Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 31

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 30	Humanities desk archive	August 1 >

Michel Pêcheux Biography

I am trying to find biographical information on the French linguist/philosopher, Michel Pêcheux. Why is it so difficult to find out anything about him?

To begin with, it seems this fellow is what would be termed a continental philosopher (more information can be found at Continental philosophy and Analytic Philosophy). Browsing those pages ought to give you a bit of history of rift in modern philosophy. The reason this is important is because the dominant strain of philosophy that is taught is analytic (in the English speaking world at least). So this will lessen the likelihood of there being English resources on a non-English speaking (or at least publishing) philosopher. A simple google search returns results like this and this. There isn't too much biographical information on this fellow on Google's first few results. A quick keyword search through my university's very well stocked academic library only returns discussion on his works, but then again this university does not look too kindly on continental philosophy.--droptone 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extravagant club

Hi

About two years ago, I was surfing on the net, and I found the website for some kind of "Club", whose very select members get to do extravagant things like closing the San Diego City Zoo to take the guy's girlfriend out on a special and expensive date, or getting a ferrari for the guy's daughter's birthday within two hours, and stuff like that. I really don't remember the name of the site or the name of the club... I think it had the word "Mint" in it, but I've been looking for it for a pretty good time with no avail. If somebody knows the name of this club, I would greatly appreciate the information. I'm doing research on extravagant things, and this club came to my mind.

Thanks a lot

--Oskilian 03:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw one on tv. It started with a "Q".

Lost painting from WWII Nazi Loot

What is the name of the painting that was stolen from the nazi loot at the end of WWII? it has been featured on a christmas US Stamp i believe and the painting hasnt been seen sense WWII

Wars make no sense. JackofOz 06:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not asking for your view on war and WWII was a war that made sense it was good vs. evil

What I said was something else disguised as a view on war. I have failed to communicate. JackofOz 07:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever sense I know you, Jack, you have rarely failed to communicate, but it's ok sense everybody makes mistakes once in a while. Loomis 10:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At last, someone who REALLY understands me. JackofOz 12:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't really understand you all that well, sense your contributions rarely make any since to me at all. Ok now we're being just plain mean, we should stop. :) Loomis 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies by Van Klomp? Sorry, I hope you'll get some serious answers too. :) DirkvdM 08:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, don't you think it would be more helpful if you'd do the off-topic stuff after trying to actually help the person? Anyway. I've googled around for "Nazi stolen art" and there are some images in Google Images, but none which are unambiguously the one you are talking about. There is a website regarding stolen Nazi at http://www.lostart.de/. If you search around on it you can find lots of black and white pictures of art which has been found, but that doesn't sound like what you are looking for. The Nazis stole a lot of paintings so you'll probably have to give us more information if you are interested in one of them in particular. --Fastfission 12:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most US christmas stamps seem to advertise the holdings of US galleries so they are not lost. The cherubim at the bottom of Sistine Madonna (Raphael) have appeared on US stamps. The painting was taken, not looted as they were the winners, by the Russians after the war but returned. MeltBanana 13:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the laws of war say that any party who takes treasures from the enemy is guilty of "looting", unless the transfer of the treasure is agreed to by both parties as war reparations. StuRat 00:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song

Yeah I'm looking for the song they play at the start of the fast and the furious 3, where they're spraying the fat kid with paint.

Having as yet not seen the film and thus being unsure of the scene to which you refer and whether the concomitant music was sufficiently long as to have merited inclusion on the soundtrack, I don't know if this will help, but Amazon.com offers for sale the The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift soundtrack and lists twelve songs as being featured on the CD. Joe 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unforutnatley im not able to play the samples give on the site. I'm just hoping that someone who has seen the movie will know.

