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.
Two vanishing points in one point perspective.edit
Looking at a lot of concept art of cities I see that often the artist uses two vanishing points, or seems to at least. Imagine looking down a street. And the bottoms of the buildings and the pavements recede to one VP. Then the roofs and other things in the top half recede to another VP placed a little above the first one.
An example of two vanishing points.Sure, some art uses multiple vanishing points, see Vanishing point. Perspective_(graphical)#Types_of_perspective gives lots of other examples. I think if there are two vanishing points then it's not considered a "one point perspective" - the examples of two-point perspectives often illustrate the vanishing points as horizontally displaced, but they can be vertically displaced as well. You can even have three vanishing points vertically displaced, as in House of Stairs. SemanticMantis (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I spent today visiting Detroit for the first time, walking along Jefferson Avenue and nearby blocks in the morning, and dodging Woodward Avenue construction workers and exploring Midtown Detroit in the afternoon. I was quite surprised to see a wide variety of sidewalk markings: basically everywhere I went, I saw imprints in the concrete providing the contractor's name and the date. I've seen this before in occasional places, but this was different: tons of contractors (it's not just one guy showing off) over many decades, with the newest being just a few years old. Is sidewalk-stamping required by some city ordinance, or is it just a local custom? My question wasn't answered by a Google search, although this page is interesting; most people seem to take sidewalk imprints for granted, as if they're as common as I'm guessing. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer, but it seems like a good idea, so you know who to blame for bad cement and compliment for a job well done. In some cases it is required to last a certain number of years, or they don't get fully paid. In this case, those markings would certainly help. StuRat (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sidewalk contractor stamps were in wide use in the United States, especially in the West, through the 1970s, but their use decreased around that time due to fears of liability, per this site. It may be that Michigan is an exception to the trend for some reason. Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Due to it's economic situation (car companies moving out, riots, white flight, embezzlement and corruption, lack of a tax base) Detroit has built or repaired few sidewalks since the 1970's, so that would explain why a substantial portion of the sidewalks would still have stamps. (Living there myself, I can tell you, after several decades, that on old sidewalks, the top cement erodes away, leaving the stones sticking out of the remaining cement. This, along with uneven slabs due to tree roots, etc., make them a trip hazard and makes it difficult to shovel snow in winter.) StuRat (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a mix of mayors have pledged to "revitalize the city", but, rather than offering concrete solutions to cement the various parts of the city together, those pledges have worked out to mean pouring their meager resources into a small area, where the effects are noticeable, while the rest of the city eroded (and many of the citizens ended up on a slab). StuRat (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
in the political spectrum of left-right, at which end do feminism and women's rights fall?edit
Those would be liberal ideals, which were left of center, initially. Of course, as they became more mainstream, they became more centrist. These days, wanting to deny women the vote, for example, would be seen as far right-wing, while a century ago this was a centrist ideal. StuRat (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@StuRat:why no universal political spectrum irrespective of timespace continuum? why center-right/left view 200 year ago, become far-left/right view now?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since political attitudes change constantly, so does the location of "the center". If you go back far enough, anyone who opposed slavery would have been seen as a crazy radical liberal. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only consistency that I can discern in different times and places is that "the Left" seeks some kind of equality and "the Right" seeks some kind of stability. So if feminism is about equality, it belongs on the Left. (Feminism may or may not have some branches that seek something other than equality; I'll not prod that hornet nest further.) But many issues do not have a clear right-left alignment; and thus one cause may have historic alliances of convenience with the Right in one country and with the Left in another. —Tamfang (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, there are people who claim to be both right wing conservatives and feminists. I don't think we should play no true scotsman here but suffice it to say claiming to be a feminist doesn't mean any other feminists have to consider you one, as is well illustrated by your google search link. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then too individualist feminism, which presumably rejects identity politics altogether, and is not neatly grouped with either left or right. --Trovatore (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And just remember that conservatism is functionally defined by its opposition to profound change. Therefore, while conservatives are routinely on the political right in today's Western world that goes gradually leftward, they can also be on the political left; in the last years of the USSR, when government and economy were going gradually rightward, the coup was led by hardline conservatives who viewed Gorbachev as insufficiently communist, i.e. they said he and his allies weren't left enough. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the dictionary definition, but that's not always how it's used. In the early 1980s in the United States, for example, it was the Reaganites who were the agents of change, but they were still usually thought of as conservatives. --Trovatore (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite true. The goal of conservatism, then as now, is to return to "the way it used to be", or how they think it used to be. That's "change" only in the retrogressive sense. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change is change. There is no such thing as a new political position (oh, they differ in detail, but not in principle), so any change is "going back" to something or other. --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What have liberals been trying to "go back to"? Their positions have generally been progressive, a change from tradition (in the US, that tradition being white male supremacy.)
