Miscellaneous desk
< December 1	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 3 >

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.

December 2

On Siamese twins

Perhaps I've been eating too much blue cheese,but whilst watching a documentary on Siamese twins,a couple of thoughts wandered into my brain..

1.Is it only possible to have Siamese twins or it is theoretically possible to have Siamese triplets,quadruplets etc? and are there any recorded examples?

2.If you were to have sex with Siamese twins and one gave consent and the other didn't,would that be classified as rape?-who actually gets to give consent for their body to used?

Lemon martini (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read about Chang and Eng, the original, and literal "Siamese" twins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chang and Eng were distinctly two people joined at the chest but with separate lower bodies. More pertinent as an example might be Abigail and Brittany Hensel who are much more conjoined and in the lower body have only one set of organs. I think you'd need a unanimous decision - but it is a pretty bizarre question. Richard Avery (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason we have judges in law courts. The law certainly won't have been written about that...any more than if one twin steals a chocolate bar in a supermarket and whether both of them go to jail for shop-lifting - or if one twin assaults the other causing actual bodily harm. Judges have the power to interpret the law, to look at the nuances of what happened and to decide how (if at all) the law applies. The tougher decisions get passed on to appeal courts and ultimately to supreme courts...and if the final decision of those courts is not something everyone likes, then the law can be modified by governments. If a judge were to make a decision in a case like this, that decision would tend to be taken into consideration in future cases of a similar nature - at which point it becomes case law and most judges will decide the same way in future cases.

Just recently, here in the US, a man who had been saying on Facebook that he'd kill his estranged wife was hauled through the courts because they couldn't agree on whether it's an exercise of free speech or an actual death threat...the law is vague on this - so it's being taken up by the US Supreme Court who will have to set some kind of a limit on what constitutes a threat to murder - and what is free speech. Once they do that, future case will undoubtedly follow what they said - even though the law is silent on the matter.

In this case, it's hard to guess what they'd say. My bet is that both twins would have to consent. Happily, I'm not a judge - so who knows? SteveBaker (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if this question didn't mention sex someone would have very quickly said "Sorry can't you read, we don't give legal advice", but there you go, Avery's Law on RD responses to questions of opinion or advice - the more bizarre or sexual or gruesome the less responders can resist answering. Richard Avery (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start an argument, and as an IP editor I usually stay out of these disputes, but I do feel that your interpretation of this as being "legal advice" is mistaken. There is no hint that the OP is asking about anything he/she or anyone else is actually involved with, and the question seems to me to be only about legal information pertaining to a hypothetical situation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 212 I forgot to put a :-)) st the end of my post Richard Avery (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No probs – work stress was lowering my humour-detection sense. I wish everybody would agree to introducing an ironic font such as 'backwards italics', as someone once suggested. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for question (1), it's really just a question of the geometry of embryological development. If an early blastula becomes partially split along a plane, each half will develop somewhat normally distally from the plane of intersection. For this to happen in a three way split, it is virtually impossible, since it would require two separate incomplete divisions that happened to have the same orientation, but happened separately. One might imaging causing a head to head split mechanically in a lab, then causing the twins to split lengthwise, like cutting a square piece of paper into square quarters, but leaving them attached at the center. But the difficulty of this and getting the fetus viably to term is outweighed only by the sheer vileness of the notion. Actually conjoined triplets are terribly deformed, and nonviable conjoined quadruplets not cute minature montypythonian three-headed knights.μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of a case in Australia of triplets where two of them were conjoined. The conjoined pair were joined at the abdomen and were successfully separated soon after birth. All three are now healthy young adults. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, can you give a link. I will predict they were not coinjoined accordian-like, but asymmetrically. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I misunderstood. The third was not conjoined at all? That's a big grey animal with floppy ears and tusks. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a link to an example of what HiLo48 was talking about. Hack (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo spoke of three surviving to adulthood after two were separated, this sad article says the conjoined twins died soon after birth. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the case he was talking about. Hack (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's them. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing, fictional case of Siamese twins with various crime-related consent compatibility issues on American Horror Story: Freak Show. New episode tomorrow. Probably won't answer your questions, but may have clues. It's loosely based on history. At the very least, it's an interesting role for Sarah Paulson. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The Third Twin. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For question 2, lawmakers don't normally sit around coming up with rules for interesting, but extraordinarily rare scenarios. I would almost certainly be on the Judge to figure out some reasonable answer should it ever come up in court. 75.69.10.209 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Even the relatively more predictable case of non-Siamese alleged serial rapist(s) threw French prosecutors for a loop. A year after their arrest, they were still in custody awaiting a decision on which one to blame. Not sure if/how that turned out. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does a "Frame by Frame" film analysis seminar work?

