Miscellaneous desk
< November 11	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 12

Egyptian hieroglyphic and hieratic script characters—where can I get 'em?

I'd like to know if Wikipedia's resources include obtainable images of ancient language scripts, letters and alphabetical characters for editting into articles. I've seen some evidence that you have. But I don't know how to get to them. I have enjoyed editting an article with some illustrative Proto-semitic and Phoenician letters whose codes for display of their images I got from samples already in the same article I was trying to improve, and I would like to obtain some Egyptian hieroglyphics and hieratic script for it too. The only hieroglyphs I could get for "Tahash" were already in that article, characters for phonetic symbols of h1 and h2, apparently copied from another article "Hieroglyph". Now, if Wikipedia doesn't yet have such a resource, I'd like to "officially" suggest it. Thanks for your answer in advance. Michael Paul Heart (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOW ! I just now accidentally came across Extension:WikiHiero and Transliteration of Ancient Egyptian when I was reviewing the link to "Hieroglyph"! (How's that for a "supernatural" speedy answer to my original question?) But I see that only administrators can obtain these resources, and I'm not an administrator—I've been enjoying contributing for only the past week or so. But anyway, I'd still like to know if you could provide a kind of "resource pool" for ancient alphabets that regular users might look at and copy editting code from for articles they might write or for articles they want to improve or enhance? Michael Paul Heart (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you're looking for? You don't have to be an admin to use it on Wikipedia.

Recury (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OUTSTANDING!!! Well Done! OO-RaH !! This is really good! I checked it out, and it's primarily what I was looking for. Thanks, buddy! Stay safe. Michael Paul Heart (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Bullfighting

In Spanish Bullfighting, what does the term "the struggle of pity" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.30.141 (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the original Spanish phrase? Richard Avery (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Richard; I've done some searching and come up with a variety of uses of the word pity in connection with bullfighting (pity for the animal, mostly), but there are no hits at all for bullfighting "struggle of pity". Just reading it at face value, I would assume it refers to an internal emotional struggle on the part of the spectators who wish to see the finale, but also feel pity for the soon to be slaughtered bull. By the way, depending on how you form the search this (graphic image warning) site comes up near the very top of the results. I only mention it because it has what is possibly the most inappropriate title imaginable for a story about a matador getting gored through his throat. Matt Deres (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a special machine ...

In this machine I can input any kind of junk that is available (dirt, rocks, garbage, water); the output is certain specific products such as gold, silver, diamonds, or crude oil, in unlimited quantities and with negligible operating cost. My questions is: if such a machine existed, what would the effects be on the world's economy? Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, the nanotechnology in the novel The Diamond Age allowed for something similar; people could pick up free food from the free food dispensers put out on the streets by the local government, many structures were made out of diamond, etc. Molecular assembler is a relevant article, as is Implications of nanotechnology. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Replicator (Star Trek). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, an end to poverty. An end to crime. But also an end to the profit-motive in business, and probably a whole lot more that is undesirable to western civilisation. 212.123.243.220 (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe and some other places this has already happened, at least by the norms of 1000 years ago: people never starve, killings are very rare. The things we worry about now would seem like luxurious trivia to people living in 1010AD. 92.28.248.229 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-scarcity is the central idea here I think. Recury (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your machine reminds me of the 1958 science-fiction story, Business as Usual, During Alterations, by Ralph Williams, but I can't find an article on it. Would anyone care to write one? (I'm not sure whether I still have the book with it in.) Dbfirs 18:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then possessing ideas such as fashion would become important. Perhaps this is what happens already with the super-wealthy, as they spend millions on art, also like Imelda Markos (sp?) buy a lot of shoes. Land would still be in short supply. 92.28.248.229 (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Artistic ability, unique performances, ideas (good or at least interesting ones) and personal services would rise in value. The Culture is very much like that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would anticipate that in short order, the nations of earth would go to war to attain this unique machine. The economic costs of this machine would be staggering. Googlemeister (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Diamond Age is rather instructive. Every house in it has a molecular assembler, but access to feed lines (which provides the raw material) is limited by wealth. So the very poor can make food out of it, and blankets, but not a whole lot more. The rich can replicate whatever they want, quickly, in whatever size they want. The economy works fairly like you'd expect except obviously traditional items of wealth (like gold) are now worthless, and instead a rigorous information economy dominates (those who can make cleverer machines, etc.). But of course that leaves a lot of people out of rigorous participation in the economy, since information skills are not as equally distributed as one might hope. So there is a lot of poverty and a lot of "heavy labor" of various sorts as well, if I recall correctly. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the machine just produced raw materials, and no extra energy was produced, then the prices of those raw materials would fall, and a lot more recycling would occur. Not much else would happen. If, as everyone has assumed above, that it can make any kind of good, then its more interesting. If it can make intelligent robots, then all kinds of things become possible. 92.28.248.229 (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in 3D printing which is practically a first generation Star Trek type replicator. Nanobots and robots are also part of the route to making al goods practically free - there may be a few problems on the route though as there have been with the promised limitless supply of cheap energy ;-) Dmcq (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that crime would end. Crime will always exist because some people are inherently criminals (sociopaths). Those people get pleasure from breaking laws regardless of the consequences. Fundamental Error 1985 (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible for the bad ideas or brain malfunctions which cause sociopathy, as we know it, to be overcome in the future, since other bad ideas (and certain brain malfunctions) are already things of the past. You may be right that crime will always exist, though, since it seems likely that in the absence of what we currently know as crime, we will become more fussy, and define new crimes. 81.131.41.45 (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of crimes which don't involve "things." A replicator isn't going to get rid of your murderers and rapists. In some ways, removing "material possessions" from the scope of things will only increase the way in which attempts to achieve abstract power (as opposed to monetary-based power) would increase. So blackmail, extortion, etc., would still thrive, but not for the purposes of getting money. I don't think most criminals commit crimes because of the pleasure of breaking laws. They want something on the hierarchy of needs. Basic possessions are only the bottom rungs of the hierarchy. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In go, is it reasonable to declare victory?

