Humanities desk
< January 11	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 13 >

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.

January 12

US code

As far as I can tell, the US Code contains all the (federal) laws of the USA (not counting the Constitution). Where I live, there are different laws for different things (e.g. a law covering the provision of health care, and a different law outlining what acts are crimes). Is it really the case that the USA just has one big law for everything, and bills passed by Congress just get inserted into it? Why is this so? --130.216.172.54 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's only "one big law" in the sense that the Code is a collection of laws, arranged hierarchically. But yes, the code gets modified and updated according to the passed laws. The reasons for this strike me as pretty straightforward: you have many different passed laws, all of which are modifying existing laws or creating new ones, and you need one big place to keep track of all the existing laws and revisions to them. Many laws passed by Congress just say things like, "to part X of number Y change the word 'Internet' to 'trans-national connectivity machine'". It's a lot easier to just have one code in that circumstance that gets modified, rather than a patchwork of different separate statutes. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the US code is simply a classification of statutes passed individually. For example, Congress may pass Public Law 113-438, the "Smiley Happy Tort Reform Act," and in that act it may say, as Mr. 98 explains, "strike out 28 USC 128 and replace it with X and strike out 28 USC 1209 and replace it with Y." What I'm guessing is that your country simply uses the word "act" differently than the U.S. does. So whereas the US has the 28th volume of the US code dedicated to the courts system, you might have something called a "Judiciary Act" that is occasionally changed by statutes passed by Parliament. (Healthcare laws are in Title 42 of the USC and criminal law in Title 18.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the article on US Code notes, the current (2006) edition is over 200,000 pages long. --- OtherDave (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statutes in the US Code are further interpreted in the Code of Federal Regulations. Then every state and locality has their own code of laws. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reine de Tahiti Pomare IV

I don't know if this the right place to ask this but who is this women mentioned here... it is not Pomare IV (I am guessing one her nieces, of the Salmon family).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was taken in 1869 by Paul-Émile Miot. I can't find the name of the photo's subject, but a caption for one of the versions of the photo here is "princesse tahitienne (métisse)" where métisse means woman of mixed race.--Cam (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Salmon family were half-Tahitian and half-English.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know French, so I wondering if the video offered any information.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the video, it is said that in spite of the caption given by Paul-Émile Miot, it is really a photo of Pomaré IV queen of Tahiti. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

What does this caption say for both women?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to see the captions, do you have pictures that are more close up? On the left I can make out "Mme Brander, nièce de la Reine Pomare IV" which means Mrs. Brander, niece of Queen Pomare IV. That is, she is Titaua Salmon (1842-1898). The right-hand page is not really legible but I can see "nièce de la Reine Pomare IV" niece of Queen Pomare IV. If I had to guess I would say the name is "M----- S-----" so maybe Moetia Salmon?--Cam (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crop circles?

Can someone please follow this google earth link and tell me what on earth are the funny big circle things? Are they agricultural? Thx i.a. IBE (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are typical of center pivot irrigation.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, edit conflict. Indeed they are.--Rallette (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an aerial view. I have seen these from the ground in Saudi Arabia and they are not quite as striking. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, :), IBE (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this announcing “edit conflict” like the “I'm on a bus” phrase? – b_jonas 15:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

No. Announcing "edit conflict" means "I didn't read what is directly above this because of an edit conflict, so I may be repeating what was just said, word for word, but not because I'm an asshole, but because it was written while I was writing my comment." -- kainaw ™ 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, but that certainly doesn't apply in this case: Ralette says “indeed” which I think refers to Shantavira's reply, and that also seems the reply he's had edit conflict with. – b_jonas 16:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I think it's the I'm on a bus thing - someone has gone to the trouble of replying to my question, and doesn't want the effort to be totally wasted - so they flag it as a repeat message, confirming the answer. IBE (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I've seen these while flying across the US. They are really common around the Midwest region, if memory serves. Falconus^{p t c} 17:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they are common in the US Midwest. And as stated above, not as impressive from the ground. You don't get the full effect unless you're above them somehow. Dismas|^(talk) 23:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine from the ground that large circular crop fields would look like, well, crops. And from the air on google earth, they look like circles. IBE (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also quite common in the desert regions of Southern California. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

patent costs?