Camera

Not sure if it's really a Humanities question or Miscellaneous, but I wanted to ask advice from anyone here who knows a fair amount about photography. I'm considering buying three new lenses for my camera (one of the mid-upper tier of those big Nikon professional cameras), and I just wanted advice on which to get. I'm thinking zoom and microfocus lenses along with something else. Is a fisheye lense fairly useless? I like the way some of the pictures taken with it can turn out, but I'm looking for the most generally useful lenses. Is there any particular lense well suited to bokeh pictures? My current lense wont usually let me adjust the focus to the blur-to-clarity contrast that I'm looking for, and I certainly can't seem to get those interestingly pixelated blurred backrounds I've seen elsewhere (though some of that might be photoshoping.) Thanks, Sashafklein 09:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask User:Fir0002 he is a pro photographer.

"Generation"

My parents were born in Portugal and immigrated to the U.S. I was born in the U.S. Does this make me first-generation or second-generation American? --Nelson Ricardo 10:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second generation. See [1]. (Assuming that your parents were Portugese and not Americans born in Portugal.) Rmhermen 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn;t sound right. Maybe they have differnt terminology over there, but in Australia you'd be called a first generation Australian. JackofOz 10:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Especially by Rmhermen's statement: "Assuming that your parents were Portugese and not Americans born in Portugal". What's the difference between the two? I would assume that by "immigrating", the questioner is saying that his parents were born in Portugal, left Portugal for the US, and eventually became US citizens. That would seem to make them both ethnically "Portugese", as well as "Americans born in Portugal". I'm confused.

In any case, I'm curious as to my "standing". As this may actually clear things up (or perhaps further confuse) everybody, including the questioner.

All four of my grandparents were born in Europe, and came to Canada as children along with their parents who were also of course born in Europe (my eight great-grandparents). They all became Canadian citizens. Both my parents were born in Canada.

Am I a second, third, or fourth generation Canadian?

(Actually, my maternal grandmother was born in Canada, but let's assume she was born in Europe, just to simplify matters.) Loomis 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calendars

What was the calendar used in the world prior to the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar? Specifically what would a people living in 480 BC say the current year was? They couldn't say that the year is 480 BC since that refers to the the birth of Christ who at that point was not born yet. --Max

The precursor to the Gregorian calendar is the Julian calendar. Even though the Gregorian calendar has become a universal standard, there are many other calendars around. In 480 BC (see Anno Domini for a discussion on that notation), how you described a date or a year depended very much on where you were in the world. As the Julian calendar was introduced in 46 BC, that wouldn't be much good. In the 5th century BC, the Roman calendar, Jewish Calendar, Egyptian calendar and Babylonian calendar are well known (see also Ancient Macedonian calendar, Attic calendar, Hellenic calendar, Germanic calendar and Chinese calendar). — Gareth Hughes 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered if calendars were popular back then. I study wars and a lot of dates in original texts are not given as years, but as the number of lunar cycles or solar cycles before or after a major event, such as "15 moons after the birth of the King". I know that governments required calendars to keep everything in order, but the common people had very little use for them. Even in modern history, knowing an exact birthdate of a person is new. Just a hundred years ago, birthdates (and often birth years) came and went without a mark on a calendar. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has more to do with the fact that the common ppl couldn't read and write and probably couldn't count beyond ten or twenty. As they couldn't read any documents the necessity for such documents was quite limited. This in turn leads to fewer things being exactly dated and written down. Flamarande 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC) PS In 480 BC someone (in the Roman Republic) would say that it was the "year of Marcus Fabius K.f. Vibulanus II and Gnaeus Manlius P.f. Cincinnatus" (see List of Republican Roman Consuls).[reply]

Jerusalem for dummies :Wikipedia contradcition about ascension to heaven, Christians and what exactly is Western Wall?

Hello,

I am trying to understand the complexity of the city of Jerusalem.

1. As I understand it, the most important property of Jerusalem for muslims is the ascension to heaven by Muhammed in 620.

