Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 December 21

= December 21 =

ACONCAGUA SUMMIT
To whom it may concern, Acancogua is the 2nd highest mountain of the seven summits in the world. It is in Argentina and the highest mountain the in the soutrhern and western hemisphers. I am a South African getting ready for an Acancogua expedition beginning 1/08/10 and hope to summit a couple weeks thereafter. I was wondering how many other South africans have attempted to summit this mountain and whom have actually been successful? Any help would be appreciated in finding an answer to my question. Please e-mail any answers to e-mail address redacted Thanks so much. Larry wollach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.121.27 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Have you seen our article Aconcagua?  2.  I removed your e-mail address; we answer questions here at the Reference Desk and not through e-mail (see the top of the page).  Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So much information on the internet - so why am I not rich?
Compared to a few years ago in the days before people used the internet, I now have quick and mostly free access (eg Google Scholar)to a huge amount of detailed factual information that was previously available in part only to an elite. So why am I not therefore rich/wealthy? 89.242.211.123 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you expect someone to hand you cash? You have to do something to earn money.Aaronite (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Knowledge, or access to it, =/= money. Certainly, knowledge increases your chances of making a reasonable living, and people tend to reach the "middle class" stage of life much more readily with access to education.  However, there are diminishing returns on knowledge.  People with no access to education generally do very bad, economically.  However, the effect plateaus somewhere around "comfortable middle class" for most people.  Becomeing insanely wealthy has little to do with knowing lots of things.  It comes from two sources a) Being born to insanely wealthy parents and b) other forms of dumb luck.  -- Jayron  32  00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought the answer would be "Because everyone else has access to it too". If everyone is rich, then no-one is. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An obvious rejoinder is that not everyone has Internet access. I find the question interesting because it challenges premises like "Knowledge is power".  Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The source of that appears to be Francis Bacon (who said it strongly: knowledge in and of itself is power). In 1621 he fell into debt, confessed to corruption, and spent a few days in the Tower of London. He may well have known more about every subject than the guards, but the guards had the advantage of being on the right side of the door and having the keys, so he was powerless to get out. This sort of counter-example is so obvious that I have to wonder what he was really thinking of when he came up with the aphorism. Felis cheshiri (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Knowledge alone is not enough - you still need the brainpower to understand and apply that knowledge and the business acumen to turn that understanding into dollars. Also, (as Ref.Desk regulars will readily attest) a vast proportion of the population are incapable of using a search engine effectively.  A solid 90% of the questions asked here could easily be answered by searching - and indeed, many of our answers are formed by our volunteers doing exactly that.  Yet a third issue is that of knowing that the knowledge exists in the first place.  To pick a silly example - if you are a farmer who wishes to get better yields from his crops - but has no idea what "fertilizer" is - or even that fertilizer exists - then he's not going to be able to look up the information about which fertilizers are effective for his crops.  Very often people don't know what it is that they don't know. SteveBaker (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a more ominous angle is that SteveBaker's points (except the "brainpower ceiling" implication) can all be fixed by "education" &mdash; education can start a person on business acumen, education can teach a person how to use a search engine, education can teach the farmer all about fertilizer and crop yields ... but 89's point is, partially, that education does not seem to be taking place via the Internet, at least in some global and measurable way. The availability of computers to students is waved around like it's a panacea by various organizations &mdash; see the OLPC &mdash; it's supposed to make great strides against illiteracy in the developed countries and against poverty in the developing world &mdash; but maybe the distractions of lolcats and South Park video clips snuff out most of the Internet's potential.  All OR of course.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More OR here, but at least some educated OR. The difference between knowledge and education is pedagogy, that is there is more to making knowledge useful than mere exposure.  It's part of the problem with modern "education" trends like charter schools and homeschooling and online education movements.  There is something in the way that information is packaged and presented which makes it useful to someone to learn it.  There is something in the way that something is taught that helps people to learn it.  A huge part of teaching is interaction and feedback and all that is lost with the whole "trying to teach yourself" movement.  There is a common misconception that "anyone can teach", which is what drives the "who needs teachers?" thread that runs through the movements I have cited above.  Proper education is invaluable in taking information and using it to build knowledge in a student.  -- Jayron  32  04:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I troubled to look at my own illiteracy link, and right at the top a caption claims, World illiteracy halved between 1970 and 2005. Coincidental with the history of the Internet... hmm....  Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a lot more to the "who needs teachers?" idea than that: see for instance How Children Fail . One important question is the nature of learning: historically, teachers have been regarded as reservoirs of knowledge, whose jobs are to release it into the empty vessels which are children's minds. You mention interaction, quite rightly, but there is still a generally held idea that children have a responsibility (though they may not be enjoying it at all) to pay attention to their teachers, who are the founts of wisdom. This is at odds with the attitude that the child, as the one doing the learning, should be in control of its direction, and that the teacher (or tutor, since having one teacher to many children causes practical difficulties) is the child's assistant and is the one who has the responsibility to pay attention. There's also the question of whether it's possible to learn in a meaningful sense, that is, increase understanding, if one is not enjoying oneself. If not, then obviously understanding can't be imposed on a pupil against his will. If by teaching you mean "presenting information in an attractive way and providing interactive assistance for those who want to gain understanding" then I wholeheartedly agree that this is an improvement over being left to struggle on one's own, but fail to see how this interaction is missing from the forms of education you mentioned - except that it could be, but it could also very easily - more easily - be absent from a traditional school.
