Humanities desk
< October 3	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 5 >

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.

October 4

Calculation of NBN rate of return

How is the 6-7% expected return for the Australian National Broadband Network calculated? From a Herald Sun article: The KPMG and McKinsey implementation study "finds that the fibre optic network can probably be built for much less than $43 billion, with the government contribution a maximum of $26 billion, cheaper than anticipated. The government believes this is not enough to justify fully privatising the project initially, but the project should fully return taxpayer's money than give a return of 6-7 per cent." http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/pm-warns-on-broadband-network/story-e6frfh4f-1225862954094

Is it possible to calculate the return (using information contained in the Herald Sun article, e.g expected cost of the NBN) using a simple arithmetic return formula? Or is the return simply just quoted from the KPMG and McKinsey implementation study. 124.149.25.63 (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the following 3 lines from the article:

It finds that the fibre optic network can probably be built for much less than $43 billion, with the government contribution a maximum of $26 billion, cheaper than anticipated.
This will return to the govermnment an eventual income stream of $40 billion over 15 years.

The government believes this is not enough to justify fully privatising the project initially, but the project should fully return taxpayer's money than give a return of 6-7 per cent.

I get a slightly lower answer assuming the $40bn is received as an annuity of $(40/15)bn at the end of each of the next 15 years in return for an investment of $26bn now. Using the formula for the PV of a fixed annuity, I get an answer of 5.94%... Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I can do a bit of maths but I don't get finance. I'm guessing you're using the formula below, with P=$26 bn (present value), R=(40/15)bn=$2.6 bn (periodic payment in an annuity), n=15 and solving for i? 124.149.25.231 (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P\,=\,R\left[{\frac {1-{\frac {1}{\left(1+i\right)^{n}}}}{i}}\right]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.25.231 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - that's the sum I did. I used the goalseek function in Excel... Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated.124.149.25.231 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old World sorcery

There is a fairly abundant literature in French on scopélisme (from the Latin scopulus, meaning big stone), a practice that consisted in dumping stones in fields in the hope that it would cause farmers to stop tilling the land on which shepherds had traditionally been free to roam. This practice is said to have existed in Europe from Greek and Roman times up to the Middle Ages, when it became associated with sorcery. I haven't so far been able to find any sources in English on the subject, though I wouldn't be too surprised if it already has a Wikipedia article. Does this succint description ring any bells ? — Mu (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. In England, as I recall, the Medieval progression was more in the direction of the nobility converting their land from farming to sheepherding, as wool gradually became more and more profitable. Looie496 (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but on looking into it I came across the bizarre case of the sailing stones. And on a purely coincidental note, I'm sure, I believe scopalamine has been used by witches, sometimes, for the purpose of flying and all that sort of thing. :) Cheers, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google results suggest it is an ancient Arabian custom (but I don't know if that is true, or just an typical occult claim about everything being "eastern"). It is also mentioned in Justinian's Digest, that's pretty interesting. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English for French "scopélisme" just happens to be "scopelism" (same origin of course)... --Azurfrog (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social classes

The classification of social classes based on occupation is Blue-collar worker, White-collar worker, Grey-collar worker and Gold-collar worker. Now I've problem categorizing the following occupations:

Fisherman, farmer, babysitter, security guard, nurse, Medical Laboratory Scientist, laboratory technicians - are these grey-collar jobs?
Surgeons, engineers, scientists - do they belong to white collar or gold collar? A clerk or a receptionist is considered a white-collar employee. Compared to a clerk, a scientist is highly qualified. Is it right to put a scientist and a clerk in the same category?
Waiter, bartender - blue or grey???
Stripper, actor - an actor, stripper does not perform semi-administrative work. He/she is not a manual laborer. Which category they belong to?
Barber, Tattoo artist, piercer - grey collar or blue collar?
DTP artist - grey or blue?

