July 21

I have read that the government spent over 14 million dollars to build the bunkers at the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs, WV. Today, 2010, who own the bunkers - the US government, or the present hotel owner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eensy-Weensy (talk • contribs) 00:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that "The Bunker" is fully owned by the Greenbrier. As per this page, "In 1995, the US government ended the lease agreement with The Greenbrier, and later that year, the resort began offering tours of the historic facility." --Zerozal (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They could make quite the wine cellar out of that bunker... Googlemeister (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If found guilty, the company could be fined or handed a prison sentence.

HOW DO YOU PUT A COMPANY IN PRISON???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.176.202.135 (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good question to ask the lazy reporter and his or her lazy editor. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some jurisdictions, and for some violations, directors or executive officers could be jailed, as they were responsible for the actions of the company. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I would like some imformation on piracy in the carribean. how they lived, and why they beacame pirates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.172.1.2 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the origin of such piracy was that Spain prohibited ships of other nations from trading with its Western hemisphere colonies, yet its own ships couldn't really offer the colonists a broad range of goods at competitive prices. Spain's ability to enforce this trade ban was somewhat limited and sporadic, but if the Spaniards did manage to catch an illicit trading ship, then they were often quite brutal and viciously harsh in imposing punishments. This particular set of circumstances quickly transformed some who were initially interested in trade into armed raiders. Of course, piracy eventually developed into a whole way of life... AnonMoos (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of relevant articles at Category:Piracy. Piracy in the Caribbean is particularly relevant, and has a substantial (but unreferenced) section on the causes of piracy at that time. You might also want to look at Golden Age of Piracy, and some biographical articles, such as Bartholomew Roberts, Henry Morgan, and Edward Teach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I love the formality of that title, to get it away from sounding like the Disney ride/movies.) -- Zanimum (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Wikipedia actually has a whole series of serious articles named "Piracy in [Geographic location]", while articles starting with "Pirates of" all point to fiction. "Penzance", for example. APL (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You might also try Buccaneer, which is about the early origins of "pirates of the Caribbean". Pfly (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the third highest ranking official of the United Nations (following the

No doubt your question is inspired by recent press reports. No, there is no third highest ranking official. Below the SG and DSG is the Senior Management Group, akin to the UN cabinet. USG/OIOS sits on this group but only as an observer. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 11:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the recent press reports. Link? --Sean 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one, for instance. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Viennese for your quick answer.P. S. Burton (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tells his friend, B, that he wants a house built on his (A’s) land, but he cannot see how he will be able to afford the normal, full costs of having the house built. B, who runs a building firm, tells A that he would be able to find the time to undertake the job, and would be able to do it for a price which is lower than a commercial building firm would charge. While A and B are still in negotiation as to the price and other details about the final scope of the works, B starts the building work. When the house is nearly complete, A breaks off the negotiations because he finds that he cannot afford even the (lower than commercial) price which B wants to charge. What liability in contract, if any, does A have to B? can someone point me in the right direction on this one what should i argue here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.248.18 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can u tell me what to argue ...please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.248.18 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will depend on the specifics of the contract (if any) that was signed and the particulars of the relevant jurisdiction. — Lomn 17:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it would depend on what type of course this was for. A law school course would require a different answer than, say, a philosophy or rhetoric course. This sounds very law or pre-law to me, which would mean that there are specific lines of argumentation that are hidden away in your textbooks relating to the contracts or lack thereof. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, jurisdiction is everything. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a pre-law contract homework question, but because the IP is from India, I'm not sure. I'll tell you though that this is easily a standard common law contracts question. You should try looking at

promissory estoppel and should try to determine when an agreement becomes a contract, if it at all. Maybe that will get you on the right start. Shadowjams (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It does depend on whether A gave permission for B to go ahead and could stop the proceedings at all times. Would A know what the cost would be at all times? If there is an informal agreement, then the emphasis will be on what is reasonable. B is in the wrong in going ahead in working before agreement is given. B is expected, then, to keep the cost well within budget. Does A own the house? Does B have an intrest in the house? Could A say "No" at any time and at all times? MacOfJesus (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming there is no legislation that mandates written agreements, check out the rule in

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company and if you have a law textbook the section on acceptance by conduct.Jabberwalkee (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

At one point in Pirate Latitudes, the characters get a large supply of silver bars, only to find out that they're tainted by "worthless" platinum. Is it true that platinum used to be worth a lot less than silver? If so, why? --138.110.206.100 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is true.

