Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 27

= May 27 =

Detailed unspecified music
I'm looking for no piece of music in particular, but that has several facets. I want it to have a heavy brass section accompanying forte tenors in the chorus. Also, it should be written in, for, and by a Russian. Thanks Wikipedians. Schyler ( one language ) 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think your criteria aren't sufficient to make a guess about what it is. I've often felt it would be useful to have a music search database that would allow one to search on composition criteria like time signature, included instruments and voices, and key.  Unfortunately, such a tool doesn't exist, and I don't think anyone is going to be able to name that song without a hint of title, composer, performers, or something similar to narrow it down.  i kan reed (talk)

Copyright
I'm a little confused about copyright law, viz. music distribution. When is it possible, legally, to share music with, say, a friend? 74.15.138.241 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Define "share". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe...the act of taking music I purchased and giving either the original copy or a copy thereof to others. Seems like a good definition to me. 74.15.138.241 (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Giving away the original is fine. That's called a "gift". Making copies of it is not fine. That's likely a copyright violation. Whether it can be prosecuted or not depends on (1) whether they catch you and/or (2) whether you or someone else tries to make money from it. I know plenty of folks who make copies of stuff for their friends, such as creating collections from variant sources. Is it illegal? Probably. If in doubt, ask an attorney. There's also a Copyright article here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bugs is correct. Giving away the original copy is fine.  Lending your original copy is fine.  Selling the original copy is fine, at least in the US (see first sale doctrine).  Making a copy and giving it to a friend is a copyright infringement.  Making a copy at all is a copyright infringement, in fact &mdash; the whole point of copyright is that only the copyright owner is allowed to make (or authorize the making of) copies.  The exception to the previous two sentences for copyrighted music, in the US at least, is if the copy is a fair use, as discussed in that article.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, a few questions (incidentally, I'm not seeking legal advice, and don't do much music sharing...just curious about what the laws are): Suppose I purchased a digital copy of a song off a legitimate music distributor. (1) Am I free to do what I want with this copy, without actually copying it? (2) Hypothetically, suppose I, in secret, made digital copies of the song, and tried to give one to a friend online but got caught. Would the burden of proof fall on the music company to prove that I made a copy, rather than gave the original? (3) Is making a Youtube video of a song actually copying it? (4) How were/are things like Napster, Limewire, etc. legal? Thanks! 74.15.138.241 (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Making a copy at all is a copyright infringement, in fact" - I have to disagree, at least for the US. There are several cases where one can legally make a copy - for example, a private, non-commercial analog audio copy is provided protection from infringement by the Audio Home Recording Act. Avic ennasis  @ 18:10, 23 Iyar 5771 / 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This depends very much on the jurisdiction. "Copyright" is not really just the right to copy. It contains the right to limit distribution, but also to create derivative works. This is surprisingly subtle. In Germany, e.g., if a building is sufficiently significant to come under the architect's copyright, you cannot even change its outer aspects without his or her agreement. You also cannot buy all copies of a book, strike out certain passages, and resell it. On the other hand, you used to have a "right to private copying", i.e. you could make a copy for your own use of all media that legally came into your possession (if by buying, borrowing from a friend, or via a library). IIRC, this was restricted in the latest revision of the law (due to the obvious potential for misuse with digital media), but will probably be re-introduced in some form or another (the Pirate Party has around 2-3 percent here - not enough to be represented in parliament, but enough that the other parties take note of their topics). Napster's argument was that they don't copy, they only provide information on where to copy from (and they were ruled illegal anyways). Peer-to-peer  programs like LimeWire are not illegal per se - they can be used to trade free data, e.g. Free Software or media released under a Creative Commons license. LimeWire was hit with an injunction to disable sharing of illegal content, probably because the judge decided that their business model was to enable illegal copying, and judges are not, usually, stupid...  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here in Finland we still have that right to make a copy for private use: for example, it's legal to borrow a CD from the library or from a friend and make a copy for yourself. Since this is a statutory right, it is not affected by any fine print on the CD case. In compensation we have a special fee added to the consumer prices of blank audio media. The proceeds are distributed to copyright owners and artists, as authors receive compensation for library use of books. The system was devised when the music business was panicked about compact cassettes, and I suppose it worked well enough for some time. But since practically all blank media sold now are data media (in no way dedicated to audio use), this system is somewhat obsolete. There are committees considering new ideas - one of them just the other day suggested adding the fee to consumer prices of broadband connections... It never ends, does it.--Rallette (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not clear that the first-sale doctrine applies to digital files under US copyright law. This is a topic actively debated by legal scholars and I'm not sure there has been definitive case law on it yet. The tricky thing is that existing copyright law is designed for expressions fixed in a tangible medium; it isn't really very clear if it is about pure information streams outside of their mediums. It gets terribly complicated when you start to try to apply that clunky legal concept ("tangible medium") to a modern, digital computer (is it the hard drive? the RAM? if I copy it from one place or another on my hard drive, has anything changed? if I make two copies on a single hard drive, what does that mean? if I can't copy it from one hard drive to another, what can I do with it?).
