Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:34, 14 March 2011

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

March 9

When did Prince William start going bald?

He has a pretty good bald spot going at the crown of his head.76.27.175.80 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a notable amount of baldness in his family. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like typical male pattern baldness, and is a gradual process, with no obvious starting point - almost certainly genetic in origin, and probably only commonly influenced by a few alleles. It isn't unusual for brothers to show very different patterns of hair loss (much to my younger brother's disappointment :) ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a report from November 2007, but this is only when it was spotted by a tabloid paper, the balding process probably goes back further than that. Richard Avery (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depressingly, the question of when "baldness" can be said to start is actually discussed quite seriously in various academic philosophy circles, as a variation of the sorites paradox. I find it depressing, anyway. I consider academic philosophy to on the whole be a terrible waste of good minds... --Mr.98 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked at how disrespectful of His Highness these comments are. Any member of the Royale Family is above criticism of any kind. 92.28.241.148 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Royals may be above criticism, but the ones making those criticisms aren't. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Dreamt I Dwelt in Marble Halls

Can anyone shed some light on the reasoning behind why it is considered bad luck to sing or whistle this song in a theatre? I was once told it may have a connection with mauseleums being made of marble, but I've no idea if that's true. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a superstition, which likely doesn't have an actual 'reason'. Actors are a superstitious bunch as a rule, and there are half a gagillion things involving the theatre that you are or are not supposed to do for fear of bad luck. it could be the association between marble and graveyards, it could be that there was a string of random (and now forgotten) accidents for actresses who played that role, it could be that it was a catchy tune and too many people got socked on the nose for whistling it in inappropriate places - or maybe people just got sick of hearing it and so actors decided it would queer their chance of getting roles if used it in auditions. who knows? All I can suggest is that you test it out - find a theatre and stand in it whistling the tune until (1) something bad happens, or (2) you get bored. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to some people, it's bad luck to whistle at all indoors, and that would include inside a theatre. Not sure why there'd be a particular problem with a particular tune, if any tune was bad luck. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually (verifiably) true that actors are a superstitious bunch? I know it's often said, but I rather doubt that they are - or were - any more superstitious on average than many other groups. I also suspect that at least some of the superstitions around the theatre were deliberately invented at various times, to increase the actor's mystique, or to wow the shills, or to fool the novices. Incidentally, I've never heard of this particular superstition, though I have heard the one about whistling (anything) in a theatre. --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Shakespearean thespian will mention the name of The Scottish Play because that would invoke the curses of the 3 witches. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting coincidence that the same Shakepearean thespians don't like to say "Macbeth" either. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's what he meant. He didn't mean that they don't say "the Scottish play" – that's exactly what they do say instead of "Macbeth". --Viennese Waltz 13:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuddlyable: I challenge your claim on two grounds. First, the reason you give might be the justification for the superstition, but many other things might equally be. Secondly, I myself sometimes avoid saying "Macbeth" around theatre people - but not because I am superstitious, but when I think that others present might be distressed by it. (I am discussing it quite a lot at present, because I am playing him in June-July). --ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 Corinthians 8, innit? --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he might mean 1 Samuel 28. According to the Macbeth article Macbeth's return to the witches can be compared to Saul in 1 Samuel 28. Also mentioned is an author's attempt to draw comparisons between the murders of King Duncan and Christ, so I'm guessing it's one of these two things he has in mind. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of that song in my dictionary of superstitions although I see it is mentioned in other similar works. As for actors and actresses being a superstitious bunch, they do seen to have the largest possible section in the superstitions dictionary. It suggests whistling might be prohibited as scene changes were signaled with whistles in previous times. Miners believed whistling caused explosions and cave-ins and sailors believed you could "whistle up a storm" also women whistling was considered ill-omened, and probably a little un-lady like too. An old folk tale says that a woman looked on and whistled while christ was crucified which is one rationale for the superstition. meltBanana 14:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the explanation about signalling by whistling as well, but I'm far from convinced. It may be that whistling was used in this way, though I'm a little dubious, as I would have thought that would be remarkably audible to the audience. But even if it was, it sounds to me like one of those rationalisations that people are fond of making up to explain the unexplained. If whistling were used for signalling, it would surely be particular rhythms or contours of note, and a whistled tune would be unlikely to be confused with them. All this is surmise, of course: but my point is that the suggestions I'm countering are no more than surmise. --ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has TWO articles about this song: Marble Halls and I Dreamt I Dwelt in Marble Halls. Can a more experienced editor than me advise please? Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for it, you got it, Alan. Those 2 articles were ripe for merging, so I merged them. Marble Halls is now a redirect to I Dreamt I Dwelt in Marble Halls. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! Many thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highest paid person

