Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 8

= April 8 =

South Indian Muslims surname
I notice that South Indian Muslims don't take surnames that are Mayali, Kannadiga, Telugu and Tamil. Why? Is it because the surnames are only for Hindus or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.21.213 (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Arabic name, "a large majority of the world's Muslims use Arabic names". So it is likely that South Indian Muslims, like many muslims, use names derived from Arabic sources.  -- Jayron  32  02:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats not true, there are many Muslims with surnames that predate the Islamic era in Pakistan, India and bangladesh. In the former's case there are names of tribal affiliation like Afridi and Bugti. In bangladesh there are common bengali surnames that also are used by hindus. In Mali/Senegal there are African names used for the non-Arab peoples who are also Muslim. Further Bosnians and Albanians have slavic and other names that are somewhat altered, but only partially, when islamicised. Central Asian names tend to be more Russified likwe Islam Karimov and Ramzan Kadyrov. For indian name examples see Bohra, who often times have common Gujarati last names, as do Parsis, who emigrated to Gujarat. Of the Muslims they are probably converts to Islam (with some tracing lineage to the prophet, etc). They are predominantly (if not all) Shias and, as the WP article suggests, the names come from their professions (as do Parsis and Hindus who have such names that end in "wala"
 * Also i see you only mentioned the south indians, there is a difference here too. Not sure if Islam in India mentions this but Islam in the south came from a seperate source (Arab traders, who also went farther east to Indonesia, etc) and in the north, primarily through the Persians and the land invasions (Iranian quite strisctly and by de facto rule, dont have Ara b names.Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Free content probability
What is the probability that a published work (found anywhere, either on the Internet or as physical form) is licensed under a free license? 123.24.83.96 (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC) More explicitly, what is the ratio of the number of freely licensed works against the number of all published works? For the following licenses: For the following categories: Please list explicitly, the percentage of the licenses in each type of work (the percentage of each kind of license against all licenses, and the percentage of each free license type against all free licenses). 123.24.83.96 (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * GNU General Public License and other GNU licenses?
 * Creative Commons free licenses?
 * Other free licenses?
 * Non-free licenses or "all rights reserved"?
 * Audio?
 * Video?
 * Text?
 * Software?
 * Other?

Repost from Media copyright questions. 123.24.83.96 (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that data is out there, and it would require either significant effort to survey, or serious statistical effort to estimate. Even estimating how many published works there are in the world is a non-trivial exercise. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Approximately 100% of the content on the Internet is images under CC-BY-SA: mezzacotta is a daily webcomic with strips dating back to 9999999999999 BCE. Unless someone else has bigger random content generator with a different license. Paul (Stansifer) 15:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Only a tiny fraction of books (the sort on paper) are licensed under a free license, so you could estimate the probability of that as <1%. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But there is probably more content on the Internet than there are published books. Even a preliminary guess at percentages would require really quite large questions about the amount of information produced pre- and post-free licenses, etc. It's a non-trivial thing to estimate. (There are probably more hours of video on YouTube than have ever been produced by world cinema; I don't know about television, but I wouldn't rule it out and I wouldn't doubt it. 60 hours of new video go up on that site per minute, and that number is likely increasing over time, too...) This is what the information theorists/TED wonks refer to as the consequences of the "petabyte age" — humans produce more published content per month than were ever produced by humans prior to, say, the 1970s or so. (I'm forgetting the exact numbers and dates but you get the picture.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think 30% for all content types. 27.69.119.61 (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ya Chang
Who is this Shang Dynasty general Ya Chang talked about in this documentary? What are the characters of his name? Does he have an article on the Chinese wiki?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya Chang is described in the video text as "a warrior" rather than a general. He seems to have been unknown before the discovery of tomb M54 and it is not a certain identification. This article says: "The ritual vessels and some of the weapons were inscribed with the title Ya Chang – possibly the name of the tomb occupant." The article continues; "The results (of tests on his skeleton) suggest that the tomb occupant (Ya Chang) did not come from Anyang! However, he did not come from the north either. In fact, Ya Chang appears to have been a southerner – possibly from the Xinyang region – 400km south of Anyang." Anyang and Sanxingdui: unveiling the mysteries of ancient Chinese civilizations by Chen Shen, Royal Ontario Museum, which has a "snippet view" on Google Books, says of the M54 tomb: "All together, the M54 tomb contained the sacrificial remains of fifteen humans and fifteen dogs." (p.100) Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Similar sayings reference
