Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 April 30

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.

April 30

NCIC and US States

I would like to know what US states utilize the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) and those who do not. Phearson (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this website (linked from the article), it would appear to be all states and territories:

"Data in NCIC files is exchanged with and for the official use of authorized officials of the Federal Government, the States, cities, penal and other institutions, and certain foreign governments. The data is exchanged through NCIC lines to Federal criminal justice agencies, criminal justice agencies in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Possessions and U.S. Territories. Additionally, data contained in the various 'want files,' i.e., the stolen vehicle file, stolen license plate file, stolen gun file, stolen article file, wanted person file, securities file, boat file, and missing person data may be accessed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. "

Nowhere in the article does it specifically mention states that do not use the database, nor does a Google search bring up any useful information. Xenon54 / talk / 01:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to believe that there is at least one state that does not utilize the NCIC? I can't think of any reason why a state wouldn't want to. Dismas|^(talk) 01:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

IV = intravenous

Would it be possible for a healthy, young adult to live most of their entire life getting their water source from an IV? Like by not drinking out of a cup at all. And when you do have an IV what would happen if you put cold water in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hereforhomework2 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What, pray, is an IV? Individual vessel? Irrational vortex? Irreducible variable? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume from context that the OP means an intravenous drip. FiggyBee (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. 02:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hereforhomework2 (talk • contribs)

The young adult would have to spend most of their time hooked up to the IV. There would be a risk of infection at the point where the IV was inserted into the person's skin, particularly if the person was allowed to be disconnected from the IV for other activities. Also, normal digestion requires a fair amount of water (or liquid containing water) to be ingested. Without the ability to drink water and other liquids, the person would probably need to live on a diet of soups and purees. The body is also not set up to absorb water near the skin, and I would think that the area around the IV insertion point would start to be stressed from the flow of water, and especially from cold water, which could cause damage to the cells around the absorption point. Finally, I would think that the rate of water flow would not be able to keep up with the body's needs during vigorous aerobic exercise, such that the person would probably be unable to get enough exercise to maintain health. In any case, such an arrangement would not allow a normal life. Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I was just wondering. Homework2 ^{pass a note}sign! 16:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

[I am revising the heading from "IV" to "IV = intravenous" to facilitate watchlist alerts and archive searches, and to apply search engine optimization. See WP:TPOC, "Section headings". -- Wavelength (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)]

Snake/spider mix

Something like this? ~AH1^(TCU) 01:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

what would happen if you crossed a snake with a spider? would you get an 8-legged snake? I think it could be possible and was thinking about trying it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hereforhomework2 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you plan on using Photoshop, I suspect you will run into insurmountable trouble when you attempt to encourage one of each species to mate with the other. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd get a politician. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I plan on drugging them...Non poison of course. 02:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hereforhomework2 (talk • contribs)

Strictly speaking, the genetics wouldn't match, so a conventional cross would fail. But if you could isolate the genes that trigger the formation of legs, you could splice that into a snake embryonic cell and see what happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. To be able to do that kind of work, you'll need to have many millions of dollars available, to pay for the equipment and such stuff as that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I know. Just curious. But an 8-legged snake would be cool. 02:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hereforhomework2 (talk • contribs)