Who has the highest salary for one year in the world (NOT net worth), exluding payout from stock options? On one page I saw that the highest paid person made $720,000,000 in one year, but this can't be the highest. --21:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Before anyone says Queen Elizabeth II of the U.K., she doesn't need any salary. She "owns" the United Kingdom, and as such she gets all the taxes collected in her name and is supported by the government financially. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at how the Crown operates. She (QEII} gets an allowance from the government - but she does most certainly does not get the taxes! And the Crown does not "own" all the property either. In fact, her dad was quite impoverished when he became King George VI. Very few people have "salaries" per se over abut $50,000,000 -- I think J. K. Rowling gets substantial "royalties" in some years, but that is not a "salary." Collect (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly, the money she is given (under the "reverse Robin Hood" rule) comes from taxes. She also gets the benefit of lots of free things like free rents, free chopper rides, etc etc. The royal accounting has in my opinion been deliberately fudged so that you cannot tell how much of who's money they get. But ultimately it all comes from taxes over the generations, plus land-grabbing by might in the distant past. 92.28.254.54 (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't come to the Reference Desk and indulge in wild speculation. The Civil List is made up of income from the Crown Estate, not from taxation. Marnanel (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No "wild speculation" at all. The money can only come originally from either taxation (including customs duties) or historical land-grabbing. It may have been invested and shuffled around the royals by gifts or inheritance, but that is where it comes from. Its foolish to think of the money being "cleaned" by re-labelling it as the "Crown Estate". The "Crown Estate" used to have a different name: "...the land properties of the Sovereign were transferred to the management of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues (now the Crown Estate Commissioners) by the Crown Lands Acts 1810 and 1829." 92.28.241.148 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Salary' is wages- someone else paying you. Most very wealthy people don't get wages from someone else; they get the profits of their own work more directly. Are you asking about the highest salary, or about the person who gains the most net worth in a year's time? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Milken made more than $550 million in 1987.[1] That may still be a record. Some hedge fund managers since have made more, but I think that was from their ownership of the hedge fund or its management company, not pure salary. John M Baker (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But even Milken's pay there was described as "compensation" rather than "salary". "Compensation" generally includes stock and bonuses. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that his "salary" per se was $1 in 1987. (I'm certainly not saying it was, just that it wouldn't be surprising.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These guys are probably contenders for highest base (!) pay. --Sean 14:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to Milken, it was indeed mostly bonus (but not stock options). The bonus was formulaic, rather than at the employer's discretion. I was assuming that the OP was including bonuses; was the intent to include only base salary? John M Baker (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems hard to separate way people gain money, Carlos Slim gained $20.5 billion in value this year. Some, I'm sure, in growth in asset worth, but almost certainly received more ready cash than most. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

Veterinary Charges

I know this question is going to be dumped on - BUT - I am going to ask it anyway. My dog - a 5 year old miniature dachshund - was taken ill very recently and so far, has cost us £2000 in Vet fees, which is fine by us as a) we love him to bits and b) we pay for a very expensive Pet Insurance Policy on which there is a very hefty insurance tax payable to Her Majesty's Government. My question? Given the amount of cash generated into the British economy by the wider pet industry - please don't make me itemise it - why is my Vet Bill subject to 20% Value Added Tax?

Isn't that usury or perhaps abusury? 92.4.38.206 (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VAT is levied on most things that cannot be described as necessities. Pets, and the costs consequential on the keeping thereof, fall very much into the luxury category. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course, this is a matter of opinion, with some "pet parents" considering their pets to be "their children". There was a similar problem during Hurricane Katrina, where those performing evacuations did not include pets, and thus many people chose to stay behind with their pets. StuRat (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put in a less condescending way, they do, in fact, love their pets, with the same emotions that one loves a family member. It's a real emotion and nothing to sniff at. The fact that humans are able to love animals — and that some animals are, as far as we can tell, truly capable of loving them back — is the product of tens of thousands of year of human evolution and human/dog co-habitation. Human grief at the death of a beloved pet is, studies have shown, as deep as with the death of a family member, although it does not last for as long a duration. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How was I condescending ? If you refer to my use of quotes, I did that because those are not terms I use myself, but terms I borrowed from others. StuRat (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this sounds like double taxation, but the insurance premium tax is only 6%, and this reflects a tax of around 20% on the (otherwise untaxed) administrative charges, matching the 20% VAT that is paid on the actual claims. Some insurances are exempt (such as life), but travel and equipment breakdown insurance carry 20% like VAT. I'm not convinced that these (or any) taxes are completely fair, but there is some logic in the rates. Dbfirs 08:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Given the amount of cash generated into the British economy by the wider pet industry". I think this claim would need justification. If you include the costs caused by pets (cleaning pavements, diseases spread, injuries to people, allergies, dealing with strays, noise) and the vast damage to environment caused by raising a large meat-eating animal[2] against the benefits (sales of petcare products and petcare services, allegedly reduced rates of mental illness in pet owners), it's a complex balance and by no means clear that pets are a net social good. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a somewhat related note, some American politicians (Thad McCotter for one) have been trying to make Vet bills tax deductible [3]. Doesn't look like they're going to succeed though, in part due to some of the concerns that Colapeninsula just raised. And it's hard to get non-controversial stuff passed in Washington these days to begin with. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that there are many pet owners who will join me in wishing your dachsund a good recovery. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly concur in these good wishes. (I want to mention that however high your tax bill is, it cannot be usury since that is a description of interest on a loan-- not that this helps you at all.) Marnanel (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double taxation (ie paying tax on tax payments) shouldn't come as a surprise especially if you own a car in the UK. We Brits pay 58.95 pence per litre (= $3.63 per US gallon?) in fuel duty and then 20% Value Added Tax on the cost of the petrol PLUS the fuel duty[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same in Australia. We pay fuel excise, then GST is levied on the total price which includes the excise. When this matter was brought to the attention of the then prime minister John Howard, he had it looked into. He came back with words to the effect of "We understand the problem and, believe me, we'd dearly like to fix it, but it's impossible". Which I always thought was an odd answer for someone in the position of being able to introduce amendments to whichever laws made this so. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that the reason he considered it "impossible" is that his government (as is also the case for the British Government) could not afford the upkeep of roads (and funding to Local Authorities in the UK for upkeep of roads other than primary routes) without these taxes. An alternative would be to double the fuel excise duty but not charge the VAT on it. This would be better for the government, but against EU regulations for the UK. As I pointed out above, insurance premium tax is not double taxation because it is roughly equivalent to VAT on the administrative element of the premium. Dbfirs 17:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in New Zealand where in addition to the petrol issue, council rates also incur GST. Anyway more to the point, I'm confused of the relevence of contributions of pets to the economy. I appreciate the VAT in the UK is far more complex than GST in New Zealand but as far as I know it's still a consumption tax in the form of a value added tax (hence the name). Contributions to the economy have little to do with whether something is taxed, instead as some have hinted at above, whether the consumption is consider vital or a luxury or whatever affects the rate. That's why plenty of other things that are surely important to the economy like petrol and internet connections are AFAIK taxed. Nil Einne (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

