Humanities desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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.

March 24

Captain Brinell

Who is the Captain Brinell mentioned here and here? I am guessing he was probably American, from New England and maybe a whaler. What was his full name and the name of his ship at that period (c. 1803). Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I could only find the two references that you have linked. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: The anecdote in your second link is supposedly from May 1803 but refers to an event itself dated from the 8th of June of the same year. Intuitively I would date Brinell's visit about two years later, otherwise there would have been mention of the "last year". --Askedonty (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the anecdotes ends on "King Cato" before the ellipse and the rest is an explanation of the dog. Robart is recalling a conversation from May at a later date not writing it as it happen so he would have known what would have happened later that year. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're indeed right. The "two other dogs", as well as the circumstances of the leaving him ashore had me confused. Which is leading me to, the person you're looking for seems redundant with the other mentioned Captain Fanning. Or which one left Crook ashore with the dog ? --Askedonty (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fanning left Pato the sheep dog with Crook. Later Brinell took Pato back from Crook and King Cato and left two dog in his place. Just looking to find out who this Brinell is. Generally from my experience looking at this period (i.e. the American whaling era), New England has a good track of keeping records about stuff like this from this period. Hobart mentions a "Mr. E. Mix" in connection with Brinell, wonder if that is another possible lead. Or Brinell could just be a misspelling by Hobart and in that case we will never find out.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that Obama spied on Trump

Is there any real evidence that Obama spied on Trump?Uncle dan is home (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't even any fake evidence. There are insane conjectures by a conspiracy theorist. Nothing that wouldn't be barred from Wikipedia under WP:FRINGE. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the Reference Desk! Home of references! Here's what's currently referenceable, and certainly falls under the category of evolving current events: "In plain English, that means Trump officials had spoken to a foreign national whose communications were being monitored by US intelligence, so their conversations were picked up despite the fact that they weren’t targets of surveillance." There's plenty more context in the linked story (or in other outlets' coverage of the same). — Lomn 16:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it is. And the answer to the OP's question remains "No." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. It seems to me that the story I linked says "maybe, depending on how you want to stretch definitions". Do you have a reference for a flat "No" answer? — Lomn 19:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that Obama was spying on Trump. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Lomn is asking for is some reference that says there is no evidence, not just your personal statement that there is no evidence. (Unless maybe you've become an official spokesperson for the Trump administration; and even then, this wouldn't be the place to make such an official concession/backdown ... mind you, with Trump's choice of Twitter(!) as his organ for important matters of state, anything's possible, I guess ...) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in Lomn's link which indicates that Obama was spying on Trump. And it's moot anyway, as Nunes has now said he's not certain any of Trump's team were actually monitored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Removal on grounds of WP:BLP reverted; see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. This is a well-documented allegation and the source is directly noted without sensationalistic adjustment. — Lomn 02:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per request to alleviate BLP sourcing concerns, here are other recent takes on the matter: LA Times, "Inadvertent surveillance of Trump transition team raises far-reaching questions", CNBC, "House Intelligence Committee Chair Nunes says documents show no indication of wiretap of Trump Tower", US News & World Report, "Report: FBI Info Suggests Possible Russia-Trump Team Coordination", CNN, "House Intel chairman: Trump's personal communications may have been collected". This is admittedly a fast-moving story and much of the question here of "Did X do Y?", for many variations of "X" and "Y", hinges on how those terms are defined. If the question is "did Obama", does "some portion of the Obama administration" qualify? Does it have to be with Obama's knowledge? With his approval? If the question is "did wiretap", does it have to be a literal wiretap, or is does communication surveillance qualify? Questions like this -- which are not simple to answer, and which different high-level politicians disagree on, is why a simple "Yes" or "No" to the original question, however satisfying it may be to offer, is not particularly accurate or helpful. — Lomn 14:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were spying on and leaking intelligence intentionally (MSNBC 3/27/17):

Obama assistant secretary of defense, and Hillary Clinton campaign advisor[1] Evelyn Farkas admits gathering, spreading and leaking intelligence on Trump:

