Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

< August 6 Humanities desk archive August 8 >


Cartoonists of Kerala[edit]

I would like to know about noted Indian Cartoonists

There are a few at Category:Indian cartoonists. --Canley 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link provided above gives the name of only one Keralite cartoonist, O.V. Vijayan. The father of Indian Cartoons, Sankar, is the most prominent of all Keralite cartoonists. Yesudasan, B.M. Gafoor, Abu Abraham, Ravi Sankar (by the way, he is O.V. Vijayan's nephew) are some other names. Googling will give you more information.--Tachs 12:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Jesus[edit]

Are there any documents that record the life of Jesus outside of the Christian Bible?ĆÁĎ

You might want to look at Jesus and history. It's a good starting point for this and other related questions. --Allen 03:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... taking a closer look at Jesus and history... for now it's a convenient page with links to other articles, but it's something of a self-reference, and possibly a bit POV. --Allen 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot, both Christian historical documents not considered worthy of inclusion in the bible, and Jewish historical references. Sorry, I don't know where to point you.--Anchoress 03:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few contemporaneous sources, of any origin. --Dweller 10:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a pointer, consider that the Romans probably kept the most meticulous records of the time and they eventually converted to christianity. But that was much later, and Jesus was probably not considered important enough at the time. Also, the contemporary reports would probably have been rather anti-Jesus (they crucified him), which would have been the opposite of what they would have wanted later. So any records may have been destroyed. I wonder how they dealt with the fact that their (later) God was crucified by their ancestors. DirkvdM 11:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they were quite pleased! I wish I could say my great^10 grandfather played an integral part in forgiving humanity from sin.
You would think. But trust me, despite the fact that Christians view Jesus' crucifixion as playing an essential role in forgiving humanity from sin, being blamed for his death isn't quite the honour one might expect. Loomis 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I once saw a reconstruction of the physique of Jesus by the BBC- short, stocky, black curly hair (he was a Jew after all) - nothing like the way Jesus is usually portrayed. DirkvdM 11:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although the accuracy of his works is controversial, you may want to take a look at the article on Josephus, and in particular Josephus on Jesus. Although Josephus was Jewish, it appears that he may have rejected his Judaism in favour of Roman citizenship. That part is a bit unclear, but the point is he wasn't at all a Christian, yet he wrote about Jesus, which seems to be what you're looking for. Loomis 13:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the refferences!
Have you read the novel M*A*S*H? In the novel (but not in the movie or TV series), Hawkeye and Trapper were selling autographed photographs of Jesus on the cross. That should be pretty solid proof.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How could he autograph the photos if his hands were nailed up?
It was an electronic signature. They set it up for him. He only needed to press 'enter'. DirkvdM 07:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to make such anachronistic technological leaps. Obviously, the photo was taken when He was up there, and he signed it later after He had resurrected Himself. Anyone can see that.  :--) JackofOz 12:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was it a digicam or an old fashioned Polaroid? Because if it was a digital camera, I'm afraid the anachronistic leap would seem to be necessary. I don't believe (although I could be wrong) that digital cameras existed 2000 years ago. So I suppose it must have been a Polaroid. :-) Loomis 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Polaroids came along much later historically. It could only have been a Kodak Box Brownie.  :--) JackofOz 02:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

language[edit]

I've heard that there have been dicoveries that at one point in history there was one language. Is this true and what are the implcations?ĆÁĎ

I haven't seen any data on it, but I doubt it. Unless you are a Creationist, in which case it's as easy to believe as anything else I guess.--Anchoress 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're a creationist, you'd be looking for the language Adam and Eve spoke. Ziggurat 03:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Proto-World language. It's pretty fringe, though. Ziggurat 03:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See current discussions on the language desk (where this question should have been asked). AnonMoos 04:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean human language. Once upon a time there were just a few thousand humans, probably due to some global disaster. If they all lived in one area on Earth, then it is quite possible they had at least a common language (a lingua franca), albeit with variations in different groups. DirkvdM 12:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People can bring up Creationism, if they wish, but linguistics is based on the idea of diffusion of language and therefore some common point that is entirely lost to historical record. Most of those who constructed the early field were, in fact, looking for the Edenic language, and that was a project that involved an enormous number of intelligent people who did an enormous number of stupid things in the quest. Geogre 13:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

myths[edit]

i am a student from a small vilatge in haryana. And there are many person in my village and near by villages who know a bit of science using which they are making a fool of others. I want to stop them but i don't know much science or the tricks of science. As I can somehow have acess to internet I wanted to use it for the benefit of people. Hence if anybody could help me and my villegers by telling some common beliefs that can be stopped or some data that can prove to be mythbuster it will be great. My e-mail id is [email address removed] THANKYOU