The right to cross-examine your alleged victims?

In the US, television would have me believe that defendants may choose to represent themselves rather than having a lawyer do so. Does this apply in serious criminal cases such as rape/battery/attempted murder? Could someone accused of rape be in a position of questioning their purported victim on the stand?

(Caveat: not looking for legal advice (!) Question motivated solely by interest, replies by informed laypeople welcomed). Thanks, 83.70.226.11 (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Confrontation Clause and Rape shield#In the United States of America. Marnanel (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, you are always permitted to represent yourself in court. It is written into the constitution. In the case of serious charges, it would be a bad idea to represent yourself, but you are permitted. Googlemeister (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As they say—a man who defends himself in court has a fool for a client. Nevertheless, it is generally held that the right of a defendant to mount his own defense is nearly absolute. (Narrow exceptions exist, for example where the defendant's mental competence is at issue.) Occasionally you'll hear about cases like this one, where a sex-crime defendant does defend himself, and the case is followed by a jump by state lawmakers to bar the practice in the future. It is obvious that the constitutional issues are very sensitive, and it is not clear that such laws, if passed, would survive a constitutional challenge. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, this 2002 news article "New rape law 'will protect victims'" is about The Sexual Offences (Procedures and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002 which brought Scotland into line with the rest of the UK in banning this practice. This was the case that prompted it. In England and Wales, it was banned by part of The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999[5]. Alansplodge (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was from memory a rape case in NZ sometime in the last 9 years were controversy arose over the suspect questioning the victim although I believe the suspect was found guilty. This and probably other cases did lead to the introduction of rape shield laws which require the judge's permission to ask questions about an alleged victim's sexual past but AFAIK there's still no restrictions on an accused representing themself in a rape case and while there have been issues raised on strengthening the shield laws and surrounding definitions of rape and consent [6] [7] and even suggestions on moving to an inquisitorial system, I haven't heard of any more suggestions to specifically remove the right for the accused to question the accuser/victim (or represent themselves) in a rape case. Edit: Finally found it after a lot of searching here [8] [9] [10] although interesting enough it seems he eventually won the right to a retrial [11] as he was suffering mental health issues at the time and even the jury expressed concern his behaviour wasn't helping his case (somewhat supporting the person who represents himself has an idiot for a client idea and similar to Trovatore's case below) so probably he shouldn't have been representing himself. I can't find any info on whether the retrial happened. BTW another notable thing is perhaps that lot of the examples seem to be cases where the person had a lawyer but then had a falling out. On a personal note I suspect some people find it easier to confront the person who raped them when they badger them in court and ask them uncomfortable questions then they do a random person. Nil Einne (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The judge typically has to decide if the person is competent to act as their own lawyer, meaning they are generally competent and have a law background. Someone who has been in prison for years and studied law while there might qualify. StuRat (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on this kind of law, but I don't think there's usually any kind of requirement that someone have a law background. In fact, as long as someone's competent mentally, "law background" has nothing to do with this question. Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add on, as Marnanel said, the Confrontation Clause assures this right, whether it's the lawyer or the accused as the attorney doing the questioning. Rape shield laws deal with procedural issues, but the fundamental question of whether or not testimony is required is a basic Constitutional issue. It cannot be subverted by legislation. That would require a Constitutional amendment. Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caryl Chessman did this. I gather it backfired on him, as he asked the woman about "the person who did this" or some such, and she repeatedly answered his questions with "you" did such and such. He might have stayed out of the gas chamber if he hadn't handled the trial so badly. --Trovatore (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, will you kindly stop pulling answers out of your ass? Do you have a reference for any of that? Nobody wants to hear about "The way it oughta be if StuRat was in charge!" Our articles on that topic don't say anything about having to pass any standards, except for a few minor restrictions on particular circumstances (such as the rape shield being discussed, corporations under trial and so on). Matt Deres (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, will you kindly stop being so abusive ? Here's a quote to support my statement: "...you have to convince the judge that you understand what it means to go to trial without a lawyer and that you're capable or "competent" to represent yourself" [12]. I believe that being found "competent" to represent yourself, to at least some judges in some states, requires at