle necklace that was a trophy that someone had won, and they sold it to me, and I am trying to find proof that magic does exist, just like dragons exist, and aliens exist, and that the government has been covering it up just because of some dumb reason like they are afraid that if information got out that stuff like that existed that it would create mass hysteria, and mass panic, or in some peoples mind the fact that they would cover up something like aliens existing is for economic reasons, and also I want to see if I find proof that Yu-Gi-Oh! was not all 100% based off of fictional information it is not just that it might prove that magic exists like what the shadow games could do, or any proof that we might get from finding out if my millennium puzzle necklace is from the real Pharaoh.67.41.206.229 (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the anime reference necessarily be an informed one to begin with, or are we to fit a historical pharaoh to the fantasy after the fact?--Wetman (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese article says he's a pharaoh in the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt but I have no idea who is the model of Atem. I think his name comes from Atum. Oda Mari (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to rain on everyone's parade here, but sometimes writers of fiction just make shit up cuz it sounds cool. There is no reason to believe that YuGiOH was basing this particular character on any one pharaoh, and not just a composite of pharaohs in general.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire idea is flawed anyway. Even in YuGiOh was basing some part of its story on some historical figure, it doesn't do anything towards proving the existence of magic. King Arthur was based loosely on a real historical figure but it doesn't mean magic exists (or dragons, for that matter). Works of fiction routinely take bits and pieces from historical sources as part of the deep context of their fiction—it doesn't make it any less fiction. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any records of pharaohs with really tall, spiky, multi-colored hair, you're probably on the right track... but I don't think that was common in ancient Egypt. (More seriously: keep in mind that anime frequently makes references to mythology and religion which aren't terribly accurate, but just added for "flavor".) 137.151.174.176 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dating Australian girls

How to get to date Ozzie females? Any singles networking sites ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garb wire (talk • contribs) 08:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could move to Australia (assuming you don't live there already). Failing that there are Aussie bars in many major cities. I would recommend going to some of those. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Australians actually go to Australian themed bars? --Tango (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly they do. These are not "themed" bars, they are bars specifically catering for homesick expat Australians and New Zealanders. I've been to pubs in London where practically everyone was Australian, both behind and in front of the bar – and, frequently, on the floor of it. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could ring Ozzy and ask him if he has any females he can spare. :) -- Jack the Ozzie talk

If you're not that fussy, you could go to Mount Isa and wait for babes from around the world to start arriving :-P Astronaut (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "Australian singles" will get you a *lot* of hits, but I'm not going to perform the search myself at work, nor have I been to them to check their usefulness. I can attest to the presence of good looking women in Australia. Even I've noticed them. Steewi (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of national dress?

Hi all.

The image to the right was previously on Greek Canadians, until someone wrote to us to point out that they don't seem to be in Greek costumes at all; they suspect, based on costume, that they're Russian. This point seems to be borne out by the flag above their heads - it's a Russian tricolour. (A Russian tricolour in 1945 is itself quite interesting, of course - was it used by anti-communist emigres in that period? I have no idea.)

The metadata on the original archive image says it's Greek, but this seems to be inaccurate. I'm no expert on traditional costumes of either Russia or Greece, though, so any thoughts on what it shows would be appreciated. Shimgray | talk | 11:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd seen this image isolated from this question, the men's shirts and the women's costumes would have screamed "Russian" to me. They may relate to a specific region in Russia, but exactly where I couldn't say. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there's a Russian flag, crossed with the old Canadian flag on the wall behind them, I would guess that the picture is mislabeled! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take it up with the Library and Archives Canada who appear to be the holders pf the photo. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I've already dropped them an email about it. Shimgray | talk | 13:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're Bulgarians. 92.224.245.16 (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. That could be it too. Bulgarians share strong Slavic cultural ties with Russians, and the Flag of Bulgaria would be indistinguishable from the Flag of Russia under black and white photography. Good catch. Either way, they are definately not Greeks... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, since Greece and Bulgaria have a common border, is it possible that they're from a Bulgarian community in Greece, or from a Greek-speaking community in Bulgaria? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the first pope to wear glasses?

