Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 10

=September 10=

Moby-Dick!
Why does Captain Ahab seem so devilish? Is it that all he lives for is to kill the whale? — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * Yep. Obsession isn't pretty. B00P 01:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole point of the book, how his obsession destroys him. StuRat 02:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it is a test question, and my answer wasn't one of the choices.
 * A) He defies nature by trying to kill the whale.
 * B) Succeeds in killing the whale.
 * C) Greed.
 * D) He deserts the ship and leaves his crew to die.
 * I am eliminating C and D, and guess A. Sound good? — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * If you read the book, you should know the answer. StuRat 02:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is one long book to read in a day. I am given excerpts totaling thirteen pages. — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * If it's really phrased like that, that's a pretty lousy English test question. (B) and (D) are not reasons, and each choice should be a similar part of speech, e.g. if one begins with "he" then they all should. IMHO it's impossible to answer if it's expressed like that.--Shantavira 08:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Shantavira. It's also a dreadful question for being two questions, with quite different answers. The best (available answer) to the first question would indeed seem to be (A). None of the suggested four answers remotely begins to answer the second question. I'd probably answer it with "Yes". --Dweller 11:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Different countries, different titles
While skimming the article The Blood Beast Terror, this question came to me-- Why do some books and films have different names in different countries, even those that speak the same language? Is it for advertising or cultural reasons? Is it because the first name for the work was a poor name for it? I hope someone can help. Peter O. (Talk) 02:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is only my guess: The company that brought out the U.S. release thought that the title "The Blood Beast Terror" was too subtle for the intended audience. In general there may indeed be various kinds of reasons: different connotations or even meanings of words in the title, and the existence of very similarly named products. For films, I think the most common reason is the supposition that another title will work better for the box-office proceeds. --Lambiam Talk 07:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Something similar was done with the Rough Guide travel guides. In the US that sounded too 'rough', so they named it the 'Real Guide'. DirkvdM 07:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Fast and the Furious is called Wild Speed in Japan, for the simple reason that most Japanese people have no idea what "furious" means, and really cheezy English titles still sound cool to them. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  08:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And the British "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" was called "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" in the US because the publisher there thought that 'philosopher' sounded less cool and feared the audience wouldn't understand the link with the philosopher's stone from legend. - Mgm|(talk) 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously? But how can they justify that; don't Harry and his friends say "Philosopher" a bunch of times in the script? freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  03:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen the American version and the UK version and they substitute the word every time,all it takes is one extra take and then edit it for the different markets(hotclaws**== 17:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC))


 * I haven't read the US version of Harry Potter 1, but I believe they changed every instance of "philosopher's stone" to "sorceror's stone", along with a number of other things. See the beginning of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, many 'British' expressions were changed to their US equivalents, to make the book more accessible to American readers. &mdash; QuantumEleven 09:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I assumed he was referring to the movie! freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  01:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even in the movie, every scene in which the stone was referred to was shot twice, once saying "Philosopher's Stone" and once "Sorceror's Stone". DJ Clayworth 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They also changed jumper to sweater, trainers to sneakers etc. Apparantly though, JK blocked translating "mum" to "mom", since Molly Weasley didn't seem like a "mom". smurrayinch e ster(User), (Talk) 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Jeepers! Motherfucker! freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  07:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Title of a science fiction story
Hi all - I'm looking for the title of an SF short story (maybe written in the 60s or pre60s) about a submarine that shoots down what appears to be a spacecraft, but after the event the crew are not sure whether it all happened or was some sort of dream, but something from the spaceship attaches itself to the hull (as part of the twist).

Anyone know what this story was and who wrote it? (Or was it a novel?)

Thanks Adambrowne666 03:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A sharp and D sharp?
This is probably a pretty silly question, but it is one that I have never found an adequate answer for. How come we have the Gb and F#, Cb and B, and C# and Db keys, but Bb and Eb do not have enharmonically equivalent signatures?


 * We have A-sharp minor and D-sharp minor. Dysprosia 07:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Well, they do exist, but for major keys they're so impractical as to be virtually useless, so they rate virtually no mention anywhere (except the Wikipedia Ref Desk, naturally).  D# major has 9 sharps (ie. 2 double-sharps) and A# major has 10 (ie. 3 double-sharps). (Not to mention that G# major, the enharmonic equivalent of Ab, has a double-sharp as well.)  JackofOz 07:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

