Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 October 10

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.

October 10

Austrapolithecus

where did they live? what did they look like? what they dicovered of invented? when did they live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luseta (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See Australopithecus. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If only we had a giant encyclopedia with articles on virtually every topic totally for free that we could look things up in... --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here)

But it's sometimes hard to look things up when you spell them wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Russia/Georgia conflict

I'm having a little trouble understanding this, despite having read a number of articles on the subject (both news articles and Wikipedia articles). From what I gather (and simply put), South Ossetia and Abkhazia wanted to separate from Georgia, because they are not ethnically Georgian. Georgia attacked them. Then Russia attacked Georgia for attacking them. Now, many other countries are angry with Russia for flexing its military muscle. Have I got all this right, and if so, why are they angry with Russia when it seems that Georgia was the original aggressor? (Not to imply that it's okay for Russia to go around bombing other countries that did something wrong first - two wrongs don't make a right - but why do they seem to be getting the majority of the blame?) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just to make it clear: I'm not trying to start a debate with the "why" part of the question, just asking for clarification since I don't quite understand what's going on. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture this analogy then. States that are integral part of the U.S., like lets say North Dakota and Vermont, decide to secede from the union. The governments there organize armed forces, and declare that the U.S. is no longer sovereign over them, and that they are independent. Now, picture the U.S. Army marches in to stop this from happening. Now, here's the kicker, Canada then invades the U.S., and begins to place a seige on cities like Chicago, New York, and begins to push in on Washington D.C. Now, replace the words "U.S." with "Georgia", replace "North Dakota" and "Vermont" with "South Ossetia" and "Abkhazia" and the word "Canada" with "Russia" and that is the essense of the conflict. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than either, and it isn't about Georgia. It's about NATO. Imagine that it was the US economy that collapsed at the end of the Cold War, and a victorious USSR extended the Warsaw Pact to Cuba and Mexico, reassuring everyone that the US would "get used to it". I don't think they would. For some odd reason, Russia is not reconciled to the expansion of NATO either. The invasion of South Ossetia had basically the same motivation as the USSR had in provoking the Cuban missile crisis: That wasn't about Cuba, but a way to force NATO to pull its missiles in Turkey off the Soviet border. (Which they did, BTW.) All the stuff about "Russian citizens" in SO is BS; it's just the diplomatic excuse for Russia's challenge to NATO. Georgia may have instigated the actual battle, which gave the Russians the excuse they were looking for, but they were not the original aggressor. They insisted at independence that all territories of the Georgian SSR become part of independent Georgia, and SO and Abkhazia refused to go along. They rebelled, and in the case of Abkhazia engaged in genocide (excuse me, I think we use the more polite term "ethnic cleansing" now) to establish a population plurality—the Abkhaz were only 15% of the population, after all. There are hundreds of thousands of Mingrelian refugees from Abkhazia in Georgia. If the US had been smart, 5-10 years ago they would have tried to get Abkhazia to cede its eastern (non-Abkhaz) territories to Georgia in exchange for recognition, and Georgia to recognize their independence in exchange for a place to return many of the refugees. But bluster and bellowing is easier than actually solving anything. Anyone want to bet that the US won't try doing anything about Karabagh until that blows up too? kwami (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The international community considers South Ossetia part of Georgia, so Georgian troops are perfectly entitled to enter it (although, under the circumstances, it may have been unwise). Russian troops entering Georgia, and independent country, is an act of war. At worst Georgia violated an agreement they had with Russia, Russia on the other hand invaded a foreign state. The latter is the far more serious offence under international law. --Tango (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite true. Which I'm sure is why they issued Russian passports, to be able to claim they were protecting their "citizens" regardless of whose territory it was legally. I don't think they (Putin?) are particularly interested in international law, but it is interesting many in the Kremlin see this as harming Russia's long-term interests in having a secure border and territorial integrity.