least a minimal knowledge of the law. StuRat (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link you give above says this: "Once you tell the judge that you'd like to act pro se, the judge will likely hold a hearing where you'll have to answer some questions. The purpose of the hearing is to make sure that you understand exactly what you're asking for. When you want to represent yourself you are, in effect, waiving or giving up your Sixth Amendment right to counsel. And that's a big deal. The courts need to make sure that criminal trials are fair. So, the judge needs to make sure that you're making a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver. In other words, you have to convince the judge that you understand what it means to go to trial without a lawyer and that you're capable or "competent" to represent yourself. As a general rule, the judge can't let you represent yourself if he doesn't think you're competent to do so. Sometimes, if the judge has doubts about a defendant's competence, he'll appoint an attorney to protect the defendant's rights until competency can be determined. This may involve requiring the defendant to undergo a psychological or other health-related evaluation." Emphasis added. It's entirely about you giving informed consent to the matter; it has nothing whatsoever to do with you having any experience with the law or being in a courtroom or anything, even if you try to weasel in a "some people, somewhere" caveat. Matt Deres (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you can't weasel out of it saying "you have to convince the judge that you understand what it means to go to trial without a lawyer and that you're capable or "competent" to represent yourself". These are two separate things, hence the "and". You pretend like they are not. If you find a source that says that judges are legally excluded from using a defendant's knowledge of the law in their determination of competence to self-represent, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, stop your complaining. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you to back it up. Check out Faretta v. California for the SCOTUS decision that held that defendants had a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings. Don't just read the article, check out the actual decision here where the opinion of the court goes into detail about how widespread it was and is for courts in the US to affirm that right, including the fact the George Washington himself said '"in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of... counsel." The right is currently codified in 28 U.S.C. 1654.' If you think that saying my being unable to prove that no judge anywhere in the US has ever tried to deny the right of pro se gives you some kind of point, you are sadly mistaken. You make great contributions here, but you need to recognize when you've been caught making stuff up and gracefully withdraw your assertion. Matt Deres (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are also making a claim, but refuse to provide any proof. Your links only show that a pro se defense exists, which was never in dispute. My link showed that it is limited. StuRat (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, you're either not reading the links or don't understand them. Faretta v. California explicitly says that the right of pro se is guaranteed by the Constitution. Guaranteed. Any judge that flouted that would soon find himself on the streets. As I've tried to explain to you, the limits involve people who are unable to giving reasoned consent; it exists as a safeguard against the stupid and retarded throwing away their right to counsel. And again, you shift the goalposts. First it was "The judge typically has to decide if the person is competent to act as their own lawyer, meaning they are generally competent and have a law background." and then it was "...some judges in some states, requires at least a minimal knowledge of the law" and now we're down to "My link showed that it is limited." Sure, in the exact sense that I said it was limited all along - by the ability to give reasoned consent. I've backed up my assertion with a decision from SCOTUS. Shadowjams and I both called you on your assertion and in response all you've given is a set of goals that shift back every time you post. Frankly, I'm sick of talking to someone who won't argue in good faith. Matt Deres (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And nobody was arguing that it wasn't guaranteed by the Constitution, that's just a red herring you introduced. You've yet to provide one shred of proof of your assertion that judges are excluded from considering a lack of legal knowledge a disqualifying factor, so I'm quite sick of talking with you. StuRat (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little art drawn onto PCBs

I'm trying to find this on Google (I've seen the site for it, so I KNOW it exists), but can't come up with the right set of search terms. I'm trying to look up those little pieces of art snuck onto PCBs by the designers. I don't mean the way the circuit traces are laid out, but some commercially produced boards have little drawings on them of miscellaneous objects (I've seen a castle, dog and a car personally). Does anyone know the term for these pieces of art or where to look online to see more of them? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Chip art? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That usually refers to just the microscopic stuff on microchips. I think 76.117 is more looking for visible stuff on circuit boards. Usually on the silk-screen layer, but sometimes even on the metal layer. I don't know if there's an official word for it, but I've just seen them called "hardware easter eggs" [13]

APL (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you both. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Legal

