Humanities desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 24 >

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.

August 23

Egg on the sidewalk

Where did the urban legend of egg frying on a sidewalk come from? And has anybody ever made it actually work? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this Oda Mari (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those look staged, as if someone fried the egg then placed it on the ground. One of the eggs is over easy, and another has snowdrifts in the background! This one from the Google results is a bit more 'honest'. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done it before when it was 110F outside. It still took about a half hour to fry the egg so a stovetop is much more efficient. Googlemeister (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Nye suggests it's possible on a sidewalk, at about 55 C (130 F) but doesn't seem to have tried it himself.[1] The Library of Congress Everyday Mysteries says it needs a temperature of 158 F (70 C) to denature egg protein but a sidewalk probably won't get that hot[2]. That page also points out that if you leave an egg on a hot sidewalk for 20 minutes, a lot of the fluid will evaporate. Then there's the Oatman Solar Egg Frying Contest [3][4]. So, maybe? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically mine was on a blacktop driveway rather then a sidewalk. Perhaps that makes a difference? Googlemeister (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legends are sometimes true. In this case, it is. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 19:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold McGee says egg whites start to thicken at 63°C and "becomes a tender solid" at 65°C. For the yolk he says that will set at 70°C. He says ovalbumin, the major egg white protein, doesn't coagulate until 80°C. He doesn't talk about desiccating an egg, but diluting one (say with water) raises that 70°C to about 80°C, because the protein molecules encounter others (with which to bond and cause the material to set) less often - I guess that means that a partially dehydrated egg (one left on the tarmacadam for a few hours) will set at a slightly lower temperature than 70°C. As to actual temperatures, this report about the 2009 Bahrain Grand Prix reports track temperatures of 57°C, with a fairly mid-grey track. I'd imagine a darker section of track, with a higher albedo, could get a bit warmer. So those numbers are getting pretty close, and so maybe it's just possible, but as others have said, it looks like it'll be slow and inadequate. Various unreliable sources like this press release claim a road surface temperature of around 99°C for the Badwater Ultramarathon in Death Valley, which would clearly be enough. McGee says 120°C is the ideal pan temperature for frying eggs. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by an Arizonan once that a Tuscon radio station held sidewalk egg-frying contests of some sort during the summer. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Civil War deaths

I'm hoping to document death rates during the Spanish Civil War due to the Red Terror (Spain). I have one set of estimates but I would like many more. Anything anyone can find with at least one named author, the more reputable the better, would be greatly appreciated. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De la Cueva, who's quoted, is a bit of a mystery - I can't see the figure of 72,344 anywhere in that article, and it seems to be the same as th article cited to source clerical deaths. JSTOR 30036431 gives a "minimum" figure of 37,843 deaths, which explains Beevor's figure. I'll skim the library tomorrow and see what turns up... Shimgray | talk | 23:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Nationalist Government published the "Causa General" [General Cause] in 1943, covering executions in the Republican zone, which referred to 85,940 cases in its conclusion. Per Hugh Thomas (pp.172-3, "The Spanish Civil War", 1964) this is "...certainly not an under-estimation, though it compares favourably with the wilder accusations of three or four hundred thousand during the war. [fn: On the other hand, there is just a possibility that the figure was played down to avoid giving too terrible an impression abroad of Spanish characteristics.]". Presumably, as Thomas argues, we can take this as an approximate upper bound; an estimate significantly greater than the "official line" by the opposing side seems unlikely.

