Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 May 26

= May 26 =

CAN IT POSSIBLE
IF A PERSON CAN SIT ABOVE THE WATER HOW CAN IT POSSIBLE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayan sss (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you mean floating high in the water, this can happen if the water is denser, due to an unusually high concentration of salts, such as in the Dead Sea. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please expand your question. Who is sitting above what water? In what circumstances? --ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You could use one of these. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Or one of these. Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Choosing your parents Parent carefully works too, according to some. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is possible, but only if the density of the water is changed in some way, such as dissolved solids. As mentioned above the Dead Sea is so salty you cannot sink in it, but you can't sit atop it.  With the right exotic compounds it might be theoretically possible (maybe using very soluble and very dense heavy metal salts?). HominidMachinae (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ...or you could just freeze the water before sitting on it. StuRat (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Treason in the USA
I watched Twelve Angry Men the other night, and it's prompted this question. At the beginning of the film, the judge says "Murder is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts." There are three possibilities I can think of: Treason is considered a less serious crime than murder in the USA (which isn't the case in England), treason is not tried in the criminal courts (is it tried before the Senate, perhaps?), although this isn't mentioned in the Treason article, or the line from the film is just incorrect. I suspect the third possibility is the most likely, but I'd be interested in knowing for certain. Tevildo (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * They both carry the death penalty, and treason prosecutions are rare, so as a practical matter, the judge is correct. Also, the judge, who is a state court judge (I haven't seen the movie in years, but as I recall there was nothing to bring it under federal jurisdiction) might be using "our criminal courts" to say "this state's criminal courts".  Treason is a federal offense, defined in the Constitution (there are some state treason statutes, but I've never heard of one being used)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No one has been tried for treason in the United States at all. --Melab±1 &#9742; 23:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't true &mdash; it's rare, for the reasons I explain below regarding why the Rosenbergs were not charged with treason, but it does occasionally happen. See Finlay McWalter's examples below. --Trovatore (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As to "treason is not tried in the criminal courts" - we can look at the (sparse) recent cases. The last two Americans to be charged with treason were Tomoya Kawakita and Adam Yahiye Gadahn. Kawakita was tried and convicted in 1948 in the Federal Court in Los Angeles (ref), by a civilian judge and jury (Time Magazine report), then appealed to the 9th District and the Supremes - all a normal civilian criminal procedure for a federal crime. In 2006 (or maybe 2005) Gadahn was indicted by the same court, but hasn't been tried (again, that's ordinary criminal procedure). Most other Americans who've been accused of "treason" have formally been tried for crimes like espionage instead (e.g. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the judge in whose case described their actions as "treason", but the charge was "espionage"). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure who you are replying to, but my point was that treason is not tried in state court, and that is a state judge speaking. It's narrowly correct.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I had been replying to you, I'd have indented it to indicate that. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was admittedly thinking about the Rosenbergs - their trial was just a couple of years before the film was made, so they would have been a contemporary counter-example to the statement; their crime, although not formally treason, was described as "more serious than murder", although this might just have been prosecutorial hyperbole. However, the "state v federal" explanation sounds plausible.  Presumably the Rosenbergs were tried in a federal court?  The article doesn't say so explicitly at the moment. Tevildo (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Rosenbergs, I believe, were tried under the Espionage Act of 1917. And yes, they were tried in Federal court.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's treason against the United States. It's possible to be tried for treason against a state.  Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Rosenbergs were never charged with treason at all. --Trovatore (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be specific, they were charged with "conspiracy to commit espionage" under the Espionage Act. They could also have been tried under the Atomic Energy Act (which has special provisions for atomic espionage) if it came to that, but they were not (it could also have carried the death penalty). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for that detail, but the point that seems most relevant to the question is that they were most specifically not charged with treason. For a very good reason:  The US constitution both defines treason substantively very narrowly, and procedurally makes it very difficult to prove.
 * To convict the Rosenbergs of treason, substantively, the government would either have had to prove that they made war against the United States (which is absurd on its face), or "adher[ed] to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort", which perhaps Julius did, except you would have to prove that the Soviet Union was an "Enemy" in spite of their being no declared war with them.
 * Procedurally, either they would have had to confess to this in open court, or the government would have had to find two witnesses to the same overt act.
 * See Article Three of the United States Constitution. --Trovatore (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that was at a time when states were very jealous of their rights, and there were few federal criminal laws which applied outside of federal reservations such as DC, territories, etc.  The Virginia statute's still on the books, although they no longer hang you for it.  That being said, they would almost certainly find a more useful statute to try someone under if, say, he tried to reclaim Alexandria for the District of Columbia or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about possibility four? There is no established hierarchy established in law regarding whether treason or murder is "more serious", and so people have different opinions on the matter, which they would express when it served their purposes—such as when trying to impress a jury with the seriousness of the case before them. - Nunh-huh 21:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps - but in English common law, crimes were historically divided into three categories - treason, felony, and misdemeanour (with treason being the most serious, and murder being a felony) - and I believe that US law followed that convention. Tevildo (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And, incidentally, the whole point of the film is that everyone (apart from Henry Fonda's character) does not regard the case as being particularly serious, and the jury's duty is to send the boy to the chair quickly and get to the baseball game in time. The judge's statement is delivered in a way so as to reinforce this point.  But this is a matter for the Entertainment desk. :) Tevildo (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, only Jack Warden's juror wants to get out early to catch the baseball game. Every one of the 11 non-Henry-Fonda jurors has a different reason for voting guilty, and none of them has much to do with the facts of the case.  That was the point of the film: 11 different men had come to conclusions of guilt based on their own preconceived notions and prejudices and their own life experiences, and not necessarily because the facts of the case established guilt.  Some had racist or other prejudicial issues, some had better things to do, some identifies with the victim, some "went along with the crowd", some had personal issues which clouded their judgement (the Lee Cobb character was projecting his disappointment with his son onto the accused, and he in fact was the last juror won over).  The plot of the film revolves around the Henry Fonda juror convincing everyone in different ways, because each one had their own unique issues.  -- Jayron  32  01:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (We might note, just for the sake of being completionist, that the actions of the Henry Fonda juror would have resulted in a mistrial in real life. Juries are not allowed to do outside investigation or reject witnesses based on their own standards of doubt.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A mistrial, ya think? The jury returned a unanimous acquittal.  IANAL but as far as I know there is no mistrial after that &mdash; it would be double jeopardy.  Doesn't matter whether the jury behaved the way they were "supposed" to.  That's why jury nullification works. --Trovatore (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

