Humanities desk
< December 26	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 27

is it really crass to make out at a cafe?

I'm just 18 and neither me or my girl really have anywhere we can be, like each other's houses, do to family. I was wondering if it would be considered really crass to make out in the back of a cafe, if it's kind of quiet or there aren't that many people? Where else could we be in winter? don't have a car. 87.91.6.33 (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually considered uncouth to make out where other people can see you do so. See Public display of affection for a general overview. --Jayron32 00:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh. But people can see you anywhere except a home... there are no alternatives? 87.91.6.33 (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has all tradition fallen by the wayside? Whatever happened to the back of a darkened movie theater (preferably one showing Howard the Duck). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night at the Movies

Who cares what picture you see?

When you're huggin with your baby in the top row of the balcony

HTH --Trovatore (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Park? 90.195.179.14 (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You bet - "Lovers' Lane". One of the verses of the century-old song, "In My Merry Oldsmobile", starts out, "They love to 'spark' in the dark old park..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The back corner of a movie theater is a traditional make-out spot for younglings. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just be sure not to fall asleep. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you might get ejected from the cafe. After all, they don't make any money when you put your mouth on that type of dish. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And at the very least, the OP is just begging for comments like, "Get a room!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The french stereotypically kiss and embrace at cafes in public all the time. I assume that that is what "make out" means. 92.28.250.245 (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but what does "Embrace" mean? Victorian authors seem to use it to mean "kiss" but you say "kiss and embrace at cafes" -- does it just mean "hug" or "cuddle" or what??? 87.91.6.33 (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Embrace" only means "hug", as far as I'm aware. I'd like to see citations where it means "kiss". Presumably our French colleague used it because of the related French synonym s'embrasser. Marnanel (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at least I'm not the only one who makes that mistake: "Fiona embraced her. Her kiss was leisurely, intimate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.6.33 (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't necessarily imply the author thought "embrace" meant "kiss", any more than "Fiona went to London. She rode the Millennium Wheel" implies that the wheel was the means of her going to London. People often kiss other people when embracing them. Marnanel (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Embrace means putting your arms around someone else's upper body, and shows affection and/or passion. Usually done while kissing. 92.29.122.99 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Embrace" indeed literally means enfolding in the arms.[1] Related words include "bracelet" and brassiere (the reason for the latter is a long story). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French typically go one step beyond what their words literally seem to imply. So when they say embrasser they do actually kiss, when they say baiser (literally to kiss) they go the whole way. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the OP asked a similar question at the Language ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Many similar such incidents have led me to conclude that the standard of English Comprehension here is appalling. 92.29.120.235 (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the best advice could be, get a car. There are those who think the sexual revolution began in the 60s. It actually began when cars became widely available, some 50 years earlier, as it allowed young folks to go some distance away from disapproving eyes. However, if you're too young to legally own or drive a car, then those disapproving eyes need to be there. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhh, phonetics rule! The questioner wrote "neither me or my girl really have anywhere we can be......do to family". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.94.139 (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Do" and "make" are translated into the same word in the Romance languages: facere and its descendants. I'm hoping you were merely pointing out spelling errors and not making more scurrilous suggestions. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is heavily US-centric. In most parts of Europe (for example), having sex in cars is quite rare (what's the point really? it's not a particularily romantic/practical setting) whilst making out in cafees is completly uncomplicated. --Soman (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This response is heavily Euro-centric. Textorus (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the OP said what country they are from. Assuming they are in Japan or Taiwan or mainland China or most places in East Asia really, I understand that there are these things called "love hotels" which you can stay in for a couple of hours. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was the largest U.S. company in 1776?