Gabriel Jackson (pp.530-533, "The Spanish Republic and the Civil War", 1965) strongly challenges that figure, noting that while it does not claim to be complete, it does cover the main occurences of mass murder, and yet only makes reference to around 6,000 cases. He uses Red Cross figures as the basis to estimate 6,000 deaths in Madrid, and builds on this for a total assumption of around 20,000 people killed. Of these, about half would be clergy, Falangists or Civil Guards (he supports Montero's figure of 6,800 clergy, and builds on it to estimate totals for the other groups). This figure probably reflects the lowest estimate around; I'm not sure if Jackson's published a more recent correction, though. Shimgray | talk | 12:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How could refinancing when market value < mortgage value not be scam

Every time a commercial comes on saying "now you can refinance even if your home is worth less than your mortgage" I can just smell the BS coming out of the TV. But if I'm wrong and it actually is possible, how? If company A was the current mortgage servicer on a mortgage for $100,000 x% interest with $y per month payment, and the home was now worth $50,000, any company B that bought the mortgage would have to pay company A $100,000 for it. So company B entering into any kind of deal with me in which I pay them back less than $100,000 is not going to happen in the real world because if I defaulted, they would have basically no chance to sell it for anywhere near what they paid for it. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a scam, but historically some companies have offered mortgages worth more than the value of the property - Britain's notorious Northern Rock offered 125% loans; it didn't end well.[5] This works better if property values are rising, when you can seize the property after a few years and make a profit, but if you're careful to pick good credit risks it might work even without that - after all, banks routinely lend money without security, albeit at higher rates of interest. (An alternative explanation would be that there's some sort of government funding to make up the difference, but I don't know if this is true.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming from your IP address that you're in the United States. If so, there are a couple of government programs for dealing with 'underwater' or 'upside down' mortgages; see [6] for more details. In particular, the Home Affordable Refinance Plan (HARP) can help with mortgages up to 125% of a home's market value, and the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) may be applied to mortgages up to 105% of the property's market value. As our article on foreclosure rescue schemes notes, there are also a large number of scams, and you should be very wary of signing anything without qualified, competent advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of refinancing can make sense for the party offering the mortgage, but only in jurisdictions in which mortgages are recourse debts (that is, the borrower is liable for the full amount of the mortgage regardless of the value of the mortgaged property), and only in cases in which the borrower's assets, income, and credit rating give some assurance that the borrower is not likely to file for bankruptcy. Such an offer would probably not be made in jurisdictions where mortgages are nonrecourse debts. If you live in the United States, you may have heard of Californians "walking away" from their mortgages when the mortgage amounts to much more than the market value of their houses. However, that situation is specific to California and a few other "nonrecourse states" (see this site for a list). Most US states are recourse states, in which the borrower is liable for the full amount of the mortgage. In practice these days, hardly any US bank or financing company offers mortgages with any degree of risk or at a competitive interest rate unless the bank or financing company is fairly certain that the mortgage qualifies for repurchase by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, for example under the HAMP or HARP programs. Any other refinancing offer is likely to be a scam. Marco polo (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of debt trading at a value less than face value, see junk bonds. Risk of default can lower the value of the mortgage and a lender may be willing to trade it at that lower rate. You must imgaine that some banks may have billions wrapped up in these mortgages. These assets may make it difficult to obtain financing of their own. Bundling the toxic assets and selling them to investors hoping to make a return might make more sense. The advertisers could be anything: credit counselors who will negotiate with your bank for a fee, investors seeking to bundle an asset back security trading at below face value like a junk bond, law firms, or other banks. I see nothing new with negotiating to pay less than face value. Attorneys negotiate settlement payments all the time. You get your money quick and avoid years of litigation. In this case, it could be avoiding a foreclosure or picking up something like a junk bond. Gx872op (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo says it well. Let me add a few things. A bank that does not take sufficient collateral is taking a risk but they minimize their risk in various ways. If you have an excellent credit rating, for many years have never walked away from a debt, the bank can gamble that if it loans X number of people with this profile, only Y number will walk away after Z number of years and make a credit risk assessment based on this analysis. The banks can then figure in, in recourse jurisdictions, that after they foreclose on the statistical portion who do default, they will in most cases also be awarded a deficiency judgment against the homeowners (an unsecured judgment for the balance owed after selling the collateral and crediting it to the total owed), and that they will ultimately collect X percentage of those deficiency judgments over Y number of years, which is also added to the analysis. Note that judgments in most jurisdictions are excellent investments if they are ultimately paid off because of the typical high legal interest rates (9% in many jurisdictions). This means that a bank can gamble a bit higher if they have good statistical tables of how often they will collect, because when they do, it's quite a payday. Anyway, my best advice to you is to hire a lawyer (your own lawyer, not the recommendation of a mortgage/real estate broker, etc.) before ever closing on real property or refinancing, and do some research on them, e.g., through Martindale-Hubbell or similar rating agency.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely suspect underhanded factors here - not necessarily because the company is a scam, but because generally all American financial business has the character of a scam. Companies in the U.S. have absolutely zero compunction about wasting people's time. It's commonplace to offer extensive easy credit terms and then deny anyway. Any inquiry creates a "prior business relationship" permitting spam mails and phone calls, a lengthy database entry that can be sold, perhaps an application fee, and if the customer's circumstances improve, perhaps he will change his mind and take the less impressive offer anyway. Wnt (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you had massive mortgage insurance this could work. You might have trouble finding that insurance though. Googlemeister (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian debt to CZ?