 * I've put this in small, not because I'm being funny, but because it's a can of worms. Felis cheshiri (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, there are bad teachers. The problem is not that we don't need teachers.  Its that we need quality teachers who are properly trained in how people really learn, and how to get the most out of them.  There are bad plumbers, but no one argues that we don't need to get a broken pipe fixed.  There are bad construction workers, but no one argues that we don't need houses built.  And yet, when faced with bad teachers, people say "Well, teacher's are worthless because the kids aren't learning".  We need good teachers who do it right, not to eliminate teachers.  A teacher who behaves as they do in the first part of your post is not behaving as I describe.  The proper teacher packages and presents the knowledge in a way mindful of what it takes to get students to learn and teaches such that they are likely to learn. -- Jayron  32  15:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A plumber who installs pipes mindful of what it takes to get householders to have more plumbing will not be a popular plumber. I think teachers, like plumbers, should be optional assistants called in to do a job when and only when wanted; but of course this view causes lengthy arguments. To continue with the enjoyably awkward simile, we all have broken pipes, and are discovering new ones as soon as we get them fixed. Therefore there it's a personal decision how fast to fix them, and there is no external moral imperative to get them fixed at a certain rate, and it certainly isn't up to the plumber to impose this. There's also the matter of academic knowledge being only a subclass of knowledge in general, with no particular right to claim superiority over the rest of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felis cheshiri (talk • contribs) 16:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ... But you wouldn't trust a child to decide on what pipes should be installed into a house under construction. And once the child is old enough to have a basic knowledge of plumbing he'll realize he needs some pipes and have a plumber install them in the completed house at great difficulty and expense. Later the child might realize that he also needs drain pipes, and heating pipes, and who knows what other kinds of pipes and have them all installed individually.  The house would have much better overall plumbing, both plumber and customer would have been saved a lot of hassle, and the adult customer would be happier with the finished house, if the child customer had been assigned a plumber who, whether the child wanted it or not, could guide him until he installed the right pipes into his house while it was still under construction.. Otherwise nine out of ten houses would have built-in theaters, and underground tree-forts, but the toilets wouldn't flush.     Want to start over with a different metaphor? APL (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of problems with translating education into plumbing, yes. I think I could contrarily struggle on and refute your point here (which looks to me like "idiots should be forced by experts to do the things they don't realise are best"). The ref desk is not the place, though. I have a nice empty talk page. That may not be the place either, but if you think it is, I welcome you to add a section to it. Felis cheshiri (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.
 * -United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Education is an admirable thing. But it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught...It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless information...In old days books were written by men of letters and read by the public. Nowadays books are written by the public and read by nobody.
 * -Oscar Wilde.
 * Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering Mr Rumsfeld's 2x2 matrix, I've always wondered what the "unknown knowns" would be? 78.147.27.40 (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess whether that category exists depends on your notion of "knowing". Perhaps a meaningful example of an "unknown known" would be when the answer you're looking for is implicit in what you already know, but you don't have the awareness that it is. --173.49.11.197 (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An example of an unknown known that is within Rumsfeld's military context is when an enemy has cracked one's code that one thinks is secret. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound right. My interpretation of this whole known/unknown thing is that the knowledge in question that is of the person/group that's making plans or decisions. It's not knowledge of something by just anybody. If you have no awareness that the possibility of your enemy having broken your code is a factor that may materially affect the outcome of whatever you're planning, I'd call that a case of unknown unknown. --173.49.78.112 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds right enough to me. Rumsfeld delivered his epistemological bon mot at a NATO meeting after 9/11 so its context was clearly military operations. Armies go to the trouble of encrypting their messages because their discovery would give an enemy a significant advantage, enough to change the outcome of planned operations. So if an enemy cracks the code, the messages become the known to the enemy. If the army remains unaware their messages are exposed, that is the unknown known for them. A historical example of what I mean was ULTRA intelligence gained by codebreaking the WW2 Enigma machine.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * “Education” and “2x2 matrix” reminds me of the following definition:


