Humanities desk
< June 4	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 5

Large scale memorial events

I'm looking for some large memorial ceremonies that are on the scale of the Memorials for the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in Hong Kong. There were at least tens of thousands of participants for the last 22 years, and more than 150000 for the last three. thanks F (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean things like the Remembrance Day parades, at the Cenotaph? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

broadcasters' estates

Please note I'm not asking for legal advice or anything like that. But I've seen archive footage of real people in these films. The first one was of Walter Cronkite in Apollo 13. The second one was of Jim McKay in Munich. The third one was of Johnny Carson in The Newton Boys. Since all three films tend to air on TV channels from time to time, and copies are bought on DVD, what do the estates of the mentioned decedents get?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite common for people making a guest appearance as themselves in TV or films to just accept a one-off fee for the appearance. In that case they would not be entitled to royalties, and so their estates would not have any income from any repeats. So the answer is "it depends on the fee agreed at the time". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it depends on the terms of the contract, as with any film actor. Residuals don't run forever, unless you've got a really good agent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the footage of Walter Cronkite in Apollo 13 wasn't entirely archival. He recreated some of his commentary (especially the bit at the beginning of the film) to better fit the flow of the movie. — Michael J 17:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in some cases, personality rights can run (at the moment) "forever". --Mr.98 (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tonight Show is on NBC. Thus, there was a very good chance The Newton Boys aired on that network. Walter Cronkite was an anchorman on CBS News. Thus, there was a very good chance Apollo 13 aired on CBS. Jim McKay sportscasted on ABC Sports. Thus, there was a good chance Munich aired on ABC. So there you may or may not have it.24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky

What was the turning point in Chomsky's life which turned him from an ordinary linguistics professor to a history-making philosopher? I believe he is famous because of his contribution to philosophy, rather than linguistics. What exactly was the turning point that earned him the recognition as a philosopher? --999Zot (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought of him as a philosopher. He's a linguist who definitely made a name in linguistics. Then he made a name as a political commentator, which is somewhat different in my mind from philosopher. Not sure which is the greater fame; I suppose it depends on whether the people you ask are more interested in linguistics or in politics. --Trovatore (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky also had a major influence on computer science, of course. The Chomsky hierarchy has important theoretical implications and practical applications. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His linguistics and any of his (non-political) philosophy are very clearly linked; they're basically the same thing. His fame as a linguist stands on its own, separate from his politics, and predates it. His political activism began in the mid-1960s.[1] --Mr.98 (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask him by e-mail: he will give you an answer. --86.8.139.65 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky is by no means unique in being famous and important in two entirely unrelated fields (Chomsky's being Linguistics and Politics). Note that Linus Pauling won Nobel prizes in Chemistry and Peace; his political work for which he won the Peace prize were entirely unrelated to his Chemistry work. Alexander Borodin made significant contributions to the world of both chemistry and music, and neither field is particularly important to the other. Benjamin Franklin is noted for both his contributions to physics and to politics. --Jayron32 19:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The science/politics dyad is especially common, especially in the 20th century, especially post-WWII. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did George Orwell study Ancient Greek at Eton?

