Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 8

= February 8 =

Vocal range
I read something about a person (I forget if it was a man or a woman) who could sing an incredible vocal range, something like baritone to soprano (my memory might be exaggerated). Is this story true? What is the largest range that is theoretically possible for a person to sing? Thanks.72.128.95.0 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you were thinking of Ivan Rebroff or Yma Sumac. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Stu Block of Into Eternity is something, too; not famous outside of metal circles, but he can go bass to soprano falsetto on a dime, sing well at everything in between, and do rather fierce death roars in all of those ranges. For an example, you can check out Tides of Blood off The Incurable Tragedy.  And he basically never took vocal lessons; I know that's not who you're thinking of, but he has that kind of range.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 00:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

remember: I, a baritone, can whistle a fine Queen of The Night high high soprano. But, although it sounds better than these guys singing at the wrong end of their range, it doesn't sound as good as if I just sing in my own register. I used to be impressed with these people making ANY sound in such a high range. But the truth is, you can't listen to it. After, for example, Ivan Rebroff is singing his "soprano" parts (as in the beginning of this song: ) it is like a breath of fresh air, when he sings in his real register - baritone, like me. His high parts are a terrible substitute to having a woman complementing him in those parts of the song, just like whistling is a terrible substitute to singing. I don't exactly blame you for being interested in these 'marvels', but don't mistake these guys for a piano - which really can produce a lovely sound at any point in its eight-octave range. A man is not a piano. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sort of a subjective thing, though; many people would find Stu's voice harsh to the point of unlistenable, but I love it. It depends on what you want to hear. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 00:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur, I don't find Ivan Rebroff that bad Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * also the last few seconds of this song: . If she wants to make a sound that high, let her pick up the violin, or piano, or if push comes to shove whistle it.  I wanted to turn off the song, but luckily it was over. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The man in this video can sing 6 octaves(!). That's not to say that he can sing well in all registers, but he is the world record holder for highest vocal note. schyler (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, indeed, any of them. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tim Storms and Georgia Brown (Brazilian singer) are the current record holders with a 10 and 8 octave range respectively.  meltBanana  02:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to hear someone whose range per se was not record-breaking, but whose highest note was an impossible-sounding double-high D, just listen to Mado Robin. She could produce stunningly clear and bell-like tones at this extraordinarily high pitch.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sunan Airport and Air Koryo
Does anyone know if Air Koryo has its own head office building at Sunan Airport, or if the airline's offices are in the airport terminal? If there is a special building, I could submit a photo request for it. If not, I'll just use the terminal image. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find any information on this; there doesn't seem to be an online map of Pyongyang's Sunan International Airport such as you would find for other airports. There are a couple of websites that claim to have photos of Koryo's offices in Pyongyang but I don't think these are good enough sources to directly reference on Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding these! I will ask for a relicensing, but it seems like they aren't the head office - At http://www.korea-dpr.com//Air%20Koryo/contact.htm, the Air Koryo website mentions it has city ticket offices in Central District, Pyongyang. The Flickr photos seem to be the city ticket offices. The actual head office is in Sunan district, where the airport lies. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Peers and Knights
After reading the question above about baronets of the City of London, I decided to attempt to get a basic understanding of what I think is called the British honors system. (Yes, I know that Britons call it the "honours system", but I like to be consistent in my spelling.) Please correct me if I am wrong: Britons can be divided into three categories—the sovereign (of whom there is only one), peers, and commoners. Peers are what might also be called nobles. Some peers are hereditary; others are awarded their peerages as life peers for the remainder of their lives only. In addition to peers, there are commoners who are awarded various honors. Am I right that chivalric orders are one of the types of honors awarded to commoners? So, knights are commoners, then? Apparently baronetcies are an honor that commoners can hold, and apparently some baronetcies are hereditary. Is this also correct? What about knighthoods? Are some of them hereditary, or are they held only during the lifetime of the beknighted (or whatever the correct term is)? I promise that I have taken a look at the relevant articles, but they are not entirely clear, and the whole subject is complex and confusing. Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right: the whole subject is complex and confusing. There are entire introductory and advanced courses on this at University. It is somewhat interesting though (to me, especially the imitation of the country gentleman and the planter gentry in the Old South). schyler (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The baronetcy was a controversial title from the start, and has largely fallen into disuse, excepting extant hereditary baronetcies which have not been subsumed by more important titles. It was basically a transparent attempt by the early Stuart kings to raise money outside of Parliament.  