Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 10

= April 10 =

imitation of advanced cultures
There seem to be several instances in history where persons or groups have been taught and have learned the ways of a more advanced culture to the degree of being able to imitate that culture and to represent its upholdings. In some cases as good if not better than the descendants of the more advanced culture. In these cases, however, it appears that this is the reason they are given a position to rule so that the new actual descendants of the advanced culture can busy themselves with advancing even further which being mired in and by their past would not otherwise allow them to do. What Wikipedia articles cover this topic to any degree? 71.100.3.207 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cargo cult may be the most extreme example of the first part of your question. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read a little of the article and and scanned the rest what came to mind was the advanced state of health care coverage practiced by other nations and some companies in the US that offered it as incentive versus merely higher pay being the "cargo" behind the great push for universal health care in the USA. I recall hearing that to encourage passage of the health care bill some congregations in the USA, at least prayed for health care passage if not incorporating health care acquisition into rituals (other than those rallies where participants would in unison poke their fists in the air while chanting the words "Healthcare! Healthcare!"). Would this be the same thing? 71.100.3.207 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, I don't really see the analogy. The people who want healthcare reform generally understand (to whatever degree) how to go about getting it. The cargo cults do not understand the causal mechanism of cargo drops. Anyway this is a thread derailing and is entirely irrelevant to the original question. Rallies are not the same thing as making fake airports. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The second part is roughly what happened to the Germanic tribes who encountered the Roman Empire. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to articles apart from those that cover the intoxicated and insane folly of the Nazi attempt to reestablish ancient Roman rule? 71.100.3.207 (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure...that's not at all what I was thinking of anyway, sorry. I meant stuff like migration period, Ostrogoths, Visigoths... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

On what basis does one determine one culture more "advanced" than another? Technology and culture are not synonyms. I would recommend, if trying to deal with this question, look into the differences between "kultur" and "civilization" as they were proposed by the French Enlightenment and, later, German thinkers. A good starting point could be Joan deJean's book Ancients Against Moderns.Heather Stein (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfeatherina (talk • contribs)


 * The technigues such as Kaizen used by Japanese manufacturers were said to be developed from American management practises of the 1950s. Every culture thats been busy and has brought itself to the attention of other cultures has been imitated by them - its more a result of a lot of promotion rather than one being more advanced than the other. Buddism is imitated by a lot of people in Western countries. Examples are British colonial culture and more recently American culture. That deals with the first sentance of your question, I'm not sure I understand or agree with the assumptions of your second sentance, although locals were employed as administators of various kinds in the British empire, and perhaps we gave indepenance to various countries as we didnt want to keep funding the empire and its army. 78.146.60.36 (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Road Sign
What is the meaning of this sign?



--71.98.64.15 (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just getting an overhead map. Can you describe the sign? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For me it showed up as overhead view first and then switched to a close-up of the sign. —Tamfang (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Dang, its showing up as a street view for me. If you street view the corner of main street and castle street with the camera panned towards the coast there is a brown sign with an arrow on it and the logo looks like a Celtic design. That is all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Brown signs indicate visitor attractions. That celtic knot isn't a standard road sign feature - it must pertain to the specific attraction. Given Portmahomack is titchy, surely this attraction will appear here - looking at the few option there, I think it's for the Tarbat Discovery Centre. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The interior of the centre features a knot design motif and a similar design appears on stone items displayed there, such as this one. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And indeed if you streetview near the south end of Tarbatness Road (much further south than Google places the centre) you see its entrance, which again shows that symbol. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 02:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is the sign for the Pictish Trail. There's another one here for the Edderton Cross Slab. Finlay McW is right that the Portmahomack sign is for the (excellent) Tarbat Discovery Centre. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that it was directing motorists to the most confusing traffic interchange in Great Britain. Deor (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a picture of a "Pictish Trail" sign on the download from the page above - scroll down to page 2. Alansplodge (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a version of the same abstract knot symbol seen in that PDF file at File:Celtic-knot-insquare-green-transparentbg.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The white van?
In the article File:The Antelope, Sparkhill.jpg, does anybody know about the white van? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.184.114 (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a link to the photo here for you. -> It looks like an old Toyota LiteAce perhaps (compare  for a slightly later model)?  Or was there something else about it you wanted to know? FiggyBee (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