thx --Galactic Traveller (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article on grey-collar lists most of your first group. Also, workers in the service sector don't really fit well. These could include waiters, bartenders, strippers, barbers, tattoo artist. Grsz¹¹ 03:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social classes (in the United States, anyhow) are largely a function of income. Those collar colors do relate to income, but they also relate to the relative component of whether you are paid for your mind or for your hands, so to speak. <— all original research. Bus stop (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: "Grey-collar" and "Gold-collar" are neologisms and most people won't have any idea what you are talking about if you use these terms. You should also probably be mocked. Generally this type of categorization of jobs is binary: either it's blue-collar, or it's white-collar. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on "grey-collar" and "gold-collar" worker should be considered for deletion as failed neologisms. I searched Google News Archive for uses of the various "collars' 2000 through 2010, and the results are "White collar:" 1130 instances; "Blue collar:" 3560 instances. "Gold collar:" 14 instances, and "Grey (or gray) collar:" only 6 instances. Edison (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd vote for deletion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google News is useful, not infallible. A google search of China Daily shows 129 uses of "gold collar", and the Straits Times had more too. It's a loan phrase from Chinese and would be widely understood in Hong Kong and Singapore English, I think. Matt's talk 17:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Pink-collar worker (see also Template:Socialclass). --Nricardo (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find a quote...

but I can't remember the words or anything else except the general sentiment, so I come here. One of the early Church Fathers (perhaps one of the Apostolic Fathers, although I'm not sure) whose teaching on Christian soteriology included a statement that the only elements of humanity that could be saved through Christ were those elements that Christ also possessed: in other words, if Christ hadn't possessed a human body, our bodies couldn't have been saved by Christ. I seem to remember reading a nice and succinct quote (presumably a translation from the Greek; I don't think that it was a modern writer's paraphrase of the original) from this theologian that expresses this position. Any ideas (1) who this theologian was, and (2) an English translation of this quote? Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that soteriology article really sucks...but it does point to Athanasius of Alexandria, and the succint-ish quote "the Son of God became man so that we might become God", which sort of seems like what you're saying. Maybe this is also related to divine filiation, which has similar quotes from Irenaeus and Aquinas. It's a basic tenet of any Chalcedonian sect of Christianity that Christ needed a physical body (as opposed to something like Docetism or Arianism where the body was either secondary or a complete illusion), but I'm not sure if that specifically covers what you're asking. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the correct context; the quote from St. Athanasius is the same sentiment as what I'm trying to remember, but it doesn't explicitly go as far. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First person to declare the earth mostly ocean

Who was the first to widely assert that the earth's surface is mostly water? Shadowjams (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient Greeks often speculated that the oikoumene (known world) was surrounded by an encircling ocean of indefinite extent, but not much factual was known until people started exploring the Pacific beginning in the 16th century... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR, but surely the peoples of the Pacific islands could have been in no doubt that most of the world was water? Cultures that lived on islands a person could walk around in a few hours, or a day, or a week, knew that they lived on specks surrounded by ocean, with nearest neighbours perhaps several days' paddling away. They were at the centre of their universe, as we all are: they just happened to be correct, centuries before the European navigators caught up with their knowledge. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is whether or not we count the generalizations of this kind as being really informed. "The world is mostly water," a guy on an island in the middle of the ocean says. He's right, but he doesn't have any good reason for it, either more than the guy in the Sahara desert who says, "the world is mostly sand" would be just describing the "world" as he could see it from his local area. I take the question to be, who first realized in what we might today call a semi-accurate fashion that the world was mostly water. It seems hard to me that it would be difficult to do that before the Age of Exploration. What you need is not a few people going out and seeing what they can see (which is very limited, even for people who went very far), but the cumulative information from many people being stitched together as a world picture. A map like this (which was the earliest full-world map I saw on history of cartography) makes it pretty clear how vast the oceans are, and is really different in this way than local maps (or local knowledges). This map from 1502 by contrast, still has so many "unknowns" on it that one might not be sure. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who first said it, but the basis for saying it didn't exist until 1522, when the survivors of Magellan's crew returned to Europe. Before them, no European had crossed the Pacific, and everybody underestimated how wide it was. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. 98 said it better than I could have. That's exactly what I'm looking for. A somewhat informed opinion, or at least the time-frame where that understanding came to be accepted. Fundamentally it would have to be sometime after the entire globe had been explored, but before we take photos from space (obviously). I'm just trying to narrow down that time-frame. Shadowjams (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there were unexplored areas of the Pacific which theoretically could have contained mid-size land-masses well into the 18th century (something which Swift took advantage of for Gulliver's Travels), but the general trend was already becoming fairly clear in the 17th-century... AnonMoos (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question needs to be rephrased as "Who was the first white man to assert that the earth's surface is mostly water?" Polynesian navigation was ahead even of Norse navigation and can be dismissed only in phrasing the question this way.--Wetman (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the Polynesians knew nothing about how much land and water there was outside of the areas they traveled in... AnonMoos (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unto You our Prayers Arise—Gustav Gottheil

