Humanities desk
< November 25	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 27 >

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.

November 26

Are gov. bonds traded through the stock exchange?

--212.169.184.210 (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which stock exchange? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A general answer can be found here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the NYSE, you certainly can buy funds comprised of bonds (of all kinds). I don't know if gov. bonds (do you mind US or something else?) are presently traded there. Quest09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The NYSE or LSE. I tried to find them, but no luck. So far, I could only found the funds composed of bonds (also mentioned above). If it is possible to trade them, can anyone find the symbol of any European or US bond? 212.169.184.210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Our bond market article gives an overview of how bonds are bought and sold. Looie496 (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK government bonds (or gilts) are traded on the LSE - see here. There is a list of US Treasury bonds traded on the NYSE here. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is that, yes, they can be, but they don't have to be traded on the stock exchange, you can buy and sell them OTC too. some bond are not interesting enough (not liquid enough, I mean) so no stock exchange is actually listing them. --Lgriot (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bonds the Fed buys for quantitative easing are purchased by bids in response to a published request for quotations. They don't change hands via typical OTC contracts; instead, they are assigned by special contracts with non-standard provisions. There are different reasons for this, e.g., to prevent the major players from front running the Fed's trades, but apparently that particular mechanism doesn't work very well. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Cook R.N.

I'm a bit confused and would appreciate some help. I am British and know that in the Royal Navy, the commander of a naval vessel, irrespective of his official rank, is addressed as Captain by his crew. Cook made 3 voyages before being killed; the first when he was a Lieutenant when he circumnavigated and mapped New Zealand; the second when he had been promoted to the rank of Commander and charted the Eastern seaboard of Australia; and the third after he had been promoted to the rank of Captain. So who really "discovered" Australia? Was it Captain Cook as the history books tell us. Or was it more accurately Commander Cook? Thanks. I did explain I was confused. And is it known whether any of his descendants are still with us? 92.30.10.122 (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cook had six children: James, Nathaniel, Elizabeth, Joseph, George, and Hugh. Elizabeth, Joseph, and George died in infancy. James and Nathaniel were lost at sea with no issue. Hugh died of scarlet fever while a student at Cambridge, again without issue. So: no, his descendants are not still with us. Reference. Marnanel (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He landed in Australia on the first voyage, so really, the eastern coast was first charted by Lieutenant Cook (he did not discover it, Australia had been discovered in the seventeenth century by the Dutch). But as you say, the commander of a naval vessel is the captain, so it is still accurate to say "Captain Cook", even though Cook did not yet have that official rank.

For further details, see European exploration of Australia. The Dutch got here in March 1606, and they're generally agreed to be the first Europeans to reach Australia. There's evidence the Portuguese were here almost a century earlier, but whether that's compelling evidence or not is up to you. Historians generally are not compelled by it. Then there are the Australian aborigines, who arrived here from overseas parts 40-80,000 years ago, besides which the achievements of the Europeans look positively tardy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Cook. This is a personal bugbear of mine.
Sleigh (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't leave us in suspense man; pray tell us what it is that bugs your bear so much. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is what Sleigh is talking about, but it's always seemed odd to me that, out of all the famous mariners throughout history, the only ones that get called "Captain" are pirates and Captain Cook. When was the last time you heard of Captain Columbus or Captain Magellan or Captain Frobisher, etc. etc.? Only Bligh sometimes gets a "Captain" and that's a complicated case. You'd think Cook was born with the name "Captain". Matt Deres (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's alliterative! Admirals get to use their titles too, usually. Admiral Nelson, Admiral Halsey... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cook was an officer; Columbus, Magellan and Frobisher were civilians. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My grandfather earned his master's ticket in 1905 on a sailing ship, and always signed his name with the title "Captain". Although he was a first officer on a number of ships, he never commanded one - there were far too many highly qualified merchant navy officers in the 1920s and 1930s and not enough ships. I suppose that "Captain" came with being qualified as the master of a ship, or maybe he wasn't entitled to the title; he died in 1974 so I'm afraid I can't ask him. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural History

There has been in recent years an increased emphasis on the development of complex and integrated systems to maintain suitable levels of daylighting, temperature, fresh air and so on in buildings, with opposition to the use of mechanics to make up for shortcomings. I am hoping to prove that older buildings, from before the development of such things as air conditioning and efficient artificial lighting, have been particularly well designed for this for centuries, perhaps in some ways surpassing the majority of modern attempts at this sustainable natural architecture. If anyone here can supply me with any more specific examples of this, I will be very grateful.

