December 4

Could someone please edit the format of the page such that this file is shown large enough, with the key facts and figures visible for the Taxation in the United Kingdom page. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. (It now has |350px| in the file tag.) 81.131.39.230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere l can find coroners court transcripts for 1903 in england - specifically Longton in Staffordshire. Many thanks Ann Hale

(email redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.128.188 (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ann, I've removed your email address so you don't get troubled by spammers. Longton is now part of Stoke-on-Trent, and your first port of call would be here. Coroners records are embargoed for 75 years, but it is up to the individual coroners office as to what is done with the records after that time. Some coroners destroy these invaluable items! You may also get a lot of help from these people: there are a lot of voluntary experts who help out there and an email should get you some more advice. Best of luck with your searches!--TammyMoet (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to find a local newspaper archive for the time as they often reported proceding in coroners courts. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that South American countries do not extradite people. Is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it says at extradition, extradition is governed by treaties, so in general any particular country may extradite people to whichever countries they happen to have an extradition treaty with, under the terms of that treaty. For example, there was a time when Ronnie Biggs could have been extradited from Brazil to the UK except that the treaty did not allow extradition of the parent of a Brazilian minor child. At another time he was in Barbados and could not be extradited to the UK because there was no extradition treaty. --Anonymous, 11:27 UTC, December 4, 2010.

This is why the US Constitution explicitly requires extradition between US states, in lieu of the need for a "treaty". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. South American, and many other, countries do not extradite their own citizens abroad. There are many provisions (in their constitutions and through treaties) for extraditing terrorist, drug dealers and others. 212.169.185.150 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On this side of the pond, this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28borker.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all would lead to the business being forcibly closed down and the proprietor probably being put in prison and barred from being a business director in the future. There is a Wikipedia article for it as well. Is business really King in the US, over-riding the rights of consumers and the public? Thanks 92.24.177.111 (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business is not "king," but there is such a thing called due process. It sounds like the guy's approach is unsustainable, if you get to the end of the article. He has multiple lawsuits being filed against him. But at worse he seems to have committed some harassment and a little fraud; being unpleasant is not much of a crime here, and probably not in your country, either, your faith in your own laws notwithstanding. In general though in the US, businesses are not shut down (there can be injunctions against them, say, continuing practices or shipping products, though) and people are not "barred from being a business director in the future" (there are only a few professions where you can get permanently expelled, like being a doctor or a lawyer). One of the nice things about the US is that you are, in fact, allowed to make mistakes and try again — hence our very liberal bankruptcy laws which benefit both corporation and individual alike, allowing them to walk away from impossible debts with the only consequence being a bad credit rating in the future. In my opinion the worse thing about the article is the behavior of the institutions like Citibank, which ought to have thrown fraud charges at him almost immediately and would have been too large for him to ignore. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a society in which the state was truly interested in protecting ordinary individuals and not just individuals with money or power, the state would have intervened by now to prosecute this person. (He has apparently committed crimes that could be prosecuted.) However, it is arguable that the state has such an interest in the United States. Now that the case has received attention in the New York Times, I wouldn't be surprised if the Brooklyn district attorney or some such functionary suddenly took an interest in this case as part of a reelection strategy. Sadly, though most government officials, like probably most other individuals in the United States are just "looking out for number one." Why should they take action against this guy if there's nothing in it for them? Marco polo (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is a small time crook. I'm not sure why you would assume he's representative of major trends regarding prosecution. He's potentially defrauded some people out of a few hundred dollars each, and harassed them to some degree as well. That's not good, and I hope they throw the book at him, but you can understand that he's not exactly the FBI's #1 Most Wanted. From the looks of the article, already by the time it appeared this "business approach" was backing up on him both legally and financially. Police and prosecutors have to make tradeoffs; they have limited funds and limited attention. That small time guys slip between the cracks, at least for awhile, is hardly surprising, and hardly an indication of a fundamental breach in contract between the state and the citizen. (A more fundamental breach, for me anyway, is the way that most jurisdictions are drastically de-funding their offices of public defenders. In one county I'm familiar with, they've basically laid off all of them but a handful of oldies on their way out for retirement. That's a systemic problem with profound long-term consequences. Not aggressively pursuing a small time hustler — especially one whose business is contingent on people not doing the most cursory and easy of checks into his company before giving him their money — is not as worrisome to me.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article says that the police are investigating and are gathering more evidence. As I read the article, I too was surprised at Citibank's actions. With normal security procedures they shouldn't have called off the investigation just on a phone call, when they were not even speaking to the real account holder. It seems that they have made a slight reparation but not apologised. They would probably do more if pushed a bit. Perhaps we need to send the Rogue Traders (TV series) lads over the pond. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree we do need to send them over. In the UK he would be infamous. He would be pursued by TV cameras chasing him down the street and knocking on his door to confront him with his wrongdoings. They'd love it if he started throwing his fists around. (Hmmn, maybe that's too dangerous to do in the US with all those guns). And he'd be in the tabloid press as well. Well done to the New York Times for opening the story. 92.15.23.156 (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarize the issue briefly, the NY Times article says this guy in Brooklyn has been manipulating his google rating up by provoking dissatisfaction, and even outrage, from some of his online-retail clients who then complain a lot about him on-line.

