Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 March 20

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.

March 20

Complicated fictional court procedure

I recently read a story in the Finnish Aku Ankka comic where a woman proves to Scrooge McDuck in court she was Scrooge's girlfriend back in his young days when he was still mining gold at the Yukon. She does this by whispering the affectionate term Scrooge used to call her by to the judge, and then the judge orders Scrooge to say the same out in public, and checks whether they match. Why go to all this trouble? Couldn't she just have said to Scrooge what the affectionate term was?

I understand all this is fictional, but does this have some bearing with how real-life courts operate with similar matters? JIP | Talk 19:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

To answer your initial point: no, because Scrooge could have just pretended not to recognize the name, and the Judge could not have known whether or not Scrooge was lying. (I'm not familiar with the storyline, but what you describe strongly suggests it would have been in Scrooge's own interest to deny the relationship). The procedure used might seem to provide more proof if Scrooge declares the name honestly, but in fact he could just declare a different name and the judge would still not know if he was lying.

This answers your second point without any actual knowledge of legal procedures being required. No, real-life courts wouldn't adopt this method, because logic, perhaps not evident to a child immersed in a comic story but obvious to anyone in a real life situation, demonstrates that it wouldn't work. A third, independent witness to the truth or falsity of the assertion would be necessary, as would proof (difficult to imagine) that the putative girlfriend could not have learned the name by other means. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It would not be possible, because when you are in the dock facing cross-examination, you are in the dock until you are requested to sit down. There is no possibility for you to approach the judge close enough to whisper. In any case, most of the talking is done by your lawyer, with whom you have convened beforehand in order to prepare a defence/prosecution. It is possible that the lawyer could pass a note to the judge to convey the name, and then the judge could ask Scrooge what the name was, when it was his turn in the dock, but in actual reality, evidence for this (such as letters, etc.) would have been already collected by the police or whomsoever was performing the investigation, so it wouldn't really matter. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In a typical American courtroom, the witness box is beside the judge's bench. —Tamfang (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Usually, the judge's job is to judge, and not to ask questions. The lawyers (defending/prosecuting) ask questions before the actual court appearance, and the jury makes a decision on whether they think the person is guilty or not, then the judge gives the final judgement. Any investigation is done by the prosecutor (usually the police, in criminal law cases - it's slightly different in civil law cases), recorded, and then transcribed, and this is then given to the jury to read (as well as the judge), so that they can all come to a decision beforehand. Each court case only lasts about ten minutes, because they have lots of other court cases to go through during that day. It's the investigation and questioning that takes up all the time, and this is done way before the actual court appearance. In some cases, cross-examination may be performed in the court room, but only for high-profile murders, etc. Even if the dock happens to be next to the judge, it is prohibited to lean over and whisper something to a judge. Everything you say must be heard by everyone present in the courtroom, for there to be a valid case for or against you. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 06:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, the jury decides whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, there's nothing to stop them from going with their intuition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the threshold for criminal matters. For lesser charges, it's "on the balance of probabilities". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in the US at least, the latter would be the threshold in civil trials. "Lesser" criminal charges in the US can go to jury trials, and the threshold is still "beyond a reasonable doubt". Maybe Australia does things differently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that the judge doesn't ask questions. AFAIK, that's primarily common law systems which frequently use an adversarial system. In fact if they use as inquisitorial system, it's probably a key part of their jobs. In systems based on civil law (legal system), I believe it's not uncommon for judges to ask questions in some places. Our article doesn't mention this very well except in the table, but see e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]. Our articles do mention that in adversarial systems and inquisitorial systems are theoretically unconnected to whether it's a civil law or common law system, and that even an an aversarial system it may not be uncommon for judges to ask questions. I'm not completely sure how civil cases in civil law countries play out, but the above seems to refer to criminal law anyway. Note also that not all common law countries even have juries, let alone civil law ones. Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I work as an interpreter/translator/transcriber for the MoJ in the UK, and in my experience, in Magistrates' Court, there is no jury. This court is for lesser offences, which will probably not require a custodial sentence. In the Crown Court, there is a jury, and my experience is as above. As said, there may be cross examination, but the judge will generally not say much, leaving it up to the lawyers to speak to the complainant and defendant, and for the jury (who are all lay people) to come to a decision after hearing the testimonies of both, and any witnesses, and comparing that with transcripts of the questionings/interviews, which may have been done months beforehand. Hollywood regularly has lawyers on both sides come to the judge to speak quietly to him/her, but this does not happen in real life. All court proceedings must be heard by everyone in the courtroom. This is what stenographers were for - to record everything. Now it is all done digitally.

