Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 May 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

May 9

my query about engineering subject's Q

what is common-source stage with diode-connected load....?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamlu1990 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A common-source amplifier is one of three basic single-stage field-effect transistor (FET) amplifier topologies 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

William Prince bio

I noticed that the TV Soap, Young Dr. Malone" in which Mr. Prince starred in the late 1950's was excluded. Also, I believe he was in a film with Humphrey Bogart in the 1040" - not sure, but may have been "Treasure of the Sierra Madre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.61.18 (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for that information, you are welcome to add it to the relevant articles. If you haven't, then you shouldn't. (Note that IMDB is not usually regarded as a reliable source). --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Armed services which don't humiliate their recruits ?

Many armed services seem to feel the need to torture, stress, and humiliate their recruits in order to destroy their individuality, supposedly to make them work better as a team. So, are there services that don't do that ? If so, does treating recruits as individuals deserving of respect work as well ? StuRat (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about American, or around the world? If American, I don't think recruits are "tortured". Stressed, sure. But probably nothing like facing like weapon fire. And persons obsessed with their individuality don't belong in the military anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In the US officers are not allowed to hit any subordinates. Shouted at, at least as a group, seems to be a given. If someone cannot put up with that, then he's not made for combat, I suppose. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I bet that any recruit who reported a superior officer who struck him would be killed, thrown out of the military, or suffer some other severe retaliation. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A person who doesn't deal particularly well with military-style stress is not necessarily "obsessed with their individuality", Bugs. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

StuRat is referring to hazing. It has a reputation of being quite common in the US military services. But we should dredge up actual statistics before speaking out of our hats, as they say. As for whether hazing actually contributes to group morale, weeds out ineffective soldiers, etc. — again, let's take recourse in actual data, not hunches. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That might be common in military academies (as with other schools), but in Basic Training there's no time for that sort of tomfoolery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you regard the beating to death of Robert Champion as "tomfoolery", then? --Viennese Waltz 12:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Last time I looked, FAMU is not part of the U.S. military. And the type of thugs that killed Champion wouldn't last long in the military. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

See Rite of passage. Strip 'em naked, give 'em a new name (or number), and flog 'em with stinging nettles to make them yell. The military treats its 'newbornes' much the same way as other social institutions. Of course, they will rationalise it differently. But so does everyone else, while they do much the same thing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We have an article Bullying in the military. In the British Army, it has been forbidden for officers and NCOs to strike servicemen since the 19th century. It is necessary to introduce stressful situations into training as warefare is almost certainly going to be a lot worse and some coping mechanisms are required. However, where to draw the line is a hot topic in most Western armed forces at the moment; for instance Army trainers 'bullied recruits'. Such behaviour like this is now vigorously discouraged from the top; see An Equal Footing but making it work at the point of delivery seems to be a challenge. Alansplodge (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would expect the training to be stressful due to difficult tasks, not bullying. The drill instructor would then assist the recruits with encouragement and promise of rewards (leave, extra rations, etc.) rather than insults and threats of punishment. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be focused on the physical violence aspect. How about the humiliation aspect ? That is, drill instructors constantly insulting the recruits, say with homophobic remarks (which would be insulting to them whether they are straight or gay). Is this type of thing universal ? Is it actually helpful in any way ? StuRat (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The British Army webpage that I linked to above says "In the Army you have a duty to treat everyone with respect. In return, you can expect to be treated the same way." Whether this reflects the reality, I can't say. On the specific issue of homophobia, This BBC report is very upbeat. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Gilbert and Sullivan approach: "Drop and give me 20, soldier... Uh, if you please." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Arizona State Route 264

The chart at the bottom of this article needs to be amended. Route 264 in Arizona also goes through Apache County where the Navajo capital of Window Rock is located. U.S. 191 crosses Route 264 in Apache County. I have no expertise about changing the chart to reflect that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElkeWylie (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You might be better off to bring that up on the article's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've emended the table. Deor (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Annulment (the soap opera concept thereof)

Disclaimer

Firstly, I make a disclaimer. I am hardly ever a watcher of daytime TV, and I am not a fan of soap operas at any time (particularly ones that take themselves way too seriously). But I have some time on my hands at the moment, and I’ve taken to keeping my other half company when he watches The Bold and the Beautiful. May God forgive me.

