Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 24
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 23 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 25 > |
| 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 24[edit]
The article says he sell his business for 4 millions dollars and at the time his business is making 6 million dollars a year (just few years later the company he sold grew into multibillion-company). So why would anyone want to sell something that worth less than you can possibly make from it and has potential to keep expanding? What is the story behind it? Was he desperate for money at the time or was he simply just stupid? Obviously he committed suicide in the end after regretted about it.184.97.244.130 (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It says it was grossing six million, which usualy means income before expenses. It doesn't say how much the net was, so we don't know how much was left over from the incoming money each year. RudolfRed (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) He wasn't collecting $6,000,000 per year in salary from the business. The money that a business makes belongs to the business. It would be a bad businessman (and possibly a criminal one) who pocketed every cent in revenue from such a business. Plus that was $6 million gross (before expenses) income. That wasn't profit. Profit is revenue minus expenses. --Jayron32 02:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Still even if he only made 1 million a year that's still a lot better than 4 million dollars sold out. In just a short few years, he can make more than that and potential to make a lot more. If he sold out he got 4 million dollars just sit there and do nothing. He is either a very bad businessman with short minded or is there a reason behind it. I'm curious about the story behind it, details of what happened. Perhaps he got tricked into selling it. He can't be too stupid if he came up with a billion dollars worth idea (as it is right now) like that. 184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, ideas aren't worth that much money. Bill Rasmussen came up with the idea of ESPN. He lacked the business acumen to lead the TV network to what it became, and also lacked the personal finances to give it the necessary capital to do so. So, the people who he went to for financing (Getty Oil) replaced him with someone who could lead said network. Rasmussen was justly compensated for his work during his short stint as ESPN CEO. The network moved on without him. There's some hard feelings, perhaps, but in the end there's also thousands of employees who may not have their jobs today had Getty Oil not provided the necessary financing or had they not placed people they knew and trusted into positions of leadership of ESPN. Take Victoria's Secret. It was hardly the world's only mail-order lingerie business, and it wasn't all that big of a business before Raymond sold it. What if those people that purchased Victoria's Secret instead purchased a different mail-order lingerie business, and took THAT business to a multi-billion dollar enterprise, while Raymond's company floundered? What would that mean? The idea is certainly worth something, but lots of people have similar ideas, and it takes a combination of ideas, capital, and business ability to make it grow, and the latter two are far more rare than the first. --Jayron32 03:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well your explanation is good and making sense to me. But I disagree with you over the value of idea. Not many people have the exactly the same brilliant idea as you said. Those ideas may be similar in some way but not exactly, so there will be competition and the best idea rise up to be the best and started to dominate the industrial. Take example of facebook (simply idea, just a derived idea of something similar already existing), doesn't take much to start out. The problem with people these days is most people don't understand the "real" value of a brilliant and usually ended up making stupid choices. There are many examples of new brilliant ideas that later on flourish into billions dollars. Anyway they can't just replace him if he doesn't agree to. I still think he made a big mistake to sell it off for just 4 million dollars.184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Except that ideas aren't that unique. ESPN is often cited as inventing the "all-sports network", which isn't really that true, they were just the first that was successful. Before they ever became a major player, there were other competitors out there, but they all floundered. SportsChannel America was founded before ESPN, and founded by Cablevision, the same people that launched HBO, so they knew something about Cable TV, and it never took off like ESPN did. Why did SportsChannel flounder where ESPN succeeded? It wasn't the idea, as SportsChannel's founders had the idea first, and there's nothing in that idea which is substantially different than ESPN. What made ESPN work was the execution, which required the right people in the right jobs doing those jobs well, and the right financial backing to make it happen. Likewise with Raymond and Victoria's Secret. He owned a bra-and-panty business. It wasn't a unique idea, it wasn't even a major player in the market at the time. Frederick's of Hollywood was founded thirty years before Victoria's Secret, and was in a largely identical business. It took the right financial backing, the right leadership, the right marketing, and a lot of other things that happened long after Raymond was out of the picture that made it into the industry leader. There were 4000 different