Humanities desk
< January 6	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 8 >

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.

January 7

Geoffrey Chaucer and John Wycliffe

Was John Wycliffe a friend of Geoffrey Chaucer or is there a connection between these two and in what way?

John Wycliffe is associated with Oxford University. Is Geoffrey Chaucer also in some way?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were both Londoners. Also some scholars also think that the Parson in Canterbury Tales is a Lollard, and think that Chaucer portrays him in a highly positive light, possibly indicating that Chaucer was a Lollard. Wrad (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer might have been living in Oxford after 1360, but much of his life is speculative at that time so it cannot really be determined if they ever met. They did apparently have a friend in common, Ralph Strode. meltBanana 03:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism indictment

Is there someplace online to read the complete US criminal indictment against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? I have a reference question (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retail

Please clarify the main points of distinction between supermarket, hypermarket, department store, big-box store and shopping mall? I've read the articles and the definitions are:

supermarket supermarket is a self-service store offering a wide variety of food and household merchandise, organized into departments.
hypermarket hypermarket is a superstore which combines a supermarket and a department store.
department store department store is a retail establishment which specializes in satisfying a wide range of the consumer's personal and residential durable goods product needs; and at the same time offering the consumer a choice multiple merchandise lines, at variable price points, in all product categories.
big-box store big-box store (also superstore) is a physically large retail establishment, usually part of a chain
shopping mall shopping mall is one or more buildings forming a complex of shops representing merchandisers, with interconnecting walkways enabling visitors to easily walk from unit to unit, along with a parking area – a modern, indoor version of the traditional marketplace.

1. If so, then how to distinguish a hypermarket from a department store? 2. What is the difference between hypermarket and big-box store? 3. What is the difference between shopping mall and the first four types? 4. The articles say hypermarket is larger than supermarket. Is there any general standard to distinguish a hypermarket from a supermarket? --Qoklp (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple I can sort of answer. A shopping mall is a collection of individual stores, typically separately owned and which pay rent to the owner of the mall. Mall of America, for example. I'm not sure what a "hypermarket" is, unless a "Super WalMart*" or a "Super Target" would qualify. A regular supermarket is usually primarily a food store. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets take this a bit out of order, but to clarify how these ideas are related:

A supermarket is a food store that sells everything one will eat (prior to supermarkets, people bought bread at a baker, vegetables at a green grocer, meat from a butcher, etc.). Supermarkets are therefore one-stop-for-all-food-needs.
A department store is the same idea, but for durable goods (i.e., not food stuff). Thus, in a department store, you can buy a shirt, a TV set, a set of dishes, a new lawnmower, and some jewlery. This is different from having to shop at different stores, like a haberdasher, an electronics shop, a pottery shop, etc. etc.
A big box store is pretty much a synonym for department store now adays. It used to refer to a particular type of department store that specialized in "big box" items, I.E. furniture and electronics and that sort of stuff, but now its pretty much applied to any sort of department store.
A hypermarket is basically a supermarket + a department store under one roof. The idea is you can buy almost anything at all you need in life. Imagine a store where you can buy a shirt AND get a butcher to custom cut some steaks for you, and get your car's oil changed all in the same store.
A shopping mall is basically an apartment complex for retail stores. Just like in an apartment complex, there are rental units for people to live in, and all of the rental units are in one building, with hallways and a few entrances, a shopping mall is the exact same idea for stores. Its a big building, where stores rent spaces and sell their stuff out of the rental units. Shopping malls may have many different kinds of stores in them, it would not be unusual to have lots of little "single-industry" type stores (i.e. a woman's clothing store, a men's shoe store, etc.) and a few large "department" or "big box" stores in them as well.