The plot part of the question

The current state of play is as follows:

Liam and Hope were an item and were planning to marry. She is a proud virgin who won’t give herself to anyone till her wedding night. She also wanted the perfect dream white wedding, which takes quite some months of complex organisation. Liam respected her principles on the virginity thing, but wanted the wedding to happen as soon as possible because he couldn’t wait to have sex with her. This was a cause of tension between them. Hope’s step-sister Stephie is also hopelessly in love with Liam, and he has romantic feelings for her too.

Liam and Hope split up due to a misunderstanding (Hope saw him give Stephie a peck on the cheek and assumed it was more than that). On the rebound, he hurriedly married Stephie. Liam’s father Bill manipulated Stephie into thinking she had a brain tumour, by swapping MRI scans, with the connivance of a corrupt doctor. This was done ostensibly so that Liam and Stephie could spend as much time as possible together and cement their marriage, which Bill felt needed some support due to the hasty manner in which it was contracted. The real reason was that Bill also has a romantic interest in Stephie, and wanted her around as much as possible so that, even if he couldn’t have her physically, he still could have her as his eye candy of choice and legitimately interact with her as his daughter-in-law. Then the truth came out: Stephie is perfectly well, and Bill’s the current Bad Guy.

In the meantime, Liam realised his marriage to Stephie was a mistake, and he still loves Hope more than he loves Stephie, and Hope is who he wants to be with forever. So he’s gone back to her, to her great joy and Stephie’s great devastation. Hope still refuses to have sex before marriage, but she no longer wants to wait for the months it would take to organise the perfect dream wedding, or the months it would take for Liam’s divorce from Stephie to be final. Hope has persuaded Liam to cut to the chase and end his marriage through an annulment.

This is where the plot parts dramatically from my idea of reality (if the foregoing wasn’t enough).

In this show, all that has to happen to dissolve a marriage is for both parties, in this case Stephie and Liam, to sign annulment papers their lawyers have drawn up, and the marriage is instantaneously over. No formal proceedings, no other documents, no decrees, nothing. On the very day that Liam signed his papers and had them delivered to Stephie for her signature, Hope held a press conference to tell the world she and Liam were getting married the next day. Literally the next day.

Now, the next day has arrived, the house has been hastily decorated overnight, a minister has been hastily dragooned into officiating and he’s arrived, and Hope is in her hastily-arranged wedding dress and is about to enter the room where the wedding is to take place. She is under the impression that Stephie has signed her annulment papers and there is no impediment to her marrying Liam now. But Stephie’s father Ridge, Hope’s mother Brooke, and Liam, all know that Stephie is refusing to sign. She is willing to agree to a divorce, but refuses to consent to a quick annulment because that would be like acknowledging the marriage was defective or in some way illegitimate, which as far as she was concerned was not the case. So, she has her principles too. The only person who doesn’t know about this pesky detail is Hope. Nobody’s had the balls to tell her, and everyone’s doing their darndest to persuade Stephie to sign the papers. Even 5 minutes before Hope and Liam’s wedding would not be too late for her to sign. But she’s holding firm.

Today, one of three things will happen:

• (a) Hope will get the biggest disappointment of her life when she’s told her marriage to Liam will have to be postponed because Liam is still legally married to Stephie; or
• (b) Stephie will capitulate and sign the annulment papers, giving Hope and Liam a clear run; or
• (c) the marriage ceremony will begin, but when the minister asks if anyone knows why these two people cannot be married, someone will finally speak up and then there'll be hell to pay, leading back to (a), but with the added complication that someone who knew what was going on (particularly Liam) could have told Hope before the wedding and spared her this colossal embarrassment, but they didn't, and now she's not sure she could ever marry such a gutless wonder like Liam after all; and since he's still legally married to Stephie, and still loves her, he'll seek consolation in her willing arms and they'll carry on as if nothing had ever happened. (Heck, I should be writing these shows. If you know what comes next, please don’t reveal it.)