What was the largest U.S. company in 1776? Adamdangelo (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean after the July 4th signing of the Declaration of Independence ? I suspect that the major wealth would be in the form of land holdings, and many of those were fairly inexact, so it might be difficult to say how much land each held and even harder to assign a specific value to that land. To go another way, Harvard University was apparently incorporated in 1650, so would have been a fairly large "corporation" by 1776: Harvard#Colonial. StuRat (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess probably a merchant partnership in Philadelphia, Charleston, Boston, or NYC. At that time, "corporations" as we think of them were not all that common (certainly not in the North American colonies), and often needed to be individually "chartered" by an act of a parliament or legislature... AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Hancock was the richest man in the 13 colonies at that time. He inherited his uncle's shipping business, House of Hancock. Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to connect him with the first answer above, he was also treasurer of Harvard. We don't really know if Hancock was the richest, but he was certainly among the richest. Was he richer than slave trader Henry Laurens? Or a dozen others reputed to be the richest men in their respective colonies? Hard to say. —Kevin Myers 23:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AICTE accreditation

Is a degree from a college without AICTE accreditation valid?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.47.135 (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many different accredidation agencies around the world, so it depends on where you are. Higher education accreditation covers many of them (follow relevent links to learn more). Without making any statements on which accreditation agencies are "valid", generally any degree from an institution without valid accreditation is pretty much worthless. --Jayron32 02:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Harry Reid budget bill lookup?

I am trying to find information about the $1.1 trillion, 1900 page bill which was unable to be passed this month. I can't find an article on it, nor a section on any existing page. Can anyone point me to it? If I knew what the bill was called (tried "omnibus" and "Reid budget" bill) then I could probably find it, but I'm not sure Wikipedia has an article on it. Thanks in advance, and I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask the question! bye 69.68.24.132 (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to http://www.senate.gov and click on "Legislation and records" it allows you to search for every proposed and passed bill, and it has the text of all of them. You can find it there.--Jayron32 03:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Wow, thank you so much Jayron! It is called the (senate) FY 2011 Omnibus Appropriations Act bill. Thank you for that website, which I found it easily. It's amazing how I got an answer 9 minutes after my post. Thank you so much! Wikipedia is awesome and I hope editors like you stick around for a long time. Thanks again, 69.68.24.132 (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

StuRat (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yale M. A.

Hiya. The entry on James Truslow Adams in the Dictionary of Literary Biography informs me that The Yale M. A. frequently mentioned among his accomplishments was obtained by a simple application through the mail in 1900, before that institution established standards which necessitated formalized instruction for the degree. I'm not so sure how to turn my doubts about this into an answerable question, but: really now? You'd just write a letter to Yale, enclose a cheque maybe, and you get an M. A. back? --Janneman (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is another Yale? There is no rule that a college has a completely unique name, one could imagine such variations as Yale Institute, Yale College, University of Yale, Yale Academy, etc... There are several names of schools which are duplicated in the U.S., most prominently the University of Miami and Miami University, or perhaps Indiana University and Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Note that all four of these are well regarded, accredited universities. But there is nothing stoping a diploma mill from adopting a similar name as an existing university, especially in the 19th and early 20th century, when protections against such things were likely less stringent. --Jayron32 15:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that such a bad thing? The universities of Cambridge, Oxford, and Dublin all continue the exact same practice to this day. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Yale had inherited the system in the early 1900s. (Edit: To existing graduates, that is. If Adams wasn't already a Yale graduate, then we need some other explanation.)Marnanel (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yale indeed early on generally awarded an A.B. degree at graduation, with an M.A. to follow 2 3 years later with no additional course work, a practice copied from British colleges. I'm not certain when Yale stopped that practice. - Nunh-huh 05:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting myself, it was 3 years...here are the pertinent passages from Brooks Mather Kelley's Yale: A History: The Masters (in 1717) "were young men who had taken the bachelor's degree (and thus were called "Sir"), lived godly lives for at least three years, and were now going to show the knowledge they had acquired since receiving the B.A. In later years, the M.A. was given automatically on application three years after graduation to any alumnus who had merely avoided conduct of which the college authorities disapproved." In 1872, "the Master of Arts degree remained in the hands of the college [not the graduate school], but the requirements for the degree were finally raised in 1874. It will be recalled that by the nineteenth century the M.A. had become something of a joke. James Hadley wrote of it in 1850,

The M.A. is no honor at all. It certifies indeed that a man has been B.A. 3 years earlier, but the first diploma certifies that. It proves also that a man has paid 5 dollars to the College, but that only shows him 5 dollars poorer than he was before.... It is notoriously no certificate either of application or attainment. If it had been from the first what it now is, it could not have come into use, and being what it now is, must ere long go out of use or change its form to something significant.

