From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< September 3	<< Aug | September | Oct >>	September 5 >

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

Contents 1 September 4 1.1 candidate speeches 1.2 Citizenship question 1.3 band break up 1.4 color-help 1.5 locator 1.6 30" coal 1.7 YOCO 1.8 Saluting off-duty

[edit] September 4

[edit] candidate speeches

would like to go to a candidate speech on the campaign tour, but I only hear about the cities they visit after it happens. Is there a schedule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.199.246 (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the campaign tour for the United States presidential election, 2008, the websites of the individual candidates will have diaries of upcoming engagements. You could also try checking the website of or contacting your state Democratic or Republican party, as they are likely to know who's coming to town when. FiggyBee 02:11,

4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it might also be useful if you were signed up to the party of your choice and then they would mail you when there was a candidate visiting. 86.17.48.100 07:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship question

My aunt is a citizen of the United States and Canada. According to my mother, she has a job in Alberta and now earns more. She needs to report her income annually to the US. Could she give up her citizenship? If so, would she still need to report her income? Could she reapply after renouncing her citizenship? What do I tell my mother? I'm looking at the State Department website now but I can't find anything. --Blue387 00:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

doubt anyone here will answer you. they get picky about legal things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.199.246 (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This sort of complicated international tax question is really beyond the scope of the Reference Desks here. Particularly when thousands of dollars and a person's citizenship are in question, you really don't want to trust the advice of random strangers on the Internet.

In addition to the State Department, you might want to look at material from the Internal Revenue Service. I know that the United States and Canada have a tax treaty; the IRS' Publication 597 deals with it. Call the IRS' help lines to find out more, and consult with a good immigration lawyer and a good accountant before doing anything drastic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing is for sure: If she gives up her US citizenship she won't have to pay US taxes. Whether this is a good idea, or whether she would be able to get her citizenship back I have no idea. Plasticup ^T/C 02:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

IABNMAL (I am by no means a lawyer), but I would think that if she earned any of that money while still a U.S. citizen, the U.S. gov't would still want their take of the taxes. Also, it's probably a bigger hassle to renounce citizenship to a particular country, not pay the taxes, then try and get that citizenship back at a later date than just paying the taxes to begin with. Dismas|^(talk) 04:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Both American and Canadian tax law have provisions against double taxation, so it's very doubtful she would save on taxes by giving up her American citizenship. People are generally discouraged from renouncing American citizenship, since it rarely makes any sense to do so. -- Mwalcoff 05:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The net effect of tax treaty "provisions against double taxation" is supposed to be that your total payments come out to the higher of the two rates; and Canadian taxes are reputedly higher than U.S. taxes. However, note that I said "supposed to be" and "reputedly". It could well vary by state/province and by the person's particular situation. This is an area where you really need professional advice. --Anonymous, 15:04 UTC, September 4, 2007.

Not "legal advice", just my experience: as a US resident who still had a bank account in Canada which paid interest every year. The Canadian govt withheld 15% for taxes. That is deductible (under "high withholding interest")from the total US tax including the interest as interest income, to the same proportion that the Canadian income is of your total income. I.e., if the Canadian tax is 50% of your total tax, but the Canadian income is only 10% of your total income, then you can only use it to take off 10% of your tax. But in general, that's not a problem, so in fact you only end up paying tax to one country. You have to fill out the proper form with the proper calculations, of course. Gzuckier 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but I am a U.S. citizen who has looked into Canadian citizenship. Other posters are correct that dual citizens resident in Canada pay U.S. tax only if it is greater than the Canadian tax, and then only the difference, but the U.S. tax is very rarely higher. So it is normally just a matter of filing the forms every year. Of course, if your aunt's income and assets are complicated, this could involve a nontrivial annual expense for an accountant. She would relieve herself of this obligation by renouncing her U.S. citizenship. However, I believe (though I don't know for sure) that U.S. citizenship, once renounced, would not be so easy to regain. Probably you would have to go through at least the same degree of difficulty as any other noncitizen, and you might come up for extra scrutiny for having renounced. So, if your aunt thinks that she might want to make use of her U.S. citizenship in the future, it might be worth the trouble or expense of continuing to file those forms. Marco polo 17:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that if you renounce US citizenship the IRS still expects you to pay tax for ten years afterward. Oh, and a Green Card also makes you taxable on foreign earnings. —Tamfang 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, even if you claim yourself to be Judge of the Supreme court, liability protection clauses like the legal disclaimer aka WP:IANAL still apply to you.

