Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 14

Humanities desk
< May 13	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 15 >

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.

May 14

Zoological Society of London - Presidents and Secretaries

I asked this question on the science reference desk, but it may be more a history question, so I'm posting a link here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Artefacts made by Jesus

Jesus was a carpenter, right? So presumably at some point in the missing years between 12 and mid 20s he made a few things. How come there are no artefacts that claim to have been made by him? 86.8.176.85 (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that he only really became famous in the last few years of his life, so when he was making stools and tables, etc., he was just a little carpenter boy. During that time, people would have been throwing things out, getting new ones, giving them to other people, etc., not really knowing what Jesus would become. These would, in this process, become lost or at least of unknown origin. If you get a chair off someone, you don't ask who made it. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

However, we do have an article titled Relics attributed to Jesus, which is stuff that may or may not be associated with Jesus which was considered important enough to keep around, or at least fake. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Something may show up on Antiques Roadshow someday. But see also Lost years of Jesus, people have imagined him doing stuff other than his ostensible job. Шизомби (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

True. And it'll sell for £150 to someone who knows the true value of it, who then sells it for billions to an American buyer.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. If people in the Middle Ages were claiming to have preserved, among many other things, the Holy Foreskin--and there were many rival claims to the real thing--it seems likely that someone would have made the more humble claim of possessing a table or chair made by Jesus. (Reminds me of early western Virginians who claimed to have furniture made from trees marked by George Washington when he was a land speculator/surveyor.) Perhaps someone claimed to have something made by Jesus at some point, but it never really caught on, or the item was lost. Another possibility is that early Christians did not often think of Jesus as a carpenter, since the identification of him as such in the Gospels is fleeting. I wonder if there are apocyrphal stories about Jesus as carpenter that early Christians would have been familiar with? —Kevin Myers 04:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That Jesus was a carpenter may be, like his being a shepherd, metaphorical. A google search on Jesus carpenter and metaphor provides many leads. Here's one, this book has a short section on "Jesus the Carpenter", claiming that at the time the term for "carpenter" or "craftsman" was a metaphor for "scholar" or "learned man". Other sources offer differing interpretations, but the notion that it is a metaphor seems plausible. Pfly (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge and memory, being brought up in a catholic monastery school, Jesus was not actually mentioned as a carpenter anywhere in the New Testament. He was the son of a carpenter, though he may well have helped his father out on work. In those days, just as now, everybody had to learn a skill to survive. I wish people would stop looking for metaphors, saying 'it might have been a term for [something special]. I used to go out with a girl who was studying Shakespeare and she said that it has been guessed that Shakespeare was in fact a lesbian woman, because of hidden metaphors in his/her work. Stop it. It's silly.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer my own earlier question, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas does have a story about Jesus performing a carpentry miracle while working with Joseph.

Jesus was called a carpenter in Mark 6:3, and a "carpenter's son" in Matthew 13:55, although (according to Oxford Annotated Bible), some "ancient" versions of Mark called Jesus the son of a carpenter and not a carpenter. The idea that "carpenter" is used in Mark and Matthew as a metaphor seems to contradict the purpose of those passages, which is about how Jesus was not viewed as a prophet in his own town. The doubters were specifically not calling him a scholar or learned man. The Gospel writers may have been using "carpenter" with a double meaning in mind, perhaps, but the hometown doubters were not. —Kevin Myers 13:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! And I actually haven't read that. It would be interesting to be able to find a copy (in modern English, obviously) somewhere.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas seems to make Jesus out to be a malevolent little brat. Also, if Jesus performed the miracle of elongating the piece of wood to fit the bed that his father was making (who was a carpenter and would have had the correct amount of wood available anyway), who would have witnessed this, considering it would be in Joseph's own private workshop? These stories are made up. Interesting as they are, it's more like reading a Harry Potter story.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

These stories are made up... Stop! My sides, they can take no more! Unless you want a long involved conversation on historicity, myth, religion, etc, you may wish to refrain from such unfortunate sentences. 80.41.104.220 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I retract that statement. I was having a 'moment'. I did not wish to cause offence to anybody.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

biblical question

is it true theres a place in the bible that says its ok to have sex with your daughter? which passage is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.67.171 (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly; you may have heard about the story of Lot; see Biblical references to incest. Tempshill (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say it's OK to have sex with your daughter, it just said he DID. Just because Cain killed Able it doesn't mean the Bible is saying it's OK to kill your brother.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The bible may be a guidebook for how to properly live, but it is loaded with many negative examples. Many of the major Old Testament figures are, for example, do things which are displeasing to God, and later suffer consequences for this (David is a classic example). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And let's think about this. If Lot was so passed out on the ale that he didn't know he was having sex with his daughters (twice!) he wouldn't have been able to do it. He must have known. He must have known and been willing. Therefore he deserved all he got, if this story is true. What was he thinking? He was living in Austria or something? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

christian gods?

in the book of genesis it says that the world was created by the gods, which gods are these? do they have names? any other information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.67.171 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it says "God". Book of Genesis#Primeval history has a good summary. Tempshill (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The article you want is Elohim; the word is construed as singular in some places, and plural in others. - Nunh-huh 06:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"No-one is to stone anybody until I blow this whistle....even if they DO say 'Jehovah'"--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In other places in the bible, God's name is given as the Tetragrammaton, specifically YHWH, usually translated into English as either Yahweh or Jehovah. In English translations of the Bible, such as the New International Version, the various names of God are translated in specific ways for example the Hebrew YHWH is rendered LORD in all caps, while Elohim is rendered as God or Gods (depending on context or translation), while "Adonai", another name or title for God, is rendered "Lord" (not all caps). The deal with Elohim is that it is technically a plural construction in Hebrew, but such plural constructions can also be singular in certain contexts, such as what in English would be called the Royal we. When you see Elohim translated as "Gods", its using this tradition and not specificly referring to a multiple number of Gods. This is usually an artifact of older bible translations such as the King James Bible. More modern translations such as the NIV intentionally avoid archaic forms where the context does not warrent them, so as far as I can remember, the NIV does not use "Gods" to refer to Elohim. See [1] for information on the NIV translation practices, or our article titled Names of God for more general practices on the names of God in different languages and faiths. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There are other explanations. 80.41.120.247 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

gods mother?

