Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 February 17

= February 17 =

B-52 ACIDENTS
I saw a b52 blow up at kadina A F B in Okianawa. I thank it was in 1968!! I was there from 1967--1969. I cant find any record of this any where.. It needs to be looked in to and put in your articl on B-52's  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.246.32 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So why dont you look it up and put it in the article? This is a collaborative project!--92.28.90.165 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a reference desk. Inquiries are welcome, and should not be discouraged. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what you're looking for. And this is the google search which found it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those personal accounts make for fascinating reading. If we could find a WP:RS for this, it would make a good addition to B-52, particularly if it is true that, "This event was the big kick off for the massive demonstrations and strikes that would eventually lead to the return of Okinawa to Japan in the early 70s." -- ToE 15:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have four clues, can someone tell me who this is?
We have a comedian speaking at our university. The staff gave us four clues as to whom it might be. The clues are 1) Ginger, 2) Harvard, 3) corn, and 4) "Holy Cow". Who might this be?--128.54.233.197 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I sure hope this isn't you cheating, but I have a suspicion it is a late night comedian. Although I'm not really sure about the #3 and #4 clues. Shadowjams (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe you mean Conan O'Brien, but I don't see how 3 and 4 relate, either. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but his name has "corn". Oda Mari (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya, I typed it out first but thought maybe I'd be more subtle. He's a redhead who worked on the Harvard Lampoon (and attended Harvard) but I don't see how the others would apply to him. Perhaps it's someone else. Seems almost too easy. I also don't really associate Bostoners with corn. Shadowjams (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I heard it might actually not be a comedian, but definitely a celeb. Also a fifth clue is "cork".--128.54.185.27 (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, he's of Irish descent, but our article says his ancestors are from County Kerry, which is adjacent to County Cork. Perhaps he has ancestors from both. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, Conan is a "ginger", he's been to Harvard, and his initials are COB, but the last two clues don't seem to work well with him. We have a category for Irish comedians (here) that might be worth going through. Matt Deres (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, corn comes on a cob, so that takes care of #3. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, obviously. The last two clues are "holy cow" and "cork". But thanks for assuming I didn't know corn comes on a cob...? Matt Deres (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought you meant the last two of the original post. And the OP may not be from a place where they have corn on the cob (or call it that). StuRat (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

