Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 25

< September 24	<< Aug | Sep | Oct >>	September 26 >

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

Views of Mankind

Hello, I am doing a paper on the "views of mankind" of various philosophers, namely John Locke, Karl Marx, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes.

Right now I am stuck on John Locke's view of mandkind. Having thoroughly read the Wiki on him, I conclude that he characterizes men as creatures of reason and tolerance. But are they good, evil, somewhere in between? I am inferring that they are flawed creatures that just learn but I may be wrong. So could someone explain if he even has a view on mankinds nature? Thank you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.49.11 (talk • contribs) .

Edited (title, unsigned) EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There's some interesting notes here which compare Locke's and Hobbes' defintions of human nature: essentially that Locke considered humans "self-interested" but "naturally social or altruistic", while Hobbes considered them "desire-driven" and "solely self-interested". Also, according to the article Human nature, Locke's view is that humans are inherently good, and Hobbes the opposite: that life is "nasty, brutish, and short." --Canley 01:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

All muslims are atheists

In the wikipedia Atheism page, it says quite clearly that

an "atheist" can be defined as:

• a person who can truthfully assert, "I believe that there are no deities"

It is a fact that all muslims can truthfully assert that "There are no deities!" therefore all muslims are atheists. 202.168.50.40 01:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I can't follow you. Why is that a fact? --Lambiam^Talk 01:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the wording is a little odd. Despite that, the statement is correct. A deity is in fact a god. God could be referred to as The Deity. They just used a synonym for God/gods. --AstoVidatu 01:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In any case, this posting was not a question for the Ref Desk but a comment about our Atheism article, and should go to the relevant Talk page. JackofOz 01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello? How can a muslim truthfully assert "There are no dieties"? Can anyone explain this to me? Leeborkman 01:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it also a fact that all popes can truthfully assert, "I believe that there are no deities"? If so, then indeed all popes are atheists. If not, you have to explain why you believe this is a fact for muslims but not for popes. --Lambiam^Talk 03:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to be caught up in a language issue. The sentence doesn't require people to believe in multiple deities. One will suffice to exclude them as atheists. Muslims believe in Allah, so they believe there's a deity. No atheism there. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the atheism article has now been corrected.--Shantavira 09:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice the irony in the statment. "I believe there are no deities". So it's still a belief. Most people who call themselves atheists are really agnostic.

And why is the question specifically about Muslims? It applies equally to christianity, which is more common in the West. And since most people here on the ref desk usually write from a Western pov, it's odd to use Islam as an example here. DirkvdM 08:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I...er...uh...don't see any irony about the statement "I believe there are no deities!" falling from the mouth of an atheist. But I'm an American, so I may simply not understand properly.24.250.33.247 23:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that'll probably be it. :) Just in case ... I meant that if one believes something then that is a 'belief'. Sounds like a play on words, but atheists make a statement about the existence of gods, and that rather seems like a belief to me, because how can they know? It makes more sense to say you (and everyone else, whatever they may claim) haven't got a clue. Which is agnosticism. DirkvdM 07:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that'd be terribly conciliatory of them, but they're meant to believe in the lack of deity, not wonder if there is or not (cause that’d make them agnostic, like you said), or worry about how other people feel (because that’d make them wishy-washy). So...no irony yet...I’m actually getting kind of embarrassed.24.250.33.247 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think that I intend to be politically correct, but me being a blunt Dutchman, that is far from the truth. Other than that, I have nothing to add to what I already said, so I'll leave it at that. Funny. My experience is that religious discussions are pointless because in the end everyone sticks to what they believed to start with. And now we seem to have the same experience with a discussion about atheism. :) DirkvdM 06:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Undent! Precisely, because where any religion is a belief in the specific corresponding god, atheism is the belief in no god specifically...not just the lack of belief in any god/gods in particular. Anyway, I was more or less just being snide and unproductive (and arguing semantics)...thanks for humoring me. Oh, and I didn't mean for you to infer that I was painting you as PC. What a faux pas! 24.250.33.247 21:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bu-Ba-Baff (?)

I was reading the "Name of the Rose" by Umberto Eco and i came across several sayings, "bu-ba-baff" and also "blitiri". It's been driving me crazy trying to figure out what they meant! I've looked all over the internet, but the only things I could find were in Italian! Please help me!

Thank you so much in advance,

Carolyn

How about examples? It's likely that they're just Italian slang, and the meaning can be guessed from context. By the way, this should be posted at the language reference desk.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they're Italian particularly. Umberto Eco wrote in On Literature, "I made a list of titles, among which I liked best Blitiri ('blitiri,' like 'babazuf,' is a term used by the late Scholastics to indicate a word devoid of meaning)" Шизомби 13:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I second the second response. "Blitiri" is a word without a notion. It is used in late medieval (Latin) philosophy.

If you read them in "The Name of the Rose" then you would see that they are in the very context of the definitions given above. In fact, William of Baskerville explicitly mentions this. The whole premise of the argument in his discussion with Adso is that such words are devoid of meaning and he uses this example to support his overall discussion.

