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

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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

Beret

Why do painters wear berets? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are French. --Jayron32 01:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The berets or the painters? Corvus cornix_talk 01:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Or perhaps trying to be. --Jayron32 01:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the real question is, why do the French wear striped t-shirts and rings of garlic around their necks? TomorrowTime (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and funny moustaches. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a answer for the original question, but see Jamie Hyneman not a painter but he always wears a beret.Sumsum2010·T·C 03:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is he French... --Jayron32 03:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen Matt Cardle wearing a beret. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find out where this stereotype originated. It is used in cartoons, for example. Some of it may overlap with the beatnik stereotype of bohemian creative lifestyle. The oldest example I found is over 350 years old: Self Portrait with Beret and Turned-Up Collar (1659). ---Sluzzelin talk 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, but could it be because the beret is one of the simplest and cheapest forms of headgear ever invented? Most painters make no more than a bare living, if that. --Antiquary (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds plausible. It keeps the painter's hair out of line of sight and protects it from paint splatters. A brimmed or otherwise more bulky or fancy hat might also get in the way of sight or movement (if the painter wants to inspect the canvas closely for example). Similar to a surgeon's scrub cap, perhaps. In the studio, at least; outside, a brimmed hat might be more likely. But I have no reference for this, and I can't paint. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen Matt Cardle not wearing a beret, so far as i know. —Tamfang (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The beret has been standard headwear for several countries' crack military troops. Commandos from Australia and Britain come to mind, and who can ever forget John Wayne in The Green Berets? But I don't recall John Wayne ever playing a French painter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would kill to have seen John Wayne play Renoir, or Gauguin, or Monet ("Truly, this was the father of Impressionism"). But, sadly, we have to be content with Kirk Douglas playing van Gogh. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who didn't wear a beret! Richard Avery (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and wasn't French. HiLo48 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... which I knew. I was remarking on American actors who've played European artists. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French are associated with flair, individuality, taste, culture. If the beret is associated with the French people, that could go a way in explaining at least why some French hat would be emblematic of the painter's concerns. Also, the roundness of it seems anti-authoritarian—artists are probably thought of as free spirits. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of hat did James Whistler wear in his 1858 and 1872 self portraits? More of a cowboy hat than a beret.Edison (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's also not French. --Jayron32 05:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The O.P asked why "painters" wear berets, not "French painters." Edison (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is John Olsen French. Here he is with his trademark beret -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It almost looks like a sombrero/cowboy/tricorne/Indiana Jones hat combination. Sumsum2010·T·C 05:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whistler studied in France and had a French girlfriend. Womenfolk often have a big influence on how their menfolk dress. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the largest city or town by population that does not have electricity?

