Humanities desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 4 >

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 3

Roger Corman saying of himself that he's not an artist, but a businessman

I have vague memories of him saying this, but need to find a definite reference. Can anyone help? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be remembering that Samuel Z. Arkoff said of him "I'm not saying Roger's not a good director. I'm saying that, from the beginning, he was an entrepreneur." See Ed Naha, The Films of Roger Corman: brilliance on a budget (1982), p. 91. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also found an interview with Jonathan Demme saying

"Roger also said something I'll never forget. He said that as far as he was concerned the formula for a director was 40 percent artist, 60 percent businessman."

(From an interview by Adrian Wootton in the Guardian (October 10, 1998) Guardian News & Media Ltd. Reprinted in Jonathan Demme : Interviews, Robert E. Kapsis, University Press of Mississippi, 2009, p96)

A snippet I caught in the The Films of Roger Corman - Shooting My Way out of Trouble (Alan G. Frank, BT Batsford, 1998, p40), has

"I'm not a pure artist by any means, but I'm not a pure businessman either; I'm a little of both, and, being that way, I can make movies the way I think they should be made - on low budgets."

I couldn't find out where and when Corman made that statement. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you - they're useful, despite that they're not what I'm looking for. As ever, it's one of my false memories (Chris Marker says memory is thinly wrapped around a well of forgetting -- or something - forgotten that too now). Nice to see you, Sluzz. Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACTUAL poll results of the Delaware Senate race?

This is driving me crazy. Coons won handily, as many articles say, over O'Donnell. But I can't find a single damn article giving the estimate percentages! Other Delaware races list the percentages - Attorney General, etc - in the same article but none give the Senate results. Would someone please help me track down a number? I'm starting to suspect it was just an outrageous landslide and people are being polite by not reporting the numbers... The Masked Booby (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Also just found this one. The Masked Booby (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For all races, this is perhaps the best (neutral) source: [[1]]. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tales

One of the things I like about my edition of Beowulf (trans by Seamus Heaney) is having the original language text opposite the modern English translation. I'd like to get an edition of The Canterbury Tales that does the same thing, but the blurbs included by most online booksellers often don't mention such details and there have been... a few translations to say the least. Can anyone recommend a particular edition that does this and which hopefully is also well translated? An ISBN would be great. I live in Canada and order from Chapters and Amazon.ca semi-regularly. I don't mind paying a bit if the book is good. Thanks! 99.236.168.205 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I remembered that Penguin published a copy of the Nevill Coghill translation with original and translation on facing pages, but I can't find it. I find attempts to translate into modern-language poetry to be a little distracting for the prologues and most of the tales (would prefer to read a prose translation)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is a parallel text. A swift Google of "parallel text"+"Canterbury tales" produces several results, including some online editions, such as this. DuncanHill (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a mention that (unlike Beowulf) it's not too difficult to read Chaucer in the original English. We studied it at school without a translation, but with the help of a glossary at the back of the text. I've looked at some translations since but IMHO they seem to lose some of the flavour of the thing. Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, Duncan; knowing the term will makes things easier. I understand the reservations of the poster above, which is why I wanted a parallel text (without knowing what it was) so that I could switch back and forth at will. Thanks all. 99.236.168.205 (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar technique question

I was listening to a song by Tool and there is an odd sounding guitar technique used towards the end. Fastforward to about minute 7:50 here. Is that a single guitar or two guitars playing in unison. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are refering to the rapid notes played at the end of the song, see shred guitar for some general ideas on the technique; a reasonably talented guitar player (read: someone better than me) can achieve such speed using hammer-on and pull-off technique. Just about any professional player uses these techniques with regularity. It's fast in that song, but not outside of the norm. --Jayron32 05:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's hammering on the bottom 3 strings. It's fast, but a bit easier to play than it sounds because it's a repeated pattern using open strings. What really makes it sound distinctive is that the bass and drums are playing quickly in unison with the guitar, an approach most associated with old Rush. That's what makes it difficult: three guys playing quickly in unision is hard to do; I've even heard Rush screw up the intro to "The Spirit of Radio" when playing live. —Kevin Myers 08:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serving process on un-sue-able defendants