tiny patent medicine companies making various sweetened tonics at the turn of the 20th century. Coke and Pepsi didn't become national brands because the idea of what they were is all that special. They became successful because they were well run by business people, not someone who said "lets throw a bunch of sugar and fizzy water in with some odd flavorings". The idea of Coke and Pepsi isn't why their industry leaders, anymore than the idea of an all-sports network or the idea of a lingerie store is. --Jayron32 03:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see where you're getting at. But look all those ideas are not exactly the same. Yes, they are related but completely different ideas (each idea is unique in some way) otherwise they would come out as identical products. I would agree with you that there are many other factors which contribute or determine the success of an idea. Most cases, you got to have a good idea and good money to back up and good management for it to success. But coming with a good new idea isn't easy. Believe it or not, most people can't come up with a brilliant idea (otherwise we would see a lot more billionaires now). Those who can come up with a good idea usually are just a tiny portion of the population. However, in some extreme cases an idea itself is enough for you to strike super rich. I agree with you that there are many other factors but to me an idea value a lot more than most people think it is.184.97.244.130 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly, there are a few times when the idea itself is the thing. But a bra-and-panty business isn't such an idea, and Raymond was justly compensated for the value of his business when he sold it. That someone later took his raw materials and turned it into a giant industry leader isn't because of what he sold them any more than the minor that digs the lump of iron ore out of the ground has a stake in the value of the Lamborghini that lump of iron ore much later becomes a part of. It makes for a nice story, but ultimately Raymond's idea wasn't that big of a deal. Steve Wozniak did build a computer in his garage; but so didn't hundreds of other geeks in the 1970s. He got lucky enough to do it while his buddy Steve Jobs was watching. Ub Iwerks was a creative animator, but it took someone with the business acumen of Walt Disney and his successors to turn Iwerk's doodles into the world's biggest entertainment company. None of those companies was founded on a unique idea; they were founded on a common idea that was exploited by people who knew how to run a business, and run it very well. It goes on and on. We romanticize ideas because it makes for a nice story: a wunderkind has some brilliant idea no one else has ever had, and then has the wherewithal to take his totally unique idea and built a global empire out of it. That's probably almost never happened just like that. Ideas are products of their times as much as they are of any one individual, they're part of the zeitgeist of an era. The biggest, most successful companies aren't built on magical, solitary ideas from one person. They're built on keen business skills and proper leverage. --Jayron32 04:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Jayron. In addition, I don't really understand the OP's point on Facebook. As the OP themselves said, Facebook was hardly unique, there were social networking sites before Facebook. The question of how Facebook got to be the dominant one is much discussed in sources but I don't think you'll find many that say the reason was because it was a unique idea, more some sort of mix of successful implementation, marketing, luck, connection with their target market, right target market, business acumen, finances etc combined with the fact its dominance is self reenforcing. Nil Einne (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly, there are a few times when the idea itself is the thing. But a bra-and-panty business isn't such an idea, and Raymond was justly compensated for the value of his business when he sold it. That someone later took his raw materials and turned it into a giant industry leader isn't because of what he sold them any more than the minor that digs the lump of iron ore out of the ground has a stake in the value of the Lamborghini that lump of iron ore much later becomes a part of. It makes for a nice story, but ultimately Raymond's idea wasn't that big of a deal. Steve Wozniak did build a computer in his garage; but so didn't hundreds of other geeks in the 1970s. He got lucky enough to do it while his buddy Steve Jobs was watching. Ub Iwerks was a creative animator, but it took someone with the business acumen of Walt Disney and his successors to turn Iwerk's doodles into the world's biggest entertainment company. None of those companies was founded on a unique idea; they were founded on a common idea that was exploited by people who knew how to run a business, and run it very well. It goes on and on. We romanticize ideas because it makes for a nice story: a wunderkind has some brilliant idea no one else has ever had, and then has the wherewithal to take his totally unique idea and built a global empire out of it. That's probably almost never happened just like that. Ideas are products of their times as much as they are of any one individual, they're part of the zeitgeist of an era. The biggest, most successful companies aren't built on magical, solitary ideas from one person. They're built on keen business skills and proper leverage. --Jayron32 04:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see where you're getting at. But look all those ideas are not exactly the same. Yes, they