Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 June 21

= June 21 =

Manuella Kalili
Anyway to find out when Manuella Kalili died?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Coronation vs. enthronement
Can they be used interchangeably nowadays? 112.198.77.159 (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Eh... Enthronements aren't necessarily royal, while coronations usually are (the Papal coronation being the only religious example I can find). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, because in the former you get a hat, and in the latter you get a chair.  -- Jayron  32  02:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And many kings have definitely deserved to get the chair. StuRat (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This sort of comment seems highly inappropriate. 99.56.13.119 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I could tell, the King of Spain was neither crowned nor enthroned (the Archbishop of Canterbury is ceremonially plonked on the Chair of St Augustine during his enthronement), so it's all a bit metaphorical. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, the King of Spain is simply sworn in. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright
I'm not looking for legal advice. I just want to understand the situation better. I use MuseScore, a free music composition and notation software, to create sheet music. MuseScore also gives you the possibility to share your created scores with the MuseScore community and therefore the whole Internet since Google indexes shared scores. I had created a score of a song by listening to it and had asked the community to find wrong notes, so it was unfinished. I never claimed it to be my own work and even put the composer's name on it. It was finally taken down after nearly a year with the argument: "This score is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Hal Leonard". Other people who had tried to upload their versions of the song received the same message. I would've understood if it had been the composer himself, but this company(, which I have never heard of before because I don't live in the US,) seems to publish only arrangements of songs. How does it own the rights of the original song? The company publishes everything from classical to pop and I doubt every composer is affiliated to it. It just seems that the company is very sensitive since you need a permission for pretty much everything. I'm sure there are other publishers who have published sheet music of that song. Let's assume I got the permission from one company to publish my score and the other company still sued me for copyright infringement. How would this make sense? Back to my real case. I have never seen the arrangement of that company and my version is similar (not identical) to theirs because we both refer to the same song and neither of us are the true owners. Why does Hal Leonard has the right to claim the content? Also consider the fact that it's just self-created sheet music, I did not copy the actual song. --2.246.24.41 (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Several things 1) The song itself (that is, the actual arrangement of the notes) is under copyright. The hummable tune (more than just the expression of the tune) is itself what the copyright holder holds.  So, when you create sheet music by ear from a song, and then publish that music on the internet, you are likely violating copyright against the original composition.  That's like listening to a book-on-tape and then transcribing the book.  You still violate the copyright if you publish the transcripts (copying for purely personal use, without showing it to anyone, may constitute fair use in some jurisdictions, however) 2) The sheet music published by a company like Hal Leonard is itself also copyright separate from the music it represents.  Hal Leonard itself has a license to publish said sheet music from the original publishers.  They may have exclusive right to publish said music under agreement with the publisher, and may have the legal right to defend that license against unlicensed competition from others publishing said sheet music for free (read: you).  Copyright law IS very complex, which is why it needs lawyers to understand it, explain it, and defend it against problems, rather than people like me (that is, random strangers on the Interwebs)..  -- Jayron  32  03:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A note on Hal Leonard: It is the largest sheet music publisher in the world, and as such, have a decent amount of resource to pursue legal action, warranted or otherwise. Mingmingla (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt they'd actually pursue legal action against the OP, it's just not worth it - but, as the OP has seen, they will attempt to get the hosts to remove the material. It isn't worth the while of hosing services such as MuseScore to stand up for their users' rights, even when the purported copyright-holder's demands are legally unwarranted. (Not that I'm saying they aren't warranted in this case). My advice is to contact Chilling Effects - they may just be able to help on these sorts of issues? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I'm in trouble. Everything is fine, the score got deleted and nothing else is going to happen. Just a minor issue. --2.245.66.223 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Another possibility is that Hal Leonard have a license to the work which allows them to pursue claims on the copyright owner's behalf for transcriptions of the music (either by an express term, or by some legal effect of another term of the license). It's unlikely we'd ever know for sure what their basis is unless someone decided to challenge it though. MChesterMC (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not A Separate Peace
Some book identification help, please. I thought that I was thinking of A Separate Peace by John Knowles, but probably not. What young-adult novel takes place in an all-boys boarding school during the Spanish Civil War? One of the students, a secondary character IIRC, goes off to fight in that war, and we later learn that he went to fight for the "wrong" side. Now that I think about it, the book may be British rather than American. I believe that I read it in high school (1989–1993) as assigned reading. A Separate Peace took place during World War II, so it is a bit too late. Thank you. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This actually sounds like The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (novel), in which a girl runs off to fight in the war. (I haven't read the book, but I did see the movie.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That does sound awfully like what I described about the war (and I would certainly call the Nationalists the wrong side), but I do not recall reading this book, and I could have sworn it was boys (of course H.S. was over 20 years ago, so maybe I'm forgetting). Thanks! —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Could it be Winter in Madrid by C.J Sansom. Set during the Spanish Civil War, two of the characters are men who were at boarding school together with chapters in the book going back to their school days. 83.104.128.107 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Cancel that thought -it wasn't published until 2006. 83.104.128.107 (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you are mis-remembering which war is involved in the novel, might it be Goodbye, Mr. Chips? With the exception of your mention of the Spanish Civil War, all of the other details seem to match.  Young-adult novel; all-boys boarding school; characters go off to fight in the war; British novel; British setting; often found on high school reading lists.  Is this it?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody goes off to fight for the Huns (unless you count the German master, who was German). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