Even if someonw does not say "I am not a lawyer", you should use your own common sense. --69.150.163.1 16:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC) User:Kushal_one

I found this link, but I didn't read it. It looks pertinent, though. A.Z. 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] band break up

I just missed a radio dj talking about how the lead singer of a band broke up the band (or left it) because he couldnt deal with the enovironmentaly unfriendly habits of the other members of the band. I havent heard anything else about it and am having trouble finding anything on the net about it. Any idea? Thanks in advance!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.170.119 (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is much talk swirling around Pearl Jam and that they will soon part ways.
Although their break-up probably won't be over the enviroment ... unless it's the working enviroment.
As of now nothing has been confirmed just rumored.

Killa Klown 19:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] color-help

Hi !

I just noticed that tons of images, namely the heraldic weapons for a significant portion of the heralic weapons for municipalities of Norway are wrong. I am willing to correct them myself, but need a little bit of help with the color.

Compare to http://www.gloppen.kommune.no/artikkel.aspx?AId=39&back=1&MId1=20&MId2=52 and it is apparent that the blue is completely different. The latter page (the official homepage of one norwegian municipality) explains that the blue should be "Winsor & Newton 065", and that's where my problem begins. I don't know color-theory, so I don't know what color that would correspond to in RGB-terms. (which is what I usually use in the Gimp when editing pngs)

The exact same blue is used on ~100 of the ~400 norwegian municipality-weapons. All are similarily wrong here on WP.