I have been watching Judge Judy on TV, and so this would relate to the US but as I am resident in the UK I would be interested in this jurisdiction too. One person is suing another on Judge Judy for one reason or another. They are both ‘’trailer trash’’ and are both unemployed, both have substance abuse problems, and criminal records. So, Man A has Zero money and looses the case. The Judge orders him to pay Man B, £/$ 1000. He does not have this money, how is the situation resolved? Does the bank give him an overdraft? Does Man B have to wait for instalments? Or for an indefinite period of time until he has the money? Does the government foot the bill and take it out of his taxes or unemployment benefit? Please can this be explained. I am just curious, this is not a legal advice question. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.2.26.146 (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As is typical for these mock-court reality shows, both parties are paid out of funds provided by the show's producers. See Judge Judy#Structure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, remember that Judge Judy is not a real court. Their orders are not legally binding. But in general, if you are ordered to pay something by the court that you do not have, there are various ways that they can try to get the money from you, i.e. by garnishing wages, seizing assets, etc. The court can order a payment plan according to the defendant's financial situation. Failure to pay can result in being found in contempt of court, I believe. Perhaps others can elucidate the various options better. The government does not foot the bill. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the outcomes of these pseudo-trial television shows (including Judge Judy and its much less obnoxious predecessor, The People's Court) are very much legally binding. These shows are a particularly silly and unpleasant form of binding arbitration; the parties will have a contractual obligation to abide by the decision of the arbitrator. Courts in the U.S. are extremely reluctant to interfere with binding arbitration decisions, and usually only do so in the event of serious fraud or malfeasance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, essentially, before the show everyone signs a contract that they'll accept the judge's ruling. Any part of the judgement not covered by the show is like any other debt.

Particularly interesting is the time Judge Judy actually assigned child custody on the show. If I recall that was even a cliff-hanger episode! She had to have realized that she was way overstepping her authority as an arbiter/tv-judge. I they just decided it would be good TV so do it anyway. APL (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will mention Judge Judy#Criticisms, which discusses how that custody decision was overturned by a real court on two grounds. First, as a matter of public policy, arbitrators cannot decide custody questions; second, even if such an issue could be decided by binding arbitration, custody was not covered by the parties' agreement to arbitrate and would have been out of bounds for Judy to decide. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also mentions how as a former family court judge she must have known she was overstepping (as APL pointed out she should have in general) Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking about what would actually happen were this not a TV show, but just a poor person losing an actual case. In England and Wales that's a County Court Judgment; it's much the same kind of idea in comparable jurisdictions. That means a court says that A has to pay. He has a period of time in which to pay; how long varies, but it's often a month or so, and sometimes A can petition the court for longer. Or A and B can work out a payment plan. But if they don't, and A doesn't pay, then B has to use some form of judgement recovery (he can't just go to A's trailer and take goods to the value). In England he might use a County Court Bailiff and in Scotland a Sheriff officer. Armed with the judgement (and in some places a further court order giving them permission to seize), these guys can seize some of A's property, sell it (in Scotland that sale was called a Warrant sale), take a cut to pay their own fees, and give the rest to B. It's a bad deal for A, because they don't get much for A's old stuff (and often they don't try to get a good price). Most jurisdictions set a bunch of limits on how such officers can operate, and limit what they can take (sometimes they can't take necessities like beds and cookware, or the means of someone's livelihood like tools) - they're mostly looking for stuff like jewellery and electronics, which are portable luxuries with some resale value. In your question, if A really is poor, then this might not work - A just doesn't have enough stuff that can be sold to pay B, and the costs of the seizing and selling and all the visits to court. Another strategy B can try is to "attach" A's wages (also called "garnish" them), which means another court order makes A's employer keep back some of A's salary and give it to B (again, most jurisdictions allow A to keep enough to pay his basic bills; B can't starve A to get his money). If A is receiving government assistance already (the idea of which is that it only pays A just enough anyway) then there's little for B to garnish (B can always try to get a court to garnish benefits, but he won't get much each week, even if the court agrees). People in A's position are often described as "litigation proof", meaning they're so poor that there's no point in suing them. Lots of the cases in programmes like Judge Judy are for trivial sums owed between such unlitigables, which (were it not for the show) wouldn't end up in court. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to the source of the cases and the concept of 'litigation-proof' parties, it's worth noting that these television programs (including Judge Judy) recruit from real cases filed in real small claims courts. In other words, the individuals involved had already made the decision – ill-conceived or not – to pursue their cases pro se in open court. I suppose it's possible that some of them just wanted to get a judgement for the principle of the matter and weren't expecting to collect, but sometimes it's remarkable just how much blood one can squeeze from a stone. Remember that the maximum judgement in these small claims' courts is just $5000, and many of the claims are significantly less than that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's called judgment proof and it refers to a large portion of collection cases in probably most jurisdictions. Garnishment is the most favorable option, but if people never make enough you'll never collect. Squeezing blood from a turnip yields little. Shadowjams (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

Wikipedia Playlist

Is there such a thing as wikipedia playlists? What I mean is a set of articles a specific user thinks is cool and puts up in a list for other people to go through as well. Is there a way to search on wikipedia for popular articles? How about for article sets about specific topics, like creating wikipedia bibliographies on a topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.121.166 (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THEMlCK (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are Portals full of related articles. See Wikipedia:Portal/Directory. Wikipedia:Books might have something similar as well. Rmhermen (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Wikipedia:Featured topics and Wikipedia:Good topics. the wub "?!" 12:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I get liquorice bootlaces?

