Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 March 26

= March 26 =

whats with the number 666 ??
whats up with the number 666 and the obsession of new kids (especially into metal)to get themselves tattoed with 666 and getting their bands named with a name that has the numbers 666 in some or the other way??? i am the lead guitarist for krodos - my band and i dont have 167 tattoes of the numbe rof the beast on my flesh??? Whats the point? if i am able to play good with a civilized dressing sense and my audience like it, why should i dress like a wannabe? just wanted to pass this message

B E Y O U R S E L F  ! ! ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6zo6dy6 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be something to do with Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

wo!!!!!! that was something hexa what???? it has a phobia as well???

how can you be scared of a 3 digit number and like it at the same time????

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 6zo6dy6 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They like it because others fear it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah. may be.

but whatever man, the number of the beast (maiden's song) rox!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6zo6dy6 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. You've found yourself on the reference desks, which is a place for people to ask questions and hopefully get informed, referenced answers. We also work to improve the encyclopedia. It looks like you've mistaken this area for a forum, where you can pass on messages and start general conversations. If you want to generally chat or pass on messages about life, you would do better to find yourself a message board or forum. For example, here is a Google search for metal forums. You might also be interested in Number_of_the_Beast. 79.66.127.79 (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The irony here is that 666 is probably a mistranslation - I forget what the modern interpretation of "the number of the beast" is - but I'm pretty sure it's not 666. SteveBaker (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 616 (number) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See Number of the Beast. One theory is that it's an allusion to a Roman Emperor, possibly Nero. Decide for yourself how likely that is. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

everything is cool but what is with naming bands with 666??? just to look cool??

let me tell you, that is not at all cool ! thegame (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Heavy metal covers both a musical genre and a subculture of metalheads. One of the key 'things' about the subculture is non-conformity with the mainstream culture, which includes religion. Metal also tends to concern itself with death, fantasy, apocalypse, demonic beasts, etc. 666 is just part of that. You can, of course, enjoy the music without being part of the subculture, but those who are part of the subculture can be expected to find 'cool' what their subculture finds 'cool'. Just as you do. 79.66.127.79 (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So to be a nonconformist - you all have to name your bands with 666 in the title? That's really conforming to a non-conformist ethic - which is a conformity in my book! SteveBaker (talk)


 * "...non-conformity with the mainstream culture", as I said. Every subculture conforms with its own culture: that's what makes it a culture. 79.66.98.109 (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I always thought 666 was the number of the beast because it was a paw print with three pads and three claws but then again I always get hold of the wrong end of the stick.hotclaws 00:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Music
Mozart and Batehoven aren't copyright anymore are they? Where can I download all the mp3s of these musicians please? Links would be extra nice 79.75.188.83 (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Their music itself isn't in copyright, but the recorded performances of that music can still be under copyright of the artist or artists who made the recording. Similarly, published arrangements of the music may be in copyright held by the publisher or arranger. - EronTalk 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)You are confusing copyright (which attaches to the music score) with performing rights, which attach to the performance. The latter - your MP3s - may well be available in many cases only on commercial terms. HOwever you could do worse that check out the wikipedia comons, which has Mozart MP3s and Ludwig MP3s. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Performing rights are the right to perform something, not the right to restrict the use of recordings of a performance. I believe that falls under copyright. --Tango (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) While the compositions themselves won't be under copyright any more, individual arrangements and recordings might be. I expect you can find some downloadable recordings by googling, eg. (the first result there looks hopeful!). --Tango (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagishsimon & Tango - Actually you're both kind of right. Copyright protects certain things, from certain acts. So in this case, musical compositions are protected against 6 acts, of which one of the six is performance. Sound recordings are also protected, again against 6 acts, one of which is copying. It's a very subtle distinction but immensely important. But musical performance itself is not "protected" by copyright law. If you make up a song on the spot, sing it aloud, and no one records it or writes it down, there is no federal copyright to that song.


 * As to the original question, the problem is that although the underlying music is in the public domain, somebody (more accurately, some orchestra) had to play the music and record it. So that sound recording does have copyright protection. Shadowjams (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily an orchestra, Shadowjams. Both Wolfgang and Ludwig wrote a great deal of music for solo piano, for example.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh ok, I guess I'll have to buy them. Thanks for clearing that up for me 79.75.188.83 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Copyright on the performance and the publication of that performance on (for example) a vinyl record does expire though - in most countries that's 50 years after the death of the performer and 50 years after publication for the publication right - there must be a ton of old recordings of classical works that are now out of copyright that you could 'rip' into MP3 and give away and copy to your hearts' content. It's not unreasonable to ask why we can't easily find those things online (or perhaps we can?).  But when you eliminate the modern performer's copyright - by (for example) using sheet music and performing it yourself - or downloading a free 'MIDI-file' version and playing that on your PC - then there is a TON of free, legally downloadable, music out there - it's just not in MP3 format. SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Last.fm carries a lot of classical composers, including licensed use of the (already very cheap) Naxos-brand recordings of the two composers you name and various others. Just beware of the hideous 'music-box' versions which seem to float to the tops of their example playlists. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol in the Past
Going by every old movie I’ve watched, prior the 1970’s, whether from Hollywood or Pinewood, everyone is constantly drinking, or being offered, spirits (or occasionally Sherry). It seemed you couldn’t go into a meeting with your bank manager, whatever the time of day, without being offered a glass of scotch (or occasionally Sherry) from an impeccable decanter conveniently located in an attractive cabinet in the office.