What is the largest city or town by population that does not have electricity? This question was tweeted by twitter user Jimmy Wales. He later clarified "without electricity distributed by a grid of wires is what I mean". Can we help him? William Avery (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well such amenities are kind of the definition of a city or town these days. I expect it would be the slums of a major city, the city itself has an electricity grid but the outlying regions do not. Perhaps somewhere like Dharavi in India, but other slums such as Rocinha in Brazil are relatively well developed with a reasonable grid. meltBanana 02:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ~~Nand Ram Ka Tila~~? Seems not. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Central Cemetry (Zentralfriedhof) of Vienna has a population of 3 mio. I don´t live there, as yet, but it seems to be a fairly quiet suburb. I believe that none of the residents has complained about the lack of electricity. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in Africa would be my guess. 92.29.122.99 (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slums in megacities, such as Dharavi, generally have some access to those cities' electric grid, often via rigged wires that steal power. I agree with 92.29... that the largest settlement without electricity is probably in one of world's poorest countries, mostly in Africa. According to this source, Berbérati, the third-largest city of the Central African Republic, has no electricity. The most recent census (2003) shows a population of 76,918 for this city, but the linked article gives a population of 155,000. Possibly the population has doubled over the past 7 years, or perhaps the census gives the population within municipal limits that do not include the entire urban area. There are probably other towns with around 100,000 inhabitants that lack electricity in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, or Mozambique. Marco polo (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps has a photo of the Berberati city hall, and while the scene is incredibly rustic, there do appear to be power lines. It's possible they're not functioning. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible those are telephone lines rather than power lines. The source I cited does state that the town is without electricity. Marco polo (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article stating that there is electricity from generators, but no electrical grid in the city of Butembo, for which our article gives a population of 700,000, but with an estimated population of 165,333 in 2004 per this source. (It's conceivable that refugees could have swelled the population of a city in this troubled region since 2004.) Either way, it is bigger than Berbérati. Now, this photo of the town's main street, shows overhead wiring, including some wires that must carry electricity to the street lights. However, these may be connected to a generator whose sole purpose is to light the main street. The wires connected to the taller poles on the other side of the street could be telephone lines. Marco polo (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a look at Butembo on Google Earth, I'd say that the population is clearly closer to 700,000 than 165,000. Marco polo (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not characterize a city as "having electricity" unless it has fairly continuous mains power from utility generators, allowing for occasional outages. [1] and [2] say that presently in many Iraqi cities the electricity is only on a few hours per day. So major cities without electricity would include Iraqi cities like Baghdad (2004 pop 6.5 million), Basra (2009 pop 3.8 million) and Nasiriyah (pop 560 thousand, est). Pre-invasion, the cities had reliable 24 hour power, per [3]. In Afghanistan,per [4] only 10% of the population has electricity, up from 6% pre-invasion, so many cities still likely do not qualify as having 24 hour grid power. Resident of Kabul (2008 pop 2.8 million) do not seem to be described as "having electricity " in the main, since recent articles describe "daily blackouts" and another article from mid-2009 described "2 hours" a day of electricity in Kabul. Hideously expensive utility diesel generators and transmission lines from neighboring countries could theoretically provide 24 hour power to Kabul fairly soon, if insurgents leave the transmission towers alone. If private local diesel generators serving a neighborhood with exorbitantly expensive power qualify, then somewhat more would be considered electrified. Residents of Kandahar (2009 pop 468 thousand) only get 6 hours a day of electricity, per [5]. This is likely what US utilities would call a "Rolling blackout:" or intentional power outage, rather than the whole grid failing every day, power is turned on sequentially to different lines to avoid exceeding available supply, while maintaining continuous service to "critical load," however the local authorities define that.The article on rotating blackouts says they are a daily part of life in "Bangladesh, India, Yemen, Nepal, Pakistan, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Zimbabwe, and Dominican Republic." In large cities in India, where rolling blackouts occur during heat waves, those cities might be considered to have electricity per the O.P question under normal conditions, though daily prolonged outages are common for the rural customers. Edison (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

irish whisky

Re Old Comber Whisky.[irish whisky] I have a bottle of old comber wisky pure pot still bottled by Hollywood & Donnelly ltd. Comber distilleries co. ltd.,as it is about 50 years old and comber distilleries is no more i was wandering what value would you put on it. Thanks. Eric McPherson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.190.96 (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comber Whiskey has some basic information on it. Apparently the "Old Comber" label was introduced in the 1980s for whiskey brewed in the 1950's and rebottled then. --Jayron32 03:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron for correctly spelling non-Scotch whisky as Whiskey. Well Done. But just to be pedantic - with apologies - whisky/whiskey is distilled, not brewed. 92.30.174.243 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be a bit more pedantic, whisky/whiskey is distilled from a precursor - wash - that has been brewed and is technically a form of beer, though not optimised for pleasant drinking as 'deliberate' beer is. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Share dilution

In The Social Network, Eduardo Saverin is shown to be all but eliminated from shareholding due to what they referred to as share dilution, while the others didn't lose any share holdings -- was this merely a function of a faulty contract meant to catch Saverin, assuming he wouldn't read it thoroughly? If so, it's not really nice, but how can he sue for that? Wasn't it his own fault, or was it that Sean Parker led the lawyers to actively mislead him? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure (or at least, I hope) someone with better understanding of the financial and legal matters will chime in with the details, but I will just point out that one of the points made explicitly in the film is that it doesn't matter whether the suit was legally very viable or not. To pay of the settlement (which is what they did in the movie and in real life) was the easiest option, since actually arbitrating it in court would cost probably as much in legal fees and held the possibility of a jury actually siding with Saverin on the argument that he had been defrauded in some way. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'd also like to add that the film isn't a documentary, and may well have simplified that part of it for interest. My understanding was that you are correct though, and that it is implied that the lawyers and anyone who colluded with them has tricked Saverin and is therefore conspiring to steal his money is some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.169.155 (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buying Samsung Galaxy Tab without Carrier contract