SC justice recusal
What if all United States SC justices recuse from a case, do then the judges of the courts of appeals jump in? Or the case is simply dismissed? 112.198.77.214 (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To know for sure, you would have to find out if it's happened before. I googled the subject and didn't find much. However, the article Judicial disqualification indicates that recusal could be overridden by the need for at least one judge to hear the case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OR, but if the judges recused themselves but with conflicting interests, they could be paired up: three justices who sold stock in the company, three who bought it. Plus, of curse, judges aren't recused, they simply recuse themselves. They could simply say, in a case like this I would recuse myself because of X which I have detailed in this 5 page report, but in these circumstances I will remain seated.

Finding half-remembered books
What are the best places online for finding books you can't remember the title or author of? Obviously I know some details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.139.70 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's the best place, but we seem to do a pretty good job of it here. Why not give us a try? Matt Deres (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try it here, why not. Allow me to copy and paste:


 * Children's fantasy series, possibly a trilogy
 * The premise is that a dream world exists parallel to our own
 * A major feature of the dream world is a spiral staircase that rises into the sky, made from/embellished with thousands of seashells. This was probably featured in the title of one of the books, but if it is I'm not remembering it properly.
 * The plot of one of the books involves a villain that is kidnapping children through their dreams and using them as slave labour. The dreams would be false awakenings; the kids would believe they were going about their normal daily routines before ending up in his clutches. The only way to pre-empt this would be to realize you were dreaming before that happened. For example, one of the protagonists dreams he is waking up and going to school before seeing the moon shining brightly in the sky, realizing he is dreaming, and forcing himself awake.
 * Another of the books features a prophecy that the villain would only be defeated by doing nothing and acting like you'd already lost. In the end, the protagonists sit back and allow the villain to consume enough energy to overload and destroy himself. In all honesty, I'm not 100% sure this is the same series, but I am MOSTLY sure. 90.222.139.70 (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See The Neglected Books Page at http://neglectedbooks.com/.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Could it be Garth Nix' series The Keys to the Kingdom, which (apparently) features a magical staircase to everywhere called The Improbable Stair? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 16:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

How does ISIS know how to use sophisticated weapons they capture?
When the Iraqi army collapsed, they left their ordnance behind for ISIS to appropriate. How much advantage will ISIS be able to take of this windfall? The heavy vehicles and armaments are complex and require a lot of training to master. My nephew as a government contractor trains US marines to operate some of these vehicles. This is advanced training for the marines, and it may require weeks. --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's very easy to make a tank move around, even without training. It's much more difficult, without training, to make it move around efficiently, quickly, smoothly, and without smashing into buildings, other vehicles, soldiers on your own side, or indeed off the edge of a deep canal or river, or ripping one of its tracks off or damaging the gearbox by not driving it in a sensible manner. ISIS fighters may not care much about some of this, but sophisticated tanks also require sophisticated maintenance, which would also be an issue in the medium term.


 * Likewise, it's possible to work out how to fire the tank gun of even a sophisticated modern tank, though you might do some damage to the tank or yourself or nearby friendly forces while working it out. Without training, though, it's much more difficult to make use of the tank's sophisticated optics and targetting, or firing on the move. One video snippet I saw apparently showed ISIS using a captured tank firing while stationary and with the gun reversed, which is maybe an indication of this. Without the ability to engage other armour at long range and the ability to fire on the move and otherwise maneuver how highly trained tank crews would, even the very latest models of captured U.S. tanks would probably be of little more tactical value than ye olde T-55. (And would probably break down sooner in the absence of spare parts and trained maintenance personnel.)


 * The Islamic regime in Iran inherited a large number of F-14 fighters - leading edge technology at the time - from the previous regime which was supported by the U.S. These were very useful during their war with Iraq, but are now supposedly incapable of even taking off due to lack of spare parts and maintenance.


 * Many other weapons systems have similar issues, for example I think Stinger missiles require (or required) particular sorts of battery packs that can sometimes be hard to obtain. So some of this equipment could be very useful - or very dangerous - in the short or medium term, but will likely be next to useless in the long term.