My question is, especially to our “older” ref desk members, was this actually the case or solely for artistic purposes? Did people constantly spend the day half-cut?

If the answer was yes, was the cause of the change as simplistic as the cultural change in anti-drink/anti-drink driving campaigns, or was it just a gradual change, perhaps away from what we considered too snobby and upper class?

Or do some people, perhaps old public school executives in the city, still have a selection of alcohol to hand in their offices? Personally, I think it would be much more enjoyable if we could have a glass of scotch to hand whilst the consultants drone on in the conference room. 84.13.65.216 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as having alcohol in the work place, I think it is much rarer now at large companies in North America but still quite common at small companies, like the one I work at. I have friends that work for Imperial Oil (the Canadian subsidiary of ExxonMobil) who would never have alcohol in the workplace and I believe it is against company rules to drink during lunch hour.  Thankfully my workplace is not nearly this strict, and indeed has beer in the company fridges, but it is only special occasions (well a Friday at least) when people have a drink or two at lunch time or at the end of the day.  I think a lot of corporate cultures have drifted away from daily "low level" drinking, but I think corporate "binge drinking", where work colleagues go out after work and drink excessively, is as high if not higher than "back in the day", which is perhaps not a healthy development.  Or perhaps we just can't handle our liquor as well any more.  This is all analogy, I'm sure there are some drinking rate stats out there somewhere.  TastyCakes (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly relevant (in that issues in one would, I imagine, affect the other): Three-martini lunch. 94.168.184.16 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just work-place drinking I was thinking of, more the sort of “casual drinking” where if you had a visitor (at home or in the office), the first thing you would ask him was “Would you care for a drink?” and bring out the spirits. This seems to have disappeared the same as “would you care for a cigarette”, but I don’t see the huge cultural change against drinking as opposed to smoking. 84.13.65.216 (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Three-martini lunch article provides a compelling list of reasons for the diminution of workplace and lunchtime alcohol. From my own observation, it was a real thing, at least up to the 1970s in the UK, at least in the sector I was familiar with then. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember even up into the early 90’s (in the UK, in my sector), having the odd pint at lunch time was considered fine, but I wouldn’t dream of doing that now. Not sure it stopped because Jimmy Carter changed the US tax laws though.  84.13.65.216 (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My experience was that, through the 70s and the early 80s, the aforementioned "three-martini lunch" was still very common. There were very highly placed executives from whom you could expect no sense after 2:00 p.m. Some of them worked a long and hard morning in compensation but others did not. Many companies were still running "fat" with long-time employees bascially doing nothing. Then everything changed in the economy, and that was the biggest factor eliminating almost all alcohol during work hours or associated with work days. If you were going to keep you job in the new "lean machines" then you had to be better at it the everyone around you. Seldom is excellence found in heavy drinkers, and even to be known to "take strong spirits" on a regular basis was unhealthy for your corporate longevity. I worked in publishing in Canada in the early 70s. A sales rep would set up in a motel outside some small town and send out the message that he was open for business. That meant an free bar and his new books on display. After about 2 days, he would move on to the next group of towns and repeat his "book call". Nothing like that happens now, or not anywhere head office can hear about it. The changes in the driving laws are also a significant factor in the general disassociation between employment and alcohol. I still offer a guest in my home a drink at any time after 4:00 or so, and to guests coming for lunch or dinner. I am not very often taken up on the offer, however, except before and during dinners. The commonest reason for saying no is "Thanks anyway, but I am driving". // BL \\ (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no experience with this in business, but I once spent six months on United Nations duty in a small (and getting smaller!) European country. The work required various negotiations with various armed men regarding ceasefire lines, safe lines, removal of land mines, etc. And every negotiation began with the refrain "First, we drink," typically accompanied by the appearance of an old two-litre pop bottle filled with something homemade. The invariable presence of weaponry made the whole situation... interesting. - EronTalk 23:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK then, I'm older so I'm eligible. I understand your question and can attest to the commonplace of being offered alcohol in almost every lawyer's office since the 50's - coincidence - I think not! No attractive cabinet however, always from the attorney's desk drawer and always scotch. The last time that it happened to me was the last time that I was at my lawyer's office (a new guy as it turns out, the last one died). - post Y2K. The one outstanding exception was when I was there with my (now-ex) wife! -hydnjo (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in my 50's and I can't recall any time I've been offered booze in a business setting...except, in the last few years working in the computer games business - where company-funded free beer (during 'happy hour' once every a week or two - often with Pizza or whatever) is a common perk. But one (or at most two) beers just before heading home on a Friday is a far cry from the TV & movie portrayal of non-stop hard liquor consumption.  