Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 January 11

= January 11 =

Calculator Manual
Hi, I have a graphic calcualtor, Texet GR4F-x3, but I can't find instructions of how to use it online. I press all the number buttons and the only one it seems to understand is 6, i don't know if it's faulty or in the wrong mode. I have an exam in about 3 hours and any help provided before then is appreciated. 81.157.54.253 (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The user manual is available from the Texet website here. Nanonic (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you for the speedy response. I looked on their site but couldn't find it. 81.157.54.253 (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still can't fathom how to use it so I guess it's broken. No matter, I have another non-graphic calculator. Thanks 81.157.54.253 (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the 6 key is working (ie you push it a bunch of times and a bunch of 6's come up on the display) - but the 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9 and 0 are not - then I'd say it was broken and the manual won't help. However, the problem is 99% certain to be the keyboard - since you have nothing to lose, you could carefully disassemble the thing and see if the connector has half fallen out - or perhaps there is junk stuck in the keys or something.  If nothing else, it'll be interesting and instructive to see what you find...and maybe you can fix it. SteveBaker (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Battery? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think the '6' key runs on some magical power source not available to the other keys? It seems unlikely to be the battery if one key works reliably and the others do not. SteveBaker (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I think that erratic response to key presses often occurs when the battery voltage to the key scanning matrix is weak. Is it stupid to disassemble the calculator without first checking the battery? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Depending on the calculator, you might need to do one to check the other - remove the battery to get behind it, or disassemble it to get at the battery. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the Crime.
Ever since I saw that Professionals episode on the creeps who had a rifle that could shoot two miles ( which in reality I doubt due to windage ), where they intended to kill a Greek dignitary at Wimbledon, I have wondered, what if someone was, say, standing in the Czech Republic, and aimed a rifle at someone just over the border in Germany and killed them, where would the murder take place ? The act was committed in one country, but the victim died in another. Or even if someone shot in one country flees his attacker then dies in another, who has the jurisdiction ? The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)
 * The murder occurs where the victim died. That country would seek extradition of the murderer from the neighbour country. See Georgi Markov and Alexander Litvinenko. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are those two relevant? --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense. Thanks. Without looking him up yet, I know that Georgi Markov was the Bulgarian dissident ruthlessly stabbed with an umbrella contining a metal ball full of ricin. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This must happen fairly often. Depending on jurisdiction, quite a considerable amount of time can pass between a murder being committed and the victim's death.  Historically in England and Wales it was a year and a day, and now it can be far longer. Marnanel (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Gary McKinnon. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