are related but completely different ideas (each idea is unique in some way) otherwise they would come out as identical products. I would agree with you that there are many other factors which contribute or determine the success of an idea. Most cases, you got to have a good idea and good money to back up and good management for it to success. But coming with a good new idea isn't easy. Believe it or not, most people can't come up with a brilliant idea (otherwise we would see a lot more billionaires now). Those who can come up with a good idea usually are just a tiny portion of the population. However, in some extreme cases an idea itself is enough for you to strike super rich. I agree with you that there are many other factors but to me an idea value a lot more than most people think it is.184.97.244.130 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Except that ideas aren't that unique. ESPN is often cited as inventing the "all-sports network", which isn't really that true, they were just the first that was successful. Before they ever became a major player, there were other competitors out there, but they all floundered. SportsChannel America was founded before ESPN, and founded by Cablevision, the same people that launched HBO, so they knew something about Cable TV, and it never took off like ESPN did. Why did SportsChannel flounder where ESPN succeeded? It wasn't the idea, as SportsChannel's founders had the idea first, and there's nothing in that idea which is substantially different than ESPN. What made ESPN work was the execution, which required the right people in the right jobs doing those jobs well, and the right financial backing to make it happen. Likewise with Raymond and Victoria's Secret. He owned a bra-and-panty business. It wasn't a unique idea, it wasn't even a major player in the market at the time. Frederick's of Hollywood was founded thirty years before Victoria's Secret, and was in a largely identical business. It took the right financial backing, the right leadership, the right marketing, and a lot of other things that happened long after Raymond was out of the picture that made it into the industry leader. There were 4000 different tiny patent medicine companies making various sweetened tonics at the turn of the 20th century. Coke and Pepsi didn't become national brands because the idea of what they were is all that special. They became successful because they were well run by business people, not someone who said "lets throw a bunch of sugar and fizzy water in with some odd flavorings". The idea of Coke and Pepsi isn't why their industry leaders, anymore than the idea of an all-sports network or the idea of a lingerie store is. --Jayron32 03:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well your explanation is good and making sense to me. But I disagree with you over the value of idea. Not many people have the exactly the same brilliant idea as you said. Those ideas may be similar in some way but not exactly, so there will be competition and the best idea rise up to be the best and started to dominate the industrial. Take example of facebook (simply idea, just a derived idea of something similar already existing), doesn't take much to start out. The problem with people these days is most people don't understand the "real" value of a brilliant and usually ended up making stupid choices. There are many examples of new brilliant ideas that later on flourish into billions dollars. Anyway they can't just replace him if he doesn't agree to. I still think he made a big mistake to sell it off for just 4 million dollars.184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, ideas aren't worth that much money. Bill Rasmussen came up with the idea of ESPN. He lacked the business acumen to lead the TV network to what it became, and also lacked the personal finances to give it the necessary capital to do so. So, the people who he went to for financing (Getty Oil) replaced him with someone who could lead said network. Rasmussen was justly compensated for his work during his short stint as ESPN CEO. The network moved on without him. There's some hard feelings, perhaps, but in the end there's also thousands of employees who may not have their jobs today had Getty Oil not provided the necessary financing or had they not placed people they knew and trusted into positions of leadership of ESPN. Take Victoria's Secret. It was hardly the world's only mail-order lingerie business, and it wasn't all that big of a business before Raymond sold it. What if those people that purchased Victoria's Secret instead purchased a different mail-order lingerie business, and took THAT business to a multi-billion dollar enterprise, while Raymond's company floundered? What would that mean? The idea is certainly worth something, but lots of people have similar ideas, and it takes a combination of ideas, capital, and business ability to make it grow, and the latter two are far more rare than the first. --Jayron32 03:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Still even if he only made 1 million a year that's still a lot better than 4 million dollars sold out. In just a short few years, he can make more than that and potential to make a lot more. If he sold out he got 4 million dollars just sit there and do nothing. He is either a very bad businessman with short minded or is there a reason behind it. I'm curious about the story behind it, details of what happened. Perhaps he got tricked into selling it. He can't be too stupid if he came up with a billion dollars worth idea (as it is right now) like that. 184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Jayron32 -- not sure that Frederick's