Lisa Simpson, spelling B episode

I am working on getting the Rocky article up to GA and eventually FA standard. I've included a section on the movie's influence and how the running up the stairs scene is always parodied, so does anyone know what the name of the episode where Lisa Simpson competes in a spelling B but comes second, and during her training she runs up some stairs and jumps up and down. Sorry if my question is a bit confusing

†he Bread 01:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like "I'm Spelling as Fast as I Can" (episode #EABF07). --Canley 01:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks

†he Bread 02:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fawlty Towers and Abe Lincoln

There's something I've always wondered about a line from an episode of Fawlty Towers. During the episode "The Kipper and the Corpse", Basil says good night to a guest who doesn't feel well and thus doesn't realize that Basil was talking to him. Basil repeats himself and the guest then realizes that he should respond in kind. Basil goes off on a rant after Sybil scolds him. During this rant, Basil says something along the lines of "It's only two words. It's not like it's the Gettysburg Address." So, do most Brits know about that speech? Why not mention something more British? (I'd come up with an example but my British history is as rusty as most any Yugo) I'd suspect that it's not that well known since it was more relevant to the American Civil War than the Revolutionary War. Dismas|^(talk) 01:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Gettysburg Address is extremely famous throughout the English-speaking world and beyond. I'm sure most Brits would know of it, and can probably misquote its opening lines as well as anybody. Cleese (Fawlty) was using an extreme comparison for dramatic and humorous effect. He did the same thing with Mrs Richards (the deaf lady). She complained about the view from her window not being good enough, and he replied "What did you expect to see from a Torquay hotel bedroom window? the Sydney Opera House, perhaps? herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically ....?". And Monty Python was full of such examples, eg.

• "There's trouble at the mill"

• "What kind of trouble?"

• (exasperatedly and resentfully) "Well, I don't know. Mr Wentworth said to come and say there's trouble at the mill, that's all. I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!!". JackofOz 02:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WHAM! NOOOOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our weapons are surprise. Fear and surprise. Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency an almost fanatical devotion to the pope and nice red uniforms. --Cardinal Ximinez 02:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Throughout the English-speaking world? I wouldn't think so being that it was 150+ years ago and part of the Civil War, not a world war or even bi-country war. The other examples I could forsee someone knowing about more easily since the Sydney Opera House is still standing and has been for quite some time, and wildebeests have been sweeping majestically since there were plains to sweep across. I had no idea that this one speech would be so well known outside the U.S. borders. As for the "trouble at the mill" quote, I've never known where that was from besides the Spanish Inquisition sketch. Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to keep on denying the truth of this. As I said above, it's famous throughout the English-speaking world and beyond. Our article starts off: "The Gettysburg Address is the most famous speech of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and one of the most quoted famous speeches in United States history." It's not only Americans who know anything about US history. The US Civil War is an iconic historical landmark not just in the USA but in many other countries. It is connected not just to some petty internal dispute, but to the emancipation of slaves everywhere, and to the person of Abraham Lincoln who is arguably not only the most famous of all US Presidents, but one of the most famous statesman in world history. Naturally the most famous utterance of such a person would be well known outside his own country. If that were not so, it would have made no sense for Basil Fawlty to refer to it. Also, it has a title, which makes it extremely easy to make reference to it without quoting any of the words of the speech. Churchill's "blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech is arguably just as famous in the UK, but even it has not achieved a lofty title such as "The Churchill Declaration". JackofOz 04:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay. I believe you. There's no need to bicker and argue (about who killed who). Closest Python reference I could think of.  :-) Dismas|^(talk) 04:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as a Brit, I wouldn't say that the Gettysburg Address is particularly famous in Britain. I doubt that it, or the Civil War in general, are much taught in British history classes (they certainly weren't when I went to school). The point is, rather, that the reference to the Gettysburg Address is perfectly in keeping with Basil's mode of pomposity and withering sarcasm. Cleese and Booth (who wrote the scripts) would not have worried whether the audience got the reference. There's a similar moment in "The Anniversary" when Basil reels off a list of battles which he is pretending to speculate that day is the anniversary of (in fact, as he well knows, it's his wedding anniversary): "Crécy? Poitiers? Yom Kippur?" --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What's taught in 2006 British schools is irrelevant to a show made in 1975. Cleese was born in 1939, and Prunella Scales was born in 1932. They were 35 and 42 respectively when the show was made. The cultural references Basil makes were entirely appropriate for a character of his age and education. Current school kids probably don't know about the battles of Crécy, Poitiers, or even Yom Kippur, but people who went to school in the 40s and 50s certainly would have known about the first two. And they certainly would have known about the Gettysburg Address. I'm talking about the generality of people who had a standard education to high school level; you'll always find individuals who appear to belie this (such as yourself; I don't know when you went to school, though). What would have been the point of referring to battles or historical events that were so obscure that only learned professors stood a chance of understanding them? No point at all. The show has been so popular for over 30 years because everyone can relate to it. Pomposity and withering sarcasm were indeed used to great effect, but these devices simply don't work when the hearer doesn't understand the content. The inevitable conclusion is that the references to Gettysburg, Poitiers, Credy et al were pitched at the general viewer in 1975, not some elite. If well-educated people of 2006 are starting to fail to grasp some of these bits of humour, you can draw your own conclusions about that. JackofOz 06:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Without trawling back through British school history syllabuses, it's hard to tell whether you're correct in your assumption that the general viewer in the 70s would be expected to know what the Gettysburg Address was. Personally I very much doubt that the American Civil War has ever featured prominently in British history lessons. Nor does it have sufficient cultural resonance in the UK to be something that forms part of pub-quiz general knowledge.