Most common drinks

I've read somewhere that the three most common drinks in the world are, in this order, water, tea, and beer. I understand water is the most common drink by a large margin. How far apart are tea and beer? What are the next most common drinks? Where do milk, coffee and wine come in? JIP | Talk 19:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

According to Around the World in Six Glasses (IIRC), soft drinks are actually number two behind water. I don't recall how well referenced that was. Actually, it probably depends on how you categorize things; in terms of categories of objects, does beer = cola or does beer = soft drink or does beer = Coca Cola? It seems likely that coffee is going to be way up there as well. Matt Deres (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

According to this, tea comes before water, but they're only measuring bottled water. Matt Deres (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me but why would beer mean any type of soda? Dismas|^(talk) 00:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking "in terms of categories"; is beer congruent to soda-pop or is it congruent to cola or to something else? When you're asking about what kinds of drinks sell the most, you have to determine the categories first. So, do you need to compare total beer sales against total soft drink sales or to total cola sales or to something else? Matt Deres (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking the term "beer" would exclude anything without alcohol in it; "alcoholic" is the fourth word in Beer. Hence Dismas's puzzlement, which I share. "Tea" would seem to include anything with the word "tea" in its name. Let's not overthink this; with a few statistically insignificant exceptions, beer is beer, tea is tea, water is water, and so on. If your question is whether we should treat all soft drinks as a group or separately for this purpose, which is not what you initially said, I'd be for treating them as a group; we're not dividing beers or teas into sub-groups so why do it for soft drinks? But it's true that the dividing lines in these things are often arbitrary, so the usefulness of such comparisons is somewhat limited. And I fear we have gotten sidetracked and haven't helped the OP much with their question. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

In the US, at least, beer is not allowed to be sold to minors, because it's an alcoholic beverage. It is not a "soft drink". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

One possible cause of confusion is root beer, which, despite the name, is a soft drink, and not a type of beer. (It originally did contain a small percentage of alcohol.) StuRat (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

And don't forget ginger ale (ginger beer in some countries). Primergrey (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Bread clips

Are bread clips recyclable? I can find many sites telling me how to reuse them but none that can tell me if they are recyclable. And it doesn't say on my last bread clip. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 20:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In [EDIT: Merseyside in] the UK, all plastics are regarded as recyclable, so we put them in the recyclables bin (actually, I haven't seen one of them for about 20 years - we just have some sort of tape around the top of the bag that keeps the loaf in). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 20:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

KageTora, I'm sorry but I call bullshit. I live in the UK (Hampshire) and my Council is very particular about what types of plastics (in terms of the nature of the items) can and cannot be put in the recycling bins (broadly, drinks bottles and "cleaning fluids" bottles [e.g. shampoo, detergents, bleach] (as well as some paper and cardboard) are allowed, many other plastics [e.g. plastic film, bags (including bread wrappers), food trays] and cardboard items ([e.g. Tetrapak-style containers and similar) are explicitly proscribed). The tags Dismas refers to do not fall into their permitted range, regardless of what the actual plastic involved is. (We're also issued special crates for glass collections, plus containers for food waste.)

The rules even in Council areas bordering on my own differ in details, so Dismas would have to establish the details pertaining to the actual district in question.

Of course most plastics can be recycled, but it is often not cost effective for many recycling firms (or the Councils who have to pay them) to divide out smaller-volume and less-easy types from the stream. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You can "call 'Bullshit'" as many times as you want, so long as you have his number and enough credit on your mobile. Here in Merseyside, all plastics are put in the same bin, along with other recyclables. Otherwise, we'd all have to have a PhD in chemistry to know what type of plastic we were dealing with, wouldn't we? And, be a little more polite, eh? It's not difficult. As you have intimated yourself, different county councils have different rules, as the bin collectors are now privatised. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 21:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm with 212 here. KageTora, you made a claim starting "In the UK", which clearly reads as universal in the UK. I don't dispute your experience in Merseyside, but your generalisation to the UK as a whole is wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Duly corrected. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 00:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Each Local Authority seems to have its own set of rules about what can be recycled and how it is to be sorted and collected. I sometimes wonder how the recycling company sorts out some of the strange mixtures of plastics that I see in recycling containers, or whether they just send the whole batch to landfill if they can't sort it. Dbfirs 21:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I live in the US. Vermont specifically. And I put all my recycling (glass, cardboard, and plastic) into one container which goes out to the curb every two weeks. Dismas|^(talk) 22:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly the same as here in Merseyside. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 22:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

They rely more on human sorters here in Cumbria -- we have to use separate containers. Dbfirs 23:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The whole thing is a crock. My parents' township pays (cui bono) a huge budget for "recycling"; and when I have witnessed it, they simply throw the "recyclables" in the same compactor as the non-recyclables! If recycling were a good thing, it would pay for itself. At least here in NYC the homeless remove all the cans and bottles and take them to the redemption center, making a rather good untaxed wage at it. The rest goes to steam-generating incinerators. Suburban recycling is mostly a feel-good fantasy that lines the pockets of those with the contracts. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying recycling is generally a "crock"? If so then . I've personally visited a recycling center and seen the process of recycling with my own eyes. Surely there have been some cases where the public has been mislead, or misconduct has occurred, but to claim that recycling in general is a scam sounds like a conspiracy theory. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that being a "crock" doesn't always mean they don't do it at all. They might, even though they use more energy/labor for recycling than it would cost to make things new, if tax incentives, etc., lead to this otherwise irrational behavior. (I am all in favor of environmentally friendly practices, but feel that we should only engage in the rational ones.) StuRat (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

