Humanities desk
< January 4	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 6 >

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.

January 5

Enlgihtenment

Which statement reflects an argument of Enlightenment philosophers against the belief in the divine right of kings?

1. god has chosen all government rulers
2. independence is built by military might
3. a capitalist economic system is necessary for democracy
4. the power of the government is derived from the governed
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie1218 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the information at the top of this page-- the reference desk will not do your homework for you. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. WikiDao ☯ 01:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Divine Right of Kings and Thomas Hobbes#Opponents. schyler (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens to betsy, kid, the answer is obvious if you use a smidgen of reason. look at the choices given, and think! You can get by in life if you rely on other people to give you information, but if you rely on other people to think for you, you're just going to be everybody's patsy. --Ludwigs2 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, you should be able to get that Q right even if all you know about The Enlightenment is how to spell it. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link for you: Age of Enlightenment. StuRat (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its #4.Grandpamithras (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mariner's Mirror 1926

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I'm attempting to transcribe a few articles from Google Books Snippet View, and having apparently run out of bits of text that I can get, I was wondering if anyone might happen to have the journal in question on paper, or in some other form that would enable me to get the missing words. What I have can be found at User:Roscelese/Mariner's Mirror.

The first and third sections are complete; I'm looking to fill the lacuna in the second section (at the beginning before "frigate").

I'll re-state here, as I state there, that this is a temporary project, so that I can use the complete articles as references to expand/improve Action of 8 December 1669 - unless I find out that the articles are public domain, I do not intend to put them in article namespace.

Thanks much!

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I cannot help, but I wanted to note that if you do not get an answer here you might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. I have sometimes had luck there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a journal from 1926 is in the public domain! Why do Google restrict it to snippet view as if to protect the rights of a copyright holder? Marnanel (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, copyright in the UK lasts 70 years from the death of the author. It's easy to believe someone writing in 1926 was alive in 1940. Absent knowledge of the fate of the authors, it is safe to assume it is in copyright. Which means, incidentally, that scraping it from google onto wikipedia, even within User: space, is a copyright violation. It's one thing to scrape it for your personal use; another entirely to scrape it and republish it on a public forum. I cannot see that standing a fair use test. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm aware that it's not fair use, and as soon as I finish using it for the article, I plan to remove the text from my userpage. (I never intended it for public consumption; it's so I can look at all the text at once while I write.) I just found it easier to keep it on an internet tab than in a program like Word or Notepad, but if you think there could be a legal issue, I'll do something else with it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I can't believe I overlooked that, since copyright work is what I do here. Tagishsimon is certainly right that we can't host it here unless we know it's public domain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A crime even if committed unknowingly and with innocent intent?

On this page http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl3/860/ it says "Civil fines may be imposed even if the violation was committed unknowingly and with innocent intent".

