Humanities desk
< October 16	<< Sep | Oct | Nov >>	October 18 >

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.

October 17[edit]

Looking at the previous thread on the subject, I want to ask a couple more general question. There are many companies that are incorporated in one state but have employees physically located in another. Have there been any cases in which a person (successfully or otherwise) sued their employer for violations of labor or other laws in the state of incorporation, rather than the state the employee is physically located in? Is there a general legal principle on how such cases are decided? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent there might be jurisdiction shopping involved. What will really matter is the specific act. If something happened in your home state that was a local issue, the local law will apply. It would only be if there were some sort of higher level corporate malfeasance, say (in my imagination as a layman) a policy decision from the home office not to address a manager transferred from another office with a known problem, that there might be a case under that state's jurisdiction. Your lawyer would have to argue that before a judge to keep him from dismissing it as having no standing (law) in that court. It will really depend on the specifics and, since it will be a civil case, whom you are suing for what. The defendants are also likely to argue to the presiding judge that the case should be handled locally, assuming allowing it to proceed elsewhere isn't to their advantage. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US Constitution makes the federal courts available to people who are suing residents of other states, and obviously all state courts are open to their residents who wish to sue others who are present in those courts' jurisdictions. I don't expect that a court in the company's home state would listen to a suit regarding actions in another state, but the availability of both federal and state courts (and the consequent jurisdiction shopping that Medeis mentions) is the general legal principle. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Federal jurisdiction (United States), Federal courts can take cases under state laws if the parties are residents of different states and the question involves damages meeting a certain threshold, currently $75,000 according to federal law. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I forgot about there being a minimum amount in question; you can't take your out-of-state company to federal court just because it negligently caused you to lose $5 somehow. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction will apply the substantive laws of the state in which the court sits. That in turn means they'll look to the state's choice of law provisions to see which state's laws apply. I think most state courts will also entertain suits from a non resident against a resident business, with some possible caveats. It varies quite a bit, but that's not uncommon at all.Shadowjams (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which people look extremely similar? And please limit it to famous/notable people in the same field (politics, et cetera).