 * The boundaries of fair use with regards to copying digital files are also not clear. The whole area of case law is still very new — some of the fundamental cases involved (e.g. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.) are not yet a decade old, and the technology changes faster than the law does. A great overview of many of the key issues involved, written for those who are new to copyright law, is Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, which you can download for free off of his website. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your answers! 74.15.138.241 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The above answers are completely incorrect in regard to copying something you own and giving it to someone as a gift (presuming you don't post it online!). This is NOT a colorable case for copyright infringement (and, for the zillionth time, we are talking about CIVIL LAWSUITS, not CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, in most copyright cases).  As usual, people on this board are talking out of their b--ts when the subject is LAW.  Yes, you CAN copy something you've bought and give it to a friend.  Period.76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read the carefully worded answers above before writing "people on this board are talking out of their b--ts when the subject is LAW". None of the answers on this reference desk should be taken as giving legal advice, and the law varies considerably by jurisdiction.   D b f i r s   09:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Murder in space
Which law does apply in space? For example if an astronaut kills another astronaut in International Space Station, under which law they will be prosecuted? --Go99h (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, how the homicide investigation will be carried out. --Go99h (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Same as on a ship in international waters: the law that usually applies is the law of the country of the ship/craft registration. Some countries says they also have the right to apply their own laws if the victim, or the criminal, has the nationality of that country (e.g. France).
 * If it is on the ISS, then it depends in which module the crime was done (modules where made by different countries). If is it during a spacewalk on the ISS it would be the country of the closest module. But if it ever happens, it is possible that the owners of the ISS will all get together, ignore these rules, and setup a special court. --Lgriot (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lgriot: apparently that was how it was in the original agreement (1988), but when the Russians came in it was revised (in 1998) and now all persons aboard the ISS are subject to the jurisdiction of their own country, except in some cases a country may claim jurisdiction if its own nationals were harmed. See this (in particular page 335).--Rallette (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge the superiority of your reference, Rallette. I was talking based on a book I read and it was published in the 90s. Thanks --Lgriot (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And interesting point if I understand the ref correctly is that under the pre 1998 (the 1988) agreement the US could claim jurisdiction under any circumstances in other words even if none of their personnel nor any of their modules was involved/affected Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting: you should write a space mystery (like Murder on the Orient Express...in space) cum legal drama. Especially if you can include wizards or paranormal teen romance (perhaps back on Earth), and, somehow, make the thing autobiographical, I can't imagine that any publisher would pass on such a diversified offering...Let me know if you need an agent. 79.122.125.45 (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the subject of Solarstation by Andreas Eschbach (minus the wizards, teen romance, paranormal, autobiographical aspects). Don't know if it has been translated into english yet. Pleclown (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Noone answered my second question. How the homicide investigation will be carried out? --Go99h (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Under Article 22 of the 1998 agreement states have jurisdiction over their own nationals, although if a crime committed damages the property or harms the people of another state, that other state has jurisdiction unless the original state insists on prosecuting it themselves. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  most serene  ─╢ 15:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Since no one linked to yet it, here's our article on Space law. --Zerozal (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the treaties/agreements do not discuss who becomes chief investigator of a crime. Presumably any court that decides that it is "competent" (in the legal sense) to deal with an alledged crime will appoint an investigator? Regarding practical matters, my assumption is that the investigator will not visit the ISS, but will interrogate the witnesses remotely. It is really too expensive to go there. --Lgriot (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

what financial transaction would on any level (even farcically) seem to imply a negative valuation (market capitalization) of a company?
