Humanities desk
< February 4	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 6 >

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.

February 5

Elections in France

I understand that French people in France get to vote in two elections: Presidential and legislative elections. Is there other elections that they vote in? If they do, who are the candidates that get to be elected meaning councillors or provincial MPs and governors like US governors and etc? Donmust90 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why you can't just look at the article Elections in France and follow the various links therein? This seems to be a topic somewhat well covered, perhaps not surprising since France is a major developed country even if not an English speaking one. The article mentions regional, European parliament, municipal, departmental (formerly cantonal) elections as well as referendums. It also mentions senate, but makes clear with more explanation at French senate elections (which I've now linked from that article) that these aren't voted on by the French people but instead by an electoral college which isn't directly elected by the French people for the purpose. It also mentions Party Primary Elections which are used by some parties to select presidential candidates, although these aren't open to all French people. Major recent primaries have been open primaries and haven't required party membership but have required stuff like a pledge and small financial contribution. Then again I don't think all French people barring the standard requirements (of age etc) are able to participate in all the elections mentioned since it depends on where they live (in France I mean), e.g. French departmental elections, 2015 mentions a few places which don't have departmental elections. Such details are hopefully mentioned in relevant articles. So to who is being elected (if anyone) in each. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it legal in the U.S. (for you) to harm yourself in front of your child?

As long as you are not actually harming or threatening to harm your child, is it legal in the U.S. for you to harm yourself (for instance, by relentlessly cutting yourself) in front of your child?

Also, for the record, this question is purely hypothetical; indeed, I myself don't even have any children right now (or any children on the way, for that matter)! Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This hypothetical person would be given a psychiatric evaluation and have children taken away from them for as long as a judge says so. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it? Nothing would get put on this person's criminal record? Futurist110 (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know and am not qualified to guess. I am unqualified to give legal advice to the insane, the sane and the semisane in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an involuntary commitment is not something to be trifled with, although again, whether this would happen in any particular case is not something we can comment on at the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are likely to be lots of possible laws this could be considered a violation of depending on the precise circumstances. E.g. Endangering the welfare of a child [1]. Precisely which laws may apply in any particular case is obviously not something we can discuss on the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information! Futurist110 (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lenore Skenazy blogs about parents being arrested for all sorts of silly things, e.g. negligently being asleep when the tot escaped; so I wouldn't be a bit surprised if she knows of a case such as the OP describes. —Tamfang (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Companies which "buy ideas"

I have an idea in my head as to a special tool/modified gun which may be of value to police in allowing them to forcibly stop a car being pursued. I am not going to post the details here (it would involve some significant modifications to a standard firearm in several respects, as the target and purpose are totally different), as this would likely invalidate any potential future patent application.

My question then is, are there any companies which provide a sort of "clearing house" for ideas? As in, I send my idea to them, and if they think it's viable, they pursue it, taking it up with manufacturers of such things which might be interested, and if it's deemed viable, doing the patent application for me? In return, I accept that they would get a "commission" for any profits made from the sale of the patent rights. I just have a "concept idea", I have no idea if it would or wouldn't be useful in reality. I'm just asking about whether there are companies which "buy ideas" of all sorts (assuming the company considers the idea commercially viable, obviously), and does the work of patenting them and selling the rights to those in a position to turn the idea into reality? (Obviously, there'd be a need for a non-disclosure agreement first, until a patent is secured, but this is easy). I'm not really looking for Venture Capital as such, as I am not in a position to do the work. I want someone to look into taking my idea, and seeing if it can be turned into reality. And if yes, doing the work to turn it into reality, and taking a "cut" from the profits of the intellectual property, leaving me with the rest. Are there any companies which do such work? Eliyohub (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a product designer and I am going to follow up with a longer answer later, but the first thing you need to know is that there are hundreds of companies that offer this service, and none of them are good for anything other than lightening your wallet. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have some real-life stuff to do today, but should have a fuller answer by this time tomorrow. One hint for you to ponder while waiting: without doing a web search, answer the following question; "How are beauty pageant contestants, crack dealers, professional athletes, and inventors alike?" (for those who know the answer, please, give him time to think and take a couple of guesses before showing off how much you know.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than crack dealers (whose career I am scarcely familiar with), common theme I see is many dream and try very hard, few actually succeed.