That is an abridged version of a small bit of this insanely complicated program. I had to go into some detail to explain the situation that viewers have been presented with. We all know that disbelief is automatically suspended when we watch shows like this, but there are still some things they just can’t make up and realistically expect to get away with – except, they’re appearing to in this case.

The question part of the question

I was under the impression that annulment applied only in special cases, and there's a lengthy process to be gone through to establish these special circumstances, making it, if anything, a more drawn-out process than however long a standard divorce takes. That's even if neither party is contesting any of the facts.

So, is it really true that people in the US generally have the option of getting an annulment, rather than a divorce, for no better reason than that they want to end it quickly? Or if this applies in only certain states, which states?

And is it true that the marriage legally ceases to exist literally the moment the second party signs a document?

Surely the document has to be lodged with a court, and some judge or other person in authority has to make a formal written pronouncement that the marriage ceased to have legal effect on some specified day.

And surely the parties are not free to marry anyone else until such a formal pronouncement has been made?

And surely the whole process, from drawing up the documents through to signature and dissolution of marriage, cannot possibly take as ridiculously short a time as a day?

I await confirmation of this with some interest. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Geez, Jack, couldn't you have made your Q a bit shorter, like by leaving out the soap opera summary, perhaps (or at least hide it in a box) ? StuRat (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I indented it so that the eye can quickly skip to the question part of my question. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Laws vary from state to state. In California, for example, there are specific conditions that are necessary and sufficient for annulment: incest, bigamy, underage, prior existing marriage or domestic partnership, unsound mind, fraud, force, or incapacity. New York is very similar (it includes "solemnized by an unauthorized person"). Nevada it's much shorter: being so much under the influence you didn't know what you were doing; you married a first cousin or other close relative; you're too young; or spouse committed some sort of fraud in getting you to agree to the marriage (and this includes promising to have kids and then reneging.) In Delaware, it includes "One or both parties entered into the marriage as a jest or dare". Fun stuff. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A ground for annulment I have not seen mentioned, and also does not seem to be mentioned in our article, is non-consummation. It was my understanding that, until the marriage is consummated, the parties can decide they made a mistake and end it with a minimum of fuss, both for civil and Catholic-church purposes. Is that not so? --Trovatore (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Consummation where it's suggested it's a case for English law but doesn't mention the law for any part of the US. For the case in English law, [1] [2] suggest either inability or refusal are both sufficient grounds (and it can be even after 3 years). [3] in particular the 1975 seems to suggest it can be complicated, since inability is grounds, the reason for the rejection of the 1975 annulment isn't clear but perhaps it was felt the inability may be simply temporary. Of course in a case like that you outlined, if the marriage isn't consummated it seems likely an annulment would be possible since if one party decides they made a mistake, they can simply make it clear they will never consummate and therefore have grounds for annulment. (The source notes 'consummation' before marriage is irrelevent.) One thing I think is clear, particularly if one party is going to dispute it, there's a fair chance it won't be quick. Incidentally the talk page of the consummation article mentions a Supreme Court case, but since marriage is primarily a state matter, I'm not sure what it was about. Perhaps it was simply upholding the constituonality of a state law. The annulment article does mention the non-consummation for Catholic law, since it only describes the details for 2 other US states and nothing else, the lack of mention is perhaps not surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This RS [4] mentions Ohio as one state where it is grounds. The situation in New York is interesting [5] and raises another point. It sounds like the permanent inability (incapacity) to consummate a marriage is grounds for annulment (and if the party with the inability is the one seeking the annulment, they can't have known about it). In other words, unlike in the English case, refusal is not grounds and therefore the