It's also hard to pinpoint exactly what you mean by the "general viewer". I mean, I was 8 years old when I first watched Fawlty, and I loved it as much as any middle-aged person would, although I certainly wouldn't have got all the jokes. I maintain that the Gettysburg and Yom Kippur references are funny because of Basil's pomposity and sarcasm in uttering them, not because the viewer would know exactly what Basil was referring to. BTW, a small point: the episode with the Gettysburg reference was first broadcast in 1979, not 1975 (it was in the second series). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I did history at O level in 1974, when the syllabus in my exam board ran from 1867 (British North America Act) to 1951 (Festival of Britain), and tended to be heavily biased towards British social and political history (the Artisans' Dwellings Act of 18-something, and suchlike). Things which happened outside the British Empire or Europe tended not to be mentioned. For A level in 1976 history ran from 1815 until 1914 in considerably more detail, but concentrated on general European, Russian, and British history - the American Civil War was only mentioned insofar as it impinged on those areas (the effects of the northern blockade on English cotton supplies, Tsar Alexander II's admiration for Lincoln influencing the emancipation of the serfs, etc.) Of course it's not necessary to specifically understand the reference in a joke - I doubt many of the viewers of the Monty Python Summarising Proust Competition ever read A la recherche du temps perdu, but the joke is that it's obviously something extremely long and complicated which can't be summarised in two minutes (though the Pythons actually do quite a creditable attempt!) -- Arwel (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I bow to your greater knowledge of the British educational system. I have no personal experience of it, and you do. But we'll have to agree to disagree about the value of obscure historical references in humour. If Basil had referred to Pericles' Funeral Oration, I doubt it would have had the same humorous impact for most people, because they would have had to momentarily interrupt their processing of the humour to think "Hmm, I wonder what that is". It's potentially fatal for humour to have your audience's attention distracted, even for a moment, and even by something you yourself have said, so why take the risk? Much safer to keep the audience on side by alluding to something that most of them would know about. (Btw, when the second series was shown in Australia I would have been 29 or 30, certainly within the target audience of the writers. I knew immediately what the Gettysburg Address was, as did everybody I knew at the time. I don't mingle in particularly high-brow circles). JackofOz 12:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But, as stated previously, to make a character appear to be pompous, they may very well choose to have him make references that are over the heads of the audience. Alex P. Keaton on Family Ties often did this, for example. StuRat 17:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, you don't get to have a say, Stu. You can't even spell the name of Gettysburg (a shocking error for an American). :) Seriously, I have to disagree, but debating what may or may not have been in the minds of Cleese and Booth seems a little futile. JackofOz 20:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Gettysberg Address is quite succinct for a presidential speech, not a good example of a rambling diatribe. StuRat 07:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to know anything about the Gettysburg Address to get the joke, you only need to know that 'address' can mean an important speech. Rentwa 09:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's rambling diatribes you want, I've got plenty more where that one came from.  :) JackofOz 08:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, it contains the line "The world will little note nor long remember, what we say here..." [1]. StuRat 07:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont remember him saying that! 8-)--Light current 12:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I always thought Basil was referring to the fact that the Gettysburg address was stirring oratory, and that was what Sybil was asking of him - rather than the length of the speech. Incidentally, the trouble oop at t'mill was that one of the cross-beams had gone out askew on the treddle. David | Talk 08:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes! That was quite a common fault- software glitch!--Light current 22:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, that episode of Fawlty Towers was the first time I ever heard of the Gettysburg Address. Actually, it was the first time I heard the use of the word 'address' in that meaning. Goes to show how educating comedies can be. :) DirkvdM 08:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

All of this is suggesting to me that maybe the Australian education system isn't that bad after all (compared to other countries). JackofOz 12:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

When i was quite young, I was in a pet shop with my Father once and we spotted a blue parrot for £2000. Apparently it could say "Hello? Hello? Who's there?" and my Father said "For that price, I'd expect it to be able to say the Gettysburg Address, backwards". I thought at the time that Gettysburg was a place with a complex or long address, and found it funny anyway. I'm not convinced that many brits know the contents of the address, but its still referenced in humour because its widely known to be long, and its satisfying to reel off as part of a smart response. Emma 81.152.243.171 22:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Lovely anecdote, very humorous. I must use that some time. The irony is that it's not long at all. Well, not for an address, which one might generally expect to take maybe half an hour. It is all of about 300 words, and takes 2 to 3 minutes, depending on how quickly you speak (I seem to recall reading Lincoln was a quick talker). Still quite a mouthful for a parrot, though, I agree. JackofOz 02:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Would that be a Norwegian Blue parrot, perchance ? Gandalf61 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, as i wrote Blue Parrot, I thought it might be wrong, but forgot to double check. It was a Grey Parrot, An African Grey Parrot to be exact. But, you know sometimes grey birds are called blue in name, make em sound a bit more exotic. I wonder if I did get blue parrot from Norwegian blue parrot from that famous sketch? it links in well. Oh, and i stand corrected on the address being long. The joke must lie in the composition and elegant delivery of the speech by such a powerful orator. Emma 81.152.243.171 18:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Protecting the public from hearing damage