I know it is a possibility, and probably far from uncommon there, but does anyone know if George Orwell (Eric Blair) studied Ancient Greek at Eton? --86.8.139.65 (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Orwell was educated in both classical languages of Latin and Greek. See here:[2] --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast response. This was too hard for me to track down. --86.8.139.65 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly safe to say that anyone who attended a British public school until relatively recently would have been taught Greek as a matter of course. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for this clarification, also useful. could you clarify when "fairly recently" is? (I would think "until about 1920" but this is just my impression... it sounds like it could be later for you...) --86.8.139.65 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I learnt Ancient Greek O level in the 1970s at an English grammar school. I understand that it's still available as a GCSE subject. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so that's why you're so smart :) --86.8.139.65 (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The benefits of a British education. Ancient Greek in grammar school...... The closest thing we got to ancient Greece in my El-Lay High School, was an elective class in Greek Mythology (which I had already studied in the 7th grade!).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne, given that I'm aware 'grammar school' seems to be used in the US to refer to a school offering primary education, you might be taking Tammy's education as being more extraordinary than it was. I advise clicking the link. 86.182.34.112 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only reasonable equivalent we had to that type of school in Los Angeles was a private French lycée where Jodie Foster attended. My French friend also went there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read most of Orwell, but most of that not recently. I'm almost certain the answer is yes. See his posthumous memoir "Such, Such Were the Joys" for his prep school years before entering Eton, although subsequent biographers have questioned how much of Orwell's account is coloured by emotion. But on something like the subjects he studied, this should be fairly reliable. At Eton, Orwell (whose family was not rich) was a scholarship student, meaning that he had to have shown unusual success in competitive examinations. As for private/public schools, I attended a non-public prep school in New England that required two years of Latin in the 1960's but did not offer Greek, which was, however, offered by the same city's selective city high school. Apparently, that's no longer true. Boston Latin School, a selective city high school founded in 1635, does, I understand, still offer (and used to require) Greek. See Nat Hentoff's memoir, Boston Boy. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative regions in Liberal Canada

In the Action democratique du Quebec article, in mentioned in the Electoral Support that the conservative regions in Quebec are Chaudiere-Appalaches and Capitale-Nationale. So, I am wondering that what about Ontario, is there any regions that are conservative and what about in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick? And does it mean that in conservative Western Canada, there are regions that are liberal too?

Well Vancouver is typically (or stereotypically) Liberal, in the west. As for Ontario, the rural areas of the south always seem to vote Conservative. The north, and Windsor in the south, tend to vote NDP (I'm sure this has something to do with unions and the mining and automobile industries). Downtown Toronto is always reliably Liberal or NDP. In the last federal election in May, it was somewhat surprising that so much of southern Ontario, not just the rural parts, voted Conservative. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a map of the results from the recent election. You can see that the Conservatives nearly swept rural and suburban southern Ontario, won all but two seats in N.B., took four mostly rural seats in N.S. and won the westernmost of PEI's four seats and Labrador. In Western Canada, the Liberals won two seats in central Vancouver, one seat in Winnipeg and Ralph Goodale's seat in Saskatchewan. The NDP did best on Vancouver's east side and eastern suburbs and the Victoria area and won a couple of other seats in BC, a couple in Manitoba and one in Edmonton. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even when Manitoba turns Conservative (or, earlier, Reform), the ridings (electoral districts) around polyethnic Winnipeg tend to vote Liberal or NDP. Three or four decades ago, the Progressive Conservative areas in the Province of Quebec tended to be in the Eastern Townships, long populated by English-speakers, many of whose ancestors were United Empire Loyalists who'd fled the American Revolution. Non-Liberal Francophone Québécois tended to vote for nationalist parties or Social Credit. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appiani d’Aragona

Why did the Appiani family that ruled the Principality of Piombino used the surname Appiani d’Aragona? PS you can't find this on wikipedia. It's in the other language wikis and books.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the genealogical entry E3 here says that it was Emamuele who adopted the surname. One might infer that it had something to do with his marriage to one Colia de'Giudici d'Aragona, an illegitimate daughter of Alfonso V of Aragon. Deor (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overthinking the ACT Science section?