i friend told me once that the bible says god had a mother named diana or deborah is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.67.171 (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Tempshill (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Try looking her up in Wikipedia: Mother of God.--80.3.133.116 (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Certain Gnostic faiths maintain that Jehovah had a mom. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To expound on Tempshill's statement above, the Bible (in its orthodox forms) makes no mention of a "mother" for God. In fact, it specifically precludes this with statements regarding God's eternal existence. Diana was a Roman goddess and a name not found in the Bible, though she may be indirectly referenced as Artemis in Acts 19; Deborah was a Hebrew judge in the Book of Judges. For the record, claims of this nature are easy to verify at one of many free and exhaustive concordances available online -- note that the one I referenced even made the Diana/Artemis cross-reference despite lack of textual presence. — Lomn 13:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in "the Bible" and not "mother," but it may be of interest that before the Biblical God, aka "Yahweh" or something similar, was redefined as the only god according to the then-new concept of monotheism (which was likely an importation to Canaan from further south, possibly Egypt and/or Petra), he was apparently part of a multi-deity pantheon, comprising him, his consort of comparable status called "Asherah" (or varients thereof) and nine lesser figures. Significant portions of the Old Testament comprise the efforts of the newly ascendant monotheistic orthodoxy to consolidate their position against the older traditions and re-write history in their favour, just as later the Jerusalem-based Yawehists would suppress the previously usual sacrificing to God at various other "high places" (hence, for example, their opposition to the Samaritans who continued and still continue to sacrifice to the same god on their own mountain). Some of the Biblical references to "foreign" deities such as "Ba'al" may actually refer to titles of Yahweh himself as used by other Yahwehist factions - ""Ba'al" for example merely meant "The Lord" in the prevailing language. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And please remember: If it's on the Internet or TV, it must be true. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

moderation

as a purely philosophical question would doing something such as say smoking pot or drinking a few beers every month on a weekly basis be moderation or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.67.171 (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't know where you live and what culture you hail from, so it's difficult to guess what "moderation" means to you. If you come from a teetotalling culture then the above behavior might get you kicked out of town by a lynch mob. Tempshill (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

He's from San Jose.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Which of the 79 San Joses is he from? If it's San Jose, California, my understanding is that "moderation" is a six-pack a day and two grams of meth. Tempshill (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, San Jose, Cal. is in fact the one. Ha!--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Smoking pot or drinking a few beers every month on a weekly basis" is very difficult to quantify even if we fully grasped the culture, starting with what does "every month on a weekly basis" mean? A few beers a month, if we knew what "few" meant, could range from three to one hundred, the latter being about three beers a day for a month. And "smoking pot" is entirely unquantified. Are we talking Cheech and Chong or some former "I never inhaled" president of the U.S.? Your doctor, your mother, your lawyer, your insurance agent, your brother and the local constabulary would all give you different answers. So, likely, will the Ref Deskers. // BL \\ (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Defining "a few beers" as "up to half a litre (one pint) a day", it's a safe amount and I as an Australian would describe it as "moderate". There's not much reliable information on the health effects of marijuana so I'm not able to comment on the "moderatedness" of a bit of pot on a weekend. I would say that getting stoned one night a month every month would be moderate; doing so once a week may be moderate; doing so three times a week would be excessive. Or put simply, if it affects your health or day to day life that's excessive. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought Australians defined a pint a day as 'breakfast'.....?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually being an Australian and thus unreliable when it comes to defining moderation in regard to beer, I used British government recommendations of 21 units a week if spread throughout the week. (edit) Also, since IP addresses give no indication of gender I should add that 21 units per week is for men, women should consume no more than 14 units a week. (and another edit) By the way, half a pint is about 1 unit. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC) To continue the Ozzie bashing (I'm a Brit), to Ozzies a 'unit' is defined as a case, right? Just joking. It's only because you've got better weather than us (and a beach the size of a continent). --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We call them "standard drinks". Oddly though, our "normal" glass is much smaller than a pint... And that's why the FSM invented jugs. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh,and to be fair, there's more than one beach that size :) also - our weather, I live near this weather station -Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have legally required standard measures over there for serving in pubs? In the UK it has to be a pint with no less than 95% being beer and the rest head. When I was in Japan, they used German style 'steins' which could potentially hold 1.5 pints, but with a huge head on it (which would be illegal in UK law), so you only got a pint anyway. These got progressively larger over time, so you were getting half-beer/half-head. I switched to bottles after that. At least you know what you're getting.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. The main beer glasses are Schooners and Middies at 425 and 285mL. Pints and half pints are available in some pubs. See Australian_beer#Beer_glasses. Australian beers don't generally have great head holding characteristics, so it's not usually a problem, and if I were served a beer with liquid not reaching the line, I'd ask for it to be refilled. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

in the UK they can serve you a larger-head pint, but you can insist on them topping it up to the line. One of my local pubs makes a point of serving large-heads and says they'll top up if you want but mostly i'm happy enough with them having a bit more head. Far better than head-less beer/lager which is just wrong. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a northerner. I prefer at least a bit of head on my pint, not like down in London, where you just get what looks like a pint of cold tea.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not as warm as I thought. But then it is getting near winter down there, right? You should see where I bloody live.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

404? You were probably thinking of some of our warmer seaside bits (edit) and yeah, 1 June to 31 August is winter here. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A bit more OT, moderation as a philosophy is likely to be defined with regards to a number of features, including cultural aspects (as discussed), individual physical characteristics (how much can *your* body handle easily?), addictive possibilities (if you're dependent on it, you might not be taking it in moderation any more) and proportions (is it a weekly binge and then nothing, or is it spread out over the week?).Steewi (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

*waves at city-buddy Polysylabic Pseudonym* Steewi (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

can Americans do "illegal drugs" in places where they're legal?