This is sounding like we are making a monkey with four asses. Its getting silly. No, you cannot cross a snake with a spider. First of all, you aren't comparing single species with each other, you are comparing huge taxa. You might as well ask what you would get by crossing a mammal with a tree. This is just silliness. --Jayron32 03:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we already have a "trunk". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You could end up with a bush that squirts milk. Now that would be useful. 90.195.179.138 (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see what you did there.--WaltCip (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Combining genes from totally different species is possible. A bacterial gene was woven into a corn embryo's chromosomes to make the corn produce its own pesticide toxin. It's possible. But it takes gazillions of dollars, and there has to be a stronger justification than "it would be cool". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We can splice bits of DNA into cells. That isn't the same thing as a true genetic hybrid. A gene will make the same protein in any environment, so its entirely possible to do some of this stuff. But you're right, there's no impetus to make a snake with arthropod legs, which is why it isn't ever going to happen... --Jayron32 03:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would take huge amounts of research to figure out the genetics that cause an arthropod's legs to sprout, and then to figure out if it's possible to imbed those genetics into a snake somehow. Someone would have to come with a theory on why such an effort would eventually be a cash cow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A somwhat more realistic (and still extremely expensive) possibility would be to find a legged reptile that's genetically similar to a snake, and see if they could be crossed or gene-spliced somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As silly as crossing a goat with a spider? Well, not quite, but still... Matt Deres (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Snakes did (d)evolve from lizards: [1], so may well still have the genes for four legs, just deactivated. Therefore, it might be possible to get a snake with 4 legs, just by reactivating the genes. 8 legs would be more of a challenge, though, as they never had that. Would we count conjoined twin snakes with 4 legs each ? StuRat (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just focus on creating a lizard with 8 legs. Because if you can do that, arguably you've got the equivalent of a snake with 8 legs. Conjoined twin snakes (or lizards) might be the way to go. The real issue, though, is that vertabrates evolved with 4 legs, presumably because that's all they really need. You'd first have to figure out what an 8-legged lizard's skeletal structure should be, and then figure out how to get there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually vertebrates evolved with no legs, but tetrapods acquired four. To the original poster: your question sort of assumes that the only characteristic a spider has is having eight legs. But a spider has many other characteristics (for example book lungs, spinnerets, an exoskeleton, and conversely no bones or nipples). You can't mate individuals from widely separated taxa, as other people have pointed out; but even if you imagine being able to create a genetic cross in some artificial way, there's no reason (unless you designed it that way) why the result should have any particular characteristic - such as number of legs - from a particular parent rather than any other characteristic. For information about how the number and sequence of appendages (such as limbs) is controlled, see evo devo. --ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Shallow Depth of Field - optimum focal length

Hi,

I'm wondering if there is an optimum focal length for achieving the shallowest depth of field for any given object. So for example, say I want to photograph a person (height 1.8m) standing 10 metres in front of my background (say some shrubbery), at a given aperture (say f/4) what lens on a full frame DSLR would give me the greatest background separation/shallow depth of field

At an empirical level, I know that the level of background separation is proportional to the "amount of turning" you need to apply to the focus ring on the lens to change between the object and the background being in focus. So for example if I were to shoot the above scene with at 400mm lens I'd be guessing the focal distance of the person would be about 25m and the background would then be 35m. On the focus ring of the lens, there's not much between 25m and 35m (you don't have to turn it much to switch between focus). And the background separation is consequently not very great. If I were then to take the same scene with at 24mm lens (obviously with the same aperture), then the focal length of the person would be around 1.5 m and the background would be 11.5m. In this case you need to twist the ring quite a bit and there is significant background separation.

Is there an accurate way to calculate the best focal length (mm) in order to photograph a person with the shallowest depth of field? --58.175.32.19 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Depth of field has all your answers, in short the longer your focal length, the shallower your DoF will be, there is no "optimum". DoF can be calculated from F stop, focal length and target distance. Decrease the f stop, decrease target distance and increase focal length will all give you shallower depth of field. So to get the shallowest depth of field, select your longest lens, drop the f stop as low as it will go and get as close as you can to your subject. That's assuming your longest lense doesn't have a horribly high minimum f-stop, which cheap lenses tend to have. Here's a calculator I found online which you can use to work it out. Vespine (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I don't think that's true - from practical experience I know that in the example I gave above of the 400mm and the 24mm, the 24mm would give a shallower depth of field (assuming aperture is constant) despite it being a shorter focal length. So the calculator is not really the whole story, because long focal lengths tend to "compress" distance and lead to poorer separation when the objects are relatively close together (near infinity focus) --58.175.32.19 (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Using an online DoF calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) I put in 2 scenarios - 40 mm lens at 1 m and 400 mm lens at 10 m. In both cases it gave a DoF of 0.09m. So it might well be that using any lens and getting the same sized image of the subject will lead to the same DoF. I was surprised - I expected the long lens to give the shallower DoF. --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If something is outside the depth of field, you know it won't be "acceptably sharp"... but that's all you know. It doesn't tell you anything about the appearance of the out-of-focus region. Let's say you're photographing an object with lenses of two different focal lengths (a wide-angle lens and a long-focal-length telephoto lens). You adjust your position so that the object of interest is the same size in both shots, and you shoot at the same f-number. As Phil Holmes notes, and the calculator will confirm, the depth of field will be the same under these circumstances. But the wide-angle lens takes in a large area of the background, and the telephoto takes in a narrow area of the background. In the real world, this tends to mean that the wide-angle lens sees a "jumbled" background with all sorts of stuff in it, while the telephoto sees a more uniform, smooth background. The result is the the telephoto yields more apparent separation between the sharp subject and the background. Figure 3 of this article illustrates this difference. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the linked article - very useful --58.175.32.19 (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget bokeh. --Phil Holmes (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read the rest of the responses, so I apologize is this has been said before. A longer focal length will result in a more shallow DOF. However, in order to keep the framing of your subject constant, you need to step back (therefore increase focal distance) from your subject when using a lens with a longer focal length. Since a greater focal distance correlates to a less shallow DOF, the two factors cancel each other out exactly.