not asking for legal, just practical advice. if someone has an idea as a US and EU citizen, how much would they pay to protect it in America and Europe by means of a patent that is valid therein. would it be valid elsewhere in the world? would a solely u.s. patent be valid? in general I'm asking to know about costs, not so much validity patentability etc. thanks. 188.6.71.91 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A brief Google search shows the discussion is dominated by attorney's fees -- however the question above concerns primarily filing fees! Imagine for a moment that someone is the world's perfect patent lawyer and has a patentable idea they can write u...then how much would they pay in filing fees to be protected as described above :) 188.6.71.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

US patent filing fees are here. It's definitely possible to write a patent application without a patent attorney, but getting some help will be useful if you're not familiar with the unique language and structure of patent applications. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a cheaper "holding action" route: I have filed, and then paid a lawyer to redo and refile, what is called a provisional application with the US patent office. There is a Nolo book called "Patent Pending in 24 Hours" that I recommend that discusses this at length. When the US Patent and Trademark Office receives a provisional application, it stamps it with the date and sends you a receipt of the date, then takes your provisional application and throws it in a file cabinet, unread. You now have 1 year to file the real patent, and if you do so, then your patent is given the date that's on the provisional application, so you will get priority over some guy who files for a patent on the same thing (either a full patent application or a provisional one) the next day or the next month. If you don't submit a full patent application within a year, the USPTO just throws away your provisional application, and it is forgotten. I filed the provisional application and it was something like $300, if memory serves. A patent attorney then convinced me to let him redo it and re-file the provisional application for, again if memory serves, about $3,500. Note: The provisional application has to be the same or a superset of the real patent application that you eventually do, or you don't get the benefit of the provisional application. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: I just took a look at the 4th edition of the Nolo book, and it turns out the fee is only $100. Foreign (non-US) inventors can file provisional patent applications, too. Even in languages other than English. The patent itself that gets filed must be in English, though. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fee schedule I linked to earlier quotes a different price, and should probably be taken as authoritative over the Nolo book. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Box office results for Mainland Chinese film

Does anyone know how I can find the box office numbers of "The University Days of a Dog" (一只狗的大学时光)?

I'm trying to find its box office numbers. Official DVD sales would be good too!

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Company Law Question

In the event that a company in its Articles of Association has pre-emption provisions and wishes to grant share options does the company have to offer, say B Class shares to A class shareholders? In short do you have to offer shares of a specific class to any shareholder despite them owning a different type of share? If you do, and wanted to get round the provisions, would you simply have the shareholders waive these rights?

This is a UK question. Company Law Act 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.87.13 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that ... seek guidance on legal matters. Such questions should be directed to an appropriate professional, or brought to an internet site dedicated to medical or legal questions."

And even a lawyer would want to see the articles of association before answering. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what's the difference between being single and divorce?

why are these two different checkmarks, aren't they obviously the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.112.4 (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are not the same. You can be single without being divorced. You can be divorced without being single. Do you want a Venn diagram to explain it further? -- kainaw ™ 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that this distinction is made on many forms, and the value of this distinction is not quite clear in all cases. I've wondered about this as well. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. If you want it to be longer for clarification, the checklist could be:

Do you now have legal and financial matters currently attached to a spouse?
Have you had a spouse in the past with whom you've had legal and financial matters attached?

Even once divorced, there is always the possibility of some issues turning up. -- kainaw ™ 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose with a 99.98% certainty that some issues will bubble up, it means that there is a 0.02% probability (or less) that waters will remain calm and tranquil until the end of time. --Aspro (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the above answers are correct in a formal context such as filling out some government form, where there might be penalties attached to providing inaccurate information. But in a general social setting, "divorced" is usually merged into "single". That is, it's sufficient to say you're single; you don't have to reveal you were once married but are now divorced, unless the issue arises and you're asked a direct question, and even then, not unless it's any of their business. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so you guys are saying anyone who would write this: MARITAL STATUS - single, never married - single, divorced - married would be making a mistake, as the second choice is a misnomer? (OP here). In other words, as for the venn diagram, it's not the case that out of divorced people, some are currently single and some are currently with someone? 80.98.112.4 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

