Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 August 12

= August 12 =

Government Salaries for Memebrs of Congress, & President of the US and former US Presidents
Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 FOR LIFE

Salary of House/Senate .......................$174,000 FOR LIFE

Salary of Speaker of the House ............$223,500 FOR LIFE

Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ...... $193,400 FOR LIFE

Average Salary of a teacher ................ $40,065

Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN $38,000

Are these figures accurate? What do Members of Congress get as compensation for being elected to Public Office?JeremiahinMd (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done to question these benefits paid to public officials?JeremiahinMd (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are wrong on two counts. First, for retired people, the money they receive is called a pension and not a salary.  Different word.  Secondly, the President, Vice President, and all of the cabinet ministers get $191,300 per year in pension.  Of course, your list is designed to engender outrage against the American government, its the kind of propaganda that the Tea Party Movement likes to publish to get people angry and enraged so they'll vote for their candidates.  If the U.S. paid every teacher and soldier in the U.S. almost $200,000 per year, they'd be fooked.  Contrawise, there are currently maybe a few thousand former cabinet ministers, presidents, veeps, senators, representatives, etc. alive.  Even if the U.S. paid them no pension at all, it wouldn't make a dent in the federal deficit.  And, while being a teacher is a pretty important job (I know, I'm one), the President is probably singularly more important to the well being of the country, so I think he can have a decent pension once he retires... -- Jayron  32  02:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How many ministers have been US cabinet members? In what religions were they ordained? Edison (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The assignment of a hostile anti-american motive to the OP who is only seeking objective information is an egregious misuse of the Ref Desk that is particularly unworthy of a person having a teaching responsibility. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't seem Jayron assign that viewpoint to the poster, just to the people who made this list, which the OP took from a meme making the rounds in social media, I saw it several days ago on FB before it was posed as a question here.  He  iro 12:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See Conspiracy theory. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And that link has what to do with what? The list is clearly designed to be inflammatory, and from which side of the US political spectrum do you think it would have originated from? In fact, you're little divergence from the OPs question has what to do with what?  He  iro 04:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the list is controversial then that is an good reason for the OP to investigate whether it is correct. Wikipedia is a wisely chosen place for that because it is staffed by noble, helpful and resourceful volunteers apart from a few knee-jerking ranters who are too obsessed with promoting their end of an America-centrist political spectrum to answer the question. Learn that "you're" means "you are" and it is not a sustitute for the English posessive pronoun "your". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Aristokratov na fonar!

μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The pensions paid to former members of Congress appear to be way overstated. I do agree that teachers ought to be paid more, though. Looie496 (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For the members of Congress, see United_States_Senate. Pleclown (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And in France, we used to say Les aristocrates à la lanterne:Ah!_ça_ira Pleclown (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. I can see how the French revolution developed methods to cut short the benefits of aristocrats. But hanging them at the lantern seems to only stretch things out... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What would be a better comparison would be to compare these pension benefits to other management positions. Comparing them to soldiers or teachers is just comparing apples and oranges, however much we value soldiers and teachers. They are different types of jobs. In any case, it is arguably a good thing to make leadership positions paid fairly well (I don't think these pensions are extravagant, personally), without being lucrative. If you pay public officials too little, you are amplifying the potential effects of bribery and corruption. I don't think these salaries or pensions are high enough to make people seek out public office just for the salary money. If you want to really get disgusted, look how much hedge fund managers make (multimillions to billions), and then how much they are taxed on that income (a paltry 15%). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is because all their income is capital gains because they own a % of the hedge fund. Googlemeister (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, over the past few days, the table presented by the OP has been posted by at least a dozen people I know on their Facebook pages, usually with a comment such as "It's obvious where the U.S. government should make budget cuts." (Note I say people I know, not Friends.) When I point out their errors, some get upset because I am derailing their argument. — Michael J 16:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is a notorious tax loophole, which is the point. (Heck, even Warren Buffet agrees with that analysis, and he's covered by the loophole). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion of course, but the way I see it, they have to put money at risk to earn their income, as compared to a regular worker who is not risking any money. Googlemeister (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The important question is: Should one "serve" 4 or 8 years in a government post and receive a windfall for life from that service? The answer is NO! Elected officials compensation exceeds a reasonable persons expectation and particularly the President's whoever he/she is. 1015mrc