Hi, does anybody know a good sweetshop that would sell liquorice bootlaces ~~or liquorice allsorts~~, and ship them to South Korea? After a quick search I could only find places that would sell stuff to the UK. Thanks. --Kjoonlee 08:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've learned that ebay has liquorice allsorts. But what about bootlaces? --Kjoonlee 08:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list of suppliers here seems to give a lot of possibilities. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

regarding boarding school

I know regarding boarding school admissions in amu critiera & admission process —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.207.203 (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is from someone near Mumbai, India who wants to know about admission criteria to the Algarh Muslim University. This is a place to look. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US State Centers of Population 2010?

Does anyone know if the census has update this file on the center of population of the States since the 2010 election? I tried searching through the site, but found nothing. --CGPGrey (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chessman's "Big Red" -- who was he, if he existed?

A recent thread reminded me of the morbid but fascinating Caryl Chessman case. In Chessman's book, Cell 2455, Death Row, he opens with a description of the execution of one of his friends (?) that he met while awaiting execution himself, named "Big Red". Big Red is described as an Arkansan who got drunk, got arrested, and beat one of his cellmates to death in the drunk tank. He is to be executed at the same time as "Henry", a "feeble-minded" and likely insane individual convicted of the sex-related murder of a child. Big Red doesn't want to die with Henry, because it would look bad in the news stories, so he petitions the court for the privilege of being executed an hour earlier. This is denied, but eventually Henry gets a stay based on his sanity, so Red gets his "consolation prize".

What I can't discover anywhere is who Big Red and Henry actually were, assuming they existed, rather than being made up out of Chessman's fertile literary mind. Does anyone know? --Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Henry" is Henry Ford McCracken. "Big Red" is Bernard Gilliam.

I found this by looking through the ProQuest Historical Newspaper database of the LA Times (a search for "Henry" and "executed" between 1948 and 1954), and there were many articles which discussed the McCracken case (which was quite a media event — lots of appeals, questions about sanity, child sex-murder, the whole profile), and one mention that Gilliam had requested he be executed on a different day ("Yesterday, a Fresno County slayer's request to be executed an hour earlier than McCracken's scheduled execution was denied. The request was made by Bernard Gilliam, 31, who said he was a family man and 'did not want to die with a sex slayer.'" — "Execution of M'Cracken Postponed," Los Angeles Times, October 31, 1952, page 1.) In another article, Gilliam is described as age 36, "a former railroad worker who killed a fellow prisoner in the Firebaugh City Jail a year ago by kicking him to death." Bleh. Quoth Gilliam: "I would rather lose an hour of my life than die with a sex criminal." Further Googling shows that Gilliam's nickname as "Red" was notable enough to be mentioned in one of his appeals!

I had thought this would be a hard one to answer but it turned out to be quite simple with the right tools. Fascinating stuff, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Google got me nowhere (Big Red means too many other things; adding Chessman doesn't narrow it down much except for giving a higher proportion of hits for his book.) Maybe I need to find out about this ProQuest thingy (I only knew it as a repository of PhD dissertations). --Trovatore (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ProQuest Historical Newspapers is an amazing service, if you have access to it. I'm sure it costs a mint — I get it through my educational institution. Full-text searching of original newspaper (microfilm) pages, lots of newspapers represented, many of which go back to the 19th century, certainly most through the 20th. If you do any kind of historical research, it's an invaluable tool, and it's much easier to use than Lexis Nexis. I appreciate in particular the ability to view full pages, photographs and all, which you don't get in services that use re-typed copies of the articles (like Lexis Nexis). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, 98. Edison (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice job, Mr. 98. I'd just like to add that I get free remote access to ProQuest via my local public library's website (along with a host of other great reference resources like the full Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford Reference Premium, etc, etc.) and it is indeed an invaluable resource. You can usually find many sources there that Google knows nothing about at all. – OhioStandard (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firearm loading and bolt pulling

Do today's firearms (self-repeating rifles and automatic pistols) need to have their bolts (levers) pulled after a new magazine is inserted (as seen in countless video-games and films)?

Thank you very much. --96.21.156.211 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Just putting a magazine in does not load a round into the chamber. Firing a round puts the next round in the chamber but this doesn't happen when you simply load a magazine in. Dismas|^(talk) 23:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so basically, when you fire to the last round of the magazine, the empty cartridge is still lodged in the chamber, so when you load a full magazine you need to pull once to eject the cartridge and load a new round... I understand. Thank you. --96.21.156.211 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No the empty cartridge is ejected when you fire it. You just need to load a new round. Some guns even have a breach which stays open after the last round is fired and ejected. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What 110.200 said is correct. Your original question is about the first round and that's what I answered. As for the last round, it is ejected by the same mechanism that ejects the previous rounds. And to follow up on what 110.200 said about the breech (chamber) staying open after firing the last round, you can sometimes see this in movies as well. Often times I have seen where the last round will be fired, the chamber is obviously open and the gun is empty, yet the hero will then turn and fire again. Even though the gun was obviously empty. This is an issue with continuity. Dismas|^(talk) 02:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