Let's say that I want to become the next Jonathan Lee Riches, so I start suing anything and everything for no reason at all. Would my suits against un-sue-able defendants, such as the Appalachian Trail, be thrown out specifically on the technicality that the defendants weren't capable of receiving the paperwork? Or would some court agent deliver the paperwork to a related entity, such as the National Park Service or whoever it is that administers the Appalachian Trail? Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the article you cite, many of Riches suits are dismissed more-or-less instantaneously for being farcical or intentional disruptive to the judicial system, i.e. the suits were not legitimate suits for relief from the named defendants, but were specifically just to fuck with the judicial system. I think that, in cases where someone in good faith wishes to file suit on a non-suable entity, a reasonable proxy would be found (such as the National Park Service or the Appalachian Trail Conservancy for the suit you site). This is also why people get lawyers. If you went to any lawyer and said "I wish to sue the Appalachian Trail for damages", then that lawyer would ascertain the correct entity to name as a defendant, and would file proper paperwork. --Jayron32 04:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article on difficulties with suing entities that are non-corporeal is Lawsuits against God. Googlemeister (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out sourcing support services

Hello, I operate a small company which publishes medical educational software. We wish to out source our customer service and support functions. Does any one know of a firm who can provide said services cheaply? Does any one have any advice on how I find such a firm?

It might be easier to give a useful answer if you were to disclose in which country or countries in the World you are located in and wish to market to. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's IP geolocated to Worcester, Massachusetts, USA --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't what the original poster wanted to hear, but I feel the need to play the devil's advocate and recommend that these functions be kept inhouse whenever possible, because that's possibly the most important point of contact you have with your customers, which are the reason for your company's existence; and do you really want to outsource that critical relationship to individuals who have no real stake in your company's success? Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonds: maturity and interest

Why does a 10 years bonds have a higher interest than a 2 years bonds? It seems logical at the first glance, you'll money will be tied longer, so they pay you more for that. However, you can buy a 10 years bond and re-sell it in a secondary market after 2 years. So, if you just want to tie your money down for only 2 years, why would you go with the 2 years bond? Quest09 (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: one, secondary market participants aren't going to pay you what you paid for the bond because some of the coupons have already been paid. two, you face the risk of a price movement against you (in addition to the effect already mentioned) in the bond market in two years' time or even a risk that no-one wants to buy it from you at all because, for example, a global financial crisis has happened.

From the other perspective, the issuer of the bond doesn't care whether or not you sell it - the important thing for them is that they've got the money for 10 years' time, and they are willing to pay more for the security of having that than only having the money for 2 years and then having to refinance in 2 years' time. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See yield curve. 92.15.0.194 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am doubtful about PalaceGuard008's first couple of assertions. All other things being equal (and things are never equal — prevailing interest rates and the general economic outlook change), Treasury bonds on the secondary market sell for about what you paid for them, regardless of how many coupons have been paid, with the price becoming particularly stable toward maturity, because the bondholder gets paid the face value of the bond at maturity. ~~That stability may actually be the reason that investors are preferring 2-year bonds rather than 10-year bonds.~~ I second 92's reference to the yield curve article; what you're talking about is an "inverted yield curve". That article attributes an inverted yield curve to a belief that interest rates are going to fall; but there must be other factors, because interest rates can't fall, really, any lower than they are now. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If ten year bonds have a higher interest rate than two year bonds, then its not an inverted yield curve as far as I am aware. 92.24.178.95 (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, that's what I get for not reading carefully. You're correct, sorry; I've stricken various statements of mine above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way: Suppose you know that, in two years, you will need to pay $100,000. You can buy a two-year U.S. Treasury obligation for $99,245, and in two years it will mature, with your aggregate principal and interest amounting to $100,000. (For this purpose, it doesn't matter whether you buy a newly-issued two-year note or a longer-term note or bond that has only two years of remaining maturity.)

But that gives you an interest rate of only 0.38%, and you want more. You decide instead to buy a ten-year instrument, which pays 2.67%, so you'll only have to pay $94,866 to buy it. You're a clear $4,379 the richer!