Hidden IP addresses in Wikipedia's history
Why are the very first IP addresses in the edit history of the article toilet paper partly concealed? --Belchman (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that at the time the mediawiki software wasn't able to capture the last part of the IP address. --Viennese Waltz 08:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article history goes back to 6 February 2002 when it was edited by 208.246.35.xxx, 24.141.179.xxx and 151.24.191.xxx. None of these IPs contributed after 2002. These were the early days of Wikipedia when it had some 20,000 articles compared to 3,700,000+ articles today. Early contributions to Wikipedia came from Nupedia, Slashdot postings and web search indexing. I hazard a guess that the incompletely addressed and therefore "anonymous" edits were from one of these sources. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Having been there I think you have history of Wikipedia a bit backwards. Wikipedia was the incubator for Nupedia - which had even less content, very little of which was eventually moved over here before it shut down. I don't remember anyone importing Slashdot postings or random web searches. Our biggest article sources were the Rambot U.S. cities articles, the "1911 encyclopedia" we dared not speak the trademarked name of, the CIA factbook import and essays about every possible fact related to Ayn Rand's Fountainhead. When we were slashdot-ed a couple of times, I believe they wrote articles here, not copied them. Most of our early work was what we now call sub-stubs and arguing about (er, hammering out) the concepts and rules for the site. Rmhermen (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. To hear from someone who was there is much better than me guessing. Rmhermen you might check whether I got backward information from Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The default for the software Wikipedia originally ran on hid the end of IP addresses for privacy/security reasons and no-one saw any reason to change it. The site was then run on new software that was designed to show the whole IP address. --Tango (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Photographing teenagers when on holiday
Nothing weird, just a totally innocent request... I'm currently on holiday with my sister and her two teenage daughters (aged 14 and 16). How can I pursuade my neices not to run or hide their faces every time I point my camera at them? I would like to make it look like I went on holiday with them all rather then just my sister. 81.63.4.227 (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The instinctive shyness of the pubescent female is matched only by her vanity. Get your neices to try on different hats. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you taken a photo of the whole family together? Maybe you could ask a bystander to take a photo of you all? Or how about not posing the photo, but just taking a cheeky snap when they're doing something else? I presume your sister's had a word with them to say it's OK. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "neices"? --Belchman (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. On the journey here, I was able to snap one photo of the family posing in in front of some scenery, but last night I snapped a more casual picture of the family just after dinner only to have the eldest lock herself in another room and the youngest ask that I don't take any more photos. After I asked the initial question, I discussed the situation with my sister and she suggested I give them notice that I'll be taking some photos, so they have the opportunity to choose the "right clothing" and prepare their hair and makeup. It sounds like a reasonable suggestion but I would rather my photos were more natural then posed. 81.63.4.227 (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * “I point my camera at them” says it all. They will feel that they have no control over the jerk behind the camera who will make their noses seem bigger than it really are etc. So, your sis' is right about giving them notice, as it gives them more in controll in the final out come ...but if Justin Bieber appeared on the beach then they would be begging for their photo to be taken with him regardless of what they were wearing. So, try asking them to take some photos for you (before you take the camera out). Point out that (on most  dig SLR's) a wider angle than about 50-55 mm will make peoples noses look bigger on a head shot. How to shot landscapes with wider angles etc.  