of Hollywood was really "a largely identical business"; it's had a reputation of selling semi-sleazy novelty items intended much more to cater to the sexual fantasies of 50's-generation males, rather than what women would choose to wear for themselves. As for the original poster's question, from the timelines on the Victoria's Secret article, it seems plausible that the company had expanded about as much as it was going to with Raymond's methods and goals, and that he could be considered to have sold out at a fairly good moment... AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- For a typical business, $6,000,000 gross translates into a net profit of $60,000 to $300,000. For a rapidly-expanding business, it might translate into no net profit at all, if all extra money is invested in further growth. There are almost no businesses in the world that have the 16% profit margin you're estimating. --Carnildo (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what kind of business is that. How can the profit be 60,000 to 300,000 dollars a year? 60k to 300k is obviously a very underestimate net profit that he made. Expenses won't take that much of money. For what I know my parents expenses are like 20k to make 60k. If any business spend that much and get only 60k to 300k that would mean the business doesn't know what its doing. I'm sure there are a lot of business if not most make a lot more than 16% profit margin.184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- A few businesses work at that level. Apple reported a 22% profit margin for 4th quarter 2012: [1]. However, that's Apple and they are quite likely the most profitable business in the world. They are far from typical. If we look at a retail company built like Victoria's Secret, something like Abercrombie and Fitch, shows they had what is considered an outrageously good quarter and reported a 6.5% profit margin. Walmart reported 3.5% profit margin, and that's also a very successful business. 3.5% of $6,000,000 is $210,000. And again, if Raymond stuck that $210,000 into his pockets each year, he's a terrible CEO, but let's just say he did. It would take him 20 years to realize $4,000,000. He got that in one swipe. --Jayron32 03:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- How can the profit margin is so low? So expenses actually taking up most of the grossing amount of money? How can my parents spend only 20k and make up to 60k?(they gross 80k with 60k profit)184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Because your parents are people, and not a business. Your parents are paid a wage and spend that wage on living expenses. A business is selling a product, and needs to use its revenues to keep producing that product. Totally different sources of revenue, totally different types of expenditures. --Jayron32 03:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you are making big profits then someone else will enter the market with lower prices and take all your business, since they would still be making reasonable profits. In a competitive market, businesses make pretty much the minimum profit that makes running the business worthwhile (ie. they make just over their opportunity cost of capital, that is the amount they could make if the capital were invested in the next best thing). To make anything more, there needs to be some lack of competition - it's known in economics as making supernormal profits. --Tango (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- How can the profit margin is so low? So expenses actually taking up most of the grossing amount of money? How can my parents spend only 20k and make up to 60k?(they gross 80k with 60k profit)184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- A few businesses work at that level. Apple reported a 22% profit margin for 4th quarter 2012: [1]. However, that's Apple and they are quite likely the most profitable business in the world. They are far from typical. If we look at a retail company built like Victoria's Secret, something like Abercrombie and Fitch, shows they had what is considered an outrageously good quarter and reported a 6.5% profit margin. Walmart reported 3.5% profit margin, and that's also a very successful business. 3.5% of $6,000,000 is $210,000. And again, if Raymond stuck that $210,000 into his pockets each year, he's a terrible CEO, but let's just say he did. It would take him 20 years to realize $4,000,000. He got that in one swipe. --Jayron32 03:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what kind of business is that. How can the profit be 60,000 to 300,000 dollars a year? 60k to 300k is obviously a very underestimate net profit that he made. Expenses won't take that much of money. For what I know my parents expenses are like 20k to make 60k. If any business spend that much and get only 60k to 300k that would mean the business doesn't know what its doing. I'm sure there are a lot of business if not most make a lot more than 16% profit margin.184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- For a typical business, $6,000,000 gross translates into a net profit of $60,000 to $300,000. For a rapidly-expanding business, it might translate into no net profit at all, if all extra money is invested in further growth. There are almost no businesses in the world that have the 16% profit margin you're estimating. --Carnildo (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Much of the above is correct, of course. But there is another perspective. $4 million (in 1982) was (and still is, if less so) enough money to live a carefree and comfortable live essentially forever. Not everyone wants money for the sake of money. And it's easily possible to become overfed with beautiful models carrying around small pieces of silk. Really! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- HAA that's funny. To me it's impossible to be overfed with models like that... Maybe bad models then yea!184.97.244.130 (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