 * Freshman: One who knows not, and knows not he knows not.
 * Sophomore: One who knows not, and knows he knows not.
 * Junior: One who knows, and knows not he knows.
 * Senior: One who knows, and knows he knows.                 Bunthorne (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Mr Rumsfeld was thinking of the quote "The most important things are unknown or unknowable." by W. Edwards Deming. 92.24.73.139 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you were the only one who had access to that information, you could pretty easily become rich and wealthy, just via arbitrage. However, you are not—the fact that the information is there at all (in this case), and that you have access to it, means hundreds of millions of people also have access to it. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish a philosopher would make a serious study of what the components are that are required to make a fortune. It is more than just knowledge or education - lots of people have those. Doing a top-down analysis would involve something like this: 1) identifying the gap between a) what consumers/buyers need/desire/would-like and b) what is available; 2) of these, identify what it is feasible to supply, 3) supply it. The know-how around 2) and 3) is very well developed. But 1) and 1a) seem very poorly developed - I'm not aware of any textbooks about how to systematically search for business opportunities. (Although the techniques for evaluating potential opportunities after they have been discovered has been standardised). Unless someone can tell me different? 78.147.27.40 (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Philosophers are pedagogs (little bit in-depth than the conventional teaching methodology). I also remember that a teacher saying ‘philosophers are along’, which I did not understand what she really meant and nobody asked question. On the comment (though just added), it is difficult to except about the world of truths from philosophers on how one becomes rich or poor. In general however, once productions reached maxims (everything available in a market), and then people just need money to consume. So there is any such dynamism in a market as such one to be extreme (little bit yes). However, their must be enough people to purchase the available expensive goods. So some people have to become rich (even without their knowledge) for just to consume those goods. That is, the real value of the labor as to its supply and demand perhaps less than $50/hour, but the nominal value ample enough to consume those goods.Couchworthy (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Since knowledge is so abundant now, at least in the developed world, the limiting factor to getting very wealthy appears to be more having chutzpah, taking the initiative, taking a risk, sticking your neck out, and so on. My education, like those of others, prepared me for reading studying and researching things - it was rather lacking in feeling comfortable in standing up and initiating action. 78.146.200.137 (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Which song is this?
Can anybody which song this is, please? Thanks LooseJuice (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Walk This Way — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 02:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Daniel, ( not ) my brother
Does anyone have any idea whether the defender in the Braziilian World Champion Beach Soccer team known as Daniel is the same Daniel who played soccer in New Zealand for, I believe it was the now defunct Knights, of the Hyundai A League competition in Australia ? My understanding is that the NZ Daniel became a NZ citizen, and he may have been a striker. Maybe it is a common name in Brazil. Thanks. The Russian. C.B.Lilly 12:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)
 * Neither List of New Zealand Knights FC players nor List of Football Kingz F.C. players list any Daniel from Brazil unfortunately although they may not be complete Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick. I am sure he didn't play for the Phoenix. I wonder if anyone else remembers him. C.B.Lilly 12:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your memory's wrong - Daniel plays for the 'nix - his full name is Daniel Lins Côrtes. Grutness...wha?  23:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes, at 41, my memory is going, and my mind is sure to follow. Trouble is, we had the Kingz, then the Knights, and now the Phoenix, as the one NZ team in the Hyundai League, all in reasonably quick succession, who can keep track ? After all, no way to differentiate one mediocre team from another. I apologise if this offends, because I want them to do well too, but come on. Still, Kiwi soccer is getting better. I hope the trend continues. From this link, it appears he is not the Daniel who played in the Beach Soccer World Cup earlier this year. I suspect one may only play for one country in Soccer. I hope he does get to the World Cup, we certainly need talent like that. Not the only foreigner to play for NZ. Irene van Dyke, Scott Styris, Jamie Salmon, Grant Eliott, Mathew Sinclair, Precious McKenzie, Anthony Mosse, Roger Twose, Dipak Patel, among many others. It's not their place of origin that matters, but the black singlet they put on. C.B.Lilly 12:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - as long as they regard NZ as home and play for it with pride, I don't see too much of a problem. After all, in '82 last time we made it to the World Cup, how many kiwi-born players were there? Certainly not my personal hero of the team, Steve Wooddin... Grutness...wha?  01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

BBC iplayer
If I download a program from the site that is just about to run out, would I still be able to watch it afterward, or would it disappear from my computer at the same time as it does from the internet?