I am trying to track down this English poem by Gustav Gottheil (as in, any information about it, the book it originally appeared in, whether it appears in an abridged form here etc.) but don't seem to be having any luck. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia the same Hebrew prayer is often accompanied by a different, but remarkably similar, hymn, To Thee we Give Ourselves Today – basically, does anyone happen to know anything about this at all? Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google books comes up with lots of stuff, in particular http://books.google.com/books?id=jqbxtdy8gkIC but a general search on his name finds lots too. Ariel. (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal marriages

Although we have the examples of Peter the Great and Franz Josef of Austria marrying for love rather than reasons of state, it appears that the English surpassed the other nations when it came to making matrimonial alliances based on love. Four of Henry VIII's six wives were chosen by him, Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville out of passion, and there is the 20th century example of the Duke of Windsor. Can anybody please give me their opinions why English monarchs were thus inclined?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany (and some German-influenced areas) there was often a strong insistence on equality of status in royal/aristocratic marriages, and an unequal marriage was "morganatic" and could not produce heirs with a valid claim. In England, there was no morganatic marriage, and no formal requirement of equality of status in marriage, so no legal requirement that royals marry other royals -- though there was something of a policy that children of British monarchs should not marry British subjects (but rather foreigners) between James II's marriage to Anne Hyde and Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll's marriage. AnonMoos (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon Elizabeth Woodville was indeed the last English-born queen.--Wetman (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary of Teck was born at Kensington Palace. 216.93.213.191 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US supreme court ties

What happens if the US Supreme court gives a 4-4 decision because a justice reccused him/herself? Googlemeister (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lower court's decision holds. Fribbler (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One example was the case of Free v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., in 2000. --Anonymous, 16:17 UTC, October 4, 2010; link added 08:40 UTC, October 5.

Flowers of the Forest

Following the question above "English Conquests" I was looking at our article on the Battle of Flodden. I knew, or at least I thought I did, that the "Flowers of the Forest" (an old Scottish lament) referred specifically to the archers of Ettrick Forest, who had earned that knickname after their bravery at the Battle of Falkirk (1298), but were wiped out in the last stand at Flodden. None of the pages I have linked mention this and I'm blessed if Mr Google can find a reference to it apart from a couple of CD covers[1]. I've run out of time now; can anyone else help please? Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will this do? Fribbler (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done sir!! Alansplodge (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masterful googlery like this makes lurking at the Reference desk rewarding! Now William Home Lizars, Lizars' Scottish Tourist: A guide to the picturesque scenery, antiquities, etc., (c1847), 18th ed. 1850:264, should be edited into the relevant article.--Wetman (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conculation

Anyone got a dictionary definition, and synonyms of 'conculation'.?94.72.245.124 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of searching came up with "conculate" appearing to mean to tread underfoot though my brain is to addled today to work out a possible Latin root. I also found it used as "conculation" with reference to law but there was insufficient context to come up with a definitive meaning. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin "conculcare" (note the extra C - meaning to trample or tread underfoot) comes from "calx", which is a heel or a foot (and also chalk or limestone, but apparently that is unrelated to the "heel" meaning). I don't think there is a Latin word "conculare", although if there was I suppose it would be related to "culus", which Lewis and Short modestly translate as "the fundament", the buttocks. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a Google Books search, every example that comes up is a pretty obvious spelling error. It would be helpful to know the sentence in which the word appears. Looie496 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Painting of Arius

Hi. :) Can anybody identify the artist and date of this painting? I've tried poking about a bit, but I haven't been able to come up with anything. The image was used as the cover of this book, but the "search inside" function searches a different edition with a different image. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see this google books

quote : "Cover shows detail of Anonymous Deacon (Euplos) first half of the 13th century, Athens, Byzantine Museum"

Does this mean it's not actually Arius but St. Euplos??