I know of William McKinley and Mark Hanna and of Elizabeth Warren and Michele Alliot-Marie. Futurist110 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some ideas at Look-alike. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Do a Google search for the phrase "Separated at birth" and you'll get a shit load of websites dedicated to this subject. Two that I can think of that oddly look alike from American football is Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday and former New York Giants center Shaun O'Hara. That the two snapped footballs to the Manning Brothers for several years has been brought up, given their similar appearance. SeeJeff Saturday andShaun O'Hara.google search turns up a few notable sports journalists who have noted the striking similarity in appearance, including Adam Schefter and the Bleacher Report. --Jayron3203:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They say that the Mwanza Flat Headed Agama and Spiderman were separated at birth. Sources =[1] --Jethro B 03:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geena Davis and Tanya Memme come to mind. (For more than one reason.) Mark Twain and Kurt Vonnegut. Karl Malden and Richard Herd. There was a short book series a few decades back with lookalikes, some of them whimsical, for example Mick Jagger and Don Knotts' character "Mr. Limpit". One of my early efforts here was to try to create a page called "Separated at Birth", but it was shot down as original research. I bet it could be done now, with strict sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 04:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the news here in the UK: Gary McKinnon and Benedict Cumberbatch - several celebrities have been joking about the resemblance on Twitter in the past 24 hours. (Obviously they are in different lines of work, but Cumberbatch is famous for portraying social misfit and investigative geniusSherlock Holmes, and recently also portrayed maverick statistical expert Christopher Tietjens in Parade's End.)AlexTiefling (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear Benedict Cumberbatch looks an aweful lot likeCummerbund. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Annan tells a good story about how he was on holiday once in an isolated location, where he thought he would be away from the public eye. But an autograph hunter came up to him and said "I really admire your work, Mr Freeman." Not wanting to spoil the guy's day, Annan signed the autograph "Morgan Freeman". --Viennese Waltz 10:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another one. At a White House reception in honour of Duke Ellington's 70th birthday on 29 April 1969, Richard Nixon mistook Cab Callowayfor Ellington and warmly congratulated him on his 'birthday'. Not sure what Cab said in return. Maybe he sang "Minnie the Moocher" in Mood Indigo. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Fey did a near perfect impersonation of Sarah Palin (you might say one is in entertainment and the other in politics, but those fields seems to overlap considerably, at least in this case). StuRat (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeremy London and Jason London are two actors who look eerily alike. And for the longest time I thought Jonathan Togo from CSI Miami and Eric Szmanda from CSI: Crime Scene Investigation were the same person. Angr (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It gets eerier: Jeremy and Jason were born on exactly the same day, and not only that, in exactly the same place. Incredible! Another feather in the cap for numerology and astrology. (Cough) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally Looks Like has a lot of these, though they're not all celebrities (or even humans) there. Another pair of actors I thought were the same person for a long time were Neil Patrick Harris and Christopher Masterson. Angr(talk) 22:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The girl from CSI (er, not the main one) looks a lot like Kelly Clarkson. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of Kelly Clarkson, but having now seen a picture of her, I wonder if by "the girl from CSI (er, not the main one)" you meanAnna Belknap from CSI: NY. Angr (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Brad Pitt, common mistake. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? And which part of his body does your face resemble ? :-) StuRat (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Paul Ryan has made at least one speech at The Atlas Society where he spoke about his love for her philosophy. Is he a member of the society? Is he a former member? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely, not that Ryan would be intellectually sympathetic to the society, but that he could have been a member without it being made public. Being an Objectivist does not play well with the American voting public: liberals dislike the reverse communism, and conservatives dislike the atheism. Ryan is smart enough a politician to avoid formal ties with such a group, and the election is close enough that President Obama or his allies would have made this known if it were the case. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this talks about that speech, but doesn't answer your question. I am amused to note that Ryan called Rand's works "required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff", which I would call a well-deserved punishment. Wnt (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just googling paul ryan ayn rand will give you a few very useful pieces (I like the top 3) on the relationship between Ryan and Rand's philosophy. While his admiration for that philosophy has been consistent, so have been his attempts to distance himself from it in certain ways. So again, I think it's very unlikely he's a member of the society. By the way, at least one of those results describes the society as a think tank, so its membership may be more professional researchers rather than anyone who adheres to Objectivism. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's all rather obvious, isn't it? Rand Paul, Ayn Rand, Anne Rice, Ian Rankin, Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, RuPaul, Pope John Paul II ? It doesn't take rocket science to figure out what's going on here. Wake up and vote before it's too late, people!μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" is an anagram for "My ultimate Ayn Rand porn." Coincidence?209.131.76.183 (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ryan is the vampire love child of Pope John Paul II and RuPaul?

Yes, well, here's the proof. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that large global companies such as CocaCola have significantly different product ranges worldwide and they don't share their products? For example, Coca Cola USA has products CocaCola UK don't produce and they don't share it with them. Clover345 (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coca cola products are often directed at American consumers' unique eating habits. Ankh.Morpork 11:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The primary consideration when deciding what products to sell where is what products you think people want to buy where. Tastes vary from country to country (based largely on what people are used to, I think). --Tango (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But with CocaCola products, surely this is not really a significant point of consideration as most of their products are sweet fizzy drinks?Clover345 (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Americans don't particularly want to buy the kinds of sweet fizzy drinks that Italians like, what would it benefit Coca Cola to sell the same sorts of drinks in both places? --Jayron32 11:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some products are specifically targeted at a particular market such as its tea and coffee products. In Japan, Coca Cola have focused on the tea market and their Marocha Green Tea is a highly popular product. Another example of regional focus would be Kvass sold primarily in Russia. Also, the branding of the products varies according to the regional differences. While fruit juices in the US and Europe are sold under the Minute Maid and Disney juices brand names, similar products are sold as Qoo in Asia, Kapo in Latin America and Bibo in Africa. Also, Coca Cola have also purchased companies that operate on a national scale. e.g Kola Inglesa dominates the Peruvian market because that is where it was originally produced. Ankh.Morpork 11:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen Disney branded fruit juices in Europe. Astronaut (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the products were eventually discontinued. I was citing it as Winnie The Pooh Roo Juice was an obvious example of targeted branding.Ankh.Morpork 13:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even Coca Cola itself is made differently in different countries. I live in the UK and enjoy Diet Coke, but the variety they sell in Europe is far too sacharriny for my tastebuds. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the general Q, let's list reasons to sell the same product under the same brand worldwide:

A) Less expensive to only design, produce, and market a single product. How much this is a factor will vary by product. For something with minimal development costs, like soft drinks, it's not much of a factor. For something with huge development costs, like commercial aircraft, having a significantly different model for sale in each nation would be impractical.