I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the hill. That's why you have the leaking. [emphasis added]

Straight from the horse's mouth folks. μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine the Trump folk discovering they were dealing with the Russians. Does she mean the Obama senior people keeping the information for later or for themselves ? --Askedonty (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A spike on the steering wheel

A commonly-heard philosophical remark is that people would drive more safely if they had a spike in their steering wheel (ie. guaranteeing their death in even the slightest collision) than with seatbelts, airbags and othe devices intended to make them safe. The article Tullock Spike attributes this idea to Gordon Tullock, albeit with two extremely wishy-washy references. Does anyone know whether it was actually Tullock who came up with the idea and if so where I can read more about it from the guy himself? (Or alternatively who did come up with the idea and where they wrote about it?) Thanks Amisom (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This source cites The New World of Economics (1981) by Gordon Tullock and Richard McKenzie for the idea of the Tullock spike, though originally it seems it was a dagger. Here's a snippet view of a 1994 edition of that work. Actually The New World of Economics was first published in 1975 but maybe the dagger idea was only introduced in the 3rd edition. --Antiquary (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risk homeostasis is the general idea and Peltzmann effect (ibid) as it applies to road safety regulation Asmrulz (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Professor Gordon Tullock: A Personal Remembrance by Richard B. McKenzie (Tullock's co-author cited above), it was originally a remark made during an informal discussion at the Public Choice Center at Virginia Tech:

'I remember, as a young graduate student in the early 1970s, listening to several faculty members in the foyer discussing the case for regulating the internal safety of automobiles, then an emerging hot political topic. They were refining standard arguments regarding mandates for the installation of seatbelts, collapsible steering columns, padded dashes, and airbags, all proposed to save lives. Gordon emerged from his office on hearing the discussion and insisted: "You have it wrong! Interior safety features in cars will reduce the costs of accidents for drivers and encourage them to drive more recklessly, causing more pedestrians deaths. To reduce deaths, the government should require the installation of a dagger at the center of the steering wheel with its tip one inch from the driver's chest. Who would take driving risks then?"'.

The article is viewable online but on a site blacklisted by Wikipedia (see the first result here). You may be able to get the block lifted for this specific article at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satire, perhaps in the Jonathan Swift tradition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also, The Comfy Chair. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one isn't bad either. --Askedonty (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a kid back in the 50's & 60's, saw several very bad automobile accidents. Didn't really need a knife on the steering wheel, because steering columns where non-collapsible back then. The driver got impaled on the hub -driven into his chest on impact. Cars also had hood embellishments mounted on them which would cause serious injurious to a predestination even at low speeds, should the car hit them, (once ownd a 55 Chevy with a zamak casted airplane upon the hood. Because of being aware of its danger..though person observation... removed it). Will not elucidate on that further but you can image the effect it had on me as a child. Then Ralph Nader came out and published Unsafe at Any Speed which was a watershed. Nobody wants to be in and accident, and they happen when you lest expect them. Often when it is of no fault of your own but that of another driver. It takes me back to when the top-brass of Air Corps (for runner of the RAF) didn't consider parachutes were a good idea as it would encourage the air crew to abandon their aircraft. Oh. How times have change and enlightenment finally shone forth. You can be the safest driver in the world but what about the idiots on your same stretch of road?--Aspro (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many traffic authorities have dispensed with kerbs, road markings and signs having discovered that when motorists and pedestrians have to watch out for each other the accident rate goes down. 2A02:C7F:BE18:CF00:50DC:4A16:B6BA:9408 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drachten. Alansplodge (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Shared space (WP:WHAAOE), which has numerous other examples, a few even in the USA. Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of the steering wheel spike in the case of drunk drivers, who think nothing bad will ever happen to them, and often drive large vehicles so they are safe. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do interest-only forever mortgages exist?