See personal jurisdiction. But even if country A says it has jurisdiction over country B, it can't, without violating international "norms" cross the border to apprehend the individual. In theory country A could declare anyone wearing red hats in country C to be unlawful criminals, but it's [hopefully] unlikely that country C would respect that designation. If country A tried to do otherwise, we typically call that war. Shadowjams (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it used to be a year and a day in New Zealand, too, I assume because, if a person can last that long from injuries, they may not have been bad enough to cause death. One could debate the point by suggesting the victim might not have died at all, even if say two years after they were attacked, had they not been so. I could go on for ages on that point but I won't. ( and they all breathe a sigh of relief ). The main thing is, if one intends to kill someone, and they injure them, that they do die, even if after a while, they must be liale for something - even murder, if say the person was so badly injured they were put into an irrecoverable coma. The train robbers of 1963 bashed the driver, who died years later as a result of what they did. He may not have died at that time otherwise, so at the very least, they sped up his demise. As for countries controlling others' laws, this is evident in some not wanting to return murderers to the US if they are going to be executed. Why should they care ? These same countries - mine included - would be up in arms about America trying to dictate to them, so let it work both ways. If someone was being returned to a country to be executed for speaking out, that might be another story, but then we get into the whole debate about some nations standards being what they are, and whether one country has the right to dictate to any other.The Russian Christopher Lilly 11:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider the 270 people who were murdered over Lockerbie in Scotland by a terrorist bomb that exploded at that point in the flight path. The bomb was loaded in Germany - the plane was due to explode over the Atlantic on its way to the USA leaving no trace - but was delayed by unexpected head winds - and so Scotland became the crime scene with everything that followed. And the convicted perpetrator Abdelbassett al Megrahi has now been released to his homeland of Libya by Scotland's ridiculously stupid Justice Minister Kenny McAskill as an act of compassion. Nice for him. Not so nice for the families of the 259 airline passengers and 11 Lockerbie residents who died.92.30.100.29 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAP, thanks. Marnanel (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I get you there. I watched that ridiculous sideshow live as it happened in the middle of the night in New Zealand, as they drove his van through Scottish streets. I get that. I do not know if he was innocent, I do not believe so. Only if he was should he have been released. But guilty ? Even if dying ? Shame, but too bad. Had they hanged him - or better - given him a firing squad as a foreign enemy spy - he would not have lived long enough to get cancer. He was from a country that murdered that police woman from their embassy that time - why did the British not storm it then and there ? What, to avoid an international incident ? Isn't that what Libya already did by firing on the people outside ? Some of that diplomatic immunity is a joke. But the plane was American, as were most of the victims. Would that not entail US jurisdiction - at least wrt those who died in the plane ? Of course, if he was innocent, why did Libya hand him over ? People get upset that Arabs or Moslems are stereotyped as terrorists, and some times they might have a point - not all of them are - and some taken for Arab turn out to be Brazilian - but when all is said and done, especially also in the seventies and eighties, those doing the deeds were Moslem and or Arabs. People here picketed an Israeli tennis player in Auckland over Israeli air strikes - but do those same people criticise Osama bin Laden and his hags ? The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One more time, this time with feeling: WP:SOAP. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I got carried away - for quite some time. Only as I saw others giving their opinions. If it can be seen that they are not, neither will I. But if someone attacks what I believe, am I not to respond in kind ? I do apologise, also for adding things about people not proven, even if I was not stating it as fact myself. I realise that sometimes there has to be a time and place for facts - not opinions, as there is a time for each thing as appropriate, as written in Ecclesiastes. That last bit was a fact, which I leave the rest of you to look up if you wish, rather than preach about it. I have even seen Mathematics and Statistics books which seem to give their author's own political opinion, much to the annoyance of other Mathematicians, and certainly wrt to Maths, I have tried to keep opinion out of it. This would be refreshing. Thank You for steering me in the right direction in terms of behaviour here. I have never added my opinion to any articles I have added facts to, that have been left out, just here. I try to avoid chat rooms and such, and I guess this has begun to degenerate into one. Some of you others need to see that too. If I have done wrong, I admit so, but I have also seen others - and they know it - snap at people, or be sarcastic. I guess saying others made me do it is no real excuse, but I trust we can continue from now on with just the facts, ma'm. The Russian Christopher Lilly 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "But if someone attacks what I believe, am I not to respond in kind ?" No. Step away, and leave it. WP:Don't give a fuckism helps. Keep WP:CALM. 86.178.229.168 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, point taken. From vast experience I have seen the value of " A soft answer turneth away wrath; but grievous words stir up anger. " I shall endeavour not to take these things too seriously. I know what I stand for. I am happy with that, and yes, to maintain neutrality, since this is an Encyclopaedia, is paramount. As I said, there is a time and place for me to go all Irish on someone who disrespects me - but Wikipedia is not the place. The Russian Christopher Lilly 10:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides that, no one here attacked what you believe. 92.30.100.29 started some off topic soapboxing, you agreed and continued it. No one here every disagreed with you, said you were silly or anything of that sort, they just told you both to stop soapboxing. In other words, if there's a time and place for you to go all Irish on someone who disrespects you, perhaps not only is Wikipedia not the place, but the time should be when someone actually disrespects you?
 * Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that Scotland doesn't have the death penalty, not even for foreign spies. You're welcome to disagree with that practice personally, but as you said not here. Also while I personally didn't agree with the picketing, if Osama or his 'hags' came to New Zealand, if recognised they would be arrested on sight (if not subject to extraordinary rendition) so there's no need for picketing.
 * Finally I'm pretty sure an analysis of terrorist attacks in the seventies and eighties in particular (since that's a period you mentioned and IMHO a fairly poor timeframe for that statement) would show a fair number of them were not in fact commited by Arabs or Muslims since there were a number of active groups at the time particularly left wing ones like the Red Army Faction, Black Liberation Army, Japanese Red Army, Revolutionary Cells (RZ), Shining Path, as well as those aggitating for an independent homeland like the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, Tamil Nadu Liberation Army, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Irish National Liberation Army, IRA (which highlights the existance of the opposite, i.e. those opposing such movements like the Ulster Volunteer Force), and perhaps I should also mention the lone wolves like the Unabomber and Marc Lépine (I can understand some debate about whether he it would be accurate to call him a terrorist although that isn't for wikipedia, however it's even more ridiculous to call him Muslim then it is Obama) and of course stuff like the African National Congress and their Umkhonto we Sizwe.
 * Many of these were of course cooperating or loosely linked in a number of ways and they often had overlapping causes and so a number of these did cooperate with terrorist groups that may be termed Muslim or Arab (the PFLP in particular). And such groups (Muslim or Arab) did carry out a number of attacks themselves. But clearly for the 70-80s period a fair number of attacks weren't but such groups.
 * P.S. Just to be clear, please don't use this as an excuse for further soapboxing, unless you have factual information about anything I said that is incorrect or misleading. I thought it wise to mention facts here, since this is the RD.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Earmark(Pork barrel) spending
I am currently trying to find out what gives the Officials of the US GOVERNMENT the right to pass Earmark legislation and to find out if this type of spending is legal in accordance with Article 1. Section 8 of the Constitution.

