July 14

How might an inmate be informed of the death of relatives, and if they are informed of the death, are they allowed to leave the workhouse to attend the funeral? Kayau Voting IS evil 02:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why people who lived there shouldn't be informed in the usual way, i.e. by visitors or a message, and they would certainly attend funerals. Workhouses were not prisons, and "inmates" could come and go as they pleased.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm asking because I remember reading in workhouses.org that inmates are not allowed to read things that are not allowed. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Also, are you sure that they can go in and out as they pleased? According to workhouses.org, the inmates will be accused of stealing if they go without permission because they are going out with the uniform, their only piece of clothing. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A workhouse is described in Dicken's Oliver Twist, so read that for background. I think they were like prisons in character, to deter the poor from using them. You can see why not much aid, by modern standards, went to Ireland during the Famine - the poor were routinely starving in mainland Britain. 92.29.122.49 (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The support of the poor was the responsibilty of each Parish. They only had a certain budget which was raised through

Tithes, a tax on agricultural land. If there were lots of starving people, there wasn't enough to support all of them properly. There was no mechanism for support from county or national government, which is part of the reason why the famine in Ireland went so badly wrong. Originally support was in the form of a dole or Outdoor relief, but if there were many poor to support it was cheaper to put them in a workhouse. Several parishes would often form a union to run a workhouse between them. Alansplodge (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I googled "workhouse rules" and found many different examples, including[1], [2], [3] and [4]. Reading these, it seems clear that inmates could certainly not come and go freely; they had the right (and indeed the obligation) to go to church on Sundays, but had to ask permission from the house master or mistress for leave to go out on other business, which would be granted only for "Necessary and reasonable Occasions". A funeral, being Church business, probably would have been deemed reasonable, but there's nothing to specify that it was, and permission would have been at the discretion of the authorities. There's no mention of any right for paupers to receive visitors or messages, and again I suspect a visitor would have had to approach the authorities for permission to leave a message or speak to an inmate, even for something as important as breaking the news of a death. There is mention of a right to leave the workhouse with three hours' notice, but this is about moving out, not just going out on an errand. Those who chose to leave had to take their families with them, and could not re-enter without going through the whole application and readmission process again. There's confirmation of the clothing rule too: paupers gave up their own clothes on admission, which were cleaned and stored for them until they left, and wore clothing provided by the workhouse while in residence. There is indeed a record of a pauper being prosecuted for theft, having left in the workhouse clothing issued to her, within the documents linked above. Karenjc 13:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for the name of the movement of art typified by these TV posters. The most common phrases I see describing this style are "minimalist" and "iconic", but I was hoping somebody might have a more specific or more formal genre name. Alternatively, who are the most notable artists of this movement? --NilsTycho (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you'd call it but I would say Kim Hiorthøy is one of the notable artists/designers exemplifying this style. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 06:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be classified as a "movement"? Never seen anything like this before and they don't appear to be official. --mboverload@ 07:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of Stefan Kanchev. Also, via poster, I just found Tom Eckersley, who seems to have done the same kind of thing. 81.131.59.12 (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up on finding a name for the movement. I guess it's not big enough or specific enough to be a movement. In addition to Albert Exergian, modern designers who have done similar work include Jamie Bolton, Olly Moss, Dario Emmy, Dan Stiles, and Noma Bar. As for lions of the "movement", Saul Bass looks like a good candidate. However, it looks like the person who did the most to popularize this "iconic" style is Germano Facetti. And I think that's about as good an answer as I'm going to get. Thanks for your help, guys! --NilsTycho (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a local court case where someone has been charged with two counts of murder. His lawyer is claiming that, due to idiosyncratic alcohol intoxication, he was not in control of himself and therefore not guilty. Are there any laws or court decisions in Washington State that cover this? --67.185.169.164 (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind,

