Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 24

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 24

Typical meal for famine-type people

Strange question - does anyone know where I can find the sort of food eaten by those affected by famine, malnourished people in Africa? It's for a youth-exercise I'm running, I want to provide them with humanitarian-aid/grown-from-the-land type food and then replace it with proper stuff to show the contrast... but I can't find anywhere to tell me what sort of thing those suffering poverty eat! Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some suggestions at Famine relief#Temporary therapeutic foods. Warofdreams talk 12:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That suggestion covers the "humanitarian-aid" bit, but the "grown-from-the-land"? People in Africa grow a wide variety of foodstuffs. It is proper food, in fact in the right quantities it is excellent food. Famines aren't caused by African farmers growing the wrong things, but by harvest failures due to trying to use marginal lands, climate change, and war. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in the event of a famine, people will generally eat anything which might fill their stomachs, even if it has little or no nutritional value. Clearly, any available livestock, grains, nuts, berries and the like will be eaten. Wildlife and roots might provide a useful meal, if not a sustainable one, but I've heard of starving people eating bark or grass just to lessen hunger pangs. Warofdreams talk 15:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RTEF, nuttela —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.61 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a heart-breaking story on hunger in Zimbabwe on NPR last week (check their website). It was really depressing. A few grains and undigested corn picked out of animal feces. Really depressing. Here's a related link [1] --70.130.54.91 (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, found it here [2] --70.130.54.91 (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I need; Free, Real Time, Level 1, Stock and Comodity Quotes, Streaming or otherwise.

I need to find the Internet Web Site that gives; Free, Real Time, Level 1, Stock and Comodity Quotes (Streaming or other wise).

While watching the Consumer News and Business Chanel, CNBC, I could not hear the on air personality state the name of the Internet Web Site that gives Free, Real Time, Level 1, Streaming, Stock and Comodity Quotes.

I repeatedly wrote to CNBC and asked them for the name of the Web Site that they spoke of in the story; they never responded.

Does anyone know the name and address to the Internet Web Site that gives, Free, Real Time, Level 1, Stock and Comodity Quotes (Streaming or otherwise)?

I thank you in advance of your considerations and reply,

Sincerely,

Ucar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucarlox (talk • contribs) 13:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What is it you want again? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think it has something to do with the Internet Web Site that gives, Free, Real Time, Level 1, Stock and Comodity Quotes. Don't quote me on that, though. --Tango (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This website claims to offer free real-time stock quotes. I could not find a free source for commodity (futures) quotes. It is very likely that CNBC subscribes to a paid source for such quotes. Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You cannot get free real time prices or quotes. The exchanges feel (rightfully) that it is their data, and they want to charge you for using it, since you can make money from this information if you are clever enough.--Lgriot (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Muslims and pork-based medicines

Some types of Heparin derive from pork.

I know that traditional orthodox Judaism permits its adherents to break the dietary laws to save their own life, but does Islam? Do the various elements that make up Islam differ on this question?

For the sake of argument, let's assume a) the drug is 100% needed to save life and b) no non-porcine equivalent exists.

Further, bonus question. The drug is (usually? always?) injected. Does this make a difference? (ie is it less of a problem than taking it orally, or is it all considered the same?) --Dweller (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For one take on Islamic law, I looked this up on the Islam Today fatwa archive. There's nothing specific to this question, but this fatwa says it's sometimes ok to use prohibited intoxicants when medically necessary, citing the principle 'Necessity legalizes prohibitions'. From this, I'm sure that this strand of Islam would be happy with necessary pig-based medicine. edit: See also this, which notes that many scholars consider it compulsory to take live-saving medical treatment, even if the treatment would otherwise be forbidden. Algebraist 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And it will probably depend on the person. I have known both Jews and Muslims who have had no qualms about eating pork. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the way in which you take the medicine would depend on the way the scripture forbidding pork is formulated... It's a similar question to the Jehovah's Witness/blood situation. --217.227.79.79 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Were they intoxicated when they said "Necessity legalizes prohibitions" rather than "overrides"? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Algebraist. I'm not sure one can necessarily infer information about forbidden intoxicants (that I know some branches of Islam are less strict about anyway) onto forbidden foods... but the second answer seems fairly convincing.

Do Shiites and Sunni (or any other branch) differ on this? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

which orchestra instruments play chords?