Hello all. I'm studying for the ACT Science section, and today I did a (non-official practice) that had a question like this: Several studies are done on a particular species of plant, and the results are (summarized into words, the originals are data tables): the plant's leaf size increases with humidity, peaking at 75% and decreasing for all values greater; leaf size increases with sunlight, peaking at 3 hours per day and decreasing for all values greater; leaf size is greatest at an optimal day/night temperature (F) of 85/65, it is less for any other combination (85/85, 65/65 [lowest], 65/85). The question asked, based on these data, where would the plant thrive the least as measured by leaf size, and the choices were a desert; a temperate grassland; a tropical rainforest; high altitudes. My first instinct was desert, but I reasoned that at high altitudes, temperatures would be lower, there would be less humidity, and a lot of sunlight so I picked that one. The book says a desert is correct, because the studies do not mention altitude. Apparently I overthought the question. How do I know when "reasoning" turns into "overthinking"? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this helps you much, but this is why standardized tests suck. You CANNOT test reasoning via a multiple choice test. It cannot be done. And yet, this question is trying to do that. I am a science teacher; I have taught my fair share of Earth Science classes. If I had read what you wrote above for an answer, I would have given you full credit for a well reasoned answer. If you had arrived at the "desert" answer, and had a well-reasoned explanation for that one, I would have also given you full credit. The very notion that this test cannot read and interpret your reasoning means that it cannot evaluate your ability to reason. Multiple choice tests have one purpose, and one purpose only: the recall of facts. Any multiple choice test that attempts to evaluate anything else is a sham and total hogwash. Sorry, I know that isn't helping you pass this test, but as an educator myself, I take this shit VERY seriously, and it really gets my goat when I see something supposed to be "educational" which screws it up so phenomenally bad. </rant> --Jayron32 18:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While in no way disagreeing with Jayron, I would suggest that, if you are using anything but the most general information and that information is not included in the question itself, you will be over-thinking for the purposes of the test. Personally, I would have thought that both desert and high altitude would be about equal, except that there is nothing about elevation in the question and so I would have selected "desert". That's just from a lot of experience both writing and taking such tests. Bielle (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it's the typically tricky question, the trick being that you can't assume anything not in evidence. In short, you have to be both very intelligent, and an idiot. Just what colleges want, apparently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you need to avoid using any information not given in the question. The problem is, the correct answer to that question is "e) Insufficient information". If they haven't given you any information about altitude then you can't determine whether a desert or high altitude would be better. That is very different from concluding that the desert is worse, which is what they have done. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that might help is to guess at the answer before you read the choices. I did so and came up with "desert" based on the info given. Specifically, the plant seems to like a narrow temp range, so I looked for extreme temperature ranges. It likes humid air, so I looked for dry air. It likes minimal sunlight, so I looked for lots of sunlight. Then, when I combined wide temperature extremes, lots of sunlight, and dry weather, a desert came right to mind. Since that was one of the choices, that's what I'd go with, it being the "obvious" choice. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting approach. The list of possible answers could be the source of the "overthinking". Your approach is what intelligence is really about, don'cha think? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so when you raise money for a startup, is it your money or investors' (the company's)?

I'm just reading this... http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_18203847 my question is... am I correct in concluding that the only problem here is that he got the money in order to buy percetages of OTHER companies? (in oter words that he was just supposed to be a broker or middleman?). If it had been his OWN startup he was selling shares in, all that behavior would have been fine, right? I mean: when you sell some of your company (which you obviously start out owning 100% of) then that's now your money, right? Not the company's. (would be different if the company sold debt obviously...then it's the company's money)...