rival package companies with smaller aircrafts[edit]
I saw some videos on YouTube. They were of FedEx Cessna aircrafts. That made me wonder if UPS also uses the same things.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if they deliver to small markets then small planes would make sense. An alternative strategy is to just deliver to major cities (and areas a short drive from those cities). StuRat (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- The UPS fleet has just big planes. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Being attracted to / impressed / fascinated by the incomprehensible[edit]
Greetings! I am looking for a psychological (sociological?) term which describes the situation that "ordinary people" (not "experts") are attracted or impressed by or occupied by ideas/concepts (fact or fiction) despite the fact that they actually do not (or can not) understand them. Mere "curiosity" would be to weak. Examples are homoepathy, relativity theory, evolution, extraterrestial life, meaning of Hermann-Hesse-books, abstract art, texts of holy books etc. - the whole mixture of hard or soft stuff. I'd appreciate your help, even if it will be only keywords (which would help in further search). GEEZERnil nisi bene 09:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Some related concepts would be esoterica, esotericism and arcana. However, those words more describe this group of concepts itself rather than the attraction of people towards them. --Viennese Waltz 09:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmmm ... no ... it can also be hard science, which is absolutely not understood but "painted on the personal flag". I assume that this has something to do with the "social access" or "social reputation" which you "gain" by adhering to these concepts - on the other hand: I could be wrong. GEEZERnil nisi bene 10:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do you know Pierre Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital? But I think it's too generic for what you're describing. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmmm ... no ... it can also be hard science, which is absolutely not understood but "painted on the personal flag". I assume that this has something to do with the "social access" or "social reputation" which you "gain" by adhering to these concepts - on the other hand: I could be wrong. GEEZERnil nisi bene 10:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright law UK[edit]
Hi, i've read the licensing terms but am still unclear on whether or not i could use something like this commercially in the UK. A lot of sites i've seen using images of cars for commercial use here have removed the badge of the manufacturer in the pictures and i'm unsure if that's a requirement. Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid we can't give legal advice. If you want advice related to your specific situation, then you need to consult a lawyer. The user that uploaded that image claims they own all the copyright to it - you can either believe them or get a lawyer to confirm it. We can't help. It also varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The photo was taken in France and you want to use it in the UK, so it's not even immeadiately obvious what jurisdiction applies (there are all kinds of copyright treaties that determine that sort of thing). That said, I doubt removing the badge will make any difference whatsoever - other sites may do that because they don't want to provide free advertising for the manufacturer (which may annoy other advertisers). --Tango (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- What we have on this is commons:Commons:De_minimis#United_Kingdom... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Tango, i think you partly misread my question, but the last part of your reply is very helpful. My understanding from that is that the image can be used commercially as long as it's under the same license, or a more restrictive one (not less). The badge removal is a bit odd though. I did earlier consider this may be legal advice, but i'm actually just trying to get a theoretical opinion on how CC-BY-SA is applied and how Wikimedia would actually be attributed for the use of images. I never considered i would need a lawyer to find out how to give attributution of an image to Wikimedia lol. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- This should not be construed as legal advice, but let me point out that in addition to copyrights there are strict rules about the commercial use of trademarks. Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- They're strict, but over a limited range of circumstances -- mainly where the use of trademarks would tend to create "confusion" in the mind of a potential customer... AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ahhh, that makes sense! So the manufacturer could sue, but is unlikely to have much of a case unless you have actually made your site or business very similar to theirs. Thank you both very much. Can you also point me to an article/guide explaining how i give attribute to someone or the preferred wording? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you are using anything commercially with other people's IP, you really should find a lawyer. Random words found on the internet are probably not going to have the right legal effect. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Understandable, but that's a way of saying we can upload images to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, but we don't allow others to use them under the licensing terms we upload them as. Can someone point to to where we might have an article on attribution of said media rather than suggest i get a lawyer? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Look at commons:Template:Trademarked. That's telling you that trademarking is a completely separate matter from copyrights, and that it's your responsibility to make sure that you don't use an image in a way which contravenes trademark laws. So the Coca Cola logo is out of copyright and in the public domain (at least in the forms in which it was published in the United States before 1923), but if you sell a competing fizzy beverage using the logo, its copyright-free status won't help you one bit in defending the trademark lawsuit which is coming your way. However, the commons:Template:Trademarked template is not generally applied to images where the presence of a trademarked symbol could be considered de minimis... AnonMoos (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Understandable, but that's a way of saying we can upload images to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, but we don't allow others to use them under the licensing terms we upload them as. Can someone point to to where we might have an article on attribution of said media rather than suggest i get a lawyer? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you are using anything commercially with other people's IP, you really should find a lawyer. Random words found on the internet are probably not going to have the right legal effect. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ahhh, that makes sense! So the manufacturer could sue, but is unlikely to have much of a case unless you have actually made your site or business very similar to theirs. Thank you both very much. Can you also point me to an article/guide explaining how i give attribute to someone or the preferred wording? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- They're strict, but over a limited range of circumstances -- mainly where the use of trademarks would tend to create "confusion" in the mind of a potential customer... AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- This should not be construed as legal advice, but let me point out that in addition to copyrights there are strict rules about the commercial use of trademarks. Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Projecting Americanism abroad -- standard of living[edit]
I was reading what promised to be a scandalous expose of Chinese "atrocity" in that actors working as extras in Chinese films make something like the equivalent of $0.80 an hour (5 yuan). The next sentence, however, states that "[i]t’s barely enough to afford the cheap room he rents near the center of town."
Would it even be possible to rent a place in the United States near Hollywood for less than a dollar an hour? My point is that this initially seems utterly disgraceful -- that film extras are paid so little -- but then again, if they're able to afford rent on this little amount of money, is it really so little? Sure, in terms of the American dollar, it's a pittance, but they're not trying to live to American standards. And if people want to be in films and they give up some comforts to rough it out, why should that seem strange? How many actors and actresses in Hollywood are subjected to standards of living below that of the average American so that they can make it onto the big screen?
It just seems to me that the author (Darcy Holdorf) and even her online publisher (CNN) are guilty of intentionally skewing the details in order to generate a story. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It depends on what is meant by "the center", and which town. There are (or were recently) single family houses selling in Detroit for a thousand dollars or so; houses of the same square footage in somewhere like Northern Virginia cost more than that in monthly mortgage payments. --Jayron32 13:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Pay for extras in Hollywood movies is no great shakes either. Most of these actors have to work secondary jobs to make ends meet. The standard cliché is that aspiring actors are waiting on tables all over Hollywood. --Xuxl (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- And Chinese film extras are known to work other jobs as casual labourers and the like. It really isn't much of an expose. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
You might be interested in purchasing power and purchasing power parity. The CNN article does say "it is one of the lowest paying jobs in the country", but obviously that's not very specific. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Poverty is relative. $1 may seem small, but in a developing nation (China) it is worth more than it is here.58.175.170.121 (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- 5 RMB/hour is a pittance even by Chinese standards - it's below minimum wage in most parts of China (each province sets its own minimum). $1 goes further in China than in the US, but it still doesn't go very far 59.108.42.46 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Weird video of hostage[edit]
This video was released of Australian Warren Roswell who was kidnapped by Abu Sayyaf. (For those who prefer the news story, here it is). It stumped me. Why on earth would the group release a video of their hostage talking freely and bluntly?
