Humanities desk
< May 15	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 17 >

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.

May 16

articles on Ireland economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Liberalisation_and_economic_success says "The Celtic Tiger started in the mid 1990s and boomed right on up to 2001, when it slowed down, only to pick up again in 2003. It slowed again in 2007 and in June 2008 the Irish Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) predicted that Ireland would go into recession briefly before growth would resume.[15] [16]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_in_america#The_Irish_depression_of_2009 says "Ireland is entering an economic depression in the first quarter of 2009[184][185] with GDP down over 10%[186][187] and unemployment up 8.75%[188] to 11%[189][190]. Influential American economist Paul Krugman has stated that Ireland faces the worst economic outlook in the world[191]. ... The Depression has social implications including, food shortages[197][198][199], job queues[200][201], a collapse in government support[202][203][204]. Protests[205][206][207] and strikes[208] are becoming commonplace and fears of civil unrest are growing in Ireland[209][210] due to the slide into depression.""

Which is true? 65.92.124.84 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't both be true? The first article says that an economic downturn wqas predicted in June of 2008 (the predictions came in that month) and the second article says that the downturn itself came in the first quarter of 2009. The two in no way contradict each other. If you feel that the language needs to be made less ambiguous, or if you feel that the writing does not accurately represent the footnoted sources, then by all means read the sources yourself and make it better. People like you have made Wikipedia happen, and people who came before you aren't any more special than you are. Have a good time fixing up articles if they are wrong or misleading. However, please be careful to verify any fixes you make by using reliable sources. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you fo rthe answer. But to change it I would have to know which is true and I don't. Doesn't anyone? --65.92.124.84 (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental leaks

Before I start, I'm not asking for legal advice here. I'm wondering what the situation is if a government body (I'm in the UK, but I'd be interested to hear about other jurisdictions) publishes information and accidentally lets slip more than they meant to. A good example of when this can occur involves the metadata associated with Microsoft Word documents, and here's a famous example. You could also imagine someone trying to redact sensitive information from a document released under freedom of information laws and the hidden text still being just about visible under the black ink it's been blotted out with, or something similar. If they've tried to withhold bits of information as not subject to FoI (e.g. because it's personal info, or is commercially sensitive or any of the other numerous exceptions there are written into these laws) but they accidentally put it out there anyway, is anyone who then publicises it breaking the law? So if a newspaper gets hold of something certain people would rather wasn't made public and rather than being through an unauthorised leak it's down to incompetence on the part of whoever was doing the redacting, can the newspaper just say something like: whether you intended to or not, you've released it now, so given that it's not a classified state secret you can't stop us from printing it? Ytyb (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid no one would be able to effectively answer this but a lawyer, as you're asking for the interpretation of a law. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Plame might serve as a case study [1]. Peoples careers end in the pits and if there's enough evidence against one of the people involved they're likely charged with some crime or other. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's well-known the UK has an Official Secrets Act, while many other jurisdictions don't (in the U.S., for example, the 1st amendment prohibits the main provisions of the UK act). AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question specified though that I don't mean classified information (which despite the 1st amendment, great though that is, still exists in the USA and you'd be on the wrong side of the law if you tried to disseminate a classified document you'd got hold of). I'm talking more about information excluded from having to be released under FoI laws for reasons unrelated to national security. If a public body accidentally puts sensitive but not classified information on an open website, or releases a redacted document with the hidden sections still decipherable, can they do anything to stop you spreading it around? Ytyb (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In both the UK and US, someone within government can be punished for circulating secret government information to someone outside the government (or without proper clearance). However, difference between the UK and US has been that in the UK such information is often effectively unpublishable even after having been leaked, while in the U.S. there would very rarely be any legal justification (as recognized by the supreme court) for prior restraint on publication -- see the Pentagon Papers case... AnonMoos (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., accidental leaking of information can be punishable, even if a government official is doing it, except in the rare cases where the official is able to be declassify the information under their own authority. Accidental leaking can be just as bad as purposeful leaking under U.S. law — I'm not sure you have to establish any intentionality. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out United States v. The Progressive for another case of the US government being unable to restrain publication of material already out there. --Sean 13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms

[2] [3] Can anyone help me in identifying these coats of arms? Apparently they are all "of royal families, institutions, guilds, towns and cities". Others in the set included Brazil, Amsterdam and Maine. Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 07:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one you've marked "Old Apartheid South Africa?" (with its motto, "Eendragt maakt magt" = "Unity makes Strength", which is in translated form the national motto of Belgium, Bulgaria, Acadia, and Haiti) is indeed the arms of the South African Republic. See this Dutch Wikipedia article which doesn't neglect history and emphasize an evanescent television program of the same name; Wikipedia's version is here. - Nunh-huh 08:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one with the bird cages seems to be the arms of Walter von der Vogelweide, a 12th century minstrel; see the bottom of this page, and this article. This is a punning or canting arms (Vogel = bird). -Nunh-huh 08:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox-Davies The Art of Heraldry (plate LXXIII; p.408) agrees. "This celebrated minnesinger came of a family in the Southern Tyrol, and lived from [sic] about 1187–1227."

The queen's head (also plate LXXIII): "Meister Heinrich Frauenlob. ... He died on the 29th of November 1318, at Mayence, and was carried to his grave by women (Frauenlob = Women's praise)."

The rose (plate LXXV; p.410) is for "Gotingen (Güttingen in Thurgau)."

whups, forgot to sign it last night. Tamfang (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one labeled "something India related" is more likely related to Thailand. The three-headed elephant Airavata, or, in Thai, Erawan is Buddist or Hindu in orgin. The illustration seems to correspond to the Coat of Arms of Siam. - Nunh-huh 08:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one with alternating diagonal silver and red stripes (which would be blazoned as bendy argent et gules) was the Talbot arms, though perhaps it is also used by others. - Nunh-huh 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's bendy gules and argent because they usually start with the tincture in the top stripe.- Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has an odd number of pieces, so it's Gules, two bendlets argent. Nyah. —Tamfang (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one with the one rose (which would be blazoned as argent, a rose gules, barbed, seeded and slipped proper) corresponds with a description of the Gütingen family, though again, it may have been used elsewhere. - Nunh-huh 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one with the woman...no idea. - Nunh-huh 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one with the fleur de lys or, the rose gules barbed seeded or, and the feuille de nymphale (water-lily leaf) argent... no idea. - Nunh-huh 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has a lot of time on their hands: This site may have the name. [4] - 71.236.24.129 (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the shield of a town or other state unit. If it's a private party, no chance. —Tamfang (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one with a red stripe and two roses could be this if the renderer has added the stalks by mistake.- Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

crest22.jpg (which contains no crest) appears in Fox-Davies The Art of Heraldry, plate VII fig.11, but with no attribution (the description of this plate is on pp. 38–9). —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Lieutenant Governor

If Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. becomes Ambassador China, which seems likely, then Lieutenant Governor Gary Richard Herbert will become Governor. The Utah Lieutenant Governor has far more duties than in other states. Who takes over those duties? --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Utah Executive Officers Succession Amendment of 2008, "(2) If a vacancy in the office of Governor occurs, the Lieutenant Governor shall become Governor, to serve: (a) until the first Monday in January of the year following the next regular general election after the vacancy occurs, if the vacancy occurs during the first year of the term of office" for which this seems to qualify. As to replacing the Lieutenant Governor, "If a vacancy in the office of Lieutenant Governor occurs, the Governor shall, with the consent of the Senate, appoint a person as Lieutenant Governor, to serve: (A) except as provided in Subsection (3)(c)(i)(B), the remainder of the unexpired term; or (B) until the first Monday in January of the year following the next regular general election after the vacancy occurs, if the vacancy occurs because the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor under Article VII, Section 11, Subsection (2)".

In plain speak, the new Governor appoints his replacement for Lieutenant Governor, and then they both stand for re-election at the next national general election, meaning they serve a maximum of 2 years (rather than the usual 4) under this term. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators of Zilla Parishad

Why their is a need of District magistrate or collector when chairperson of zilla parishad is there to run the district?117.197.67.184 (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because one person is not able to handle all of the work to run the day-to-day operations of an entire district in India. There's lots of work that goes into running an effective government, and it often requires an efficient bureaucracy where different people perform different jobs. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE BOOK OF THE NEW SUN MOVIE

Hi, I just finished reading the article on Gene Wolfe`s the book of the new sun. And I thought while reading it, that it would make an excellent movie. Espically with the sucess of Harry Potter and The Lord of The Rings,I want to know, if someone could shed some light on why this excellent book series hasn`t been turned into an excellent movie franchise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.88.39 (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, probably not. I mean, that would probably require inside information that we just don't have. But I can make a few educated guesses. First of all, Harry Potter is a worldwide phenomenon -- the books alone have sold over 400 million copies, which is a staggering success story by any standard. That means the audience for the movies is already right there and a great deal of the marketing work has already been done, so it's a very attractive franchise for Hollywood. The Book of the New Sun doesn't have that advantage.