Wikipedia does not give legal opinions, so any answer given here will be of a very speculative (and not authorative) nature. For the latter you should consult professional legal counsel. Gabbe (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Generally in the USA, intoxication is not a defense because the concept of "intent" can include the unintended results of intended actions (e.g., firing a bullet in the air can still lead to a manslaughter or reckless homicide conviction); if someone gets so drunk as to black out and commit a crime, the intent to get drunk "includes" the possible result of blacking out and doing something criminal. The word "idiosyncratic" implies that somehow the defense is suggesting that the physiological response to drinking (for this particular defendant) was greater than a reasonable person could reasonably have imagined, and hence negates the "intent" element of the crime. In any case, ANY "intoxication"-related defense will relate to the "intent" element of the crime. 63.17.82.101 (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember that lawyers can claim anything they wish in mounting a defense for their client. There is no "off-limits" arguement for defense lawyers. The prosecution is also free to poke holes in the defense arguements. It is ultimately up to the jury to decide if the defendant's arguement holds water. "He didn't do it" is a common defense, but "He did it, but didn't mean to" is probably almost as common. This is just a varient on the latter defense. Just remember that nothing is technically off-limits here, and just because the defense tries to make a claim, doesn't mean there has to be an overriding legal principle supporting it. This may just be an "idiosyncratic" defense, and not a sign of greater legal principles. --Jayron32 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that when the subject is the law, RD contributors feel free to just make stuff up based on nothing but their own half-baked presumptions, or (usually) something they saw on TV? This happens over and over and over again in respect to legal questions. For the record, it is NOT TRUE that "lawyers can claim anything they wish in mounting a defense." A defense requires evidence; evidence requires admissibility; admissibility has definite limits. Only in the opening statement could a lawyer conceivably get away with making an argument for which no admissible evidence exists; and even then, if the argument is obviously unsupportable, opposing counsel can object and oblige the opening statement to be partially stricken and no further mention made of the stricken element. The closing statement may not include anything that has not been arguably supported by evidence, except arguments against the strength of the opposition's evidence. In most jurisdictions, virtually every crime falls into a category which has specifically permissible *(and by implication, impermissible) defenses; the impermissible defenses will not have any evidentiary support, because such evidence will be inadmissible. 63.17.93.127 (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask this again with more detail, in the hopes of getting a useful answer:

• I am not involved in this or any other legal action. This is not a request for legal advice. I am looking for factual information about the state of the law.
• Idiosyncratic alcohol intoxication (which Wikipedia does not have an article on) is a recognized medical condition where someone has an atypical reaction to small amounts of alcohol, typically consisting of extreme belligerence (in this case, apparently accompanied by complete anterograde amnesia).
• Some state courts or legislatures (Colorado being the one I'm familiar with) have ruled that idiosyncratic alcohol intoxication is not a defense to criminal charges. Others, although I am not aware of any, may have ruled that it is.