Hope that all helps! --Jayron32 03:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That description of "hypermarket" is what Wal*Mart has strived to be. It's a department store with groceries as a department. A supermarket is a grocery store which sells other stuff also. Shopping malls are essentially "artificial downtowns", i.e. they are laid out in the way that the downtowns of cities used to be (and many still are) with one store after another. Sometimes a street in one of those old downtowns may be closed off and voila, instant mall, as with Lincoln Road Mall in Miami Beach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also places like Santana Row, which is an open mall with condominimums above designed to look like a quaint European downtown. Trouble is, you can't buy anything you actually need there, and if you buy something you don't need it will cost you a fortune. PhGustaf (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you have an interest in shopping malls you'll be interested in reading a bit about their history, their design and some of the considerations in their development. I can't find it now (at work) but there's a good article by Malcolm Gladwell that I think appeared in the New Yorker about it. There's a dude of some form (no idea of name but mentioned in the article) that was hugely influention in setting the 'standards' of shopping mall design. Sorry I know that's kinda not that helpful but it will be if you go off and investigate some more...194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confuse things, many department stores, at least in the UK, sell food items - for instance in the food halls of Harrods and Harvey Nichols, and arguably Marks and Spencer (which may or may not be reckoned primarily a clothes store or a department store). The difference between these and hypermarkets is largely that hypermarkets tend to be cheaper, aimed more at the budget sector of the market, whereas department store food halls sell luxury foods. Even in the USA, department stores generally seem to aim for wealthier customers than hypermarkets. --Finfindiscotheque (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all department stores in the UK are expensive - T J Hughes, for example, is a discounter. I'd distinguish between hypermarkets and department stores by noting that food and drink forms a greater percentage of hypermarket sales (probably more than half), and also that most department stores are in town centres or shopping malls, whereas most hypermarkets are often stand-along out-of-town stores. Warofdreams talk 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding seems at odds with the article and with Jayron regarding "big box" stores. In my neck of the woods (SW Ontario), a big box store is any extremely large store, especially if the design inside is more like a warehouse than a "normal" store (i.e. concrete floor instead of tile, single level rather than multi-storey, exposed support structures, etc. We have a huge Wal*Mart down the street from us and I've never heard it referred to as a "big box". Matt Deres (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the NE United States and agree with Matt Deres on the meaning of "big-box". It is a large warehouse-like store, typically not in an enclosed shopping mall (though often in a shopping center with a shared parking lot or freeway access). Big-box stores are typically not department stores, but have a more specialized inventory. Examples of big-box stores in my area include Home Depot, Bed Bath and Beyond, Lowes, and Ikea. Target is a department store that is sometimes considered a big-box store. I avoid Walmart so can't comment on whether it qualifies. Marco polo (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having lived in the U.S. and Europe, I can tell you that "hypermarket" is basically the European term for what North Americans call a "big-box store." People who work in international retail might have specific definitions for those terms, but from my experience, a European hypermarket is the same thing as a North American big-box store. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worst kind of torture ever discovered or documented?

I would have to say idk too hard, thats why iam asking lolz. thank you. --72.87.59.111 (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One candidate would be watching the Chicago Cubs over the last century-plus. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lulz, man the cubbies come on baby, 2010. thanks bugs! lolz. --72.87.59.111 (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watching replays of that home run by Bucky F. Dent can't be much better than having flaming splinters shoved under one's fingernails. PhGustaf (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More painful than watching the other "Buck", named Billy, boot that ground ball? Yeh, probably. It was only Game 6. In Love and Death, Woody Allen's character commented that there are things worse than death, "and if you've ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman, you know what I mean." Like there were insurance salesmen during the Napoleanic wars. Let's see if we have an article on the subject: Torture ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Sox Dented up enough times that game that it's hard to blame Billy for it. We had relief pitchers that didn't, and a capable defensive first baseman who didn't get to play at all. On top of that, I was playing a bridge tournament at the time, and only got to see the teevee between hands. My partner Dented up often enough that I lost that too. PhGustaf (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last two games in '86 featured an ex-Cub (Buckner) and a future ex-Cub (Calvin Schiraldi). After the Cubs saw how Calvin did in those games, their management said, "We need that guy!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cubs had to get rid of that millstone Smith somehow. PhGustaf (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, "worst" is a subjective term. Worst in what way? The most painful? The most disabling? The type that takes the longest before the victim dies? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torture, will do fine thank you bugs, and others. --72.87.59.111 (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lingchi would kind of suck, I imagine. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impalement? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blood eagle is a cool concept and I imagine it was moderately uncomfortable. Not sure how you define worst though. In one way, "worst" means "least good", so perhaps this is the correct answer? --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From most people's point of view, things with a mental element, like Chinese water torture are much worse than physical ones. (Compare how you'd feel a physical injury with losing you mind.) Worth looking into, depending on why you wanted to know about this.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was tested on Mythbusters, all tongue in cheek believing that it can't be that bad, and Kary nearly had a nervous breakdown. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some info about the episode. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 14:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon anything involving searing heat has got to be pretty bad, but the Judas Cradle really hits a nerve too. Vranak (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bagpipes. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Along those lines, there's the Far Side split-panel cartoon: "Welcome to Heaven. Here's your harp." ... "Welcome to Hell. Here's your accordion." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being bound hand to foot and made to lie down and listen to other people being crushed by a steamroller, knowing that it was about to happen to you (North Korea) is pretty horrific mentally. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One wonderful act I read about, some long time ago, that was apparently used by Dutch (?) colonists, was to tie someone down, and put an empty metal bowl on their belly with many large rats in it, and then you heat up the bowl. Supposedly this would drive the rats bananas and they would eat through your belly as a way of escaping the heat. Fun. The truth is, it's hard to say which is "worse"—humans have tremendous aptitude when its comes to thinking up extremely unpleasant ways to treat one another. The worst are probably the simplest, though: forcing someone to watch you rape and kill their loved ones, is probably high on the list. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned Crushing by elephant for a long time on the reference desk, and I think it deserves it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity, carefully applied, can produce horrible pain without causing death. Next would come watching replays of Steve Bartman incident in the Cubs-Marlins playoff game from 2003. Edison (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging, drawing and quartering, Burning at the stake and Breaking on the wheel were pretty painful and gruesome ways to die. After every bone in the subject's body was broken on the wheel, he (or she) was usually not given a merciful release but left to linger as a tasty treat for the birds. After hearing a detailed description of the hanging, drawing and quartering of some convicted traitors, Queen Elizabeth I (not known for weak nerves) was so appalled that she ordered simpler executions of the remaining convicts.