If I have to pay upfront, I'm not interested. Either they see my idea as having potential, in which case there is no reason for me to pay (they'll take the risk, and get the payoff if it ever comes to fruition), or they see my idea as not worth pursuing, in which case nothing comes of it. Why should I be expected to pay anything upfront? I'd straight away be extremely suspicious of any such demand. Interested to hear what practical suggestions you have, when you get a chance to answer. Eliyohub (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You got it in one. All of the above (including crack dealers) have an army of people shooting for the top and losing money while trying, a few that barely break even, and a very, very few that make any money at it. It surprised me to find that most crack dealers live with their parents and many have second jobs because selling crack is so unprofitable for any but the very few at the top. The book Freakanomics has a chapter on it. Gotta go again -- phone keeps ringing. More later.--Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Plenty of information here on what's available:[2], [3], [4]. There's a good geographical spread, but if you'd rather deal with a nonprofit see [5]. If you're trying to get someone else to develop your invention be careful - so many people submit ideas, get a letter back saying the company is not interested, and then a few years later find that company selling the selfsame product.81.151.100.198 (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all of the links 81.151.100.198 just provided (including the "non profit") charge an up front fee. Eliyohub said "If I have to pay upfront, I'm not interested" Wise words indeed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to be cautious about having the company steal my idea and deny me my share. But as I see it, NO money should change hands between me and the company, until a product based on my idea makes its first sale. I'm willing to accept that may be years from now, or never. But I am not willing to pay in order to get a company consider a product which is in their interest to develop, from which they expect to make a profit. If they say a genuine "not viable", I'd accept that. Eliyohub (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a specialised example of the sensible principle you state, see Yog's Law. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have to consider, before telling anyone about this idea, "why do they need you?" If you have no specialized knowledge or a patent that a company would need to turn a profit out of your idea, then they don't need you, and they don't need to pay you. Making a profit simply by being "the idea guy" is difficult to impossible, unless you're already running a successful company. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, you'd get them to agree to some sort of contract first, such that in the event that your idea ever becomes a reality, they'd be obliged to give you a cut. I'm not one to quibble, if I don't attempt to peddle my idea, it's worth absolutely zero just sitting in my head. I'd settle for a small cut, as long as I got a share. But I await when product developer @Guy Macon: can tell me how to go about this as wisely as possible. (I understand you're busy, but you are experienced her, so when you get a chance...) I'd be happy to trust him as my agent, if need be, stranger though he may be, I still find it less risky than dealing with one of these companies which want some upfront fee. Yes, he may still shaft me, but the risk is less, I feel. I'm happy with some virtual pennies anyways, I don't expect more. Anything is better than zero, so I don't think negotiating a deal would be difficult. And I certainly am NOT interested on expending money on this. Eliyohub (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas are cheap. When a venture capitalist makes an investment in your company, they stake they own is equal to the stake they put in compared to the financial stake you put in. The film The Social Network sorta goes over this, but if you want a really good layman's review of this topic, the book Those Guys Have All The Fun has a good section on what happened to the Rasmussen family as they got edged out of ESPN. --Jayron 32 15:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't expect much - just if some company already in the business of developing technologies for law enforcement thinks my idea has merit, and wants to turn it into reality, all I want is more than zero, should it ever become a reality. Not a high bar! I want to play for LOW stakes here. Eliyohub (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If your idea is patented, then your idea is worth exactly what someone pays you for that patent, that is, if a company offers to buy your patent for "X" dollars, then your idea is worth exactly "X" dollars. The patent can also only be sold once, so once you have sold that patent, and received that "X" dollars, you can no longer make money on that idea, because it no longer belongs to you. The patent can be bought and sold repeatedly on the open market, and like any other property, its value is basically fixed at the last sale. --Jayron 32 16:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are "NOT interested in expending money on this", we can just end the thread here. Money makes the world go 'round. If you want to do anything with your idea that has any real chance of financial reward, you're going to need to spend money. Patents cost money. Setting up a company to market your idea costs money. Retaining a lawyer to draw up or review a contract to license the idea to someone else costs money. If you're certain you don't want to spend any money at all, you might as well just publish your idea somewhere as prior art, so no one else can patent it. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carefully consider whether "patent/nondisclosure agreement/don't tell anyone the details" is actually the right path. Do you have the resources to sue someone who you believe stole your idea? Do you have the resources to sue them in a Chinese court? If not, what good is the patent? What good is the nondisclosure if the person signing it knows that you will never be able to enforce it? Would it be better to make the entire thing open-source hardware, release all the documentation under a CC BY-SA 3.0 License, and collect consulting fees from companies that liked your first idea and want more like it? Or would it be better to start a kickstarter campaign and use the money to hire someone to make the product happen? These are your decisions to make.