Well, Obama has been trying to go back to a 1960s-style tradition of activist government, higher taxes and services and a greater role for the state in the life of the individual. --Trovatore (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Obama and the liberals are merely continuing the progressive philosophy of extending civil liberties, while conservatives (as usual) are trying to curb or revert such liberties: To "change back" to the old American standard of white male supremacy. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's not true? What I said completely true. The politics of the sixties and seventies were based on a higher-tax-higher-service model, with more state involvement in the life of the individual, and Obama has been trying to go back to that. --Trovatore (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Conservatives" love that so-called "liberal" model just fine as long as they're financing perpetual warfare rather than helping the disadvantaged in America. Conservatism is about making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Any claims to the contrary are either willful or blind ignorance. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So now you've completely switched your argument. I understand that you don't like conservatives. That's not what we're discussing. (By the way, I am not a conservative.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. Oh, it was never abandoned completely, of course. But it was significantly redimensioned downwards in the eighties and nineties, under Reagan, GHWB, and Clinton. --Trovatore (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that the conservatives have been persistent in trying to erode civil liberties. I think of it as being like when the then-liberal Republicans abandoned reconstruction and the then-conservative Democrats effectively re-imposed slavery and white supremacy. And it's been happening again, starting with the Reagan years, as you say. Hopefully, the citizenry can put the brakes on this conservative-driven retrogression, but it requires constant effort. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The center-right and center-left are almost equally bad on civil liberties (look at Obama on Guantanamo and the NSA, for example). That wasn't really the aspect I was discussing; I was talking about high-vs-low tax-and-service models, and state involvement in the life of the individual.
But whatever; it doesn't really matter which of these aspects we're discussing. The point is that change is change. There is no "forward" or "backward"; there are only different choices. You think that some of these choices are better than others, and so do I; on some of them you and I agree and on some we disagree. But change is change. There may be a way to tell which way is "better", but there's no way to tell which way is "forward". --Trovatore (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guantanamo and the NSA activities were established by right-wingers, so don't blame Obama. Retrogression is mathematically a type of "change", but in this case it's "changing back" to white male supremacy, which is as old as dirt. And absent the "state" (meaning federal) involvement, the average citizen is thrown to the wolves - a political position the right-wing wholly endorses. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no forward or back. --Trovatore (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to the white supremacist politicians who talk about "taking our country back". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of like when conservatives allegedly disapprove of an "activist" Supreme Court, when what they really want is for the court to be activist in their favor. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not just the dictionary definition; read English-language secondary sources about the Gorbachev era, and you'll routinely see his farther-left opponents described as "the old guard" and "conservatives". Nyttend (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember that the "left-right" political axis is a handy heuristic for simplifying the political positions of a nation's political parties for "the masses" so they know which tribe they belong to, and which tribe to hate, but actual politics is more complicated, and there are people who self-identify as feminists who also self-identify with any number of political ideas from the far-right to the far-left and everywhere in between. People and ideas are not neatly placed into two boxes. The Wikipedia articles Left-right paradigm and Left–right politics discusses some of the historical context behind the system, and also explains some of the problems with left-right thinking. The Wikipedia article Political spectrum discusses some of the more complex ways of looking at classifying political systems, including the left-right paradigm, but also other heuristics such as the Nolan Chart and the Political compass, as well as numerous other ways of looking at politics. --Jayron32 14:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what is the name of the speech pattern, attitude pattern and form showcased by secret agents of government, military, black ops, mib etc?edit
always using verbose formal english, stoic but giving off a feeling of ominousness, agents always display and remain a state of optimism even during mission failure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 05:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your question as stated, and its real world implementation, is so laden with bias, judgment and rejection of prevailing social norms, that it is literallly impossible to answer it to your satisfaction. The speech patterns you describe, in my opinion, are used far more broadly than just among just the sub-groups you describe. Accordingly, the premise of your question is questionable. You could use the words of my answer to pigeonhole me into a category among your ideological enemies, thereby ignoring the fact that I, too, challenge the status quo. So where does that leave you and your premise? Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to frame your question in such a fashion that a responsive, useful.answer is possible for a human being to write. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And most of all, you first need to prove that your assumptions are valid. I'm tempted to answer that any speech patterns to which you refer may best be described as Hollywood...after all, have you ever met an MIB (or a "secret agent" or even a "black ops" operator for that mater) or are you making assumptions based on movie portrayals?--William ThweattTalkContribs 07:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Intel operatives do often speak (and even more, write) in a strangely stilted way which appears formal to outsiders ("I observed three males and one female"). I don't believe there's a name as such for this; it's just that they're trained to avoid terms which may appear ambiguous. Official police and military statements are often in the same style (watch a cop testifying in court to see it in action). I hate to disappoint the OP, but the reason MIBs speak that way is that they're fictional characters and they speak however the scriptwriter chooses. ‑ iridescent 07:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OP forgot to type "in movies, tv shows, cartoons", OP notice now. OP found some answer in entertainment desk.Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit like asking why good cowboys wear white hats and bad cowboys wear black hats. It's just a stereotype created by the media, especially film and old-time radio. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the language used by secret agents (in movies, I presume, not real life) has a special name, but what you describe resembles officialese. John M Baker (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the House of Commons, there are regular debates held in Westminster Hall. Does anyone know where I can find sources on their format? In terms of: length and number of speeches, minister's right of reply etc. Thanks. 188.29.165.112 (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page from the official Parliament website should have all the relevant information. The detailed procedures are in Standing Order 10 of the House of Commons. Tevildo (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be really nit-picky, although they're called "Westminster Hall debates" they don't actually take place in the Hall itself, but in a big adjoining room (the Grand Committee Room). ‑ iridescent 19:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a request for legal advice but to help understand the legal principle. Say a person (in the UK specifically but I think the principle would be the same) incorporates a company limited by guarantee, just one member, whose liability is limited to £1. If they then do lots of irresponsible things through the company - shoddy building work, libellous website, whatever - and get sued, is it the case that the individual gets off with just paying £1 and those who have won damages against the company get next to nothing?