basically, I am asking for Wikipedia reference desk's take on: this quesiton, though I'm smart enough to ask beforehand. :) 80.98.112.4 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this question is that a person who has been married and then got divorced should say they are divorced rather than single. This is because there may be children of the marriage, and definitely an ex-spouse, and if you are aiming to forge a relationship with the divorcee you need to be forewarned what may be awaiting you. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a deception to say "single", but most people think that means you never married, and in order to avoid potential confusion, it's more considerate to say you are "divorced". Tell the truth and shame the devil. --TammyMoet (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general every day conversation in the US, "single" is usually used to indicate that someone has never been married. "Divorced" is used when someone was married but is now single again. Again, this is in informal usage in the US. Dismas|^(talk) 23:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's conversational; that's more bureaucratic (e.g. when there's a box for "marital status" on a form, the choices are often single/married/divorced/widowed; most of the things said here about the term divorced apply equally to widowed). The slight novelty in recent years has been a conversational use to mean "not in a romantic relationship at the current time". So someone with a boyfriend/girlfriend will not usually self-describe as "single", at least in certain contexts. I think a technically married person, on the other hand, might describe himself as "single", if the marriage is over in all but name. --Trovatore (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted above, they're not exclusive. You can be single without being divorced. You can be divorced without being single. You can be either, or neither, at any given time. For me, on that sort of site, 'divorced' contains connotations of it being an issue, or a sore - whether that be recentness, ongoing entanglements (children, financial), etc. If you were divorced ten years ago to someone you haven't spoken to since, it's just a part of your single-dom and something that might come up in conversation after a few dates as part of getting to know each other. Best advice I can really offer is 'select what you would want someone else in your situation who you were getting to know to have selected'. --Saalstin (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When dating, if you are both divorced and single, you might want to pick the status which matches your romantic interest. That is, if they say they are divorced, so do you. If they say single, so do you. Age can also be a factor. If you are 18 and divorced, that seems a bit odd. On the other hand, being 60 and never married might seem more unusual. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A point to consider is that in some jurisdictions, giving factually inaccurate answers in a job application can be legal grounds for subsequent dismissal, should the employer be looking for one, and would certainly be grounds for rejecting an application. Of course, employers quite often ask for details they aren't legally entitled to insist on, and may forget to add the rider that answers are voluntary. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2301.95} 90.197.66.8 (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I touched on that in my answer above. If you apply to enter the Secret Service or a police force or the army, and you tick a box that says "Never married", but you have in fact been married, they'll find that out and then they'll have legitimate grounds for questioning your bona fides. In general, it can depend very much on how the question is asked. If you're currrently single but have been married before, and someone asks you "Are you single?", then "Yes" is a perfectly OK answer. But if they ask something about your marital history and you give answers that deny you've been married when you have in fact been married, that's a lie. But again, some people have no right to even ask such a question, so a white lie is often a better option than making a fuss ("How dare you ask me such a question ....?"). Some government forms are ill-thought out, and insist you tick only one box when more than one might apply. You might have to choose between "Single" and "Divorced", even though as far as you're concerned both boxes apply equally. Some people would tick Single, others would tick Divorced. So much for quality data capture. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Governor or Ambassador Huntsman

Jon Huntsman Jr served both as a Governor and an Ambassador but which title is he addressed by say by the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Shadow Treasurer (talk • contribs) 21:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he has resigned from both posts, I'd call him plain old "Mr. Huntsman". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, former officeholders are granted courtesy titles reflecting the highest office they have held. I would say Governor trumps Ambassador; a governor is the elected chief executive of a whole state, whereas an ambassador is just an appointee who serves at the pleasure of the president. --Trovatore (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, candidates for presidency (by long standing tradition) generally do not use titles of any sort. Even sitting senators are generally referred to as 'mister' when they run for the high office. That's partly pragmatics: Americans would likely not vote for someone they thought was 'putting on airs'. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just not the case, Ludwig. If one watches any footage of the recent Republican debates, Gingrich is referred to as 'The Speaker' and the various governors as 'Governor X'. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<shrug> that's not the tradition. could be the network you're watching, or a new trend. --Ludwigs2 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This tradition you speak of is unknown to me. Even when Carter debated Ford, if I recall correctly, he was addressed as Governor Carter. --Trovatore (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched quite a few Republican debates, and I don't remember any of the candidates being addressed as "mister", with the exception of Hermann Cain. They were always addressed as Speaker, Governor, Senator, or Congressman, except for Cain, but that was because he had no qualifications to speak of. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to the vice-presidency, but: Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]