The 20 July plotters against Adolf Hitler, after conviction, were hanged slowly with piano wire. The whole process of executing all the principal plotters was filmed for compulsory viewing by the entire officer corps, but it took five successive teams of cinematographers to complete the filming, as no one team had the stomach to watch it all. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you a reliable source for this Hitler tale, and where do we find the film on YouTube? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source saying the executions were filmed is in the article 20 July plot but doesn't mention the cinematographers. It does, however, say that it was 'shown to cadets at the Lichterfelde cadet school, but viewers supposedly walked out of the screening in disgust.' I doubt it would be allowed on YouTube. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 23:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably more interesting than the footage of the Ceauşescus being shot.[2] And to add to the insult, I can imagine that Hitler walked along the scaffold and plunked those wires like a Nazi version of Harpo Marx. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But he never had the stomach to visit a KZ, at least not an extermination camp. so...(although he had been brave in WW1, I think).--Radh (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, at the Reference Desk, we've been instructed to respond to such questions with one of our own: "Why do you want to know?". —— Shakescene (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has mentioned the Rack (torture) yet? I think that would be up there. Vespine (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scaphism. Matt Deres (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By reading Papillon there are quite some horrific tortures described: one was tying someone to a tree in a jungle, cut some light wounds on the skin, and drop some ants on those wounds. The victim will be slowly consumed by the ants, and be alive for maybe days, as the ants consume skin and flesh at first, and vital organs only later. Based on the more or less autobiographical novel, the victim was still alive when he had nearly no skin and flesh left. Another one, from the same book: place someone in a bathtub, cover the bathtub leaving only a hole for the torso. Provide food and drink for the victim, but never clean the bathtub. The lower body of the victim will slowly and painfully rot away in his own bodily waste.

By visiting a former communist prison (now a museum) the most horrific methods I've seen there are a cell with a ceiling so low that you cannot stand up, or in extreme cases even sit upright, sometimes eternally dark and flooded by a few inches of water. Bonus points if you have claustrophobia. Another one was a cell carved in stone, so tight that you could only stay upright in in, like in a vertical coffin. The surface of the walls were very crude, so leaning to them while sleeping was painful. A strong light bulb was placed at face height, and permanently on.

Speaking about ancient tortures, crucification merits a mention too. --131.188.3.21 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deistic Gnosticism

What Deistic religions or philosophies are most similar to Gnosticism? Neon Merlin 06:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in reading this The Gnostic argument for agnosticism The Ministry (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Deism is basically the rationalistic idea that God determined the laws of the universe and set it going, but does not directly intervene in events afterwards (not in any way which violates said natural laws), while Gnosticism is the idea that a favored few have special divine mystical revelations into an elaborate supernatural cosmology (usually involving struggles between different divinities or aspects of divinity), in most respects Gnosticism and Deism would seem to be pretty much opposite. Some forms of Gnosticism posit a semi-evil demiurge, who is quite different from the true high God, and also posit that the true high God does not really directly intervene in events at this phase of cosmic history (while the demiurge does), but otherwise I don't see much similarity between Gnosticism and Deism. AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JC1- H2 English Language and Linguistics

I've heard this is a new subject offered in a few JCs like ACJC and CJC, and I might consider studying this subject. However, is this subject difficult to score in(achieve an A)? What is required of us (syllabus wise) and what additional readings/work do we have to do in order to do well? Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.211.85 (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are JC1, JC, ACJC, CJC and H2? Thankfully, I know what an A is. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Junior College", maybe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a "Junior University" around here. Just ask the Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band. PhGustaf (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely ask whatever college you are considering applying for. Syllabi and difficulty will probably vary. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteenth century scholar