Any help you provide will be greatly appreciated!

Sincerely yours, Raymond F. Moretti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.218.196 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article Earmark (politics) is, unfortunately, a bit short on reliable sources. That's the best, however, I can offer without either expressing an opinion or reinforcing or denying any of your opinions on the matter.  -- Jayron  32  21:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is Article 1. Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear on who is doing this. An earmark is a paragraph added onto a bill, by a U.S. Representative or a U.S. Senator, which authorizes (or requires) the government to spend some money on something.  The bill as a whole (including the earmark) is then passed by the entire House and the Senate.  Everyone in the House and in the Senate has had the opportunity to read the bill, so everyone has had the opportunity to learn all about the earmark.  The earmark is now part of the law, so if the earmark directed the government to spend US$30 million on the study of the banana slugs that live in Corpus Christi, Texas, then the government now has to go and spend that money on that study.  It's all perfectly legal.  What people usually object to is earmarks that seem like wasteful spending that has nothing to do with the main bill; the Golden Fleece Awards were a notable yearly denunciation of wasteful government spending, in the opinion, anyway, of Senator Proxmire, while he was alive.  (I've no data on how many of these Awards went to earmarks as opposed to wasteful spending in general.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Except in the case of signing statements, in which the President may say, "I'm signing this, but that doesn't mean I'm going to spend that money on banana slugs, no matter what the law says." Of course, in fact, that's really a line-item veto, which the President does not have a Constitutional right to do.  Woogee (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The courts have generally ruled that while the Constitution constrains the federal government's regulatory power, it doesn't constrain its spending power. The government can spend $100 billion digging a giant hole to China if it wants. There was a big debate in the early 19th century as to whether this was the case but it has since been settled definitively on the side of Henry Clay and against that of Andrew Jackson. See Maysville Road veto. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, while Congress can appropriate funds it is up to the executive branch to spend them. For example, Congress may grant $100 billion dollars to dig that giant hole to china, but there is nothing preventing the executive branch from dragging its feet about doing so until the project gets repealed by later legislation.  Such is the way of "checks and balances" that goes on... -- Jayron  32  01:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not exactly true. Nixon tried to do that, and Congress passed a bill that says presidents can't do that anymore. See Impoundment (political). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't pretend there aren't ways around that. One can issue "studies" until the cows come home, and pretend that one is making progress on spending approrpriations as directed, there are lots of ways to stonewall such appropriations even if one never actually officially "impounds" it as described.  -- Jayron  32  04:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So that is what Ronald Wilson Reagan meant when he said he would not endores Pork Barrel spending as he vetoed a bill to fund a roadworks for Boston. I believe he was wrong, and the much needed system got built anyway, but why is it, if the Americans have two houses, that the President can veto the thing anyway ? Where's the democracy ?The Russian Christopher Lilly 11:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's checks and balances. The President can veto legislation that he thinks is inappropriate, but if 2/3 of "the people" (i.e. the House and Senate) disagree, they can override. Similarly, there is no line item veto allowed, because that gives too much power to the President. It's all or nothing. Some states allow a line item veto, and that was their choice in their state constitutions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See Veto override. The President can veto a bill that both houses of Congress have passed, true; but Congress can then override the veto by passing the bill again with a 2/3 majority in each house (as opposed to the simple majority vote that was needed to pass the bill the first time).  The bill then becomes law even though the President disapproves of it; and he is then obliged by the Constitution to uphold the law.  Our article Bill (proposed law) discusses this a little, but unfortunately it was written to cover both Great Britain and the US, so the article is generalized and vague, and the links at the bottom of the page are probably more straightforward to read about the US process.  The President is quite powerful in the US, but not all-powerful.  (The head of government in the US used to be much weaker under an earlier, unsuccessful constitution called the Articles of Confederation.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a relief. Saves the US from dictatorship. There have to be checks and balances. In New Zealand we have only one parliament, and the Governor General assents to the Bill as a formality. I do not believe he is allowed to veto it. In Australia in November 1975 the Governor General Sir John Kerr dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, the very man who appointed Kerr to the post in the first place. This was due to the Labor Government's money bills being passed in the lower house, but not ratified by the Liberal Party controlled Senate. The GG thought this meant Whitlam had lost the ability to govern, but was maligned for his actions for years to come. It caused a constitutional crisis in Australia, and led to Labor being voted out of office before Christmas. Some suspect CIA involvement, as alluded to in the true story The Falcon and the Snowman, made about nine years later. In New Zealand we have only one house nowadays, so things are a bit more straightforward. The Governor General only signs the bills as a formality, and I do not believe he has the right to refuse. I understand that the President can be dismissed if he is deemed unable to execute the office, but is this by a vote in both houses, or by a document signed by the Cabinet, as shown in Air Force One ? These differences between countries are intriguing, because they are examples of each nation's individual sovereignty, such as the fact I believe that the US cannot hold a snap election, since by law I believe they must occur every four years. I do not think Governors General can sack anyone in NZ or Oz any more. I do think though that some government isn't as democratic as it should be, and without having to overthrow it by force, the people should be able to do something about their government when they see fit. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Both New Zealand and Australia use the Westminster system. This means that, in practice, normally, the respective prime ministers "advise" their governors-general and expect their advice to be taken as instructions.  At law, however, the power is held by the governor-general, who appoints and dismisses ministers as he/she sees fit; those ministers hold power "at the governor-general's pleasure".  Nothing has happened in Australia since 1975 to render a repeat of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis impossible.  There were a number of factors at play, one of which was the appointment of non-Labor senators to replace Labor senators who had died or resigned.  That is now impossible, since the Australian referendum, 1977 (Senate Casual Vacancies) altered the constitution; but in essence, the same crisis could arise again, and the same outcome could obtain.  Much less likely in NZ, where there's a unicameral parliament.  But in theory, a NZ Governor-General could still dismiss a NZ Prime Minister for any weird reason.  Nobody thought it would ever end the way it ended in Oz in 1975, either; but at the same time, nobody to my knowledge has ever argued that what Kerr did was constitutionally improper.  It was just highly unexpected, coming under the heading of the rarely-used reserve powers of the Crown.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As to the US system, to permanently remove the president from power requires an impeachment, which involves both houses of Congress: the House of Representatives votes to impeach, and the Senate tries the case. This is specified in the Constitution by Article 1, Sections 2 and 3. The two presidents it has been attempted against (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) both survived the Senate vote. Richard Nixon probably would have lost, but he resigned before the House voted to impeach him. If the president was impeached and convicted then the vice-president would become president.