My brother received this question as a home assignment on Physics and I've been searching the web to find an answer but couldn't. I read glasses were made usable around 1280 but apparently they were long considered as a 'work of the devil' so I suppose it took a while after that moment until the head of the Catholic church decided they were 'safe'. However, I don't even know what century to look into so I thought maybe you could help me out with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.162.68 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page [1] indicates that Pope Leo X wore them, and he served as Pope from 1513-1521. I can't find any earlier references to popes using glasses, but the same page also notes that a monk in 1306 reports using glasses. The belief that glasses were the "work of the devil" is probably an old-wives-tale. While I don't doubt that there may have been some wacky superstitions among the lower classes, churchmen were some of the most educated (and most pragmatic) members of society. I doubt they would have shunned glasses as "works of the devil", rather they probably had the best understanding of optics in their society, and probably had no qualms in using them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books has a copy of Renaissance Vision from Spectacles to Telescopes, which is quite informative. Pope John XXI (1276) was himself a physician who wrote on the eyes and may have known of them. Pope Sixtus IV (1471) was explicitly recorded by an ambassador as wearing spectacles; many earlier popes were known to have owned pairs of spectacles, or monocles, or magnifying glasses, but these may just have been as gifts, toys, or symbols of wealth. Pope Leo X (1513) certainly used magnifying glasses and monocles regularly - he was heavily myopic - and was painted with one. Shimgray | talk | 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Dr. John XXI use anesthetics when he wrote on the eyes? Edison (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anaesthetising the eye requires some precision, but no doubt he became quite skilled at it if he regularly wrote on eyes: I can't imagine he'd succeed otherwise. Gwinva (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(In a more serious note, effective anesthesia for the eyes was only developed in the very late 19th century. One of the better uses of cocaine.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were precursors to glasses during the time of the pharaohs. I'm pretty sure it would just depend on your definition of what glasses are which of them first used them. Dmcq (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pinhole in a sheet of paper would allow a nearsighted or farsighted person to read fine print in bright light, functioning like a pinhole camera. Edison (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short story about man dying on the moon

I remember reading a long time ago a short story about an astronaut that breaks his leg (or something to that effect) while on the moon and becomes stuck there. He remains motionless on the ground, thinking about his life, until he dies. Does anyone know the name of this? Thanks! Evaunit♥666♥ 16:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me a little of the Snows of Kilimanjaro, although he's not on the moon (as I recall it's a gangrenous leg injury, and he thinks about his life as death approaches). In The Long Watch, by Robert A. Heinlein (great story -- read it if you don't know it -- as moving a meditation on heroism as I can recall anywhere in science fiction) a man lies on the moon, awaiting death by radiation poisoning, having just given his life to save the earth. I'm sure there's another one I'm not thinking of. Antandrus (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. I do know The Long Watch, and I also thought of Larry Niven's Wait It Out, a truly ghastly scenario of a man stranded suitless on Pluto, whose frozen brain becomes a superconductor in the extreme cold so he becomes conscious - but immobile - every time the distant sun rises, giving him time to reflect on his past life and the eternity that awaits him. But that didn't fit. Is it the ending of Robert Heinlein's Requiem, where D. D. Harriman has finally managed to get to the moon illegally in his old age, but is injured by the acceleration forces on landing and is propped up by his pilots on the surface of the moon, where he dies in a happy reverie before they can go for help? Ka renjc 21:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of nits: in "Wait It Out", the narrator takes off his suit to freeze himself rather than starve awaiting rescue; he becomes conscious whenever the sun sets, making him cold enough to superconduct. —Tamfang (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he does - don't senior moments get to you! Still remember shivering at the idea though. Damn, it's cold. Ka renjc 11:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Robert A. Heinlein sci-fi story Requiem (short story), D. D. Harriman, a tycoon who made regular lunar travel possible, in his old age connives to go to the moon and dies there. Don't remember about his leg being broken. Edison (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and checked Requiem. No specific reference to a broken leg, but to ".. a couple of cracked ribs ... I don't know what else" and then the statement: "His left leg was practically useless, and they had to help him through the lock ..." So maybe it's the one. Ka renjc 11:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not science fiction, but speaking of "motionless on the ground, thinking about his life, until he dies" -- and with a broken leg, no less -- who can ever forget the ending of Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls?. Anyone else notice a certain kinship between Heinlein and Hemingway? Antandrus (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scala cronicas

Does anyone know what this could refer to? Is it simply a misspelling of Scalacronica? Does scalacronica even have any altenative spellings? Thanks for any help! ;) --Cameron * 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you gave us the context in which you came across the words. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google books comes up with Scala Chronica's and Scala Cronica's in C19th books and journals, clearly referring to Gray's work, so clearly there was more room for variety at one time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insider trading & credit crisis

Would a broad legalisation of insider trading have prevented the current credit crisis? User:Krator (t c) 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, as insider trading serves only to concentrate wealth and control of companies in the hands of a smaller number of people. It is patently unfair, in that it gives some people, by accident of employment, the advantage to screw the other investors. Imagine if you know that your company management is embezzling huge sums of cash. What is to stop you from also short-selling your company stock, then exposing the scandal, and making a huge additional profit off of the situation. For an example of where this went horribly awry, see Enron and Tyco. If insider trading were legalized, it would only increase corporate raiding and intentional executive mismanagement as was displayed in those cases. Imagine if banks like J.P. Morgan-Chase and Citibank and the like started to fall for the same reason Enron and Tyco did. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see how legal insider trading could have had a positive effect and, as Jayron32 suggests, it might have made the credit crisis worse. The credit crisis essentially arose because financial institutions held investments that turned out to be worse less than they had paid for them, the institutions had insufficient capital, and public lack of confidence in the institutions led to runs on them. (Each of these had underlying causes, but that's a one-sentence precis.) None of these problems would have been reduced by legal insider trading, and the bank runs might have been worse. John M Baker (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was Milton Friedman that argued that insider trading should be legalised. The logic being that if an insider knows something and trades on that knowledge that sends a 'signal' to the market (positive or negative). The current crisis may have been lessened if the insider trading had been such that it notified the markets of the possible negative news faster, thus preventing things from building up and building up and then crashing, and potentially that would lessen the impact of the current crisis. It's all theoretical but certainly there are examples of highly respected economists discussing the idea that legalising insider trading would be a positive thing to do. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, there are some law professors and economists who believe that insider trading should be legalized, though it should be understood that they are very much in the minority, but the question was whether legalization would have prevented the credit crisis, and there the answer is no. John M Baker (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When will the result of the 2008 Presidential Election come out?

