Miscellaneous desk
< October 12	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

October 13

The weight at the bottom of a boat

Resolved

I've had a complete blank! Do sea-going vessels not have a weight somewhere in the base of the hull that is designed to help keep the boat upright and prevent capsizing? I've forgotten the name of the thing. Can someone help me out? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ballast! That's it. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, the vessel might not need any actual ballast as such, but instead have its various components and contents arranged in a way that keeps its metacentric height within allowable limits. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keel?109.144.189.129 (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquity of the ocarina

I just heard Alex Horne say on The Horne Section on BBC Radio 4 that the ocarina is a Chinese instrument 12,000 years old, and I thought, No, I don't believe it. So I looked at our article and it said nearly that (though it didn't claim that the 12,000 year BP origin was Chinese). So I checked the reference and I find this, which says "Archaeological findings have shown that ocarinas are over 12,000 years old, with the oldest clay whistles found in Central Africa going back more than 30,000 years". It gives no further references, and the oldest ocarina it illustrates is not much more more than 2,000 years old. Googling, I can find lots of sites saying that the earliest ocarinas are probably older than 12,000 years, but I haven't found one with either an example that old, or a reference, and I strongly suspect that they are all copying each other, and there is no basis for the claim. (Actually, I wonder if they might not all derive from misreading this site, where they are advertising both oil lamps modelled after ancient examples going back to 12000-15000 BCE, and also ocarinas). Has anybody got any reliable sources about the origin or age of ocarinas? I've just noticed that somebody asked essentially this question on Talk:ocarina in 2009, but nobody replied. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the reason they don't show you the oldest ones is that they are in really bad shape, with just a few shards left. StuRat (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But even so, Colin wants to find a description of one from a reliable source. Sorry, I haven't had any luck either. Alansplodge (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an amazing amount of discussion on this site which may be helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khat usage by USA government workers et al

Is it true that State Department personnel are prohibited from using khat in a foreign country where the usage of khat is not illegal? Are agents of the American Military/Intelligence/Security "complex" likewise prohibited? How about foreign national intelligence assets? And for that matter what about garden-variety US citizens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the OP's last question gives rise to the broader question: Are there things that American law prevents American citizens from doing in countries where the things are legal? Spending money in Cuba comes to mind, or traveling to some places at some times, but I wonder about Americans doing things in places that are not specifically under US sanctions, things that are legal in that country but illegal if done in the US. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is specifying government employees, not citizens on their own time. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP said in, as I specified, his last question, And for that matter what about garden-variety US citizens? Duoduoduo (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federal law may deal with commercial and travel relations between states, and prohibit private diplomacy, but it doesn't have anything to do with the local acts of private citizens as such. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do think there is some sort of federal law prohibiting overseas travel for the purpose of the sex trade, but I don't know if this has been challenged to the supreme court. Forgive me, but it's not something I am interested in googling. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true, it wouldn't necessarily be surprising. Khat sounds like a coca leaf type of thing. A US official might compromise US information if they're on some kind of abusive drug. More generally, it's important to realize that there is no constitutional right to hold any particular job. If the State Department says No, and someone does it anyway, the Department might say, "We can't physically stop you from using that stuff, but if you do, you won't have a job with us anymore." Note I said IF it's true. That needs to be investigated. But what about the scandal of some Secret Service characters hiring call girls in Brazil or whatever? Did they break any laws? Or did they merely violate their code of conduct, and hence were canned? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