I'd like a reference that lists similar sayings. In particular, I would like to know of sayings similar [in meaning] to: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." and [another phrase for] "to kill two birds with one stone" Thanks. --TooproudtoshowhenIamlost (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "similar"? The only thing those two have in common is that they both involve two birds. The meanings are completely different. Do you just want a list of sayings involving birds? --Tango (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have made the question clearer [which I fixed]. I'd like sayings that are similar in meaning to each phrase. --TooproudtoshowhenIamlost (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But not necessarily similar to each other? How about, "The grass is always greener in the other fellow's yard" and "To multi-task." This site has your two cliches and few others, which might provide some inspiration. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

tweeting location
it seems to me that there are a lot of services on people's iphones and android devices that might tweet where there are. concurrently, billions have been spent by america on stealth bombers and fighters. I think it would be a big oversight if a pilot accidentally had his phone tweeting his location. An enemy might not know pilots' names, but they could crawl through ALL the public location updates minute by minute, to see what is moving and manoeuvering like a fighter jet. I would like to warn America that its fighter and bomber pilots should DISABLE location services in their smart phones. if this is a legitimate concern, who should I write to? 94.27.227.128 (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Most militaries have strict operations security rules in place to prevent such things from happening. Despite these rules, the occasional leaks can and do still happen.  Anonymous.translator (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * RIGHT, but pilots have social lives, that normally I imagine they keep quite segragated from their professional lives. The problem is that someone can look through EVERY location tweet, even if there are thirty million of them, and see if any of them matches a stealth fighter jet's profile.  The military's policy would be disregarded, because there is no relationship between the tweeting and the aircraft.  I would like to find someone to write about this.  Obviously no pilot will put up with not having a cell phone at all, so given current social media trends it is only a matter of time before one is killed because of this. 94.27.227.128 (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Cellphones are already prohibited for pilots during flight, so I really don't see what your concern is. No cellphones = no tweets = no location leaks. Of course it's possible someone will break the rule and jeopardise the mission (and themselves), but that what's court-martials are for. Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a little reality check is in order. Your average pilot isn't going to have the capacity to tweet or otherwise log in to social media whilst on ops.  The aircraft are moving too quickly for a smartphone to register on the mobile infrastructure.
 * As already observed, there are rules around what can and can't be said whilst on ops. I know that UK forces in Afghan aren't allowed to use personal mobiles at all during their time in theatre.
 * Thankyou very much for your welcome input...
 * ALR (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Beyond what's already been said by ALR and Anon.t, I think we need to get back to the basics here. Presuming the phone can actually contact the mobile network towers, which as has been mentioned is unlikely, who actually owns them? If your in semi-hostile terrain then there's a fair chance it isn't the US (the OP specifically mentioned America). So if the phone does work, the enemy could potentially monitor the pilot simply from watching the phone pass the phone towers. Of course as ALR said it's most likely the phone won't work at all, the towers may or may not receive enough to help monitoring but your enemy could build specialised equipement to help monitoring (although I'm not sure how much the signals will even penetrate out of a stealth aircraft). This may be beyond the realms of insurgents but probably won't be beyond the realms of an enemy resonably capable of taking down a stealth aircraft. Of course, even without taking down the aircraft, there would likely still be other risks, e.g. if you're monitoring a certain location the enemy may realise this but definitely I wouldn't be sure anyone with the capability to search location tweets doesn't have access to the mobile towers for monitoring. In other words, all this worrying about tweeting and social media and GPSes is a little silly, if you're basically running a potential homing beacon aka mobile phone for the enemy in your supposed stealth aircraft hence why any competent military would have first banned the homing beacon. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Even if the fighter pilot specifically lands and walks 50 yards from his aircraft, puts his battery in, and checks his secret private life he doesn't tell the government about, in the future there is a good chance this gets tweeted or foursquared or location check in'd somewhere for the enemy to crawl on the public intERwabs. Inter is for international - it is NOT under US control who crawls that.  China for example.  Where does a fighter pilot piss?  The same place anyone else does: on the side of the road.  He lands somewhere convenient and unobstrusive, walks a ways away from his plane, and checks his private shit while pissing.  BAM.  If anything tweets his location, then the enemy can figure out "You know, how does this guy get from here to here.  There isn't even any road there."  