I'm not asking for legal advice and am not in this position, but I was wondering: could an American do an illegal drug (for example one against which America is having a "war on drugs"), in a country where the substance is legal? Americans always have to obey American law, but what parts of it? Do some simply not apply when you are not on American soil, and which ones...? 79.122.112.53 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating drug use, so I hesitate to answer this, but I will anyway. You have to obey the laws of the country you are in. If I was 18, for example, I could drink alcohol in the EU, but not in the US (where the legal age is 21). When you are abroad, you obey the laws of the country you are in, but you should also think about why the laws of your own country have those laws. Maybe they are illegal for a reason - like, drugs can seriously damage your life, for example. You have to think more along these lines before you start wanting to experiment with drugs, and especially in a foreign country, where, when you are stoned, people could take advantage of you more easily because you don't know your way around. Not a good idea to even try, in my opinion.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just a small question, but why are you asking this question if you are from Hungary (working on a T-Mobile modem)? Or is this a proxy server you are working from?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

your question ("why are you asking this question if") would make sense if I were really after legal advice, but I'm really not. There's no "reason" for asking it, I'm just curious -- see below. 79.122.112.53 (talk)

Obviously he's in Hungary, wondering whether he'll be arrested at the airport on returning to the US... hmm should we have used the legal advice template? --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not wondering that (see below) 79.122.112.53 (talk)

If he's been smoking then the dogs at the airport will pick it up on his body smell. Game over.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The laws of a country usually only apply within its jurisdiction, but Australia does have some which apply to any Australian citizen anywhere in the world, and I wouldn't put it past the US government to pass a law stating that US law applies to all US citizens anywhere in the world. But I'll leave that bit to someone who knows something of US law, which I don't. Of course there are other considerations. If you work in, or expect to work in an industry where employees are drug tested some drugs will show up in a hair sample for as long as the hair you grew while taking those drugs stays attached to your head (several months), and they may not care whether the drug you took was legal or not. Also given that the state laws on drinking age aren't applicable in other states within the US, they're certainly not applicable internationally --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm touched that the above respondents care so much about my drug use. I'd like to reiterate that the question is just theoretical, I am not in the position of being in a country where drugs are legal that are illegal in America, and the main part of my question is the second part, the one about jurisdiction. I am not asking for legal advice, I'm just curious about how American laws apply abroad, and thought drug use would be a good example. I could just as easily have said prostitution in countries where this is legal, etc etc. 79.122.112.53 (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, OK, we misunderstood.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well you can take the general answer of US law applies only within the US. If you're in Australia you must follow Australian law (which in Canberra, at least, allows prostitution, and where smoking marijuana is not a criminal act (although it is illegal)). But there is the trap that it is possible for some laws to apply by act of parliament to citizens of a country even if the act occurs outside of that country, for example Australian child sex laws apply to Australian citizens anywhere, but Australian drug, rape and murder laws do not. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Drugs, rape and murder abroad are applicable to the law of the land these crimes were committed in, according to UK law, too. With child sex abroad, however, you can first be convicted and serve time in the country where it happened, then upon your return to the UK, convicted again and serve more time. Gary Glitter narrowly escaped that. Only just.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This says that an America citizen who has sex with someone under 18 abroad, even if the legal age limit was lower than 18 in the country they were visiting, could face 10 years in jail (Sec. 2423 (b) Transportation of minors) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What would happen if a 50-year-old Saudi Arabian guy turns up in America for a holiday with his 9-year-old wife?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In Switzerland, tax evasion isn't always a crime. But an American who goes to Geneva and opens a confidential bank account in order to evade American tax will face unpleasant consquences at home if discovered, even if he hasn't broken Swiss law.

That American Taliban...did he break American law? Rhinoracer (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. People are just starting to make the laws up as they go along.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess tax evasion is a crime even in Switzerland. If the Swiss don't demand income taxes from foreigners not living there, this american guy is not evading Swiss taxes. If the Americans or Germans do not like that, they should try to enforce their laws on their own population in their own territory?--Radh (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

for the most part yes but theres some things that the u.s. does prosecute for doing abroad, for example the age of consent in the czech republic is far lower than in the u.s.a. so if it can be proved and you go fuck a 14 year old czech girl, in europe, you videotape it and post it online if anyone hates you sees it and reports it to your local authorities youll go to jail for statatory rape. this is the only case im aware of that the u.s. does this. there may be a few others, i think related to human smuggling/slavery, and narcotrafficking.

Thanks for the info, but can you sign your posts in future, and tone the language down a bit? Children read this, you know.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

not the poster you're talking to, but wikipeida ain't censored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't censor encyclopaedic content. That doesn't mean gratuitous swearing is acceptable. We generally consider such things on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it clearly wasn't intended to cause offence, so I doubt many people will care. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In a few American States it is still possible to marry as young as 13, with parental and court permission. Servicemen abroad may have sex legally at 16, regardless of the limits in their home State. Visitors to a country bringing under-age brides may be cautioned not to consummate the marriage until the bride is older (which is often the custom where they come from, too) but prosecution would be hard, as being legally married is not proof of having sexual relations. Thousands of under-age girls become pregnant every year, and rarely is anyone charged as a result.