Hence, this is why you will find many photography guides to say that the focal length has no impact on the DOF. In practical terms, using a lens with a longer focal length and stepping back from the subject will decrease the field of view of the background, while using a shorter lens and stepping closer to the subject will allow a greater angle of the background to be viewed. Acceptable (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

birth cetificate

I want to know about the Birth Certificate of Maribel L. Lina,for the changes of her middle name "TUCO" change as "LANSANG", shes borned from Sta. Margarita Hilongos Leyte. I want to know if it is already changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.240.120 (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It has nothing to do with registering births in any country and holds no official records of that kind. If you have applied to have changes made to an official record, you should contact the registrar's office or government department where the application was submitted. Karenjc 14:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Karenjc, this is the Reference Desk, where we try to provide references for people seeking things that they might not be able to find in our encyclopedia. Hilongos, Leyte is in the Phillipines. I don't know if birth certificates there are public records, and if so, how to obtain one. You could always try contacting the provensial government: here's Leyte Province's homepage. Buddy431 (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

European Cars and Characteristics / Stereotypes

Hi, can anyone explain the differences between Audi's, BMWs, and Porsches'? I was hoping for some insight into the the characteristics and stereotypes of the cars and their drivers. And any other (random!) information. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluehark (talk • contribs) 08:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Audi and BMW are generally in direct competition in the 'executive' cars segment. They each sell what are generally considered to be (along with Mercedez) the top marque cars for business-users. They also increasingly sell smaller cars such as the 1-series and Audi A2 and A3. Porsche sell almost exclusively performance sports-cars. Their most famous being their Porsche 911. They are very different to BMW/Audi in that way, though both BMW/Audi do sell performance cars to (BMW M5, Audi R8 for example). The stereotypes are that a lot of the owners are 'posers'. All are German and if my memory is any good Audi and Porsche are part of the Volkswagen group(?). Audi has a rich history in Rally driving, Porsche in Le Mans. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Audi is part of the Volkswagen group, and very many Audi models share a technical platform with a corresponding VW (A3 with Golf/Rabbit, A2 with Polo), but are aimed more up-market, with more exclusive design and different finishing. Audi managed to enter the high-end market, but BMW is, at least in Europe, much more prestigious. Porsche and VW have a long common history (the VW Beetle was designed by Ferdinand Porsche). They also have partially shared ownership, which culminated a year or two back, when (much smaller) Porsche tried a semi-hostile takeover of Volkswagen, failed, and miss-speculated so badly that they had to be taken over by VW in turn to avoid collapse. Porsche cars are, well, Porsche cars. They do not really compete with any other maker very much. Other cars are build for going somewhere, Porsches, while quite adept at that, are more of a macho fashion statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want stereotypes, BMW drivers are regarded in the UK as having had at least part of their brains removed, usually that part which allows people to be considerate to other road drivers. (warning - not politically correct here) It has also been claimed that BMW stands for "black man's wheels"! (well you did ask)--TammyMoet (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want stereotypes, Jeremy Clarkson said up until about 2007/2008 that all BMW drivers were cocks (his words, not mine). However, he later claimed that those same...individuals have moved on to driving Audis. Some BMW's were moved up the Cool Wall on Top Gear for this reason. Oh, and I've never heard the W stand for "wheels" before...90.195.179.138 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that in the UK the BMW is considered to be a "black" car. In the US, the rich black man's car is more likely to be a Cadillac. BMW is a "Yuppie" car, or at least used to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