I ve just playedbass on possibly one of the loudest gigs of my life. I was wearing 20 dB earplugs and to me it was still horrendously loud. Needless to say , no one else was wearing plugs. THe sound level must have been well over 100dBA SPL in the near audience. But I still had difficulty hearing myself over the drums keyboard, guitar and vocals! Do I as a musician, have any legal or moral responsibility for preventing hearing damage to members of my audience (or other members of the band for that matter)? --Light current 03:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your morals are up to you, I would think. As far as the legality... I don't recall ever hearing of anyone sueing The Who because of the volume of their shows. Though, the U.S. at least, seems much more litigious now than it probably was back then. I'd say that if anyone were going to sue a band because of a loud show, it would be really easy for them to lose since they would have to prove that it was your show and not any of the others that they had attended that caused their hearing problems. Also, you could argue that the "reasonable person" should know that they were going to hear loud music at a rock concert. Though none of this is legal advice since I'm not a lawyer. Dismas|^(talk) 04:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, either, but I would say that the responsibility for protecting the audience from hearing damage rests with the venue, rather than the band. In the UK, many venues have taken to printing long lists of terms and conditions on the back of their tickets. Purchasing a ticket is supposed to signify acceptance of these, one of which reads "ticket holders may expose themselves to levels of noise which may damage hearing." In other words: "if you go deaf at our concert hall, it's not our fault pal." Whether any of this is enforceable in a court of law is another matter. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Richardrj is right on the ball. The same applies to NA and most of East Asia.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

NA ? StuRat 06:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

North America, presumably. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a few lawsuits is what we need. I can't go to a concert, it's too painful. There seems to be a vicious cycle where loud music damages hearing, which makes people want the music even louder, which damages hearing further, etc. I can wear earplugs, but then I only get muffled sound, hardly worth the price of concert admission. I consider this equivalent to food that's so spicy you can't taste anything but the spice. Good food doesn't need to be overly spicy, and good music doesn't need to be excessively loud. StuRat 06:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Stu: see our page on earplugs. I have the musicians variety thet dont muffle, just attenuate.--Light current 12:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather skeptical. Even if the earplugs didn't distort the sound, you would still get bass passing thru your head to the eardrums, which would swamp out the small amount of treble which gets past the earplugs. This would make the lyrics rather difficult to understand. StuRat 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes you do get a slight bass enhancement, but I can tell you, (since I was very near to the bass cabs [I was playing] and was near the keyboard monster speakers) I could still hear the vocals and drums/keyboard/guitar (too) clearly!--Light current 12:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto 1000% to both of those, Stu. JackofOz 08:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In continental Europe it's commonplace for venues to give out free earplugs to audience members. Never seen that happening in the UK, though. Some bands, such as Swans, regarded excessive loudness as an integral part of their live show. They wanted to pummel the audience into submission. Which is a reasonable aim, in my view. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the legal theory, cigarette companies have been successfully sued, and their have been attempts to sue fast food places, so suing for loud music seems right in line with those, to me. StuRat 06:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, StuRat is right. I still think the responsibility lies with the audience members themselves. Any type of concert is going to be loud and could be potentially damaging to your hearing if you're particularly close to the loudspeakers. You can't blame the band or venue for not protecting yourself. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with disclaimers is, you don't know exactly how loud it will be at your seat (assuming assigned seats), so you are agreeing to an unknown..."yes, you can subject me to as loud of a sound as you please, and I won't sue". I don't think that makes for an enforceable contract. Then again, the common "sodomy clauses" on computer software contracts, where they say they have the right to destroy all data on your computer, similarly seems unenforceable. Surely car manufacturers can't make you sign something saying "this car may spontaneously explode, killing your entire family, and you can't sue us" and have it be taken seriously in court. StuRat 10:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately in the US the legal standard for software liability is best practice, which for software means: abysmally bad practice. --Lambiam^Talk 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a solution. Instead of playing music so loudly that many people need ear protection, why not play it at a reasonable volume that nobody will complain about, and then provide jacks and earphones with adjustable volume levels for those who aren't satisfied until blood gushes from their eardrums ? Thus, it will be the responsibility of the user if any ear damage is done. StuRat 10:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea (esp in pubs/bars where the music is often annoyingly loud). But who is going to pay for them?--Light current 12:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, after they lose a few multi-million dollar lawsuits, I suspect the concert promoters will "find" the money. They certainly charge enough to cover the cost. StuRat 12:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No Im talking informal gigs in pubs/bars!--Light current 12:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I went to a festival in Norway, recently, and I actually had to wear earplugs to discern the music out of the noise... Maybe I'm extra sensitive, though... 惑乱 分からん 13:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Lucky you! Sounds like just my kind of concert. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Im not surprised at that. Wearing earplugs can actually help you hear things better!--Light current 14:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that The Rolling Stones have been told that theire music was too loud to be played at one concert, but they played anyway. David Bowie and Green Day when they played in the UK were told the same thing, they still played. My guess is bands are told that all the time but they don't care because they're giving the people what they want and the band is getting what they want. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually excessive volume and hearing damage is the main reason I don't go to live shows more often. Durova 17:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. My 2p: When I went to Glastonbury, they gave out free earplugs. And I find wearing earplugs means the music sounds better at concerts, I can only assume because they block my hearing to the level of the deafened people who regularly don't wear them, for whom the music is balanced. Skittle 20:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Do iPods come with a warning and a liability disclaimer? They can also cause permanent hearing damage. --Lambiam^Talk 17:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I would guess they probably do. But the difference is that, unlike at a concert, you have control of the volume, so you can't really blame the manufacturer. StuRat 22:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Although people do blame the manufacturer. I read an article a few months ago that said that Apple was putting software on the new iPods that would enable parents to lock in a maximum volume so that their kids wouldn't be able to turn the tunes up too high. I haven't looked into this any further since I don't own any rugrats. Although, just going through the menus on my iPod now, I see that I have something new there called "Sound check" which seems to lower the volume a bit. I don't know the specifics of it though, that's just what it seems to be doing. Dismas|^(talk) 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wearing the earplugs probably led you to liking the music better because of the enhanced bass due to dampened treble. Sound check on the iPod is used to try and level off the volume of the songs if you have some songs that are a lot louder than other ones, or quieter, so you don't have to keep adjusting the volume. Be sure though, if you actually change the volume of a specific song on iTunes in the options, sound check will ruin you. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)06:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not surprisingly this focuses totally on rock concerts, thus following a standard preconception. Classical full orchestra concerts can be bloody loud too. Actually, musicians in classicl orchestras are almost assured to get hearing problems after a while. And the audience is close enough to be exposed to very similar levels. Attend enough clasicla concerts (if you can afford it) and you'll probably suffer hearing loss too. Rock musicians (at large enouhg venues) can aim the main speakers (pa - public address) at the audience and thus only be exposed to the monitors on stage, which they can set at any volume they wish. Then again, in a small venue you often get the speakers behind you and if want the music to be loud for the audience, you're screwed. And of coures the musicians are exposed much more often than most in the audience. So rock musicians can be best off or worst off, depending on the venue. Solution: make it big asap. DirkvdM 09:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If the speakers are behind you, and the volume cranked up, how do you avoid feedback ? StuRat 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