Who in the 14th century would have had excellent knowledge of ancient Roman, Greek, and Egypian leaders like Philip V of Macedon, Alexander the Great, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Lysimachus, Seleucus I Nicator, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Mithridates VI of Pontus, Ptolemy III Euergetes, Ptolemy IV Philopator, Augustus, Julius Caesar, Sulla, Pompey, Appius Claudius Caecus, Germanicus, and Cornelius Scipio?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any Renaissance humanist...Petrarch, Boccaccio, Dante, and probably dozens of others. Of course it depends on what you mean by "excellent knowledge". (The knowledge to forge Jerome's De Viris Illustribus?) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who had access to a manuscript of Plutarch's Parallel Lives would have had at least a basic knowledge of a number of the figures on the above list... AnonMoos (talk)

Doug, I'm intrigued - what prompted the question? --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Adam Bishop - thanks, thought maybe Petrarch and Boccaccio, but didn't think of Dante.

To AnonMoos - didn't think of that. Have any other names of the 14th century in mind besided those given by Adam Bishop?

To Dweller - I would like to hold off on your question for awhile (perhaps a year), but thanks for curiosity.

Thanks all.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the OP is Umberto Eco and we're helping him get unblocked. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not Dante, since he never learned Greek. The Ministry (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, true. There were Byzantine Greeks wandering around Europe at that point, when the Byzantines were begging for help against the Ottomans, and they never really lost knowledge of the ancient Greek literature. Gemistus Pletho is a famous one, although he is more in the fifteenth-century than the fourteenth. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, here's a good fourteenth-century one, Simon Atumano. He even translated Plutarch from Greek to Latin (not the Parallel Lives, but if he knew some obscure work of Plutarch he surely knew the Lives too). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby dub the Bishop an accolade.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GK Questions

What is arguably the most famous metropolitan area in the world ??

Does any metropolitan area has a namesake product ( consumable) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.104.37 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be hard to judge "most famous". There are lots of products named for cities, like Philadelphia cream cheese and Boston baked beans and Chicago-style pizza, just to think about the U.S. --Jayron32 15:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London gin. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburger, Frankfurter, Wiener. Berliner. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be interested in Appellation, a related idea where the name of a food is protected based on the region that produces it. --Jayron32 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which, btw, is not the name of the place where apples come from. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone think that? Everyone knows that they come from the Appalachians. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the data exist for the most famous metropolitan area or not. Plausible candidates include Jerusalem, a central city in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; Rome, the central city of the Roman Empire and the seat of the Vatican; London, famous throughout the former British Empire; and New York, probably the most famous city in the United States. Perhaps claims could also be made for Tokyo, Shanghai, or Beijing. John M Baker (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Way bar - named after a place that holds the entire human population that ever existed. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Fight!

"New York" -- 842 million results (including some for New York State)
London -- 689 million
Paris -- 658 million
Jerusalem -- 49.1 million
Rome -- 134 million
Beijing -- 76.8 million
Tokyo -- 142 million

Mwalcoff (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to very seriously discount the hits for "Paris" because of the all-pervading influence of that ... that ... that woman whose name I still refuse to utter. You know who I mean. Jack of Oz = -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well Paris -hilton finds 442,000,000 for me Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but of course a Google count is a very unreliable measure of worldwide fame for a number of reasons, including its failure to take into account most non-English and all offline sources. Are any other data available? John M Baker (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. My example of course excludes any discussions of the Hilton in Paris (I guess there is one), or anyone who mentions Paris, where Paris Hilton was conceived (or whatever, I'm not really sure why she's called Paris Hilton) and includes stuff like "OMG, Paris has a new bf" or "I so wish I had the looks of Paris!" or "So, like, my boyfriend, like, said I look, like, like, Paris, so I was like, OMG!!!! XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO" Nil Einne (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the New York results will be massively distorted by York. --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget Paris, Texas..... --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 14:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a Paris, Illinois; and a London, Ontario. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a Paris, Ontario, not too far from London...or from Cambridge, or Waterloo, or a city that used to be called Berlin. On the other side of London are Delaware, Wyoming, and Washington. We have no originality here! Adam Bishop (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course (more seriously) if you want the most famous in the world, you'd have to repeat the searches using characters from languages that don't use the same alphabet as we do. I imagine, for example, hits in Chinese characters might look rather different. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe although "New York" still produces 734,000,000 results Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just other alphabets. Marnanel (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to define "fame" before we can determine if ghits is an even remotely useful metric for it. I would probably define it more in terms of how many people know about the thing rather than how much they talk about it. I think it's likely to be either New York or London by that metric, although (as in many things like this) we mustn't forget that 1/5 of the world's population lives in China and 1/6 in India. That means Beijing and (New) Delhi can't be entirely discounted. --Tango (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reader's Digest prize draw