They're gonna be able to conclude pretty fast that this is a stealth bomber or fighter pilot taking a piss, rather than an American just hiking there, which he very well may be BUT FOR the fighter-speed changes in location.  This is a very real concern.  What, are you not going to let fighter pilots piss?  This will cause bladder problems that ALSO potentially lead to death, far from medical care, and is almost as bad as giving out his location.  There is no way around it: people are social creatures, and since there's been war, there have been people writing letters home with a torch or flashlight (even under strict 'light discipline' where they should not have ANYTHING that makes light.  They circumnavigate these 'rules' and just try to do it under a blanket).  You don't think the soldier will check his email if he thinks he can get away with it?  I would like to write someone about this, as I do not want millions or billions in stealth designed compromised by human nature and the social innartubes, which I am 99.100% sure that the military 'brass' is completely unaware of.  I think they still use wired Internet there (its own network off the public internet).  That means these old geezers are living in the last MILLENNIAM.  (1900-2000) 94.27.233.33 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your latest post is extremely confusing and makes little sense. You can't generally land most planes at random places. And as Rmhermen has hinted at, anyone landing a military plane to go the toilet (even if it's possible) will likely be courtmartialed. (But no one is asking them to hold it in, hence why there are things like the piddle pack or the 'Advanced Mission Extender Device' .) And even if we ignore that nonsense, if the plane is in a friendly area, then there's no reason why anyone would conclude some random person in some random location is a military pilot as opposed to someone who got there some how (whether by plane or by hiking or some other means, and seriously why would the person be landing more then once?). If it's not a friendly area, then as I said the moment they put the battery in the phone they're probably compromised themselves. And as I've also said, the people in charge almost definitely are aware of the risks, hence why mobile phone usage is limited, it's just that they also recognise 'location checks' are the least of anyone's worries when people who are supposed to be stealthed are carrying potential homing beacons. Definitely the understand these issues more then you, which to be blunt appears to be not at all (either that or you're a troll). Edit: Checked the archives and it turns out you are a troll Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The scenario I'm outlining is that the pilot DOES know he's breaking protocol the minute he puts his battery in the phone, but bought the phone there (as a local) with no connection to his military things. He would think he can get away with it.  As for landing a plane to take a splishy, it seems to me far more reasonable than these pictures: http://www.omnimedicalsys.com/index.php?page=products which also seem expensive (you have a whole company devoted to it).  What you said is exactly the problem: this is the LAST of the things the military leadership will be thinking of as problems.  Therefore they should be alerted.  I don't know how I can make this any more clear, during the capture of Bin Laden a tweet nearly ruined the exercise.  Granted it was by a local, but in the future who knows. (Again, that link is yours, not mine, and is far more trollish than anything in your response.  But apparently it's a real company, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.) 188.157.32.82 (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the military ivented the internet? Pilots landing to toilet, seriously? Rmhermen (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know they invented the Internet. They also have a whole 'darknet' (from the p.o.v. of the rest of the Internet).  But I think it's all hard-wired and they don't see how pervasive and insidiously addictive the modern social interaction is. They have no clue I think about someone wanting to see their facebook whenever the MINUTE they are fifty yards from their plane.  Actually I did not know that a plane can't land 'anywhere'; I would think it would land at one of a number of places, none of them a normal civilian road, and that most of them have people off duty who are able to use their cell phones.  Therefore almost any place a pilot would land would have people using cell phones or a wired network.  I think a lot of information could be given up this way in spite of the precautions the military and air force might be taking, since I think they underestimate the sociable aspect.  It's today's alcohol.  Yes, you can ban it, but people will still drink off-shift or when they think they can get away with it.  This will cause problems.  188.157.32.82 (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why you assume that you are the first person to consider such an issue, especially given your acknowledged ignorance about many things relating to military plane technology. Nevertheless if you are sure that you are the only one who has thought of this, and that nobody else has (despite it being their jobs to consider such things), please, feel free to send an e-mail or letter to the Department of Defense and tell them your thoughts. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer, this is what I expected at the reference desk and why I posted. Also, sometimes it takes someone who doesn't know about haute couture to see that the emperor is naked; the F-22 Raptor is the most advanced, and only, 5th generation stealth fighter in the planet, and after being developed at a cost of $50 billion was perfect in every way (supermaneoverability, stealth, air attack, ground attack, signals intelligence, etc etc) except for one.