Dome_of_the_Rock claims that this mosque has a rock in its center from which the ascension took place. [2], also a Wikipedia article, claims he ascended from where the nearby Al Aqsa mosque stands now.

2. My history teacher once taught me Jerusalem is a complicated city : you have Christians, Muslims and Jews there and they all claim certain parts. I understand her comment about the Muslims and Jews, but what about the Christians? What is it that they claim in Jerusalem? Well they probably feel connected with things like the Western Wall as well as their history is connected with the Jewish history, but for the rest....

3. Do I understand correctly the Western Wall is about 2500 years old, and NOT from the 10th century before christ. I mean : it is a remnant from the second temple, and not at all from first right??

File:Http://mosaic.lk.net/images/wall.jpg All those people close to the wall are probably praying Jews. Now are these people standing inside the temple of which the Wall was part, or outside? I assume outside.

Now do I understand correctly that on the other side of the western wall is the enormous platform built by Herodes that now supports Al Aqsa and Dome of Rock? As the platform stands now, does it SURROUND the location of the former Second Temple, or is the former Second Temple located at the Western edge? (usually you would make a platform AROUND the temple??).

I thank you,

Evilbu 14:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might the Christian connection have something to do with the Last Supper and the Passion and Crucifixion of Jesus, which are believed to have taken place in or very near to Jerusalem? --Lambiam ^Talk 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Christians claim mainly the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the whole city is considered holy to them because Jesus preached, was tried and died and suppossedly resurected there. This article: Western Wall clearly states that the wall is part of the improvements (also read Herod's Temple) of Herod the Great ca 20 BC. As for your question about the muslim mosques please read Temple Mount, a fine picture shows everything in great detail. Flamarande 14:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Wall (glad you didn't call it "Wailing"; many Jews find that offensive) was the Western retaining wall of the 2nd Temple. The First Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE; it stood on the same site. I can't see the image you cite, but Jews pray on the outside of the former Temple site.

Temple Mount resembles a Tel in many respects. Each generation has built on the remains of previous generations, in a palimpsest. The platform would have been built on top of previous construction and the Western Wall was built to help retain the growing mound. --Dweller 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks : So for question 2, it seems the Christians don't really claim anything on the Temple Mount.

But what about question 1? There is still a contradiction! From which mosque (well the mosque wasn't there at that time) did Mohammed according to Islam ascend to heaven : Al Aqsa or Dome of Rock? Evilbu 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dome of the Rock has a rock upon which Muhammad is supossed to have ascended to heaven. I suppose this is the mosque you are looking for. I see always the blue mosque on the TV when this (or similar) subject appears. Flamarande 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Lambiam's link above. Muslim's believe there has been an important mosque there since ancient times, the second oldest after Mecca's. --Cam 20:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Christians "claim" that any part of Jerusalem belongs to them. It is a significant place, but Christians don't consider themselves to have a "right" to the land. I'm pretty sure. BenC7 11:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, do I get this right now :

1. The Rock of Dome is where according to muslims Muhammed ascended to heaven, NOT the Al aqsa mosuqe, of which the exact location is not that important.

2. [Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre] is the most important thing for Christians, as it is supposed to have been built on the spot where Jesus was crucified AND the spot where he was buried (how big is that church??)

3. The word 'tel' is not that familiar to me. In short? : Herodes built a platform around the second temple, of which the Western Wall is a remnant. The second temple is gone now, and two mosques stand on the platform? Thanks,Evilbu 22:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re 3. See the (pretty good) articles at Tel and Western Wall. --Dweller 12:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judgments in a 1967 case