governing power
As I recall at some point in English history the Monarchy became a virtual relic of the past requiring referral for decision making from the House of Commons unlike in the US where the President retains a modest but highly restricted amount of Executive power dependent upon referral by the Congress. For instance, while the president can order the executive branch to operate more efficiently the President can not abandon entitlements or spend more than authorized by Congress. For England this makes the existence of the Monarchy largely a ceremonial artifact retained as a matter of continuity in the minds of Britishers with their past. I America the Presidency seems to be going the same way even when it comes to immediate power in the presence of the computer age where all but two or three choice have been weeded out. How long will it be before computers completely rule the world due to their ability to handle far more variables than humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.3.207 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What have checks and balances of the executive powers of the UK and the US got to do with computers "ruling the world"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Computers take in the information we give them, process it in the way we've programmed them to, and then spit out something with which we (or the President) can do as we like; they're in no position to rule anything. On the other hand, I guess what you're getting at is that it's getting harder for the President to make unilateral decisions based on available information, since there's so much more available information than there was before modern communications technology.  Is that right?  If so, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.  I for one welcome our new robot overlords. FiggyBee (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Kent Brockman. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see we have some fans of The Day the Earth Stood Still. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You must be referring Gort. A lovable character if any. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Take that guy to school with you, and nobody would mess with you. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you an example that is personal and diet related. I have a spreadsheet program that will accept either the amount of CO2 and Oxygen I've burned to determine my TEE or accept body and activity measurements. From there is looks at the nutrients and energy available from various foods and selected for me a balanced diet that will  target my desired waist. It is far more accurate than I am at deciding the best foods and amount I should eat so I have turned over my decision making as to the foods and amounts to a computer. I supply the data and it responds with the decision and I'm beginning to loose weight to achieve the target waist line. It is is charge of my diet and no longer me. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it holding a gun to your head and ordering you to follow its conclusions? No, I didn't think so. You are deciding based on its conclusions. It's not deciding anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * After edit conflict... its making my dietitian send me smiles instead of pulling out the NAZI flogging whip. Boy, I hate that thing. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Who put the data in the spreadsheet? All its doing is comparing numbers and coming up with the closest match; you could do it (and, no doubt, dieticians did used to do it) on a piece of paper almost as easily as on a computer. FiggyBee (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the past I relied upon dieticians but found they no longer could compete with the accuracy and reliability of the spreadsheet program. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your point is not bad. If somebody could code up all the decisions that could ever be made by an airline pilot, for example, it would be tempting to have this ostensibly error-free software fly our airplanes.  A major problem with putting our trust in software is that software is just a great big giant list of steps that a human has typed in.  It is like an enormous recipe in a cookbook, only it has a million steps in it instead of just 20.  Because of this, all software has bugs.  (Pedants like me will say that Hello World and other extremely simple software does not; fine; I'm talking about software that people use.)  There will inevitably be mistakes that are made, because constructing virtually any useful piece of software is probably more complicated and more tricky internally than the construction of Hoover Dam.  For this reason, humans are unlikely to turn over their decision making powers &mdash; over important decisions, anyway &mdash; to software, which in the end is just a fallible and error-prone list of steps written originally by other humans.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that the most recent airliners are already run on autopilot nearly all the time, including landing and possibly take-off. 89.242.144.8 (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Modern aircraft can have the autopilot active from takeoff to rollout (providing the landing airport has the necessary equipment), yes. However, an autopilot doesn't mean the pilots are kicking back and not paying attention; there's still plenty to do, and if anything even slightly out of the ordinary happens it's strictly hands-on.  Autoland has existed since the mid 1960s, but almost all landings are still done by hand, because it's safer, more enjoyable and easier for the pilots. FiggyBee (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Many pilots put their trust in God whenever there is a mechanical problem they can not remedy and certainly in physics. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also the problem that humans are still far better than machines at evaluating and reacting to emergent or unique situations. A computer can only take a set of conditions and respond with a programmed set of responses. It can go through a very large number of conditions, even some very rare ones, and it can do so much faster than humans, but it lacks the ability to think creatively or improvise. So the problem is not that machines can't be programmed to respond to an astounding number of possible situations, its that it can't be programmed to respond to a situation that no one has ever thought of before because it has never happened. I still trust the ability of a human to be able to improvise in a unique situation than a computer would. See 2001: A Space Odyssey for a fictional treatment, but a reasonable one, about what happens when a computer is faced with making human-like decisions. -- Jayron  32  05:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For not-thought-of-yet- events there is neural networking which operates very nearly to the human brain. The difference is that it can be fed by sensors humans might only dream of. 71.100.3.207 (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a pilot, any pilot who just "puts their trust in God" when something goes wrong is not someone I want to fly with. The ability to work through complex and unforeseen situations is exactly why we still have very highly trained people flying planes, and not computers.  As for "neural networks", perhaps you should read our article?  They're little more than a statistical tool.  2001 may have come and gone, but true HAL-like artificial intelligence is still a thing of science fiction (and I can't help but wonder, if a computer is ever created with the capacity to reason as subtly as a human can, with all the nuances, doubts and guesswork that goes with that, whether it won't prove to be no faster or more accurate at it than we are). FiggyBee (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Test pilot Chuck Yeager has said there is no substitute for knowing one's aircraft thoroughly, a factor which saved him from disaster on occasion. I also wonder how a computer and/or a pilot "putting his trust in God" would have handled the "Miracle on the Hudson". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Namaste (The Buddha in me salutes the Buddha in you). --TammyMoet (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "You can fly on a wing and a prayer, if you like. As for me, I'll put my faith in two wings." StuRat (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Although manual override is present in many otherwise autonomous sitiatuions (Gout's destruction of man made Earth was certainly cancelled) the point is that there remain a growing number of instances where manual overide takes a bit more doing than just surviving the bites of a few flying bio-mechanical bugs.) 71.100.3.207 (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also see Expert system, which is an attempt to have software act like a human expert would. Is your 1986 Toyota Corolla emitting smoke from the passenger-side air vent, and there is a blinking red light on the dashboard?  Just consult the expert system and follow its instructions to fix the problem.  (My observation above still holds, about the problem of software bugs.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations and copyright infringement
I'd like to cite a non-free work published in the United States. I'd like to cite it on this here English Wikipedia. I assume that citing a few sentences is not a problem, but that citing an entire chapter is. Where is the line between a copyright infringement and a permissible citation? I am in Germany, although that's probably irrelevant. kthxbye 84.46.72.106 (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty vague; see our article Fair use, and in particular the section "Amount and substantiality". In practice, whether a particular instance is acceptable depends on whether it is challenged and, if it is, on the judge's interpretation of the case. Note, however, that one of the criteria used in establishing fair use is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". That might seem to give a nonprofit educational project such as Wikipedia a little leeway, but in fact excessive copying tends to be frowned on around here. I myself have trouble seeing why any quotation longer than a few sentences would need to be used in a WP article; "summarize the information and cite the source" seems to be the most useful practice for writing encyclopedia articles. Deor (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Citing by itself does not have any copyright implications (it just means giving a reference). Quoting does, though. But in most cases, if the amount of the quote is small compared to the volume of the entire work (one paragraph out of a very long book, for example), and it is being used in a scholarly-like way (not just, say, in a novel of yours), then it almost certainly (as much as one can say this) falls under fair use. If you are quoting, say, 50% of a poem, then you're in more problematic territory. If you are doing this for works of fiction, generally speaking publishers want everything bought and paid for, even very small excerpts (because publishers are afraid of getting sued). There is no hard and fast line, though. It is about the accumulation of past case law and the judgment of a judge. But the case law suggests very strongly that in most cases, a few sentences for the purpose of something like Wikipedia is fine. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe not quite: "in most cases" after all! Copyright infringement may sometimes be hard to avoid without complete rewriting. See: Close_paraphrasing and maybe: Copy-paste. (User:Blurpeace pointed them out for me, after I had asked a similar question on irc earlier today). --Seren-dipper (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments, links, and the correction – yes, I want to quote, not just mention the title and the author. I am not going to use it in an actual Wikipedia article, and I don't want to rephrase. As Wikipedia content including non-article spaces can be reused commercially, and as the sentences I'd like to quote – while not amounting to a substantial part quantitatively – are not from the book's abstract, but from its conclusive part, I'm going to cut them down to less than I would otherwise like to post. OP = 84.46.46.174 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Penis sizes in statues and paintings
Why is it that most old sculptures (like Italian) have small penises, yet in other works such as paintings there are overly large penises (Pompeii)? Were smaller or larger penises more preferable, or was that opinion divided among everyone? I've read stuff saying a smaller package was better for soldiers, or that smaller penises were intentionally sculpted to not destroy others ego's. And then you see paintings from the same area and time period with monster dicks.