It took, in fact, twenty-five more years to change. Harvard granted the old degree in 1872 for the last time and Yale voted in March of that year not to give the degree after 1874 'unless satisfactory evidence has been given that the candidate has been pursuing professional, literary, or scientific studies since receiving his first degree.' It was further provided that the degree would only be given after one year's study and only if the candidate was a graduate of two years' standing." So James Truslow Adams's M.A. degree awarded in 1900 would presumably have been on the basis of requirements more rigorous than simple application, Dictionary of Literary Biography notwithstanding. Unless there was a slip-up of some kind :). - Nunh-huh 19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOmalis in North America

Does Canada and USA have embassies in Somalia and if not, how did Somalis ended up in Canada and USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.67 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. allows imigration from areas of the world it does not have diplomatic relations with; many such imigrants may apply for refugee status or Right of asylum. --Jayron32 16:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no U.S. Embassy in Somalia. U.S. citizens living or traveling in Somalia are encouraged to sign up for the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate in order to obtain updated information on local travel and security. ... Enrolling is important; it allows the State Department to assist U.S. citizens in an emergency."[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has no embassy there. The High Commission of Canada to Kenya also takes care of Somalia and a few other countries. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American WWII newspaper

What is the title of this U.S. WWII newspaper? Twilightchill t 15:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly it is U.S. News, in 1933 U.S. News & World Report was founded as United States News and did not add the "& World Report" until 1946. --Jayron32 16:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"AP" means the story is from Associated Press. A Google News archive search [3] shows other newspapers bringing the story. Do you really need the name of the particular newspaper in the image? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turned interest because of its unique headline. Twilightchill t 18:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's headline is "Russ Girl Terror of East Prussia" while the headline of the Ottawa Citizen hit in my Google search is the rather similar "Red Army Girl Unseen Terror of East Prussia". I see you added [4] the unidentified Flickr image as source in Roza Shanina before coming here. I think the Ottawa Citizen story with name and date of newspaper (and Google News as authentication) would be a better choice. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same story (with a different headline) ran in the Los Angeles Times as "Girl Sniper in Red Army Kills Five Nazis in One Day," Los Angeles Times (24 September 1944), page 10. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Local papers (then and now) very frequently write their own headlines for wire-service stories, syndicated columns, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For many years, headline writers used "Russ" to mean "Russia" or "Russian" (or "USSR"). Probably not so much anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

australian law and the paparazzi

Hi, a few years back, Nicole Kidman was being followed by some of the paparazzi in or around Sydney, and she tried to get a restraining order on at least one of them. At one stage, I saw on the news that the judge had thrown the case out of court, but I haven't been able to find that on the internet. Actually, a judge did eventually rule in her favour, but the ruling seems only to refer to his presence near her home.

I'm not interested in the specific facts of the case, so please don't move this to the Entertainment desk, and I'm not a celebrity or a paparazzo, so I'm not asking for legal advice. I just want to know what the law says in relation to people following celebrities around for nothing more than the sake of photographing them for money. Can they ever be barred completely from approaching, say, within a hundred metres, or can one only get restrictions where residential property is concerned? Is it markedly different for ordinary people than for public figures? I'm primarily interested in the Australian situation, but would also be curious about the experience worldwide. Thanks in advance, It's been emotional (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., you certainly can ask for a restraining order to prevent a specific person from coming within a certain distance of you. But the person has to do something threatening or illegal, like stalking, before an order can be issued. If Nicole Kidman goes walking down the street, she can't stop you from walking up and taking a picture of her, as far as I know. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She could always have her escort fire a flare gun at you: [5]. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POLITICAL QUESTION: how do we find the right amount of government regulation without stifling business and making them do too much tax