What financial transaction could on any level (even farcically) be construed or misconstrued, joked as giving a company a negative valuation? I can think of this one:
 * I own stock 1000 shares in XCorp, and here's 100 bucks if you'll take it off my hands! Therefore: the shares are "worth" (again, jokingly), negative -$100.

The problem with this is that you have to already own the stock. What about some kind of derivative? Like: I will pay you $100 now for the option to take 1000 shares of XCorp off my hands later for an additional $100 (again, me paying you to take them off my hands), if I have XCorp shares then!

What else? What about debt? Something about XCorp putting up shares as collateral, having negative value... so... what... Normally collateral is if they want to borrow money from them. So, negative collateral would be if I want to borrow money from them. Like: "Okay, XCorp, you can lend me $1000, but only if you put up 1000 shares of your stock as collateral, and if I can't pay you back, I get the stock?" That doesn't really work, does it... So, how would you make this contrived (farcical, joke) negative valuation being used as collateral work?

Oh ye creative geniuses: what other examples can you think of in this vein! 79.122.111.99 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Normally stock is limited liability, but if there were some exception that made the stockholder liable for company debts then it would make sense to offer to pay someone to take the stock and relieve you of liability. The question is then whether it is possible for owning the stock to include liability.  RJFJR (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * sorry (op here) but you don't get the question. it's not whether it 'makes sense' - it's whether you can do it as a joke!  (I.e. not an arms length transaction)... what joke transactions can you imagine not done at arms length that, were they done at arms length, would mean a negative valuation?  For example, if I give you my junk car and $20 to "take it off my hands" - but it's not an arms-length transaction - this would e a good example.  If you gave a stranger $20 totake your car, this would be a transaction at a valuation of your car of -$20.  Like this do you understand? 94.27.199.132 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * One possible example for you. Our article Acorn Computers says that in early 1999, "the ARM Holdings share value had increased to a point where the capital value of Acorn Group was worth less than the value of its 24% holding in ARM". You'll need to do some unpicking as to the whys and wherefores - the history is that Acorn had originally co-founded ARM and the original ARM processor was invented by Acorn, which is why Acorn had this large stake - but in theory this means that the company that owned the ARM shares (Acorn) was adding negative value by doing so, since the shares that it owned were worth more than its own market capitalisation. The subsequent offer by a third party to Acorn's shareholders, which resulted in the de-listing of Acorn from the London stock exchange, was a transaction which could be seen as implying this negative valuation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge, I think you're in a unique position to answer my question! You've come up with a real example :) I'm not asking for an actual real example, though, so you have considerable more leeway for creativity!  I'm just asking for something we COULD do.  For example, right now, I can offer to send you this pen next to me and a quarter for the trouble of taking it -- ostensibly this values the pen at -25cents by some metric.  So... what can YOU AND I do (theoretically - no one has to actually have done it!) and not in good faith, not at arms length... just, as a "joke" and stretching the limits of interpretation, what can you and I do together that would, say, result in a transaction "valuing" a company at a negative amount?  (for that particular transaction).  I think if I currently held shares and offered to pay you to give me your broker's contact information so I can go about transferring them to you, along with $1000 for the trouble of taking it off my hands... then this particular transaction (which is totally possible: I mean, we can do it!) would include a negative valuation of the company... But, I don't happen to have any stock in it, so I"m looking for more examples along the same vein. Do you see what I'm getting at? I don't really need a historical example, just something you and I can do I right together. Thanks. 94.27.214.110 (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And again, we're talking about a joke, and stretching interpretation. It doesn't have to be something a judge or anyone else would agree with!  For example, it would be very hard to convince someone that sending a pen and a quarter for accepting it in an envelope really in any way means the pen is worth -25 cents.  Instead, we are talking about a joke and stretching the limits of plausability - we are asking about troll accounting, joking, not being serious or defendable but only facetious.  By this standard, I expect there to be more possibilities than have been enumerated so far... 94.27.214.110 (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It is quite common for state-owned or private (non-listed) companies to be sold for a token (e.g., $1), provided that the buyer assumes responsibility for the company’s debts.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps, but could a situation arise where the tax liability of shares or bonds exceeded the shares' value, thus leaving the shares with no buyers (i.e. negative value)? Taxation of shares varies across jurisdictions, but this may just be a possibility somewhere. Obviously, capital gains tax applies only to gains, but owning shares may have other tax ramifications. Someone have any more expertise than me on this possibility? Also, if the trading fee on the exchange exceeded the shares' value, there would be no point in selling. If the trading fee was set (fully or partly) based on the number of shares, not merely their value, this might "imply" a negative valuation. Not sure if this situation exists anywhere. This any help? Eliyohub (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have some Marconi shares that were a few years ago worth less than the cost of selling them. They did some sort of restructuring deal that made their shares worthless. The Marconi Company article does not seem to mention this. Does anyone have any more details? And if my shares are worth something now, please tell me. 92.28.249.30 (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

religion
meaning of Gnosticism - gnostics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.212.241.120 (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See Gnosticism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nearest Relative rights
My understanding of a nearest relatives rights with regard to a patient detained under S.2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was that they did not have the right to appeal to a mental health tribunal.

