Miscellaneous desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 2

Music in elevators

In Captain America: The Winter Soldier:

Captain America and Nick Fury were in an elevator:

An unghappy Captain America: You know, they used to play music.

Nick Fury: Yeah. My grandfather operated one of these things for 40 years.

How did they play music in an elevator in the early 1940s? I mean before the invention of transistors and power-saving electronics.

Did they use a radio which could be very large back then?

Did they use a vinyl player? I guess the mechanical player occupies too much space in the elevator and they probably do not operate very well in a moving and vibrating environment.-- Toytoy (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No music was played when his grandfather worked there. The two periods were at different times.
Sleigh (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to History of elevator music, that unspeakable horror was first inflicted on an unsuspecting humanity in 1922. This article states the "original mode of conveyance ... was wired wireless, radio transmitted not through the air but through power lines", which jibes with the history section of Muzak (brand). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the space required by the electronics in the pre-transistor era, the equipment could have been on the roof instead of inside the car. The page Fiend cites doesn't say, though. --174.88.134.161 (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That elevator music article says: "Several popular music stars unsuccessfully tried to buy Muzak Holdings with the sole goal of shutting them down."

Yes, that muzak company must be a branch of Hydra. They should have wiped out its inventor before it was invented. -- Toytoy (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, Muzak is just a music distribution company. They provide a lot more than elevator music. For example, the Moe's restaurant chain has their music supplied by Muzak (the playlist is classic rock featuring deceased musicians). Second, the custom-recorded music for Muzak is where many musicians work while trying to make a break in the music industry. Examples: Bruce Pavitt, Mark Arm, Tad Doyle, and Kim Thayil. Muzak provided the Seattle grunge scene a paycheck during the day so they could make their own music at night. I know it is cool to hate Muzak, but you have to force yourself to remain ignorant to continue hating them. I don't like being ignorant. 75.139.70.50 (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now I have the "Where's My Elephant? theme running through my head. Thanks a lot. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian mythology

In Christian mythology, when a bird dies and goes to heaven does it get a set of angel wings in addition to its regular pair of wings? 186.249.176.250 (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity does not teach that dead humans, or any other dead creatures, become angels. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also some debate about whether animals go to heaven. Matt Deres (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should answer the OP sufficiently and provide many different perspectives on the question. Also, as noted, nowhere in Christian theology does it say that people become angels. Angel#Christianity covers the Christian beliefs about what angels are: they are not the souls of the dead, they are messengers of God; the word Angel derives from words meaning "messenger" or "courier". --Jayron 32 14:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the OP, they didn't actually ask about when people become angels, they asked about getting angel wings. It's a fairly widespread trope in modern times to depict people in heaven with halos, wings, robes, and a harp. Since the line between "real" Christianity and fake is in the eye of the beholder, I would suggest to the OP that birds can get angel wings in heaven if s/he really wants them to. Matt Deres (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given birds already have wings, they get a pair of arms, and a skateboard. I should have thought that rather obvious. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no such thing as 'halo' or 'wings', its just a made up story like 'demon' with 'horns' and 'tail', like Matt Deres stated 'can get angel wings in heaven if s/he really wants them to.' I think Christians/Michelangelo came up with the idea first, not sure, the article Jayron stated might give the answer to this. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guessed!

-- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restatement

First, as previous posters have noted, angels are not humans who have gone to heaven. Angels are the result of a separate earlier act of creation. While the best known description of the creation of angels and then of humans is by Milton in Paradise Lost, this concept is not new to Milton, because it is referred to by Dante. (Milton described it so masterfully that no one until Tolkien tried to improve on it.) The material world and the humans in it were created separately from and after angels.

Second, Christian scripture is silent on the question of whether non-humans have immortal souls and can go to heaven. Some Christians stubbornly insist that only humans have immortal souls and go to heaven, but that isn't based on Christian scripture. God can do what He will do.

Third, all vertebrates are tetrapod in this world. There are no hexapod vertebrates in this world. It just doesn't happen that way. Birds, like bats and large winged reptiles, have paid the price of the ability to fly by transforming their arms or forelegs into wings. (Grasshoppers and beetles, with an arthropod body plan supporting a variable number of appendages, did not have to pay that price. The vertebrate body plan provides a variable number of vertebrae and four limbs. That is just how it is.) God can, of course, improve on or change the vertebrate body plan in the next world, and give wings to humans, and horses, if there are horses in the next world. As Medeis has noted, what birds would want is probably the arms that they lost one hundred million years ago by transforming them into wings. (They don't need forelegs, because, like humans, they are adapted to a bipedal gait. Humans have arms and legs and could use wings. Birds have wings and legs and could use arms.)