See greenwashing. It is often true that it's not financially viable to have a self-supporting recycling operation. However, there are reasons to encourage recycling, even if not profitable, like reducing trash in landfills, and, even worse, on the streets. Bottle deposits on carbonated beverages were a good start, but those deposits need to include all containers, so that junk doesn't end up as litter, or, if it does, some homeless man will clean it up and get money for it. To put it in financially conservative way, we should only engage in profitable activities, but the true cost of not performing those activities (like cleaning up litter all over the city) should also be included in the calculation, by charging a disposal fee/deposit when the product is first sold. StuRat (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Check to see whether there's a Resin identification code on the clip. Many UK councils accept codes 1 and 2 (both types of polyethylene), while rejecting all other plastics. Rojomoke (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That was the first thing I looked for and upon not finding it, I went to Google, and then here. Dismas|^(talk) 16:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe bread clips are commonly HDPE in the USA, and hence recyclable in most places that have recycling services. One of the primary and original manufacturers is Kwik lok (just a redirect back to bread clip, sadly). Here is their highly detailed catalog [5]. I can't find the info there at a quick skim. If you can't either, then you can ask them on Facebook [6]. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Found a link on Kwik Lok's website that says that its bread clips are made of number 6 plastic and are recyclable. As a bonus: see this fun piece of the bread clips vs twist ties battle, with absolutely no relevance to the original question. :) Abecedare (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! For convenience of future readers, I've taken the liberty of bolding your link and answer. Anyone else shoot bread clips at each other back in school? [7]. That's one reason I used to prefer them over twist ties, but of course recylability is also nice :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• In response to SemanticMantis above, no, I am not saying that all recycling is a crock. StuRat's points are largely valid, the homeless are very efficient at keeping the streets of NYC free of cans and bottles, and they even remove them from the regular trash (when they are supposed to have been recycled), in order to collect the deposit on them. That is a sort of free sorting, and people make over $100 a day at it. But in general, the cost of an item is directly proportional to the waste obtaining that item requires. For example, to get a diamond, you have to move tons of kimberlite, ruin the landscape, expend all the fuel energy, and pay for all the labor and travel which could have gone into other pursuits.

If vanity recycling were less wasteful than the alternatives, companies would be bidding to pay for the right to take the waste away for free so they could resell it for scrap, not bidding for contracts to be paid to do so. You'll notice, for example, that anyone will haul your car away for free if you donate it, and that on trash day any large pieces of metal are immediately collected by guys in pickups who sell the metal for scrap, long before the paid trashmen ever get there.

It's a tricky calculation, since places that don't have deposits on bottles and cans are not figuring in the cost and assessing it to the consumer. As long as all the costs, to the air and land and so forth are figured in properly (avoiding the tragedy of the commons), the cheapest solution will be the best. A packaging tax, which is a non-punitive, non-redistributive carbon tax is entirely rational. Unfortunately, most towns, for political reasons, don't make the consumer himself pay up front in taxes on waste and deposits on recyclables, they just take it out of the general coffer so the direct costs are unseen. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Burning garbage in Japan

In several anime series, characters are depicted putting garbage into large dumpsters that contain fires, presumably to burn the rubbish. This takes place in a residential setting and the burning of garbage inside a dumpster appears to be part of its normal operation. Do such things exist in real life Japan, and if so what are they called? My Little Question Can't be This Interesting (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I lived in Japan for ten years, and never ever saw that. Rubbish is usually disposed of on a daily basis, and separated by type (recyclables, food waste, etc.) by placing them outside in bags or bins. Just simply burning stuff wantonly would be considered a health and safety risk. It does not happen. 'Moeru gomi' is the word for rubbish that can be burned, but it is never done by private individuals or families. It is done by the companies that come to collect it, after they have got back to the depot, where they have designated furnaces for such. As for having fires inside a vehicle (a dumpster), this would be incredibly unsafe, considering the fact that it also has an engine which runs on petrol. Anime is meant to be fantasy, not a depiction of reality. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 21:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Incineration is common in Japan on a municipal level. In Ontario, no one burns garbage in the cities but in rural areas, despite the illegality, some people still do burn their garbage once a week, so perhaps the anime was showing an odd case like the rural people where I am from, that do burn garbage. In ep.10 of Angel Beats! they use an incinerator but maybe that's because they are in a very small universe with no landfill/municipality/adults. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)