On reading your information on Nearest Relative rights, you say that they have the right to apply for the discharge of a S.2 patient. If this is correct, and the Responsible Clinician then issues a barring order, does this mean the the Nearest Relative will then have the right to apply for a MHRT?

Cheryl Dare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryldare1 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not offer legal advice, per WP:NOLEGAL. Please consult a solicitor instead. Gabbe (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Singers' accents
Hi. Is there a term/do we have an article about the strange exaggerated (American?) accent some singers affect? For example, I heard Here Comes the Rain Again (again) the other day, and heard Annie Lennox's distinctly odd pronounciation of "emotion" as "emosharn". I've never heard a Scot pronounce the word emotion in that way in spoken English. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Variations of cod-American (to British ears) accents and/or diction have been the fashionable default for decades in British pop music, dating back at least to the introduction Skiffle and of Rock & Roll from the USA, if not before, to the extent that singers like David Bowie who employed a more British-English accent (in his case, inspired by actor/singer Anthony Newley, if I remember correctly) stood out as unusual. The Beatles, for example, may have sounded quite foreign to American ears, but in the UK their otherwise familiar Scouse accent was distinctly skewed towards what to us sounded "American." The Britpop movement was in part a reaction against this general fashion, and performers like The Proclaimers who sing in strong Regional accents also stand out somewhat against the "Transatlantic" background. I've been struggling to find references for this phenomenon (much of the above is simply remembered from the past 50 years), so it might be a good topic for an article if anyone (else) can find the appropriate material.
 * Shorter response - I dunno, but there oughtta be. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a native of the north-eastern U.S. I always wondered why so many singers adopted what sounded, to me, like a vaguely Southern accent - drawling a couple of vowels, dropping an R or two - even if they're from my neck of the woods. The dropped R's, at least, make this Platonic ideal singing voice a bit more compatible with many English accents, but I don't know why those particular ideals evolved. Perhaps it is to do with imitation being flattery: it seems to me that (for example) many American punk singers imitated Joey Ramone's unique vowel pronunciations, and many heavy metal singers tried (with varying degrees of success) to hit the same high notes that Robert Plant did to great effect.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that these are probably cases of Mid-Atlantic English. Our article on that topic mainly refers to Americans who adopted elements of British pronunciation during an era when those pronunciations had prestige (and market cachet) in the United States.  However, in recent decades, I think that it has been British performers who have altered their pronunciation, partly for reasons of fashion, but also no doubt partly for greater marketability in the United States, with its potential for much higher sales figures than could be attained in the UK alone.  Marco polo (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Madonna has gone Mid-Atlantic. You wouldn't know she was an Italian girl from Detroit.  216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not just a British phenomenon. Many Australian singers do the same thing. My impression is that most are not even aware of doing it. It's just what one does when one sings (if one doesn't think about it). Much more a fashion thing than for marketing purposes. HiLo48 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In some cases, sung pronunciation is altered not so much to make it sound like the accent of some group or other, as because of the exigencies of singing itself. When I sang choral music, I was taught to use non-rhotic pronunciation, for example, on the explanation that the R semivowel is problematic when sung.  The [i] vowel poses its own challenges and is often shaded a bit, especially in high passages, I suppose towards [e]; it's possible that some listeners perceive that as part of an accent, though I wouldn't know which one. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've seen fashion changes over the years. I did choral singing in Australia in my youth through to the 1970s. We were expected (sometimes taught) to sing with what I felt was a British accent - probably middle class Londonish. As I mentioned above, a lot of Australians, including choral singers, now use more of an American accent when singing. When John Williamson from Quambatook turned up in 1970 singing Old Man Emu we were all shocked that someone could sing in Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true. But I'd just add that his speaking and singing voice have characteristics that I'd call extreme.  Very few Australians actually sound as uber-Australian as that when they talk or sing.  Which I guess is why he's carved out a unique niche for himself.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I never considered Annie Lennox's pronunciation as American in this instance. OK the usual pronunciation of "-tion" is usually "shun" but IME there are variants of Scottish accents in which her exact pronunciation as "-tion" would not be unusual. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This research from New Zealand suggests that an American accent comes naturally for singing rock and pop because it's an American style of music; "For example when we sing reggae we are more likely to use a Jamaican accent but even someone from Jamaica might use a southern American accent when they are singing country and western type songs". Personally, I find it hard to sing Men of Harlech (sounds great in the bath - to me anyway) without affecting a Welsh accent :-) Alansplodge (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The phenomenon is far from recent. Up until about 1940 or 1950, many American singers and actors affected a British (or at least upper-class Northeastern U.S.) accent when they were trying to project a refined air of Glamour and Sophistication; but after about 1910 or 1920, many British singers would sometimes affect American ones, coinciding with the rise of jazz, phonographic recording, the wireless (radio) and later talking pictures. For example, while Dame Vera Lynn may sound irretrievably British to some North American ears, a song like "We'll Meet Again" (1939) is not sung in any recognisable British regional or class accent; it's a sort of generalised American (at least to British ears), although it's hard to think of someone who's more iconically and patriotically English than Dame Vera. A couple of decades later, The Rolling Stones covered and imitated the American blues singers they'd grown up admiring as schoolboys. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mick Jagger does a hell of a better US southern accent than he does an Irish one. Have a listen to him singing Faraway Eyes as the dude travelling home early Sunday mownin through Bakersfield....; then go and listen to him as he attempts an Irish accent in Ned Kelly (film)!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Intellectual/scientist cum businesspeople
Please give some examples of people who are both scientist/intellectual and businesspeople, preferably those without formal education. One example I know is Edison. --DHOD 1234 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thales (the first thing that occurred to me, unfortunately)? Deor (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd nominate Sir Charles Wheatstone, best known today for his contributions to science, who at 14 was apprenticed to his family's musical instrument trade. Later inheriting and running the family business, and becoming a successful musical instrument inventer (of, notably, the Concertina), gave him the skills and finance also to make scientific instruments and pursue groundbreaking research in the field of acoustics. [A tip of the hat to Sydney Padua for introducing me to much of this through her webcomic The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage.]
 * Another good candidate would be George Stephenson. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Back in the 18th century an example would be Benjamin Franklin, an autodidact who was a publisher as well as a respected scientist. The OP mentioned Thomas Edison. It was far easier to be considered a "scientist" in the 19th century than it was later, when a far higher proportion of clever tinkerers were afforded high school and college educations. Several men born in the 19th century were inventors and were considered scientists, as well as heads of major industrial companies, without apparently having any formal college education. In the same era as Edison a competitor and later business partner, Joseph Swan, another inventor, was considered a scientist although his article only mentions his being apprenticed to a pharmacist. No higher education is mentioned. Henry Bessemer, head of a steel company, had no higher education, but was lauded as an engineer and scientist. Like Edison, Guglielmo Marconi "did not do well in school" and was "educated privately" per his article. He was from a rich family, so his interest in electricity was fostered by tutoring in a college lab of Righi. There is no information in his article that he was enrolled as a college student or that he received any college credit, but maybe someone could research this. (Edited to add: says he was "educated for a short time" at the Technical Institute of Livorno". So he might not have completed course credits, or if he did, he would qualify as a dropout, like Tesla). Marconi was considered a scientist, receiving a share of the 1909 Nobel Prize in physics, and was a tycoon in the radio business. The Wright Brothers never completed their high school educations, but were considered scientists as well as heading an aircraft company. Noted architect Daniel Burnham failed the entrance exams to get into college, but apprenticed to learn architecture. His company was very important in introducing steel framed skyscrapers, such as the Flatiron Building in New York City. Edison (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder if Trevor Baylis and James Dyson count for this? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they would fall foul of the OP's "preferably those without formal education" stipulation. Although neither went the conventional university degree route, they both received normal primary and secondary educations plus formal tertiary education at non-university but nevertheless respected institutions, in fields at least tangential to the disciplines in which they became successful.