The Australian prosecutions for sex overseas are covered by "Sex Tourism" laws as part of a general anti-pedophilia campaign, because local sex offenders are known to travel for this purpose to nearby Asian countries where the laws, or enforcement, are much weaker. With these exceptions, laws apply only within a country's borders. The American opening the Swiss account is not breaking Swiss law, he is breaking US law. It is IN the US that he commits the crime of tax evasion, because that is where he fails to pay up, even if the vehicle for doing so is in Switzerland. The Czech case could be defeated with evidence about where it took place, but would not escape child pornography laws.125.63.158.83 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not in favour of child rape or anything, but isn't this anti-pedophilia crusade simply a disgusting (because you cannot really argue against it without looking like a pervert) way of the state to abolish the rule of law? A lawful, democratic state, a nation with laws its subjects can depend on, should not be able to simply go and think it has anything to say in foreign countries?--Radh (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Aeroplanes and jurisdiction

Inspired by the question above: I travelled to Britain a few years ago on an aeroplane when I was 18, from a country that considers consuming alcohol at the age of 18 illegal. Considering that the airline was run by my country of origin, and considering that I was still a citizen of that country, I assumed that, even once in British airspace, I would still be prohibited from drinking. On a return flight, however, with a British airline, I assume I would be allowed to have alcohol, according to "follow the laws of the country you are in". Would that also be true once I had entered the airspace of my home country, where it isn't legal? Is an aeroplane considered to be a microcosm of the country that runs it, regardless of where the plane may land? What would my position be if, having had alcohol on the flight, I was then breathalysed in the country where it's illegal and found to be in breach of the law? Could I safely argue that I was on a British flight, so the law didn't apply? Or would it be my responsibility to ensure that I only consumed alcohol that could pass through my system by the time of landing? Maedin\^talk 12:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a really complicated question. It's like asking "What is the nationality of a baby if born on a plane?". I am not sure if I can answer this one.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Born on an American plane? The baby's a Yankee Doodle Dandy! America applies Jus Solis. I'd wager, though, that a baby born on a German plane would not automatically be German. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Kids were born on ships all the time back in the day. Seems the same rules would apply. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it illegal for the minor to consume alcohol or only the act of making alcohol available to a minor by an adult?--Mr.K. (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In the UK the legal age for drinking alcohol in your own home in the presence of your parents has recently (last year) been raised to 5, if that answers your question.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it does. I think Mr.K. wants to know who would get in trouble, the minor, the adult or both. Obviously with a child under 5 it would be just the adult since the child isn't of the age of criminal responsibility. For older minors drinking in licensed premises (outside the exemptions for drinking with a meal) or buying alcohol, I think they are breaking the law as well as the adult responsible. (There is an exception made for minors buying alcohol under the instructions of a constable in order to allow the authorities to test if a premises is complying with the law.) --Tango (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe a plane in flight falls under the jurisdiction of the country it is registered in. What laws you have to obey while on it, though, may be a little more complicated. You often have to obey your own country's laws even when not in your own country. --Tango (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that once you are out of US airspace you can do what you want. For example ships regularly sail into international waters solely to get round the laws of the countries they are leaving - usually ones on drinking and gambling. The nationality of the plane doesn't matter - notice for example the absence of tax charged on the things you buy on your plane, whoever owns it (that's why they call it duty-free) and the lack of adherence by British planes to British licensing laws. Given that, it's very unlikely that you can breathalysed on landing - it would only prove you had done something which wasn't illegal. You could of course be prosecuted for being 'drunk and disorderly', or 'public drunkennes' if they applied. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If it mattered what airspace you were in it would be extremely complicated! Planes avoid flying over water as much as possible so go through the airspace of numerous countries on any long haul flight. --Tango (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Tango, where do you get the impression that planes fly over as little water as possible? They seem to go the route which uses the least fuel. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Primarily from having done lots of flying. Planes always try to stay close to places where they could land in an emergency, even if that does somewhat increase the length of the flight. See ETOPS. (Planes with more than 2 engines can fly more direct routes, I believe, although I'm not sure if they generally do or not.) --Tango (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The other thing about aircraft is that they sometimes land (yes, it does happen). If a baby were born on an American plane sitting on the tarmac at Sydney Airport, I'd be very surprised if it weren't born an Australian citizen (but that's not legal advice, just my understanding). To me, that's no different from being born in an Australian hospital. It might also be an American citizen, or the citizen of some third country if the parents were from such a country. Being born in the U.S. Embassy in Canberra would be different, because that's U.S. territory. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Airplane jurisdiction is a bit more complicated than registration. I recently sat on the tarmac at [country of departure], and listened to the anti-smoking lecture conclude with “tampering with the smoke alarms is against the law in [country of destination].” We weren’t even moving at the time! DOR (HK) (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And the plane wasn't registered in the country of destination? --Tango (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

1. While in international airspace, the law that applies is the law of the flag (i.e. the place of registration).

2. While on the tarmac, or while flying over a country's land territory or territorial waters, the law that applies is the law of the state the plane is in or flying over.

3. An exception to rule 2 is if a plane is in "innocent passage" - i.e. merely transitorily travelling through a state's airspace while having nothing otherwise to do with the state whatsoever - rule 1 applies.

Those are the basic rules anyway, there are plenty of other complications.