Are there other countries where you can be fined or worse for things done unknowingly and unintentionally, or is it just an American thing? How can that be justified as being fair, I wonder? Thanks 92.28.242.164 (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News runs a lot of stories about being fined for something that a toddler has done, and the person fined either didn't know it was an offence or was unaware it happened. So, count the UK in. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That story is not clear cut. The council say she admitted the offence at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has long been divide between mens rea and actus reus--that is, the intent and the action. Our articles on mens rea and Strict liability (criminal) may make interesting reading. I am far more familiar with U.S. law than that of other nations, but I believe that civil and criminal fines for unintended offenses may not be that rare. The latter article points out the position of several other countries; to add to the above cases in the UK, the article mentions a case where a pharmacist was penalized for accepting a forged prescription even though he did not know the prescription was forged, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain (1986) 2 ALL ER 635. It also points out that in 2008 a 15 year old boy was prosecuted for statutory rape in England even though he believed his partner was his age. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the age of consent in the UK is 16, wouldn't he have committed statutory rape even if she had been his age? Pais (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key thing here is he was guilty of statutory rape of a child under 13 which I guess is a more serious offence. From [1] there's no defence if the child is under 13. On the other hand from that and [2] it seems they both would have been guilty if they were over 13 but under 16 and believed each other to be in that age range. (In fact I think technically the girl was probably also guilty of statutory rape albeit not of under 13.) However if either one genuinely believed the person to be over 16 even if they were not (but were over 13) then that person would not have committed an offence. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least partially relevant : Ignorantia juris non excusat. APL (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the question isn't whether someone commits an action of their own volition without knowing the law; its the other way around: Whether if you don't know the results of your actions, even if you do know the law. The threshold I believe is whether or not a "reasonable person" would understand that the consequences would be forthcoming. It makes a difference between, say, "accidental death" and "negligent homicide". There is also Willful blindness and things like that to consider. If someone sneaks onto a shooting range during a training exercise, and you accidentally shoot them without seeing them, it may be considered different than if you were to fire your gun randomly into the air, and have the returning bullet accidentally hit some one. But, then again, IANAL. --Jayron32 15:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question involves two issues: ignorance of the regulation, and ignorance of dealing with a prohibited person, good, service, or entity. The article criticises the 3000 + entities with prohibited dealings, this is a problem for businesses because they will be held liable under the principle of ignoratia legis non excusat. The article also criticises the strict liability standard of the regulations because mistake of fact concerning the nature of the dealing or the entity so engaged is no defense to these regulations. Ignoratia legis non excusat is in fact very relevant here. What is not relevant is either of the doctrines of the reasonable (prudent) person or willful blindness. The first involves criminal negligence, which is a mens rea culpability requirement and is irrelevant for strict liability offenses. The second, willful blindness, involves the doctrine of mistake of fact, which is not a defense in strict liability crimes under any circumstances and is not a defense in negligence crimes where the willful blindness would make the defendant unaware of substantial and unjustifiable risk. The willful blindness article makes a glaring mistake in that it gives a synonym as "mistake of law" yet defines it as being unaware of facts. The law makes a distinction between mistake of law and mistake of fact: being unaware of a law, and being unaware of a material fact. The strict liabilty article contains even more mistakes and I would advise not reading any of them for more information on the subject. Gx872op (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US we also have the opposite problem, where someone who periodically disembowels others with a meat hook can be found "innocent" by reason of insanity (meaning he didn't know he was committing a crime, he thought he was attacking the devil), and be released from the mental institution as soon as those who run the place declare him sane, to ease overcrowding. But don't worry, they won't send him out unprepared for the world, they will first give him enough money to buy a shiny new meat hook. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a common characterization, but I am not aware of that happening all that often. Do you have any actual of someone who was involuntarily committed to a mental instution following a successful insanity defense, who was later released? And more to the point, of going on to commit crimes again? The common assumption is that the insanity defense is a "get out of jail free card", but my understanding is that it isn't all that successful, and even when it is, it results in an open-ended, ultimately indefinite and likely life-long internment in a mental institution, rather than a jail sentance of fixed term. I'd like to see some actual, you know, cases where what you claim to happen actually happens, at least, often enough to justify the characterization you give as a widespread "problem"... --Jayron32 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best known case around here is that of Dan White -- although he actually served his two years in prison rather than a mental hospital. I don't think this happens very often, but that one case all by itself gave rise to a lot of anger. Looie496 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White's lenient sentence (at least, lenient on an overt level) was based on the diminished capacity defense, rather than full-blown legal insanity. Since then, the pendulum in California has swung quite far in the other direction. If I'm not mistaken, diminished capacity no longer exists at all as a defense in California law, and the insanity defense is rarely tried and rarely successful when it is attempted.