il garbagio

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Once again, the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the reference desks excel themselves. How about some actual answers to the question, you two, rather than idle and off-topic chitchat? --Viennese Waltz 08:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, another typical useless comment from the official ref desk nanny... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! 83.104.128.107 (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and from the official nanny's ~~apprentice~~ remora. If you have some information for the OP, then provide it. Otherwise keep your trap shut. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If you have some information for the OP, then provide it. Otherwise keep your trap shut." A dictum that you might like to try applying to yourself someday. --Viennese Waltz 12:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is twice now that you've made no attempt to answer the OP's question. Instead, your sole purpose in coming here is to harass other editors... as per your usual M.O. So what do you expect for your nannyistic efforts, a gold star? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I smell...hat.lol^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To OP. We don't know. The State Department, the military and other employers can set a code of conduct for their own workers, for example they can set a dress code. There are few jobs where you may work under the influence of alcohol, but caffeine is tolerated even though some workers get ratty when they are ready for their next fix. Since the effects of khat are somewhere in level of impairment between alcohol and caffein, and no-one is quite sure where, then a sensible employer will err on the side of caution. These considerations don't apply to tourists. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a case of not being able to demonstrate a negative, rather than not knowing. Regulations regarding drug prescription are handed down from the FDA. But laws regarding possession and things like the drinking age are handled by states. State laws simply don't apply outside states. It might not be legal to prescribe marijuana under federal law. But possession would be punished by the state, and some states are now notably ignoring this. Who would punish a private citizen for having smoked marijuana in Spain? When I was in high school we went to Germany for our senior trip. We were required to have our parents sign a permission slip as to whether we could drink alcohol on the trip. It was illegal under 19-21 at the time (the age was being raised gradually.) We were all under age. The school was a New Jersey school. The teacher was from New Jersey. We drank at dinner, and purchased beer and wine freely. What law allowed this? None. Americans are free to do what they like when it is not illegal where they are doing it. Sorry if this is idle, off-topic chit chat. μηδείς (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Taint necessarily so. You were not a government employee. According to Prostitution law, it's legal in Colombia. Yet a number of US Secret Service agents lost their jobs or were demoted due to the scandal.[1] They may have conducted themselves legally (for the most part) under Colombian law, but they violated their employer's code of conduct, and they paid the consequences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you are responding to me, Bugs, but nothing I said had to do with any terms of employment. That was already addressed correctly, and I saw no need to revisit it. Not only the government, but a private employer can fire employees, who, say, fail contract-mandated drug tests. That has absolutely nothing to do with US laws. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're saying no one could hold you accountable because you're on foreign soil, and I'm questioning that assumption. It might be reasonable to suppose that a "crime" committed outside the state's boundaries would be beyond that state's reach. And I'm not entirely certain that's true. It seems logical, but the state laws could be nuanced in some way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said you had to get a signature from your parents. That might be a matter of state law, presuming the high school itself was sponsoring and chaperoning the trip. So if you parents had not signed their permission, and the school willfully let you drink anyway, the chaperones might have been in serious trouble with the state. And you might have been in trouble with someone (your parents, if not the law) if you decided to drink despite the lack of a signature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the foreigners could have "held us accountable" had we committed crimes according to their jurisdiction. The closest you'll find to one state enforcing itself outside its jurisdiction will be divorce laws which require the residence of only one party. But this is basically due to federal power, and the one suing for divorce still needs to reside in the state where the filing occurs. The only thing our parents could have done had we drunk without permission would have been to file a civil suit. There would be no more grounds for filing a criminal charge than there would have been had we drunk in another state where the drinking law was lower (which did occur on trips to DC and Florida during that era). μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there could be civil liability without the mitigation of that signature. But it might also be that state law prohibited its employees from violating New Jersey's own laws regardless of location. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's baseless speculation. And it still wouldn't matter outside the state, since only congress regulates interstate trade. NJ certainly couldn't stop you from drinking in NY, which a lot of people did. And of course they couldn't stop you from drinking in Bavaria. I have no idea how to verify it, other than a law library, but I read the NJ state laws on drinking and the age of consent from a seven volume code of criminal law at the time. There was simply no such thing as what you were imagining. The only thing that was prohibited was the sale to or public possession of alcohol by minors. Parents were free to give their children alcohol at home. And the permission slips were the illegible mimeographed blue on white "dittos" you always got, handed out to us during a mandatory information night, where no reference to state or any law was made, simply asking parent if they gave permission for their children to be served alcohol at dinner. We fended for ourselves for lunch, which was when most of us started drinking beer we got in mom & pop groceries. μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what was the purpose of getting "permission"? Just to give the parents the illusion of some control over the matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinners were eaten together under teacher supervision. Presumably they would have told waiters not to serve certain people, but everyone had permission, so the issue didn't come up. During unsupervised hours students bought pornography, switchblades, and hard liquor. We also went to see Rocky Horror, which was playing at Rothenburg ob der Tauber one night after dinner. We reenacted the show, which just about had them call the police on us. The five or so locals were utterly shocked by the floor show. Had we had access to drugs or prostitutes we'd have been like the Secret Service. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the parents had given their permission. That's quite a senior trip. I think for my senior trip we went to the Museum of Science and Industry. They didn't serve alcohol, so most of us tripped on Coke. (Or Pepsi.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few State Department employees who can operate without a security clearance, and "drug involvement" is listed as one of the issues that can cause a clearance to be denied or revoked -- see http://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/60321.htm#h for details. Note in particular that the "conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying" include "any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance". Looie496 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana was used by some US soldiers during the Vietnam War. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and for years after the Vietnam War ended, also "some" was sometimes figured around half or slightly more of combat troops. One of the key reasons for the "all volunteer" forces developing in the late 1970s.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it, the general notion of applying US law to US citizens abroad falls under the concept of Extraterritorial jurisdiction- you may also want to look at Criminal jurisdiction, and Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act deals with military members, employees, and contractors (the efficacy section mentions specific cases). In the case of Child sex tourism, US citizens can be arrested upon return to the US, see also [2]. A lot of the issues involved on this subject tend towards war crimes, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, issues with US property, or terrorism; and crimes committed in part on US soil. Things to read: this [3], especially starting at pg.115, discusses the etj related issues; looking at various linked sections in [4] may be informative; this [5] mentions more about narcotics, kidnapping, sex tourism; this discusses etj a bit more [6]. I'm sorry I don't have a direct answer to your question, I'd imagine the US could have the ability to assert some form of jurisdiction in such cases, but I doubt it would unless it were part of something "bigger", like major drug trafficking operations, etc.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International treaties sometimes create "global crimes" (e.g. slave trading) any member country of such a treaty can prosecute any person, whether citizen or foreigner, for such crimes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]