 * "five incidents of pilots suffering from hypoxia and decompression...entire fleet grounded...
 * In July 2011 the investigation suspected a scenario in which the pilots were poisoned by carbon monoxide from the engines while warming up the plane inside the hangars.[216] Tests on pilots have found other chemicals have been inhaled from the on-board oxygen generating system (OBOGS), including oil fumes and propane...
 * Entire life support system overhauled...


 * So you see, everything can be perfect except one little thing. Why didn't they think of it?  The world cannot know.  Maybe it takes a mountain trekker to say during testing: This doesn't smell right.  And no mountain trekker was involved during testing.  Maybe it takes an innartubes to say, "Social mediable."  And no innartubes was involved in the program.  Do you see what I'm saying?  Thank you for the link, I will do my best.  The NETitives (intenet additives, i.e. sociability companies) are doing their best to create PAVLOV BOXES (ring a bell?) called skinner devices where the human is being psychologically rewired to have twitters when they don't update their twitter.  This component of ADDICTION in pilots and ALL personnel is not something that you can 'order away'.  Companies are working to make humans - the social creatures - work a certain way, and this is not subject to lawmandeering.  Basicalall, you need to realize that people are not machines.  The ONLY fault in the f-22 raptor was the human module's very very low tolerance for poison (nearly 0 parts per million).  the military needs to realize that addiction is an inverse tolerance, and in the socialation we are undergoing years, a person cannot tolerance waiting for the next opportune fix.  Will a test pilot on the most advanced fighter on earth report, "You know I'm feeling a bit woozy".  No they will not.  They don't want to be taken off this assignment.  No blood test will be done.  The thing will be built, and five incidents have to all coincide before anyone admits to it.  Pilots are going to use their mobile apps when they are far from their planes, but what they don't realize is the mere TIMING of when they are at base a and when they are at landing strip b can reveal CRUCIAL information about what single-person mode of transport they probably used to get there.  How can you tell a camel.  By the humps. (techncially a dromedary would have just one hump.  so how do you know a camel. because I said humps.  that little s is enough to differentiate between species in a hypothetical metaphor.  you can literally see what i'm thinking.  all from a single letter.)  Thank you again I will gather my thoughts and prepare them for mechnicalistic consumption at the addresses specified.  (By the way just to be clear this is not a right-brained/left-brained thing.  I just think the brass have no connection to how the real social media works 'on the ground' or the conditioning their pilots are undergoing completely out of anyone's control but the companies who measure their own peformance in 'daily ACTIVE users', i.e. DAU which to me equals DUI.)  Thanks again for the reference.  188.157.112.202 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you've got a point - it generally seems very strange for the military to let its people use random commercial communications devices while on duty, rather than issuing their own. When I consider comparisons that they used to carefully censor letters, or that they make all their people wear uniforms to look alike ... why wouldn't they demand control over communications devices?  While I don't think a pilot is going to break out his cell phone and start texting over Iran, there's still the issue that (for example) somebody might hack into it and install a worm that makes it turn on and start broadcasting at full power on a known frequency every hour without giving any external indication... Wnt (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, carbon monoxide is odorless. A "mountain trekker" wouldn't notice a thing.
 * Second, you're ranting. You've gone off on a tear of assumptions about addiction, poison, and "internet additives."