B) Provides more flexibility. If demand is higher than production in one nation, it's then easy to bring in product from other nations with overcapacity.

Now let's list reasons to have different products:

1) They may have acquired local companies, which already have a customer base for their product. Continuing to sell that product may also generate less resentment, than, say, if you fire everyone and then try to sell your own imported product there, instead. The local government may also have laws to prevent this type of thing.

2) As mentioned previously, different tastes exist in different places. In addition, there may be cultural or religious taboos, like not eating pork in certain places.

3) There can also be differences in infrastructure. A different type of car is appropriate for a place where gasoline/petrol is cheap, distances are long, and highways are straight and level, than a place with high fuel prices, and narrow, twisting, hilly roads.

4) Local laws may require a different product. For example, labeling requirements and safety regulations may vary. It is sometimes possible to make a single product for the most stringent requirements, but not always, as laws may be incompatible, or such a product may be too expensive to compete in nations lacking the strict laws.

5) Language differences also require different labeling, product names, etc. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ask this because my grandfather (1845 – 1940) lived up to 95 while my father (1895 – 1955) died at 60. Is longevity hereditary?Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before you answer the question, you'd need a sample size greater than one! google search turns up some promising leads for study. --Jayron32 11:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first serious-looking article that I found says; "While most studies confirm the prior belief on the existence of an intergenerational correlation in mortality, they do not have the required data to quantify the relationship in a statistically reliable way, let alone study how this relationship changes with the father’s age at death." The Hebrew University of JerusalemLONGEVITY ACROSS GENERATIONS . Alansplodge (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason of death is also relevant. If one died in an accident you can stop thinking about genetics. Groupask (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically, over a large sample maybe not. Risk aversion, impulsiveness, etc. could all have a hereditary component. -- Q Chris(talk) 14:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to live long enough to get hit by the car. Changing the probability of dying by one cause changes the probabilities of dying by every other cause because it changes the amount of time you are exposed to that risk. --Tango (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is definitely a hereditary component to longevity - plenty of studies have shown that. However, there are so many other factors and also so much randomness that it's pretty meaningless to try and apply it to individuals. On average, people with long-lived parents will live longer, but you need a very large number of people before the other factors start to average out. --Tango (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But one thing that's definitely applicable to individuals is parenthood (or lack thereof). If your parents didn't have any children, then neither will you. You can bet your (haunted) house on it.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 17:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure Jack? I got banned from a "freethinking" website where the moderator claimed that according to natural selection every individual must be happy according to evolution. I told him that according to evolution, the only thing one's ancestors must have been is parents. I was called a collectivist because of that argument. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freethinking indeed: the moderator clearly did not feel bound by such things as conventional meanings of words. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I don't know what "according to natural selection every individual must be happy according to evolution" means. But I'm afraid to ask for clarification. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What age did your grandmother reach? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which web-sites out there do answer questions? I'm not searching for a user to user site, but more of a traditional kind like in the past, with "Dear reader, ..." . I want something with high standards in writing. Groupask (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why ask here ;) ? But seriously, what type of questions do you have in mind? That might help us direct somewhere suitable to your needs. Mingmingla (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you want something like Dear Abby. The reality is, there are far more people with questions than those willing to give researched, high quality, well written answers, for free. So, if you want answers for free, you'll have to post at a site like this, and take your chances on the responses you get. Yes, many may have poor grammar and spelling, or be off-topic, or jokes, but, with any luck, there will be good answers mixed in, too. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but also with serious questions. I don't necessarily want my questions answered, just interesting questions about science, history, humanities. The straight dope is an option. Groupask (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you'd find, with a site like that, that most questions remain unanswered. However, you can read through answers to other question. HowStuffWorks is a good one. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I would definitely recommend The Straight Dope and the Straight Dope Message Boards http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/. SDMB has been around much longer than Wikipedia (I was active there in the 1990s) and though it has been a few years since I was active, IIRC it has a culture of being fairly well researched and thoughtful. Other sites like "Yahoo Answers" and "Wiki Answers" are a total crapshoot. --Jayron32 19:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google answers used to be really good, because the askers would pay so the answerers tried to come up with the best answer - thorough and exactly what was asked for. It got closed down but if you are simply looking to read interesting questions and answers the archive is still readable.http://answers.google.com/answers/ --184.147.123.169 (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try physics forums. manya (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stackexchange. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For questions on Internet rumors, there's Snopes.com. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a little research into my great-grandparents. They are both listed in the census taken on 2 April 1911, with their ages and children (one of whom is my late grandmother). The funny thing is, when I try to find their date of marriage the obvious record suggests a marriage when my great-grandmother was only 15 years old. Would such a thing have been possible in 1890's England (maybe if she was pregnant)? Of course, maybe I have the wrong marriage record or maybe there are errors in the way in which their names are recorded, or in the 1911 census data, but I am intrigued by the possibility of marriage at such a young age in Victorian society or possible reactions of parents to an impending child being born out of wedlock. Astronaut (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is her birthdate known from records other than the census? My experience is more with the US than the UK or Commonwealth census, but census takers often carelessly put down an age that was a few years off, or the person reporting their age would sometimes make themselves younger for vanity, or older to avoid revealing that they had a child at an extremely young age, or the censustaker got their info from a neighbor who was guessing about details. I've seen cases where a woman married very young, but the first known child came years later, and have speculated that she might have married due to a young pregnancy but the first baby was a miscarriage or stillbirth. Many records were just sloppy. Edison (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 had raised the age of consent to 16 - so it would have been illegal to marry a 15-year-old in the 1890s.