With great difficulty? :) I'm not sure, but I as long as the original sound arrives at the microphone much louder than the sound from the speakers there should be no feedback (right?). And the speakers are relatively much farther removed from the mic than the singer. The monitor would be a bigger problem. As would the drums, which are usually at the back and have loads of mics. I don't have any practical experience with this. Next time I'm at a rcok concert I'll ask the soundman. DirkvdM 06:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

See pitch shifter or howl suppressor--Light current 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh? DirkvdM 07:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, theres another term for the device that shifts vocals frequencies by a small amount to avoid feedback. I thought it would be under pitch shifter. I cant remember the correct name for it. Also howl suppressor page doesnt exist--Light current 19:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Kunta Kinte

According to the article on Kunta Kinte he was sexually assaulted while on the slave ship. is this true? because I watch the series and I never saw that. in what way was he sexually assaulted and by whom.

Male rape isn't something they would have shown on 70's prime-time US TV. Have you read the book, Roots: The Saga of an American Family, by Alex Haley. ? StuRat 06:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the character is historical, the novel as well as the TV series are primarily a work of fiction, and most of the specific events are the result of someone's creative imagination. --Lambiam^Talk 16:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And much of the folklore is lifted from Harold Courlander's works. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancient history

How old was the Persian Empire before it fell to Alexander the Great in 331 B.C.?

The Achaemenid Dynasty, the first to create a unified Persian state, ruled from 648 to 330BC. White Guard 05:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

However, the Achaemenids were vassals of the Medians until 550 B.C., when the Achaemenids conquered the Median Empire and established the Persian Empire. So, the answer to the question is that the Persian Empire lasted 219 years. Marco polo 13:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cross-cultural communication / studies

Hi,

I'm a french contributor and i planned on improving the french wp articles about croll-cultural communications who are a mess on fr.

I was quite astonished to discover both Cross-cultural communication and Cross-cultural studies and I was even more suprised to see that they had nothing in common, not even the categories. I read them both and to be honnest I haven't found the differences I expected: the difference seems to be more on the authors used as references (especially George P. Murdock in "studies") than on the content itself, but i'm not a native speaker nor an expert on this field so I'm not sure I should propose them for being merged. Could anyone have a look and help me on this ? I'm sorry if this is not the right place for such a request but the communication system here is bigger and more complicate than on fr so maybe I missed something.

Thx in advance for any help --Piksou 11:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Police caution

What is the US equivalent of a police caution? (Assuming there is one.)--Shantavira 11:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is an equivalent. There are informal warnings by police, or you would have to go to court, then be convicted or plead guilty, and receive a suspended sentence, to be officially recorded as guilty without being punished. StuRat 12:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is one. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)17:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Would fix-it tickets be a parallel? The officer notices car registration two weeks past due and issues an actual ticket with the understanding that the recipient can walk into the police station with proof of having corrected the problem anytime before the scheduled court date, and the police will retract the citation. Durova 17:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a similar thing to that in Britain - tickets issued for violation of parking rules. If you pay a fine within the time specified on the ticket then it's not a criminal matter, but if not you face prosecution. Cautions in Britain are normally used for minor criminal behaviour rather than motoring matters. If you agree to be cautioned this is an admission of guilt, and having a caution against your name *is* considered to count as a criminal record. AndyofKent 10:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no precise equivalent, but there are a couple of closely similar concepts: "written warnings" and "infractions".

In some U.S. states, officers can choose to issue a written warning in place of a citation. Though it varies state by state, written warnings are often not an offense, and have no consequences, but may be raised as background in future offenses. ("As you have in the past received 6 written warnings for speeding down this same street, I will impose the full fine for the citation you have received.")