BMW and Porsche cars have rear-wheel drive, Audi have front-wheel drive ignoring their all wheel drive cars. BMW's and Audi's have their engine at the front and a Porsche has its engine in the back. In addition to making cars, BMW make motorcycles and bicycles, and has bought the former British-owned MINI and Rolls-Royce; Porsche make tractors, and Audi make nothing. BMW cars get called "Bimmers", Porsche gets pronounced both as a single or double syllable, and Audi can be said only one way. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In the US, BMW's have been called "Beemers". Which reminds me of another one, "Jag-you-are" vs. "Jag-wahr". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

BB it's Bimmer not Beamer. Learn now and avoid embarrassing yourself in front of other car enthusiasts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Where I come from, BMW cars are called "beemers" (or "beamers" if you like) to rhyme with "streamers". "Bimmer" would rhyme with "shimmer". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

... and Audi can be said only one way - that's true of very few words, Cuddlyable. I've heard people referring to Audis as if they were talking about Audie Murphy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

BMW do make 'down-market' cars - but to avoid diluting their 'high end' name-recognition, they create different brand names for them - hence my MINI Cooper is made by the "MINI Car Company" in the MINI factory in the UK - but that's a wholly owned subsidiary of BMW. You have to look very hard to find a BMW logo on any of the parts, symbols or paperwork that comes with the MINI - but the big give-away is that the VIN number starts with a 'W' - which is the country code for Germany. Audi is the opposite - they are 'really' VW - but to preserve Audi's name recognition, they don't talk much about their VW connection. It's all about image and brand-name shaping. SteveBaker (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Liquorice allsorts

Can anyone tell me whether Bassett's liquorice allsorts are available in Australia? Note that they must be Bassett's brand; I know you can get other (inferior) brands. My mother makes me take some out to her cousin whenever I visit, because she says you can't get them there. I don't believe her (and it's a hassle taking any kind of food through customs, even packaged candy). Thanks.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm no candy expert but doing a quick AU search it looks like you can get them but you might have to go to a specialty lolly shop such as this or this, so unless you are near one of those it might be hard to get them. And no, you should not have any issues taking packaged sweets into Australia, not sure but you might have to declare it, but that's just a formality. Vespine (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why Bassets are not sold down under. They were not such a recognised brand as Pascall.[2] 1971 Halls joins the Adams family and the launch of Cadbury Creme Egg as we know it today. Pascalls is bought by Cadbury, with Eclairs becoming the second largest brand in the company (at that time). 1989 Sugarfree Dentyne, the first sugarfree breath-freshing gum is launched - the first time a leading gum brand offers a choice between sugar and sugarfree. Cadbury Schweppes purchases both Trebor Group Ltd and Bassett Foods [3] You can always try contacting Cadbury's here in England and have a good moan at them. They might even write to your relative and say that they now use exactly the same recipes and processes today as was used at Bassets. [4] You might even suggest, that them sending her a free years supply would not go amiss either.--Aspro (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite certain that I have bought Bassetts Liqourice Allsorts here in Oz. But this was around/soon after Christmas when such yummies are likely to be brought in as special seasonal items. If you have any doubts I would bring some with you as they are unlikely to be cheaper here! Can't see any problems bringing them in, just declare anything edible! (Small possibility I am thinking of Beacon brand allsorts). Suggest you try Darrell Leas' version while you're here. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Bassett's are definitely available here, although they can be hard to find except around Christmas. FiggyBee (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Typography question: what's an enclosed part of a character called?

I think I've come across a name for an enclosed part of a character (such as the inside of an "o" and the upper part of an "e"), but I can't recall what it is. Does anyone know what it's called? --98.114.146.35 (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Counter. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Also; Aperture (typography). ---MacOfJesus (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Also "bowl", at least for some letters. --Anonymous, 17:27 UTC, April 30, 2010.

Aperture (typography), is not included as an article page, but briefly mentioned in Counter (typography), in its name heading. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

On the Stencil for the character it is an island that must be connected to other parts of the stencil with bridges. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a redirect from Aperture (typography) and added it into the Aperture (disambiguation) page. SteveBaker (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics author Martin Gardner once made a little joke that 8 is the holiest number, because it has 2 holes in it. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Martin (not Gardner).

