Miscellaneous desk
< June 5	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 7 >

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.

June 6[edit]

geography[edit]

When does a hill become a mountain? At what height? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubczak (talk • contribs) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain. — Michael J 00:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fiction; if you want the Entertainment reference desk, it's over that way. In real life, as both the Mountain and Hill articles say, the answer is that there is no answer -- there's no particular height where the word changes. --Anonymous, 02:07 UTC, June 6. 2008.

Are there hills/mountains whose status is disputed? Edison (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my city we have a Mt Rogers, a Mt Taylor and a Mt Ainslie, but none are higher than 800m above sea level, and are mostly no more than 100m higher than the rest of the city. The distinction often depends on the place you're talking about. In Australia we don't have many high altitude areas, so some things are classed as mountains that would barely be hills in Bolivia, Nepal or Switzerland. Steewi (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Bob Avakian at Oklahoma State is more certain in his 2000 feet or over above mean sea level (answer here[1]). My teachers used to like definitions like that, though living in Steewi-land, I'd need to have my calculator for levels of mean seas to be sure, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be a Graham then. The division into Munros, Corbetts and Grahams is rather more useful. In Sussex there is a Mount Harry which is 195m high. I'm sure it's not the smallest mount though.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can differ according to geological composition, also. For a quick NZ comparison, take the Auckland volcanoes: Mount Eden is the tallest (mainland), yet only 196m (643 ft). The non-volcanic Takaka Hill, on the other hand, is 760m (2493 ft), and the Rimutakas (highest point 940m - 3084 ft) are almost always referred to as the Rimutaka Hills. I suspect that anything over 1000m is called a mountain by most. Gwinva (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I remembered the film and just bought an old copy. The question was asked of me by an English lady who moved to CA from Wisconsin. In Wausau there is Rib Mountain which is 586 ft. according to my Nat. Geo atlas. Thanks everyone - Dubczak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubczak (talk • contribs) 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geographers may come up with definitions, but locals have their own pride and ways of naming things. Steewi is certainly right about topographical context. Even within Switzerland, my city sees the Üetliberg as "its" home mountain, and calls it a mountain too (Berg is German for mountain). A friend of mine from the Engadin said this molehill of shabby 400m above civilization wouldn't even have a name where he grew up. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We just discussed this, probably on this very reference desk. Please take a look back in the archives for the last several weeks.

Atlant (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well remembered! See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008_May_12#Mountains. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.. and to add to my earlier comment about there being no authority enforcing something like this, remember that most peaks were named long before their heights were known. Even if the namers had some standard in mind, which is unlikely, they wouldn't have been able to adhere to it in anything but a vague way. Bob Avakian at Oklahoma State might be interested to learn about the many mountains in Oklahoma that are under 2,000 feet tall. Like U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Bull Mountain, Choctaw County, Oklahoma -- 837 feet tall. There are many many others. Pfly (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's Mount Trashmore in Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA, "with hills over 60 feet (18 m) high" (!). --LarryMac | Talk 18:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Trashmore? Surely with a name like that it HAS to be a landfill! Bit blatant, isn't it?--ChokinBako (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, it was a landfill. Now it's a mountain! Fribbler (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land of opportunity[edit]

Nowadays what is the equivalent of America in the beginning of the XX century? GoingOnTracks (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the term Land of opportunity is likely still fitting for America. We pay some of the highest wages, we do have a lot of job opportunities for people from the poorer countries and we have okay immigration policies. Then again, all of those could be improved but I don't necessarily think another country would be called that reasonably. After all there are still an enormous amount of immigrants coming to America, so they likely think it's the Land of opportunity. Chris M. (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land of opportunity refers to the ability for anybody to make money/a successful living. So what you are looking for is a nation whereby social-class isn't hugely important to your chances of success, where formal educational level isn't a major barrier to stop you being a success and where your colour/creed/nationality etc. is not a barrier to success. The USA is not alone in being able to claim the above criteria are met, but it is certainly still a good example country of one that can. I'm not sure whether the emerging economies of China and India would be able to state the above entirely, but certainly there are many people in these nations that are making a (relative) fortune who have no formal education and are from a lower social class than the traditional business-world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of T. Michael Moseley[edit]

