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.
Upon a Helm with a Wreath Argent and Sable On Water Barry wavy Sable Argent and Sable an Owl affronty wings displayed and inverted Or supporting thereby two closed Books erect Gules.
Escutcheon
Sable an ankh between four Roundels in saltire each issuing Argent.
That's a description of Sir Terry Pratchett's coat of arms. Please refer to Heraldry. It's basically a set of instructions that produces this picture [1]. A8875 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My question wasn't clear. It would take me months to decipher this and relate it to the picture. Is there someone here with a short cut, who can read "heraldese" and translate. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crest: "On a helm with a black & silver wreath, on horizontally-oriented wavy water with colors black, silver, and black, there's a golden owl facing the front with its wings pointed down, and the wings support two closed upright red books."
Shield: "Black, an ankh between 4 disks in the shape of an X (a saltire), the disks are silver"
The shortcut is that most words describe a color or orientation. Argent is silver (or white), Sable is black, Barry means horizontal, Or is gold, Gules is red, inverted means pointed down, erect means upright, affronty means facing the front, etc. The rest are likely specialized heraldric terms that describe something mundane, like an X, or a disk. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ankh is also silver/white. (Any color word affects everything mentioned since the last such word.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 140.180.5.169. That is very helpful. Bielle (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, "heraldese" is actually known as blazoning... AnonMoos (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a wonderful word. I shall have to remember that. Thanks. Bielle (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, they even have their own jargon word for their own jargon. Do these people breathe "air" and eat "food" like the rest of us? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 05:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blazoning is no worse than any other jargon - for example "Creative ZEN devices don't export the USB mass storage interface (which would make them work like removable drives) but instead implement the Media Transfer Protocol" (picked at random from the Computing RD) or "What properties does a topological space X need to satisfy so that if f: X -> X is continuous on each set in a closed cover of X, f is continuous on X?" (from the Mathematics RD). It's just unfamiliar. Like all jargon, it facilitates clear communication about complex concepts. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't really as analogous as they may at first seem. All are examples of potentially insular language, but notice that "blazoning" is essentially defined by hold-overs of anachronistic terms; in most cases you could use more contemporary variants of the terminology and it would be just as clear (and indeed, a wider selection of people would understand more intuitively); in this regard, the jargon operates as more of a cypher than anything. The other two examples you supply are simply technical language which might not be familiar to everyone, but by and large, those who do understand it would use largely the same terminology and phrasing, since they are simply employing the most common terms to describe those concepts. Snow (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you say that heraldic terminology is anachronistic; perhaps you mean it is archaic, which I would agree with. But the purpose of this is to maintain continuity and ensure that descriptions of coats of arms in historical records can still be understood. It is not done to be deliberately cryptic or obscure. You see the same use of archaic terminology and non-English words in legal jargon (e.g. tort), which has a similarly long history. And why do we eat beefburgers rather than cowburgers, and pork chops not pig chops ? There you have holdovers of archaic terminology which happen to be so familiar we do not notice them any more. "Jargon" and "technical language" are synonymous; there is no difference between them. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that. My point is that scientists, for example, do not have a word that only they use, that means "scientific or technical jargon"; or cooks do not have a word that means "culinary jargon"; and so on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Blazon" doesn't literally mean the jargon itself, but rather a formal description in the jargon. The equivalent description in German or Swedish would use more ordinary vocabulary and syntax (no pun intended), but would also be a blazon. —Tamfang (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! I wonder if Sir Terry knows that. (facepalm) Bielle (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Length of Trans-Siberian railroad inside the arctice circleedit
What is the approximate length of Trans-Siberian railroad inside the Arctic Circle ?? No clue how to arrive at it. would appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.244.183 (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trans-Siberian line in red (Baikal Amur Mainline in green)Map of the Arctic with the Arctic Circle in blue. Zero as far as I can see. ---Sluzzelintalk 02:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As any map shows, the Trans-Siberian Railway does not get anywhere close to the Arctic Circle. (It's entirely below 60 degrees northern latitude). The same goes for the Baikal-Amur Mainline. You may have been thinking of the so-called Transpolar Mainline (1297 km from Salekhard to Igarka) which was under construction ca. 1950, but was never completed. That one, as the article says was supposed to be 1,297 km long, but only part of it (probably less than half) is actually north of the Arctic Circle.