Fourth, I don't know where Medeis got the skateboard from. The skateboard isn't as obvious as she says it is. The arms are.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just one minor correction. Where "angels" come from is an open question in Christianity (and probably Judaism, though I don't know as much about that), since the Bible makes no mention, one way or the other, when angels were created. The description of creation itself, in Genesis 1, does not mention angels, so we don't know when they were created, presumably Genesis is not exhaustive in its descriptions, because it doesn't say when angels were created, and yet their existence is noted in many places throughout the bible. The could have been created in an earlier creation (which is not mentioned at all) or they could have been created in the same creation that created everything else (which is also not mentioned at all). Since it isn't discussed, it's an unanswerable question from the perspective of Christian theology. Many theologians and authors and others (including the aforementioned Messrs. Milton and Alighieri) have speculated on the nature of Angels, but insofar as the Bible (and only the Bible is the inspired word of God, if the Bible doesn't explain it explicitly, it can't be resolved within Christian scripture. Many can come to what appear to be logical conclusions from Scripture, but such "logical" conclusions arrived at by different people all thinking rationally often contradict each other, so withing Christianity, there's no way to resolve the issue. Of course, once one steps outside of Christian dogma, the issue becomes moot. From the perspective of a non-Christian, it's all fiction anyways, so there's no need for seeking a right answer either. --Jayron 32 03:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Medis is a he? -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you default to assuming everyone who's gender you didn't know was a "he". Male is not the default, you know... --Jayron 32 20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user name is spelt "medeis" and "he" is the default animate pronoun, which does not bother me. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Medeis and sorry, don't mind...

-- Mr. Prophet (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it does or doesn't bother you doesn't actually answer the question of which pronoun is correct... Just sayin'. Those are different issues. And there's a real problem with assuming the default is male, as though female was somehow aberrant. --Jayron 32 03:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my friend Jayron:

-- Mr. Prophet (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen evidence to the contrary, though nothing conclusive. —Tamfang (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Tell me more about my eyes.... μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are 'B' for 'Beautiful'

-- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to put it is that the OP's premise and assumptions have absolutely no biblical basis. It has somewhat of a cultural basis, though. I've sometimes thought that if any non-human animal "goes to heaven", then they all do: Based on the idea that animals are without sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea don't imply if the same kind kills each other for benifits during living, what does occur in the animal world. resembling your idea with predators (lions, humans) and the same kind killers. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animals do what they do. There is no such concept as morality in he animal world. That concept applies strictly to humans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concept should apply to all the 'souls' possessing 'survival instincts' not just to humans. We don't need to worry about the animal world as much as the human world, therefore the matter is concluded in few sentences in heavenly books (considering and including the book of Hinduism as it provides sufficient information and a vast number of followers). -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To throw a couple of scriptural references into the mix - on animals, Isaiah 11:6-8 (which _doesn't_ say "the lion will lie down with the lamb", although everyone thinks it does) and Isaiah 43:19-21 ("The beasts of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls"). On angels, Matthew 22:30 ("In the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven" - note "as the angels"). Tevildo (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew 22:30 is also important for one other reason: it indicates that under basic Christian theology, earthly relationships are irrelevant for the purpose of our happiness in heaven. That is, you may really love your wife here on Earth, and she may bring you lots of happiness, but when you get to heaven, your happiness will not come from that relationship and thus, there's no need to worry about that relationship in heaven. By extension, it's not hard to think that if who your wife was makes no difference, then who your pet was would also make no difference; the argument that God would make a place in heaven for your pets because they brought you joy on Earth seems fairly unconvincing considering that. Which is not to say that pets will or will not be in heaven, explicitly, but if we're looking for evidence we can extrapolate from, that passage at least makes us think "we aren't asking the right questions, if we're asking that question", from the point of view of Christian theology. --Jayron 32 21:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's needed here is looking into the broader cultural milieu at the time of the codification of the New Testament. First, gods and especially goddesses with wings were commonplace in Graeco-Roman culture as well as oriental paganism. Also there are the gnostic and apocryphal books of Christianity, Judaism, and other belief systems. The Aeons were heavenly powers similar to angels in various gnostic systems. The Gospel of John gets much of its "the way and the truth and the life" themes from gnosticism. Even the term modern Christians use, "forever and ever" apperas originally to hve been some sort of reference to the heavenly authority of the Aeons, given the original Greek is αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων aiõnas tõn aiõnõn which does not literally mean for eternity. If you want to get into things like the nature of the Seraphim, the angels of Yaldabaoth you'll need to look outside the canonical works and explore a work like The Gbostic Bible. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall wings on angels in the bible, but that would be theology. Let us assume that 186.249.176.250 really means mythology instead. The earliest known representation of angels with wings is from about 400AD near Istanbul. I favor the idea of Zoroastrian influences. Now if we could just get the skateboard into the article on angels somehow... Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some place with list of non software synths with midi tuning standard support?

Is there some place with list of non software synths (that has keyboard) with midi tuning standard support?

My googlefu is failing.179.197.137.145 (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like Ed

Hi there!
At school the whole class got from the english teacher a mission to accomplish like Ed Kennedy, the main character of the book I am the Messenger. I got the mission build. What could I do? It must be done at the latest on Sunday and send a photograph of the place where I will do the mission to the teacher on Monday. I also need to send him a little description of what I exactly will have done.
Thank you for your help!
Calviin 19 (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously cannot think of anything at all that you could possibly build? This is why there is a disclaimer on the reference desk stating that we do not do your homework. 75.139.70.50 (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about the premise in the book, "...a series of tasks that Ed must complete." Who says he must complete them? What is the penalty (if any) if he doesn't? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]