Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 February 18

= February 18 =

Defraud Innkeeper?
I saw an ex-girlfriend in the local arrest section of the newspaper, and she was apparently arrested at Denny's for "defraud innkeeper". What does that mean? Doesn't that mean she defrauded a hotel in some way? 198.228.232.49 (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this, "defrauding an inkeeper" also applies to restaurants. That particular law is for Georgia, but other states and countries probably have similar laws. RudolfRed (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The dine and dash seems the most likely offense. (If I were to do that, I'd pick a much nicer restaurant.) :-) StuRat (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How do you know which Denny's is meant? There could be thousands restaurants called like that in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.66.12 (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Denny's a chain, so yes, there are thousands of restaurants called that (well, our article says "over 1,500" worldwide, so not quite thousands), but they are very similar. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Other jurisdictions call this offence Theft of services. —D. Monack talk 01:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Secretariat General of Commonwealth
When it comes to selecting Secretariat General of Commonwealth of Nations, is there an election or the Queen appoints the person to the position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.254 (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Commonwealth Secretary-General. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fetish name
Is there any name for the fetish for bloodless torture? Such a person might enjoy watching someone get tortured on the rack, but doesn't want to see someone get disemboweled with a chainsaw. Is there any film genre specifically relating to this fetish? --140.180.6.154 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sadism is enjoying inflicting pain (or watching it), but not necessarily death. While this isn't exactly the same as "bloodless", it's probably as close as you will find. StuRat (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * However, the works of the marquis himself are not bloodless! 140.180.6.154 -- I could coin a word from Latin or Greek roots, but it wouldn't be a standard accepted term.  Why not just say "bloodless torture sadism"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

university of kent
anyone here know anything about this university? I'm currently studying the second year of my course and was hoping to transfer there to take the last year (for a variety of reasons, initially I hoped to transfer last year but left it too late). However, I have heard that some universities don't accept new entrants just for the final year. I emailed them to ask about their policies here, but a week later I still have no reply. Anyone know more about this? or is this rule the same across the country? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You really do need to speak to the university. Even if they do accept transfers, it's going to depend on the details of the course you are currently taking and the course you want to transfer to (you would need to show that you have met all the prerequisites for the new course). We're not going to be much help there. If you don't receive a reply soon, make sure you emailed the right person - it's probably better to email someone in the department you want to join rather than a central admissions person since it will probably be a departmental policy. The university website should help you find the right person in the department. --Tango (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You should pick up the telephone and call a human if you are at all serious about this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I took a look at their website and found this FAQ. It says you can enter the 2nd year of a course by applying through UCAS, but doesn't mention entering after the 2nd year. --Tango (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know UK universities don't have half terms, but the children of their staff do, and where I live half term was last week. So it's possible that the member of staff who deals with such matters was on holiday last week. If you haven't heard by Monday afternoon by email, I'd telephone as suggested above. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * From my (admittedly limited and outdated) experience of Universities, it's possible that they don't have an existing policy on this because no-one has asked to do it before now: I can think of three administrational innovations that had to be made at my own University for first cases, two of them involving myself. In case this is so, you might be better off preparing the ground by persuasively making the case to someone in the department you want to join, as Tango suggests, and having them advocate your transfer, rather than presenting it to a general administrator who might find it easier to say "no" to a novel proposal from an outsider. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.63 (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be very surprised if they don't have a policy on this. Working at a university, I know we get queries about third year entry fairly often.  Many universities have a policy that they won't accept the transfer of more than one year's worth of credits, but this isn't universal, so it's well worth asking. Warofdreams talk 12:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