Cherry, a lot of it is propaganda. The main difference from Kosovo is that there were many countries that supported doing something about Kosovo, there were serious concerns about gross Serbian human-rights violations (though people conveniently forget that the Kosovars were using rape of Serb civilians as a tool of war, even teaching Albanian boys that raping Serb girls was a patriotic duty), Serb leaders have been charged with war crimes at the Hague, that attempts at mediation went on for years after the NATO invasion of Kosovo before there was diplomatic recognition, and that one condition of independence was remarkably strong constitutional protection of minority (Serb) rights. None of this happened in SO: Ossetes complained of being second-class citizens in Georgia, not of systematic murder, and Russian charges of genocide by Georgians have proved empty. No other country supported Russia, and Russia made no attempt at reconciliation between the warring parties. Instead of protecting all citizens of SO, Ossetian and perhaps Russian troops engaged in ethnic "cleansing" of Georgians residents in the southeast. Based on this precedent, the US could issue American passports to Chechens, then annex Chechnya "to protect American citizens", and kick out ethnic Russian grandmothers in wheelchairs as "foreign occupiers"—which is why none of Russia's allies but Nicaragua have rallied to the cause. Not even Serbia has recognized SO! kwami (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing" is not a polite or politically acceptable or correct term. It's an abomination. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the words are perfectly acceptable; it's the act that's so nasty. YMMV. Matt Deres (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Which makes describing it in such a "polite" way so incongruous. We wouldn't describe the serial rape of 50 people as "exploring one's sexuality". Spades should be called spades. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I put it in scare quotes. I was being facetious. kwami (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

These days, the term "ethnic cleansing" is usually used ironically. It doesn't have positive connotations. --Tango (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gets confusing but is "PC" self consciously used in a meta-critical way. Even then, sp*** could be misinterpreted given the right strength of magnifying glass, non? "Genocide" might invite a rush of blood to the head. Just saying, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I certainly was not having a go at you, kwami. I knew you were using it in an ironic sense. I was commenting on the general use of the term by those who do use it in a serious way as a euphemism. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Unusual, ribbony necktie thing

What is this kind of tie called? --Seans Potato Business 08:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Invalid URL.--SquareOuroboros (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"string tie" or "Colonel tie" seem to be the common names, at least in western/cowboy circles [1] [2] - not to be confused with a Bolo tie (also known as a Bootlace tie) or a skinny tie (as popular in the late 70s/early 80s). If you Google for those terms, you should see more info. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In the mid-20th century U.S., they were strongly associated with old fashioned Southern males (or the stereotype of an old-fashioned Southern male). AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons question

Is it possible to license a lower quality version of an image/song/film under a CC license and maintain full copyright on higher quality versions?--SquareOuroboros (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of it is that if you have a photo, you are not copyrighting the specific instance of it (the print), but the creative content (the image in the photo). While there are some ways in which you could systematically modify such a photo that would make it a derivative work (and thus independently copyrightable from the original work), it seems to me that it would have to be a systematic modification that substantially modified the creative content of the work. (So taking a Polaroid and blowing it up to the size of a building might do that, because the idea of enlargement, though systematic and uncreative as a process itself, is fairly creative in its own right. Maybe.) If this is the case, and again this is just my speculation, I would say then that the answer to your question would probably to be "no". But I'm reasoning from an exclusively print-medium point of view; things get complicated with digital rights and copyrights, and questions of specific instances vs. creative content get pretty murky (due to the "thing itself" lacking any real physicality).

In more plain language, my reasoning above is "no", because a CC license does not cover a specific file, but the copyrightable content inside the file. Something as "uncreative" (from a legal point of view) as reducing quality is unlikely to generate a new copyright claim. Thus you'd still be applying the license to the same copyrightable content, no matter the size.

But honestly, I'm not sure. I don't think it is very clear cut. You might consider asking the CC folks about it since it's a good question. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you could make your own license that specifically says you're only allowed to reuse it under a certain resolution. Writing your own licenses is not something you should do without professional legal advice, though. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is possible, and it's relatively commonly done. Copyright would cover the actual media file, not the idea behind it.--Pharos (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not legal advice, but Dual-licensing is done in software all the time. You only get one "copyright" but you can distribute under as many licenses as you like. If I give my new software that I've written to Bob under the GPL and then sell it to Sally under a proprietary license, Bob now has the rights to give away my software for free and Sally doesn't. (She could get the GPL version from Bob, though.)

