Miscellaneous desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 13[edit]

Rehabilitation of offenders[edit]

In the UK, job applicants do not have to declare "spent" convictions, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. A custodial sentence over 4 years is never spent and some employment sectors are exempt from the act, those working with the vulnerable for example. Even so potential employers must "...have a fair and clear policy towards ex-offenders and not to discriminate automatically on the basis of an unprotected conviction or caution". I noticed that candidates for the WMF 2017 elections, "must not have been convicted of a serious crime..." [[1]] and wondered whether there was any similar legislation in the US.--Ykraps (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Legal disclaimer noted). From a UK perspective, there are also I think certain provisions in companies, charities and trusts legislation, which bar those with of 'questionable moral standing' (my phrasing) or who are not "a fit and proper person" from holding certain positions. I can't imagine the US is different from the UK in this respect.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard that, possibly some sectors have such a policy but it seems somewhat redundant if the applicant isn't obliged to reveal their past transgressions. Do you have an example or an online application with that wording?--Ykraps (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, presumably you are talking about unprotected convictions in particular. Yes, employers then have to make a judgement about the applicants suitability but still need to be able to justify their decision in case they are challenged over it.--Ykraps (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The US sometimes does Expungement in the United States, which is nowhere near ROA. There's the ongoing REDEEM Act, which isn't (yet) law, which might give a helpful indication of differing attitudes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those links are interesting.--Ykraps (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the job take the specific crimes into account ? For example, an embezzler shouldn't be made an accountant and a person with a history of road rage shouldn't be a taxi driver, but if you swap the two jobs they might be OK. StuRat (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CPA, 3 accounting degrees from Harvard, 1st out of 5500 in your class, 200 IQ, National Egghead Award for Excellency in Technical Accounting, hmm, what a remarkable history of road rage. [pause] We here at the LA Times can hire you as long as security keeps you out of the parking lot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how good (s)he is at embezzling. Thomas Fuller wrote in his Church History of Britain:[2] ‘Always set a thief to catch a thief; the greatest deer-stalkers make the best park-keepers.’ Blooteuth (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it right that someone convicted of embezzlement 30 years ago or as a juvenille, and has been clean ever since, is prevented from holding such a position forever? It's a moot point I suppose. Personally, I think someone convicted of embezzlement would make an excellent accountant! Don't tell the Inland Revenue I said so though. :) --Ykraps (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many colorful examples of this. Frank Abagnale comes to mind. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air rescue for mount everest[edit]

There's an article (quite graphic) about all the corpses strewn on top of mount everest. People dying and being ignored, bodies and remains all over the place. It's quite sickening, in fact.

But my question is, why couldn't these dying people be air lifted. Apparently the air isn't thin enough for helicopters to operate thankfully. Why just let people die, and rot up there. It's macabre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.107.201 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Because it's there." - are the three most famous words in mountaineering by George Mallory. Blooteuth (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Landing a helicopter on the slope of Everest is a very dangerous venture, and will be impossible in many circumstances. The risk is that the project would just add to the corpses already there. Dbfirs 19:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a documentary about a helicopter designed for high mountain rescues, and it really needed quite a few modifications. Here are a few:

1) Mechanical changes to handle the thinner air, including longer blades and/or higher rotation speed. However, you need to avoid the tips of the blades going supersonic and undergoing the same stresses that cause sonic booms.

2) The passenger compartment needs to be pressurized, so the pilots won't pass out. This means the door can't be opened to load and unload patients, at altitude.

3) Nacelle pods were instead added for up to 2 patients, like the helicopters shown in M*A*S*H. They also needed to be pressurized, so the pressure would slowly bleed off as they lost altitude, since a sudden change in pressure could also be dangerous. Or they could maintain pressure if that seemed better for the patient, and then remove the pod and worry about depressurization once they land.