Am I correct in my assessment? That it's then your money to do with as you please, and you are not expected to donate it to the corporate entity (which doesn't own itself, you do) or in any other way have a duty to spend on the company instead of hookers and blow? thanks86.8.139.65 (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, you are not correct. You might start by checking Share capital, but in essence, when you start a company you do not own its shares; you've merely created a new legal entity which has a certain authorised share capital (and in general, you will at the time of formation buy some or all of these authorised shares). The first sale of any of those shares requires the money received to go into the company. Having bought a share (we can now term it a paid-up share), you may then sell it on, and the money received for the sale is yours. I suspect the chappie in your story has been selling previously unsold authorised shares - i.e. things which belong to the company - and pocketing the cash. Whether or not the company exists to buy shares in other companies is an irrelevance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is not good news for the blow & hooker industries. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying very hard to explain, but I am having trouble following. It sounds like you're talking about a legal formality? Let's start with a real example: in the tech world, you can start a company with Zilch: you code on your laptop and initially use services exposed by Google and others (blog etc shared revenue) an establish a revenue stream. Say you get tires of doing this all by yourself, you want the thing to Br autonomous and then be able to sell it off. So, you I corporate (witha token amount of capital from your previous revenue, let's say $100). "tehnically" I gather it is atthis point that you buy authorized shares, with the share price valuing the company at $100 all told? Although, if you had wanted to, you could have paid the same $100 to purchase just half the authorized shares, valuing the company at $200 and with the company owning half the shares, however you owning these by means of owning the company itself whole cloth? Okay, if I have it right so far, now comes: say you go through with your plan, hire a part time writer and another employee on the company payroll to make it truly autonomus, and then just let it coast by itself for a few months, payin dividends to you (who own 100% of outstanding shares). Let's say revenues are around $10,000 per month, you have a lot of users etc, and you want out of the whole thing - so you sell ALL of your shares to an investor for -$500,000 which he pays because of the trailing revenue, which you have not fudged. You now have nothig more to do withthecompany - you have made a clean exit. Can you spend the 500k on hookers and blow then? without malfeasance or any further responsibility to the company? Now comes the kickr: what if you had only sold 99% of your shares? 95%? 90%? 70%? 55%? 50%? 49%? 30%? 10%? 5%? 1%? At what point are you no longer in the clear to use the proceeds for hookers and blow? Thanks. 86.8.139.65 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take the case that you buy 50% of the authorised share capital of the company, and there are no other shareholders. You do not own the other 50% of shares; they are owned by the company. (So your sentence: "you owning these by means of owning the company itself" is wrong.) You do "own" the company, in that you own 100% of the issued share capital. But note the quotation marks. Actually, you merely own the shares you own. The company is and always will be a distinct legal entity, and it owns the other 50%. You can sell the shares you bought and spend the proceeds on pot & prostitutes. You cannot sell the 50% that remain in the company, since these are not yours. The company can sell them, but any revenue must come to the company. As to the 99% question ... you can sell 99% of your shares, which would equate to 49.5% of the authorised share capital of the company. And you'd find that you still owned 0.5% of the authorised share capital of the company. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)A sensible angel investor or venture capital investor does not give money to a person. They buy a proportion of the equity of a private corporation (in many cases the startup hasn't yet incorporated, so the investors help the founders incorporate). All that investment capital goes into the bank account of the corporation (which the investors and founders jointly own). Typically the founders (who are most often also employees of the corporation) take a salary, although that's frequently very little. The kind of people who invest their own money, or who run venture funds, are astute (sometimes downright cutthroat) individuals, who won't put their money into some venture where the other owners can just take all the money out unilaterally and spend it on whatever they like - the angels/VCs get seats on the new company's board and this gives then a sufficiently tight reign on the company's spending to avoid any such shenanigans. As to the specific case you've linked: we can't comment on what he did because we don't know the details. He's been charged with fraud, which implies "intentional deception"; it's up to a court to decide if that's what happened in this case, or just bad, or unlucky, investing. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not getting why you say it goes into the company's bank account and not my own. If I build a special bicycle you can somehow use to make money and sell it to you for $100, would you expect me to put the hundred into my pocket or into a bag on the bicycle, which is now yours? So that you've gotten both the bicycle and the money that now belongs to the bicycle? Meanwhile, I've just lost my bike... 86.8.139.65 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It goes into the company's account because that's who I write the cheque to. Your analogies to buying stuff aren't productive - I'm not so much buying something from you as going into business with you. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were going into business with me, you would show up and work too. But you're not, you're just giving money. In exchange for what? You write it out to a company, and get what in exchange. Oh, you get stock, by diluting mine. So, if you enter with a billion dollars, what do ai just get diluted out entirely (just about)? I find it very hard to believe that if my company (wholly owned by me) gets a check for a billion dollars from you, then that's not great news for me: actually horrible news. I can't use any of that money (it's the company's, not mine), yet I've Lost my stake in the company (have been diluted out). I find that hard to believe: that's right, I'm incredulous! 86.8.139.65 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Nominally I do work there (I'm a salaried director), and some MBA drone that works for me becomes the COO and has a nicer office than you, and is only in the office for a few meetings a week. I paid a relatively small amount of money (for angel investments, maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars) and I get a big bunch of the equity (maybe 30%). When it goes to the first full VC round the founders will probably end up with less than 50%. Yes, to you it probably feels like a right screw-job; but it's all a contract, one that you don't have to sign. The trouble startup founders have is that their business isn't profitable and has little revenue, so conventional sources of funding like bankloans aren't open to them. They can try to grow the business off revenue alone (which is what most real-world, non internet-bubble, businesses have to do) or they can turn to angels and VCs, who take a large chunk of the business. It's no surprise that most startups fail, and a great number of successful startups (that go to IPO or are acquired by some profitable company) end up with litigation between the founders and their investors. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When someone invests in your company, the company sells them new shares, rather than shares you own. You haven't lost out. Imagine your company is worth $100,000 and you own 100% of it and I have $100,000 in the bank. I come along and give $100,000 to your company in exchange for a 50% share. The company is now worth $200,000 and we own 50% of it each. So, we each own $100,000 worth of the company, exactly the same as we had before. You own half as much of the company, but the company is worth twice as much, so your share in dollar terms hasn't changed. --Tango (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. I put in 10,000 hours of work to produce a company that makes a steady stream of thousands of dollars a month in pure profit: how could it be anything like fair for you to come along and become a 50:50 partner while putting in 0 hours? It just doesn't make sense to me: you're saying the value of my shares hasn't changed, even though I now have a 50:50 partner to split all that revenue with. Obviously if ai only get half the monthly revenue (in dividends) instead of all of it, the value of my shares has very much diminished! So why are you saying otherwise? Could you walk me through the example of where I establish a million dollar a month revenue stream all by myself as sole owner and then (due to high growth potential or whatever) you as an investor come in with 50 million? I'm finding it very hard to see why I woukdn'. just say "no I don't want your fifty million nor five hundred million: all that does is cut the percentage of the profit that I get, without impacting the value of my shares or the money in my pocket in any way. Put another way: if someone pays you $1000 for the chance to become a partner in your profitable lemonade stand, would you expect to still need to ask your mom for 75 cents for milk at the school cafeteria the next day, same as if you hadn't entered this lucrative partnership? something's not adding up... 86.8.139.65 (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The usual reason for looking for investors is because you want to expand your business. For example, you might want some money to build another factory or open another shop. You choose to sell the shares because you think that doing so will increase your profits by more than enough to compensate for you getting a reduced share. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)::::::The usual reason for looking for investors is because you want to expand your business. For example, you might want some money to build another factory or open another shop. You choose to sell the shares because you think that doing so will increase your profits by more than enough to compensate for you getting a reduced share. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The transaction - the third party coming in with $50M - only occurs if the company decides it is a good thing. If you own all of the issued share capital, you (should have) full control of the company's board of directors. You will allow the investment in the company if you think it will be a good deal for you (e.g. you'll make more profit, get more dividends, or see the share price rise as a result of whatever it is the company does with the $50M), or you will not allow the investment if you do not think it is a good deal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