Now it's two years later, and your plan is to sell the note and realize the $100,000 you need. Unfortunately, in the interim interest rates have jumped to 6%. People aren't willing to pay you $100,000, because they can buy an eight-year note for about $77,465 that, in eight years time, will be worth as much as the note you're selling. You're short by $22,535 (or by more than $18,000, if you banked the $4,379 you saved originally).

Investors don't want to take that risk, so they insist on higher interest rates for longer-term obligations. Also, there is more risk that the borrower will be unable to repay if the period is longer (that's less of a concern if the borrower is the U.S. Treasury), so they require a higher interest rate to reflect that risk as well.

I haven't checked my numbers, so there may be some errors in there somewhere, but that should be good enough to outline the basic concerns. John M Baker (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something here, but Comet Tuttle seems to be only referring to government bonds? Corporate bonds do not usually trade at par on the secondary market. Does the term "bond" only refer to government bonds in the US? --195.33.121.133 (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments above are quite confusing and misleading. Let's compare two bonds issued by the same company and have the same coupon rate but Bond A matures in 2 years and Bond B matures in 10 years. The interest rate on B will likely be higher for the following reasons (technically, it's the gross redemption yield that will be higher - but I assume that's what you are referring to):

B has more credit risk. This is because you are taking a longer view on the credit riskiness of the company when you buy B. You could, as you say, go to the market after 2 years and sell B but you take the risk that the market's outlook for the company has changed (e.g. its credit rating is lower) or the market's outlook for the industry/class/etc has changed in those two years and therefore B is worth less. The former risk is usually included in "credit risk" - the second is market risk.
B might be less liquid. If this is the case the market will require additional compensation for liquidity risk.
Volatility. The ten year bond has a higher duration and therefore is more sensitive to general changes to interest rates (ie higher interest rate risk). This might also impact the gross yield.

So basically investors are risk averse so they require more yield for more risk. That's why B would be cheaper. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is an International petition?

And should Wikipedia have an article about it? I recently heard about international petitions, and I could only find petitions to sign, but no other information. Wikipedia have several articles that mention it, and at least I could learn in Arndt Pekurinen that they were already used in 1930. Seems like they have an interesting history, and some of them seems notable. What do you say? Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is just a petition which people in multiple countries are encouraged to sign? If you've found some interesting material on the origins or growth of this practice, I think this would fit well into the petition article. Warofdreams talk 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I moved this discussion to Talk:Petition, and we'll see if someone can find interesting material to add to the article. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NY Elections

Are recounts mandatory in all NYS elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.194.5.142 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find nothing at Elections in New York nor at New York state elections to indicate if it does. The article Election recount indicates that mandatory recounts do exist, but makes no indication of which jurisdictions use them. --Jayron32 01:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that recounts can only be ordered by courts in New York: [2]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What states allow voting on taxes?

Is there a list on wiki of what states allow what sorts of rights to votes on taxes in the US? I know some states in the East for example don't or almost never vote on taxes and it's State Legislature and Governor, but then some states like CA, WA, and OR do stupid things like letting people micromanage all sorts of tax laws and rules and rates with voting. Is there a list comparing all of these state by state? Please leave a note on my talk when you answer in case I miss it Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many levels of tax: City tax, County tax, State tax, and Federal tax are the main ones. A list as you mention would be too large to be worth much of anything. I am certain that every state, at some point, has put some sort of tax up for vote. County and city governments often put taxes up for vote. I have never seen a Federal tax up for vote. Also, keep in mind that there are many kinds of tax at each level: sales tax, property tax, and income tax are just the very well-known ones. There is also alcohol tax, gasoline tax, inheritance (death) tax, etc... -- kainaw ™ 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Initiatives and referendums in the United States. In some states, these are known as "propositions", while in Europe, they are often called "plebiscites". Not every state uses them, and not all states use them for the same thing. The article is also somewhat inaccurate, in that it lists North Carolina as "not having initiatives or referendums" but it does have what are called "Ballot Measures" in limited usage, municipalities and counties can only issue municipal bonds if voted on in a Ballot Measure. --Jayron32 01:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]