Infractions are probably the best parallel to the police caution -- thy are (in theory) civil offenses, not criminal, and typically do not go to criminal court (nor afford the same protections as the accused would receive in criminal court.) In most U.S. states, most minor-to-medium traffic offenses are infractions, not misdemeanors.

Battle at a river

I keep searching for the name & date of a battle at a river (maybe Scotland) and the leaders were James vs. William. It was on TV and very interesting, but poor TV reception made it difficult to hear or see. Thanks MyKat 216.128.228.145 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

probably Battle of the Boyne MeltBanana 16:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, thanks -MyKat216.128.228.145 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How To Get Around Baggage Restrictions?

If I wore multiple layers of clothes to get around the baggage restrictions (I can take more stuff) for a air travel would I jepodise the integrity of my schedule? Could the airport staff object on some grounds and stop me from flying? --Username132 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It might appear suspicious, and airport security staff are very jumpy these days. They can delay you on any pretext fairly easily. If I were you I wouldn't risk it. Just take less of everything.--Shantavira 19:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I did that a few years ago, but I wouldn't want to try it now. If you have a thick coat and heavy boots, you'd be better off wearing them while your thin sweatshirt and trainers are in your bag (rather than vice versa) on the weight issue, but several layers of clothes will make you look odd, and that could be enough for security to take an extra careful (and time consuming) look. --Mnemeson 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, people of Muslim descent have been thrown off airplanes, in part because passengers complained that they were wearing jackets on a warm day. Also, you'll be uncomfortable during the flight and until you can change your clothes. Thirdly, once you get to your destination, where do you put your extra clothes? Your luggage is full (otherwise you'd put the clothes there), and I reckon you don't want to wear seven shirts to go sightseeing. Finally, almost everybody who travels frequently recommends taking less than you think you'll need. Your trip will be much more enjoyable if you're not carrying the absolute maximum baggage you can. --ByeByeBaby 02:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My then wife and I visited England in 1986, 1989 and 1991. On one of those trips, I bought a jacket at a flea market, and on the return I wore my new jacket while the missus, who is 15 inches shorter, wore my bulkier old jacket. Took us a while to guess why we got funny looks at the airport. —Tamfang 06:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I did this once to avoid having to check in luggage. I removed the two strips of the internal frame of my bakcpack so I could fold it to daypack size. Once on board the plane, the first thing I did was start undressing. Gave me some funny looks to, but I don't give a shit what other people think (unless it's based on logical reasoning), so that wasn't a problem. My only fear was that I would get into trouble with the two strips. That turned out to be no problem, but then I went and left them at the aiport and had to improvise once at the destination (had two metal bars made, which cost next to nothing but made the pack a fair bit heavier). DirkvdM 09:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does one go nowadays to get custom metal bars made? --Username132 (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To a hardware store. In third world countries it is more normal to have something custom made. Actually, I had the polishing done almost for free by the teenage helpers at the shop (the owner wasn't in). We hadn't agreed on a price and when trhe one who did it boldly asked for '4' (meaning 400 Baht), I gave him 4 Baht. He was flabbergasted, the others were in a fit and I walked out smiling. I got a bargain and they had a laugh. That's the way to do business. :) DirkvdM 07:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

School integration

What are some pros and some cons to integrating a poor inercity high school with mostly black children with a middle class, suburbian high school with mostly white children? if possible, could somebody point me in the direction of some articles that may support the con? One of the main arguments I can think of against integration would be that it is unfair to force the white suburbian high school students to go to a poor inercity school. Any views will be helpful.

Well, the same can be said that it's unfair to force poor black students to go to the poor inner city school. A Clown in the Dark 18:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

One argument is that if a school is so bad, it should be fixed, not abandoned. Another is that the problem with bad schools is unmotivated and poorly disciplined students, which is due to poor parenting. Moving the bad students thus only spreads the problem. StuRat 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A practical effect might be the white parents pulling their children out of the school, and sending them to private or parochial schools, or homeschooling them. In my town, people home school their children for reasons that seem far less compelling than saving them from being transported to an inner city school every day. From the department of "Not with MY child you won't." Edison 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To Stu: No-one said the school is bad, only that it is a poor inner-city school. Also, the suggestion was not to abandon it but to integrate it; how else could there be an objection against white students going to the inner-city school. Presumably, integration would also mean an equitable distribution of means and assets. --Lambiam^Talk 21:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Poor" has two meanings. You apparently took it to mean "lacking sufficient funds" while I took it to mean "performing at an unacceptably low level". The two are somewhat related, but it is possible to have an underfunded school that performs well or a well funded school with a low level of performance. I saw a TV interview with Eli Kazan which claimed that around $22,000 per student is spent in rich suburban schools per year while ONLY $11,000 per student is spent in poor, inner city schools. My first thought was, "for $330,000 I could do a hell of a lot better job teaching 30 students than that, why the heck don't they have books and computers with that much cash to spend ?". StuRat 21:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucracy doesn't come cheap, for a start. How could you possibly teach 30 children without first composing a mission statement, anti-discrimination policy, doing health and safety audits and creating a continuing professional development strategy for the teachers? All of these require highly trained and able professionals to interface with staff and deal with the vast amount of paperwork that we now know good teaching requires.

How can you raise the next generation of market-savvy administrators and go-getting entrepeneurs? Not by letting them use free software - what sort of example would that set? They must be made to understand the social value of the cartel, and the sound business reasons for involving customers in alpha testing. Think about it - if they were able to use free software - that might threaten the very cartels we are trying so hard support. What would happen then?