purely leveraged financial instrument
If someone assigns probability 1 to a 10x increase in price, is there a financial instrument that lets them gain MORE than investing purely in call options (for example, they would face a loss at anything less than the 10x increase). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.160.86 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You didn't say what the time frame is. If you had a guaranteed 1000% rate of return in a year, and you could convince others, they would love to get in on it, and give you a hefty commission on it (especially if you only charged your fee if it performed as you promised).  You could earn far more this way than investing your own money. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I get suspiscious by anything promissing more than 5%, guarantee return on investment. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You can borrow as much money as possible and invest it. That is called investing on margin - you only need a certain portion of the money (the margin) and your broker lends you the rest. If you have a guaranteed investment (which, obviously, can't happen - the closest you can get is with insider trading, which is illegal), then your returns are limited only by the amount of money you can get access to. --Tango (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of guaranteed investments, like government bonds. Of course, to earn 1000% from them you'd need to hold them for a lifetime. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Tell that to Greece. We often use yields on government bonds as a proxy for the risk-free rate of return, but it is only a proxy. There is still a risk of default. There is also a very significant risk from inflation and currency movements. You also can't hold them for a lifetime - you can only hold them until they mature, at which point you have to buy new bonds and you have no way to know what yields those new bonds are going to be selling at. --Tango (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are government bonds which are both safe and have a guaranteed rate (which, of course, is quite low). StuRat (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Most brokers won't let you buy options with money you borrow from them -- as I understand it the law forbids that. (You can buy stock on margin, but not options, which are already heavily leveraged.)  If you have collateral, though, you could borrow money in some other way, for example by mortgaging your house, and use the money to buy options.  All these things are insanely risky, but, well, the world is full of insane gamblers. Looie496 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to buy options? If you know the price is going up, just buy the underlying asset. Options are generally about risk management, but there is no risk to manage in this scenario. --Tango (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is leverage. An option that costs $50 at the strike price of $400, when the current security is trading at $200, will not increase in value by "ten times" if the price goes to $2000.  Instead, every single such option that you own (and have the chance to buy for fifty dollars now) will each be worth 1600 in intrinsic value (you have a chance to instantly buy at the strike price and sell at the current price), plus any time value (chance for the security to increase still further by the time it expires; this could theoretically be negative I guess).  I don't have a perfect understanding here.  188.6.76.192 (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Roman catholics in England
Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 was the last act in United Kingdom which talked about the catholic rights in the kingdom. Apart from the crown, which offices are still withheld from the Roman Catholics. Is any other law other than section 12 relevant. --nids(&#9794;) 21:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, it's just the Crown, now. Maybe things like Regent and Counsellor of State, since they are basically temporary monarchs. Then obviously there are positions within the Church of England, which could be considered offices of state, since it is an established church. Tony Blair waited until he had left office before formally entering into communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but I'm pretty sure there is no rule against Catholics being Prime Minister. --Tango (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is section 12 of the law still valid? If yes, it can be interpreted to include many more positions. What about judges? Or does the expression "justices of the United Kingdom" include only the monarch.--nids(&#9794;) 23:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the bars were removed by various legislative acts over the course of the 19th and 20th Centuries; there is a reasonable timeline in this 1974 article from the Catholic Herald, which came out around the time of the passing of the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974, which was passed to overcome a possible loophole in other pieces of legislation, although that act does allow for some powers, of an ecclesiastical nature, to be removed from the Lord Chancellor in the event a Catholic attained the office. FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 00:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)