i am in AMerica and I believe that too much goverment regulation and taxes makes it harder for the Man to do business. That is why people go to Florida and Texas because there are no such things as taxes and regulation down there (ok there is some, but not as much as up north). On one hand, if u take away all the regulations, then companies like Enron and BP and Goldman Sachs will steal all the moneys and pollute all the environments. But on the other hand if u don't let people run their business and u tax them too much, they will move to other states and other countries or they will exit their industry entirely and do something else with their time and we won't have any jobs. HELP! i don't know how to solve this problem, so how do we go about solving this difficult problem.--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the eternal problem of governance and regulation, and one that nobody has managed to solve to a degree that everyone agrees with them. It is going to be an essentially contested question as long as there is governance. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China's government does a fair bit of intervening in peoples' lives. Probably at the other end of the spectrum from the USA. China has a very healthy economy. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China's interventions are more political than economic, though. Their economy is largely free-market (though certainly the government is not shy about making macroeconomic decisions aimed at helping their own companies relative to foreign ones).

There is a point of view that economic freedom leads inevitably to political freedom, in the long run. Chile appeared to be a counterexample for ten, fifteen years, but seems to have come around. China will be another interesting test case. I hope it's true. --Trovatore (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do significantly less regulation of business, though, hence all the poisoned products coming out of China. StuRat (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's actually more complicated from an economic point of view. The Chinese government does manipulate the Chinese currency and economy pretty directly in many important ways. It is free market in some ways, managed in others. My understanding is that even the PRC government still sees this as a real question to ask and their actions as very experimental. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One naive answer is to get to the point where you piss everyone off equally, then you know you are doing a good job. That is, if half the people think there's too much regulation, and half think there's not enough, you are golden. With taxes, it's trickier, as you can't just ask if they want to pay more or less tax, since 90% would always say less. You have to ask "do you want lower taxes and less of the following government services..." to get a useful answer. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, the questioner seems to take it for granted that 'government', 'business', and 'taxes' are all necessary. As to whether all or any actually are, this is also a political question, though it's worth mentioning that for most of its existence, Homo sapiens seems to have managed to live well enough without. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I agree. In a small tribe of hunter-gatherers, there probably was a leader ("government"), who sometimes took stuff from people ("taxes"). Some specialization in work probably also existed, like a person who made spears and exchanged them with hunters for food (a "business"). StuRat (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what ethnographic studies of contemporary hunter-gatherers seem to suggest, though there seems to have been a degree of variability in this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall some very early evidence of trade, such as the presence of materials not native to the area. This implies trade over long distances, but trade within the tribe probably happened even earlier. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be misleading to necessarily assume that objects moved as 'trade' in the sense that is normally used. One could be looking at exchange if 'gifts' instead, though the distinction is not always clear-cut. This is a complex issue, and probably getting rather off-topic in regard to the original question though, so I'll just say that you can't explain the workings of a hunter-gatherer economy well if you try to shoehorn it into the analytic categories of a technologically-advanced market system. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is also a good argument for not using hunter-gatherer systems to understand technologically-advanced market systems, either. While the idea of a governmentless society has entranced various anarchists for some time, there is basically zero evidence that such approaches could be used successfully for societies of the size, complexity, and technological development that exists in most modern nations. I find primitive tribes interesting, but I don't want to live in one. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I brought up China was to emphasise the USA's position at one end of the spectrum. There are many countries who tax and regulate a lot more than the USA and who currently have very healthy economies. Just trying to move the discussion beyond the US view of these things. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mainly countries in Europe do that, but there are also many nations with lower regulation and taxes than the US, primarily 3rd world nations. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the original question, one key is to make sure that regulations are transparent and have a reason. That's particularly important for small firms. Rather than have small firms fill in lots of licence applications for different regulatory agencies, they should have a simplified system where they only fill in one or two applications, and there is less risk of major unforeseen costs. Not so simple with large firms perhaps, because if you consult them on the regulations they will try and write the regulations themselves. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why picas?