Resolved

– ± Lenoxus (" *** ")

At one point in the film A Beautiful Mind, the protagonist is playing go. He makes a move and says something like "I win". Given that a game officially ends when both players pass (and therefore not until after the other person gives up), can this still be a standard or allowable thing to do? I don't know very much beyond the basics. Can there be a point at which one side has truly no hope of gaining back the territory? Does it happen often? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 20:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about go, but keep in mind that the protagonist is supposed to be a spectacular genius, one who is arrogant (and, it turns out, crazy), so his actions should probably not be interpreted as "standard" behavior. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 'crazy' is the right term. I seem to remember that he posed little threat to other people, he mostly wrestled with the 'demons' inside his mind, he had a mental illness and that is no cause to make insulting comments about such a remarkable man. There have been countless games of chess where the outcome is predictable long before the the game is played out. Yes, I know it was go but the principle is the same. Richard Avery (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply crazy in the sense of "insanity," hallucinatory schizophrenia. And the movie actually does show him posing a threat to other people, so involved in his inner madness that he almost drowns his child (I've no idea how fictionalized that was). But perhaps it was a poor choice of words, I agree. None of this detracts from his remarkable nature — it may even amplify it. I certainly will not accomplish one-tenth in my life that he did in his, mental illness or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go games generally end by agreement. By the end, both players' structures are solid. If it's clear that one player is ahead, and that no significant changes can happen, they'll skip the fighting over the last few points. This of course involves discussion. Go has proprieties, and "I win" doesn't fit with them. Something like "Seven points, I think" would have been more appropriate. PhGustaf (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That nicely bridges the gap between what I did and didn't know. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 01:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A game of Hex.

I see you have {{Resolved}} the question, but you might also be interested in our article on the game Hex, which was invented (in part) by John Nash (the person portrayed in the film you mention). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it should be mentioned that that article says: "All of these games are related to the ancient Asian game of Go; Nash's version of Hex, in particular, was done as a response to Go," and that Nash proved that a game of Hex can never end in a tie. I wonder if in fact it may have been Hex, not Go, that was shown in the movie. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death by fish oil

Is it possible to die from an overdose of fish oil? AdbMonkey (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I expect it'd take quite a lot, though. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you drank enough fish oil, my guess is that you would die from overdosing on Vitamin A, although some oils have the amount of vitamin A reduced. If the Vitamin A had been removed then you could also, with extended use, also fatally overdose on Vitamin D. 92.28.248.229 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of our articles about overdosing vitamins are linked from our article on vitamin poisoning; a quick read suggests that eating the liver of a carnivore is the most likely cause. I think you'd vomit if you drank enough liver oil to cause harm, though it's not a hypothesis I'd care to test myself. Matt Deres (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to distinguish between chronic and acute. For an acute death then you may vomit beforehand as you say. But chronic poisoning is even more dangerous as it is insiduous. Vitamin A accumulates in your body and causes irreversable damage and death, at least according to the article I read yesterday. 92.29.122.31 (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does fish oil naturally contain Vitamin A? Besides Peru, where does fish oil usually come from? With the aftermanth of the Gulf oil BP damage, is fish oil still safe? Will all fish oil be slightly contaminated? AdbMonkey (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to your questions: 1) Yes, see cod liver oil. 2) Probably lots of places in various oceans, I guess. 3) Yes, because the Gulf is only a tiny part of the world's oceans. 4) Not from the Gulf disaster, but fish and hence fish oil contain traces of mercury (varies with the fish - very little in small young fish such as sardines or pilchards). The best quality refined fish-oils have the mercury removed, I understand. 92.28.248.229 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]