There are some operational railway in Siberia that are entirely (or at least mostly) above the Arctic Circle, such as the Obskaya–Bovanenkovo Line in the Yamal Peninsula (525 km), or the short Norilsk railway. -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the Trans-Siberian railroad is inside the arctic cirlce. The circle is at 66 degrees, and the railroad barely goes north of 50. RudolfRed (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is making unwarranted assumptions, 183, but I wonder if your question is born out of the common misconception that Siberia is "the Northern part of Russia", a frozen wasteland to which enemies of the state were exiled, when it is actually "the Eastern part of Russia" or "the central part of Russia". As Vmenkov's map shows, a lot of the railway, and most of the Siberian population, is considerably further south than Moscow. FiggyBee (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it's not only the Northern part of Russia, and while it may not entirely be a frozen wasteland, it's still pretty cold, it being to the north of Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and northeastern China. If you check the temperatures for Novosibirsk in the winter, you'll see how cold it is, compared to the similarly placed (latitude-wise) Moscow. 109.97.161.58 (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A key reason for Siberia's extreme temperatures (IIRC it has hot summers) is continentality. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're talking about southern Siberia. Northern Siberia does go quite far north above the Arctic Circle, and borders the Arctic Ocean, so is quite cold, on average, in winter, and cool even in summer (see Norilsk#Climate). However, few people live up there, and the Trans-Siberian railroad doesn't go up there, either. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm talking about all of Siberia. The whole shebang is cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer than areas of comparable latitude that are further west. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Norilsk's warmest month of July is only 16°C (61°F), on average, so not exactly "warm". What are you comparing it to ? And note that temps get much colder if you go even farther north in Siberia, say to Schmidt Island. StuRat (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would happen if a nuke or some other disaster destroyed Washington, DC? --146.7.96.200 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As is states at the top of the page "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.". If you have more precise questions that can be answered with non opinion/guessing answers, such as "what happens if the US president dies?" than we will respond. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one. --Tango (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- there is very extensive planning for something like that, but unfortunately almost all of the plans are secret. Looie496 (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the US History Channel's "Day After Disaster", where this specific scenario is discussed in full. --NellieBly (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically see the Continuity of Operations Plan — which is actually already in place and was activated on 9/11 (and never apparently deactivated — we are, over a decade later, still living in a State of Emergency, apparently). It describes elaborate (budget-busting) procedures by which agencies try to maintain control and continuity. The line of succession to the Presidency is pretty well outlined; it'd take quite a few people dead before a Constitutional crisis occurred (and for those rare events when pretty much everyone on the list is in the same place, there is usually a designated survivor). As for what would happen immediately afterwards, it would undoubtedly depend on assessing what the situation was. If it were war with another nation state, the results would likely be different than if it were thought to be caused by terrorists. Nuclear forensics (only a stub!) would no doubt be involved in figuring that sort of thing out. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A year or two ago there was essentially the same question: Something like, if the House, Senate, President and VP, and Supreme Court were all wiped out, what would happen? And the answer was generally the same: That there are contingency plans for handling the worst-case scenarios... certain details of which of course are secret, otherwise they wouldn't be very useful. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in that case it is still quite clear who is legally in charge, because you didn't say the Cabinet was also killed. In practice it is unclear whether rule of law holds in a situation where major political and legal institutions are destroyed, of course. That would apply for pre-cooked up scenarios as well. And a lot of this stuff is less secret than you'd imagine. It's mostly boring, not secret. The legal angles are pretty non-secret. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The general plans are likely well-known. Some of the specifics, such as just where they would go to hide from the attackers, is likely classified. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the issue that the succession has never been tested beyond Vice-President. Some concerns about the constitutionality of the succession have been expressed (see here). If people chose to challenge it at the time, it could cause significant problems (especially if there is no Supreme Court around to rule on it). When it comes down to it, though, all that matters is whether military leaders are willing to accept orders from the person. The legalities can be worried about later. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would happen? Some set designer wearing funny glasses would design a pit twice as deep, at the cost of several hundred billion dollars, call it a monument, and have it dug at taxpayer expense. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does buy more, pay more (identical good) always hold?edit
Is there something you can pay less for and get more (at least up to a point, as this can't go on forever). Not less per unit, this is commoner than dirt. That you literally hand over more money and get less stuff (that is for all practical purposes identical). Nor does this mean with different sellers. The same seller at the same time. While if you loosen the identicalness requirement a bit you could find many things like that (Olympic weightlifter A can lift several hundred kilos, instead of buying the $2,000 (todays dollars) nanotube-constructed 15" 1-millimeter thick, 7 gram, 2045 MacBook Hard Vacuum with brain plug he buys a $1.00 (MSRP) 15" 2.5kg 2045 MacBook Brick with brain plug (and identical (or even better) technical ability) (the future will be wild), then he's paying less to get more, at the very least he's getting more matter, right? Or immoral example but, a client who prefers drug addict prostitute A to anyone else on Earth, finding her the pinnacle of human beauty (are there any?) he could get more of what is sort of the same thing (hours of..) (and better quality too) and still pay less than anyone else (assuming any cheaper prostitutes cost more to travel to than he'd save). So that's not very interesting either. The best I can think of is maybe some remote culture where the shamen voodoo curses some of a potter's pots (maybe for overcharging an outsider:) and it'll stay till he sells the cursed objects for money to a knowing buyer (curse is eternal and transferable). The goods are essentially the same object (okay, so there's an extra 0.1% more ovalness here but let's say he's really consistent) but when the rare outsider who doesn't believe in curses passes by he might offer less for 10 pots than for 5 of them (the wrong 5) just to get them out of his shop. Or "ungoods" which are sold for negative money, in my city businesses have to sell their garbage to private companies for negative dollars, for example (free garbage removal is only for residences), but now they're providing a service. Oh great. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I bought two 500ml bottles of Coca-Cola in W H Smith a few weeks ago. They were on special offer, 2 for £1. The individual price was £1.20. I often get my lunch at Tesco and have their "meal deal" which is a sandwich, a drink and a chocolate bar for £2.50. I don't particularly want the chocolate bar, but the sandwich costs £2 and the drink costs £1.50, so I get the bar anyway and save £1. Such offers, while pretty stupid, are very common. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since stores often have sales on only a certain size of an item, usually the most popular size, somewhere in the middle range, this product can actually be cheaper than the smaller size, which is not on sale. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those look like mistakes, to me. However, the practice of putting one quantity/variety on sale and not the others seems widespread. I assume it's to trick people into buying the wrong item and paying full price. StuRat (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, those are almost certainly mistakes (and probably just with the label printing - the tills probably get it right). They wouldn't get away with it if if they did that intentionally - someone would notice (probably when they saw their receipt saying "Today, you've saved -£0.51!") and the bad publicity would be enormous. They would end up having to refund people, with all the administration costs that go along with that. It just wouldn't be a good plan (and the people that come up with the deals in supermarkets are very good at their jobs, so they would know it wasn't a good plan). --Tango (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a mistake. I've frequently seen small bottles of drink more expensive than the larger bottles of drink next to them, particularly in inner-city convenience stores. The reason is that if you're an office worker grabbing a drink to go with your lunch (ie most of their customers), the small size is more convenient to carry around and a more appropriate size for one serving (you could, of course, buy the larger bottle and throw it away when you've had enough, but there's a psychological barrier to this "wastefulness"). FiggyBee (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe, but I also refer you to a Which? investigation of May 2012: "Supermarkets mislead shoppers with 'dubious' special offers, Which? says" that "found that supermarkets increase the price of an individual product – such as a pot of yoghurt - when that product becomes part of a bulk ‘multibuy’ offer. The effect of the price increase makes the ‘multibuy’ deal seem better value, when in fact shoppers are paying more per item than they previously had been."Alansplodge (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a variation on the theme of using an artificially high price to make sales prices seem better than they are. Your typical infomercial starts by saying "not $1000, not $900, not $800, not $700, not even $600, no, this incredible lucite version of the Hope Diamond is yours for only $500 ! But wait, there's more, we will add in a second Hope Diamond for free, you need only pay shipping and handling (which is still far more than it's worth) ! We've included a certificate of authenticity (yep, genuine plasic) so you can confidently pass this heirloom down to your children (who will most likely use it to beat you to death for wasting their inheritance). And, if you act now (before you regain your senses), we will throw in these other free gifts (old crap they couldn't even give away)..." StuRat (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that a "certificate of authenticity" is just plastic. I agree that the stuff could be worth a lot less but whatever it is worth is due to the certificate, which you are calling plastic.--nids(♂) 20:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying that the replica diamond is just (authenticated) plastic, not that the certificate itself is plastic. FiggyBee (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there's nothing "authentic" about a replica, so certifying that it's "genuine lucite" isn't going to make it any more valuable than "uncertified lucite". StuRat (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed an offer on jars of syrup recently: two for less than the price of one. I asked a manager in the supermarket, and it wasn't a mistake. If you bought one, they would in effect pay you to take another one away with it. They must have had too much syrup. Card Zero (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I remember a huge pile of asparagus a couple of years ago in a local supermarket. One bunch for a pound, three bunches for 20 pence. I guess someone massively over-ordered. Warofdreamstalk 09:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's something completely different - that's about demand and price, not quantity and price. --Tango (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lord, I'd suggest the chapters on expanded production in Volume I but it would be a waste of time wouldn't it? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? --Tango (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about Das Kapital. I would also recommend it if you have time. If you want to compare Veblen and Marx, I suggest The Worldly Philosophers. I suggest it anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a variation on this concept – buy less, pay the same – see the story of the Sibylline Books. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can buy one economist who thinks that 'price' has a rational relationship to 'value' for 1,000 arbitrary units of exchange, how much should you pay for two economists who think the same thing? And how much would you have to pay them to think something different? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've also seen a stepped volume discount result in paying more for lower volumes. For example, an item that sells for $2 each, but drops to $1.50 each when you buy ten or more. In that scenario, 9 items cost $18, while 10 items only costs $15. The usual way around this irrational pricing is to say something like the first 5 items are $2 each, and the 6th item and beyond are $1.50 each. This results in the totals listed under the "2nd" pricing strategy:
The prices marked with an asterisk are irrational, under the 1st pricing system.
A variation on this problem is a coupon with a minimum purchase requirement (either in terms of quantity or cash total). For example, a $10 off coupon when you spend $20 or more results in a $19 bill costing you $19, while a $20 bill only costs you $10, once the coupon is applied. So, why don't they just make it a 50% off coupon ? Both so you will buy more to get to the minimum, or, if you buy over that amount, you won't get as much of a discount. In my example, you only get a 50% discount if you manage to get your bill to exactly equal $20. Anything more gives you less of a discount, and anything less gives you no discount at all. StuRat (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