Has either the Washington State court system or the legislature ruled either way about the admissibility of idiosyncratic alcohol intoxication as a defense? --67.185.169.164 (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under Title 9A, chapter 16, section 30 of the Revised Code of Washington (state), "No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication shall be deemed less criminal by reason of his condition, but whenever the actual existence of any particular mental state is a necessary element to constitute a particular species or degree of crime, the fact of his intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such mental state." The OP's question refers to murder, i.e. homicide, which in Washington falls into five categories: "(1) murder, (2) homicide by abuse, (3) manslaughter, (4) excusable homicide, or (5) justifiable homicide." Here, the question must refer to either #1 or #3. The intent element for manslaughter is either "recklessly" (1st degree) or "negligently" (2nd degree). The intent element for 1st degree murder is either intent with premeditation, or that by "extreme indifference to human life, he or she engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death" (and, also, certain types of felony murder -- i.e., during rape, armed burglary, etc.). The intent for 2nd degree murder is intent without premeditation (and various felony murder categories). So, to defend against murder AND manslaughter, idiosyncratic intoxication would have to negate intent AND not amount to recklessness or negligence. Chapter 16 section 10 states: "INTENT. A person acts with intent or intentionally when he or she acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.... RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.... CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation." Idisyncratic intoxication is VOLUNTARY intoxication (no one forced the drink down their throat) but the disproportionate result might negate the element of "a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation" if the defendant was unaware that he/she was susceptible to idiosyncratic intoxication; however, although someone unaware he has e.g. epilepsy will have a defense for e.g. crashing a car ONCE during a seizure, after becoming aware he has epilepsy the defense will no longer apply (as cases have established). The same probably applies to idiosyncratic intoxication; hence, criminal negligence is probably the least severe result possible, presuming it wasn't the very first time the defendant drank alcohol. Have Washington courts addressed idiosyncratic intoxication? The OP is free to search a century-plus of decisions at mrsc dot org slash wa slash courts slash index_dtsearch dot html. 63.17.93.127 (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the inferior search engine at the court-opinions site, it's hard to say for sure what the law is in 2010. However, as of 2003 the leading case apparently was one from 1987 (about a stabbing, not a murder), which states in regard to intoxication and criminal negligence (which in regard to murder amounts to 2nd-degree manslaughter in Washington): "Because this mental state is based on a reasonable person standard, evidence of defendant's voluntary intoxication cannot work in any way to negate or obviate the mental state. Because of his intoxication, a particular defendant may not act with intent or knowingly inflict grievous bodily harm. Nonetheless, if a reasonable person would have avoided the wrongful act, and the defendant's failure to do so is a gross deviation from this reasonable course of conduct, the defendant has acted with criminal negligence. In the present case, the 'wrongful act' was the stabbing. Defendant's claimed reason for failing to be aware that the victim was being stabbed was evidently defendant's own intoxication. A reasonable person would not have stabbed the victim, and defendant's action was a gross deviation from the reasonable course of conduct. Consequently defendant was criminally negligent despite his intoxication. This is the proper interpretation to be given the definition of criminal negligence. The trial court did not err in precluding the jury from considering voluntary intoxication as a defense to the charge of third degree assault." STATE v. COATES, 107 Wn.2d 882, 735 P.2d 64 (1987). This strongly implies that criminal negligence (2nd degree manslaughter) will apply even to idiosyncratic intoxication, because the negligent act is the stabbing, not the intoxication -- i.e., for criminal negligence in Washington, it doesn't matter if the defendant drank a drop of beer and unexpectedly went out of his mind; all that matters is that he committed the "wrongful act," drunk or otherwise. So it's no defense to 2nd degree manslaughter, whether or not it's idiosyncratic. Clearly, however, intoxication of ANY sort is an admissible (if not necessarily successful) defense to murder and first-degree manslaughter, in negating the requisite mental state. 63.17.47.118 (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flex shampoos and conditioners were Revlon products. Have they been discontinued, or are they being sold under a different name?24.90.202.208 (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., you can apparently buy Flex shampoo at Wal-Mart, so I'd say they haven't been discontinued here. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a famous photograph of the him with his

Not a fake.. Why not? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Einstein tongue.jpg The (in)famous tongue image

It's real. See Albert Einstein in popular culture. From [5]:

Albert Einstein and the Aydelottes were just returning from an event which had taken place in honour of Einstein. Einstein was, though already sitting in the car, still bullied by reporters and photographers. They didn’t let him be and he is said to have shouted: "That’s enough, that’s enough!" However, these words didn’t hinder the photographers from taking some more pictures of Einstein and his companions. And when he still was asked to pose for a birthday picture he really grew tired of the journalists and the photographers and as encouraging words didn’t help any more, he stuck out his tongue to his "prosecutors". The photographer Arthur Sasse pressed the button of his camera in just this moment.