However, I have recently been doing quite a lot of research on these censuses, and I'm familiar with their quirks. Unlike prior censuses, to which Edison's remarks about the enumerators would apply, the 1911 census was filled in by householders wherever possible. This reflects the vastly increased levels of literacy that had been achieved by that date. Consequently, if the census sheet is signed by the head of the household (rather than just with an X), the ages given may be taken as the ages that that person believed the members of the household truly were.

The census was taken on 2 April 1911. So make sure, in your calculations, that you allow for your great-grandmother's birthday to be as early as 3 April. Conversely, allow for the marriage to be as late as possible in the quarter it's reported for. (Obviously, if you order the certificate from the GRO (£9.25), you'll get the exact date, as well as her alleged age at the time.) If her name is sufficiently distinctive, you may be able to get hold of her birth certificate, or a baptism record, which will give you a precise indication of when she was born. The marriage certificate will also mention her father's name and occupation, which is a great help in finding births, baptisms, and censuses taken during the subject's childhood.

If you want, I could try researching your question directly, if we are able to arrange a way of passing personal information.AlexTiefling (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, people in England and Scotland need to be at least 16 to marry with parental consent, 18 without. I could not find any information on England (though edit-conflicting Alex, above, did), but apparently in Scotland, men age 14 and girls age 12 could marry without parental consent until 1929. And young couples used to flee to Gretna Green to take advantage of these lax laws. So marrying at 15 does not seem to be implausible for the UK. See Marriage in Scotland. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article about the 1885 Act strongly implies (see 'Repeal') that it applied to the entire United Kingdom, not just to England and Wales (as Hardwicke's Act of 1753 had done). In any case, the principal reason for elopement to Gretna Green was to escape the Hardwicke Act's requirement for parental consent for under-21s. I don't believe that the contracting of marriages which would be illegal in England and Wales on account of the bride's age was a major motivator for the Gretna Green Dash; nor do I think that such would have been legal by the 1890s. The 'any witness' form of marriage allowed in Scotland would not have circumvented the law on the age of consent. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Our article Marriage_in_Scotland#Border_marriages says However in Scotland it was possible for boys to get married at 14 years and girls at 12 years without parental consent [...] In 1856 Scottish law was changed to require 21 days' residence for marriage, and since 1929 both parties have had to be at least 16 years old (though there is still no parental consent needed). Looking over the 1885 Act, it talks about "unlawfully and carnally know"ing girls under the age of 14 and 17. As far as I can tell, this does not affect lawful marriages. The age of consent is not necessarily the same (or lower) than the age of marriage. Indeed, apparently one of the points brought against the 1885 act was a possible conflict with lower legal ages for marriage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat ironic that Google presents me with a dating ad sporting an Asian women that looks borderline legal under the 1885 act on the page that has the text: [2]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what were you searching for, Google spots your intentions, and show ads that you would like to see. I won't ask what it is.83.60.246.149 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references on the net to the 1763 Marriage Act in England, in which " minimum age of marriage was fixed at 16. Prior to this date, the church accepted the marriage of girls aged 12 or more and boys aged 14 or more. In addition, a dispensation on licence could be obtained from a bishop which allowed marriage at a younger age."[3] Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Page Rank algorithm was assigned to Stanford. Before Page and Google et al were big and had money and an army of lawyers, how did they get Stanford to give them such a favorable exclusive rights license that would allow them to reach financial escape velocity when, at that early moment, with the patent assigned to them, Stanford had all the cards? Benevolence? Where can I read (if it's available) how the license deal was negotiated? Peter Michner (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Rank is only a very small part of Google, and search engines used to come and go every few months. Nobody could foresee the success of Google, and a more restrictive license may well have stopped Google cold, leaving Stanford with no money at all. Moreover, Page and Brin, as the actual inventors, were in a much better position than anybody else to evaluate (and utilize) the patent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to remember that Google's search engine function is something of a loss leader; its main job is to get your eyes on its ads. Search alone doesn't make any money for Google; that the search directs viewers to target ads does make money. Google has also branched out considerably into many tech fields entirely unrelated to search engines at all. It is a multi-service company with its fingers in many pies. The search engine gave it the initial leg up, but where Google has flourish where others have failed is largely Google's ability to grow outside of the search engine market. Google's story is basically one of leverage, using its search engine technology to build itself into a business based on actual money making ventures (i.e. all the non-search stuff they do). --Jayron32 17:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. With hindsight, PageRank is clearly a winning idea and Google's founders have turned out to be the kind of people who can transition successfully from academia to a profitable business. Technology-heavy universities like Stanford, MIT, and Cambridge are always spawning startups like Google, with staff and students and IP that came from the university. So they have an office of IP licencing, who frankly guess how much to charge, or what proportion of the stock of a new company they can ask for. I defy anyone to sit in an office all day and read scientific papers and patents and really have a confident idea of how much that invention is, or could reasonably be, worth, and so how much to charge for it. For a startup, usually all they can ask for is stock (because the company has no cash), and owning stock means they don't end up looking super-stupid in the off-chance a company soars (that they only made $336M is because they didn't hold on to the stock for longer). 99%+ of technology startups crater, and the very few people who seem to have a knack at distinguishing which won't are almost always living on a yacht somewhere. Remember also that angel investors and VCs are very thorough about finding details of what they're buying into and how it could possibly be encumbered - they'd run a mile from a Google which only had say a 3 year licence on patents on its core technology. Stanford, being experienced at this kind of thing, knows they can't write terms that would drive off such investors, as they'd just strangle the startup at birth and kill their own chance seeing returns from it. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk17:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[moved from [4]] - Wnt (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the wikipedia perverted justice article and Im confused as to how they convicted these people if the decoy was actually over 18? It even says in the article

"The father of a man arrested in a July 2006 sting by Perverted-Justice has appeared before a Georgia Superior Court judge to seek an arrest warrant for Von Erck, alleging that Von Erck solicited the commission of a felony from the man.[77][78] The judge found that probable cause existed to believe Von Erck impersonated a girl and solicited the man with the intent for him to commit a felony, but declined to issue the warrant because when the act occurred, there was no actual girl and thus no crime occurred.[77] The act of soliciting a felony is itself a felony.[78] Attorney Gary Gerrard filed an appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals, alleging that under Georgia law, solicitation is a felony whether or not a crime occurred.[79] That appeal was ultimately rejected.[80]"