These rules apply only in regard to territorial jurisdiction: i.e. laws which have effect within the territory of the state. Other laws involve personal jurisdiction - e.g. the sex tourism laws in the thread above - those apply to you, as the citizen of that country - regardless of where you are, or whose plane you are in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this wrong?

I know this is sorta asking for advise but I need confirmation whether I am over-reacting. I recently had my yearly review at my job and my boss commented how I took a sick day last Monday. Since it is spring, my allergies have been acting up really bad thus I had to take that day off (migraines and swollen eyes). He didn't believe me and said "I know what happens on the weekends here" implying I was too hungover to attend work. I told him that is not the case. He just looked at me and said "right" very sarcastically.

To everyone around me, I look very, very young but I am actually in my early thirties and, yes, I do go out occasionally on the weekends but I do not drink myself into oblivion (can't afford it). And even if I did, most likely I would come to work anyway. I do not call out of work often but he had given me less than stellar rating because of my performance earlier this year. Earlier this year, my father had a heart attack and discovered he had prostate cancer. Also, I ended my relationship with someone I loved which resulted in moving out, finding my own place, grieving and significant weight loss. I just realized that my boss didn't believe any of this happened to me and thinks I am some party animal.

Is this discrimination? Or am I just being senstive? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I just realized this is solicitation of advise. Shall I delete this question? --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could reword it. PS I think that guy is a total jerk. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the issue of discrimination is potentially very real. However, it's also very much a legal matter that we're not qualified to weigh forth on. If you want to pursue that angle, you should consult with a lawyer who is versed in such cases, as details (both of the relevant statutes and of your interactions with your boss) matter a great deal. — Lomn 14:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't start with a lawyer. Unless you have actual evidence that your boss downgraded you because he thinks you are a 'party animal' then a lawyer can do nothing. For all you know he may not even disapprove of all-weekend partying. Even bosses are human. You should also seriously consider whether your 'less than stellar' rating is because of your actual performance. Most people in a company are not stars.

A much better way to start this is by talking to someone. Your boss is the best choice. Start by asking him the reasons why you got a performance review less than what you expected (next time do this when the review comes in). Then tell him politely that you got the impression that he didn't believe you about the allergies. See what he says. Ask him directly if your performance review was affected by his impression.

Your alternative is to see your company Human Resources person. They are generally more approachable, and sorting this sort of thing out is part of the job. Oh, and try not to piss your boss off while doing this. Look on it as sorting out a misunderstanding, not as confronting him. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider it discrimination at all. If your boss thinks you are a party animal and disapproves of that, then he has misunderstood you. If that is his reason for giving you a bad rating, well, in some ways it would make sense, because he believes that you are not spending enough time keeping yourself fit enough for work, hence, what he sees as the reason for your less-than-perfect performance. You have to explain to him about your allergy and what has happened to your father and so on. He needs to understand this. If he doesn't want to listen, take the issue to his boss (if there is one). This is not a legal matter. It's an internal matter in your company.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Did this affect your treatment in any tangible way? If you got dismissed for taking sick leave, for example, that could be a problem depending on your jurisdiction. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bank of England

Why does your site tell people lies?? It is a disgrace and for the sake of humanity you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Your site clearly states that the Bank of England is STATE owned. This is absolute lies and fine you know it. The Bank of England is owned by the Rothschild family.Therefor it is NOT state owned. This is a disgraceful abuse of trust on your part. When the people revolt I hope you lot are first in line for the hangmans noose. Sorry i'll rephrase that,I hope you lot are second in line. straight after the greedy,thieving,corrupt banking elite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.187.197 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bank was nationalized in 1946 and remains, to this day, "a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government". Sorry. — Lomn 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, does someone have the Rothschild family's email address? My checks for spreading lies in their interest have not been coming lately. —Tamfang (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just walk into your nearest branch of the Bank of England and ask for it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying whether our article is right or wrong, Mr. or Ms. 92.233.187.197, but if it is wrong it is your fault and no one elses. If there is something wrong with an article, and you have published, reliable sources which prove that it is wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself that you did not fix it. If you put the time and effort into fixing problems rather than complaining about them, they would actually be fixed. That having been said, make sure you can prove you are right. Simply claiming something is wrong and being able to prove it are different issues... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually (s)he did vandalize the article to deny state ownership[2], though made no mention of the Rothschilds :-) 86.174.136.167 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone for a game of Dungeons & Dragons? Might find some more trolls there.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of humanity, don't make fun of him. He wasn't a troll, I think he's sincere. Tempshill (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The list of (nice) sincere people who introduce themselves with the words "I hope you lot are first in line for the hangmans (sic) noose." is a reasonable short one, surely? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Tempshill, I do in fact believe he was sincere, but, let's face it, being insulted (and, in this case, sentenced to death) is not really what we are here for, is it? If we wanted that, we could just go on IRC and play with the teenagers.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I like how the death sentence is pronounced upon all editors as a whole... even those who had nothing to do with the article. Truth be told, I had never even heard of the Bank of England (let alone its article) before today! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and considering we hadn't even said anything yet! Talk about trial without jury!--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bleedin' trolls, comin' around and freatening us wif hangin'. There's only one thing to do wif'em.

They should string'em up. That's the only language they'll understand.