how currency value of a country is determined?
Hi friendz! i wanted to know how the value of currency of a country is calculated? i mean to say that some currencies like dollars and pounds have much higher value than my country's currency ? for eg: to get 1 dollar i have to pay 50 INR (india).why so? And also can each country print as much money they want or are there any limitations? i would be grateful for all those who can answer this question for me.202.65.153.219 13:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The two articles you might find useful are exchange rate and hyperinflation. The first is about how relative worth of currencies is decided—it comes down, through complicated calculations and market interactions, to how much a given unit of currency can translate into a given type of good, though that is a very simplistic explanation (for example, the cost of going to a movie in the USA is around 10 USD at the moment, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the cost of going to a movie in India will cost 500 INR). In reality these things involve all sorts of economics that I don't honestly understand—adjusting interest rates and different types of exchange rate regimes and things like that, but that is, I think, the basic approach: to figure out how much "stuff" each unit of currency can purchase, even though this can vary a lot depending on where the unit of currency is (a US dollar in Mexico goes a lot farther than in the USA). The second is related to what happens if you print too much currency—currency in theory is a piece of paper or coin which corresponds with a real value (i.e. a paper dollar is worth some amount of gold—in reality not all currency is "backed up" by hard resources). If you print excess amounts of currency without any backing to it, though, you devalue the currency, which leads first to inflation and then, if you are very irresponsible with it, to hyperinflation. In all of these things, the economics get very complicated very quickly, but hopefully these explanations are helpful as a general framework. --Fastfission 15:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A classic story of a government printing too much money is the post-World War 1 hyper inflation in Germany, where it was said that one took a cart full of money to the store to buy 1 loaf of bread.Edison 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * come on edison, that's just a myth they teach you in middle school. Jasbutal 21:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's quite true. This article shows there was 72.6 trillion percent inflation from 1914 to 1923, or 720 billion percent from 1922 to 1923, and features a pic of a woman burning money for heat, as that was a better value than buying coal with the money: . StuRat 01:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * !!!! Jasbutal 04:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * People also used money for wallpaper. That must have looked cool! DirkvdM 07:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was the wallpaper to which Oscar Wilde referred when he said "One of us has to go". JackofOz 11:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is indeed true. A funny anecdote I once heard was of a woman walking down the street with a wheelbarrow full of cash. She was distracted for a few moments only to find out she was robbed! All that was left was a pile of money but the wheelbarrow was gone! Loomis 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. That's pretty funny. --Proficient 06:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I once saw a video-clip on the history channel showing a loaf of bread worth 1,000,000,000 marks (or D marks)! AndonicO 12:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Right to privacy in english law
Hi friends.... can someone give me relevant articles and case studies on to What extent does English Law recognises the right to privacy? I have had a look at google but couldnt find much.... please help give me some names of books and articles please...thanks

Rich


 * Why Google when you have Wikipedia? Have you read our articles on civil liberties and privacy, and checked out the external links from there? They are fairly comprehensive.--Shantavira 18:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Shanta I read it but wasnt enough...need more info..


 * Although this definitely sounds like a homework question (even including a request for bibliography!) I don't mind saying this much: In your google searches, try replacing the term "English Law" with "Common Law". I'm pretty sure you'd find a lot more writings on "English Law" by using that term instead. Of course you should then focus on those articles dealing with England and try to avoid the ones dealing with American, Canadian, Australian law etc. Loomis 22:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Movie/documentary
Does anyone know the name of a movie I recently saw on TV?... it was a documentary about dating in Los Angeles. The main actor of the movie was a man in his late twenties with black curly hair who dated 20 women, while filming his actions with a hidden (or not) camera. He finally became close friends with a girl, making that way the lovely end of the movie. Thank you.
 * If it was a documentary, the main person in it most likely wasn't an actor. Actors are used in fictional things like movies and plays. Documentaries (unless they're about actors) follow non-acting people. - Mgm|(talk) 19:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 20 Dates? MeltBanana  21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you all.

Dog Breed
Whats the dog breed that has a similar shaped head as the egyptian god Anubis. They are usually black and quite slim. Another tip, Madonna turns into one in the video Frozen. - Tutmosis 18:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe a Pharaoh hound. Rmhermen 03:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the particular breed of dog you're thinking of is the saluki. Loomis 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir Rudolph Bing
Is it true that opera manager Rudolph Bing had a son named Bada?


 * No. Bada was his daughter; she married television writer Marc Cherry. Their children are all "Bing-Cherry"s. - Nunh-huh 19:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, that name is the pits. StuRat 02:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard Bada converted to Islam and became a suicide bomber. Bada Bing, Bada boom!
 * When did we start allowing edits from tabloid editors? freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  03:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

why are some animals cuter than others?
Is there any scientific reason why some animals are generally seen as cuter than others? As in the way we write poetry about noble swans and go "aww, cute" at penguins or dolphins (and find a chicken or turkey or walrus silly or ugly) or panda bears and tigers (and find jackals and crocodiles hideous) or find it somehow cruel to kill a deer but go home and eat a ham sandwich (because a deer is Bambi and pigs have less aesthetic appeal). Is there a simple biological/psychological reason that a cute koala bear generally arouses more attraction compared to, say, a lizard or a camel? (I can´t work it out, coz it has doesn`t necessarily have to do as a constant with round/not dangerous/amiable). ---ALang--