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so don't trust me (or any of us) too much. If this is critical you need to talk to a real lawyer. APL (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Collateral damage of fixing the financial system

What consequences will the actions - flooding the markets with liquidity - of many governments have? Hyperinflation? Another bubble? Mr.K. (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am no economist, but I have heard many economists on TV and radio talk of the doctrine on Unintended consequence being largely ignored in short-term financial decisions WRT the current financial problem. The example I have heard cited over and over again is the trend, over the last few years, for the Fed to keep interest rates artificially low, in an attempt to keep the economy from "slowing down". The problem is that low interest rates lead to less saving (because people get lower returns on their investment) and larger debt (because people get cheap credit). The prevalence of cheap credit is why there were so many people making so many bad loans; the idea was that the relatively high risk of these loans was mediated by their very low cost. This was coupled with the fact that companies were disencouraged from keeping enough capital on hand to cover the debts, since they got so little return on this capital, due of course to the low interest rates. It turns out that the likely result of this policy was merely "robbing Peter to pay Paul"; that is it didn't actually prevent the economy from "slowing down", it merely pushed a whole bunch of slow, little slowdowns into the future (read: NOW) until they collided into a single big crash. I have heard at least 3 stories as to what the liquidity will do: 1) Exactly what the government wants and no more (riiiiiiigggghhhttt) 2) It will do nothing, since the high level of risk aversion in the market won't be corrected by the influx of cash. Basically, banks are going to avoid making the risky investments into the housing and credit markets, and the extra cash is likely only to remove the threat of collapse without actually encouraging increased lending. In other words, the markets are a bit punch-drunk, and the scare caused by the current crisis is not correctable in the short term. 3) It will make the sitution WORSE, since any institution that receives government money, either as a purchase of bad assets or by selling the government stock, will give the markets the perception that THAT particular company is in "trouble" causing investors to run away, and thus reducing capital valuation, and exacerbating the problem. None of these opinions seems to be prevailing right now, from what I can tell. So the new law is likely to do either 1) Good things 2) Nothing or 3) Bad things. Take your pick. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer (excluding, of course, your last sentence). I suppose injecting capital will have the same effect that the low interest rate have had: just blow more air into the bubble. Mr.K. (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

President and VP boarding the same plane

Is there a rule that prohibits the President and VP of boarding the same plane?Mr.K. (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

According to this article in TIME, it's not a rule, but a decision by the president in the interests of security. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

countries with the least discrimateion? [discrimination]

countries with the most discrimateion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.58.229 (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure there are strict quantitative measurements for that, but you could start with Gini coefficient... AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

i mean things like raceism, ageism, sexism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.66.48 (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Any answer would be probably plain speculation, but here it goes: Sweden for less sexism, Brazil for less racism, USA for less ageism. Mr.K. (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Further speculate, Australia for less teetotalism. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, Julia. Teetotals are often discriminated against in Australia. Steewi (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

USA for least ageism? Ask any 50-year-old looking for an entry-level job after getting laid off at a factory, or, for that matter, any American teenager. -- 76.190.138.251 (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem here is not that he is 50 years old, but that he has worked his whole life in a factory. Mr.K. (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Racism is a serious issue in Brazilian society. Their social conception of race is different from say the USA, but that just means racism takes a different form, not that it ceases to exist.--Pharos (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

They don´t only have a different concept of race, but they have blured racial borders (ie, lots of racial mixed citizens). That makes racial discrimination quite difficult. Mr.K. (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it gives one an almost unlimited supply of people subject to racial hatred. Anyone who is a shade darker or lighter than you can be discriminated against, unlike in parts of the U.S. where finding someone of a different race can be difficult at times. Whether this leads to more or less racism is a matter of debate. —D. Monack ^talk 06:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Racism is a hue problem in Brazil. --Shaggorama (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Singapore and Switzerland have very little racism. USA is the opposite. --218.186.12.11 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Singapore has highly institutionalised racism. There are specific policies that deal with people on the basis of race. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell me more about the policies. --218.186.12.10 (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean ´huge problem´or really ´hue problem´? I still believe that it is difficult to institutionalize racism in Brazil, since they wouldn´t know where to start with. I suppose that social discrimination is huge and that darker citizen tend to belong to the lower classes due to historical reasons. However, this don´t mean that they are being discriminated based on race.Mr.K. (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