Recently, the Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, Gen. T. Michael Moseley and the Secretary of the Air Force have been forced to resign over a variety of mismanagement issues in the branch. A central issue was the accidental fly-over of a B-52 with 6 live nuclear warheads. But suppose the B-52 crashed with the 6 live nukes on-board, would it really have been that much of a danger to the public? The detonation of nuclear warheads is an extremely precise sequence, so aside from spewing radioactive materials, how likely is it for the nuclear warheads to have exploded? Acceptable (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would "spewing radioactive materials ... really have been that much of a danger to the public?". Ever heard of the Chernobyl disaster? - "In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months". -- JackofOz (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A more realistic analogue would be the Palomares incident. There was a significant risk to people due to the spilled radioactive materials, but it was certainly not like the huge fire that spread a much larger amount of contamination at Chernobyl (probably the materials at Chernobyl would have been more radioactive, too, but I'm guessing on that). --Anonymous, 02:15 UTC, 2008-06-06.

They would not have gone off in a nuclear blast if, say the plane had crashed and burned. A "dirty bomb" would have been the worst result. If the pilot and bombardier had gotten an "itchy trigger finger" and learned they were nukes and tried to nuke a city, they could presumably not have done so due to the lack of codes (check me on this: supposedly a ballistic missile sub can but an air crew can't without codes the President or designated command authority carries). That leaves the problem of cancer deaths or radiation poisoning from the "dirty bomb" if a bomb had crashed/burned, and the problem that there were several nuclear warheads withoutthe usual level of security, a chain link fence at an airforce base, rather than a guarded bunker. If Party A had placed a load of nukes on a plane, which neither the crew nor the base authorities knew were there, and Party B were so inclined, they might be able to get their hands on enough nukes to take out six major cities, if their people had the expertise to eventually bypass the security measures. Edison (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Palomares incident was minor compared to some others listed at List of military nuclear accidents; however, even the release of radioactive materials is quite unlikely in a crash. Several similar accidents have, in fact, occurred. Rmhermen (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the airplane had crashed, the most likely result is that the plutonium in the bombs would have broken free (they're solid, dense objects that can easily punch through the bomb casing and the airplane's skin), and the military would have been looking around the crash site for a while with shovels and geiger counters to find all the bits. --Carnildo (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely - see the list I mentioned. Rmhermen (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physicians setting own work schedule[edit]

I heard that physicians in North America can set their own working hours. Is this true? Is this only applicable for physicians in a private practice or will public hospitals also allow this practice? If true, to what degree of flexibility do they have in doing so? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a private business of course you can set your own hours. Although I doubt you'll maximize the profitability of the doctors' office if you worked from midnight - 8am.--droptone (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, that specific shift is relatively lucrative if you're in veterinary medicine, judging not only from the number of emergency vet clinics that are only open evenings and weekends, but also on what I've had to shell out to have my cat repaired during those hours :-)} .

(Those hours are also attractive to those veterinarians who don't want to bother (or be bored to tears) with the more mundane aspects of running a practice, such as routine shots, toenail trimming, and so forth.)

-- Danh, 70.59.116.253 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1930s USNavy Semi-Ridgid Diridgeables[edit]

Back in the 30s, the US Navy owned and operated a small fleet of Zepplin type aircraft. ALL were eventually lost in weather related crshes! Among them were the "ACRON"(Sp.?), the "MACON" (Sp.?), the "Los Angeles", and at least one more .... PROBABLY at least two or three more !!

I'm now 86 years old, and remember well having seen both the Acron AND the Macon fly gracefully over my home in Buffalo, NY, each on seperate occasions. Both had their own fighter escort fighters in a hanger deck on board. They would launch those 'planes while in flight (using a trapeze device), then retrieve the planes using the same trapeze. I'M SURE there was AT LEAST one more, named (as I recall) after some mountain range, and could well be more that I don't recall.

I want to pass on this bit of aviation history on to my Grandkids, but want give them the entire story, with airship names. Can you help me .... PLEASE !! THANX !!