 * Finally, there are strict regulations about what a pilot can do while on duty, especially while actively flying. The brass have considered this, and violating those regulations can get you into deep trouble. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally, there are strict regulations about what a pilot can do while on duty, especially while actively flying. The brass have considered this, and violating those regulations can get you into deep trouble. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sketching: what pencil?
What hardness of pencil do we use for sketching? The hardest that you got, to make a softer trace? Or the softer that you got, to leave a softer indent on the paper? MangoNr1 (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Either of those or anything in between, singly or in combinations, depending on what paper (and backing surface) is being used and what degree of blackness/greyness, thickness/thinness of lines, individual or generic style and doubtless other things I can't think of are being aimed for. Without narrowing down some of these factors, no meaningful answer would be possible. If you haven't already looked through our articles Sketch, Drawing and Pencil, and followed up any further links of possible interest from those articles, doing so might be useful. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.4 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Some advice is here. Perhaps you could buy a full set and experiment. Alansplodge (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hard pencils might be good for sketching outlines. Once you have those right, you might want to use softer pencils to darken the outlines and shade the areas. StuRat (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * HB is the sketching pencil. It is mid-tone. Only once the shapes or composition is done, do you need to use harder pencils for the highlight details and softer for the shadows.  The technique of hatching can then compensate for a limited range of pencils. IMHO soft pencils are under used but help enormously to giving the drawing depth and contrast. --Aspro (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call the HB a sketching pencil. It is for sure a general purpose pencil, therefore it's prevalence in use, but you probably will need some harder or softer pencil, depending on your purpose. If you want to erase the lines try some hard pencil. If the sketch will be the final work, which it's not uncommon at all, then you'll need softer pencils, which leave a strong trace.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.206.247.208 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese Escudo and Slovenian Tolar
Was it possible to exchange a single PTE 1 or SIT 1 coin into euro(cent)(s)? --84.62.204.235 (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The minimum amount was 2 escudos. Source: "Por outro lado, a unidade mínima em que se poderão realizar cobranças e/ou pagamentos será um cêntimo (supondo que a conversão se estabeleça em 1 Euro=200 Escudos, a fracção mínima será 1 Cêntimo=2 Escudos) ". It means that the mininum 'unit' is 2 escudos. MangoNr1 (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What about the Slovenian tolar? --84.62.204.235 (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I take it you are asking if there was an official exchange rate ? (Obviously any 2 individuals could do an exchange, if they decided to.) StuRat (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada USA UK ethnic groups largest
In Canada, South Asians are the largest visible minority; Chinese are the second and the Black Canadians are third...so what about Arab Canadians? are they after Blacks or smaller than that? In United States, Blacks are the largest group and Latinos are the second. Which group is third largest? Arabs or South Asians or Chinese? In United Kingdom, which group is largest ethnic group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.78 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Natural Resources (?) Canada, Arabs were sixth as of 2006, after Filipinos and Latin Americans. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Information on the U.S. can be gotten from http://www.census.gov. However, please note that the U.S. census recognizes racial categories (Black, White, Asian, Eskimo/Inuit, Pacific Islander, Native American, etc.) as completely distinct from ones "hispanic" status.  Being "hispanic" in the U.S. overlaps with racial characteristics.  Significantly, one can be classified as White and Hispanic or Black and Hispanic (Many Puerto Rican Americans would likely be classified as the former, while many Dominican Americans may be classified as the latter).  Furthermore, the U.S. also categorizes people by "national origin", which again is distinct from either race or hispanicness.  Still, the U.S. Census has all of the data you want on this sort of information, and you can find it easily using the website I gave you.  -- Jayron  32  23:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The largest non-white ethnic group in the UK is South Asian, who made up 4.0% of the population according to the 2001 census, followed by Black (2.0%), Mixed Race (1.2%), Chinese (0.4%) and Other (0.4%). Note that "Asian" on the linked page means "South Asian", so (for example) Japanese and Filipinos are classed as "Other". There's no separate category for Arabs, who are also classed as "Other". 59.108.42.46 (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ethnocultural Portrait of Canada, Population by selected ethnic origins, by province and territory (2006 Census) Stat Canada, Arab Canadian is a relatively small visible minority group in Canada, and ranked lower then sixth according to the first table (see classification.Royor (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)