English maternal DNA
I'm curious about the maternal DNA of English people. Did the Anglos and Saxons bring their own women with them or did they marry with the English women already inhabiting England when they settled there? What exact ethnic group did these indigenous women come from? I do know they were pre-Roman and pre-Celtic. I need this info as I'm currently involved in a debate with a friend regarding this. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find it's a much-debated, contentious and unresolved question. Does Genetic history of the British Isles help?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bryan Sykes has studied this. As our article states: "There is a difference between the genetic histories of men and women in Britain and Ireland. The matrilineages show a mixture of original Mesolithic inhabitants and later Neolithic arrivals from Iberia, whereas the patrilineages are much more strongly correlated with Iberia. This suggests (though Sykes does not emphasize this point) replacement of much of the original male population by new arrivals with a more powerful social organization.".  In other words, the invading men brought some women with them, but also took the time to knock up native women. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's actually the difference between the genetic history of mitochondrial DNA (transmitted from mother to child) and the genetic history of Y-chromosome DNA (transmitted from father to son). Such differences can sometimes provide interesting details relevant to the history of population migrations, but they don't really provide broad comprehensive information on the "genetic histories of men vs. women"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What's the difference ? StuRat (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For any one individual, mitochondrial DNA only provides evidence about his or her mother, mother's mother, mother's mother's mother, etc.; while Y-chromosome DNA only provides information about a man's father, his father's father, his father's father's father, etc. So if a man traces his ancestry back eight-generations, then he can have up to 256 distinct great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, but mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA can only provide information about two of the 256, or less than 1%.  As you go further back, the pure matrilineal line and pure patrilineal line become an ever smaller fraction of the ancestor slots in each generation, but there's more and more likelihood that some of the same individuals show up multiple times as ancestors (due to intermarriage).  It can be complicated, but the result is that while the results of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome analysis provide interesting information, this information is fragmentary in some ways... AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your point, although mutations in the Y-chromosome and mitochondria provide some additional info. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if it's true that there was a major influx of males from Iberia, this is still a pre-Roman Conquest event isn't it? The Angles and Saxons came from northern Europe, not Spain. I found these two articles by Stephen Oppenheimer (Britishy geneticist and "a researcher and popular-science writer on human prehistory"): Myths of British ancestry and Myths of British ancestry revisited. Alansplodge (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also take a look at Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup, especially Haplogroup R (Y-DNA), which is the majority haplogroup type in the Isles. It also has prominence in Iberia as Alansplodge says. Most of these historic migrations are on the order of 10s of thousands of years, so modern history like the Roman Conquest doesn't seem to be as big of an influence as you might think. But I could be wrong about that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I take it you mean most of the major migrations to the British Isles, as there were major migrations since then, such as in the last few hundred years to the Americas. StuRat (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, migrations to. North America largely resembles what you'd expect within ethnic groups. I'm reciting what our article, and a lot of other mainstream sources say about it. I might guess that they ask people about their ethnic ancestry, and base it on that. But even still, the British Isles are predominately white and so it seems reasonable to assume the distribution of haplotypes hasn't changed that much. (haplogroup has nothing to do with race either, as there are some Africans with haplotype R as well... but it does suggest that most of the early migration patterns have remained surprisingly consistent). Shadowjams (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Y chromosome and mitochondrial haplogroup DNA evidence has more to do with prehistoric human migration patterns than with any phenotype expression. Indeed there are people that share haplogroups with wildly different ethnicities (and correspondingly wildly different appearances, genetic disease rates, and other phenotypical expressions). In fact these haplogroup analysis work largely because these DNA sections aren't thought to code for any meaningful differences. So it's just random mutations that are passed on without bias. Shadowjams (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Cheddar Man. Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Economic impact of leap year
This year, 2012, is a leap year. As many people are paid a fixed amount monthly it would seem that a large number of extra man-hours are going to be worked "for free" this month. Could this have a detectable economic impact (i.e. a marginal increase in economic productivity)? LukeSurlt c 16:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A similar situation happens in other years - if the year starts on a Friday or Saturday, there will be one few working day (assuming a Monday-Friday working week) than if it starts on any other day (due to there being 1 day more than 52 weeks in the year). I don't think that's going to make much difference to anything, though. Productivity is generally equal to consumption (with a few, usually short-term, exceptions) and consumption isn't going to be changed much by this kind of thing (I guess things like food and utilities will get used for one extra day in a leap year, but for most goods and services there won't be any noticeable change). --Tango (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "noise" of economic data is likely far larger than the 1/366th difference added to the year by a leap year. I can't think of any economic data that pretends to be as precise as one part in 366, so any changes that occur due to a leap year would be washed out in the data set by random fluctuation.  -- Jayron  32  18:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't stop people from talking about the economic impact of an extra bank holiday for a royal wedding, or of lots of people not being able to get to work for one day because of snow. It's rather silly, but it fills column inches. --Tango (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP asks if it would lead to "a marginal increase in economic productivity"? Obviously not, but those who are incompetent at Mathematics may think they see one. HiLo48 (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A worker who's paid by the hour should benefit from the extra day. A worker who's paid a fixed salary is effectively being paid "by the year", so they don't get anything extra for that extra day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm paid by the month; it's the same amount regardless of whether the month has 28, 29, 30, or 31 days. Since February is a day longer this year, I get slightly less money per day this February than I did a year ago, but it's still more than I get per day every other month of the year, so I'm not complaining. Pais (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, just to clarify, workers don't actually benefit from the extra day in the sense that they still have the same lifetime income, it just gets divided into different sections. (Okay, so there's an effect that there's another 24 hours in their working life, and 24 hours less in their retired life, so their income would be slightly different. But you catch my drift.) - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 22:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugs, that is a false analysis. This "extra day" furphy needs to be put to rest straight away.  The sequence of the days of the week will not be disturbed by this so-called "extra day".  There is no "extra day".  The 24-hour period that we're going to call "29 February 2012" was always going to be there, regardless of what name we choose to call it.  Compared to a standard year, there's an extra  date , that's all.
 * For those whose pay is expressed as an annual salary, what they earn per working day will be a minute fraction smaller this year compared with a standard year, but that applies to every working day this year, not just to 29 February. The number of working days per year varies every year anyway.
 * And for those who are paid on a monthly basis, what they earn per working day this February might be slightly smaller this month compared to other Februaries - but again, that applies to every working day this month, not just to 29 February (if it's a working day). --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 52 weeks and 1 day vs. 52 weeks and 2 days. That's an extra day. And even someone who's paid monthly is still being paid "by the year" if they're on salary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse how a person's emolument is formally expressed in their employment contract (e.g. $25 per hour cf. $50,000 per annum), with how often they receive payment (e.g. weekly cf. fortnightly cf. monthly). --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A salaried employee who's "exempt" from overtime gets a fixed amount per year, unless he happens to get a raise at some point. An hourly employee gets paid for how many hours he works during the year, possibly including some overtime, etc. The number of man-hours in a year is typically given as 2080 (40 X 52) for convenience, but it's really 2088 in a normal year and 2096 in a leap year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The man should join a union, and demand some paid holidays... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The paid holidays are included in the 2080/2088/2096 hours. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)