Just curious as to what they thought about penis sizes that long ago (most now think bigger is better). I'm mainly asking for BC Italians, but comparing to other cultures is a definate bonus. 65.4.166.7 (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a quote which sums up the Athenian view:
 * "Large sex organs were considered coarse and ugly, and were banished to the domains of abstraction, of caricature, of satyrs, and of barbarians." -The reign of the phallus: sexual politics in ancient Athens by Eva C. Keuls p.68
 * -Pollinosisss (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The overly large penis paintings in Pompeii are of Priapus (the article has a few images from Pompeii). Otherwise the Romans (being rather prudish) didn't really paint penises...the Greeks were generally less prudish, but as Pollinosisss' quote says, also not too interested in realism. They also had abstract penis sculptures. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Human penis size has a bit on the matter. You might also want to look at the Straight Dope reference included therein. Deor (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would disagree that the Romans were prudish. The erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum, as well as the many erotic passages in the works of authors like Martial, Catul and Ovid tells a different story. It is correct though that most of the depictions of large penises, phalli, was connected to a popular myth that it could ward off evil eye (on many streetcorners in Pompeii you can find phallic signs that had this function), and Priapus was also a general symbol of prosperity, and as such these particular depictions may not primarily have been of a sexual or pornopgraphic nature. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One can be prudish on one point and not another. —Tamfang (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And some individuals can be prudish while others are not - Ovid, definitely not, but he was exiled by Augustus, who definitely was. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tail gunner
I was watching a show in which a tail gunner, reminiscing about the Battle of Midway, spoke about having to take care that he didn't shoot his own plane's tail. Then I remembered Sean Connery's character doing just that in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (so it must be true). Nobody was able to come up with a way to prevent this? Did anybody do such a thing in real life? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They did, the interrupter gear. Although our article is mostly about firing through one's own propeller, a similar mechanism can be used to retard the firing of a machine gun when it's pointing to a place defined by a template. Black Tuesday Over Namsi by  Earl J. McGill says "although B-29 turrets were fitted with mechanical interrupters to prevent gunners from firing into their own wings or tail surfaces [there was nothing to stop them shooting other planes in the same formation]".  This says a Halifax had the same kind of thing. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The B-17 didn't have a gun in a position where it could shoot the tail. The Indian Jones movie plane is a german one (I don't remember what kind). Some other American bombers may have been similarly configured. PvsKllKsVp (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The guy on the show was one of the few TBD Devastator survivors. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a rear gunner, not a tail gunner. It's just a guy with a 30cal machine gun on a pintle - it's all a rather rudimentary (and you'd have to suspect rather ineffectual) arrangement. So there's little scope for a mechanism that would restrain the motion of the gun or prevent it firing when pointed at something useful.  Things are very different on a heavy bomber like a B29, where the turret is electrically operated - it's a heavy, sophisticated machine with scope for adding clever gadgets. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

cars in Egypt
Is there a website where I can find any information about which type of cars does an average Egyptian drive like for example Citroen old or new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic The Xtreme (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find any sorry. People arne't replying because they cna't find any either.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

With a little help...
In the discussion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band's cover, it states, "At the edge of the scene is a Shirley Temple doll wearing a sweater in homage to the Rolling Stones". I don't get the connection. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a connection as such. Just that there's a doll or photo or something, on the right edge, that's wearing a sweater saying "Welcome the Rolling Stones". Possibly a bit of an inside joke. But I bet there's many a website that goes into depth about it. I'll see if I can find anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Googling ["sgt. pepper" "shirley temple" "rolling stones"] gives a lot of references that pretty much all say the same thing, that it's a doll made by someone named Jann Haworth, apparently a crew member of the photo shoot. Some sources claim the shirt says "Welcome the Rolling Stones, Good Guys", but I don't see any "good guys" dealie there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The "GOOD GUYS" is on the sleeve - the "good" is in red and the "guys" is in white, so it doesn't show up well on the stripes. In fact, there may be something on the right sleeve as well, but it's mostly turned away from the camera. If you do an image search, there are some really large scans on the net (not linked here for copyright concerns). Matt Deres (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)