Or longer than 40 years? For people who will never have children. Probably still cheaper then renting? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are various schemes available. See, for example,

[2] and [3]. :2A02:C7F:BE18:CF00:50DC:4A16:B6BA:9408 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These links go to interest-only mortgages that have a finite maturity date, not "forever mortgages", which I doubt exist anywhere. Loraof (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual bonds do. Why can't you give a fixed percent of the CPI-adjusted amount you borrowed each month, gain no equity and owe the bank the house when you and your spouse's death stops your ability to pay? Or for a bit more APR you only have to give back the CPI-adjusted principal (instead of the house) so if it appreciates you could still buy a smaller property free and clear with what's left over after selling it? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with everlasting interest-only mortgages is that there is no incentive to maintain the value of the property so the lender runs an extra risk that the value of the property will reduce rather than increase. Who would be responsible for replacing the roof when necessary? This maintenance cost is the difference between a mortgage payment and a rental (give or take a few administrative charges and profits). To some extent, issuers of finite interest-only mortgages run the same risk. Dbfirs 20:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's why. If it wasn't invented by 2008 then it must be really risky. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Frontier Alliance

Are there any sources on the Electronic Frontier Alliance? Benjamin (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Electronic Frontier Alliance appears to just be a list of organizations considered allies of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. See [4]. It's not an organization unto itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual filibuster

I'd like some information about virtual filibusters. The only thing that Filibuster in the United States Senate says is that their used to "remove the need to speak on the floor in order to filibuster". Can you tell me what the rule was before 1975 and how the new rule is applied now? How is it invoked? Beside cloture (and the nuclear option), is there anyway to stop a virtual filibuster? Is there some table (similar to the one in Filibuster in the United States Senate#21st century) that lists talking filibusters versus virtual filibusters? Prior to 1975, would the Senator who started the filibuster have to remain standing on the Senate floor? There was some talk in Talk:Filibuster in the United States Senate about a long speech isn't necessarily a filibuster. Does this rule about standing apply to virtual filibusters, which can last many weeks or months (I think)? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a slight misconception on your part -- this is not a rule or a special kind of filibuster, but an unintended effect of a rule change. In 1975, the threshold of cloture was lowered from two-thirds of all present to three-fifths of the entire body. Prior to 1975, in order to filibuster something there needed to be enough supporters on the floor to number one-third of those present, and there needed to be bona fide oratory as the rule was interpreted. This gave rise to the famous talking filibuster. Since the rule change, anyone not present is a vote against cloture. There is no need for the talking filibuster anymore -- it is only done to draw attention, such as by Sen. Paul a few years ago or a bunch of Democrats earlier this year. Now a senator may indicate that 41 senators oppose a bill and it is not brought to the floor in order to not waste time. This is the virtual filibuster. Because of the cloture rule change, the deciding factor is there either are 60 votes or there aren't, and there is nothing that can be done about it. There is no list because it has become routine that any proposals or nominations of significance are subject to filibuster just as a delaying tactic. Xenon54 (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Rockefeller's percentage ownership of Standard Oil

What's the approximate percentage of Standard Oil that was owned by John D. Rockefeller before the company was broken up? Even just a a rough estimate would be fine. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning in 1870, Rockefeller owned 26.7% of Standard Oil of Ohio (with the rest of his family, it goes up to a cumulative 50%), according to A History of Corporate Governance around the World: Family Business Groups. The same book says it dropped to 25.7% in 1878. The History of the Standard Oil Company - Ida M. Tarbell's exposee (sic) of Standard Oil - extract says "probably nearly one-third [of the stock] was owned by Mr. Rockefeller himself" in 1899. Still digging for later percentages. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some non-profit organization called the Constitutional Rights Foundation published an article that states Rockefeller owned 25% of the new companies arising from the breakup of Standard Oil, which sort of implies he owned the same percentage in the parent company, possibly, maybe. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, you two! Excellent references. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was 41% trustworthy in the '80s. Unless Wikipedia made that number up, it should factor in somewhere. People who run trusts still get to have and use the trust's stuff, even if their persons don't technically own it. They approximately own it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]