Obviously when there is a piano with the orchestra, the pianist plays chords in spades. I asked a totally novice violinist, who said that they can, but don't often, play two strings at once (it sounded like she didn't at all). I vaguely remember hearing that Paginini's famous cannon sounding violin had a flat bridge, allowing him to play across three bows at once -- which would have implied that it's uncommon to play three notes on a violin at once. My question is: which orchestra instruments are TYPICALLY called on to play a chord? Any? My understanding is that most, such as trumpets, clarinets, flutes, etc, can't play a chord no matter what. Is this correct?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.99.209 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(Assuming you know that a chord is defined as 3 or more tones at once.) One thing to consider: an individual brass or woodwind instrument won't be playing chords, but the brass or woodwind section might be playing chords. Other than guitar or piano, I can't immediately think of many orchestral instruments that could play chords.. things like xylophone I suppose. Disclaimer: I'm not very up on which instruments are considered orchestra instruments. If you understand physically how a given instrument produces a tone, you should be able to figure out whether it can play more than one at a time. Friday (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Violins (and other bowed string instruments) can give at least the illusion of a 3 or 4 note chord. Other instruments that can genuinely play chords include mallet percussion instruments, which with conventional technique play 4 notes at once (e.g. the Xylophone as Friday says, but also Glockenspiel, Vibraphone, Marimba). There's also the Harp and Celesta, and I suppose you could even count the Organ. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How odd. I just happen to have recently written an article on Tossy Spivakovsky, who "developed a special bowing technique for the performance of the solo Bach suites. Most violinists solved the problems of playing chords by quickly arpeggiating them. Spivakovsky believed that they should be played solidly, as a keyboardist might play them, and solved the problem by developing a new approach to holding the violin and bow. His method was not widely adopted, but it was the subject of a 1949 book". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What's even odder is that I just asked a question germane to this very subject, here at the Reference Desk of all places, where you just happen to contribute. Coincidence? I think not. I think we can only conclude that you are my sock puppet, JackofOz. But why would I admit that? The plot Dickens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.99.209 (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It would definitely depend on the definition of orchestra. As mentioned, piano can do it, in addition to celesta, harpsichord, organ and harp. It is becoming more and more common to see full chords written out in mallet percussion parts, specifically in marimba and vibraphone, and occasionally glockenspiel and xylophone. Strings such as violin, viola, etc. will VERY rarely call for it, but it is technically possible. I've also seen orchestras call for considerably less common instrumentation, sometimes including guitar. Then, each individual section can make up a chord (for example, all 4 horns each play an individual note, but together create a chord). However, wind instruments cannot play more than one pitch at once, with a very uncommon exception.98.227.97.143 (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the ways you can do it (most have already been mentioned).

Strings can play chords -- three notes -- simultaneously, even without arpeggiating, even with a modern bridge, with sufficient pressure and far enough away from the bridge that the pressure on the outer of the three strings pushes them down sufficiently to sound the middle string. Usually it is not done in orchestral writing for obvious reasons -- you can get a cleaner sound with divisi.

Woodwinds can play chords using multiphonics, a technique encountered in some modern scores, as 98. notes.

Brass (and woodwinds) can play chords, in a limited (and marginally effective way) by playing a note simultaneously with humming a lower pitch, producing a difference tone. It's not worth the trouble, but technically possible.

The harp plays chords wonderfully: and keyboard instruments such as the piano, celesta, harmonium (Webern uses it), organ, are usually available.

In the percussion section, the mallet instruments (xylophone, marimba, vibraphone, glockenspiel) obviously can play chords; and so can timpani, and any other tuned drums. Berlioz famously used timpani to play chords in the Symphonie Fantastique as well as his Requiem. Antandrus (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic answer Antandrus! I just want to point out that string players at an advanced level (college/conservatory and beyond) do play chords all the time. Most great virtuosic violin pieces include extensive “double stops.” However in an orchestral section this is rare since it is difficult to get 12-32 violins all to play a difficult double stop precisely in tune. Instead the notes of a chord are split within a section, with a few players taking each of the notes individually. --S.dedalus (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Béla Bartók's string quartets are rife with double stops and triple stops. The 3rd quartet is dense with them. Not orchrestral music, but orchestral instruments at least. Pfly (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in addition, string instruments like the violin can, and do play 3-4 note chords, pizzicato. Pfly (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That produces an aural effect closely resembling a chord, but it's actually a very fast arpeggio. (Unless they pluck all 4 strings simultaneously, with 4 fingers.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about a strange word

Is there any other translation for the word Galaad except that it's a mountain near river Jordan , or that is a legendary knight that was at Arthurian legends.??!!Please let me know..

p.s.I am really sorry for my English! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.52.193.87 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you speak Arabic? If so, maybe ask on my talk page in Arabic. Wrad (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Arthurian knight was Galahad, not Galaad. Wikiant (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Galaad is an alt form of the name. According to Google, Galaad is also a software suite, a Swiss prog-rocker, and the Greek for Gilead. Algebraist 18:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

جلاد in Arabic can mean "hangman" "leather merchant" or "skinner". [3] Wrad (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You could try comparing Galahad and Gilead? Seems to fit your definition, just about. In Hebrew, it's pronounced "Gil'ad". It's possible that its Arabic name approximates to Gal'ad, but I'm speculating here. --Dweller (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm galaad that's aaall straightened out. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)