Note by the way that, at the time, the maximum plausible sentence for White on the basis of the overt facts was execution by lethal gas. He didn't wait long, after he got out, to make his own gas chamber for himself. --Trovatore (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotes are not the same as data... It is kinda hard to base the characterization of a legal system which sees many thousands of cases every year on a single case... If its a "problem" with the entire system, you'd think it would be, you know, rampant rather than singular. --Jayron32 02:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point was that if there was such a problem at some point, it has been corrected, and probably over-corrected. I think Bugs is fighting the last war. --Trovatore (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me there's so acceptable level at which people who have committed serious crimes should be released because they "didn't know it was wrong". Even one is unacceptable. If they committed the crime, they should do the time, regardless of what's wrong with their brain. Apparently most people think it's cruel and unusual punishment to incarcerate the insane, retarded, etc.; but I disagree. StuRat (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a case of strict liability 2010 in UK re a soldier finding a gun and handing it to the police the next day. Don't know what the outcome was. [3] - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Un-freaking-believable. That law needs to be changed immediately and retroactively. --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty. 1 year suspended 1 year. [4] - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad he doesn't have to go to jail, but that law is utterly unacceptable in a liberal country. --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. He was well aware that the possession of firearms requires a licence. He carried, on his person, without a licence, a loaded sawn-off shotgun through a busy town in order to take it to the police station. Nobody but a fool would imagine that walking into a police station while in the process of committing a crime would not get you into hot water. His action was not an evil action, but it was the action of a fool. Marnanel (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestion that it was loaded. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The state should not be able to put people in jail for actions that aren't evil. --Trovatore (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evil? Please don't pollute public policy with theology. DuncanHill (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evil doesn't figure into it. If the guy was carrying an illegal weapon with him, any number of things could have gone wrong. He should have called the police or at least consulted with someone before taking action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The state has no right to punish anything that isn't inherently morally wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you decide what is "inherently morally wrong"? Morality has been one of the biggest inspirations for oppression and cruelty in judicial history. DuncanHill (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Figuring it out, of course, is difficult. That doesn't mean there isn't a right answer. When the state ceases to consider itself bound by morality, that's when you really run into trouble. --Trovatore (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I want to clarify, just because something is morally wrong doesn't mean the state has a right to punish it. Just that if it isn't, then they definitely don't. --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very dangerous position - as soon as you set a state up as any kind of guardian of morality, then it will become an oppressor. Law should exist to protect the members of the state form harm - and stopping idiots wandering around with loaded weapons seems like a reasonable way to protect people. DuncanHill (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not setting up the state as a guardian of morality. I am saying the state is bound by morality. As Thoreau said, "what one man may not morally do, a million men may not morally do". And one man may not morally use force against another to prevent him from doing something not itself immoral. --Trovatore (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the state and its citizens are not bound by morality, they are bound by its laws, which are passed by the consent of the governed. But either way, how is carrying an illegal weapon around considered to be morally OK? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The governed are not entitled to consent to just anything, on the behalf of the rest of the governed. I think the weapons laws of the UK are not justified in the first place. But if they were, it is still not right to lock up someone like this. --Trovatore (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple thoughts about the man arrested for turning in the found gun to UK police:

1) He was a soldier, so presumably knew how to carry a gun safely. This should be taken into account.