An article in http://www.milavia.net/news/archive.php?2005-12 (25 May 2005) said "Russia supplied the Mi-35s as part of repayments of its debt to the Czech Republic." - what debt is this? Did Yeltsin agree on some form of compensation to the east bloc countries after Soviet's demise? I've never heard of any formalised debt in this manner.

Thank you in advance for any answers that could help illuminate the issue, and the wording of the article!

88.91.84.136 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it is largely debt from the days of the Soviet Union, which Russia inherited, although some of it relates to payments due for exports more recently.[7][8][9] I'm not sure exactly why the USSR needed to borrow money from Czechoslovakia, but evidently it did (Czechoslovakia was one of the most prosperous parts of COMECON and the Warsaw Pact). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cola! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.84.136 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journalistic Usage: Borders or State Lines?

Is there an important distinction, in journalistic usage when reporting events within the USA, between "border" and "state line"?216.251.5.64 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent example: MSNBC reports on 8/23/11 an earthquake near the CO/NM "border". What border? New Mexico has a border, far to the south, Colorado does not.

See also: Appomattox, Treaty of;

         Articles of Confederation; 
         Border Patrol, US; 
         "Border States" 1861-1865;
         Burr, Aaron;
         Checkpoints, Military;
         Civil War, US;
         Customs Inspection re border crossings
         Full Faith & Credit clause, US Constitution;
         Fort Sumter, SC, shelling of;
         Fremont, John C.;
         Gettysburg, Battle of;
         Glorieta, Battle of;
         Habeas Corpus, suspension of by A. Lincoln;
         Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS); 
         Israel Defense Forces (IDF);
         Lee, Gen. Robert E.;
         Lincoln, Abraham;
         Mexican War, US;
         Mormon Rebellion;  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.5.64 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC) 
         Passports, submission of;
         Secession;
         Sitting Bull, deportation of by Canada;
         Statehood, of US States;  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.5.64 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC) 
         Texas, Republic of;
         Texhoma, OK;
         Texhoma, TX;
         Unity, National[reply]

No, I don't think there is any distinction. They are synonyms. The CO/NM border would be the border between the two states. If they meant the Mexican border, they would have said Mexico/NM border, or something like that. —Akrabbim^talk 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that? You make my point for me. Anywhere in this country, but especially in the southwest US, where the word "border" has a distinct and powerful meaning, the interchangeable usage of the term is both confusing and incorrect. As the lines between nations and between our US States are not synonymous (and the record shows the issue to have been much in contention, see above ref.), the synonymous usage of a single term describing two distinct geographic demarcations is factually inaccurate on each occasion in which a boundary between nations is not being described. Suggesting that states have borders with other states is an affront to the idea that they are united states.