The idea that Kings could raise money (and thus govern) without Parliament didn't really end up going well, and the entire concept of the Baronetcy kinda goes with that.  See English Civil War for how well that all went.  Because Baronets are such an oddity, they kinda lie outside of everything else.  The peerage (that is, Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquesses, and Dukes) are feudal ranks given to what basically used to amount to territorial governors of the King.  Different sizes and locations of the territories gave rise to the ranks; the largest and most economically important territories were given over to Dukes, and called Duchies.  The most important territories lied on the borders of nations (border lands were called "Marches" or "Marks") and thus the strategic importance of these lands placed them second in rank behind dukes.  Smaller, and less influential territories were then parcelled out as Earldoms, Viscountcies, and Baronies.  That actual system didn't really work so well for the King, as the King found that semi-independent hereditary governors didn't really "toe the party line" all that well, so direct administration in the name of the King was gradually transferred directly to civil servants like Sherrifs and Magistrates; this often created conflict between the rights of the "Barons" (as the titled nobility are collectively known) and the Crown; this conflict is what eventually leads to things like the Magna Carta and eventually Parliament and all the rest.  Knights are basicly the military "middle management" during Feudal times; think of them roughly, rank-wise, equivalent to the frontline officers (Lieutenants and Captains) of today.  During times of war, the titled Barons were expected to serve as the Generals, and the Knights were supposed to serve as their frontline officers, while the actual fighting infantry were under the command of the knights.  That's not exactly correct, but it roughly captures the relative ranks and roles of the various ranks.  The term Knight really refers to the heavy cavalry of the period, which of course is basically what Knights were.  Since heavy cavalry are very expensive to maintain, the "honor" of being a knight is reserved for your best warriors (or those to whom you owe political favors!).  Of course, with the advent of professional armies (In England, this occurs most famously under Oliver Cromwell, see New Model Army) along with the advent of gunpowder and the changing nature of warfare, knighthood becomes a purely honorary title.  -- Jayron  32  03:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So a knight is just a commoner, similar to a grocer, a farmer, a carpenter or a tavern owner? Would the offspring of a knight be considered equivalent to a barmaid or a woodchopper in lack of suitability to marry the offspring of a Duke? That is a might surprising. Edison (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sort of. Remember that in England, officially anyone without a proper peerage title is officially a commoner.  Practically, that means that the younger brother of a Duke wouldn't end up being a noble in his own right.  In reality, what happens is that noble families make sure that all members of the family end up getting titles granted by the king, so that you end up with a distinct and static class structure in England during most of history, with almost no mobility.  It's also a land-based class structure; thus you can have interesting situations where a Baron who is so poor he doesn't have a pot to piss in still gets a seat in Parliament and political power, while a rich merchant without land or title has absolutely no civic power at all.  Knights are commoners, and unlanded commoners, so they kinda fall into that realm.  In reality, knights become a real problem for the Kings of Europe.  Think about it: You have a sizable class of well-trained, well-equipped warriors without political power and, in times of peace, nothing to do.  That spells a LOT of trouble, since the Knight class develops a reputation of wandering the country side, thieving and pillaging as mercenaries (basically, the hired thugs of the time).  Enter The Crusades, which basically focuses that energy and gives the knight class something to do instead of being the hired thugs for rich land owners, used to rough up the peasantry and keep them in line, or to raid the neighboring land owner's property.  -- Jayron  32  03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was Henry VII who made it illegal for nobles to maintain private armies; his son, Henry VIII made the royal court the epicentre of cultural activity that drew all his nobles from the outlying regions, making it less likely that they would plot rebellion in their far-off castles and manors. In the Middle Ages, Welsh Marcher Lords had almost as much power as the English king. See the Despenser War article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * To answer one of your questions directly: All baronetcies are hereditary - that's what distinguishes them from knighthoods. They're both called "Sir", but the eldest surviving son of a baronet also becomes a baronet on his father's death, whereas the son of knight doesn't. Baronetcies are also similar to hereditary peerages in that they're, well, hereditary.  But they're not part of the peerage.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A knight has always had higher social standing than let's say a gentleman farmer or country squire.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah but what if said farmer was the rightful heir to the throne? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually George III's nickname was the Farmer King.--Jeanne Boleyn 16:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to be a wee bit irritating on the point by Jayron that members of the nobility would make sure that the whole family were given titles by the King/Queen. In our present situation, we have an example of where that practice wasn't pursued by Princess Anne (only daughter of the present Queen), when she asked that her 2 children NOT be given titles. Her reasoning was that as Anne was not going to inherit the throne(her brother Charles would do that on his mother's death), her 2 children were NOT Royal and so didn't merit a title. And as it turned out, that seems to have been a most wise decision, given that they both got the chance to live comparatively normal lives, out of the full glare of the limelight. 