 * just off hand I would say the amount of Anthropomorphism that the animal displays plays a role. We find animals similar-looking/acting to us (dogs) more appealing than say insects. If they mimic mammalian baby cues (large head, big eyes) that helps a lot too. Nowimnthing 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The name for the retention of baby characteristics is neoteny, which may be of interest. - Nunh-huh 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Jack Cohen has discussed several times in his books the question of why humans (alone, I think) extend their treatment of their young not only to other human infants, but also to many non-human infants. Why do we go gooey-eyed over baby whatevers? Unfortunately I can't offhand remember what conclusions he comes up with for this question. ColinFine 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Then there is also the cost vs. benefit of each animal.  Those which are of great benefit but pose little risk, like cats that can keep rats from eating our food supplies, tend to seem "cuter" than those with little benefit and great risk, like rattlesnakes.   This is an evolutionary adaptation, as those who thought rattlesnakes were "cute" were less likely to survive and pass on their genes. StuRat 00:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But cats evolved to their current look far before they ever got attached to humans (or vice versa). User:Zoe|(talk) 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm saying people's perception of how cute animals are has evolved to favor useful animals and disfavor dangerous animals. I believe this started before we were even humans, as other primates appear to show similar preferences, such as Koko. StuRat 17:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet rattlesnakes eat a lot of rodents, and ignorant people often kill other snake species that also eat rodents without being poisonous. Durova 17:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But, since no cats are poisonous, if you can't tell a poisonous snake from the others, it does make sense to kill all the snakes, and just let cats do the rodent patrol. It's bad news for the snakes, but people will do just fine without them. StuRat 17:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you could make the case that during the process of domestication, humans tend to breed or select animals on the basis of "cuteness". And so "cuter" animals get more food, live longer, have more progeny. I think, for example, the modern crop of cats are far more appealing than those the Egyptians had to make do with.... In a sense, "cuteness" = "what humans select for", so it's more or less a tautology.  -- Nunh-huh 05:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also recall there are examples of other species having "pets", like the female gorilla Koko, who had a kitten. StuRat 00:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Notice that several of your examples (penguins, pandas, koalas) are rather clumsy. The way chilfren are clumsy and we have protective tendencies towards anything that behaves childlike. That doesn't work for a walrus because it's too big (for one). Another childlike characteristic is big eyes. Actually, we find children of most animal species cute. A wonderful mix is a baby croc. It looks cute and vicious at the same time. DirkvdM 07:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good answers. In short form, the more that animals look like human babies, the more "cute" they seem. B00P 07:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the info! ---ALang---

Discrimination in the workplace simply has no place in our society
friends and Law Gurus...can someone give me some idea...articles...names of books which will elaborate this critically based on recent implemented/unimplemented developments in anti discrimination law please??

thanks


 * You could try starting with Discrimination, and some of the many articles referenced from that. It might also help if you indicated what jurisdiction you are talking about. ColinFine 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You really need to specify what types of discrimination you mean. Racial discrimination is always bad, religious discrimination usually is, but might make sense if you are actually working for a religious organization. Gender discrimination is also usually bad, but might make sense in certain sensitive jobs, like the person supervising a girls shower room for a gym. Age discrimination makes sense in certain ways, such as keeping the young and inexperienced away from life-critical positions until they gain sufficient experience. Discrimination based on criminal history makes sense in many jobs where security is critical and discrimination based on education level and competence is obviously of value. StuRat 00:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

note to laymen of all types and persasions: If you receave favors and treatment that you were not entitlied to, then that is dez-crimin' too.

Discrimination as such need not be considers as wrong. Discrimination mearly means showing judgement. We do it all of the time in making decisions. Certainly in the workplace discrimination is essential. What we can't do is discriminate "Illigally". By law we have a list of what discrimination is illigal. Other discrimination may be good, safe, logical, a violation of workplace policy, or wrong but not illigal. Example: "You must wear a hardhat when in the construction area" discrimates against people that don't want to ware a hardhat. It may be legal. It may be a violation of company policy not to discriminate. ``````


 * 'Discrimination' in this context doesn't refer to 'making a distinction'. That is one possible definition, but 99% of the time when people say 'discrimination' they're talking about basing your treatment of a person on a non-essential and uncontrollable characteristic like race or sex, rather than on individual merit and ability. And, if you ask me, that is always wrong. There are certain situations where you may have to take extra care (because not doing so will cause far more problems than it'd solve), but philosophically i would say it is still wrong, no matter what.


 * I am not exactly sure how to answer the question though. I guess a major issue that's going on right now would be the gay marriage/gay rights one. The (apparently) prevailing notion that males should only be able to marry females is at its core a perfect (and especially horrible, i think) example of discrimination. Most people seem to consider homophobia (and i'm using that word in the broad sense) separate from sexism, but by definition it is actually just a specific form of sexism. So... i guess that would be a relevant topic to research, although it might not necessarily have a lot to do with 'the workplace'. ~ Lav-chan 22:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)