@Steewi, haha, perhaps this is teetotalism-ism as you say. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Highest Stock Price

How do you found out which company has the highest stock price of the day? --Emyn ned (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The information can be found through many financial services websites where the financial indicators for all publicly traded companies are usually searchable. E-trade, for example, has a stock screener where you can search for companies based on your own preset criteria. Unfortunately for your direct question, the absolute price of an individual share of a company is meaningless. Since companies have different numbers of shares in open trading, the absolute value of one company as compared to another has no meaning at all. Other measures of a company's value are important, such as price-to-earnings ratio (or basically what the value of the stock is compared to the potential for the company's growth) or the market value as compared to real value (roughly the total number of stocks issued times the price of a stock is market value, this can be compared to the value of the company per the company's assets), or most perhaps importantly the gross trends in the stocks value. That one company trades at $200.00 per share and another trades at $5.00 a share means nothing with regards to the security of each company's stock as an investment. The information is easily sortable, just meaningless... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As of this typing, Berkshire Hathaway stock is trading at $ 108,886.79. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Can I buy, like, .0001 shares of that? Holy cow... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The link to the NYSE listing for BRKA, the preferred stock: [3] and BRKB, the common stock: [4] of Berkshire Hathaway, for those who care. Good find, NurseryRhyme. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, BRK-A shares are for "special" people. The unwashed are allowed to buy BRK-B, the "B" shares, which are trading today at fire-sale prices ($3652.01 as of this posting time). [5] (That's actually not such a bad deal.) Antandrus (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm? BRK-A is an openly traded NYSE stock; anyone can buy shares. BRK-B is special; it's essentially 1/30th of a BRK-A share. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If Palin's elected, what happens to her governorship?

If Palin gets elected Vice President, will she remain governor of Alaska? If not, what's the procedure for choosing a replacement governor(and is this the same or different in other states)? 137.151.174.128 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's like most other states, the Lieutenant Governor of Alaska will succeed her. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article that covers most of this. In short, the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor, and the Attorney General becomes Lt. Governor. It looks like the current Lt. Governor had been running for US House, but lost the primary. If he had won the primary and then the general election, along with a McCain/Palin victory, then the AG would have become governor. AlexiusHoratius 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If McCain is elected, there will be fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and sees boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!! --Shaggorama (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

True. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Painting of George III

I am trying to find the title and the name of the author of a painting of George III of the United Kingdom. The painting shows the King on a white horse in a redcoat, inbetween two other men on horseback (one in black and the other in red). In the background are troops marching. I have an image of the painting to send if that helps.--Johnbull (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If [6] is the picture, it is The King and His Sons on Parade by Charles Tomkins. --Omidinist (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but it is not that painting.--Johnbull (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Then please post a link to the picture so we can see it... --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the picture as a bitmap image, I have not uploaded it anywhere. I can send it to you.--Johnbull (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that good with artwork, but if you upload it to a free hosting service like Imageshack, you can post a link and a more knowledgeable sort can probably help you. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 01:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've not heard of that website before. Here's the link.--Johnbull (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't immediately recognize the picture, but that's George IV, not George III. Tevildo (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It definitely is George III. Here is George IV, and here is another painting of George III.--Johnbull (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks lilke it could be his son, the future George IV, in black to his father's right. Also, your filename says "hydeparkoctober1803fi8" which is a massive clue. Look at our George III of the United Kingdom article: "One of the best-attended royal events during this time was George's review of 27,000 volunteers in Hyde Park, London on 26 and 28 October 1803, during the height of the invasion scare." Surely what we have here is George and his son reviewing the troops in Hyde Park? I also found a picture from Britannica here, which shows George III in a similar uniform. It's at the start of the "American Revolution" part of their article here on the United Kingdom. But that's probably irrelevant. I'd look for confirmation that this is a painting depicting the Hyde Park reviews. Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)