Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 16
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 15 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 17 > |
| 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. |
September 16 edit
How can I work property rights for something ? edit
How can I work property rights for mathematical theorem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.39.250 (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I understand all the individual words, but the sentence makes no sense. Could you restate your question, maybe provide more detail as to what you want to do? --Jayron32 11:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds like he/she might be asking how to claim ownership/copyright of something, particularly a mathematical theorem. If so, the answer is that generally copyright is automatic, i.e. anything you publish is automatically protected as your 'intellectual property'. However, copyright does not apply to mathematical theorems, because they are logically derived and thus do not entail any originality on the part of the 'author'. - Lindert (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that the idea that anything you publish is automatically protected as your 'intellectual property' means, more specifically, that no one can restate it using the same or virtually the same words; but they can paraphrase it -- restate it in their own words. The theorem itself can be used by anyone, e.g. as a component of the proof of their own theorem.
- For algorithms as opposed to theorems, see also Karmarkar's algorithm#Patent controversy, Algorithm#Legal issues, and Software patent. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- As a trainee patent attorney, all I can say is that the answer is hugely complicated, very dependent on juisdiction, and the exact nature of the theory/algorithm in question. There's no way to give a good answer without going well beyond the ban on requests for legal advice. MChesterMC (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Pads edit
Menstruation products cause millions of tons of waste each year. Between tampon and pads, which is better for the environment? Also, which are more commony used? Pass a Method talk 13:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Re better for the environment: This doctoral thesis, on page 34, comnpares pads and tampons directly re environmental impact and tampons come out ahead (because they are smaller). For raw numbers, here's a source saying average tampon use is 13 per cycle. (THat doesn't mean tampons are the best choice for the environment, FYI, see my last point below.)
- Re commonly used: Here's a survey of common product use. (Note many women use more than one product.) See also the doctoral thesis page 20 for a chart of tampon versus pad use.
- You didn't mention, but for women worried about waste the increasingly common choice is a menstrual cup. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to expand this topic to disposable nappies. (Diapers to Americans.) A massive waste problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ummm, ah, that's quite the thesis topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Washable cloth menstrual pads are another option sometimes used by those who are concerned about landfill waste. Our article does not have information about how common such usage is, though presumably it makes up a small percentage in developed areas of the world. Comparing the environmental impacts of similar disposable products seems like a worthwhile thesis; it's not a strange topic. 198.190.231.15 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Mass executions of the poor edit
I know that as a group the wealthy have been targeted for death by certain communist regimes; however have the poor ever been executed as a group before? Also if such an event has ever happened; what were the economic ramifications? CensoredScribe (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Considering the interlinkages between class and race, the 1937 Parsley Massacre could qualify as an example. --Soman (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- They can't execute too many of the poor, or there will be nobody left to fight their wars for them and do their work for them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well done, Bugs. Also, bear in mind that the really poor are vulnerable and will disproportionately suffer if you start a war or cause a famine. Or if they start to protest you can take reprisals. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- They can't execute too many of the poor, or there will be nobody left to fight their wars for them and do their work for them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Peterloo Massacre came to mind. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- About 10 to 15 people died in the Peterloo Massacre. Is this what you consider a mass execution of the poor as a group? Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why not, actually. It was the largest massacre of its kind in England at that time. I know by modern standards it seems almost commonplace for gun murders to kill dozens of innocent people, but in the early 19th century in England, it was a real game-changer.--TammyMoet (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Who are "they"? Your point is unclear. You could give some examples, Bugs. And what in the world are you talking about, IMJudith? Famines (which have killed most of my relatives in Europe) are not executions. Please give links or references. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- "They" being "the wealthy", as stated by the OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- The OP said no such thing. Quote for me where he said the wealthy were doing the execution. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- D'oh! You're right. That was an inference. The conclusion still stands, though. If too many low-end workers disappear, it spells trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- The OP said no such thing. Quote for me where he said the wealthy were doing the execution. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- "They" being "the wealthy", as stated by the OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Who are "they"? Your point is unclear. You could give some examples, Bugs. And what in the world are you talking about, IMJudith? Famines (which have killed most of my relatives in Europe) are not executions. Please give links or references. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why not, actually. It was the largest massacre of its kind in England at that time. I know by modern standards it seems almost commonplace for gun murders to kill dozens of innocent people, but in the early 19th century in England, it was a real game-changer.--TammyMoet (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- About 10 to 15 people died in the Peterloo Massacre. Is this what you consider a mass execution of the poor as a group? Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Say if you were in power in a country, e.g. by conquest, and you had it in for the poor of that country, you could engineer a famine by commandeering resources. Is it not the case that the already-poor die in disproportionate numbers in famines? As a general rule the already-poor die disproportionately in wars, massacres and general unrest, oppression and exploitation. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thinking back to the Irish Potato Famine, for example, it wasn't an execution, but more of negligence and plain old "not caring" about the Irish, that was the source of the English inaction on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- This seems largely to have been a case of ideological contempt by the Protestant British for a distant Catholic underclass and brutal means used by Protestant landlords whose position was based on legal prejudice rather than business acumen. Hard to imagine the famine happening if it had been on the BBC nightly. Do They Know It's Christmas and all. Famines are almost always political. That's more ascribable to the political class than to businessmen. The term rich has always been ambiguous between the two, the rulers and the builders. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thinking back to the Irish Potato Famine, for example, it wasn't an execution, but more of negligence and plain old "not caring" about the Irish, that was the source of the English inaction on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Say if you were in power in a country, e.g. by conquest, and you had it in for the poor of that country, you could engineer a famine by commandeering resources. Is it not the case that the already-poor die in disproportionate numbers in famines? As a general rule the already-poor die disproportionately in wars, massacres and general unrest, oppression and exploitation. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I take exception with the assumption. Most so-called communist regimes have not targeted "the wealthy" for death - the Khmer Rouge may have, but then they also targeted the literate and all wearers of glasses - and they are about as communist as a group of rabid dog. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- The communist regime of Stalin certainly did target the wealthy for death; at least in the Ukraine. I'm sure you have heard of Dekulakization. If not, read that short article and give it some thought. Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Our article on dekulakisation is pretty piss poor. Despite intentional fallacies, the policy in practice was targeted at the peasantry entire, as any of the works on this period would attest. So not really quite an attack on the rich. But it does raise the question of whether "attacks on the rich / poor" as such are a meaningful social studies category: reference to either of the great theoretical traditions of the social sciences, Marxism or Liberalism would indicate probably not. Medeis, despite contemporary narratives supported by states (as disgusting to history as previous narratives supported by states), the Politbureau papers we have indicate, at worst, "it wasn't an execution, but more of negligence and plain old "not caring" about the [x], that was the source of the [y] inaction on the matter." These findings obviously don't eliminate the possibility of a nationalist narrative of especial persecution; but, it would have to be significantly different than the current popularist narratives of the holodomor. I have real difficulties with the populist narrative of the Holodomor because its effect is to conceal the actual monstrosities of the 1933 famines beneath yet another layer of state interest. Also, a fuller evaluation might have to strongly involve a condemnation of famine in any economic network with rapid transportation, regardless of state intention. Outcomes, not intentionality, was nominally the requirement that post-social democratic parties ought to have been held to. Its also a reasonable construction of "responsibility to protect" discourses within liberalism on the justification of states to governance. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting sentiments. If the article on dekulakisation is not to your standards, perhaps you can try Holodomor? What you are saying furthermore is that contemporary writings on Stalin's Ukrainian agricultural policies are more reliable than modern scholarship on the issue? That is quite a stretch, no? Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Our article on Holodomor is a fucking mess, and poisoned by state discourses. I am saying that modern archival scholarship held accountable to international peer review is more reliable than state dominated populist publications of any era. Claiming that scholars publishing in the scholarly press subject to peer review are reliable, or the only basis, for making complex theoretical adjudications of central european history has unfortunately been quite a stretch for a large number of editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, ok, I agree with you. Peer reviewed published scholarly works are the most reliable on the topic. That being said, have you read this 2011 book: Bloodlands:_Europe_Between_Hitler_and_Stalin, by historian Timothy Snyder? This work furthermore posits the theory that the USSR policy of the time was to kill the better-off kulaks as an entire class. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- I do not respect for Basic Books' capacity to judge high quality scholarly social science, due to their previous publication decisions in my area of expertise. (This is nothing against Snyder though, and it certainly meets our standards for HISTRS's highest category of work AFAICS). The problem with drawing the claim "that the USSR policy of the time was to kill the better-off kulaks as an entire class" is that policy isn't social actuality: its claiming an intention at odds with public policy documents, and at odds with actual bureaucratic implementation. Which makes me wonder what the origin of the claim is. Its also hard to square with the public policies of the period for dispossession (as opposed to mass murder) of rich kulaks, and their incarceration in what were viewed from the equivalent policy standpoint as work reformation camps. Getting back to the social actuality, the actuality of policy was the elimination of the peasantry as a class; their forced proletarianisation in kholkoz, sovkoz and dislocation to urban proletarian pursuits or forced corvee labour in a (failed) industrial prison system. The category of "kulak" used in campaigns against the peasantry was so vacuous that it can hardly be called policy. The NEPmen so brutally sought in the field of propaganda didn't exist. I feel the Nove-Millar debate might be most helpful here. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Can you call up a Dolmetscher? I have no idea what you are trying to say. So you don't like Basic Books because they didn't publish your semiliterate ramblings? Try that in English, please. Thanks. Herzlicheboy (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- I do not respect for Basic Books' capacity to judge high quality scholarly social science, due to their previous publication decisions in my area of expertise. (This is nothing against Snyder though, and it certainly meets our standards for HISTRS's highest category of work AFAICS). The problem with drawing the claim "that the USSR policy of the time was to kill the better-off kulaks as an entire class" is that policy isn't social actuality: its claiming an intention at odds with public policy documents, and at odds with actual bureaucratic implementation. Which makes me wonder what the origin of the claim is. Its also hard to square with the public policies of the period for dispossession (as opposed to mass murder) of rich kulaks, and their incarceration in what were viewed from the equivalent policy standpoint as work reformation camps. Getting back to the social actuality, the actuality of policy was the elimination of the peasantry as a class; their forced proletarianisation in kholkoz, sovkoz and dislocation to urban proletarian pursuits or forced corvee labour in a (failed) industrial prison system. The category of "kulak" used in campaigns against the peasantry was so vacuous that it can hardly be called policy. The NEPmen so brutally sought in the field of propaganda didn't exist. I feel the Nove-Millar debate might be most helpful here. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, ok, I agree with you. Peer reviewed published scholarly works are the most reliable on the topic. That being said, have you read this 2011 book: Bloodlands:_Europe_Between_Hitler_and_Stalin, by historian Timothy Snyder? This work furthermore posits the theory that the USSR policy of the time was to kill the better-off kulaks as an entire class. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Our article on Holodomor is a fucking mess, and poisoned by state discourses. I am saying that modern archival scholarship held accountable to international peer review is more reliable than state dominated populist publications of any era. Claiming that scholars publishing in the scholarly press subject to peer review are reliable, or the only basis, for making complex theoretical adjudications of central european history has unfortunately been quite a stretch for a large number of editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting sentiments. If the article on dekulakisation is not to your standards, perhaps you can try Holodomor? What you are saying furthermore is that contemporary writings on Stalin's Ukrainian agricultural policies are more reliable than modern scholarship on the issue? That is quite a stretch, no? Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Our article on dekulakisation is pretty piss poor. Despite intentional fallacies, the policy in practice was targeted at the peasantry entire, as any of the works on this period would attest. So not really quite an attack on the rich. But it does raise the question of whether "attacks on the rich / poor" as such are a meaningful social studies category: reference to either of the great theoretical traditions of the social sciences, Marxism or Liberalism would indicate probably not. Medeis, despite contemporary narratives supported by states (as disgusting to history as previous narratives supported by states), the Politbureau papers we have indicate, at worst, "it wasn't an execution, but more of negligence and plain old "not caring" about the [x], that was the source of the [y] inaction on the matter." These findings obviously don't eliminate the possibility of a nationalist narrative of especial persecution; but, it would have to be significantly different than the current popularist narratives of the holodomor. I have real difficulties with the populist narrative of the Holodomor because its effect is to conceal the actual monstrosities of the 1933 famines beneath yet another layer of state interest. Also, a fuller evaluation might have to strongly involve a condemnation of famine in any economic network with rapid transportation, regardless of state intention. Outcomes, not intentionality, was nominally the requirement that post-social democratic parties ought to have been held to. Its also a reasonable construction of "responsibility to protect" discourses within liberalism on the justification of states to governance. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- The punk rock group the Dead Kennedys had a well-known single back in 1980 called Kill_the_Poor. ""The sun beams down on a brand new day / No more welfare tax to pay / Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light / Jobless millions whisked away / At last we have more room to play / All systems go to kill the poor tonight" Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- For context's sake: that song is a satirical protest against the development of the neutron bomb, whose only practical use is the extermination of the general population of an area while leaving infrastructure intact for other people to replace them on a reduced timetable at near-full economic capacity without having to rebuild so much first. Presumably the replacement people are also largely an underclass, as there's no point in leaving infrastructure intact for elites who do not and will not run it: if the wealthy class really actually were to kill off its underclass, they'd stop being wealthy and have to work the infrastructure themselves just to survive. That's why the song never really made that much sense to me; far more likely (and therefore terrifying) is the prospect that a nation would use neutron weapons against another nation wholesale, for the purpose of immediately colonizing the victim country (they could even tout the project as one of relieving population pressure, homelessness, and a weak economy domestically, to help provide justification for such an enormity). Yes, it's a kind of fine line between killing our poor, versus killing their poor and deporting our poor to form a puppet country in the not-so-smoldering wreckage, but it's enough to make the satire miss its target IMO. ...It is pretty catchy though. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- The punk rock group the Dead Kennedys had a well-known single back in 1980 called Kill_the_Poor. ""The sun beams down on a brand new day / No more welfare tax to pay / Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light / Jobless millions whisked away / At last we have more room to play / All systems go to kill the poor tonight" Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was reading recently how the number of Black Argentinians is so low now in spite of their importance in the history of Argentine because a deliberate policy of using them as cannon fodder in wars. And you could look into the Anti-Haitianism in the Dominican Republic. --Error (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Did Hitler have any retirement plans? edit
Did Hitler have any plans to step down as Führer and retire peacefully? Of course this never happened since Germany was totally defeated in 1945. However, Hitler's long-term plans for Germany and Europe are well-known. Did he envision himself leading the Reich for life, or did he have any plans to step down at a certain stage? I have heard rumors that Hitler himself fancied retiring to Crimea, perhaps the vacation city of Yalta, but I've never seen anything corroborating this in historical sources. Does anyone have any information on these topics? Thanks. Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Before anyone directs me to this article: New_Order_(Nazism)#Hitler.27s_plans_for_retirement I must say that I found a problem, a major problem with the information there. Most of the section, including the alleged plans for Hitler to retire to Linz, is sourced to Albert Speer's "Inside the Third Reich" (1970), p. 139. I actually own this book so I decided to check up on that. While on pages 137-141 is discussion of the upcoming 1950 deadline for new construction in Berlin, there is absolutely no mention of Hitler's "retirement" or his planning to move to Linz in the future. This probably warrants changing the article, perhaps removal of the entire section, as it is sourced to something that doesn't support what the article says. Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Even if it was in the book it would be problematic to state it as facts, since Speers autobiography is notoriously unreliable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, I read several pages before and several pages after the cited page 139. That should satisfy any "different editions, different page numbers" issue. In any case, the editor cited the MacMillan 1970 edition, which is the edition I own as well. No mention was made concerning any of Hitler's retirement plans, but the information about the 1950 construction deadline was right on page 139. Herzlicheboy (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Even if it was in the book it would be problematic to state it as facts, since Speers autobiography is notoriously unreliable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- I looked in Google books and found this. The index specifically mentions "Retirement in Linz". That is the Apr 1, 1997 edition. (Hmm . . April fools day?). I also found on page 3 of The Hitler of History by John Lukacs mention of Hitler's intention to retire in Linz that seems to come from an independent source that predates Speer's book. See the footnote. It mentions Gertraud "Traudl" Junge who wrote her own book, Until the Final Hour: Hitler's Last Secretary. On page 83 she says he said The Berghof as his place of retirement. So we are getting different stories. I would go with The Berghof as this point, but more digging may be needed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)