I could simply use the same color as Gloppen municipality themselves use on their webpages, but there's no guarantee that that is indeed the 100% correct one, and if I *do* correct the color of a hundred files, I would rather do it correctly the first time. --Eivind Kjørstad 07:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional info to the same issue, I just discovered that not just the blue, but also the green used on a large number of the weapons is wrong. Look here: List_of_Norwegian_coats_of_arms, the brigth green is wrong. Compare to the weapon used on any of the official homepages of the same municipalities. --Eivind Kjørstad 08:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Winsor & Newton 65 is Cerulean blue. It's also worth noting that, properly speaking, in heraldry blue is blue and green is green - exact hues are not specified. So the current images may be heraldically correct, even if they don't exactly match the logos of the municipalities. FiggyBee 10:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Cerulean blue gives the RGB values - and they certainly look more like the colours on the Norwegian websites. But in strict heraldic terms, the shade of blue doesn't matter - it's only now that we have heraldic symbols coming to be used like corporate logos that the precise colour starts to matter. It's also a little dangerous to equate a paint colour to an on-screen colour because the two can never truly be compared. Different computer screens will render the same RGB value differently - it'll depend on your gamma settings, and comparing paint colours to screen colours also assumes you know whether the paint is being viewed in natural daylight or artificial lighting. In order to get the best compromise equivalent colour in paint, print, CRT screen and movies, one would have to know something like the pantone number for the colour. For all of these reasons, this isn't really worth obsessing over. SteveBaker 15:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case I have myself verified that atleast a substantial part of the municipalities themselves have specified, at the same time they specified what the motive of the weapon is, what precise color should be used. That is the source of "Winsor & Newton 65", it was in the actual proposal that was voted in favour for when setting the weapon of Gloppen municipality. Heraldic rules is one thing. But when the actual politicians in charge in a municipality vote to the effect that their weapon is a horse on a blue background, and that the blue is one specific blue, I'm thinking we should use that blue. --Eivind Kjørstad 09:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes - that definitely suggests we should make an effort to get at least close to that colour. The bright cyan in the example above is clearly wrong (or at least, misleading) if the colour is not specified in heraldic terms. But specifying a specific oil paint colour was a poor decision on the part of the politicians because it may well be impossible to accurately reproduce that colour in print or on a computer screen. See Gamut (and the diagram on the right) - the multi-coloured triangle in the center of that diagram shows all of the colours that a computer screen can display - the grey arch-like shape shows all of the colours that our eyes can see. If you plotted all of the Winsor and Newton paint colours on that chart, they'd all be somewhere inside the arch - but many of them would lie outside the triangle of colours that a display can produce. There are also regions inside that triangle that no paint or ink can ever reproduce. I don't know whether W&N colour number 65 lies inside or outside the triangle - and I bet the politicians who passed that resolution didn't either! This is why it's advisable to use a properly thought out colour calibration system (like pantone or one of it's competitors) to specify colours in logos and such like - because then you can find out which colours are not reproducible in some systems and carefully choose only colours that can be reasonable approximated using RGB (for computers and TV), CMYK (for print) and using pigments such as in oil paints. It is notable that hardly any companies use really rich greens and yellows in their logos - because that's one area where RGB colours are especially lacking. Most corporate logos stick with red and blue which (as you can see on the diagram) are relatively safe. SteveBaker 14:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Luckily that doesn't appear to be a problem in this case, atleast our own article on Cerulean blue specifies that it corresponds to RGB-hextriplet 2A-52-BE, and that color matches the one used on the municipalities own website almost precisely. (they use 2A-52-BD, I haven't checked others of the municipalities specifying this blue) I guess then, the short of it is, changing the color to 2a-52-be may not be unquestionably the one-and-only correct color. But it appears certainly to be a better choice than the current color. Thank you for your great help folks. --Eivind Kjørstad 12:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm reluctant to open up this can of worms, but depending on what Norwegian copyright law says about heraldic seals (I assume they are too old to be under copyright, but please check and don't take my word for it) we might just be able to copy the images from the various Norwegian official websites. --M@rēino 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A heraldic blazon is not an image, it is a description of an image. I have no doubt that the specific renditions of heraldic devices found on the websites are copyrighted. FiggyBee 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Under Norwegian law, heraldic weapons of government institutions and ineligible for copyright. Commons have a few, and use the template norwegian_coat_of_arms for them, look here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Norwegian_coat_of_arms am I correct in assuming that means they *can* be freely copied from an official source ? (I do have an official, complete, source handy) --Eivind Kjørstad 09:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I can't speak for Norwegian heraldry, but I'd be amazed if its tolerance of colour variations were much less than that of English heraldry, in which azure is simply an unspecified shade of blue. In the middle ages, it wasn't possible to specify shades of colour in the way that we can now. That's one reason why there are so few heraldic colours. So probably any blue which is recognizably blue is acceptable. In continental heraldry there is also bleu celeste, or sky blue, but that too is fairly vague. To fathom this, you would need to check the original grant of arms which blazons the ones you are concerned with and the definition of the terms used in it. Xn4 19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose the lack of choice for dyes back in the middle ages may have had the accidental effect of guaranteeing an exact shade of some of the colours. Just how many blue dyes were known back then? Maybe just one...in which case, when they said "Azure" - they may have had a precise shade in mind. However, that certainly wouldn't have continued for long as more dyes were discovered. But we should consider the reason for having these heraldic designs in the first place - it was so individuals could be recognised on the field of battle - and to ensure that everyone wore something sufficiently different from everyone else. You certainly wouldn't want someone to be wondering whether that shield was sky blue, baby blue or cyan as they were bearing down on you with something heavy and pointy! So precise delineation of colours would have defeated the entire purpose of having heraldic designs in the first place. SteveBaker 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you use the same pigments to dye a flag, to paint a shield, and to "stain" glass? I'd expect the shade to depend on the medium, another reason for wide tolerances. And then there's fading. —Tamfang 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The tolerance in general is probably not smaller. But some municipalities (about 1/3rd of the ones I checked) have in their actual voting-record, from when they decided the weapon, not only the motive, but also the precise color to be used. In such cases that color is the only correct one. For consistency it'd make sense to use the same blue also on those weapons where the color is *not* specified other than as "blue" for example. The colors used where consistent, I was unable to find even a single example of a municipality specifying the blue by name, but *not* using "Winsor & Newton 065". As to the age, these weapons are generally 20 to 100 years old, only a few are much older (like the city-weapons of the major towns), so no, copyright is not universally expired in them. But they're ineligible for copyright in general under Norwegian law. --Eivind Kjørstad 09:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] locator