Please give us some examples of myths you would like us to debunk and we will do our best. StuRat 05:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can just pick a myth at random: Many people in Africa believe that HIV/AIDS can be cured by having sex with a virgin. This is absolutely false. StuRat 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take a look at the Urban Legends Reference Pages at snopes.com. –Mysid(t) 06:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's tricks it's not science. Indeed, give us some examples. DirkvdM 12:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic." . Although Haryana appears to be a fairly well-developed state, it is possible that in the smaller villages, there might be a lack of education. This would allow somebody with say, some knowledge of basic chemistry to amaze others with their knowledge of Invisible ink.
But overall, yes, we'd need specific examples in order to de-mystify. --LarryMac 14:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A myth is a myth is a myth. By design, it talks to your basic references and some part of you believes it each time it is told. Then the occidental conscious heavy brain says "haha, this is just a ..." ... A meme - good or bad idea invading people -, an archetypal story - the same in every country-, a very old misconception about how things were borne into existence.
To help building that heavy thing, education first! Take distances. Take distance with the power of speech, learn to write, which is powerful in another way. Take distance with people knowing numbers : don't stay numb (er...) when they calculate, learn to, and so on. Learn economics : what do learned people really wish to obtain by telling science things and making fools of others is money, power, look at the way they do it.
Take a better distance with any myth, first by recognising that it talks to you and that you like it. Then by building "what ifs ?" around it. E.g., what if Noah sinked and the raven metamorphosed into a nice guy and seduced Noah's wife ? What if Krishna could not learn to ride a bicycle ?
It is hard to achieve this : becoming learned, beating learned people, and still living in a true, magical thinking way. Just try. --DLL 19:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite lost. To begin with, can anybody explain to me what the expression "take distance" means? Loomis 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear, I am now sooooo tempted to say "Fuck off", but I won't. Of course I won't. :) (this was a well-meant joke ). DirkvdM 07:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sort of depends on how far advanced your existing scientific knowledge is. For example, one of the basic tenets of biology is that life only comes from life - see abiogenesis - and that non-life (e.g., an old piece of cheese) does not spontaneously cause life (e.g., cheese mould). On another level, there are things like the Forer effect that dispel other kinds of myths... BenC7 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognize this piece?[edit]

I came across a short Flash animation, [1], which played a hit song I haven't heard since the mid-90s. Does anybody recognize the piece and know who is the performer? I'd be grateful. Google comes up with no results. –Mysid(t) 06:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MUSIC LINK!!!!!!!!![edit]

Hi, does anyone know where you can download the song "Shake It Off Remix" for free THANKS, Jo

By...? - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. Get a file-trader program. Install it on your computer. Ignore the fact that you just installed a lot of spyware and virus installers on your computer as well. Find the song in your file trader program. Download it. If it turns out you just downloaded more spyware, find it again and download it. In the end, you get the song for free and you are allowing all the starving hackers in the world to use your computer to send more spam, distribute more spyware, and hack more passwords. It is a win-win situation. --Kainaw (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, depending on your country, you're breaking the law. –Mysid(t) 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you know, you could download an open source one, guaranteed to be spyware/spam-free [2]. There's a bunch of them.... Doesn't really solve the moral issue, but who has morals these days, eh? Oskar 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Morals? Aren't those a type of edible mushroom? --Serie 23:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop stealing. Its wrong, if the artist worked hard enough to make music good enough for you to want it. The least you can do to repay him is pay for it. Philc TECI 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's copyright infringement, not stealing. --mboverload@ 00:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think what mboverload is trying to say is that copyright infringement is not actually a crime as theft is. Rather, it's an actionable tort, meaning that in theory, you can get sued for it, but you'll never be charged with a crime. Of course this in no way affects the moral issue. I should add that it's not universally accepted that this kind of activity is "immoral", as there exists a legitimate (albeit minority) legal school of thought which rejects the position that this type of activity is immoral. In any case, it's up to you. Loomis 11:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is taking something that costs money, without paying for it, not stealing? Philc TECI 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stealing has the additional effect that the original owner no longer has use of the thing that was stolen. --Serie 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP (Intellectual Property) is a very complex area of the law with many viewpoints. When we're dealing with copyright, we're basically dealing with artists of all sorts and their exclusive rights to profit from their works. But as is often said, all art is derivative. How many love stories have been written over the past several centuries with plots that are obviously derivative, directly, or far more likely indirectly, of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet"? Thousands. Should Shakespeare have been given a copyright on "Romeo and Juliet" to pass down to his infinite decendants? After all, he wrote it, it was his creation. But on the other hand, if his decendents were given the infinite right to block any reproductions, variations, adaptations, etc..., the world would have been robbed of an incredibly vast collection of artistic masterpieces, all derivative of "Romeo and Juliet". On the other hand, most would say that an artist must be given some exclusivity to the profits from his work, for at least some amount of time. Otherwise, (despite the notion that artists create art just for the sake of creating it...that the satisfaction is in the process, not the result,) if his art were allowed to be copied, and if he were denied pretty much all of the financial gain derived from it, he would have no incentive to create the art in the first place. So back to the original argument. Should it be considered immoral to obtain a free copy of someone else's work? If not, you're denying the artist the profit from his work, and probably more importantly, you're telling all other potential artistic geniuses that it just doesn't pay to be an artist, resulting in less artistic creativity in society. If so, you're denying other contemporary artists the benefit of the age-old fact that "all art is derivative", and in an ironically similar way, you're once again supressing artistic creativity. So what's the solution? Your respective government has decided on its position. It's written it into its IP law. The morality of it is for you to decide. Loomis 00:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China's debt relief policy[edit]