146.90.82.176 (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am unfamiliar with the relevant UK laws, but in California, every construction contractor must certify that they have a minimum level of capital and must buy a performance bond from a specialized insurance carrier. In addition, serious commercial customers insist on a certificate of liability insurance of at least $1,000,000 and usually several million dollars these days. It is not easy to reduce liability to a trivial amount, at least in California. I hold a California contractor's license. Cullen328Let's discuss it 23:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The use of a corporation to limit liability may be effective for contract claims, unless, as RudolfRed noted, a plaintiff is able to pierce the corporate veil. For this reason, sophisticated counterparties often insist on a personal guaranty from the company's owner. However, plaintiffs in tort generally will be able to proceed against the individual directly, so liability would not be limited. John M Baker (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Not the UK, but as a result of the Leaky homes crisis in NZ, there's actually been a lot of controversy over this in NZ, relating to the fact many of the developers and/or companies which built the buildings have been wound up, either leaving the owner, or more likely other parties often the council who certified the building with major problems due to them being the so called last man standing in cases where there are Joint and several liability[1] (and as that says, even if more than one party is still around, traditionally it's possible to collect from any of the other defendents for the remaining amount meaning councils tend to be the ones targetted).
As these links make clear, in NZ at least it's definitely the case that directors can be held liable in some cases although this would generally require they had some sort of duty of care or were negligent and a supervisory or similar role over the building. Contractual violations, or breaches of other parts of the law like the Consumer Guarantees Act etc will generally only entail liability to the company, although most leaky building cases do involve negligence AFAIK, as supported by the government source. (Now if the builder or director said they would give their "personal guarantee" or something, they're probably in trouble.)
From what I'm aware, the individual builders themselves (when they weren't directors) being found to have personal/individual liability is rarer, although at least one of the links suggests it is possible. This has been adjuciated a bit [8], but I'm not sure how much builder personal liability has really been tested in court. One reason may be because it's harder to prove who exactly was negligent liable if there were multiple people involved on the construction or design. If it's primarily a one person operation, perhaps with a few employees, the main person is likely to be director, so it's likely a moot point. If it's a big operation, it may be the people in charge of the company, the directors, who are likely to be overal responsible. And if the company directors feel some of their employees were negligent and liable, it's up to bring a lawsuit, although they may consider whether there's any point even if they win.)
Another reason why this may not have been tested so well may be because of the earlier issue, it makes more sense to pursue the party you can be sure will be able to pay, like the council. The councils will have an interest in trying to pursue these issues themselves, although they are likely to be quite sensitive to cost-benefit issues. Possibly the fairly recent case involving a commercial building [9][10] may increase the chance that these will be tested.
Also just today I read [11] which had some discussion of a new issue, namely the possibility many weren't properly designed to the fire code which may also test personal liability issues.
BTW, I think it's unlikely in most countries that the courts won't find a person personally liable if they make a libellious website, see for example [12] from the US. Limited liability companies aren't some sort of magic which allow you do whatever you want and say "it's the companies fault, not mine". While they may be able to provide some protection in some cases of negligence, their main advantage would be in contractual liability and other such reasons.
I forgot to mention, but another issue in cases against builders (or developers) may be that the contracts themselves try to exclude such claims [13], although this will depend whether the law allows that [14][15]. There are other possible caveats, e.g. whether a headcontractor is liable for negligence by the subcontractor [16].