I've used desktop publishing software for ages, and never really known why picas continue to be used as a unit of measurement. They are utterly unintuitive, in my opinion, and are totally useless for calculation (46p3.36 + 25p10.2 = 72p1.56.... whaaaa?). I see from the article where they came from, but is there any reason to use them, other than the fact that they have become something of a standard? Do they do anything that inches or millimeters don't do? Do they convey any advantages other than being a silly little system that you have to use in order to be a graphic designer? Any thoughts, insights, and speculations appreciated. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to Pica (typography), correct? Your link goes to a disambiguation page. Buddy431 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Units of measurement have a certain amount of cultural inertia. Its why the U.S. has never abandoned the base 2-3-4-12-16 system it currently uses for a simple base-10 system like the metric system. Metric measurements have no inherent disadvantages, and are easier to covert between, than the established U.S. system; and yet people are resistant to change simply because it is change. Industry specific measurements, such as picas used in printing, or troy ounces used in precious metals or any of the other odd measurements keep existing from the sheer inertia it takes to get everyone to just change at the same time. --Jayron32 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see any advantage to switching to metric. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The advantages of metric are clear if you have to deal with a lot of measurements. Three yards plus two feet plus five inches is how many miles? That's not the easiest thing to do even with a calculator (unless it is a Google-style calculator that automatically converts units for you). Two meters plus two millimeters plus five centimeters is how many kilometers? That's trivial if you just write down the numbers and know what the prefixes mean. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing a meter by 3 is not so easy. It's unfortunate that they made the meter as one ten-millionth, or whatever it was, of the distance from the equator to the north pole. When they found it was 39.37 inches, if they had just said, OK, let's make it 36 inches, that would have been fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that in the case of the US metric system, there would be some large cost (mentally and financially) to switching off of metric at this point. For picas, it's hard for me to see what it would be. Everyone who uses picas must also know some other system just as well (e.g. metric or imperial), and there is no financial cost (it would involve simply changing your preferences in your graphic design program). Yet it is still the "standard," still the default. It just seems to me that it is utterly without any additional value; it doesn't make anything easier, and it seems odd to have yet another arbitrary unit, one even more arbitrary than the imperial system. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me phrase this another way. I know standards are arbitrary. My real question is: is there any reason to keep using picas? Does the pica/point system convey any advantages? Could graphic designers turn around tomorrow and say, "like many 18th century French experiments, it probably seemed like a better idea at the time than it does today; let's just switch over to inches or metric and be done with picas once and forever." Would anything be lost? Would there be any costs? --Mr.98 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An advantage of the inches-picas-points system is that the numbers 72 and 12 can be divided into more integers than can 10. Twelve can be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. Seventy-two can be divided into a bunch of smaller numbers without getting into decimals. This is why the Babylonians liked the number 360 a lot and one of the reasons why computer people like 8s instead of 10s. The question is why there are 6 picas to an inch when 6 can only be divided into 2 or 3. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose. Though interestingly, with modern computer design software, you can't use a fractional representation for measurement at all, hence the goofy things like 25p10.2 (as opposed to, say, 25¹/₁₆). All of which seems like more of an argument to get rid of it — if we're doing this all on computers anyway at this point, the need to have numbers that form easy fractions is totally obliterated. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. 98 -- Such measurements were originally created for the purposes of professional printers and type-founders in the pre-20th-century days of hand-setting of physical metal type. Very few people outside the printing and publishing trades had to deal with picas in everyday life before the 1980s, when publishing software started to come to home computers... AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]