Can you take it from there...Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not St. Euplius, but a place, Euplos, of which that (anonymous) guy was an archdeacon. If that's the case then the image probably comes from a bunch of frescoes in the church of St. Leontius in Strumica, in Macedonia, if our article is accurate (but I guess the frescoes are actually in the museum in Athens, according to the blurb on the back cover of the book). The painting definitely looks like Byzantine art - I was going to say it was much earlier, like 5th or 6th century, but their style never really changed much over the centuries. I was also going to guess that it either comes from somewhere sympathetic to Arius, or it's not Arius at all, because it's extremely unlikely that Chalcedonian Christians would have painted Arius as a normal person, or at all. It's pretty boggling that the cover of a book about Arius would have such a completely unrelated image, but then, the author doesn't have any say in that... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Is it not totally unlikely that Arius would have a Halo (religious iconography). I'm guessing that the numerous articles that use this as an illustration of Arius need the image deleted, but won't do it, since I'm just guessing.87.102.88.253 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Perhaps that's why they changed the image for later editions...if it's not the subject, it may not make the best book cover. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition, the one you pointed to on Amazon, says the cover is a painting of Arius by Andrea di Buonaioto; we don't have an article on him but he was a painter of the Florentine School in the 14th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it part of the painting on the left wall profiled here (search for Arius)? Novaseminary (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look at things closer, especially the description here and a zoom of the poster version here, I think the di Buonaiuto painting at Sanata Maria Novella is actually the basis for the cover of the 2002 revised version of the book, not the 2001 paperback cover on which the above pasted image appeared. That leads me to believe the image pasted above is more likely a fresco at the church of St. Leontius in Macedonia. Novaseminary (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got this book out of the Library recently, to pursue a study on Saint Athanasius. However, the study was regarding the position of Arius and his followers. The book I received was: ISBN no: 0-334-02850-7, and it was priced: £16.95. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The illustrated conventional fresco portrait from Euplos, then, is not Arius and should be removed from the Wikipedia article to Talk:Arius..--Wetman (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for taking care of it. For the latest on the deletion of this image (and a similar image on commons), see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_September_26#File:Arius_portrait_image_for_article.jpg. Novaseminary (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: https://byzantineattica.eie.gr/byzantineattica/view.asp?cgpk=658&xsl=detail&obpk=420&lg=en has some info. --Achim55 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Condoleezza Rice

In your entry for Condoleezza Rice, there seems to be acontradiction regarding her father, In the section "Early Life", her father John Wesley Rice, Jr., he is described as being: "Reverend Rice was a guidance counselor at Ullman High School and minister of Westminster Presbyterian Church, which had been founded by his father."

But, in the section "Family and Personal Life", he is described as: John Wesley Rice, married Clara Bailey, to whom he remained married until his death, in December 2000, aged 77. He was a football and basketball coach throughout his life."

Which is it -- a Minister or a football and basketball coachMcgremaud (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe both, (but no mention of basketball) see http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/29/us/john-wesley-rice-jr-77-father-of-bush-adviser.html Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see [2] Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it is not our entry, it is as much yours as it is ours. And BE BOLD and change it if you think it can be improved. --Lgriot (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many unborn inheritors?

How many generations of unborn inheritors (unborn individual(s) may be named in a person's will? For example, if grandchildren exist and are provided for in a will, can provisions be made on the same will speculating that their unborn grandchildren be partakers of a portion of that exact same estate (inheritence)?If so, since in recent years, limits on the number of future "recipints" have been established, what is the generational extent possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this varies by what country and state you live in. For what it's worth, the original poster's IP address seems to geolocate to Florida. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rule against perpetuities has some useful but rather complex details. Warofdreams talk 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fork from Science desk question

I'm not sure if such intra-Desk comment-shopping is permissible – please by all means correct me if I am falsely assuming it is, or am going about it in the wrong way.
I have asked a question at the Science desk concerning the likelihood of a certain nuclear-weapons strategy having already been implemented by states with a capacity to do so. I think the technological issues are not too much in dispute there right now, and the question at this point seems to swing on policy issues about which more information might be best provided from the Social Sciences. For those of you Humanities desk regulars who might not be also attending to questions at the Science desk, but who might have useful light to shed on this question, I thought I would post this notice here with the hope that you might wish to do so. Please do not respond to this here, though, but rather there. Thanks! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]