Eminent film critics sometimes host "frame by frame" analysis seminars, where other film critics, cinema industry professionals, students, and interested members of the general public can attend. An important film will be analyzed in depth by the group. Since films are shot at twenty-four (24) frames per second, however, won't these seminars be interminably long if they literally pause on every frame, as the name implies? How do these seminars actually work? Thanks. Zombiesturm (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just a cute way of saying "in-depth analysis". Do you have any examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't really go through the entire movie frame-by-frame. They may choose to do that to explain or discuss some tiny nuance - but the term is generally just a way of saying that they break the film down into it's fundamental parts and analyze each part in detail. Questions like: Why was such-and-such actor lit this way when the person standing next to them was lit that way? Why was that particular camera angle chosen? Why did they cut back and forth between the two protagonists during this conversation when they panned between them in that conversation and held them both in shot for this other conversation?....that kind of thing. They could spend 20 minutes discusssing a single frame of the video - then skip 20 minutes of the movie without even watching it. SteveBaker (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that they are not watching the movie. That would require paying the distributors for the right to show the movie, which would require charging for tickets. For it to be free and legal, they are just sampling bits of the movie to critique. 209.149.114.72 (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are "fair use" provisions in the copyright act that allow for using material in an educational setting and specifically for "visual art educators". SteveBaker (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure "frame by frame" refers to the most notable scenes. It's not a literal use of the term. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Interruptus is a notable example of a "frame-by-frame" analysis done with a large group of people. Not actually frame by frame of course (though they call it that), more like "shot-by-shot". Staecker (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most notable shot-by-shot examples in film studies is an analysis of the Odessa Steps sequence in the film Battleship Potemkin. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most effective study strategy for exam with a choice of questions

I'm studying for an exam. I know what could be asked in each of the 4 questions, and there is no overlap. I can choose which 3 of the 4 questions I will do [edited]. Is it better to use my limited study time as if I had to do all 4 questions, or prepare for 3 questions and ignore 1? We have obviously done all of the material covered in class so I am already somewhat familiar with them all. Kind regards 79.97.222.210 (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you spend equal amounts of time studying for each, and the same amount of time studying under both approaches:

Study 3: You dedicate 20 minutes per study hour to each question, and will choose either 100% or 66% of the questions correctly.

Study 4: You dedicate 15 minutes per study hour to each question, and are guaranteed to choose 100% of the questions correctly.

Studying all four would not be much of a reduction in time (and so possibly quality), but a undeniably safer bet in terms of coverage. Another option would be roughly study all four, and then go back and focus on the three you're least sure of. You'd average out to about 17 minutes for every study hour overall, and still effectively choose 100% of the right questions. However, a complete pyramid approach (study, knock the most sure off, repeat) would probably be a bad idea unless you're absolutely sure about the first two you drop. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I can choose which of the questions I want to do. Updated my initial post--79.97.222.210 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, in that case, why would you study the question you're not going to answer? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't in the past, but I thought maybe there was some statistics that show learning all the questions is more effective. Maybe I'm likely to forget things and if I'm prepared for everything I can choose what I remember better. I'm asking because I've never seen any statistics about it.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the main reason I suggested study 4 above was because of the risk of not choosing the right questions with study 3. If that is not an issue, the only issue is how much time you get to devote to each question, which makes study 3 the best option. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, do you mean you know the precise question (or possible questions), or simply what the question will cover? If you don't know the precise question, it can sometimes be an advantage to study all 4 in case the precise question of one of the 3 you did study turns out be something you find yourself struggling with for whatever reason. Nil Einne (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, this is called "question spotting". If you constrain yourself to 3 only, you're absolutely stuck if one of the questions is put in a way you find difficult to answer, despite your preparation, for example, you're not quite sure what the examiner is after or it demands knowledge of an aspect you've inadvertently overlooked. I'd suggest you prepare all 4, even if, as Ian suggests above, one of them is prepared more sketchily. Don't forget, the way exams are structured, it's relatively straightforward to pick up the first mass of marks with even a rudimentary knowledge, which will help lift your overall average in a disaster. Think of it this way: getting 100 marks on each of 2 questions and 0 for the third is 200 marks. Getting 90 for the first 2 and just 50 for the third is 230. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]