Whether you like it or not, state boundaries are commonly described as borders. If a distinction is needed, you can distinguish between "state borders" and "international borders". Marco polo (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lot of syllables, column space and airtime. "State line", the accurate term, has two syllables, ten character spaces. I advocate its usage as the norm, and the meaning of the distinction being well taught in journalism curricula, and its inclusion in industry-standard usage guides. Is there a convincing argument against the term "state line"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nygdb (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is nothing wrong with 'state line'. And please remember that this is not the place to promote your own ideas on education and journalism standards, though we are still more than willing to answer any other factual questions you have. —Akrabbim^talk 19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm new to this. I do consider this topic to be worthy of scholarly review, and encourage users in the journalism profession to ponder the deeper issue of historic accuracy involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nygdb (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In journalistic usage, I have never seen the phrase "state line." I have only ever seen "county line," most often in the discussion over dry counties, 'n' sum ther' fellas crossin' thuh coun'y lion t' git sum booze. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 19:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A state line belongs to one state. A border can be shared by two. You can speak of the New York state line or the New Jersey state line but, because New York-New Jersey is not a state, there is no such thing as the New York-New Jersey state line, only the New York-New Jersey border. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A border is a type of line. There is no need to draw any greater meaning than that; state line and state border are perfectly interchangable, though state border is probably the prefered formal usage. I have pulled up several atlases (atli?) and they all describe the line between U.S. states as "state border"; likewise in Canada as "provincial border". This appears to be the prefered usage in formal geographic writing. --Jayron32 22:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "border" as "The boundary line which separates one country from another." However, Random House defines it as "the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another," and Google says "A line separating two political or geographical areas, esp. countries." Before the Civil War, the Mason-Dixon Line was commonly referred to as the "border," even though it was not an international divide. This 1862 New York Times article refers to the "state border" of Kansas. I was thinking perhaps this is an American vs. British English thing, but the questioner is from Oklahoma. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at the OED online entry, the first definition reads "a line separating two countries, administrative divisions, or other areas"; it doesn't limit it to two countries. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is the border between states (and don't forget that each of the 50 states is at least semi-sovereign, with its own sets of laws) and then there is "The Border", as in "South of the border", which means Mexico. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "state line" is common when reporting crime... as in: "The kidnapping became a Federal crime as soon as the kidnapper crossed State lines". And cities and towns have boarders too... they are colloquially referred to as city/town "limits" (as in: "The sheriff escorted Black Bart beyond the town limits, and told him to never return").

So... whether to use "Border" or some other term really depends on context. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those boarders in cities and towns used to live in boarding houses, but these days more often in private homes. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "state border" appears when there are controversies or disputes between states, that is, when they start acting like hostile sovereign powers, and when police "patrol the border" or "close the border" to some category of persons or goods. For instance, a Pennsylvania paper in 1932 told of state police at "the state border" to exclude trucks from 7 other states, after a law was passed requiring Pennsylvania license plates on "foreign" trucks entering the state. The California border with adjoining states was discussed in 1936 when Los Angeles police refused entry to California of bums, vagrants and hitchhikers seeking to enter the state during the Great Depression. Another 1936 story talked about police at the New York-Pennsylvania state border to prevent fuel bootlegging when there was a large disparity in fuel tax rates. A 1948 article discussed closing the North Carolin-South Carolina border to keep out children who might be carriers of polio. Even without a dispute between states, the term state border was used in a 1957 story about Hurricane Audrey striking the Texas-Louisiana "border area," perhaps because "border area" encompasses a much larger region than would be implied if they said the storm hit the "state line." Edison (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the U.S., many people learn the word "state" as having a distinct meaning, altogether different from "nation", as purely a regional designation. "State line" is thus analogous to "county line", whereas "border" also has an international connotation. But many people regard the U.S. states in their more historical sense as nations, unified under a federal structure. The ideological distinction dates back to the U.S. Civil War - or War Between the States - in which the national status of the states was under dispute. So there's a faint ideological scent on these terms, but it's so subtle that I don't think you could safely assume someone's views on anything else from it - just enough that the terms might sound odd for some reason that isn't immediately obvious. Wnt (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]