In the US and Canada, is it possible to purchase the Samsung Galaxy Tab without paying monthly carrier fees? In other words, can I buy the device unsubsidized by carrier contract and use it without paying monthly contract fees (obviously, without the use of 3G)? If so, is it still possible to use the GPS feature? Thanks Acceptable (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily ask Samsung. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama did not keep his promise [college football]

I am a Obama supporter and I am glad he did some of the things he said he'd do, like pass a healthcare bill and get rid of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law. But one of the things he did NOT do that makes me very mad is he did not reform the infuriating BCS system in college football!!! WTF? And don't tell me it's because there were more important things to do. Why hasn't he applied pressure to the monopolistic goons who run this system? He said he would institute a playoff system. It's been two years almost! Has he even tried to do anything on this front? Was he just joking when he said he would help. WHEN WILL HE BRING CHANGE TO COLLEGE FOOTBALL?--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The President of the United States does not have any authority over the college football system, I'm afraid. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THEN WHY DID HE SAY HE WOULD?--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of antitrust action has been raised in the past actually--so I guess Obama might actually be able to do something about it if he really wanted to.Qrsdogg (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign promises should be better understood as intentions, if they are to be understood non-cynically at all. Politics is more complicated than promises, for better and worse. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama never said he would eliminate the BCS. He was asked in an interview with a sportscaster what he would change about sports if he could, and he said (with a smile) he would like to see a playoff in college football. But he said that as a fan, not as a political policy statement. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but correct me if i'm wrong, in a subsequent interview he more or less said he when he becomes president he would apply political pressure to the BCS ppl to get them to reform their system. i think i saw it on 60 minutes or one of those shows.--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to find a source for the that. The "if he could" part of Mwalcoff's description is crucial. The President has no jurisdiction over college football as such. If the Congress wanted to regulate it under the Interstate Commerce clause and/or if Obama wanted them to look into it, in theory something could be done. But as that's in the world of entertainment, they would probably get pilloried for wasting taxpayer dollars looking into something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't *need* to find a source on that (MWalcoff already did, btw). I think you're confusing articlespace, where references are requirer with the reference desk, where people are allowed to ask questions. Don't be so didactic about your wikirules.--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you did need to find a source in order to get his exact statement, as opposed to going by what you thought you heard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama has more important things on his plate to deal with. And, re college football, doesn't Stanford have all the Luck? PhGustaf (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the clip from "60 Minutes": [6]. He says "I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit" on the issue. Is this an unfilled promise? It depends on how seriously you're taking him here. I'm sure he knows the president has no authority over the state and private universities whose administrations make the decisions for college football. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and thanks, yes, that is the clip i was thinking of.--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well he really let me down. And I say phooey to people who say he has "more important" things to deal with. He goes on golf outings and takes Hawaii vacations. And football is the most popular sport in the country, so having a robust and fair playoff system would improve MORALE across the nation. What is his email address? I'm going to write to him and his staff.--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact his office at the website www.whitehouse.gov. I'd love to see what form letter they send back to people who write about football. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched the clip. That was no campaign promise, that was just a fan talking. Note that Michelle was kind of like, "Whatever." Also note that this was apparently after the election. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he has more important stuff on his plate, like calling the Eagles to congratulate them for giving Vick a good home. Rimush (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making a phone call takes 5 minutes. When was that 60 Minutes interview conducted? It sounds like it was after the election and before he got into office and maybe asked himself, "What have I gotten myself into?", and not about football. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

down with the BCS! impeach Obama! jk.--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention that one of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was for giving bad advice to the Washington Redskins? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about impeaching Nixon for screwing Penn State and personally awarding (against any such authority) the national championship to Texas in 1969. --Jayron32 03:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Don't remind me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something but why do we believe that Obama hasn't 'thrown his weight around'. Per the comments above which sound logical to me, he can throw his weight around but it's unlikely this is going to include actually include anything which may force the BCS to change. So he could have 'throw his weight around', the BCS politely told him to 'fuck off' and we wouldn't know about it unless someone decided to tell us, and why would they? I'm not aware that we're aware of every single phone call that Obama has made to every single person. Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will have to wait until wikileaks provides that documentation. Googlemeister (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]