How do i keep a tab on the exact position of my children through an apparatus which not expensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.138.102 (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheapest and most effective method out there --lucid 08:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If they have mobile phones, they already carry tracking devices. A few years ago I heard of a website (perhaps somebody else will know the url) that enables you to track a mobile phone on payment of a small subscription.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My Verizon Motorola Krazr offers free downloads of "chaperone" and "chaperone parent" applications. as far as i can tell from the two lines of info offered, these do allow the "parent" to monitor the whereabouts of the "chaperone" phone, but the details aren't supplied. Looking at a typical kid's Samsung phone, though, it didn't have the capacity to download apps. Gzuckier 16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also the possibility of inserting RFID tags under someone's skin. Our article makes clear the host of security and privacy issues surrounding this. But if those concerns could be addressed, I would have thought there was a good case for concerned parents tagging their children. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lucid. There oughta be a law!--Nricardo 10:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think RFID tags will work at more than a few metres. You need something more powerful, like with a regular battery inside it. Googling "track their movements" together with "mobile phone" brings up LOADS of hits.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

God forbid that children should ever be allowed any freedom or privacy - if you start doing that they might want to be treated with respect next! Why not just nail them to the floor? DuncanHill 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what the OP had in mind, but my first thought was tracking their movements as a security measure against abduction. As a parent myself, I think it's legitimate to enquire what methods might be available. If Madeleine McCann had had some kind of tracking device fitted to her, we might know where she is now. I'm not saying it's practical or even 100% desirable, but it's a reasonable idea to consider. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There's this if you feel like treating your child like society would normally treat a convicted felon. (Actually, I can't find any evidence that these shoes have actually been released on schedule.) Or if you don't need live data, and just want to check on them after the fact you could try this. 69.95.50.15 14:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Or this. I have to say that even as a small child, I would have absolutely refused to wear a tracking device that could be remotely locked onto my wrist. It would have 'accidentally' gotten smashed or waterlogged the first day I had it. 69.95.50.15 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• (EC) I remember seeing a GPS + cell phone device that would attach to a person's wrist in a tamper-resistant way, and occasionally report its position. I can't find it online just now. There are legitimate uses for such devices, such as for people with dementia who are at risk of wandering off into trouble. Unless a particular child is at risk for abduction, it probably doesn't make sense: in the USA, there are fewer than 200 child abductions by strangers each year, which is not a number worth worrying about. Abductions by non-strangers are readily solvable by traditional policing means. --Sean 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, every one of those 200 is "worth worrying about" if you're the parents of one of the children concerned. And whether an abduction is solvable by the police or not, doesn't mean it will necessarily be solved... plus time is often of the essence in these cases. All I'm saying is, it might be legitimate for a parent to consider using a device such as you describe on their child, if they're that worried about the possibility of abduction. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The kids who are abducted are worth caring about, but we're talking about the original poster, who is more likely to win the lottery than have their kid abducted. Statistically I'm pretty sure you'd be doing more good by requiring your kid to wear a helmet while walking down the sidewalk, or refuse to let him ride in a motor-vehicle for anything that's not absolutely vital. (Every time you drive him to soccer practice you increase his likelihood of a horrible death.) If that's not glamorous and exciting enough, perhaps he could carry a snake-bite kit or something. 69.95.50.15 15:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I meant. People fear a boogeyman, when they would be better served to have separate cutting boards for chicken and vegetables, or install a carbon monoxide detector for the home, or, as you say, carry a snake-bite kit, and perhaps also some shark-repellant spray. Rational behavior FTW. --Sean 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is simply because we biologically tend to more remember the few spectacular cases instead of the numerous mundane ones. Media amplifies this by giving endless coverage to the exceptional and completely ignoring the mundane. The Mccann-girl has received literally hundreds of hours of tv-coverage, meanwhile dozens of children die every day from mundane stuff, but they're rarely mentioned at all. Reducing traffic-risk by 10% for your children is more likely to save their life than completely eliminating all abductions, but it ain't fancy and spectacular, so it doesn't matter. --Eivind Kjørstad 09:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