148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as ventilation is concerned, this article provides many examples of the use of a windcatcher or malqaf in traditional buildings. Some more information here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thermal mass of adobe is classic, of course.--Wetman (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Earthship idea may be of interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a long time, dwellings were designed with breezeways to allow wind to cool the building. --Jayron32 15:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a bit dodgy to start with your conclusion and hunt for supporting evidence. At best you get confirmation bias; at worst, the conslusions you draw are bunk. Of course there are many examples of excellent design in the past, such as those examples above, and such simple things as light wells and larger windows in sewing factories, for instance. I don't thnink any of that amounts to confirmation of a a "past is better" conclusion. And, of course, if you exclude the very many archtecturally rotten buildings, what then does that do to your conclusion? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Tagishsimon points out, you may have the cart before the horse. It's better to look at broad vernacular styles and common building practices rather than focusing on individual buildings for clues about local adaptations to environmental conditions. It will always be possible to find abundant counter-examples - cheaply-built housing is affected more by first cost than by appropriate use, and many structures - Scottish tower houses come to mind - are more affected by considerations other than livability. Mechanical and electrical systems allow otherwise unlivable places to be inhabitable, but other factors, such as fashion, material availability, sanitation codes, fire regulations and market expectations will have a powerful effect as well. You can, however, develop a thesis by looking at a broad overview of regional construction practices. Acroterion _(talk) 15:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All very useful advice, I am sure. I am working on that, of course, but right now all I am hoping for here is someone to point me towards a couple of case studies that show these earlier buildings at their best. Then, perhaps I can look into what is wrong with my hypothesis with a little more information from both sides. Is that allowed? I am not attempting to claim the past is better than now, just that with our increasing relience on mechanical solutions to our problems, which are now losing popularity, there is much we can learn from earlier ideas.I have a suspicion there may be some particularly remarkable old buildings around, and would be interested in studying them in much more detail.148.197.121.205 (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Colosseum originally had a retractable roof to shade spectators, if that counts. Roman architecture was pretty sophisticated, they even had heating systems in the floors and walls. Only for rich people, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean architecture in general is a well of resources for pre-modern climate control ideas, many of which were adapted to the New World -- see below.

Wikipedia has no references for Vernacular_architecture#Climate -- check the key terms "vernacular architecture" and "climate" on Google Scholar at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=vernacular+architecture+climate -- lots of good research out there

For a "particularly remarkable old building" that you may study in great detail, albeit not vernacular architecture but pedigreed architecture, one of my favorites is the French Quarter residence of 19th-century New Orleans architect James Gallier, Jr. -- his Gallier House (1857) is now open as a museum, and is a frequent study of students at Tulane University's School of Architecture, whose librarian may further help your researches in their archives. Full of his own innovations and experiments, such as ceiling ventilators. Thick walls, transoms, symmetric fenestration and an interior courtyard helped keep it comfortable in New Orleans' hot and humid summers. I lived one year on the second story of such a 19th-century French Quarter townhouse -- without any air conditioning at all -- and can attest to its comfort: the patio (with cooling fountain), usually shaded by three-story buildings on three sides, naturally drew warmer air from the heat sink of the sunlit street through the shaded balcony's floor-to-ceiling walk-through windows, perfectly aligned with the windows facing the shaded patio. Through the forty feet intervening between the two, papers were blown off the fireplace mantel on even a breeze-less day. Twelve-foot ceilings and adjustable louvered shutters on both sides also helped keep oppressive heat away from human concern, as did the deeply-shaded six-foot wide balcony, long enough to stretch a hammock, well off to the side of a dining table. How I miss that cool apartment! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Soane Museum is like a labyrinth inside, with clever use of skylights and internal balconies and so on. I have not found anything that illustrates its insides to any extent - the photos at the bottom of this web page http://intranet.arc.miami.edu/rjohn/ARC%20268%20-%202003/Soane.htm comes closest. If I was a billionaire I would build a replica of it as an annexe to my house. 92.15.11.45 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for sword makers

A book on Tang exotics by Edward H. Schafer mentions a rather evil-sounding sword brought from Laos for the Emperor of China. Chinese records state the maker folded poison into the blade and quenched it in horse blood. It seems only natural that the hot temperatures from the furnace would burn the poison off (even if it was derived from metal), but is there anything in the horse blood that would effect the blade? I know blades are usually quenched in water. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion here[1] on the subject. Apparently in 11th Century Germany it was believed that "Iron instruments are also tempered in the urine of a young red-headed boy harder than in simple water". Another discussion about quenching Japanese blades here[2]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In her book Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs (a great read, by the way), Adrienne Mayor lists several examples of poisoning or otherwise adulterating weapons and notes that those actions were performed, not only to hurt/maim the enemy directly but to inspire disgust and fear at the mere thought of getting pricked with something containing such hideous compounds. Details regarding what poisons were used were actually widely disseminated (rather than kept as a state secret) to increase the horror. Frankly, horse blood doesn't sound too bad versus arrows tipped with poison derived from the rotting carcasses of snakes that have been allowed to ferment in their own venom. She also notes that some instances of increasing the disgust may have worked as propaganda but actually lessened the physical effect. For example, she mentions that bowmen would sometimes specifically urinate on the ground where they stuck their arrows for easy firing. Though the acidic urine probably killed off some of the bacteria in the dirt, the idea of getting a arrow tipped with piss did the job just as well. Matt Deres (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how well do celebrities with new names or stage names wall off the same?