JIMCAV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.23.148 (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Shenandoah (ZR-1). See also List of airships of the United States Navy.—eric 05:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is e to the power of i pi equal to?[edit]

Someone told me about this mathematics equation, but I don't understand it. Can you please help.--Un poisson pour manger a la bouche, s'il vous plait. (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

−1. See Euler's identity. Algebraist 08:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the reference desk does have a mathematics section. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work Visa in UK[edit]

A Japanese friend of mine, living and working here in the UK for a year, just had a short 5-day holiday in Italy with his family (also living here with him). When he arrived back in the UK, he was told at the airport his work visa was now invalid and that he had to apply for another one.

I find this strange as he has been to other EU countries before and this has never happened before. He has always been able to return to the UK on the same visa, after all there is no restriction on movement for workers throughout all EU member states.

Could it be on account of the fact that during his stay in Italy he also visited Switzerland (not an EU member state) for a few hours and this cancelled his work visa?--ChokinBako (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most visas have an expiry date. I presume your friend has checked that his visa hasn't simply run out. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I know for a fact that he had a one-year visa. Perhaps it's just over-zealous immigration officials at Manchester Airport not understanding that Europe is all one state. I myself was turned away recently from Manchester Airport by staff for Flybe telling me I needed a passport to travel to Frankfurt, when I've never needed one before, being a British National.--ChokinBako (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do need a passport for Frankfurt surely? Germany is in the Schengen Agreement area, but you and I are not, being in the Common Travel Area? Fribbler (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there and never needed it. I've also had visitors come over here (from Stuttgart) and they've never needed a passport.--ChokinBako (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've always needed it going to continental Europe (from Dublin), and they were quite strict about that, stating that photo-id was all you needed for the UK but a passport was needed for Schengen countries. Fribbler (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty foolhardy to travel anywhere by air and not take your passport. I would take it even on an internal flight because you never know what type of "incident" might happen. As for work visas, different visas come with different rules for various nationalities, your friend should check those rules carefully to see if he is allowed to leave the country, leave the EU, go home, and/or return on the same visa. If in doubt, contact the British Embassy at home or the Foreign and Commonweath Office here. Astronaut (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your friend had single-entry visa. So after he left the UK he had no visa more. BTW, there are some restrictions for workers within the EU. Jobseeker from the Poland, for example, should apply for a visa if they want to work in Spain. And last: the EU is not a single state, it is a federation of states.GoingOnTracks (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. But like I said, he has been to the continent many times before (since coming to live in the UK) and this has never happened before. Also, he had a visa to last the full year, so why it has become invalid suddenly is a total mystery. So, I was wondering if it was because he visited Switzerland for a few hours last weekend. Anyway, his company will sort it out. Thanks for the replies.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Street hookers[edit]

Is arab street hookers videos are shot in Arab world or in America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.29 (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America. They are produced in america for an american audience in Miami, FL by the same company that does the "Bang Bus" vids. JeanLatore (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground from a foreigner's perspective[edit]

I'm curious to know what you yanks think of the London Underground. How does it compare to American urban underground travel? Abwischbar (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heres someones opinion (click the second result, it's blacklisted for some reason so I can add a direct link). Fribbler (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The D.C. Metro is nice enough, but you would be horrified at the state of the Philadelphia and New York subway systems. Dark, filthy, noisy, smelly, confusing, teeming with element, the Tube is like a carriage ride in the park in comparison. But don't listen to me, I love the Tube. Long live Mornington Crescent. Mind the gap. Way out, man. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a reference desk question, and I'm not a "Yank", but I am a transit fan and I'll answer anyway.