go to youtube, type in BOOST MOBILE LOOPT, ask not your kids this question, but first ask yourself, 'Where You At?'. side note, I'm not a salesperson for this ad, I actually do not subscribe to cellular, I'm landlined. --i am the kwisatz haderach 23:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 30" coal

What is thirty inch coal? I heard it referred to on NPR yesterday while they were doing a story on coal mining songs during All Things Considered but they didn't explain what it is. Dismas|^(talk) 09:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it is a name of a particular coal seam - in coal mining, one finds that individual seams have individual characteristics which enable them to be identified across different shafts and mines, so the "thirty inch coal" could well be a seam which is typically thirty inches in thickness. DuncanHill 09:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's explained in the text version of that piece – there were coal mines with the ceiling only thirty inches high.--Rallette 09:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thirty inches high? Luxury!, in the North Somerset Coalfield seams as thin as 14" were worked. DuncanHill 09:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 09:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YOCO

Does YOCO height increase really help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.55.139 (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be an insole that you put in your shoe, so yes, it increases your height by a whopping 2mm. Definitely a great help in getting rid of surplus money and encouraging these scammers.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a line of (wishful?) thinking that these things--Miki or Yoko--can "supposedly increase your growth hormone production by stimulating the pituitary gland action." There's more discussion here, which concludes that they're of little or no benefit. The same site recommends Cushioned Shoe Insoles. I recommend stilts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saluting off-duty

Is it customary in the United States and Canada for a subordinate member of the armed forces to salute his/her superior when neither of them are in uniform? For example, if the two meet in a shopping mall, while neither of them are on-duty. Thanks. Acceptable 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in a shopping mall, because you don't salute indoors. If they met in the parking lot, then yes, you would be expected to salute. Corvus cornix 23:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been in a Canadian Forces base and I've seen soldiers salute indoors all the time. Acceptable 23:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're reporting to a superior's office, then you might salute, under certain circumstances, but in general, indoors there is no saluting in the US forces. Corvus cornix 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are a civilian, you can salute any way, shape, or form. Although you may not get a salute back. For instance, I work as a customer service rep, my boss, ex-ARMY, as he walks past me, I sometimes give the ole' American Salute sitting down on my cubical office chair, half torqued towards him, and yes, indoors. And on some occasions, I'll throw up the Canadian salute. I've also been known to whistle that British military whistle. I got that from 'The Bridge on the River Kwai'(1957 film). --i am the kwisatz haderach 23:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