Einstein liked the picture very much. He cut it into shape so only he can still be seen. Then he had made several copies of it and sent the thus "manipulated" picture as a greeting card to friends later on.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein was not a robot. He was a very human guy, and I'm sure that fact was no small part of his public appeal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein was funny, passionate, philosophically deep, and intensely politically motivated against fascism, war, segregation, and racial intolerance. That he is today regarded as a genius with his "head in the clouds" is more a P.R. thing than anything related to who he actually was as a human being. For his trouble he got denounced in his home country, and investigated relentlessly by the FBI in his adopted country. No good deed goes unpunished, as they say... --Mr.98 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it unsafe to swim in an outside pool during a thunder storm? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Personal Lightning Safety Tips published by the US National Lightning Safety Institute says "If outdoors - Avoid water ... Avoid open spaces ...". Gandalf61 (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and googling "lightning swimming pool" returns many pages of advice which are mostly variations on "at the first sign of lightning, get out of the water". Gandalf61 (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can remember at least one case of a guy drowning while swimming in a lake during a heavy shower. The problem is, all of the sudden you have water not only under you but all around you - from the heavy raindrops and from the splashing water of the lake and it's difficult to breathe properly. I don't think a pool would be too dangerous, but swimming in a deep lake during a storm I'd definitely try to avoid. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a worse risk is that your head is the highest point on the surface of the pool and you are perfectly earthed: ZAP!!! Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Center Parcs in Germany last year, the outdoor section of the pool had big notices warning that it would be closed for safety reasons whenever there was a thunderstorm. This article is quite interesting on the possible effects on lightning on someone in the water, and also warns about the not-so-obvious dangers, such as current travelling through pipes and conduits associated with a lightning-struck pool to affect those who are not actually swimming at the time. Karenjc 13:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any stats on people actually getting struck by lightning in this manner? I think the answer must be "yes, it's unsafe", but a quick Google yielded no data, for me. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can come up with is this site with the US Weather Service's data, which is interesting if limited. Looking at the stats for the years 2005-2008 inclusive, there were 155 deaths from lightning strike in the US, of which 28 were people on or next to water (including those in boats and on jetskis) and two were actually in the water (one swimmer and one scuba diver). Karenjc 18:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was younger I remember a local news story about a pool that was zapped by lightning with people in it. One or two got injured. --mboverload@ 05:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this he was also at the British Empire Exhibition. According to this (the link may not work outside U.S.) he was "of the Madras Civil Service."--Cam (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I found a 1935 biographical essay about him here.--Cam (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it looks like the usual spelling of his name is Vijayaraghavacharya instead of Vijayaraghayacharya.--Cam (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Cam! I never cease to be amazed by the people that answer the Reference desk, to be able to figure out where the spelling mistake was and find period references to him. This will make our search for information on this particular 1926 visit so much easier, actually having a context of who he was, and why he'd be invited over. Merci! -- Zanimum (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, might this be the

talk) 15:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Strike that -- our article on Mr CV gives his life as 1852-1944, whereas the retirement bio kindly found by Cam states a DOB in 1875. Still, they might be relatives.

talk) 15:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Use "T Vijayaraghavachariar" to search for more details. The "ar" suffix is a honorific indicating respect. In Tamil "acharya" becomes "acharyar" for older men.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moore gave tissue samples to the doctors because they had falsely led him to believe that not doing so would carry the risk of him dying. Why wasn't this intentional misrepresentation considered in the case, given that Moore never signed the form consenting to letting them use his cells?

Also, if your cells now belong to a company, can they stalk you and take more of your cells whenever they like, because you're technically stealing? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for the claim that the reason given by the doctors was false? As I understand it, the samples were taken for the purposes of treating Moore but were then used for other purposes afterwards. --Tango (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moore consented to the tissues being taken from him for the purposes of his treatment; the consent form didn't say "you can also use my tissues to patent chemicals that happen to be there and consequently invent billion dollar drugs". Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP did suggest the university mislead Moore into believing he may die if he didn't have his cancerous tissues removed Nil Einne (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The intentional misrepresentation — and I agree about that; the doctors sound like thieves, frankly, in this article — was considered by the court. The PDF version of the ruling that's linked at the bottom of the article starts discussing on page 5 whether there was a "conversion", or theft (including the theft of the proceeds of the cells, i.e. the patent), in this case. The ruling states that California's conversion law had never been applied to medical tissues, and the decision was that it was up to the legislature to create a law about this rather than having a court just apply the conversion law to it; one cited reason was that the court imagined that if a cell line went through the hands of many medical researchers, each of them might be liable; and the court was hesitant to cause such unexpected consequences by applying a set of laws that had not been written with this subject in mind. I do recommend reading the PDF file; it's good reading. As for your second question, I think you know the answer to that. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure about the second question; the doctor in Next used that justification to hire bounty hunters to attack the hero and take forcibly take marrow samples from him. --138.110.206.101 (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your going by a fictional novel set in a future world by an author who's later work I've heard was a bit hit and miss? In any case, your claim above indicates an apparent lack of understanding of the situation. The university owns the cells hr consented to them removing and disposing for the purposes of treatement (whatever people think of the ethics of this). They don't own him, or any other cells and he they could never take his cells without consent. Nil Einne (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I agree with the court. The bits were taken for valid medical reasons, what's done with them otherwise is nothing to do with the original patient. The only problem I have with it is if there is an easily traced record linking the two, that should only be available by very special permission rather than blatted to the world.

Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]