I think the Underground is excellent for the way it covers so much of the city -- only the New York system is comparable in North America. (In both cases, the reason is that the systems have been around for over 100 years and were largely constructed at a time when labor was cheap. In both cases there is a large chunk of the city with little or no coverage [South London, Staten Island], but the city center and other parts are well served.)
The downside of an older system is that it can be prone to breakdowns and parts of the system may have been designed for out-of-date traffic patterns or other out-of-date constraints. London has both problems. For example, many of its older interchange stations have very poor layouts, such as King's Cross and Bank, compared to say Washington where every interchange station was designed as an interchange station. And then there's the silly layout of stations at Heathrow — this one not a relic of the 19th century but of the airport authority changing its mind as to the location of Terminal 5. (On the other hand, some newer interchanges in London have been well designed with convenient same-level layouts. And several North American subways don't serve their cities' airports at all.) Chicago also has both problems (two derailments a few days apart just recently); New York seems to do better these days, despite the age of its system.
Some Underground stations are attractive; some are ugly. The renovation program in recent decades has generally done a good job. New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago are way behind here, partly because their station architects seem to think that the station stops at the platform edge and anything near the tracks should look black. Newer systems like Washington, Toronto, and especially Montreal do better.
Signage in London Underground stations is generally excellent. The use of consistent names for lines, with the American system of compass points for directions (ironically not used in New York), is a big win. On the other hand, the idea that a line can fork to different destinations (and that some trains don't run all the way to the terminus) is confusing to the newcomer. If New York methods were used, the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow and to Uxbridge would have one color on the map, but different route letters or numbers.
The Underground is way better than New York as to seating comfort, but New York has air-conditioned trains and London doesn't. Some of the smaller systems, such as Washington, do well in both respects.
Trains on the Underground are small compared to most North American systems, and on most of the system they don't move very fast either. One large problem is that when they get full, station stops become very long, further slowing things down. Also, the way you typically have to step up or down to board an Underground train is a source of inconvenience and must lengthen station stops. North American subways have the platforms level with the train floors or very nearly so.
Underground fares are high by North American standards.
The use of zonal fares means that ticket checking at exits is required, whereas the flat fares on most North American systems mean it's possible to pay your fare at the entrance and then not carry anything. (However, on farecard-based systems like New York and Chicago you'll probably be carrying a card anyway, and Washington has some distance-based fares and tickets are checked on exit.)
Underground fares don't include free transfers to buses. Neither did New York until recently, but now it does, and at least some other North American systems do. (I really like the system in Toronto, where I live: at many subway stations the buses come into the fare-paid zones and open both doors and you can just walk freely from one vehicle to another.)
New York has express trains on many lines, and 24-hour service; London has only a couple of lines with any sort of expresses, and shuts down around midnight. But most North American systems shut down overnight too.

--Anonymous, 19:36 UTC, some bits added 22:08 UTC, 2008-06-06.

But the problem with Toronto is that there are only two lines. The buses and streetcars enter fare-paid zones kind of randomly, and they are much, much slower than the subway. How many times has the streetcar broken down, seemingly always at the stop prior to the one at which you are standing? I've never been to London or New York but at the very least their subway maps are more interesting to look at. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can reduce both the cost and the bother of ticket-checking by getting an Oyster card. Algebraist 09:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of air conditioning is not a problem most of the time, but with global warming in some heatwaves it has been no joke. It reached 47 degrees Centigrade (116 Fahrenheit) in 2006 [2]. I was travelling to Kings Cross in rush hour and the train stopped between stations for five minutes, with everyone packed in. This was really scary, because I felt that if the train broke down or something there would have been casualties. When I arrived I was absolutely drenched with sweat, had a splitting headache and a real thirst, I must have sweated half a litre at least in five minutes! People were leaving the Underground before reaching there destination to stop and recover from the heat. I should say that this is very rare, and except under extreme prolonged hot conditions the underground is comfortable. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you specifically ask people from the only developed country whose public transport systems are even worse then the UKs?195.128.251.158 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Wave/ Heat Storm[edit]

A Heat Wave/ Heat Storm has just started. Sources are the news weather outfits and the Weather Channel. Got temps in the upper 90s, humidity is really bad, got a drought going on as well. Heat indexes are in the dangerous range. A persistent High pressure cell has entrenched itself in the Southern US and it has caused temps to skyrocket. Can someone write a article about this ? 65.163.115.204 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it becomes notable. Wikinews might have something on it though. -Eron^Talk 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking news, summer is hot! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Meanwhile, in the central US, thunderstorms are poping up with tornadoes. A tornado was also reported in Alberta, and severe thunderstorms with hail occured in Ontario and Michigan. My original research predicts in 600 years in the southern US, air temperatures of 120+ Farenheit in June will be not unusual. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, at about the same time as all this was going on, Canterbury received its first major snowstorm of the year... Grutness...wha? 12:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shark vs. Lion...[edit]