I understand that the negotiators may have demanded proof that he was still alive. And I can well understand Warren Roswell holding the sentiments he expresses. ("I personally hold no hope at all for being released. I do not trust Abu Sayyaf. I do not trust the Australian Government. I just don't trust anyone. Personally, I don't care."). But what would be the logic in the group filming this, and releasing it? Wouldn't the group prefer to force him to plead to be ransomed, rather than him expressing blunt apathy, hopelessness, and open distrust of his jailers? What gives? 58.111.170.38 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe they don't know that they are Evil Enemies Of Liberty (most people don't...), and grant him the right to speak freely as long as it does not hurt their position? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've not watched the video, but, as well as agreeing with Stephan's analysis, I would suggest the following. If you force someone to say what you want in a video message, it may be obvious that they're being forced to say it. Alternatively, if you don't understand their language and culture well, they may also be able to get across hints that make it obvious that it's forced.
- Also, forcing someone to say particular things for a recording, is probably a big nuisance - a lot more so than just pointing a camera at them and letting them talk. You have to tell them what you want them to say, then you have to make them remember it, then you have to make your threats, then you have to check they've said it right and without any forbidden hints, then you have to threaten them or carry out some of your threats when they don't say it right, then make them say it again, then realise you forgot to start recording the second time, and so on. All very messy - why bother?
- A hostage obviously talking in their own words and sounding dejected and helpless and hopeless, may be just as effective in encouraging responses as a hostage pleading for help. Plus maybe the jailers don't particularly object to their hostage viewing them (or their superiors) as untrustworthy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- In the Iraq War, there were many British soldiers - airmen and SAS, who were taken prisoner, and then filmed. They had little ways of simply informing people that they were not being treated well. One SAS soldier would use his middle finger to scratch his eye everytime he said anything he was forced to say. It was obvious he was being tortured because he had a face like a smashed crab. They all use these little codes. Also, as Demiurge says, a hostage just saying he's given up can also be effective. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- The pilot with the beaten-up face was John Peters (RAF officer), and here is a picture of him on Iraqi TV. It was an own goal for the Iraqis because he had obviously not been treated in a civilised way. I understand that British forces are now trained in how to deal with these circumstances, including coded gestures as KageTora describes. Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
sleeping in two cycles[edit]
can I sleep about 3.5 hours a night from 3:30 or 4 (depending on how tired i am and how interesting what I am is and how motivatead I still am) to 7:30, work until 5 (ending up quite tired) and catching another nap from maybe 7-9 or 7-10 before continuing for antoher five hours.
This totals 5.5-6.5 or even 7 hours of sleep (3:30 to 7:30 and 7-10), however it is in two stages. Can I keep it up indefinitely without detriment? I find that I am extremely focused after the nap, can drink a coffee and work in total concentration and quiet, and ALSO the 'low point' of the day is around maybe 3-6 pm when i would not be productive anyway.
what do you guys think? It seems to be working well for me but I wonder if it's an illusion, or really a good mgt of time in case of a great deal of work and concentration needed at a quiet time. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're doing segmented sleep. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Winston Churchill followed a schedule similar to that for most of his life, and it's hard to think of anybody who was more productive. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- But that doesn't necessarily mean it will be good for you. We cannot advise you about this, as it is a medical question. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've had doctors tell me specifically that the 4 + 4 is not a good sleep pattern. The OP's best bet is to consult a doctor who's a sleep specialist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- But that doesn't necessarily mean it will be good for you. We cannot advise you about this, as it is a medical question. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that, historically, this may have been the norm: see this article. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- That article discusses segmented sleep, which Finlay McWalter already linked to above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
circumcised[edit]
is this only Muslim and Jewish women who are circumcised or will it be someone chosen for reasons other than religious? (I'm on a school computer so I can not go into the article and read me for it). --109.232.72.49 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC).