Something dosent add up.--Wrk678 (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The law is often explicitly written so that such stings can result in convictions. It sounds like that wasn't the case in Georgia, but it may well be the case in other states. There may be a specific offence of attempting to sollicit that says it is the age the offender thinks the person is rather than their actual age. Or it may just be a matter of how attempted offences are defined in that jurisdiction. --Tango (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The legal term is Entrapment, and "sting" operations get very dicey when it comes to entrapment. --Jayron32 17:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out, however, that Entrapment explicitly applies to law enforcement officers (in the United States). And in fact, the third sentence of our article on entrapment reads "However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime," which is usually how law enforcement skirts around these issue with Perveted Justice. Come on sinebot, where were you.Livewireo (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is dicey, which is to say that it isn't always clear cut. First of all, courts have generally recognized that unsworn citizens, when working at the explicit aid of law enforcement, are considered to have been "deputized" and are effectively law enforcement themselves. That is, law enforcement departments can't summarily get around restrictions placed on their operation by outsourcing questionable activities to non-law enforcement personnel. If someone is performing an investigation in cooperation with, or at the behest of, law enforcement, they are held to the same standards as the sworn officers. Secondly, entrapment is fuzzy around the edges, and this is one of those edges. There is no bright line between "gives someone the idea to commit a crime" and "provides a favorable opportunity to commit the crime". --Jayron32 19:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the guy who was trying to get Von Erck arrested in the quoted section above was convicted, so how is that possible if a judge says "there was no actual girl and thus no crime occurred." ?--Wrk678 (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was the period when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the UK and Elizabeth II was Queen the first time in history that a country in which the head of state and the head of government were two different people had women in both those roles? Has it happened since? Please note I'm not asking about the situation where the head of state and head of government are the same person, only the situation where they are two different people.Angr (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth is the monarch of several of the members of the Commonwealth of Nations, some of whom who have had female heads of government during her reign (Indira Ghandi, for example). Does that count? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, yes, but not for that example, since India was a republic with a president while Indira Gandhi was PM. (To be precise, India had a series of male presidents and acting presidents during Indira Gandhi's PM-ship.) But her article led me to Sirimavo Bandaranaike, who was PM of Ceylon while Elizabeth was its monarch, and who was also the world's first female head of government, so there can't have been another occurrence before her. So now only the second part of my question remains: has it happened again since Thatcher/Elizabeth? Iceland has had a female president and a female PM, but not at the same time. Angr (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion further up this page about a related topic ("Four top dogs..."). The short answer to your last question is "yes". Finlandhad a female president and PM simultaneously not long ago, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x2 Queen Elizabeth has never been the Head of State of India. That role has been taken by the President of India since 1950. See List of Presidents of India. None were women during Indira Gandhi's administration. As far as answering the question, the OP could cross reference List of elected or appointed female heads of government with List of elected or appointed female heads of state and known Female hereditary monarchs, which are fairly easy to keep track of. The answer is that the pairing that predates Thatcher & Elizabeth II was in 1960, with Sirimavo Bandaranaike as Prime Minister of Ceylon and Elizabeth II who was Queen of Ceylon at the time. --Jayron32 21:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I see Finland had the situation twice. So we have Elizabeth/Bandaranaike in Ceylon (as was), Elizabeth/Thatcher in the UK, and Halonen/Jäätteenmäki and later Halonen/Kiviniemi in Finland. Any others? Angr (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just found Margrethe II/Thorning-Schmidt in Denmark, which is in effect right now. Angr (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is Elizabeth II and two of her realms: Jamaica (Portia Simpson-Miller) and Australia (Julia Gillard) currently. --Jayron32 21:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 2) It has certainly happened since.

• Chandrika Kumaratunga became Prime Minister of Sri Lanka in August 1994. In November she was elected President, and she appointed her motherSirimavo Bandaranaike as Prime Minister. This was Bandaranaike’s third time as PM; she had become the world’s first female head of government in 1960 (when Sri Lanka was Ceylon and still a Commonwealth Realm), following the assassination of her Prime Minister husband. A real family affair.
• a number of Commonwealth countries have had female governors-general and female prime ministers, although not all at the same time. As discussed here recently (see "The 4 top dogs are ladies"), in 2005-06 New Zealand had females simultaneously as Queen, Governor-General, Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament; and since very recently Australia has had the same. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And someone redlinked by the rather female-sounding (and delightfully multicultural) name of Lucinda da Costa Gomez-Matheeuws was apparently very briefly PM of the Netherlands Antilles while the monarch was Juliana. Angr (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Elizabeth/Kim Campbell would qualify, as well. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So it seems it's not that uncommon anymore. But were the two occasions in Finland the only time both women were elected to their positions, rather than the head of state being a monarch or (if you want to consider governors-general heads of state) being appointed? Angr (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, see above. The third term of Sirimavo Bandaranaike as Prime Minister of Sri Lanka was during the presidency of her daughter Chandrika Kumaratunga. --Jayron3201:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margrethe II of Denmark was "sort of elected" as future head of state in the Danish constitutional and electoral age referendum, 1953 where female monarchs became possible. She was 13 at the time but a lot more popular than her uncle Knud, Hereditary Prince of Denmark who was heir presumptive. Without the constitutional change, Knud and his son (who was also 13 in 1953) would have become successive kings since 1972. The unpopularity of both of them was a significant cause for holding the referendum and getting it passed. Margrethe II has been a popular head of state since 1972. Helle Thorning-Schmidt became prime minister in 2011. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the eldest child of Prince William and Duchess Kate is a girl, will the Scottish titles of the heir apparent be held in abeyance until such a time as there is a male heir apparent to the throne, perhaps a generation later? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, those titles are those of the Duke of Cambridge's father, so they're not going to be bestowed on anyone else for a bit. Secondly, the situation changes depending on whether a new Act of Succession is passed. As CHOGM recently approved such a move in principle, it's highly likely. This is therefore the assumption under which I'm answering this question. (If there's no new Act of Succession by the time the Duke of Cambridge is King, the short answer to your question is "yes".)