I 'ad that Willie on Wheels in the back of me cab once. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(In good faith): Discussions of an article's content belong on its Talk page. If the page belongs to a WikiProject, you might want to leave a note on that Discussion page too, idealy with a internal link so the matter will soon come to the attention of knowledgeable editors. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-resident Indians in Caribbean statistics

I am sorry if I am not myself clear but the question is that is there any statistics of English-speaking nations (Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bahamas, Jamaica, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, Grenada, T&T, Guyana and Dominica) that say how much population of Indians living, which Indian languages do they speak and which religion do they follow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See, as an example, Antigua#Demographics. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It might also be good to look for recent censuses. These links might help:

* Antigua and Barbuda Census Report

* Barbados Government Information Service

* Government of Bahamas Dept. of Statistics

* Statistical Institute of Jamaica

* government of St. Vincent Statistical and Census Services

* government of St. Lucia

* of St. Kitts and Nevis

* government of Grenada

* government of Trinidad and Tobago central statistical office

* Guyana government information agency

* Dominica government statistics at a glance. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin and the section on the Caribbean? BrainyBabe (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradicting laws

I hear from a previous discussion that in Australian law applies to all national Australians, regardless of whether or not they're in Australia. Later reading claimed it was only some laws which applied, but that's fine for this hypothetical situation:

If the law in Australia (hypothetically) states that it was illegal to perform Action X, and the law in America (hypothetically) states that it is illegal not to perform Action X, and this law is one that applies to Australians outside of Australia, what would an Australian living in America do?

I appreciate I may have misunderstood what I read earlier. But this situation was what immediately popped into my head... 90.193.232.41 (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your hypothetical scenario is all that illuminating. You seem to imply that there would be a law in Australia which would forbid an action where in America such a law would mandate the same action, and in both cases it would be considered a criminal, punishable offense to violate such a law. I find it nearly impossible to believe such a conflict would exist. For example, could you imagine a country where you were required to murder someone? Or required to have sex with a minor? You may find some esoteric civil offense which may technically meet such a definition (I still doubt it, but will not rule it out), however I do not think that for any of the Really Big Crimes (rape, murder, theft, assault, etc.) that any country would MANDATE that people perform such an action, thus eliminating from the real world the possibility of such a hypothetical situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayron: it's not that uncommon in the US. For example, recently a bunch of Amazon Indians lost a US case against a mining company. Not illegal there, unsurprisingly, but might've been illegal here (environment-wise). And US nationals can be convicted for crimes committed overseas, just as they might have to pay tax on overseas earnings.

Examples aren't too hard to come by, actually. Protection of Children Act 1978#Offences committed abroad, torture etc. --Gwern (contribs) 18:13 14 May 2009 (GMT)

Not at all what I was talking about, Gwern, and also does not answer the OP's question. The question asked if there were any two country's laws that were so contradictory that a person in country A could be compelled by law to commit an action which the same person in country B could be forbidden from doing, and where each country requires the law outside of its jurisdiction to be obeyed. For example, if Australia had a law that said "You cannot chew gum, or you will go to jail, even if you do so in another country" and the U.S. had a law which said "You are required to chew gum, or you will go to jail" then the Australian visiting the U.S. is in a conundrum. He is compelled to at once chew gum and not chew gum, and regardless of what decision he makes, a jail sentance awaits him. I was just responding that such a scenario likely does not exist among any real crimes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By Gum, we ARE spending a lot of time on law today --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

@Jayron: Absolutely, and civil offences are technically not crimes. They are offences. Criminal offences are crimes - hence the word 'criminal'. We're dealing with two different types of law, and as you say, no country in the world requires you to commit criminal offences, with an exception maybe bringing us back to the American Taliban question posted above. He would have been required to kill American citizens - clearly illegal if he was still an American citizen himself, even if he was in an opposing army,[EDIT] yet he would be breaking his commitment (for 'commitment' read 'legal requirement') to the Taliban if he had not. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, consider conscription and war-crimes. More mundanely, what sprang to my mind was laws concerning disclosure of confidential information: jurisdiction A might compel disclosure in some circumstances, while in jurisdiction B the same circumstances are not an exception to the confidentiality law. —Tamfang (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from reading the Wikipedia articles, the Helms-Burton Act is an example. It is a US law which imposes sanctions against non-US companies trading with Cuba, but complying with the Act is itself illegal in the EU, Mexico, and Canada. Algebraist 18:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But that is to do with companies, not individuals. It's very different. --Tango (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

One scenario I could think of would be a mandatory military draft of all residents, regardless of what country hold your citizenship and where evasion is a crime clashing with a law in your home nation stating that you can not serve in the military of a foreign power. I can not think of a practical situation where that can currently happen though. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can think of an example. POWs forced to fight as 'auxiliaries', or 'reserves', or just simply 'front line cannon fodder'. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone use POWs like that? They would, of course, betray you as soon as they got to the front line. (It would also be against international law.) --Tango (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC - three times!) What about the Tiger Legion of Indian POWs recruited by the Germans to fight back against the British in WW2? OK, they may have had a reason, but still, they were bound by Imperial Law (or Commonwealth Law, should I say) to work for us.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have heard of rumors that criminals and POWs were pressed into battalions in WW2 Soviet Union and used to clear minefields. I do not know the degree of truth in that claim, but see it as at least plausible. Granted at that point, the legality of the situation is moot since you have bigger problems. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The French used German POWs to clear minefields after the war, and over 2,000 were killed in the process.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is regarding businesses, but the Arab League boycott of Israel, mandatory in certain countries, is actually illegal in the US, and US companies cooperating with the boycott will be fined. Tempshill (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a crime, but conflicting national citizenship laws occasionally get people stranded between the cracks. (E.g. their own country won't give them a passport because they are not residents, their host country won't because they weren't born there. or One country demands that anyone born there carry their passport. The other won't allow naturalized citizens to carry two passports.) Signature laws can also be contradictory. There was a case where an US office demanded that s.o. in Germany sign an other persons name on a document for them. This was considered forgery under German signature laws. There was a bit in the paper about it, but I think they sorted it out after that. Usually the Justice departments of friendly countries try to "harmonize" laws to try and avoid conflicts. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Boycotts are the most obvious case: Israel, Cuba and formerly South Africa were subject to legal bans on doing business in some countries, and legal requirements not to participate in such boycotts in others. I think the key is who takes it more seriously, the boycotters or the anti-boycotters. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think no-one cares. If they can make money, they'll do it. Sanctions? Who cares? "We're not trading with you lot anyway." It's like boycotting a shop you never go to anyway. Pointless. They'll always find another customer anyway.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was in an interesting position when both countries of my nationalities (I'm a dual)had conscription. Luckily they had a bilateral treaty allowing the choice of military service-- but not all countries have such treaties. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Credit Suisse was in such position recently. The American courts were ordering C.S to give some information to in order to find out stuff about tax evasion, while the Swiss banking secrecy laws were clearly forbidding C.S. to reveal this information to any third party, including the US government, and U.S. courts. These secrecy laws were designed to protect the banks' cursomers in Swtzerland, and if C.S. had obeyed, it would have been sued under Swiss law. If it had refused, it would have been fined by the US courts. The solution in the end was to change the Swiss law. --Lgriot (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Or was it UBS? sorry i am not sure which of the 2 banks. --Lgriot (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We do have an article on Conflict of Laws. Start there and follow the references. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What article am I thinking of?