“Just throw in ‘designer eyeglasses,’ ‘designer eyewear’ and a couple different brand names,” he [is quoted in the article as saying], “and I’m all set.”

Amazing that that actually works. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage led to the guy getting arrested.[1] 67.117.130.143 (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I read in a website on the Internet that Egypt was first unified in the year 4242 BC (capital was Heliopolis). Then Egypt was divided again until reunified by Narmer. Is this true or is it a hoax? --41.196.68.227 (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of predynastic Egypt is semi-mythical. Even Narmer himself is not well-known, and most of the events ascribed to him may be mythical or semimythical. There are some who claim that Menes and Narmer were the same person, and there are some that claim they were different people, and thus Egypt was united "twice". Both of these theories regarding Egypt's foundation are covered in the Narmer and Menes articles. Placing 5000 year-old characters in the correct place and time is very problematic, so resolving these issues is no easy feat. I'm pretty sure that existing scholarship establishes that Narmer and Menes were the same person, but the case isn't all that strong, giving rise to alternate histories. --Jayron32 17:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything with such a specific date that far in the past is immediately suspect. See Egyptian chronology (and more generally, Chronology of the ancient Near East) for some of the reasons. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

41.196.68.227 -- The date "4242 BC" was based on older calculations of the Sothic cycle. I really wouldn't place much reliance on its apparent exactness, and archaeological evidence suggests that it was at least a thousand years too early to be the date of the first lasting unification of upper and lower Egypt... AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly ever eat meat. I eat it when I'm a guest at someone's table, or when I have an opportunity to try something bizarre, like walrus or wombat, but on a daily basis I don't eat it. I have no ethical or sentimental objection to meat-eating. I am motivated purely by personal taste, squeamishness about sanitation, and stinginess. So would it be disingenuous to describe myself as a vegetarian? Is there some special term for people like me? (Apart from "ambivalent", that is.) I only ask because there seems to be quite an extensive nomenclature surrounding vegetarianism and variations thereof: pescetarian, lacto-ovo vegetarian, vegan, etc. Quasivegetarian? Oligocarnivore? LANTZY^TALK 16:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can call yourself whatever you want. That's why labels are so problematic. Its much easier to describe yourself than to label yourself. I wouldn't use any word. I would say "I don't usually eat meat as a matter of course, but occasionally I do eat it". I don't think you need a single word to describe that. Perhaps "mostly vegetarian". Or "vegetarianish". --Jayron32 17:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "having vegetarian tendancies" ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. LANTZY^TALK 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I'm dying to put a word to myself. I just thought a term might well exist, and that there might perhaps be a whimsically-titled discussion board populated by like-minded people with whom I might share in-jokes and recipes for vegan steak sauce. LANTZY^TALK 17:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard a better term than 'I don't eat a lot of meat in general, but yes, please pass the eel.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term I've heard used for "vegetarian most of the time, but I occasionally still eat meat" is "flexitarian". There's an article Semi-vegetarianism which lists some "sort of vegetarian, but not 100%" terms, including flexitarian. That said, my understanding is that a not-insignificant number of people who call themselves "vegetarians" actually will eat meat/meat products occasionally, without thinking it makes them non-vegetarian. Be aware this tends to annoy the heck out of "true" vegetarians. -- 174.31.199.95 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a strong suspicion that there already existed a cutesy "-tarian" neologism for this concept, and "flexitarian" is that term. Many thanks. LANTZY^TALK 15:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-dogmatig vegetarian? Part time vegetarian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.185.150 (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A carnivore can eat vegetables, fruit, seeds, nuts, bread and pasta without ceasing to be a carnivore. Similarly, a vegetarian can eat meat without ceasing to be a vegetarian. If you ate meat every day, the label "vegetarian" would cease to have any meaning, but occasional flirtations with meat would not deprive one of such a label. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually an omnivore if you eat vegetables and meat. Human beings are that, opportunistic feeder who eat what's available. 212.169.184.72 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where I can find the Royal Navy Pennant number for the Armed Merchant Cruiser, HMS Rawalpindi? It would start with an "F". Blessed if I can find it, which is odd for such a famous ship. Also, I can't find a reference to any memorial, if one exists. I have a dim recollection of some steps at the Tower of London wharf being named after her but can't find a ref now. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reference to a memorial tablet to Captain E.C. Kennedy RN "Heroic Captain of the Rawalpindi" unvieled at the parish church in High Wycombe in April 1941. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have a business idea,but not having enough money to start.i like to sell idea for some multinational company.(now i am searching of a good buyer).then my question is that how can i ensure the secure my business idea till it sell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.245.82 (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, and most importantly, don't tell us what it is! Sorry if you know this already, but I've seen people do just that. If you publish it (which is what posting it here would do), you could find it very hard to patent. I'd have a look at the patent article, in particular the external links. We can't give legal advice here, so you'd be better off looking at them I'd think.AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE this question also asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous: answer there please: 18:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there any paper and pencil methods available for planning or managing projects? I prefer P&P methods as they are easy to understand and do, are fully visible (rather than having the information hidden away in the software), and automatically provide a record for future reference.