Dome of the Rock UFO 2011

I have recently been shown some videos on YouTube that I cant find just at the moment but concerned a UFO over the Dome of the Rock in Israel in early January 2011. I wanted to get further information concerning this. Is this real? Is this a hoax? Is it just a video posted on you tube for fun? Was it real? Who was it? Was it scientifically analyzed? What was it please? Thanks you, and I will try to find a link for the video and will post it here from my home computer. (Can’t access YouTube from work) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.2.26.146 (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this was mentioned on www.forteantimes.com - check the Breaking News section for january 2011. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdcq1xQtwz4

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAjFeoWfDqs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnWo1kbu5QE&feature=related what is this thing too please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first one looks like a helicopter plus some basic photo editing. The last one is obviously photo editing fakery. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, sorry! I trust people on the internet far less than I trust the sneakiest of governments. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That "incident" was discussed at Discovery News: Jerusalem UFO 'Almost Certainly a Hoax', Feb 4, 2011. It sounds like it was a relatively well-organized and well-executed hoax, though. WikiDao ☯ 21:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American fact finder help

Topeka City, KS, what do they mean in the AREA CHARACTERISTICS Area (Land)? What is it measured in? Albacore (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm looking at exactly the same table as you are (I get the impression there's individual session data that isn't coming across), but in the overview by state the areas given are all in square meters. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The linked data for each state says Kansas has an "area (land)" of 211,754,095,913 and an "area (water)" of 1,345,868,930 making a total of 213,099,964,843. That ties in well with our Kansas article which says the total area of the state is 213,096 square kilometres (82,277 sq mi). Since, 1 square kilometre is 1,000,000 square metres, I think it is safe to assume census.gov is using square metres as a unit of measurement - quite surprising considering the USA's reluctance to adopt the metric system of measurments. Astronaut (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The metric system is the preferred system of measurement in the U.S. Government according to a 1988 law. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was just the National Parks Service putting up a few distance signs in kilometres. Astronaut (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolt pulling

The above question got me thinking about the weapons procedure in film and TV. You often see the character ~~loading a shell into their gun~~ pulling the slide back soon after they ~~pull~~ draw the weapon from its holtser. Is that just generally good practice to ensure thay have ~~a full clip~~ round in the chamber before leaping into action (one usually never sees them actually load the weapon), or is it a safety concern to ensure the weapon doesn't go off while withdrawing it from the holster. Of course, I'm assuming what I see in film and TV is a reasonably accurate depiction of police/FBI/etc. procedures. If not, I would be interested in what is the actual recommended procedure in law enforcement. Astronaut (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting your terms mixed up considering the following "to ensure thay have a full clip before leaping into action". I'll put the difference between a clip (ammunition) and a magazine (firearms) aside for now. When you see them pull the pistol from a holster, they already have a magazine in the gun. They then pull the slide back to load a round from that magazine into the chamber. For safety's sake, the first round is not chambered when they put the gun into the holster when they get dressed in the morning. It's an extra layer of safety considering that the safety catch could have been flipped and the gun is therefore "live". As for what the official procedure is for the FBI/Police etc., I don't have any references and things may vary by department or organization. Dismas|^(talk) 01:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original wording suitably altered to correct my lack of expertiese with weapons terminology. Another question just occurred to me: If the gun is then not fired, I presume the round in the chamber is removed once the 'action' is over so the gun is once again safer to handle. How would that be done? Astronaut (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the magazine, then work the action to eject the loaded round, then replace the round in the magazine and reinsert. You first remove the magazine so that clearing the loaded round doesn't load a second one. — Lomn 02:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine most on duty police officers not having a round chambered. I'm pretty sure pulling back the slide is a TV creation. Now perhaps individual officers do things differently, if one was in the office all day; but the general rule is that weapons carried in a holster are already chambered. Of course the hammer (if exposed) probably isn't cocked, and the safety is almost surely on... those two factors insure a lot of safety (many modern weapons either put a bar up so the pin can't strike the round with the safety, or rotate the firing pin out of the way, so even a drop can't accidentally fire the gun). Shadowjams (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cracked ran an article about gun myths recently which included gratuitous cocking. TvTropes mentions the similar Dramatic Gun Cock. Both of these are more about the hammer being pulled back (I don't really know anything about guns, so I'll leave the explanations there), but I get the feeling one or the other may interest some people here... Vimescarrot (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Military Pay