You might argue it is readily available through search engines, but since there are several key dates, it is ambiguous to me which one is right. By right I am talking about at that time, people can be at least 90% sure who is the new president. Is that Nov.4? Or Dec.5, or Jan.6? Or is that the case before Jan.6, all we can do is look at exit polls? My appreciation goes to anyone answering the question. --Mm.3nn (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barring a 2000-style close election, by midnight Eastern Time on November 4 people will have a fairly good idea of who the next president will be, based on preliminary counts of the ballots. By the time the morning newspaper is delivered on November 5, the headlines will tell you who won (again, barring a 2000-style "Gore Wins"/"Bush Wins"/"Who won?" election). Final counts of the vote numbers will take several weeks longer (Washington State requires only that absentee ballots be postmarked by Election Day; they can arrive after that). The actual decision will be made on December 15, when the Electoral College meets. We'll know with absolute certainty who the president is only on Inauguration Day, since it's entirely possible for the president-elect to die before then. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Carnido says, usually you know by the evening of November 4, even if it is pretty close. 2000 was a worst-case sort of scenario though where it took days and days to figure it out (and it was only really settled with the Supreme Court intervened). (I wonder what Sandra Day O'Connor thinks of her decision in that today...) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Obama or McCain got a total of 364 electoral votes (270 needed) in a landslide, as Electoral-vote.com says polls predicts at present for Obama [2] then the networks might "call" the election a bit after the west coast polls closed. As a courtesy, they have, in recent elections, refrained from calling the election while the western polls are still open, because this leads voters from the losing party to stay home and hurts the congressional and local candidates from the losing party. I'm not sure about the synchronicity of the polls closing in Hawaii or Alaska versus California and Oregon. The last 2 elections have been atypical in not having an election night concession speech. Edison (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edison: With how close 2000 and 2004 were, I'm not surprised the speeches weren't given on the night. I also think this also was a courtesy to the western states as well. In 1980 the networks predicted that Reagan won and Carter conceded. There are stories of voters in CA leaving their polling place after the news got around. See [3], [4], and [5]. - Thanks, Hoshie 10:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oath making and the need to speak

I've sworn a few oaths in my time, which requires me to speak them out loud. For example, a statutory oath before a lawyer requires the words to be said aloud; the oath-swearer and lawyer then sign to confirm the words were said. It is not enough merely to sign the written version. Likewise, signing a marriage certificate is not the actual act of marriage: it is signed to confirm that the marriage has taken place, and been witnessed. (The actual act of marriage is the spoken "I Joe Bloggs take you Jane Doe" bit. If Joe Bloggs fell down dead after swearing that but before signing, the marriage would still be legal.)
So, why does an oath have to be spoken? And if that is so essential, then what happens in the case of someone who cannot speak (through severe impediment, injury etc)? Gwinva (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty antiquated concept in my mind, but I think someday they'll say the same thing about written signatures. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more secure than just signing a piece of paper. Spoken oaths survive to us from times when literacy was uncommon. If you just mark an "X" or something onto a piece of paper you couldn't even read, you can always claim you didn't know what you were doing (and even people who can read often don't—I for one certainly didn't really read the "terms of use" the last time I was required to do so before using some piece of software). But if you spoke the words and said, so help me "Bob", then you've most definitely given your word.

Also, and more importantly, it's that you have to actually say the words, whereas signed documents are just ink on paper and often written by someone else too. No matter that the words may be formulaic, so's the Lord's prayer. An oath is a sacred thing, and you have to do it yourself. Not just a formality but a ritual. Rather like prayer in that respect, or the sacrament of confession where the point is not just thinking about your sins but getting yourself to declare them out loud to someone else, which is quite a step further. There's magic in spoken words, and you don't have to be religious or superstitious to think so. Oh, and see speech act.

As to someone who cannot speak, a way would have to be found, but to my mind it would have to be more than just glancing at the legalese and then clicking on "I agree". Some kind of particular gesture, depending on just how incapacitated they are. The Catholic church is sure to have a lot on this that could be applied to secular purposes as well. (These are just my thoughts on the subject, I'm afraid I have no idea how they do it in actual legal proceedings.)--Rallette (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that more or less echoes what I'd assumed about the significance of speaking (nice to see my assumptions affirmed!), hence my musings on what happens if someone can't speak: a mere written pledge would not be enough to replicate that. Most deaf people would have sign language, which is in effect speech, but there are many other people for whom speech is difficult. Thanks for your thoughts! Gwinva (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]