In my country every few months Reader's Digest send me an elaborate set of marketing material that offers me an entry in their prize draw even if I decline to subscribe to whatever they are offering. Why does Readers Digest want people to tell them if they do not want the subscription? Surely they could deduce that by looking at who never replied? If you decline the subscription, you return some bits of paper in their "No" evelope with free pre-paid postage and still get entered into the prize draw - this must be expensive for them. 78.146.234.221 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is usually because of local laws pertaining to "sweepstakes" or raffles or prize drawings like this. Generally, if they require you to give them money first, then its "gambling", and heavily restricted. If they required you to buy the magazine first, that could be judged an "entry fee" and would make this "gambling". If the entry is free (often it is stipulated "no purchase required") then its just a free contest. What they are counting on is people who don't read the "fine print". Many people assume that you have to buy the magazine to enter the sweepstakes, or assume that they cannot win if they don't subscribe, so what they are counting on is that misperception in generating sales for them. --Jayron32 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're also counting on most people not figuring the odds of winning in any case. That's how so many people get suckered into playing the Lottery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because if they get an actual reply from you, then they know you are a real person at the address specified, and they will then keep sending you more advertising. Ignore them and they will go away - although in my experience not for four or five years. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing they always do is to offer another prize draw, such as a free car, that is open only (they say) to people who subscribe. Does the above mean that they are obliged to enter you into the car draw even if you decline to subscribe? Cannot really be bothered to read their bumpf again, not sure if there is any kind of loophole regarding include the car-draw tokenm in the "No" envelope. 78.146.26.243 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming is spamming, by whatever means. And they don't need many respondents, just enough to bite and make a profit. Kind of like carpet-bombing. Bomb the entire field, and you'll hit something useful. Or like fishing in a well-stocked lake. You don't have to catch all of them, just a few. Or like sperm seeking an egg. It doesn't matter how many sperm get sent out, as long as one of them hits the target. In fact, instead of "spam" they should call it "sperm". Well, maybe not. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I went on vacation for two weeks and when I came home my mailbox was overflowing with sperm." 218.25.32.210 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope you are a cattle or horse breeder and that it was delivered in vials by a reputable source. Googlemeister (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between electronic spam and physical mail spam is the cost involved for the sender. Reader's Digest needs a much bigger "take" in order to justify its operations, financially, than does the e-spammer. Since Reader's Digest has to pay some not-insignificant price to send out their materials (printing, organizing, postage), I imagine they are just assuming that people aren't actually going to bother sending it back in unless they are going to purchase something. (I just toss such things in the trash—it's not worth my time to reply, if you consider time itself to be valuable.) --Mr.98 (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clever part here is that the contest is done entirely straight, but they want you to think that it's crooked. For the legal reasons outlined above, they will treat the "no" envelopes exactly the same as the "yes" ones as far as the sweepstakes is concerned. But they emphasize this different envelope bit so that you think that they're going to show favoritism. This will make you more likely to subscribe. APL (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up to the UK's Mailing Preference Service and after some weeks you'll never hear from them again. And while you're at it register your phones with the Telephone Preference Service and you won't get people waking you with offers of double glazing or free trips to Spain (where you'll get days of timeshare hard sell). Astronaut (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Songs with a Blues Beat

I'm learning to play the drums and I'm putting together a playlist of songs with a faily straight 12/8 blues rythm, at various tempos, to practice along to. What music would ref-deskers suggest I include on it? AndyJones (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Songs with a Swing Beat

Related to my previous question (immediately above this one) I'm learning to play the drums and I'm putting together a playlist of songs with a faily straight swing rythm, at various tempos, to practice along to. What music would ref-deskers suggest I include on it? AndyJones (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sing Sing Sing by Benny Goodman. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec)Listen to Gene Krupa doing Sing, Sing, Sing at Carnegie Hall. If you can learn how to drive the tempo like that, you'll be a very successful drummer. PhGustaf (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second the Carnegie Hall version of Sing Sing Sing. I'd also add any of the early Beatles tracks (before they went a bit woo-woo), as Ringo Starr was competent rather than good, and his drumming may be nearer your abilities at the moment! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]