okay, fine - how then?

fine, I get all of the above. Could you clearly explain then all of the steps i would need to take before I could actually see $1 mn in my bank account as well as having no obligations or responsibilities of any kind to the company I found? I eventually want out - completely, no board seat, nothing, I just want to pay taxes on the money, not have anything to do with the company, and be able to spend it on hookers and blow. could you explain all the steps I would have to take to get there? (in the context of a very large investment from outside).86.8.139.65 (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to sell your shares to someone else. Quite often, you would sell them to a much larger company that is looking to expand its business without having to go the effort and risk of doing so itself and would rather just buy an existing company. Another option is to "go public". That means you float the company on a stock exchange. That is much like selling shares to an investor, except you sell to lots of investors, in that you sell new shares rather than your own. Once you've done that, though, there is a market for shares in your company at a quoted share price and you can sell your personal shareholding very easily. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the smallest percentage of a company that has ever been floated in an IPO? I'm asking because then these dufuses (the many small traders) can twiddle their thumbs for a while and undervalue the company, until eventually revenue is so big they have to wake up. Then I can just sell my shares at the now correct share price, pay taxes on it, and invest in h&b outlays... 86.8.139.65 (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you own a very large proportion of the shares and try to sell them all at once, you'll cause the stock price to plummet. There isn't much point floating the company if you are going to keep almost all the shares. The company wouldn't get much money and would have all the added restrictions and reporting requirements that come with being a public company. --Tango (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]