I think I've never worked for a company that didn't have a 'zero-tolerance' rule over alcohol on the premises outside of company-sponsored special events. SteveBaker (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We still have a collection of unopened liquor bottles that used to be given as X-mas gifts - at the company. Offering a drink to visitors we used to get the occasional takers and would open a bottle for them.  (And dump the rest after a while.)  That last happened about 10 years ago.  The alcohol gifts ceased at around the same time.  It's not just changed in the US.  One of my aunt's neighbors in Germany is a painter.  They used to drink beer during work.  People who had workmen in the house used to get beer for them.  Now they'd offer soft drinks or coffee.  Public awareness changed attitudes toward workplace drinking.  Binge drinking (particularly among kids) seems to be what happens now. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't exist in the 70's so nothing to say about that, but product placement might lead to more alcohol drinking in these situations in movies than in real life. (Though it seems from the above comments that there was actually a higher level of consumption back then.) Jørgen (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch to represent as being on topic, but a few years ago it was reported that social drinkers make more money. The implication being, of course, that workers continue to build beneficial business relationships over booze.  TastyCakes (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From a quick glance at the article, it looks like a case of mistaking correlation for causation to me. It appears that reseachers found social drinkers on average earn more but this doesn't prove that the drinking is the cause of the higher earnings. It's possible those who earn more are more easily able to afford to be social drinkers. Also, while I presume they've tried to account for other factors (even if not mentioned at all in the summary) like differing occupations of people who are usually social drinkers vs not, it easily possible there's something they missed Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, there are some causation vs correlation issues that don't seem to be addressed in the full report, which is here. From personal observation, though, I would say that coworkers that don't do anything with their colleagues out of work tend to get isolated socially, which can be very detrimental (depending on the person's job and the nature of the workplace).  Drinking is a very common component of what a lot of people do to socialize, and while there are of course other social activities that work-mates can engage in, it doesn't strike me as beyond belief that shunning the "bar scene" cuts out a lot of opportunities to "bond" with your work mates, at least in Western culture.  TastyCakes (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe but it doesn't obviously support their conclusion that reducing drinking will cut down on productivity or whatever since there's a good chance other socialisation activities crop up. Also IMHO it's questionable if even with things as they are now, you actually have to drink to participate in the socialisation activities, the barkeeps may not like it but I don't see any reason why you can't just abstain. Provided you have fun and don't come across as being a drag, the people may even be happy to have you as the continually designated driver. Indeed being less impaired by alcohol you may be more able to pick up things which will help you that others miss. Also while the bar scene may be important in many Western cultures, IMHO it also depends a lot on you. If you invite people out for other activites, e.g. a barbie at your place, for lunch/dinner/snacks/whatever, join any office sports teams etc etc i.e. participate and organise activities that do interest you, you probably have a lot of opportunities anyway so even if there is an effect from shunning the bar scene, it will IMHO likely be a lot smaller. I'm somewhat doubtful the survey accounted for people who are just not interested in socialising vs people who just aren't interested in social drinking. In other words, the socialisation rather then the drinking is likely the more important factor Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had assumed that drinking at work went out when massive lawsuits came in. If your boss gets you drunk and then you go and nail your scrotum to the wall, that's a lawsuit just waiting to happen, isn't it ? StuRat (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's irony: the only times I remember drinking at work were at a litigation firm, when 'we' won a big one. (Pity me, I don't like champagne.) —Tamfang (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Culture is a factor, of course. The British company I worked at in the eighties had a bar on site, even though nuclear materials were being handled frequently. Lunchtime pub visits were also common. However things became stricter into the nineties. During the same period I visited an Italian factory where wine was the standard drink served in the cafeteria at lunchtime. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Although it is common knowledge that drinking is bad for your health, apparantly it was not known in the past. A medical scientist discovered the link between drinking and cirrhosis after WW2, in the 1950s I think. Before that it was not realised. It has taken a long time for this to filter through to the public. I dont know if it has taken any longer than smoking. I tried to find the name of the discoverer here, but have not been able to. 78.149.238.193 (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd be thinking of Charles S. Lieber, who died on the 1st March this year. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe socially it's been replaced by passing a joint?hotclaws 00:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)