 * Islamic states tend not to develop their own indigenous technologies based on technologies they have access to, like for example Israel has. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And, when they capture the weapons they may also capture the soldiers who know how to use the weapons. They can then "convince" those prisoners to either show them how to use the weapons or to use them directly, although the later carries the risk that the prisoners will turn the weapons on them.  StuRat (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * A large number of those fighting for ISIS in Iraq are disaffected Iraqi soldiers. Even worse the top level Baathist generals under Saddam lost their jobs so they're directing the operations. There's a lot of murderous Islamist fanatics there, but there's lots more who couldn't care less about Islam but want to be in charge again. or are annoyed by becoming the underdogs rather than having a shared future in Iraq. It is becoming a sectarian civil war. You can see how fragile the bond between the fanatics and the Baathists is by for example, ISIS don't have a long term future there but will cause enough trouble in the meantime. Dmcq (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Things being the way they are, don't rule out the possibility that they found the instructions on the internet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Free markets and efficiency -- any economists here?
I have a quick question about free markets and economic efficiency.

My textbook claims that free markets will generally lead to maximal economic surplus -- with the usual caveats about perfect competition, externalities, etc.

The proof my textbook offers goes as follows: first, it notes that "1. Free markets allocate the supply of goods to the buyers who value them most highly, as measured by their willingness to pay; 2. Free markets allocate the demand for goods to the sellers who can produce them at the lowest cost. Thus, given the quantity produced and sold in a market equilibrium, [a] social planner cannot increase economic well-being by changing the allocation of consumption among buyers or the allocation of production among sellers."

So far, so good.

Next, the author asks if "[a] social planner raise [can] total economic well-being by increasing or decreasing the quantity of the good?" The answer, apparently, is 'no'. That is, "[f]ree markets produce the quantity of goods that maximizes the sum of consumer and producer surplus." To prove this statement, the textbook uses the following figure.

The accompanying text is: "To interpret this figure, keep in mind that the demand curve reflects the value to buyers and the supply curve reflects the cost to sellers. At any quantity below the equilibrium level, such as Q1, the value to the marginal buyer exceeds the cost to the marginal seller. As a result, increasing the quantity produced and consumed raises total surplus. This continues to be true until the quantity reaches the equilibrium level. Similarly, at any quantity beyond the equilibrium level, such as Q2, the value to the marginal buyer is less than the cost to the marginal seller. In this case, decreasing the quantity raises total surplus, and this continues to be true until quantity falls to the equilibrium level. To maximize total surplus, the social planner would choose the quantity where the supply and demand curves intersect."

I really don't understand this supposed proof. Consumer surplus is defined as the difference between the willingness to pay and the price of the good. So while it may be true that "at any quantity below the equilibrium level, such as Q1, the value to the marginal buyer exceeds the cost to the marginal seller", I don't see what that has to do with consumer surplus (or producer surplus), because there's no reference to prices.

I would appreciate any clarification. TIA. 65.92.5.124 (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't need any reference to prices. You only need to know the maximum price a buyer would buy for, and the minimum price a seller would sell for. If I would buy 100 ballpoint pens from you for $50, and you would sell them for $5, regardless of the actual price, the total surplus is $45. If we trade at $5, I get all the surplus. If we trade at $50, you get it. If we trade at $27.50, we split the cookie. So if you artificially shift the quantity to the right, all the existing consumers and producers will still make a sale, and regardless of price, their total surplus will be the same. The marginal buyer (the extra person who bought some pens) and the marginal seller (the extra person who sold them) will have a loss of surplus.


 * You can proceed as follows: draw a vertical line from Q2, intersect the seller curve and the buyer curve. Suppose the point on the seller curve is $80, and on the buyer curve, $30. The point on the seller curve is actually the cost to the marginal seller at this point, because at that price, he stops producing. The point on the buyer curve is also the value to him, because at that point, he stops buying. So you can compute the change in total surplus using just the marginal seller and the marginal buyer.


 * Implicit here is at least one more assumption, that the marginal value is different for each unit produced. The first unit is reckoned to be cheap to the seller and dear to the buyer, because somebody really needs a ballpoint pen, and someone has already built a factory, and is desperate to sell. It is believed, or deemed by assumption, to change slightly for each unit produced. This gives us a clear enough theory, that is good enough in the long run. IBE (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. 65.92.5.124 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I certainly hope the text also explains the limitations of free markets. Without perfect competition, the theory all breaks down, and perfect competition is rare.  For example, the free market works poorly in a medical setting, as the people who pay most of the bill (insurance companies, taxpayers, etc.) are rarely those who make the decisions on what to buy (doctors, patients, and hospital administrators).  Also, buying discount medical equipment or meds is a bit scary, so many buy the most expensive ones, instead, in the hopes that they will be the best. StuRat (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I love it how, to illustrate the limitations of the market, people invariably point to the most heavily regulated and subsidized of all industries. —Tamfang (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Labour market monopsony is a missing article present in other encyclopaedia and an example of an imperfect market regardless of regulation that most people should be familiar with. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Reisman who is an economist, and whose text is available by click at left , is available. Further search is waste of time. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You were not asked to recommend a textbook. IBE (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Where, in the OP's eight-paragraph "quick question", did it say not to recommend a textbook? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Any time you start an economics question, “with the usual caveats about perfect competition, externalities, etc.,” someone will inevitably point out that there is no perfect competition. This should signal that the opinion writer hasn’t fully absorbed the question. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)