Who of them is stronger in a possible confrontation? 190.49.95.223 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piece of cake. If the confrontation takes place underwater, the shark will have a significant advantage. If it's on dry land, the opposite will be true. Friday (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, but what if it's a landshark? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Friday. However, I think it would be a more plausible scenario if the shark confronts a crocodile (shark swim upriver or an encounter in a river delta) or a crocodile confronts a lion (Lion goes to a croc infested waterhole).--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bet the croc could take the shark, any shark. *Checks the internets...* discovery channel says salt-water alligator would lose to a great white, though nile croc takes lion. Chris M. (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think the troll might have won this particular encounter. Richard Avery (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a shark can beat a crocodile and a crocodile can beat a lion, then surely a shark can beat a lion. See Animal Face-Off. --Russoc4 (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sorts of sharks aren't as dangerous as others though. And you have to take into account the possibility that they might not both be perfectly average members of their specis. What about a lioness though, they're the real hunters in the lion's family, the males just look big and dangerous to frighten everyone off, but don't seem to spend much time actually fighting.HS7 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hostage Scenario[edit]

Frequently in the movies we see a pistol-wielding hostage taker behind the hostage and putting the gun to the side of the hostage's head, threatening to shoot if the police do not drop their weapons. In real life, how likely is it that the hostage taker be able to squeeze off a round should the police to choose to fire on him? I'd imagine the range has an effect on this because if the police fire from a long distance, the hostage taker is able to see the gun flash before the bullet hits him and respond accordingly.

But suppose the police officer approaches to within several feet or metres from the hostage taker and fires. Would the hostage taker be able to pull his own trigger in that split second? Acceptable (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight or night, that guy will NOT see a muzzle flash. Military and SWAT weapons have flash suppressors on them. A sniper team could take the guy out easily. 65.163.115.204 (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also do NOT count on the guy spotting any smoke either. Smokeless ammo has been and is still used, since World War I. 65.163.115.204 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for noise, forget that one in a urban setting, too damn noisy, also, govt and some SWAT outfits use weapons that have silencers on them.

The only way your guy will know he has been hit, especially in a head shot, is that he got hit by a sledgehammer, sees blood, gore comming out of him, as he is dying from said shot. 65.163.115.204 (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But does he/she have enough time to pull the trigger the instant he/she feels the bullet on his/her forehead? Acceptable (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most important risk to the hostage in such a situation must be that the cop's shot won't hit where it's meant to. The cop might not be a perfect marksman, the criminal might unexpectedly move just as the cop fires. If the criminal notices a bullet passing an inch from his head, he just might pull his own trigger. Or if he gets hit in a place that kills him but not instantly, he can recover and shoot the hostage. Or for that matter, the cop's shot might itself hit the hostage. In Hollywood the principal good guys almost always hit where they're aiming and the bad guys hardly ever do -- reality works a little differently. --Anonymous, 01:55 UTC, June 7, 2008.

I don't know if this is a myth, but isn't there the trigger-squeeze reaction that happens when you get shot that is involuntary? I thought that was the mail rationale against sniping the hostage taker. Chris M. (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether there was a muzzle flash or not, the guy would not have enough time to react before the bullet hit him. Police operate at close range. We are not talking about artillery from 25 miles away. As for the 'noise factor' that someone mentioned, a bullet travels faster than the speed of sound. If he was hit in the head and killed instantly (again, this rarely happens), he would never hear the shot. However, there is always the possibility that he would squeeze the trigger at that moment or in the split second before he falls. It's not recommended practise to shoot a hostage taker in this situation unless it is imminent that the hostage is going to die.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you shoot the gun out of his hand then reload and shoot him again?--Serviam (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you did do that wouldn't you be shooting an unarmed opponent! I suspect there would be a real risk of the impact detonating the bullet in the hostage-taker's gun, so this is probably not a good idea. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the bullet might detonate, but more likely the gun would be blown apart, because snipers use high powered rifles. This itself could possibly injure both hostage taker and hostage. Take a look at this.--ChokinBako (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]