IRS 401(k) contribution limits
Are the IRS limits on 401(k) contributions defined to include only employee contributions or do those numbers include employer's matching contributions as well? (I think the question should have a simple answer, but if it doesn't I'd appreciate it if someone could point me to the right parts of relevant IRS publications.) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.98.94 (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The $17000 annual limit (or whatever it is) only applies to your contribuations, it does not include the company match. RudolfRed (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the limit on the employer match? I suppose there must be one; otherwise employers could offer unlimited tax-deferred compensation.  --Trovatore (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is 100% of salary up to a max of $50000, including what the employee puts in. Taken from here: .  RudolfRed (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good find. So effectively, no limit, then ("effectively" in the sense that the limit is far higher than the most generous match I've ever heard of in the actual marketplace).  I guess the Treasury figures, if the employee can wait for the money, so can the government. --Trovatore (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ... yeah, but there's still something a little odd here. They have contribution limits for some reason, after all; if they really were content to wait as long as the employee is, then why have limits at all?  It seems that employee and employer could negotiate for a lower base salary with a higher match, and get around them.  Why doesn't this happen?  It could be because workers at a high enough income level to be able to afford it, don't expect it to be all that beneficial (e.g. because you pay regular rates on the capital gains), but again, in that case, why have contribution limits?  --Trovatore (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a limit - $50,000 p.a. total between employee and employer as RudolfRed says. That's quite a strict limit - the equivalent limit in the UK is £50,000 (about $80,000) recently reduced from £255,000 ($408,000). --Tango (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it may be a strict limit in the sense that it's lower than the equivalent UK legal limit, but it's a very weak limit in another sense, namely that it appears to be much larger than the market maximum, perhaps excepting extraordinary cases. A typical employer match, on the generous side, is that up to the first 6% of your income that you contribute, the employer will match 50% of that.  So for that plan the limit is 3% of your income or half the maximum employee contribution, whichever is smaller; that comes to a max, for the sum of employee and employer contributions, of $25.5K for employees who do not reach the age of 50 by the end of the year.  --Trovatore (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Killing suicide bombers
There is a current US case (Amine El Khalifi) where a would-be suicide bomber was given a dud bomb and later arrested. I wonder if it would have been legal to give him a device which would kill him, but nobody else, thus saving us the time and expense of a trial. After all, he would still be killing himself. And, with the dud, it seems possible he could attempt to detonate it, discover it was a dud, escape, and then later repeat the attack after obtaining real explosives. (Note that this isn't a request for legal advice, as I am not a terrorist, an agent working to catch terrorists, or a lawyer working for either.) StuRat (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The actual answer to your question of whether it would be legal is no, not in the United States anyway. We don't do extra-judicial killings even if the person obviously wants to die and clearly deserves it. As to the question of would it be wrong to do such a thing, I would say no if there was firm evidence that they wanted to die and kill lots of other people in the process, and of course by the absurd logic of jihadist terrorists they would still be a martyr because they died trying to kill innocent people. As to the issue of escape, one would assume the FBI or whoever gave hi the fake device would be watching pretty closely and would not give him the opportunity to make a second try, but of course they have on occasion made mistakes that stupid. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems like the ideal solution. We get rid of the terrorist, and he gets his 72 virgins. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say it's wrong to allow somebody to escape punishment like that. Obviously, he doesn't consider death a punishment. He should be locked up. --Tango (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's too much of a risk of other people getting hurt, but more than that, something of this nature would be difficult for the FBI or the CIA to cover up. If a whistle was blown, it would be disastrous for the company's reputation. The press would have a field day discussing whether or who the federal government has a right to kill with discretion. Just look at the backlash with the death of Anwar al-Awlaki.--WaltCip (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What "backlash"? He's an enemy of America, engaged in making war on us. He was fair game, just like that Yamamoto character in WWII. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * He was also a U.S. citizen.--WaltCip (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not according to our article, which says he's Moroccan. StuRat (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to al-Awlaki.--WaltCip (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he was very proud of that fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But they wouldn't actually kill him, they would only provide the means for him to kill himself, as he intended all along. StuRat (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this fall under assisted suicide, which is illegal most everywhere? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  05:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What would be more interesting is if they had given him a booby-trapped bomb, he had used it but had only injured himself, then sued the gov't for damages. Probably a good tort case in there somewhere... --Mr.98 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Issues of Entrapment may well be raised at the trial. -- ToE 02:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They would have to prove the FBI planted the idea in his head. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if they did is successfully there would be no trial (at least for the suicide bomber) since he'd be dead. Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be kind of like with D.B. Cooper, who is thought to have made his leap with a dummy parachute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the legalities, I doubt this would be tactically the smart way to go. The terrorist may well have a "backup", for example, or try anything on hand to kill or die trying. I remember one terrorist who tried to attack a cafe in Jerusalem (Israel). He pulled a handgun and tried to shoot patrons. It jammed. He then tried to detonate his suicide-bomb vest. It wouldn't detonate. He then grabbed a knife and began stabbing the patrons. He managed to stab three patrons before he was successfully overpowered. Once a suicide terrorist "goes in for the kill", he is very dangerous - even with a dud bomb. It would be idiotic to attempt it unless one could covertly secure the "attack site". If you were to try this, you'd want to make the booby-trap (that's essentially what it is) blow up BEFORE the terrorist tries to trigger it. And then he's no longer "killing himself". Back to the point, what would be the advantage of your suggestion? Merely to save the cost of a trial and imprisonment? 58.111.178.170 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As you said, if they discover the bomb is a dud, they might attack by other means. Also, a terrorist on trial can always lead to the taking of hostages to try to get them released.  Then there's the issue of secret evidence.  That is, if the only way we can prove he's guilty is to reveal spies, then either national security is compromised or, if they decide not to reveal the spies, the suicide bomber could walk free.


 * If the bomb can't be made to kill the wearer and do no collateral damage, perhaps it could inject the wearer with poison when they hit the switch ? I wonder if changing the form of death would affect the legality, since he still will have killed himself, just not the way he intended. StuRat (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, isn't assisting somebody with suicide illegal in the US? Falconus p  t   c 11:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As Jack said before. However, does just giving somebody the tools to kill themself constitute assisted suicide ?  Wouldn't that make anyone who sells guns, sleeping pills, or gasoline liable ? StuRat (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)