- Neither mainstream Muslim nor Jewish religious thought prescribes the practice of female circumcision. There's a Wikipedia article at Religious views on female genital mutilation which covers the views of major religious denomination on the practice, and notes that while some members of both religions practice it, the article also notes that the practice thereof is very far from a mainstream practice, and is controversial within both Judaism and Islam. --Jayron32 20:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I know that only the most fundamentalist Jews and Muslims who prescribes it, but that's because one of my friends are circumcised and neither her or her family are Jews or Muslims, so I thought about what other reason could be? --109.232.72.49 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with fundementalism, Judaism, or Islam. It's a fringe practice that is not particularly associated with Islam or Judaism, though that doesn't mean that no person who is Jewish or Muslim has ever been so treated. There's a clear distinction between a person who is X faith doing something and X faith mandating that something is done. --Jayron32 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I know that only the most fundamentalist Jews and Muslims who prescribes it, but that's because one of my friends are circumcised and neither her or her family are Jews or Muslims, so I thought about what other reason could be? --109.232.72.49 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
109.232.72.49 -- The custom is mainly confined to Africa, where it is practiced among people of many religions. Local Islamic leaders in areas where female genital mutilation is practiced (especially along the Nubia-Eritrea-Somalia axis, where the most extreme forms of mutilation traditionally occurred) sometimes claim that it is an Islamic obligation, but there are wide areas of the Muslim world where the custom is basically unknown. I don't know where you got the idea that it's a common Jewish custom, because it isn't. AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- AnonMoos, the link to both Judaism and Islam, or at least to people of those faiths, is referred to in the link provided by Jayron32 in his first reply. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me asking, but are you sure that you and your female friend know what circumcision is? Staecker (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is you who is confused. Female circumcision is a particularly barbaric practice quite distinct from male circumcision. i kan reed (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ancient Somalia & Macrobia[edit]
Hello,
what script did Ancient Somalia have and what does archaelogy say about it? And did Macrobia have a script and as well what does archaeology say about it?
Greetings HeliosX (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems likely, given the geographic proximity, that many civilizations in the Horn of Africa would have used a relative of the Ge'ez script which was widely used in the area in ancient times, though I don't know for certain how or if it was used in the territory that is known as Somalia in modern times. --Jayron32 20:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- The general term is South Arabian alphabet... AnonMoos (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Based on what did the Canadian PM say this?[edit]
First of all forgive my English spelling mistakes, I am Japanese. My question is based on what did the Canadian PM say that Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat to Canada internal security? Kotjap (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really know what Harper based the claim on, but it seems a very reasonable position. What other serious internal threats does Canada have? I can't really think of one. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, OK, I suppose I can think of one — Quebec separatism. But violence seems to be out of fashion in that quarter. --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes you're right, even my country Japan is threatened by Islamic terrorism, see the hostages in Algeria, many were Japanese. Kotjap (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I should say that agreeing with Harper that Islamic terrorism is probably Canada's greatest internal security threat (because there aren't any other very serious ones to compare it with) is not the same as saying I think he's right about the correct response to it. My opinion is that the United States has gone very far overboard in security-related measures that threaten individual liberty, since 9/11. If I were Canadian, I would want to avoid following that path. --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Based on what? 1) Canada has a sizable Muslim population. The vast majority of Canadian Muslims are loyal and law-abiding citizens, but in other countries with Muslim populations (including the USA) a very small cohort decide to take up terrorism. 2) Canada under Harper has made a point of supporting Israel's government internationally in a way that might attract the ire of Muslim terrorists. For example, Canada was one of the few states of any geopolitical significance other than the United States and Israel itself to reject the recent United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19. Marco polo (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also see this recent annual report from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) [2] The section on "the threat environment" starts like this: "Terrorism, primarily Islamist extremist violence, remains the greatest threat to the safety and security of the West, including Canadians, both within Canada and internationally. Canada is a tangible target for Islamist extremist-inspired violence." So it's not just Prime Minister Harper who uses such language. The paragraphs which follow explain why CSIS makes that assessment. --Xuxl (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Based on what? 1) Canada has a sizable Muslim population. The vast majority of Canadian Muslims are loyal and law-abiding citizens, but in other countries with Muslim populations (including the USA) a very small cohort decide to take up terrorism. 2) Canada under Harper has made a point of supporting Israel's government internationally in a way that might attract the ire of Muslim terrorists. For example, Canada was one of the few states of any geopolitical significance other than the United States and Israel itself to reject the recent United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19. Marco polo (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)