Maybe a few months ago (?) there was an article I read online, probably in slate but maybe in the NYT, or something that Andrew Sullivan linked to, or maybe something else altogether. (Wish I could be more helpful.) It said (I'm not sure if it was the thesis or a sub-point) that while Americans disagree on tons of things there's this crazy consensus on freedom of speech on both sides of the aisle. I think there was something about how if an American hears of some sort of govt censorship they have an awful gut reaction. Maybe this was in the context of American exceptionalism but I'm not sure. Anyone remember reading this?? If you have another source that says something similar that would work too. :) Thanks!! Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and the main point I want from this article (or a comparable source) is popular attitudes toward the freedom of speech, not necessarily consensus among politicians. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The website “First Amendment Centre” may have some of what you want. Certainly the speech currently set out on its home page, and attributed to Rodney Smola, Dean, University of Richmond Law School, is on point, though I cannot tell where and when the speech was given. Here is a quote from the text of the speech:

But it is to say that in a sense both deep and wide, "freedom of speech" is a value that has become powerfully internalized by the American polity. Freedom of speech is a core American belief, almost a kind of secular religious tenet, an article of constitutional faith. // BL \\ (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! My paper on this is turned in now, so it's not really worth researching this anymore, but if anyone knows what this is off the top of their head you can say so - I'm kind of curious.....

Singularity

hi,

in the article Technological singularity it states

Statistician I. J. Good first wrote of an "intelligence explosion," suggesting that if machines could even slightly surpass human intellect, they could improve their own designs in ways unforeseen by their designers...

What I'm interested in is why this event will occur when machines 'even slightly' surpass human intellect. What's to say that they might need to become a certain amount more intelligent than humans for the event to happen. Why do they need to be just over humans, which are in essence, just 'random' machines themselves and are not anything special or any sort of benchmark in the whole scheme of things.

thanks, --Abc26324 (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In order to trigger a singularity they need to be able to design new computer systems faster than humans can. It doesn't need to be much faster, just a tiny bit faster and the process will begin. Of course, this is only relevant if you think Moore's law type progress can be sustained indefinitely, which almost certainly isn't the case - the laws of physics do impose some limits. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I see but what I'm saying is why are we assuming that computer systems will be able to design themselves when they can 'think' just faster than humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc26324 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote above says "surpass human intellect". If we take this in the most general sense, it might mean to say, "surpass human ability in each area", which would include all the human abilities that we use when designing computers. Tempshill (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I didn't say they just needed to be able to think faster, I said they needed to be able to design new computer systems faster. That obviously requires them to be able to design new computer systems. --Tango (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And that's the key point. To trigger the singularity, machines must be "better than" humans in only one very narrow and specialized way:the ability to design and manufacture "better" machines. If computer design improvement can be parallelized, the improvement is exponential. -Arch dude (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way the whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. There are obviously physical constraints imposed on what technology is possible by the laws of the universe itself, and there is no reason to think the smartest humans aren't just as able to design near these limits than the smartest possible computer. 79.122.38.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

The computers don't need to be better at designing, just faster. We're developing new technology at an exponential rate while our though processes are remaining at a constant speed. If a computer was designing new versions of itself then they would improve at the exponential rate relative to their own processing speed, which is itself increasing, and the result is that the quality of the computers tends to infinity within a finite amount of time (from our perspective). --Tango (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There are limits to the complexity that a human mind can contemplate. I certainly would not assume that machine minds permanently have the same limits. —Tamfang (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the key physics metaphor is not a singularity but a chain reaction. With nuclear fission there is a clear, measurable point where the reaction suddenly becomes exponential and self-sustaining—something quite incredible to make sense of, where suddenly one is talking about a rate of change that is staggering to consider (consider that a nuclear explosion, "due to the exponential rate of increase, at any point in the chain reaction 99% of the energy will have been released in the last 4.6 generations"). The idea is that you will hit a tipping point, where the rate of change itself starts to become exponential. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we're definitely talking about a singularity. The progress is already exponential (see Moore's law). A technological singularity is where processing power (or whatever other measure you are using) reaches infinity (or, at least, more than we can comprehend) within a finite amount of time. That is a singularity. --Tango (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing being able to design better technology than humans, but who's going to supply the components?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

English "legalese" meaning of assign (moved from languages)

Party A agrees to indemnify and hold harmless party B and assigns against any breach of any of the foregoing representations.