By "that British military whistle" do you mean Colonel Bogey/Hitler Has Only Got One Ball? FiggyBee 01:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time visualising an office chair with 6 faces and 8 vertices. Sounds extremely uncomfortable - almost like the hot box Colonel Nicholson was confined in by Colonel Saito.  :) -- JackofOz 01:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A U.S. Navy officer said that subordinates have to salute if they see an officer, in town say, but they will go to great lengths to not "see" the officer like turning suddenly to study a shop window. If all are out of uniform, I have my doubts. Isn't the old phrase "You salute the uniform, not the man?" Edison 03:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is "You salute the rank, not the man." In other words, even if you don't respect the officer as a person, you have to show respect to the rank. Since a person's rank remains the same regardless of what they are wearing, you still salute if both are in civilian clothes. Officially, that is. In practice, many officers form informal bonds with their men that allow some latitude so long as the men still follow orders without hesitation. Thus, a chance encounter in civilian clothes off-post might result in a friendly wave and informal greeting rather than a salute. Of course, there are some units that would never tolerate that, but it has been my experience that most do. 152.16.188.107 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt if an officer charged with treason would get a single salute while being transported to his court-martial. StuRat 07:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. military, prisoners are not allowed the privilege of saluting. 152.16.59.190 08:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What happens if they do it anyway? --Masamage ♫ 08:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Article 15. 152.16.59.190 08:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In Britain, you are saluting the Sovereign's Cap Badge Crest - not the Officer, not the Rank - hence, no uniform, no badge, no salute, whether indoors, outdoors or underwater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.65 (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this is correct. In most corps and regiments of the British Army, cap badges are generally of a similar design for everyone - officers, NCOs, enlisted men. The private who salutes the colonel has the same crown on his cap badge. As to saluting in civvies, in Canada at least this does not happen - if you are not in uniform, you do not salute: "Appropriate compliments are paid even when wearing civilian clothing. When in civilian dress, it is appropriate to come to attention and remove headdress whenever a salute would be correct if in uniform. When walking, the hat is raised and the head turned right or left. If a hat is not worn, it is correct to turn the head and offer a polite greeting." [1] (This reference also has some information on saluting indoors, and notes that it is not necessary to salute while driving a car or riding a bicycle - important safety notes, those.) - Eron ^Talk 13:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it seems I was wrong in thinking a salute was expected when in civilian clothes. This page, concerning U.S. saluting protocols, says that a salute in this case would not be inappropriate, but is not required. 152.16.16.75 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things. An officer charged with any crime is innocent until proven guilty, therefore entitled to a salute. One C.O. of the Guards in London required his sentries to salute the regimental officers when the officers were in civvies (then dark suit, bowler hat and cane). The word got round and many people dressed appropriately and walked past, and past again. The requirement was speedily withdrawn.90.9.85.118 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

What about an officer who's been convicted of some offence, but hasn't been stripped of his/her rank/commission? -- JackofOz 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Once i did the nazi salute, and some guy punched me. i was indoors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.75.252 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What if, for example, a corporal in civilian clothes comes upon a major in civilian clothes whom he has never met before? How is he supposed to know to salute? — Michael J 11:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

He wouldn't nor would he be expected to. Corvus cornix 17:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

British troops never salute when bareheaded or out of uniform. But the corporal would probably say "Good morning sir" and receive the reply "Good morning". (Pedants can substitute other times of day as appropriate.) BUT if both were unknown to each other how would their ranks be apparent ? 86.197.19.115 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

Speaking as current US Air Force: You can never be required to respect authority before recognizing it, and therefore there is no requirement for two people who have never met to salute each other. Along those lines, if I see my commander in a short dress out at a bar, and have only ever seen her in uniform before, I might not recognize her, which of course would mean I wouldn't salute her. (I might hit on her even, or otherwise be rude, until she said, Hey dummy, I'm your boss! But even then, if it was an honest mistake, I shouldn't be held culpable for the obvious breach of protocol.)

It is widely accepted custom to salute an officer you know when one or both of you is not in ; it's a nice-to-do thing. When you are both in uniform, it becomes a have-to-do thing. There are exceptions -- no saluting indoors (except in rare circumstances), no saluting at informal outdoor events (like picnics), no saluting during contingency or field operations (snipers shoot the guys that keep getting saluted) -- but for the most part, that's the rule.Deltopia 18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not an expert, but I think the "out of uniform" examples where JO doesn't recognize SO fall generally under "it's OK, you didn't see it" (ie, the rank badge). (I think this also covers the sometime movie scenes where officers will get JOs to speak freely by covering their collar tabs.) Trekphiler 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)