80.47.208.68 (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you get the same full allowance that you would get for any other programme, IIRC. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 13:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I think I've dowloaded programmes and then not been able to watch them after a certain time even though the video file is on my PC, it needs some extra 'key' to be viewed.91.109.247.249 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a time limit, but it is the same no matter whether you downloaded it as soon as it was added, or was about to be removed, I believe. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jarry is right - there is an expiration date of all iPlayer programmes irrespective of whether it is streamed or downloaded, however it sometimes "dissapears" off iPlayer before the expiration date in my my experience... Gazhiley (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Clive Dunn
As I mentioned in commenting on the question about POWs' back pay, my great uncle Willam Hughes was in a German POW camp with Clive Dunn. My father told me that many years ago, Clive Dunn came to New Zealand looking for him, but with no success. How they found that out, I do not know. My great uncle has long since died, but for a number of years I have been trying to get hold of Clive Dunn, to see if he remebers old uncle Bill, having written to and emailed the BBC. I know he lives in Portugal, and have emailed the British Embassy in Lisbon, but have not heard a thing in months. Is there any other way of getting hold of Mr. Dunn, since he will be turning ninety next month, and it would be very interesting to be able to see what he has to say. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 13:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)
 * You could always write to his agent. Nanonic (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall give him a call later tonight. It's about three in the morning here, so mid afternoon in London. C.B.Lilly 14:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)


 * Curiously Clive Dunn's agent's site says he was born in 1922, the Wikipedia article on him says 1920. Hmm? Perhaps you could ask him which is correct if you get to speak to him. Caesar&#39;s Daddy (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. IMDB also gives him as 1920, the same age I believe as my great uncle was ( 10 years younger than my grandmother his sister - he was the baby of the family ). I just rung London about an hour ago, and his agent's secretary said to call back about four in the morning New Zealand time. It will be very interesting to be able to speak to Mr. Dunn himself, to see if he remembers after all these years. Thanks. C.B.Lilly 12:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Suit_(clothing)
Hi,

Could you please add the list of countries where it is accepted not to wear a suit for informal meetings (such as in India or Saudi Arabia, where they use to wear something else). Thank you. 81.33.17.110 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's anything particular about interviews and business meetings -- in Israel, people wear jeans to weddings.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * People in the Southern United States wear baseball caps advertising their favorite NASCAR drivers to weddings. I'm sure you can find casual clothing of this sort worn to formal occasions all over the world.  Dismas |(talk) 07:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think there are such attires to informal gatherings in India, otherthan (might be) an implicit demand (expectations) from West on populous leaders (politicians) to be close to their people.Couchworthy (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you really meant "informal meetings"? I would dare to say that in most places you can choose what you wear on an informal meeting. ProteanEd (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just a reply to the comment above and not to the OP.
 * The OP is about informal meetings and you added another point. OP perhaps meant that populous leaders are expected not to wear suit even in informal meetings for just to maintain populous clothing. I agree that this is not important for average citizen. But if you look at this little more, there is something in it (that OP has not detailed). The countries like China and India are an example on these varying expectations. Since the green revolution, China has rapidly adapted the pants. And now, it is nether an issue to Chinese (I think) about whether they should wear pants or suites in formal or informal occasions nor an issue that such expectations could be different. However, this may not that simple in India. They may be more consciousness about what others are thinking about them or are expecting from them.Couchworthy (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have it in front of me to look this up for you, but the book Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands (redlinked currently, but here's their website) discusses the norms of all major countries, to help international travelers. It discusses the expected attire in different situations, when it's appropriate to bring a gift and what to bring, the typical attitude toward tardiness, etc. etc.  I see now there's a 2nd edition, a (paid access) online database, and editions specific to different regions.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I meant formal meeting and that changed all the meaning of the question... I was thinking about meetings such as political debates, business conference, etc. 77.225.171.63 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The question was also asked at the assistance desk: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)