As with the very similar recent question about the Duchy of Cornwall, the answer has to be: the Act of Parliament and Letters Patent enabling the change to the law of succession will spell this out, because the government and the Crown employ people who know this stuff much better than we do. I am, however, reminded that the Electress Sophia petitioned Queen Anne to be created Princess of Wales in her own right, and was refused. No matter how strong the presumption, the heir presumptive does not get the titles of the heir apparent. However, I think it highly likely that the succession to all the royal titles will be strictly equalised in the event of any new Act of Succession. The dissolution of the Union might occur before that, though, in which case the Scottish titles, dignities and privileges of the monarch and their heirs will be up for negotiation anyway.AlexTiefling (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It'll be a LONG time before that becomes an issue, and indeed, 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms has not passed yet, so no, they would not. As of right now, if the eldest child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge is a girl, she'll just be an (untitled) princess, and when and if William becomes king, she'll just be the heir presumptive, presuming no changes to the law and no sons are born to William. When and if William becomes King, if at that time his eldest daughter is heir apparent, because of the proposed changes actually passing, according to Duke_of_Rothesay#Legal_basis, the title just won't exist during that time period. It is simply conferred automatically on the eldest son of the reigning monarch. If there is no son, the title has no holder. Presumably, the lesser included titles follow the same rules. --Jayron3222:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, William can reasonably expect to become monarch about 30 years from now. His as yet unborn eldest child, in about 65 years. That's a long time for gossip mags to be twitteringly and gushingly grooming them for greatness (while relatively ignoring the actual heir, Charles, Prince of Wales), -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although if he lives as long as his grandmother, it'll be nearly 40 years before William acceeds. Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He" being Charles and "his grandmother" being Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Just clarifying. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - it made sense to me anyway ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sense, yes. Just that it could easily have been read as entirely about William, the grandmother being a reference to the current Queen, who's 86 and going strong. Until you do the maths, and realise that doesn't work, so the first part must have been about Charles and his grandmother, not William and his. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk]11:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of my most lucid posts; thanks for disentangling it. Alansplodge (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"When and if William becomes King, if at that time his eldest daughter is heir apparent, because of the proposed changes actually passing, according to Duke_of_Rothesay#Legal_basis, the title just won't exist during that time period. It is simply conferred automatically on the eldest son of the reigning monarch. If there is no son, the title has no holder." However, having a daughter first does not prevent a person from having a son afterwards. William's heir apparent could be his daughter, but he could also have a son. I don't think the title passes to "the eldest son who is also heir apparent". It's much more likely that it passes simply to the eldest son. Therefore, the title could be conferred automatically on the eldest son who is not the heir apparent, which leads to a number of issues. Surtsicna (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or Parliament could just change the rules to suit. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Out of general curiosity, what's taking so long to pass the changes as proposed by the CHOGM. I realize we're talking about a dozen or so countries, but you'd think they want to make the change before William has a kid. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the rush? Her Maj is still alive and kicking. William's pater is still next in line, and he's a bloke. And after him, there's another bloke waiting before we need worry about any girlies coming to the throne.--Dweller (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there's the argument that it wouldn't be proper if the succession law changes changed somebody's actual status. Changing the potential order of yet unborn children is one thing, but to make an actual living person (e.g. Prince Carl Philip of Sweden) lose his position in line to his elder sister isn't cool. To avoid things like that, Norway had to add an extra rule about people being born between 1971 and 1990 (see Line of succession to the Norwegian throne.) So, there isn't much rush, but it would be easier for everybody if things were done decently soon, in case the duchess first bears a daugher and then a son. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]