Are any old pre-computer project management/planning textbooks available online for example? I find these easier and quicker to use since you do not have to learn a software layer as well.

Just to clarify, the kinds of projects I'm involved with are small ones involving building or 'real estate'. Thanks. 92.15.23.156 (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might get some ideas from critical path method.--Aspro (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Gantt chart can be made on paper or using software you probably already know a bit, like Excel. I don't know about old textbooks online, but they are frequently found in second hand book sales, or should be cheap on Amazon. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thasnks, I was hoping someone used back-of-the-envelope methods that I could copy. 92.15.31.223 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for something that can fill the big gap between a to do list and a full blown project management system. (I'm already familiar with Time Management techniques thanks - little use in my opinion). Is there any technique that can help with scheduling (eg build the walls then build the roof) that you can do on the back of an envelope? Thanks 92.24.184.218 (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't yet looked at it, the Project planning article may contain some outlines and links that could give you some leads. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How far above the ground does ownership of land extend? --70.134.49.69 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can fly over on route to somewhere else but if one was to permanently moor say an airship over a particular spot, then one will run into trouble. The land owner just claiming right to light in the UK will cause the airship owner to run up large legal bills.--Aspro (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Ad coelum, Air rights, and easement. It varies by jurisdiction and specifics of you are talking about (e.g. air rights vs. light rights vs. overhangs vs. trees, etc.). See related discussion here. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for a fictional, though related, story see The Man Who Sold the Moon. In that, a man "buys" the moon by buying up all the land that it passes over here on the Earth. Dismas|^(talk) 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although, if I recall correctly, doesn't even the story admit that it's not a particularly solid case: people only go along with it because the guy is manipulating the media effectively and giving everyone something they want, with a slight side of The Mouse on the Moon style unwillingness to be seen to crush the little countries. Only because the countries sell their rights does anyone else acknowledge that they had them in the first place. 86.164.31.131 (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States and other common law jurisdictions, ownership of real estate extends from the center of the earth to the edge of outer space. However, aircraft have the right to fly overhead without being considered trespassers. "The Man Who Sold the Moon" is an interesting read, but it predates modern space travel, and Heinlein wasn't a lawyer anyway. John M Baker (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air rights play a part in the plot of the movie Burlesque. Corvus cornix_talk 23:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting thought to keep in mind, however, is that the earth is round (not flat). Thus, let's say that from my land, I draw a straight line extending down (to the center of the earth) and up (to the sky). My neighbor does the same ... and so on. Because the earth is round (not flat), many of those straight lines will intersect each other at some point (way down in the center of the earth ... and way up in the sky). Thus, two (or more) people will "rightfully" own the same piece of property. Which flies in the face of exclusive property ownership rights. Just a thought. Probably more academic and theoretical than it is practical. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

... but a line to the centre of the earth is a radius and will never intersect another radius. There might be a very slight problem caused by local variations in gravity if you use plumb lines. Dbfirs 00:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conventionally the area of ownership is referred to as a cone, with the apex at the center of the earth and the base at the edge of outer space. I had supposed that this is not exactly accurate, because real estate plots so rarely are circular, but our article on cone (geometry) says that the base of a cone may be any shape. John M Baker (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would make it a volume of ownership, though as has been noted already, ownership of land does not necessarily imply having unlimited rights upwards and downwards (or even on the surface for that matter). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the legal status of the land, when one purchases a grave plot in a cemetery? Does the buyer own the particular plot of land? Is he merely "renting it" from the cemetery? Legally, what exactly is happening? It seems that when you buy a grave plot in a cemetery, it is very different than when you buy a "regular" plot of land outright. For example, there are probably many rules and regulations (imposed by the cemetery) that you have to follow with regard to your plot. But, how can that be if the buyer himself outright owns the land (as opposed to the cemetery owning the land)? (This question refers to the USA.) Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It's going to vary considerably by state, but usually you're purchasing the right to bury X number of people in a plot rather than purchasing the land proper, which continues to be the cemetery's. So we really should conceptualize it as purchase of interment rights rather than purchase of property, but old terminology dies hard. In some states, you can "buy burial plots" from the cemetery, a brokerage, or from owners who have decided to be buried elsewhere. - Nunh-huh 00:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes some sense. So, the cemetery owns the land; I (the buyer) do not own the land. The cemetery is selling me the right to use their land (for specified purposes). So, legally speaking ... what exactly is the cemetery selling me? Is it a "license" ... an "easement" ... what? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The specifics depend on the contract, but "interment rights" or "sepulcher rights" are two alternatives. See a sample contract at [2]. There will usually be something like its "This certificate of interment rights conveys only a right to be interred in the interment space(s) and in no way is any real estate title conveyed to the Purchaser" in the contract. - Nunh-huh 07:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that this will vary a lot by state law and by cemetery. My family does own a cemetery plot, with a recorded deed similar to that for any other plot of land. However, it's a small, older cemetery that is not professionally managed. John M Baker (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful information ... much appreciated! Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]