2) He found a container in his garden, took it inside, then found the gun inside that. Was the gun "in his possession" when sitting in the unopened container in his garden ? Once he brought the unopened container inside ? Once he opened the container to discover it ? If so, then it sounds like the only way for him to evade arrest would be for him to dump it in the next poor schmuck's garden. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he should have called the police. His being a soldier might have given him the false impression that it was OK to be shlepping that thing around. If he's in his house, at home, he's not acting as a soldier, he's acting as a citizen, and he's subject to the laws. It would be interesting to see the particulars of the case. Keep in mind that Plaxico Burress was sent to jail for carrying a concealed weapon, while only harming himself in the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But WHEN should he have called the police ? When he first spotted the container in his garden ? That means a lot of calls to cops for bags of garbage, and thus fewer police available for finding criminals. And, even then, would he have been found guilty for having a gun in his possession, if it was on his property ? StuRat (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as he realized what he had, he should have called and said, "I found a gun buried on my property. What should I do?" That might have saved him a peck o' trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would that save him any trouble ? He would still have been in possession of an illegal gun, wouldn't he ? StuRat (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because he wouldn't have taken it into his possession. Quite why some editors are so keen to defend criminals escapes me. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you changed it from "be in possession" to "taken into possession", which seems to say he has to actively do something, not just find the gun. Is that actually the case ? Even so, does carrying the container inside and opening it up there qualify as "taking possession "? StuRat (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was making the point that the criminal in question actively took possession of the gun. He didn't find it and call the police (which is what anyone with a grain of sense and acting honestly would have done). DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is there any provision in the law which would protect him if he had "passively taken possession", that is, just found it and reported it immediately ? StuRat (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "man on the Clapham omnibus" test would certainly protect him. Not sure if there is any specific point in statute, but I do not see the police charging, still less the CPS prosecuting in such a case. It's worth remembering too that in the specific case the man had previous bad character, which would tend to make it more likely for the police to chardge and the CPS to proceed. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. And frankly, as a soldier he would certainly know that it is illegal to roam the streets with an unsecured and loaded weapon. He shewed a profound lack of judgement, and in doing so broke the law and contaminated any forensic evidence relating to possible prior illegal use of the weapon. One year suspended seems kind. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it's "unsecured", being carried inside a container. And did they say it was loaded ? As you said, the "crime" I would actually be more concerned about is destroying evidence, since he may have obscured the fingerprints on the gun, which was likely used in a crime, if it was dumped in his yard. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for the bus driver who was fined a week's wages for having an over-full wheelie bin. There is a lot of discontent about the very much worse service of recent years and the draconian and arbitrary penalties by the Bin Gestapo, not to mention the Big Brother plans to microchip them and keep individual records. It will only encourage people to get home incinerators and spew out dioxins. What is the country coming to, with all these junta-style strong-arm things? It seems the government wants to run the country as if we are in a pernament war state like WWII. 92.24.178.121 (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not as severe a penalty, but you can get into damned if you do, damned if you don't situations when fishing in New Zealand. If you hook an invasive fish species, you will be fined if it is found in your possession. At the same time, releasing it back is also a fine, for spreading an invasive species. Googlemeister (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: Bring your cat with you when you go fishing. :-) But, seriously, any law that defines possession itself as a crime is faulty, as people can come into possession of things accidentally. I've frequently found things in my yard, but fortunately none of them have been illegal items yet. It seems to me that such laws are designed to circumvent the principal of "innocent until proven guilty", as anyone found to be in possession of such an item is assumed to have it for some nefarious purpose. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference between a crime and a sin is that a crime can be committed unknowingly, but it is only a sin if you knew that you were sinning at the time. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Beatriz Galindo; which years?

Between which years was Beatriz Galindo a professor? The article doesn't say. Thank you in advance--Aciram (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted in to high society in the 18th-and 19th-century