I believe there are such rescue helicopters, but don't know if they can make it all the way to the top of Everest. Bad weather is also a common concern there. Radar could compensate for the loss of visibility, but sudden, drastic changes in wind are difficult or impossible to deal with close to the ground. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nacelle. Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done, once with a heavily modified helicopter, flying at the most extreme edge of its performance. It's not easy, and is very dangerous for all involved. Zzubnik (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible that air-lifts can be accomplished from these altitudes. The helicopter most suitable (me thinks) is one like the Squirrel. However, unless the mountaineers are prepared to pay for one to be on stand-by 24/7, a Squirrel is unlikely to be ever available in that part of the remote World. Further, an Everest mountaineer who got to the top and survived to tell the tail tail, may be able to add more... such as most fatalities happen when a mountaineer finds themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time and a helicopter rescue in these situations are seldom feasible anyway. As is often said: If you can't accept the risk -don't go there. Aspro (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Eurocopter AS350 Écureuil may be a cool helicopter, but it's regular service ceiling is 4600m. The high-altitude rescues were performed with very much stripped-down versions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a helicopter service was now available, of course they would be modified from standard spec (striped down) as a mater of necessity to make it operational at those altitudes.Aspro (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Painting stripes on them would add to their weight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find "mater of necessity" to be even more amusing, perhaps related to the expression "necessity is the mother of invention". StuRat (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Firstly, there is the question of the cost-benefit assessment (the cost being not just financial, but also the risk to the rescuers). It might be justifiable to try to rescue someone who is sick or injured, but not to recover the bodies of those who have died. As most deaths result from falls, hypoxia, or hypothermia, in extreme weather conditions, there will not be many cases where it is known that a rescue is needed in time to actually mount one. Nor is it particularly morbid - bodies there do not rot - they freeze, and most get buried in snow or ice (until they perhaps pop out at a lower altitude many years later). Many mountaineers might consider that a fitting end. Wymspen (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By way of a reference: Everest 2013: Can I be Rescued on Everest? which says: "There are no helicopter rescues available on the north side of Everest as the Chinese prohibit helicopters flying over Everest or to Base Camp... In the “old” days, 2008 and earlier, the Nepal Army was the dominate provider of helicopter services for climbing expeditions. It was dangerous, difficult, expensive and took a lot of work to arrange an evacuation. Today, a private company, Fishtail Air, has taken over many of the evacuations with their four helicopter fleet. Today they land at Camp 2 (21,000’/6400m) in the Western Cwm, but not higher. Depending on where the helicopter flights starts and fly to, it costs between USD$4,000 to $20,000 per flight and is very weather dependent. In 2012, 30 people were helicoptered from Base Camp to Lukla at a cost of $4,000 each due to illness. Most climbers have rescue insurance to cover the costs but insurance companies are getting wary of this coverage.

There have been multiple deadly helicopter crashes at Everest Base Camp including 1997, 2003, 2005 and 2007". Alansplodge (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ce with Alansplodge, while we read the same reference) It's not clear that a super-high altitude helicopter would actually be able to rescue all that many people, anyway. It wouldn't be of practical help to climbers who fall, or who have things fall on them, or who are buried or swept away by avalanches. It wouldn't help those trapped by sudden storm, as the helicopter couldn't fly. And as the wind is a major feature of any isolated mountain (where the wind interacts with the mountain side producing gusts and eddies - cf vortex shedding) there will be many climbing days when the helicopter could not safely approach the mountain side. Most climbers who die do so while descending - so if someone gets into difficulty in the afternoon, there isn't much time to decide evac is necessary and to summon the helicopter from its distant base and have it get the person before nightfall. It is possible, and fairly common, for people (often suffering from high-altitude pulmonary edema) to be removed from base camp (a lower, flatter location where helicopter operation is much more practical) - this report says "In 2012, 30 people were helicoptered from Base Camp to Lukla at a cost of $4,000 each due to illness." That report talks about some efforts to perform helicopter rescues from higher locations on the mountain. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, they don't rot, they freeze. The remains of George Mallory were in pretty good shape despite being on the mountain for 70 or 80 years. Second, it's difficult enough just to retrieve the living. A TV documentary about the recent earthquakes and avalanches on Everest said that the choppers could only rescue two at a time due to the thin air. As others have indicated, it would be possible to retrieve the bodies, but someone would have to pay for it. And the presence of the bodies perhaps serves as a cautionary note to other climbers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US Marine Corps Founders[edit]

The USMC is reported to have been founded by a group of men now referred to as "The Original Eight" at Tun's Tavern in 1775,in Philadelphia,PA. However there seems to be no documentation which identifies them. Can you help in doing so ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.53.229 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Marine Corps traces its institutional roots to the Continental Marines of the American Revolutionary War, formed by Captain Samuel Nicholas by a resolution of the Second Continental Congress on 10 November 1775, to raise two battalions of Marines. Though legend places its first recruiting post at Tun Tavern, historian Edwin Simmons surmises that it was more likely the Conestoga Waggon [sic], a tavern owned by the Nicholas family. See History of the United States Marine Corps. Blooteuth (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Marines: An Illustrated History by Chester G. Hearn (p.11), the Original Eight were part of a reinforcement in May 1775 to Fort Ticonderoga and predate the recruitment at Tun's Tavern (or that's my reading of it anyway). Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to History of the United States Marine Corps, the "Original Eight" were a set of unnamed seamen who were tasked to escort reinforcements and cash to Benedict Arnold by the Connecticut Committee of Safety. This pen and ink drawing from the 1920s recreates the event. This book calls them "Nameless". --Jayron 32 18:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]