If you do decide to get a patent and sell it, https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/how-to-sell-your-patent has some good advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...But first be sure to read Patenting your invention: the ugly truth (PDF). --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing cause and consequence

What is the name of a fallacious mindset or thought that consists of confusing cause and consequence? It is widespread, it happens all the time, on a daily basis with so many people, not only the limited, also the ones who are supposed to think properly and to rule. I also see it very often used as a trick to fool an audience. For example, against promoting Equality in a discussion, the confused person would reply on the fallacious notion that "equality cannot exist, since human beings are not equal". Another example comes to mind, at the thought someone is so mean and so bad "he probably goes to Hell when he dies", the confused reply would go in the vein of "you should not wish Hell to anyone" (as if saying that person is so bad they probably deserve Hell, was equivalent to wishing Hell for them). Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also of relevance: "Correlation is not causation." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both articles very useful. Akseli9 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Equality under law refers to equal rights, not equal traits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant is the difference between equality of inputs and equality of outcomes (often called equity). This article and comic here is representative of attempts to explain the difference. When we say "equality" do we mean "treat everyone identically" or "assure that everyone is treated fairly based on their unique circumstances" Those are not the same thing. --Jayron 32 14:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Bernadotte's command of Swedish

What level was Jean Bernadotte's command of the Swedish language when he was named Crown Prince of Sweden? What about after he was crowned King of Sweden? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly he never learned swedish (civilised people spoke french anyway), but he was adamant his son did. SergeWoodzing, any wisdom on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Prince's (and King's) official court functions conducted in French or Swedish (through an interpreter)?

What about the official documents? Were they done in French and Swedish duplicates? Or was there only a official Swedish version and Prince/King had to have it translated in private? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ECS LIVA Z My guess would be that he surrounded himself with people who knew french, used interperpreters when he had to, and documents where translated as necessary. Found a few not-very-deep sources, they state that he "understood some" swedish at the end of his life, that french wasn´t his first language, he spoke it with a strong accent, that his coronation speech was in swedish but written phonetically (so perhaps his audience got the impression of something of an Inspector Clouseau), and that government discussions where held in french.[6][7][8][9][10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[11] notes how a certain Count Wrede expressed concern about Bernadotte's "ignorance of the Swedish language" being an obstacle to his candidacy as Crown Prince. Alcherin (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, C14J never learned Swedish, nor did his wife Queen Desideria. All diplomats & politicians in those days (everyone the royal couple needed to communicate with) were fluent in French. All official Swedish documents are in Swedish, and the official Norwegian are in Norwegian. Good talk, you guys. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]