 * I was thinking about Michael Faraday, who taught himself science by reading the books he encountered as an apprentice bookbinder and became a prominent professional scientist, but although he also undertook much public and commercial advisory work (for some of which he was presumably paid), he might not fit the OP's definition of a businessperson. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * At the time of the Industrial Revolution (and before that, the Scientific Revolution), boys were lucky to be educated to 14. After that, they were bound out as apprentices, which was a long period - up to seven years - of what could be called on the job training. So does that satisfy the OP's conditions? A lad apprenticed to a miller or a blacksmith could go on to develop significant improvements to energy and engineering technologies. Lots of links from the first two articles. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Paris Hilton
Does she have university education? --DHOD 1234 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No. She only has a GED - not even a full high school education. -- k a i n a w &trade; 15:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Her parents need to be whacked upside the head. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Too rich to care.--Wetman (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Gilliam Asperger's Disorder Scale (GADS)
Is this available free on the web? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering it seems to have been published in 2001 and is for sale at several sites like Amazon.com, I would say no. At least, legally, it's still under copyright, so any copies you find would be illegal. Avic ennasis  @ 18:19, 23 Iyar 5771 / 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but if it is, it should be called eGADS. 94.27.214.110 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Requirement for signatures to be consistent?
I'm looking for pointers to laws or contracts that require a person to use a consistent signature on documents. Would a person be able to use an arbitrary signature that differs each time they sign a cheque, or a credit card payment authorization? If not, what legislation or contract prevents that? An example from any country would be fine, but I'm especially interested in Canada and the US. Sancho 19:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: I've found an example where notaries public in the Cayman Islands need to sign documents with a signature that is consistent with a specimen that is on file. However, my question is about the general population. Sancho 19:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not believe there is a general requirement for signatures to be consistent. Like most people who have to sign their names multiple times every day, my common signature is very poor (a C followed by a long up-down zig-zag pattern). But, when I bought my house and opened by check account, I was told that I had to sign with a "complete" signature that showed by whole name. So, it appears to me that the requirements of the signature depend on those involved in the legal work. -- k a i n a w &trade; 19:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The only legal purpose of a stable signature is identification of the signatory. There's no legal reason you cannot sign each cheque with a different signature, but if you do that then you can expect that most of your cheques will be returned 'not paid', which will cause you inconvenience. This will be because the bank cannot identify who signed the cheque. It's a security issue. Google legal signature. 190.56.18.72 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "There's no legal reason you cannot sign each cheque with a different signature, but if you do that then you can expect that most of your cheques will be returned 'not paid'". Obviously, this is not true, as almost everyone can attest.  Why do people make stuff up in their responses on this board, especially in regard to legal subjects?76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't "made up"! At one time, banks in many countries checked the signature on each cheque, and would return unpaid any cheque without a signature or with a signature that didn't match the one held on record.  Modern banking seldom has time for this attention to detail, but I think probably still does a signature check for large or unusual amounts.  Perhaps someone with knowledge of current banking practices can conform this?    D b f i r s   08:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that you may not even need to sign the cheque for it to be valid. Under certain circumstances, the sole reason for the signature is as a signal of intent. (That is, it's an indication that you agree to be bound by the contract/agreement. See point 2 of Signature) As I understand it, in certain jurisdictions just the act of filling out the cheque is seen as enough of a signal of intent that it creates a valid cheque, even in the absence of a signature. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As a followup, then: is there an example of precedent in North American case law where it was decided that the intent was what makes a signature, rather than the form? Sancho 17:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhat relevant and contains references : The Straight Dope : Does it Matter if you Sign a Contract With a Name That's Not Your Own?.
 * APL (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question
Alright, should I upload this as fair-use and reduce the quality, or could I upload it as PD? The image was published between the years of 1935 to 1940. Albacore (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether or not it was published with a copyright notice, and whether or not it was renewed. If the image was published without a copyright notice, applies. If it did have a copyright notice at the time it was published, but that copyright was not renewed, it would have then lapsed into the public domain and  would apply. Avic ennasis   @ 22:16, 23 Iyar 5771 / 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Grandville artwork
Does anyone know where high-resolution images of Grandville's artwork (especially his metamorphoses) can be found online? Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  inspectorate  ─╢ 22:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)