Platinium was considered more or less worthless (I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Spanish conquistadors were frustated on finding here and there platin instead of valuable gold or silver). As to why, I can't truly help you. Perhaps because platin was and still is extremely rare and hard to find? Another factor is the refinement: how can it be refined and how much does cost? I suspect that platin was simply unknown to the public/customers and therefore not used in jewelry and currency. AFAIK the precious/valuable metals in ancient times (Classical Antiquity, Middle Ages and Rennesance) were gold, silver and copper (more or less in this order). Flamarande (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Platinum is much harder to work then gold and silver, which is one reason why it would be less desirable. Googlemeister (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, during the late 18th century/early 19th century,

Aluminum was once considered a precious metal, on par with silver and gold. Before modern aluminum smelting techniques, it was very expensive to extract (despite being one of the most common metals in the earth's crust), and as such, caried a high price. It was used for coinage and in jewlery. The small pyramid on top of the Washington Monument is capped with aluminum specifically because it was so rare and precious. --Jayron32 02:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Platinum is an industrial metal rather than a precious metal. Without a strong chemical industry to use it, there isn't much demand for it. --Carnildo (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what's that song, going down, pause, and then back up: cabeebacECDG GDEC. I know I'm TOTALLY butchering this thing with the transcription, but I think you will recognize it if you play that. So, what's the name of that song? Thanks! 84.153.184.144 (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the article on Westminster Quarters. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in Texas. If someone broke a law and was sentenced to 30 days in jail or 1 year probation, and chose probation. If down the line, they decided that they were tired of the classes, fines and endless hassles, and went ahead and let the state incarcerate them for the 30 days they were originally sentenced to, would that be the end of it ? Would the debt be paid and the book closed ?

Thanks Killa Klown (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a question specific to Texas law, so I doubt wikipedia would have it. Have you checked google and/or called someone who might know, such as the prosecutor's office? The Probation article has a few what-if scenarios, but most of those have to do with violating probation, which I would doubt is the right way to go about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if you believe it is specific to Texas law, that is cool, but do you or does anyone have opinions as pertaining to their state laws ? To me, I am curious how you guys would interpert this moreso than how the law might.

Thanks Killa Klown (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I would say. The person was given a choice: either (A) 30 days in jail; or (B) 1 year probation. They chose choice "B". That means that the two parties entered into an agreement (a plea agreement or a plea bargain) with Choice B being the operative terms of the agreement. This is essentially a contract. Now, one party (the offender) simply -- and unilaterally -- decides that he does not like the agreement/contract. He decides to break (breach) the agreement ... by not doing the agreed-upon 1 year of probation requirement. To me, that means that the original agreement becomes nullified. Now, both parties start off from scratch, back to Square One, if you will. So, when the two parties go back to re-negotiate a "new deal", the party of the State (prosecutor) may indeed offer up the same deal (30 days in jail) ... or he has every right to negotiate an entirely new deal. No one -- including the prosecutor -- is "bound" by the old deal, since one party reneged on (breached) that deal. In fact, the prosecutor would/should exact a stiffer sentence for the very reason of "teaching the person a lesson": you cannot renege on a deal, midway through, simply because you changed your mind and did not like the deal that you agreed to. Otherwise, every (future) offender would do the same thing: pick one choice, try it out, change their mind, and expect that the other choice is still available to them. This process defeats the entire point of plea bargaining (agreements), from the prosecutor's perspective. Thus, the prosecutor has the right to change the original deal and come up with a new deal, since the offender reneged on the original agreement. The prosecutor's proposed "new deal" may be stiffer, less stiff, or the same as the original deal. That is the prerogative of the prosecutor. At the same time, the offender may choose to agree with -- or not -- the prosecutor's proposed deal (whether it be stiffer, less stiff, or equal to the original deal). And, if the offender does not want to come to any agreement, the offender can take his case to trial -- as he had the right to do originally. But the ultimate bottom line: what incentive would the prosecutor have to stick with the original deal, if the offender has proven that he will agree to something and then, when not to his liking, renege on it? The prosecutor would and should "up the ante" to teach the offender a lesson: that he had his chance at a good deal, and that he blew it. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Like I said, or tried to, it would depend on the approach the offender takes. If he blatantly violates his probation, there are probably separate and tougher penalties for that, very possibly with no options offered. But if he simply raises the question with his probation officer, maybe a new deal could be worked out peaceably. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs brings up a good point. If the offender violates the terms of his probation, that can be (and usually is) an entirely new and separate crime (subjecting the offender to additional penalties). But, if the offender simply "changed his mind" (without violating probation), then -- as Baseball Bugs says (and as I stated above) -- a new deal may be reached. This is at the discretion of the prosecutor, not the probation agent ... since the original agreement was with the prosecutor (who presumably decided to drop or reduce some of the criminal charges). To renege on the original agreement gives the prosecutor the right to reinstate the additional (dropped) charges or upgrade the (reduced) charges. In other words, everyone starts back at Square One. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you both for the insight and opinion. Killa Klown (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know Mohammedani Ibrahim's year of death? Some of his photos seem to be copyright-marked, but can't google his life span.

Why don't we have an article on this guy? He took thousands of photographs of some of the early pyramid excavations. See, for example. Zoonoses (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]