78.146.43.71 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, even though Anne was the second born child, all 3 of her brothers and all their descendants have more senior positions in the line of sucession than Anne and any of her descendants. And even if all 3 brothers and all their children were suddenly wiped out, Anne would still not be called Heiress Apparent but merely Heiress Presumptive, because the law assumes that the Queen and Prince Philip, at the the grand old ages of 85 and 90, could still produce a male heir, who would topple Anne from her place.
 * Girls - yuck! Well, that's basically the position the succession laws adopt.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Responding to Marco's question "What about knighthoods? Are some of them hereditary?", they are almost always, as Jack said, for life only, but there are two hereditary knighthoods: the Knights of Kerry and the Knights of Glin. A third title, that of White Knight, has been dormant for the last 400 years but might still be revived.  All three families were granted their utterly anomalous titles in medieval Ireland, where ideas on these things must presumably have been very different from in England. --Antiquary (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Florida Property Taxation
How is the property tax imposed in the state of Florida? Does the legislature have the exclusive right to impose this tax or is the responsibility shared by both the state and the counties? 71.196.66.52 (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not just the state, according to §200.011 of the Florida Statutes. Paragraph (1) provides that "county commissioners shall determine the amount to be raised for all county purposes", and paragraph (6) apparently allows school districts, municipalities, and special taxing districts to levy property taxes as well.  Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Pachelbel's Canon
Questions about these two videos:

1) Brass version -- what are the names of the five instruments they are playing from left to right.

2) Guitar quartet -- do they play it differently just for the fun of it, or can they not play it exactly how it's supposed to be played because they are using guitars that don't have continuous bow rubbing?

Thanx!  DRosenbach  ( Talk 05:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Tuba, French Horn, Euphonium, Trumpet and Trumpet. The Euphonium may also be a Baritone Horn.  2) Accoustic guitars have very short sustain, meaning that to replicate the sustain of other instruments they have to use other techniques.  A common technique is tremolo picking, though using multiple layered guitars like this is another way to replicate the effect.  -- Jayron  32  05:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Although the fourth valve is not a defining characteristic of the euphonium versus the baritone, it is more common. What seals it is the large bore flare on the bell of the instrument. Additionally, in brass bands, the baritone often takes the baritone range found in vocal arrangements. That is, when a piece originally written for vocalists is transcribed for a brass band, the horn player will bring his or her baritone and leave his or her euphonium at home. In this piece, the register is tenor, and the euponiumer is most likely playing the top part of the bass clef (tenor) found from the original piano part, whereas baritone is often written in treble (octave down). schyler 14:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

food to buy
I have 50 euros to spend on food. What should I buy that would last 2 weeks? I have a full kitchen and all the time in the world. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you already have in the kitchen store-cupboard items such as flour, rice, dried herbs, spices? (this affects my suggestions) 86.162.68.36 (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in this article from the Philadelphia Daily News. Since you mention euros I suppose that you are in Europe, but many of the suggestions are useful all over the world, like avoiding pre-cooked food.Sjö (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I have an empty kitchen since I just moved in. This is also why I don't have more money, I had to use it for rent and deposit. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would also depend on where you are. 50 euros will get you a different amount of food in different countries. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Get some flour and yeast, and make bread, rolls, cakes. Canned fish, like sardines or mackerel in sauce, is a good buy. If you want meat to last two weeks, you can salt it yourself; get pork belly or hock (or even cheaper, pork cheeks, trotters) and rub the meat with a generous mix of salt and sugar (both are cheap and you need them anyway), then after a couple of days wash it off and store it wrapped in paper or cloth. You can add spices and herbs, you should find recipes online. Then you can stew your home-made bacon with beans. If you don't eat pork, other meats can be salted. You'll want to eat plenty of vegetables, but they are better bought fresh rather than kept for two weeks. Perhaps you have a freezer though, in which case make vegetable stews and soups. Apples are cheap and store well, you can add them to meat dishes, vegetable dishes, salads. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pasta and potatoes are fairly inexpensive, and they can be used in a variety of ways.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * wow, I didn't even think of flour and yeast! I have a fine stove, a fine fridge with freezer, a lot of empty cupboards, as well as the normal kitchen implements: basically all the time and space to make ANYTHING requiring freezing, refrigeration, I have a microwave as well for quick reheating, anything like that.