Show them how to delete bad shots, so that they understand how  bad shots of themselves can be erased (after learning how to 'protect' good images from being wiped from the memory card of course). Also, set it to shoot in black and white for experimentation, as that  is another step back from harsh reality and can always be re-shot in colour if it looks like a good photo. Instruct them to check that they have included people's  feet in frame when taking a full length shot etc. Leave it to them, to start taking each others photograph. Tomorrow, we can discuss how to persuade  them to hand   your camera back to you. --Aspro (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Riiight.. All girls fantasize about Bieber and adolescent personality crisis is cured by a lecture on perspective distortion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Aspro's advice above is spot on (and Cuddlyable3's interjection misses the point entirely); it boils down to issues of control and acclimatization. Negotiation is key&mdash;explaining to them, as you did to us, why you want a few pictures with the whole family is a good first step.  Asking permission to take a limited number of snaps is important; don't make them feel like they're constantly in danger of being photographed without notice.  (There's no need to have a family member in every single vacation frame.)  Show the girls the pictures you take of them, and let them evaluate them.  (Hint: ask sister A about sister B's appearance first, and vice versa.  People are always too critical of their own appearance in photographs, but generally are much kinder to others.)  Respect their wishes if they ask you delete a picture, and let them know in advance you're willing to do this.  Get them involved in the photography, if they have any interest in it at all.  Don't force them to use your camera, but absolutely encourage them to take photos of you and your sister if they would like to.
 * It's hard to put this delicately, but it would also be very helpful if you could show them flattering pictures you've taken of other people. If you have a small portfolio of your best/favorite pictures, that may come in handy in establishing your credibility as someone who won't make them look silly.  While a full course on portrait photography is beyond the scope of this desk, here's a few tips.  Don't stand too close when using a wide-angle (short focal length) lens, as Aspro says, this produces a look that's only good for clowns.  Use a medium telephoto so you can give your subject space.  Pay attention to light; bright midday sunlight is very unflattering, casting dark shadows under the nose.  During the day, try to find more diffuse light (being in full shadow actually can help quite a bit).  Shoot photographs of people near sunset, when the light is softer and has a wonderful warm tone.  (As a photographer, sometimes the best place for a sunset is behind your camera rather than in front of the lens.)  Be very careful when using flash on people; it tends to do very unflattering things (gives you glossy or washed out faces, dark backgrounds, red eye, etc.).  Good luck! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Although not a professional, I'm actually quite an experienced photographer and I think I have a reasonable eye for composition and lighting. My nieces, like most teenagers these days are also quite capable of taking photos, though their idea of composition is more like the kind of thing you see on Facebook with quantity seemingly being more important than a good picture.  In fact, my initial interpretation of their objections was that they thought I was going to publish the photos (somehow) on Facbook in order to ridicule them - nothing could be further from the truth.  I'm simply after a few family snaps to go with all the great landscapes and to remind myself what a nice time I'm actually having on holiday.  81.63.4.227 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you explained that to them? Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Teenage girls acting in an anticipated manner would seem to be the exception rather then the rule. Googlemeister (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I announced I was going to take some photos around our holiday cottage, and that it would be nice if my neices were in some of them so it looked like I had gone on holiday with them. I then gave them several hours to change and prepare their hair and makeup. They were then only too happy to smile and let me take a photo. And of course I was only too happy to show them the results (and possibly reshoot if they voiced and objection). I even got another family group shot. 81.63.4.227 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