Is this phrase missing something or what does "assign against" mean here. I know the usage "to assign a claim against a party". If that was the intended use then this sentence seems to be missing a few bits. Or did they mean

Party A agrees to indemnify and hold harmless party B and assigns against (them) any (claims derived from) breach of any of the foregoing representations. - 71.236.24.129 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer but don't hear much of a distinction between assigning "claims dreived from breach" against someone and assigning the "breach" against someone. As for the 'assigns' verb, it sounds to me like it's an ellipsis gone wrong. It's trying to say: "Party A agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and assign against party B any breach of the foregoing representations..." It's terrible English but what do you expect from a contract lawyer. They ain't there to make things clear. 79.122.112.53 (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Assigns" here is a noun, meaning "assignees." Does that help? John M Baker (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If assign were a noun than I could make even less sense of the sentence. A noun to what verb and object? I can get 79's rewording. The meaning is still odd since if B breaks the contract and A has claims to damages they can then not go after B for those claims (hold harmless etc.), but why and how would they assign the claim i.e. give the rights derived from it to the same party that they have a claim against i.e. that would have to satisfy those rights? If A is in breach then why do they need to assign anything? I realize that's more a question for the humanities desk, but the sentence was so strange that I wasn't sure I got the grammatical sense right in the first place.71.236.24.129 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The verb is "hold (harmless)". Ianal, but I think it's saying something like "Not only is party B safe from any consequences of a breach, but so is any party to which party B has assigned its rights/responsibilities." The object of hold harmless is "party B and assigns". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. Question moved from "Languages" for verification. So is this what they meant? 71.236.24.129 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of years reading and writing real-estate contracts. Phrases like "the Lessee and (its/his) assigns, if any" are very common and mean what JackofOz has explained this one to mean. // BL \\ (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are people offering legal advice here on the Reference Desk? This is a contract interpretation and the only proper response is: We do not offer legal advice here on the Reference Desk. Please contact a lawyer. Tempshill (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Side note: As I work as a translator for legal documents and contracts, I thought this did actually belong on the language desk, as, to me, it was a language question, and not a legal one asking for legal advice.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think saying "I think X means Y" qualifies as legal advice. My post was certainly not framed with that intent. It was just an opinion. Legal advice is also ultimately opinion, but one that (we hope) is educated, authoritative and sound. I've made no such claims. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, Jack. That is what I am saying. This was a language question, not a request for legal advice. Don't know why it was banged over here.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz got to the "save" button just a hair ahead of me. And then KageTora was also faster than I was. My comment: I would agree that this is a language (grammar) question; it turns not on some legal point but on a question of a part of speech (noun or verb). // BL \\ (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

While translating a large amount of legalese into regular English would constitute legal advice, I don't think explaining the meaning of a legal word does. There is no interpretation required to know what "assigns" means in a legal context. --Tango (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, OP here. I had it on the language desk and then moved it. (After asking on the talk page!) I am not repeat not asking for legal advice. I'm not a party involved in anything to do with the document the phrase was taken from. Thus I'm not interested in contacting a lawyer to have them explain the meaning to me. Since this is however from a document that is not labeled for use by legal professionals only I felt that I should be able to understand its meaning. Failing that I was hoping s.o. with a law background would be able to explain it, now that I got the grammar sorted out. I'm not interested in the legal procedures or consequences. Since Jack indicated some doubt in his comment I was trying to see if a lawyering person would agree with his reading. It seems to me that s.o. should be able to at least communicate meaning to the uninitiated public without having to write a bill. If s.o. were to ask what "hotwire a car" means we wouldn't send them of to a car mechanic either (I hope). 71.236.24.129 (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, OP, we understand that, and that is why we are behind you all the way. This is a linguistic question, not a legal one. We know that. We are trying to help. 'Assign against' a breach would mean 'make preparations for and/or make sure [a breach] does not happen, but in the case that such [breach] happens, preparations for penalties of said [breach] shall be made'. Hope this helps.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Nope, I didn't read correctly. It means 'insures against any breach should B [cause any]'. Sorry. No excuses. This is getting messy --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast, KageTora. OP asked about the language, yes, but 79 above went straight into legal interpretations (and was incorrect); and JackOfOz decided to try to define indemnification ("Not only is party B safe from any consequences...") and what an 'assign' means. Jack, "I think X means Y" does tread upon the legal-advice area because this is obviously part of a contract, and such, its meaning turns on terms of art that will differ between jurisdictions. The farthest we should have gone with this, I think, was pointing out that the sentence uses "assigns" as a noun and not a verb as the OP had thought. And I'm personally not even comfortable with that. He says he's not a party to it, but anybody looking for legal interpretation would claim that if they wanted to be more sure of getting an interpretation. Tempshill (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How can 'assigns' be used as a noun? Is there a singular noun 'assign'? Don't think so. 'Assigns' refers back to Party A.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, it would seem there is. It means a person to whom property can be transferred.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, though I think it can also be used to designate anyone to whom any contractual right is or can be transferred. It appears frequently as "heirs and assigns". // BL \\ (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, now the sentence makes perfect sense. Amazing what you can do with a dictionary! Had me fooled! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bit embarrassed, really, because this is my job, and I have messed up in realtime....Who hid the razor blades and sleeping tablets? :) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Better to make mistakes here than on the job. The next time you come across the phrase in a document you will feel so-o-o superior! :-) // BL \\ (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

(KagaTora and I can both go and wipe the egg off our faces and look forward to being asked this one by somebody next time :-)71.236.24.129 (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)