What is china's debt relief policy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.254 (talk • contribs) 13:51, August 7, 2006 (UTC).

Skyline[edit]

http://img469.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1wy5.jpg

May I ask if I am correct in assuming that this is the Manhattan Skyline or am I mistaken?


Yes, what you are watching is a view of downtown (south) Manhattan. The two rays of lights commemorate the lost WTC towers, this picture could have been taken on September 11th.

The river is the Hudson river, this picture was taken from New Jersey. Evilbu 15:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the last image in the article World Trade Center.  --LambiamTalk 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are also called the "Ghost Towers." I, like a lot of New Yorkers, thought it was the best of all tributes. It would have been fantastic to have kept them going, as it made a phantom limb for the city, but the light pollution was extraordinary. It was a magnificent memorial, but it was bad for the environment, so I think they have been displayed only on a few of the anniversaries. Geogre 13:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love Resurrection[edit]

Being a bit a) thick and b) naive, I've just realised that this old(ish) Alison Moyet song is utterly filthy. Or am I reading stuff into an entirely innocent song, in a rather revealing reflection of the depravity of my brain? --Dweller 16:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it is what you're reading in the lyrics, but assuming that it is what I think it is, why to designate it as "filthy"? --LambiamTalk 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just by glancing over the lyrics in question, I don't see anything particularly suggestive. I'm not really sure... - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've long considered the lyrics to be about sex. But maybe that's just me. Or just us two, now. Notinasnaid 18:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases like "a warm injection", "what seed must I sow", and "I want you to grow in my hand" seem to suggests something sexual going on. But what has sex got to do with "utterly filthy" or "depravity"? JackofOz 20:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most songs are in these catagories

  1. Love songs
  2. My parents don't love me and my life is horrible but it's not because I make 100k a month
  3. Songs that really don't meant anything because they rely on the music and not the lyrics
  4. Death metal

--mboverload@ 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the vital self-pity genre:

  1. Road odes: I'm on the road and lonely, but it's the onliest life I knowed.
  2. Celebrations of crazy: They say I'm crazy, and I am, really, really, look!
  3. Freak out fantasies: I went crazy three songs ago, and now I'm all alone in the world...crazy on the road.

Additionally, there are the party songs:

  1. Gimme drugs, because "I Wanna Be Sedated"
  2. I did drugs, and now it's "25 or 6 to 4"
  3. I regret those drugs, because now I wish someone would "Put the Clock Back on the Wall."

And this leaves out the, "Hey, I just did drugs and had a spasm, so let's call it a dance and name a song after it" Locomotions and Twists and Blitzkrieg Bops and Ballroom Blitzes. Geogre 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John steinbeck[edit]

How did John Steinbeck die?

Thank you.

Craig

Heart attack. [3] David Sneek 19:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabindranath Maharaj[edit]

I did a search for this author thru Wikipedia, and only found 3 item sources. What I am looking for is some brief biographical detail about him, or at least the titles of books he has had published before 2005. I know about his 2005 copyright book, "A Perfect Pledge." Thank you!

This link lists two prior novels: The Lagahoo’s Apprentice and Homer in Flight; and two collections of short stories: The Book of Ifs and Buts and The Interloper. We also learn that the author was born in Trinidad and now lives in Ajax, Ontario. And here you find a mug shot and more biographical detail. --LambiamTalk 05:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is incredible![edit]

Where does/did The Incredible Hulk get his stretchy purple trousers from? Is it ever explained? Does he ever not have any clothes just after transforming but acquires some? Wassername off of The Incredibles is the only explanation I can think of, although I can imagine some comic buffs wishing to shoot me for that. Vitriol 23:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were almost certainly made by Edna Mode.--Shantavira 07:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Invisible Girl drops them off for him.--hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I thought most superhero outfits in the Marvel Universe are made out of unstable molecules (though that page says it's mostly the Fantastic Four, so I dunno...) digfarenough (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2006_August_7&oldid=1138599062"