I very often hear of celebrities (who frequently have different names -- they've changed it as part of becoming a celebrity, or stage names) whose families and closest friends alone call them by their original names. Or perhaps by their "true" names. The question is then: how well, and in what ways, do they separate these names, if at all? (They must, in the case of stage names, continue using their normal name for legal processes, for example). Any otehr information you'd have on this for me is much appreciated. 92.224.204.151 (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine they cope pretty much the same as anyone with a nickname. I have one which is not used all that often, but several of my friends are known more frequently by their nicknames than their real names, which, as you point out, they still have to use for official purposes. HiLo48 (talk)

It is worth noting that in many places, it is perfectly legal to change one's name simply by starting to use the new name (as long as the change is not made with fraudulent intent). If John Doe wakes up tomorrow and decides that he'd like to be Johnny Stagename, he can go right ahead and do that. (See our article on name change for more details.) In common law jurisdictions, one may generally enter into binding legal contracts under an assumed name. Marilyn Monroe could sign a contract as Marilyn Monroe, Norma Jeane Mortenson (name at birth), or Norma Jeane Baker (baptismal name) with equal validity. That said, governments, higher courts of law, and financial institutions can get a bit stickier about formal ways in which you identify yourself, and may insist upon certain paperwork to formally register your new name (deeds poll, court orders, and government-specific change-of-name declarations are all used in various places). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This varies a lot from person to person. There are no legal requirements, because a name isn't a unique identifier. John Smith might want to take a more unique name professionally, but John Ozymandias might want something easier to spell. As long as there's no fraud and the bank lets you deposit your checks, there's little actual difficulty with using whatever name you want. Not sure about TSA regulations, though. That might be the hardest part these days. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "wall off the same" mean? I understand the question as presented, but these words in the header have me stumped. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it means to "separate" (ie "wall off") in a metaphoric, rather than physical, sense. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It varies a LOT between celebrities. I believe that Jon Stewart has officially changed his name from "Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz"; his children have the surname "Stewart". However, the Sheen/Esteven family never has. Martin Sheen uses "Ramón Estévez" on official documents, and Charlie Sheen uses "Carlos Estévez", I have seen interviews with Martin where he pulls out his drivers license to prove it. I have seen occasional interviews with Emilio Estevez where he calls his brother "Carlos", especially when the two are interviewed together, and in less formal settings; it would appear that, at least within the family, they don't use the professional name there. --Jayron32 13:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many celebrities (and even some ordinary folks I've known) call themselves something different in their professional life but retain their familiar name in their private life, perhaps as a way of keeping the two separate. There are endless examples. The Sheen/Estevez situation is an excellent example. Another obvious one is the actor Stewart Granger, whose birth name was James Stewart, and his friends called him "Jimmy". Sometimes it's just nicknames. Babe Ruth was known as George to his friends, whereas Oliver Hardy and Curly Howard were known as "Babe" offscreen. Curly called himself "Jerry", or "Jerome" formally, and the latter appeared on-screen once, in the writing credits of an early film. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are knighted actors, whose knighthoods apply to their legal names, not to their stage names. E.g. Rex Harrison and Michael Caine were knighted, but they never changed their legal names, so they became Sir Reginald Harrison and Sir Maurice Micklewhite for formal purposes. Their stage names are still plain Rex Harrison and Michael Caine, and it would be wrong to apply the Sir to their stage names (e.g. Sir Michael Caine), but lots of people do this. Even our article calls him "Sir Michael Caine" in the lede, despite making it clear in the Honours section that he was knighted as "Sir Maurice Micklewhite". Exactly the same thing would have applied had George Orwell ever been knighted - he'd have become Sir Eric Blair who continued to use the pseudonym George Orwell; he would NOT have become "Sir George Orwell". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes me think that (1) this is a bit of a pet peeve for you; and (2) the articles' leads need to be changed, as they are putting out incorrect information, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have only one peef. I think I may be overfeeding it. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]