And how can you hope to teach children in a school more than 25 years old? These old buildings are replete with subliminal patriarchal cues - you don't want to raise a generation of Nazis, do you? You must build new, modern buildings that reflect enlightened political thinking and reassure visiting mandarins that you understand the latest educational theories. What have books got to do with it? Rentwa 10:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Book/author name ?

Answered

OK, I'm confused. I thought a book was written about the desegregation of either the Boston or Baltimore public schools systems, by author Eli Kazan. One or more of my search terms must be wrong because I can't find either. (I did find a film director Elia Kazan, though). I particularly recall that the book contained quotes by a school official who likened bussing blacks to white schools with spreading a stain on a nice clean white pair of pants. StuRat 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was Eli Ginzberg. Here is his obituary at Columbia. ---Sluzzelin 06:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

He's an economist, so I don't think he's the guy. StuRat 12:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the author in question must be Jonathan Kozol. He has written a lot about inequality in education. See his Death at an Early Age (1967) for information about schools in Boston. Steven.Harris 05:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's him. Thanks ! StuRat 14:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Famous People

Not an earth-shaking question, but I hope someone can help me with this challenge from a party game: Name some famous people, alive today, who were famous 50 years ago, in 1956. They must be human beings alive today, so excluded are Elvis and Bugs Bunny. The only one I could think of is TV reporter Mike Wallace. The right answers would seem to be singers, comedians or movie stars. Thanks. Kevin J.66.213.33.2 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny is DEAD?! Damn.

Seriously though, perhaps Etta James? Her first hit was recorded in 1954. --LarryMac 19:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The current Queen of England and her husband. The current Emperor of Japan. They were heir-apparents, therefore surely famous allready. Flamarande 19:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Lauren Bacall, King Bhumibol, Fidel Castro, Dean Stockwell---Sluzzelin 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Was Castro famous in 1956? His revolution happened in 1959.

El glorioso commandante Fidel overthrew Batista (el perro de los americanos) in 1959 (at least according to the WIKIarticle) and the original request refers to 1956. I am unsure if Fidel was allready famous in 1956. Viva Fidel Castro! Viva Che Guevarra! Viva la revolucion Cubana! Muerte a los gringos! Socialismo ou muerte! (don't you just love old corrupt dictators? :) Flamarande 20:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The Queen and her husband - the best answers. Dean Stockwell, also good. Any others, maybe child actors now old?

Try also Charlton Heston. Flamarande 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actor Mickey Rooney...also Hey lady! Jerry Lewis

Olivia de Havilland won her first Oscar in 1939 for Gone With the Wind; Eva Marie Saint won an Oscar in 1954 for On the Waterfront; Mitch Miller recorded The Yellow Rose of Texas in 1955. JackofOz 20:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, but I'm not sure that Mitch Miller is famous today; just alive. Probably no one under 50 knows who Mitch Miller is or was.

Ask a teenager and an 80-year-old to each write a list of famous people alive today, and you'll probably get no names in common. Each list is equally valid. But if you're only interested in the opinions of people aged under 50, you should have said so. JackofOz 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm 35 and I know who Mitch Miller is (yes, without looking him up). Mom had a couple of his records that I remember. Chuck 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Child actors? How was Shirley Temple forgotten? Zsa Zsa Gabor, although not a child, was famous in '56 too. Also, Jerry Mathers, who began playing the title character in Leave It To Beaver, is applicable next year, as that show started in 1957. Back on geopolitics, there's Simeon II of Bulgaria. Picaroon9288 20:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe. Durova 05:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh, unless you're extremely conspiratoric, Marilyn Monroe is not alive today (only famous). 惑乱 分からん 12:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Then let's try Nina Foch and Debbie Reynolds. Durova 21:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There must be tonnes. Putting a few minutes thought into it I've come up with Shirley Temple, Elizabeth Taylor, Chuck Berry, Tony Bennett, Little Richard, Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Fats Domino, B.B. King, Kirk Douglas, Walter Cronkite, Tony Curtis...ok there's a dozen. Loomis 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I had Shirley right above you, Loomis. :) Back to geopolitics again, Mohammed Zahir Shah, Fuad II of Egypt, Norodom Sihanouk, Norodom Sihamoni, Zera Yacob Amha Selassie, Crown Prince of Ethiopia, Bao Long, Crown Prince of Vietnam, and Nelson Mandela were all reasonably well known by then, from my quick research. Sorry I can't think of as many movie characters. Picaroon9288 22:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Today-50 years, that leaves a reasonable age span of people aged 0-30(-40) around that time, who haven't died yet... Consider that, for a start... Should be many people in beauty/youth-centered industries, such as popular music and cinema among the examples... 惑乱 分からん 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What about athletes? Sammy Baugh, Jim Brown, Bob Feller, Roger Bannister, Red Auerbach... -- Mwalcoff 23:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought about Pelé, but in 1956 he probably was little known outside Brazil. 惑乱 分からん 11:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirling Moss, Dick Francis Lemon martini 00:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro revisited. His 1953 attack on the Moncada barracks made him famous in Cuba at least. Had it not been for his insurgence a few later, that would probably have been forgotten outside Cuba by 1956. This insurgence started at the end of 1956, but I dont' know how much international attention that got. Journalist Herbert Matthews made him (and of course El Che, but he's dead)) famous in the US in 1957, but I don't know about other countries. I can imagine it drew some attention in Europe (especially Spain) and it would have in China and the USSR, had they known he was going to install a socialist government. DirkvdM 10:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, looking at the names others provided, I don't know half of them and the other half are almost all from the US. I suppose the world was even more focused on the US at the time than it is now, so that might actually not represent a bias on the part of the answerers. Also notice that almost all the USians are musicians or actors. The British wave hit the world a few years later. No sportspeople. US sports are only popular in the US. And Pele also became famous just a few years later. How different this list would be if it were about 1966 in stead of 1956. I suppose the world really changed considerably in the sixties. DirkvdM 10:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Richie Benaud, Sir Garfield Sobers, Donald Carr, Neil Harvey, Sir Everton Weekes, Sonny Ramadhin and there's plenty more... --Dweller 11:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ingmar Bergman, at least among movie buffs. (Currently, he spends most of his time in his cottage house on Fårö, Gotland, occasionally watching old movies on his projector, as far as I know. ) 惑乱 分からん 12:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would add Andrzej Wajda here. Michelangelo Antonioni was not famous yet. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the brightest stars of Russian ballet: Marina Semyonova, Maya Plisetskaya, Igor Moiseyev. The most famous Russian and Soviet actress ever, Lyudmila Gurchenko, rose to fame in 1956 and she still shines. Sophia Loren was well-known in Europe in the late 1950s. Alain Robbe-Grillet and J. D. Salinger were among the most talked-about fiction writers in 1956. I understand that these names don't speak much to an average American and I pity the Americans. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Has nobody mentioned Sir Edmund Hillary??! What about Gore Vidal? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Australians meeting that category might conceivably include the sportspeople Dawn Fraser, Ron Barassi, and Lou Richards, all of whom are still very well-known in Australia, and the actor Bud Tingwell. --Robert Merkel 13:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Kevin: Thank you all. Maybe the question was just too easy. If the game were played with 1938 and today, I could name only Mickey Rooney and Shirley Temple.