The procedure depicted as being considered in the movie Air Force One was the temporary replacement of a president who is "unable to discharge the duties of his office". This is covered under the 25th Amendment, Section 4. Basically the vice-president and a majority of the cabinet can declare the president incapacitated (and if the president disputes this, Congress decides who's right). Presumably they had in mind situations where the president was injured in a shooting or accident, or seriously ill, and could not declare himself incapacitated (that's Section 3 of the amendment), but in the movie they imagined it being used because of the hostage crisis. (There was a similar fictional situation in the TV series The West Wing: the president's daughter was taken hostage, and he removed the criminals' leverage by declaring himself incapacitated under Section 3.) In any such temporary situation the vice-president becomes acting president until the president recovers his capabilities.

(If the vice-presidency happens to be vacant at the time, as it was in the West Wing episode, the Presidential Succession Act applies.) --Anonymous (Canadian), 22:16 UTC, January 13, 2010.

Thank You, that clears a lot of things up. Being a New Zealander, I was not even aware that our Governor General could do that. Whatever happens, the interests of the People should always be paramount. All this talk also reminds me of the movie Dave, as well. It seems better if a dismissal is the result of a law enacted by the representatives, rather than just a piece of paper signed by some of them. I know Sir John Kerr was roundly criticised, but I also know he did nothing illegal, and if there was a problem with what occurred, safeguards would need to be enacted. It seems many regard the appointment of a Governor General as a joke, some kind of " rubber stamp ", which they believe has no real power. Obviously only when the law is tested, do people realise otherwise. I could continue, but then I would be getting into personal opinion, so I shall not. Tempting, though. Without trying to sound opinionated, one only ever hopes for a Government they agree with, which protects their interests, without being autocratic. The Russian Christopher Lilly 03:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See Governor-General of New Zealand. (And note the hyphenation: the only Commonwealth realm whose Governor-General is a Governor General is Canada). --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   18:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously not an Australian but while I believe you're right nowadays it's generally accepted that what Kerr did was constitutionally allowed, it's my understanding some people do question the proprietary of certain of Kerr's alleged actions, e.g. "Years later, Fraser, supported by his staff, claimed that Kerr had asked him the same three questions earlier in the day over the phone, something which Kerr adamantly denied in his memoirs." Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)