LOT
What does LOT stands for when printed on a box of sterile gloves? It is followed by seven characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.74.50.52 (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It just means 'lot', i.e. the part of the production run that this particular box came from. The characters would be the unique identification number for this run.  This enables the manufacturers to trace where the box came from in the event of some quality control issue. --Viennese Waltz 13:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly a lot or batch number.  If a fault is discovered in one glove (probably quite serious for surgeons), the whole batch can be recalled.  81.63.4.227 (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and not too healthy for the patient! Richard Avery (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Situation for batter in caught stealing third out?
If with two outs a runner is caught stealing, what happens to the at bat of the batter at the plate? Does he bat with a clean slate the next time that the team comes up? Naraht (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * yes he does. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If that out ended the game so that he doesn't have a chance to bat again that game, does he register a plate appearance? Googlemeister (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the situation the other night? It would appear Teixeira, who was batting when Granderson got picked off, didn't get credit for the last PA. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've actually been wondering about that for months. I didn't know how often it happened, but apparently it is common enough to have someone think I was referring to it.Naraht (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's rare enough for a game to end on a pick-off or a caught stealing to make it memorable. Similar situations: if a runner scores the winning run on a stolen base, wild pitch, passed ball, or balk which ends the game, the batter is not charged with a plate appearance, although, if he was a pinch hitter, he does get credit for a game played. --Xuxl (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The 1926 World Series ended with Babe Ruth caught stealing. Bob Meusel was in the batter's box, but there is no mention of him in the play-by-play. Meusel is credited with 4 at bats (innings 1, 3, 5 and 7). His plate appearance in the 9th was not completed. Had it only been the 8th, he would have led off the last of the 9th with the bases empty and a fresh count. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, another end of game situation. Bottom of the 9th, game tied 0-0. Bases loaded. If the batter hits a home run, then the home team wins 7-3 (meant 4-0). OTOH, if the hitter drives it into the Right field corner (lands just inside the foul line and bounces into Foul ground), which would normally be at *least* a double, how is it decided what the final score is and what he gets credit for (single, double or triple)? Do number of outs affect this? Is the decider the scorer, sort of like deciding whether something is an error or whether something a sac fly?
 * What do you mean 7-3? The home team would win 4-0.  The rule is, for any non-homerun hit, only one run may score if it is the game winning run.  Thus, if the game is tied 0-0 in the bottom of the ninth, and the batter hits the ball into the field of play, and he makes it to first base, the game ends the second the run crosses home plate; he gets credited with a single, even if he could have easily hit into a double.  If there was only a man on first or second, and he gets to second before that man scored the winning run, he would (I believe) get credited with a double.  The rule is only different for home runs; on a home run, all runs score, even if only the first would have won the game.  This did NOT used to be the rule; in the earlier years of baseball, probably pre-1950's, only the winning run would count; thus in your initial scenario, even if he hit it out of the park with the bases loaded, he would have been credited with a 1-RBI single.  Under current scoring rules, he gets credited with a 4-RBI home run. -- Jayron  32  22:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That rule was actually changed around 1930 or so. Babe Ruth would have had 715 career homers instead of 714, if the rule had been in effect earler. He also lost around 50 homers in his career due to the asinine rule that the ball had to land fair even when it went past the foul pole in fair territory. I think that rule was also changed around 1930. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was earlier than I thought: 1920. I think it was 1931 that the "fair when last seen" rule was abolished, although the source doesn't mention it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's quite true, is it? I think if there are men on second and third and you hit a ground-rule double, both runs will score even if one of them would be enough to end the game.  But I'm not sure.  --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it helps to look. Here's the rulebook.  Rule 10.06(f): "Subject to the provisions of Rule 10.06(g), when a batter ends a game with a safe hit that drives in as many runs as are necessary to put his team in the lead, the official scorer shall credit such batter with only as many bases on his hit as are advanced by the runner who scores the winning run, and then only if the batter runs out his hit for as many bases as are advanced by the runner who scores the winning run." and 10.06(g) "When the batter ends a game with a home run hit out of the playing field, the batter and any runners on base are entitled to score."  Especially telling is the clarification comment after 10.06(f) "Rule 10.06(f) Comment: The official scorer shall apply this rule even when the batter is theoretically entitled to more bases because of being awarded an “automatic” extra-base hit under various provisions of Rules 6.09 and 7.05." 6.09 deals with several ways a batter may reach base in unusual ways, including e, f, g, and h which are the "ground rule double" rules.  No exceptions thus are made for ground rule doubles; thus if the man on third scores the winning run on a ground rule double; the batter still only gets credited with a single.  -- Jayron  32  23:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So the way that I read that is if the batter hits it into the corner like that, he can get a triple if the winning run comes from first base and the batter runs all the way to third.Naraht (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the batter have to make it to third before the runner from first crosses home plate? That seems pretty hard, given that the runner from first had a lead, unless of course the batter is just a much faster runner. --Trovatore (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends. Who's on first? Edison (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Once the winning run scores, the game is over, and it would be up to the official scorer to decide what to credit the batter-runner with. But unless the batter-runner is an idiot (which has been known to happen), he's going to try to ensure that the winning run scores, rather than worrying about a triple. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the rulebook (read it again above), they are pretty specific on this. The batter doesn't strictly have to reach the base before the run scores they merely have to be a) trying to reach the base that b) they would be going towards as a natural part of the play if they were going all out.  Thus, if we had the case of the player from first scoring, and the batter trying his hardest to get that triple; if he's going into third when the runner scores he gets credited with the triple.  If he stops at second, or if he pulls up between second and third and stops trying in earnest to get to third; he gets credited with a double.  -- Jayron  32  04:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it would be scorer's judgment as to the effort being made by the batter-runner. Meanwhile, something you said reminded me of thisd: Don't forget the Merkle factor, which is another twist to the possibilities. If there are two outs, and the batter smacks what should be a base hit, and misses first base on his way to second, he can be called out on appeal, and no runs score at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Merkle's Boner. We have an article on that... (and for the record, Merkle was on first and failed to touch second on the force; he wasn't the batter on that play.)  -- Jayron  32  04:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. But when the third out comes on a force play, no runs count. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A batter is credited with a home run if he hits it out of the park and drives in multiple runs in the bottom of the last inning, even if the score is tied and only one is needed to win. However, the batter is still required to circle the bases. Otherwise, you get what happened to Robin Ventura of the Mets in the 1999 NLCS, a "Grand Slam Single". — Michael J 16:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)