scenario Trovatore outlined probably lacks grounds. (Unless you make complicated arguments about the refusal being an 'inability' but it seems to me this will be difficult for the party doing the refusing at least, since the only 'cure' they need is changing their minds. This may be possible if you're exclusively gay or lesbian but were influenced by religious or bigoted literature in to thinking you could be 'cured' but considering the wide disparity in US states, I wonder if it will work in all.) These non RS [6] [7] mention 2 states where it may be grounds (Louisiana, New Jersey) and one where it isn't (Washington State) and the above suggests Nevada is another where it isn't. (The case of California will need to be looked at more closely to see what they mean by 'incapacity'.) www.ehow. com/about_6329364_conjugal-rights-grounds-divorce.html seems to be confusing annulment and divorce, but it's possible Alaska is another one where it's ground. (I don't know what to make of the Illinois thing; is it divorce or annulment it's talking about? Sterility not affecting the ability for complete and perfect sexual intercourse, isn't ground in English law or New York law and I haven't heard of it being grounds anywhere else, but it may be grounds for divorce.) P.S. Of course if the party didn't intend to enter sexual relations at the time of marriage but didn't let the other party know about it, the other party would likely have grounds under 'fraud'. Possibility for 'sterility' if one party was aware. Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the obvious 'soap opera' added drama scenario D. Similar to C, except no one objects to they get 'married' except of course their marriage is void given that he's already married. So 1 year later, she can find out and suffer a mental breakdown finding out she's been living in sin all this time and nearly commit suicide etc. Finally, after a few months, she can forgive him and they can get back together and plan to really get married, except in a moment of weakness while his 'wife' hated him and after trying for so long to get her to forgive him, her slept with his ex (in his mind even if not legally) wife. Of course they agree to keep it a secret, but we know it's going to come out, perhaps not long after the 'for real now' wife learns she's pregnant. (Alternatively that one mistake may have lead to a pregnancy.) And for added spice, the annulment they eventually got was based on non-consummmation. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for those interesting replies, people. You've confirmed what I suspected: leaving aside different approaches from state to state, there must always be acceptable grounds for an annulment, and "I'm in a hurry to ditch my wife so that I can marry her step-sister and finally get to have sex with her, preferably tomorrow" is not such a ground. Obviously, any claimed legitimate grounds are subject to scrutiny, and there is a defined process that must be gone through before the annulment of the marriage can occur. In short, it's over when - and if - the legal system says it's over, and not before. Simply signing annulment papers is merely the start of a drawn-out process, and not the end of the process as this program would have viewers believe. There is a massive mismatch between the seriousness with which the show takes itself and which oozes out of every word anyone ever utters, and this sort of cavalier approach to real-life practicalities that cannot be glossed over by stroke of the scriptwriter's pen. Or, maybe the message is that these people are all beautiful and rich, and the ordinary rules of Planet Earth obviously don't apply to them. Maybe that would explain the attraction, and the long-running success it has enjoyed. Nothing else would. Thanks, again. (Sorry for the long-winded question, but grotesque absurdities have their own fascination.) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that TBATB is set in Los Angeles I know that only because I looked it up because of this question! Y'all don't think I watch that crap, I hope, the only jurisdiction that really matters is California. Not, I gather, that it changes the answer much for the purposes of what you wanted to know. --Trovatore (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm the show is indeed a highly developed form of crap, but I'm curious how would you ever know that unless you'd seen at least a bit of it, enough to make such a judgment on the actual evidence? I know, it's very tempting to equate "popular and long-lasting" with "obviously crap", but that wouldn't apply to the World Series, for example. I wonder why we make assumptions about other forms of "entertainment"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have seen at least a little bit of some daytime soap opera; I couldn't tell you the title.

(Some of the nighttime soaps are quite enjoyable. I used to like Dallas, for example. Not to mention Coed Confidential.) --Trovatore (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)