I don't think anyone has said Bo Diddley, Pete Seeger, or Ray Bradbury. I agree with Kevin; 1956 just isn't far enough back. 1938 would be pretty tough; maybe doing the game with a 60-year interval would be closer to optimal. --Allen 18:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The list of centenarians might be useful here. The living ones are bolded and italicized.---Sluzzelin 18:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait. Elvis is dead? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, he just went home. Rmhermen 03:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he just left the building... 惑乱 分からん 11:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to make the list even longer, I'm adding some jazz artists. Max Roach, Sonny Rollins, Anita O'Day, Clark Terry, Dave Brubeck, Quincy Jones, Hank Jones, Roy Haynes. Oh, and Juliette Gréco.---Sluzzelin 05:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity Andy Warhol isn't around anymore to defend his 1968 statement that "in the future everybody will be world-famous for 15 minutes". JackofOz 23:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the recent parody: "On the Net" (or was it "in the blogosphere"?), "everyone will be famous to 15 people." —Tamfang 01:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman. Surviving Nebula Grand Masters who were published by 1956: Jack Williamson, Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury (previously mentioned), Frederik Pohl, Jack Vance, Brian Aldiss, Philip José Farmer, Robert Silverberg. —Tamfang 06:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC); expanded 01:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Surprised no one has come up with Betty White yet; she had already won an Emmy in 1951. Chuck 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

ANSWERED -> Where did I read this? Dreiser? Hardy?

I'm trying to find a quote, but my memory of it is vague. It's a little paragraph that describes the affections an older man has for a girl, except it is his second love. So it goes into detail how someone's second affair is different from the first, i.e. less frantic passion and madness, etc.

I *think* it was from Dreiser's Sister Carrie, but I searched through the e-text and couldn't find it so well. It might be from Thomas Hardy, maybe Jude the Obscure... but not sure. Help please.

FOUND IT:

Beginning of Chapter 23, from Sister Carrie.

Curiously, for all her leaning towards Hurstwood, he had not taken a firm hold on her understanding. She was listening, smiling, approving, and yet not finally agreeing. This was due to a lack of power on his part, a lack of that majesty of passion that sweeps the mind from its seat, fuses and melts all arguments and theories into a tangled mass, and destroys for the time being the reasoning power. This majesty of passion is possessed by nearly every man once in his life, but it is usually an attribute of youth and conduces to the first successful mating.

Hurstwood, being an older man, could scarcely be said to retain the fire of youth, though he did possess a passion warm and unreasoning. It was strong enough to induce the leaning toward him which, on Carrie's part, we have seen. She might have been said to be imagining herself in love, when she was not. Women frequently do this. It flows from the fact that in each exists a bias towards affection, a craving for the pleasure of being loved. The longing to be shielded, bettered, sympathised with, is one of the attributes of the sex. This, coupled with sentiment and a natural tendency to emotion, often makes refusing difficult. It persuades them that they are in love.

The Crystal Killers

Hi!, I have another music related question...haha. does anyone know what band is the one that appears in the New Order video for their song crystal? it's not the killers... it's some other unknown bunch of guys, does anyone know who they are?are they a band? or just random people?.--Cosmic girl 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's a music video, they're usually just actors or extras... Check out the links I added for more info... 惑乱 分からん 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

ok thank you! :).the question is still open though...--Cosmic girl 13:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)