Can someone get me details of a 1967 case involving an attempt to murder M.G. Ramachandran by M.R. Radha ? The initial trial happenned in a magistrate court and M.R. Radha was convicted by Chengalpattu Sessions Court and sentence to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence was subsequently affirmed by the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court of India commuted his sentence from 7 years to 3.5 years. It'd be great if I could get a copy of one or more of these judgments. I tried in vain searching this site. May be, I didn't search properly ? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That web site only seems to go back to 1999. I doubt this will be on the web, unless a major (and very expensive) project was undertaken to transfer older cases; you will probably need to visit a specialist legal library, or search a suitable newspaper archive. Aha: read the FAQ on http://indiancourts.nic.in/judis_faq.htm. Notinasnaid 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like Notinasnaid said, searching newspaper archives might be the best way. this google search brought up a couple of PDF files. See if any of them are useful to you. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}05:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, Notinasnaid. The judis site has records of Supreme Court judgments earlier than 1999. See this from K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra. Only the high court archives are from 99. In any case, I agree that it's a better idea to search newspaper archives.

Deepu, the pdf documents that you refer to did throw up some interesting information though not containing the details of the case I was looking for. Thanks both of you. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WANNABE blackjack player

I am trying to teach myself how to play blackjack with a basic strategy card from the book gambling for dummies. Naturally its to hard for me to understand. Here is my problem, the card shows basic strategy for soft 13 to 21 and hard 12 to 21. It does not tell me exactly what that means. I know it has something to do with an ace. I keep geting hands that do not have an ace in them at all and I do not know what do. I know this stupidly simple for those of you who know what you are doing but hey everybody has to start someplace. Thanks16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)(Hobgoblin)

Pop on over to Blackjack - it should help (it even has some strategy tables included!). Basically a 'soft' hand is one with an ace involved, while a 'hard' hand is without an ace. As I understand it, anyhow, but I'm more of a poker guy. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fine point is needed here. While any hand without an ace is hard, not all hands with aces are soft. An ace can count as either 1 or 11. So, if you have an ace, and it can still be counted either way without hitting 21 (that is, if your remaining cards are 9 or less), this makes it a "soft" hand, which can have ten subtracted from it, if you choose. Once your remaining non-ace cards total 11 or more, your hand with the ace in it becomes a "hard" hand, since counting the ace as 11 would now cause you to go bust. At this point, the ace loses it's flexibility and becomes just a 1. What if your other cards total exactly 10 ? Then you have 21, so stop worrying if your hand is hard or soft and collect your loot ! StuRat 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention them, but split hands, double-down, and insurance are also important aspect of Blackjack. StuRat 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.S. Teachers' Combination Bible 1895

This Bible was written by J.B. Jones I would like to know more about it. e-mail address ((removed, please read the top of the page before posting questions!))

It has the original known text and then shows all popular English translations. In some cases, it remarks on translations in other languages (primarily French) where the popular English translation is derived from something other than the original text. It is very useful for seeing how the English versions of the Bible have changed over time. However, it is considered blasphemy in most churches because it may be used to imply that since the current Bible must be the correct one, earlier ones must have been flawed. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot - it also has a compare/contrast section on the New Testament since the gospels are not exactly the same. Along with a single chronology, it makes it much easier to see what happened in the order in which it happened. Also, it brings up notes, such as this problem I had: According to my Church, there is a chronology that went like this:

Day 1: Jesus captured by the Roman Soldiers.
Day 2: Jesus tried before Pilate. Jesus sent to Herod. Jesus tried before Herod. Jesus sent to Pilate. Jesus tried before Pilate.
Day 3: Jesus crucified.

My problem is that Herod was many days travel from Pilate. However, this Bible references documents that explain Herod was visiting Pilate at the time. So, all the going back and forth could well have taken place during one trial. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious obituary

