Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 September 29

= September 29 =

University Students Guangzhou
How many university students are there currently in Guangzhou, China? 210.9.120.130 (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This page might help.Popcorn II (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the date of birth of Samantha Geimer?
What is the date of birth of Samantha Geimer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.197.100 (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Possession of nuclear weapons
Why are the 5 permanent members of the UN security council the only countries which are allowed under the NNPT to possess nuclear weapons? --88.78.1.199 (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they signed on as "nuclear haves", and the other signatories signed on as "nuclear have nots". The treaty was drafted this way in acknowledgement of the fact that those countries with weapons were not going to give them up any time soon.  The main purpose of the treaty was to try to prevent arms races between the have-nots.  There's also some lip service about the haves disarming, but obviously that didn't go anywhere.  --Sean 19:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, there are other nuclear powers. Read Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  India and Pakistan never signed on to the NNPT, and they both have nukes.  Israel never signed, and they probably have LOTS of nukes, but have never declared so publicly.  North Korea signed but later revoked their part in the treaty, they have had some successful below-ground nuclear tests, and tested some missles, but I am not sure how far along they are in having a meaningful stockpile of usable weapons.  Iran signed the treaty, but is likely ignoring it as we speak.  South Africa had nukes, but dismantled them when they signed the NNPT.  SO as far as I know, that leaves 8 states with confirmed nukes, 1 likely, 1 working on it, and 1 formerly had them and doesn't anymore.  -- Jayron  32  05:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Iran is definitely not "ignoring" the NPT—it is more complicated than that. Much of what they have done is completely in line with the NPT, but not to-the-letter in line with other IAEA requirements. The NPT guarantees that states can enrich uranium for civilian programs, which is what Iran claims it is doing. The question as to whether they are then planning to withdraw from the NPT and build nukes, like North Korea, is separate from this. It is considered one of the flaws of the NPT that you can actually do things like this and still be "legal". There are heaps of legalese involved in determining whether Iran has actually broken any rules (e.g. if you make centrifuges but don't put nuclear material in them, do you have to declare them? That's one of the main questions regarding the latest revelations). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The NPT was drafted in 1968—by which point five nations had nuclear weapons, and none of them were interested in getting rid of them. You can't have meaningful non-proliferation without including existing nuclear states, but in order to have their participation, you had to guarantee them allowing to keep their weapons. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And I do want to note: it was an inherently "unfair" arrangement, as a number of states pointed out (India being one of them). It was always a question of balancing our existing power arrangements with future goals, and is "asymmetrical" in many ways. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As noted in nuclear disarmament, the old nuclear powers actually have made meaningful reductions in their nuclear arsenal after the cold war. The combined US and USSR nuclear stockpiles started at 40000 warheads in 1968, approached 70000 in 1986 but have now been cut down to 26000, and they have not performed any bomb tests since 1992. It's not likely that the existing nuclear powers will completely disarm any time soon, but as long as they keep reducing their stockpiles it is hard to argue that they aren't doing their own part for non-proliferation. Also, without the international commitment to non-proliferation, one might question whether the break-up of the USSR would have resulted in the disarmament of all former Soviet republics except Russia. 84.239.160.214 (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, nuclear strategy for the major nuclear powers (which at the time were either friends of the US or the USSR) was based on the notion of mutual assured destruction. As long as the only people with nukes were people playing that game nuclear proliferation wasn't really a big problem. Nobody's going to launch if they know it would lead to their instant destruction. However, the possesion of nuclear weapons by smaller states in smaller amounts as part of a smaller conflict is potentially problematic. Take Israel. If the middle eastern conflict ever really heats up Israel might well decide to fire a few of their nukes as a deterrent. Their enemies have none (or Iran might have a few and launch them) but both sides are going to remain largely intact (save for the big hole where your most populated city used to be. The NNPT has greatly reduced the risk of that kind of conflict.203.214.104.166 (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Identify what movie
I've moved this question to the Entertainment Reference Desk: please look here. --Anonymous, 22:13 UTC, September 29, 2009.

GPA Rounding
(question restored) Would it be considered lying if I round my GPA from 2.95 to 3.0 on my resume? What if the job has a 3.0 cutoff? 70.171.22.194 (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)op
 * mm could you ask the school's "employment services" people or whatever they call it? TastyCakes (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. If you've been given 2.95 then you should write 2.95 83.100.251.196 (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. If you can find out what precision is customary in your field of work, rounding might be fine.  Most GPAs I have seen only give one digit after the decimal point.  --Sean 00:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My exact GPA is 2.95943 but the transcript shows it as 2.95 and this makes my attempt at rounding it up look worse than it actually is. 70.171.22.194 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)op


 * Yeah - but there is a cutoff - if this potential employer checks and finds you cheated (that's DEFINITELY how they'll see it) - you're fired and you have no references...you're in deep poop. Arguing about significant digits and rounding isn't going to get you anywhere - they picked a number - you didn't make it.  I would stick the real score on there and apply for the job anyway.  If the rest of the resume is what they want - they'll bend their own rules.  Lying on your resume is a really bad idea. SteveBaker (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, and if the company is that hung up on a GPA then maybe he doesn't want to work there anyway. He should put down a reasonable answer like 2.96 and hope that they're flexible. If they're not, then "fire" them and go find a better place to work. Alternatively, take one more class and ace it, and hopefully push your GPA above 3. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with SteveBaker. You should put down whatever GPA the college is going to tell them, if and when they check with the college.  Tempshill (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Be honest and take your chances. If you're a good applicant otherwise, they might "round it up for you". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Depending on their recruitment methods, it may not matter how good the rest of your application is - if you don't reach the minimum requirements you may get rejected by the computer and your resume will never be seen by a human being. These requirements are sometimes set just to reduce the number of applications that need to be read. --Tango (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the two questions have different answers. When asked to convey your GPA I don't see any problem with rounding it to one decimal place.  Writing "3.0" indicates very plainly that the number has been rounded to the nearest tenth, so there's no dishonesty.  Your GPA is in fact 3.0 when rounded to the nearest tenth.  It's expected that you'll present yourself in a favorable light on your resume and that's fine as long as you don't misrepresent yourself.  However, applying to a job with a cutoff of 3.0 implies that your GPA meets the cutoff, and arguing that a 2.95942 GPA is greater than or equal to 3.0 is very dubious.  You could possibly make the argument that the "3.0" cutoff having only 1 decimal place includes GPAs that round to 3.0, but the interpretation of the rule is a determination that the company has to make, not you, so you need to say "2.96" and let them decide if that counts.  Rckrone (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, phone the company and ask for advice. --Tango (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the right answer. Get someone in H.R. on the line and ask whether it's OK to round 2.96 up to 3.0. Also get their name, in case the subject comes up later. OP's question actually cannot be answered by us. He says "would it be considered lying?" Various opinions have been expressed here. But the only opinion that matters is the company's opinion. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The might not be the right advice for a small company, at least. If someone called where I work to ask that question, the whole office would have a good laugh. APL (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to word the question correctly. You don't say "is it ok to round 2.96 up to 3.0?", you say something like "I'm really interested in your company and was wondering how strict you are on the 3.0 GPA requirement - I just missed it by a few hundredths." The former I can see people laughing at, the latter should be ok. --Tango (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good answer. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia topics
what Wikipedia topic has the most number of daily changes?Pmar42 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Last 30days []
 * Last day http://www.wikirage.com/ I don't know if this is right, but why not?83.100.251.196 (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)