 * Is making bread from flour really that much cheaper than buying fresh bread?? 217.136.92.148 13:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.92.148 (talk)


 * Only if you usually buy expensive artisanal bread. Your standard loaf is about as cheap as it can get. 86.162.68.36 (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not so. Making bread costs about half to a quarter what it costs to buy it and note that that site used the price of probably the most expensive brand of flour there is for the comparison. A more reasonable (but still perfectly fine) brand of flour costs half that. Ariel. (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * None of those figures quoted are true for the UK, although I cannot speak for Belgium. And anything which relies on ordering a 'pound of yeast' is of limited value to someone with little money right now, who wants to eat right now. I can buy a loaf of sandwich bread for 47p, and no bag of flour I can buy in a shop combined with the cost of electricity to heat my oven for long enough is going to be cheaper than that (yeast is a negligable cost at about 37p for my last little tub of dried active yeast that's lasted months). I can get closer to that price by baking large batches, except then I have to make them smaller loaves so I don't have to remove shelves from the oven, or I can't fit them in and still have to heat the oven too long, and then I'd have to freeze them, making them only good for toast. The only way I could properly approach that price is if I bulk-bought flour, which would require a lot of money upfront. So no, either option is fairly cheap, but you're not going to save money baking your own bread in this country. 86.164.25.178 (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Whois puts them in Belgium. Some of this is going to be culturally specific, and I'm assuming you mean "last 2 weeks (without running out)" rather than "last 2 weeks (without going off)". I would buy a couple of jars of herbs or spices that I particularly like, but which are still cheap, so that I could make different-tasting food from the same ingredients. For me, that includes salt, pepper, basil or oregano, chili flakes (or curry powder), and vegetable stock cubes. When I had money to spare next month, I'd then buy a few more different ones. For you, it might be different. I would then buy dried pasta, rice, tins of peeled plum tomatoes (cheapest I can get, each can does two portions), maybe tinned fish, frozen peas, packet red lentils. Depending on meat prices in your shops, you might be able to get a packet of bacon and use a rasher here and there to make things tastier. You might be able to get stewing steak cheap, and so make a nice slow-cooked stew (with plenty of cheap vegetables) that will feed you at least two meals. You're probably going to be buying some vegetable every couple of days, like a carrot or a small swede: they won't keep and it's a waste of money to bulk buy them if they go off. Bread is about the same price whether you make it or buy it, unless you're very picky: it's fun and cheap to make with a container of dried active yeast and a bag of strong flour, but you're not going to be saving money compared to buying. Bread lets you make sandwiches for lunch and toast for breakfast, so yesterday's leftovers are still there for tea today. I would be mostly eating lentil soup, dahl, yesterday's dahl rolled into little balls and baked, tomatoey fishy pasta sauces, stew if I'm lucky. If I didn't splurge on bacon, I'd have bought a packet of mature cheddar to make sandwiches, grate onto pasta, and generally add a cheesy tang to otherwise bland food. 86.162.68.36 13:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.68.36 (talk)


 * Buy porridge oats, some fresh fruit and milk. Mix the oats with water, bring to the boil stirring constantly to stop it sticking to the pan, chop some fresh fruit into it, add a splash of milk and if you like, a tablespoon of strawberry jam. Mmmm. Cheap, tasty, easy, quick, filling and very nutritious. 78.146.43.71 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been through a couple periods in my life when I had to get by with very little money. I found that the foods that stretched my money farthest were dried beans (probably the cheapest source of protein available), rice (to eat with the beans), onions and carrots (to add vitamins and flavor to the beans and/or potatoes), and potatoes (rich in calories and a variation on rice).    You might want to throw in porridge for breakfast.  You will probably want a little something to flavor the porridge. You'll need maybe 6 pounds of beans, 3 pounds of rice, 5 pounds of potatoes, maybe 2 pounds of oats for porridge, maybe 7 onions and a bag of carrots.  If you still have money after that, throw in a few eggs and a few cans of fish (sardines, mackerel, etc.) for variety and added protein.  Throw in some canned tomatoes and/or tomato paste for flavor and variety.  Or you could cut substitute preserved meats (e.g. bacon) and more canned fish for the beans.  