Barrell

I have asked about a year ago, what quantity is express when one mentions barrells of oil. I was told that it depends on the size of your barrell. I dont need snide remarks. There is an oil spill of the coast of the USA, and the BBC states that it is leaking 5000 barrells per day. How much is a barrell? 5 litres? 10? 20? Thank you for your useful answers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the article Barrel (volume) it varies, but the standard oil barrel seems to be 42 US gallons (34.9723 imp gal; 158.9873 L). This older discussion on oil barrels might also be interesting to you. .tkqj (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No one mentioned the history of "the barrel". Barrel (volume) at the paragraph "oil barrel" a good history of its development and usage. It could be understood better if the history were explained. MacOfJesus (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Money laundering

I am of the understanding that if one were to pay a very large sum of cash money into ones bank account, it may be flagged as money laundering. My question is this; unless it can be proved the money came from an illegal source, would the person paying the money into their bank account face any repercussions? Calarti laundurr (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Money laundering is all about turning 'dirty' money (that is that has a potentially traceable history to a crime/illegal activity) and making it appear 'clean' (by putting it through a legal transaction). The kind of hurdles you can expect to see for large investments of money are most likely to be proving who you are. The person paying the money in will face no 'reprecussions' of paying in (provably) legal money, though higher-sums will be potentially investigated to try minimize the 'cleaning' of money. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be intersested in reading it from the horse's mouth (the IRS) [5]--Aspro (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your question boils down to the burden of proof - you're asking whether the authorities have to prove the money is illegal or whether you have to prove that it isn't. We're used to the burden of proof favouring the accused (see Presumption of innocence). However, in some jurisdictions this has changed in respect of suspected money laundering, because of the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering and similar initiatives. Under some circumstances the accused may be required to prove the origin of funds to prevent confiscation - for example, where they have a relevant criminal record or what the authorities consider a "criminal lifestyle" and they cannnot account satisfactorily for the funds. If a person pays in a very large sum of cash to a bank account in most European countries, the USA and many others, bank staff will almost certainly ask the source and are obliged to file an official report (see suspicious activity report, for example) if the explanation is unsatisfactory. This will be filed without the customer's knowledge. It may trigger an investigation, and one cannot automatically assume that the burden of proof is on the investigators - it depends on the jurisdiction and the circumstances. If this is not a hypothetical question, you should take legal advice in your own jurisdiction. Karenjc 14:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And of course it will be liable to income tax, even if its a win on the lotto but not if its Premium Bonds! (UK). MacOfJesus (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Err no, UK Lottery wins are not subject to tax. When I paid £85,000 into my bank account a few years ago I just said it was my share of the value of my mothers' house, and I was just asked if it was a solicitor's cheque, and that was all. Mind you, my brother and I had to jump through a few hoops to prove our identity before we were able to put her house on the market in the first place. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The UK Lottery win itself is not subject to tax, as is the case with winnings from any other form of gambling. However, the income from investing the capital is taxable. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyMoet (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point the original poster to our money laundering article, since nobody else linked to it yet. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Which sport is more physically demanding: Cricket or Baseball?

Which sport is more intense: Cricket or Baseball? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramkr (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd go with cricket, simply because professional cricket games have the tendency to go on for days, and to my knowledge there are no formal substitute players as seen in baseball, where there are at least three pitcher rotations per game. There are a lot of other physical factors of the game that come into play that I'm sure some of our more well-versed cricket enthusiasts will be able to point out.--WaltCip (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, and if you'd like to do some research on your own, check out comparison between cricket and baseball. The article is quite detailed.--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For the substitution rules in cricket (typically only for injuries, and quite restrictive even then) see Substitute (cricket)). Due to these rules it is not unheard of for players to return to bat (or even bowl) in a match after sustaining quite serious injuries - e.g. a broken jaw, torn hamstring or even a broken wrist (the player with the broken wrist, Colin Cowdrey, never had to face a ball - but he did save the match as otherwise England would have been all out). See http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/1984319.stm if you are interested. 131.111.185.69 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering how long the traditional match lasts, by the end of the contest his wrist had probably healed. d:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Downing Street: Moving house.

When Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his family leave 10 Downing Street, who will pay for the removals firm; himself or the taxpayer? 92.30.49.35 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume him. He has to pay rent to live in Number 10 He pays council tax on it, as his residence, so I guess he pays for the removal... ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 18:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha hahahahahahahah! Funny one TT. What's to stop him putting in a claim for Parliamentary expenses ? --Aspro (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

? He does pay council tax—Google it. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 21:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

He was talking to Jeremy Pakman a few minutes ago, (BBC1). Will he charge for time and expertise? MacOfJesus (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell British Wikipedians are politically cynical? Anyway, the house belongs to the office of the Prime Minister, not to any individual. Is this enough justification for house-based expenses to be claimed on expenses? I don't know, but it may be relevant. 90.195.179.138 (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the loss in public confidence over the expenses claims, and that he really does seem to have entered politics with good intentions, he is almost certainly being very careful about what he claims expenses for. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We'll know soon enough, won't we? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Money laundering vocabulary

I always understood the term "money laundering" to mean "converting dirty money into clean" by whatever means. The bad guy steals US$10,000, goes to the casino, gives them the money, gets a stack of black chips, gambles for just long enough to avoid suspicion, cashes out his black chips for about US$10,000, and walks out of the casino with clean money. However, I see by our article money laundering that, in the US and apparently in the UK, the term, as used in the law, is much broader, and refers to any attempt to conceal the source of illegally obtained money. My question is whether there is a specific term for spending "dirty" money in a way as to avoid detection, without any attempt to convert it to clean money: the bad guy steals US$10,000 and tries to avoid detection; not by converting it into clean money and spending that, but by, say, spending US$20 here and US$20 there until he has exhausted the dirty money. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - it's called FRAUD. A couple of years ago, my wife and I would regularly holiday on a small Mediterranean island adjacent to Spain, where the currency was the Peseta. But then the European Monetary Union proposed introducing the Euro, which meant that all illegally hoarded Francs, Deutchmarks, Pesetas, Lira, Punts, etc., etc., had somehow to be converted into Euros, before the cut-off date - without declaring their existence at the parent national banks. Enter the Italian Mafia and their contemporaries who had zillions of illegal Lira under their beds. They delivered satchels of paper currency to the island's hoteliers, restaurants, cycle-hire shops, grocery stores - you name it - and got the locals to "wash" this "tourist" currency through the Spanish banks, who were delighted to accept it. Then, after the changeover date, the Italians were delighted to accept an agreed, though lesser "payback rate" from their "client" business associates to re-imburse them for their "investments", at a rate that was highly rewarding to said "clients". Result? My wife and I now find that the island in question is virtually exclusive to Italian tourists who in turn, have become the sub-clients of the original Spanish clients of the investing Italian Mafia. Result? The original illegal hoards are now perceived as "Legal" and yes, taxable. And pity the poor Eurozone now. It's awash with fraud, corruption, tax-avoidance, sleaze, and IMF bale-outs. In short, I think the answer is FRAUD - funded by honest and hard-working tax-paying folk who don't understand currency speculation, whether "legal" or illegal. And pity the IMF who have to stand by and bale out these rogue nations at the expense of true democracy and the free-world. 92.30.49.35 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue here is whether or not spending the dirty money constitutes a separate crime from the acquisition of said dirty money. If you steal $10,000 from the bank and then spend it, I think the crime is in the stealing, not the spending. A brief Googling of instances of "bank robbery charges filed" doesn't turn up anything to the contrary—it seems like people get charged with robbery, conspiracy to robbery, armed robbery, things like that. Not spending.

"Converting dirty into clean" is less about the actual money itself (though that is the case sometimes) as it is about creating a paper trail. If you are mafia and you get $10,000 a month from selling drugs, you can't turn around and spend that on, say, legitimate property, because the IRS will get you on the fact that your income is not the same as your spending (if it seems petty, it's how most gangland prosecutions have gone down... it's hard to prove a mafia don personally committed any crimes—even "criminal conspiracy" is quite hard—but it is comparatively easy to show that they were spending a million dollars a year when they only claimed to earn a thousand, and thus must be misreporting their income). So you "clean" the money by laundering it through some kind of legitimate-appearing front—e.g., your taxi-cab company, which declares all of that $10,000 to be (untraceable) income from fares. Now according to the IRS you have legitimate income, even though in reality you got it from selling drugs. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A specific term is "keeping a low profile". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• What the original poster is talking about is a form of structuring. --Anonymous, 04:47 UTC, May 2, 2010.

That's the vocabulary word I was looking for! Thank you, anonymous money laundering expert. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)