I have the impression, that an informall sign that you where truly accepted as a new member of the upper class in the 18th- and 19th-century, was the fact that you could meet and socialize with the female members of the upper class. I have the impression, that male members of the upperclass really could meet anyone; buisness men, prostitutes, new rich people, criminals and so forth, and this had no affect on which class you where classified in whatsoever. A Victorian gentleman could, for example, introduce his kept mistress for his male upper class friends, but never, ever, for his female relatives and upper class aquaintances? I have the impression, that a person was not officially a member of the upper class social life, untill they had been introduced to the female members oft he upper class, be it the nobility or the merchant upper class. I understand this is an informall thing and therefore may be hard to answer, but could this be a correct impression?--85.226.44.97 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In England, part of the excitement of the Ridotto or Vauxhall Gardens was the mixture of middle and upper classes: in those settings a lady might have a pleasant social encounter with a man she'd never meet otherwise. Bath and Tunbridge Wells were also quite open social arenas: if a man had the appearance of a gentleman, he could go anywhere, even though to pay a call at home, he'd need a letter of introduction. On the Continent, the freedom of Englishwomen in this regard was remarked on.--Wetman (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Wetman's answer incidentally points out that it depends very much on where you are talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this answer made mer realise I have to specify my question. For a person (be it male or female) to be accepted as a member of the formall upper class social life, and be classified as a member of high society, it was never enough to have met male upper class-members; a male member of the upper class could receive a guest in his home without that guest being accepted at all as a member of high society. To be accepted, one must have been introduced to female members. A person may have met every single person of the male nobility in their homes, they may have spent the night as a guest in the nobleman's home, but if he/she hed never been introduced to the noblewomen, it ment nothing; he/she was not "accepted". To be accepted on equal social terms, a guest had to be introduced to female family members. I hope I was a little clearer? --85.226.44.97 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly much easier for men to move in multiple social circles than it was for women to do so, if that is what you mean. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is true. It is never described in Jane Austin's novels as far as I'm aware, for example. I can imagine that male members of the aristocracy may sometimes have explored low-life or sometimes even consorted with prostitutes, but that is not the same thing. 92.29.123.173 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can imagine that male members of the aristocracy may sometimes have consorted with prostitutes. Marnanel (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One distinction was when some men were invited to genteel social events more because of their expertise than because of their social standing -- they would meet and socialize with the female relatives of their host and fellow-guests, but their own wives would not be invited... AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it considered gauche for anyone to speak to anyone else without having been introduced by a common acquaintance? Corvus cornix_talk 05:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was only seen a presumptive to talk to anyone as an equal without being introduced. It was entirely appropriate to talk to 'inferiors' without introduction, and one would expect them to do the same - as long as they accepted your superior social standing, 'introduction' was not only unnecessary, it would be meaningless: it would make no more sense to introduce the Duke of Westminster to a scullery-maid than it would to introduce him to a lamp-post. Introduction was only necessary when status might possibly be in doubt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's true, but a middle class man would not walk up to someone who appeared to be his social equal and talk to him, nor would an upper class man talk to an upper class man without an introduction. I'm not sure if an upper class man would talk to a middle class man without an introduction, but if the middle class man were in "tradfe", and they were conducting business, then it would be likely. Corvus cornix_talk 06:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Vanity fair, social climber Becky Sharp (character) was introduced to and socialized with noblemen such as lord Steyne, but for her to get accepted in to the nobility, the act of being introduced to lord Steyenes female relatives is portrayed as crucial; it was not enough to be aquaintained with the male nobility. --85.226.44.97 (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not anything distinctive to high society or to those times, but is more universal and still applies today. Although you might have many acquaintances, only close friends get to meet your other friends and relations (which includes people of the opposite gender). Anyone in business or managing an estate will have to deal with workmen and people of different backrounds than themselves. 92.29.121.37 (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond Advert Soundtrack

The soundtrack on this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yyob0YofvvA was originally used for advertising Quantum of Solace (or at least, I am unaware of any prior use) and I quite like it but do not know what it's called and it's not on the QoS soundtrack. Does anyone know? Thank you. asyndeton talk 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, am I missing something? I looked through that, and the only music I could hear is a variation on the standard same old James Bond theme. Or are you asking what that particular variation is called? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean this particular variation. I recognise the bit from later on but the beginning I can't remember hearing before (not that I am a massive JB fan to begin with). asyndeton talk 18:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could make out, the first part is just a slow build up to the main theme. I don't know how much it helps but the article I linked to has the composers for different arrangements of the theme for different movies. It's quite common in other pop-cultural areas as well, though, so the list there may not include the particular arrangement we're talking about here. For instance, here's a version I used to like quite a lot when I first found it on a CD. Maybe a bona fide JB fan (not really one myself, either :) will come along and shed more light on this. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]