A distant family member about whom I knew nothing recently died, and her family sent copies of the obituary to the extended family. As an atheist only minimally schooled in theology, I surely recognize that I am ignorant of many things religious, but I thought myself to have known most of the religious euphemisms for death employed by obituary writers (e.g., Born into Eternal Life, Reunited with XYZ loved ones, Went to meet Jesus); I was surprised, then, to read a formulation of which I'd never heard: Born 14 June 1913. Completed her Christian victory 15 July 2006.. A relevant Googling returns many results but few that appear to be relative to this question; I gather that the phrase Christian victory is used in a scriptural sense to denote one's giving him/herself over to God, but other uses seem reserved to specific Christian sects and churches, of which I don't think the deceased to have been a member. Has anyone observed this locution elsewhere? It strikes me as a bit odd... Joe 20:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I interpret this is that what the deceased person did during her life was (her contribution to) Christian victory, and that the obituarist states that with her death her work was completed. "Christian victory" by itself refers to the victory of the Lamb over death (the wages of sin). The terminology may say more about the obituarist's religious background than that of the dearly departed, but it is also often the case that people have their unexpected or hidden sides (good and bad) known to only a few. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lambiam, except that, (perhaps due to a typo) s/he probably should have inserted the word her in the phrase: "(her contribution to) her Christian victory". I wouldn't normally be so pedantic, but I think that this tiny ommission may lead some to the wrong conclusion (i.e. that the "victory" being refered to wasn't, as it would seem to appear, a purely personal, private, spiritual one, but rather some sort of "victory" for Christianity in a more temporal, inter-religious context). Once again, apologies for nit-picking Lambiam, as I'm sure that's what you meant to say, and if not, feel free to correct me. Loomis 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trousseau

The article for trousseau and dowry seem to equate the two as a bride-price. I've heard of a trousseau being seperate from the dowry, like as a set of things the bride would need to run her household. The bride would collect these things (made by others as gifts, or made by herself) and bring them to her new home after marriage. The trousseau would not be a dowry, as it would not be given as bride-price to the husband's family. It would be kept by the bride.

Is this right, or is dowry a larger definition than the article says?

Thank you in advance, ¡209.180.29.73 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)![reply]

A trousseau consists of the bride's personal possessions. A dowry can be either [1] the property brought to a husband by a wife on marriage, or [2] money or property given by a man in exchange for his bride. So they are not at all the same, and "dowry" by itself is not unambiguous. A dowry in the first sense that consisted entirely of a trousseau would be highly unusual. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[After edit conflict] I'd say that you're right. There are two differences. First, a dowry is seen as a gift from the bride's family to the groom's family. It is not between people but between families, and is reserved for cultural contexts in which families (in the extended sense) are much more important than in modern atomicized Western culture. The trousseau, on the other hand, is specifically intended for the newly formed household. Second, a dowry may be in the form of money, or land, or cattle, while a trousseau consists of such things as household goods (linens, housewares) and (women's) clothing, things that a woman is supposed to need for properly fulfilling her role of housewife. That having been said, these things are never quite crisp and clear, and the concepts may mix and blend. --Lambiam ^Talk

You're absolutely right to emphasize the role of the families; the notion of dowry goes out the window once marriage is conceived of a a pairing of individuals. Dowries are largely limited to arranged and negotiated marriages. - Nunh-huh 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more accurate way to describe a dowry, at least in the medieval European sense, is that it is a gift from the bride's family to the newly married couple's family-- which for most practical purposes would be the groom. But at least in medieval England, if a married couple died without children, the dowry would revert to the wife's family. It kind of relates to the idea that women-- especially married women-- could not inherit property (because they couldn't legally own any). In a sense, the dowry would be a daughter's inheritance given to her future children, and before her father's death. But as noted above these concepts are different for different times & places. Crypticfirefly 02:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Also, as noted above, sometimes the groom's family would also be required to provide a contribution toward a dowry, but again, the idea is that this is property that would ultimately belong to the couple's children if all went "right." Crypticfirefly 02:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

finding the movie

There is a song called "she's the one" recorded by Robbie Williams and i'm sure other singers.Which movies have used this song.--70.37.167.90 20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this out by doing a Soundtrack Search on the Internet Movie Database: go to http://www.imdb.com/search, type in "she's the one" under Word Search, select Soundtracks from the drop-down menu and press "Go". --Canley 23:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]