Secondly, Harry Potter is very child-friendly. The youth market is a huge one. Wolfe's books, by comparison, are clearly written for adults. The wider the potential audience, the easier it is to get a movie made.

Finally, and probably most importantly, The Book of the New Sun is dense. Its characters aren't particularly likeable or photogenic, it doesn't exactly offer a lot in the way of feel-good moments, parts of it are probably kind of unpenetrable to a lot of casual readers, Wolfe doesn't really bend over backwards to explain things or compromise in his desire to write a very complex work, and it generally just isn't in any way a light read. It is not, in a word, sexy. And I'm not putting it down, you understand -- quite the contrary, I love it. But light reading it isn't, and the things that make Harry Potter so relatable and fun are pretty much things Wolfe just doesn't do. I mean, Severian is a torturer. He tortures and kills people for a living and has no moral qualms about it. Oh, and, uh, he kind of gets into an incestuous relationship (even if he isn't aware of it). That's not in the same ballpark with a likable teenager who goes off on magical adventures with his friends, you know?

Not that you couldn't get a good movie out of it, but the obstacles in pitching, making and marketing it and making a good movie that's faithful to the source material (if only in spirit) are tremendous. -- Captain Disdain (talk)

Who is this woman?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be the same statue as in es:Sancha de León? Then this would probably be Sancha of León, queen consort of León and Castile (as our article notes). If I understand the Spanish article correctly, she has also been beatified. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's that statue, and if any confirmation is needed, the inscription visible on both pictures calls her Doña Sancha, Queen of Leon. - Nunh-huh 21:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the file name "Estatua de Doña Sancha en la Plaza de Oriente.JPG" is a big clue (translation:"Statue of Doña Sancha in Orient Place"). Astronaut (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator franchise

The Terminator films, could they happen? Computers are increasingly a part of our everyday lives and nulear weapons are launched via computer. So what im asking is if these machines do gain sentience are we all in the shit or are there failsafes in place to prevent annihilation? P.S. I know this sounds dumb but it could happen, right? --Thanks, Hadseys 21:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the Terminator films is that the nuclear weapons were put in the control of an advanced AI. That certainly isn't the case in real life - yes, there are probably computers involved, but they aren't AIs. A really advanced AI that is capable of learning could, I suppose, become sentient, but most computer programs are not AIs capable of learning. There are all kinds of failsafes involved with nuclear launches, they generally require launch codes and big red buttons, the process is not sufficiently automated for a computer to be able to launch them itself. --Tango (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are researching this. Some very smart people think that machines will eventually become "smart" enough to design and manufactuer "smarter" machines. This inevitably and very quickly leads to a Technological singularity. The effect on Humanity is unpredictable. -Arch dude (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of reference, the Terminator (franchise) debuted in 1984. The fastest Supercomputer in the world at that time was rated at 2.4 GFLOPS, roughly 500 times slower than a modern GPU in a typical home PC, and 500 thousand times slower than today's largest supercomputer. -Arch dude (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot device of having a sentient computer turn on humanity, its creator, is fairly commonplace (almost cliche) in SF. Could it happen? Sure - computer development abides by (what I was certain was called the Boolean law, but was apparently wrong - somebody help me out with the name) the law stating that at any point given time t and computer development d, to achieve 2xd, only t/2 is required - to put it more simply, if a 1gH computer took a year to develop, then a 2gH computer will only take half a year; and even today there are many user friendly features in computers that remind one faintly of proto-sentience (such as self-checks or automatic upgrades). Would such a development be fatal for humanity? Noone can tell - it would depend largely on the programming of the sentience IMO. (BTW, if you are interested, you might want to check out I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, possibly the bleakest of all sentient-computer-gone-haywire short stories.) TomorrowTime (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moore's law. -Arch dude (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The computer connection and the double o in the name must have confused me... TomorrowTime (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the first consonant is a voiced labial and the second is a liquid. —Tamfang (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a big difference between the kind of user friendly features you describe and a program that could achieve sentience - such features don't have the capacity to learn. They are just doing what they were programmed to do. To achieve sentience (unintentionally) a program would have to learn. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]