I was just having a look at the [US military pay scales and I calculated that a private (E2) only makes $18,000 p.a. base. Is the pay really this low, or am I missing something in my calculations (or are the allowances just huge). For comparison, an private in the Australian army makes $40k base in their first year, up to $70k base after 10 years services, and this is before the $10k service allowance is added... Seems to be a massive discrepancy... 58.165.200.147 (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that all the needs of a soldier are met by the military, such as housing, food, clothing, education, and medical care; $18,000 doesn't sound so bad. On the contrary, the $40,000 sounds rather high. Do Aussie soldiers have to pay for any of those items that US soldiers get for free ? If so, this might explain the diff. Also note that US soldiers get lots of "bonus" payments, like a sign-up bonus, re-enlistment bonus, combat pay, etc. StuRat (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other notes: married service members get additional allowances for housing, etc. Also, most enlisted personnel make it to E4 or E5 within 3 years with corresponding pay increases. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRS Taxes Levy on LLC's

Gentlemen,

I have a couple of very interesting question to whoever may consider capable of answer it in the category of Taxes. I owe approximately U$40,000.00 in personal taxes to the IRS since 2006 which, by very own personal reasons I have not been able to pay. In my struggle for life, I formed in 2008 a small Contractor kind of business under a LLC type of organization. I do not owe taxes under my LLC because business activity has been extremely limited anyway. In 2009, the IRS put a levy on my personal bank account but, since I was by then on unemployment and I had only $490.00 on my personal check account, I decided to talk to them and convinced them that I was going through a difficult time therefore I could not afford to pay them neither to have my personal check account to be affected. They agreed to my explanation and they stopped any collection activity under the promise that as soon as I was able to get a job and be able to pay them I would do so. so my questions are: 1 - Can the IRS, based up on my personal taxes debt since 2006, put a levy on my LLC bank account in which I keep a average balance of $2,500.00 ??? 2 - If the answer is yes to the previous question and since I'm the only member on my LLC so far, including one more member of my family into my LLC, would help avoid any levy from the IRS to my LLC bank account ???

I would appreciate any time invested to answer my questions

Mar. 14 - 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmart14 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email address removed - any answers will appear below and you must return here to read them. Your question sounds rather close to a request for legal advice which we are not able to provide. Rather then seek the assistance of random strangers on the internet, you might be better off consulting your lawyer or other qualified professional. Astronaut (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. administrative law and the legal status of findings by an Inspector General

Hi all. I've been working on our this article about a former Director of the United States A.T.F. who served in that role for a couple of years under George W. Bush, but resigned just prior to the release of a highly critical report about him by the Inspector General for the Department of Justice. A question has come up on that article's talk page as to whether the statements made in the Inspector General's report are adjudicative or not, i.e. whether they're "findings of fact" or just allegations. To clarify, the report did find violations of ethics CFRs that "constituted misconduct" in one area, and very substantial mismanagement ( not misconduct, note ) in financial and personnel matters.

But it's my impression from the research I've already done that the findings published as the result of an investigation conducted by one of the Offices of the Inspector General (OIGs) aren't "just allegations" at all, but are rather "findings of fact", i.e. that they're in themselves adjudicative, and thus directly actionable in terms of firing, demotion, sanctions, or whatever without further judicial process. My understanding is that (unless the affected employee appeals the findings to an administrative law court) no further adjudication or hearings are required or undertaken. I base this understanding in part on a section in one of our articles on administrative law that says, I think, that an Inspector General has both rule-making and adjudicative authority.

It's also my impression from reading the 1978 Act that established the OIGs, a link from our Inspector General article, that findings of violations of U.S. Federal criminal codes must be disclosed to the U.S. Attorney General. My assumption is that if it's a criminal matter, then the Attorney General would decide whether to prosecute in a criminal court. As a side issue - I suppose that an OIG's findings re criminal violations (only) would thus not be considered adjudicative? I ask this last question merely out of personal curiosity.

Btw, I'll just reassure folks that no one is currently proposing to add content to the article directly from the report itself, a primary source: There are plenty of reliable secondary sources that document this affair.

Is anyone able to confirm or correct what I've stated above as to my current understanding of this, particularly as to whether the findings of an Inspector General with respect to questions of CFR violations and with respect to allegations of mismanagement are adjudicative or whether they merely constitute unsubstantiated allegations? Many thanks in advance for taking the time to help sort a rather complex question. – OhioStandard (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets and cartridges

Do all bullets leave a cartridge behind, that has to be eventually ejected? In the films I've watched where people shoot pistols and revolvers, I never recall seeing a cartridge being ejected with each shot. I thought that all of the bullet left the gun when fired, but is this untrue? Thanks 92.15.11.100 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 Is anyone able to confirm or correct what I've stated above as to my current understanding of this, particularly as to whether the findings of an Inspector General with respect to questions of [[Code_of_Federal_Regulations | CFR]] violations and with respect to allegations of mismanagement are adjudicative or whether they merely constitute unsubstantiated allegations? Many thanks in advance for taking the time to help sort a rather complex question. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 13:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
+== Bullets and cartridges ==
+Do all bullets leave a cartridge behind, that has to be eventually ejected? In the films I've watched where people shoot pistols and revolvers, I never recall seeing a cartridge being ejected with each shot. I thought that all of the bullet left the gun when fired, but is this untrue? Thanks [[Special:Contributions/92.15.11.100|92.15.11.100]] ([[User talk:92.15.11.100|talk]]) 13:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)