Also, with extra money, according to your preference, you can substitute some flour and yeast and/or pasta for the potatoes and rice.  If at all possible, if you have a freezer and a little extra money, get some frozen vegetables for the vitamins.  Marco polo (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's incredible that no one cited ramen noodles. In the UK, they are available from £0.10 (!). And that makes a perfect dinner (about 500 calories). Quest09 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we talking actual Japanese ramen, Chinese lamian, or (because I don't think such noodles are so cheap) instant noodles? I'm not familiar with the UK noodle market, it may be just be that you are using ramen in a different sense to what I am used to. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I meant instant noodles. I don't believe they are original, they are from Sainsbury's. Quest09 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 50 Euros is plenty for two weeks. Roast a chicken. Get celery, carrots and onions, potatoes, dried beans, and rice. Eat apples or pears. Make broth with the chicken carcass and cook cabbage in it. Make pasta with olive oil, garlic and cheese.--Wetman (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Echo the above that 50 Euros is an enormous amount of money for 1 person to feed on for 2 weeks. One standard foodstuff that I always have is Minced/Ground Beef. It's phenomenally cheap in the UK/Europe (less than 5GBP/kg) and can be used for Pasta dishes and Pies and also made into meatballs, burgers etc AND is suitable for freezing. Nanonic (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 50 euros is more than enough if you cook from scratch and avoid the most expensive ingredients. The reason for some of my suggestions was that I thought your problem was how to keep stuff for two weeks. Since you have loads of time you still might enjoy some more ambitious projects like making your own bread or salting your own bacon. Eat lots of fruit and veg. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I hesitated to say it was plenty, since I don't know the cost of living where they live, nor the relative price of meat, and feeding one person alone is more expensive than feeding one person as part of a group. Also, because they are likely to want to underspend by enough to deal with anything unexpected. 86.162.68.36 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As you're in Belgium why not buy liquid bread? You'll need something to cheer yourself up surely! --TammyMoet (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The standard for "healthy but cheap" food is rice and beans. Mix them with tomato sauce and maybe some sliced black olives and you have a great dish. You can also try Red beans and rice if you want some meat in it. Ariel. (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Tempeh is a great food. It can be frozen. But you could just buy as needed. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if you are cooking from unprocessed ingredients, skip the salt. Do not add any. The "target" RDA in the UK is 4g, down from a previous target of 6g I think, but I believe the actual optimal amount is 2g. Tinned fish will have more than enough salt in it already. In a similar situation (in the UK) I would go to a large supermarket and buy "own brand" or "white label" products, such as pasta and rice, preferably both wholemeal. Look for cheap vegetables to chop up and add to the pot, usually cheapest when sold loose. Tinned sardines are good value. Vegetarian is cheaper, and people greatly over-estimate the small amount of protein that adults need. Lentils are much quicker to cook than dried beans (which require a lot of expensive fuel to cook for a very long time); you could get some curry powder for a vegetarian curry. You could try making some soup, and as someone mentioned, porridge is very cheap. Also own-brand muesli for breakfast, or a hopefully free-range boiled egg is always nice. 92.24.185.155 (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We want to bear in mind the new dietary guidelines: fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and eat less. I hope I have digested those dietary guidelines properly. Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote
Washington is a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm. Is this supposed to be irony. I always thought of Northerners as having less charm and Southerners having a slower tempo, thus less efficient. I guess it could be lost on me since I am from The West and The South at the same time. schyler (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha, it's a pretty funny quote. It would be like : "You have all the tact of a simple farmer and the honesty of an accomplished diplomat." 217.136.92.148 (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a quote I heard of Canada once "Canada could've had the best of all worlds: English culture, French cuisine, and American technology. Instead they got American culture, English cuisine, and French technology".  I'm sure there are dozens of other backhanded compliments out there.  -- Jayron  32  17:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've heard that one as well, but I think it was French culture and American know-how we could have had. Matt Deres (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm almost positive it's intended as a joke. (If not exactly 'irony'.) He's saying that Washington got the worst of both halves of the country. APL (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, it's a joke. The American South is well-known for its charm and hospitality, but also a laid-back attitude. While the North is known for its industry & transporation, but a less friendly environment (aka The Hand That Feeds You :Bite''' 23:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He is saying Washington is inefficient and un-charming. Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a joke. Got a feeling that Gore Vidal used it first. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A joke in much the same vein compares the stereotypical vices and virtues ascribed to various European nationalities. I don't know the origin, but a copy is here. 84.93.187.205 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure a form of that one was in Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What was the one about C being a mid-level language that combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language? --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Drawing ability
Is there a page on wikipedia that deals with the cognitive ability to draw pictures? I can't draw any better than a three year old and am wondering if there is a part of my brain that doesn't function properly or is under developed compared to most. I just kind of want to know what differences there are in the brain activity of a normal person or an artist when they draw and someone such as myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.38.218 (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if we have a page on it, but the book you really ought to read is called Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. It's a tremendously interesting and fun read. One of the basic arguments is that your drawing ability is heavily tracked to when you stopped really trying to draw. So if you stop doodling and improving at age 9, then you will draw like a 9 year old your entire life. But there is much evidence that shows that if you take someone (even in their 40s) who draws like a 9 year old, they can, with a great deal of practice, "advance" their drawing through other stages. It also discusses what levels of drawing are appropriate for each age group — you might not draw like a 3 year old, but more like a 10 year old, or something like that.
 * Now none of this will tell you systematically whether or not you are somehow developmentally inhibited. But the odds are that you are not — just that you haven't really worked at it enough. Not everybody can be a Van Gogh, of course, but most people can, with practice and instruction, draw in what is considered a fairly competent fashion. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully endorse what Mr 98 says. I did a short course based on that book and I was amazed at how well I could draw, after always believing I was fitted only for stick figures.  I didn't continue on with the practice, mainly because drawing was not something I wanted to particularly devote any time to - but if I ever did, I would certainly revisit the book and the exercises.  One thing that has stayed with me, though, is the awareness not just of the shapes of objects as I actually see them (as distinct from my mental concept of what such an object "should" look like) but also of the shapes of the spaces between objects.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A similar example which has stuck with me, for some time now, is that drawing things up-side down often helps you to focus on the form rather than the semantic content of the drawing. For years I have to admit I used this whenever I needed to forge a signature. (Never for illegal reasons, of course.) Forging a signature right-side-up means you are thinking about the letters that go into it. Turn it up-side down and suddenly you are focused entirely on the shape of the lines. It's an easy exercise — try it one way, then the other, and compare your results. Just a very clever bit from that book that has always stuck with me, though I must have read it well over 15 years ago. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An officer in the fraud division of the RCMP told me the same thing about forging signatures. It's one of the reasons you should always watch someone signing a contract or financial instrument. Turning the page upside down is a dead giveaway. :>) Bielle (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for the input.--160.36.38.218 (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)