Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 June 9

= June 9 =

what is the word
I am looking for the word that describes an employee of a bank or business that purloins or pilfers company funds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.225.149 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Embezzler? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * CEO? μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that redundant? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The tax man? HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you said employee, didn't you? HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Bridge the culture gap
I've been attending a lot of cultural diversity sessions at work recently. (I'm interning with a multinational investment firm.) This has made me become very jittery about responses and reactions from people from other countries. (I'm an Indian.) I'm also into a lot of penpalling, with many of my pals being from the US. This is an excerpt of a Facebook wall conversation that I had recently with one of them.

Me: Got 71 in English. Damn, my English must really suck. I musshtt eemprooove.... e_e

Penpal: I suspect native English speakers in the US would fair much worse.

Me: Indeed, if they keep getting confused between fare and fair. :P

Penpal: Ha!

My question: Is the "Ha!" a common way of expressing "Ha ha, that was funny, and I agree with you!", or does it mean something that's more along the lines of "Ha, that was rude, and I'm offended!"?? Am I breaking my head over this? Will be glad if someone could clear this up. I understand that similar expressions have different flavours across the world... Thanks in advance. 112.79.40.230 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would read that "Ha!" as being "that was funny". DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Native UK English speaker here. If I had said "Ha!" in that context, I would have meant "Ha!  You got me!",  "Touché!" or some other, similar self-deprecating comment.  If I had been offended by what you said I might have responded in various ways, but I don't think "Ha!" would have been among them.  Ka renjc 15:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So it's probably unfair to note that improve starts with "i" :-) I too, think your penpal was joking rather than being offended.  Just curious now... a score of 71 is out of a hundred, right?  That is quite a good mark and like your penpal I suspect many native speakers wouldn't score as high.  I also suspect that many US or UK students wouldn't score so high when studying a foreign language either.  Astronaut (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Astronaut: "eemprooove" was my way of mocking the way some of us (Indians) speak English. :P And yes, that score was out of 100. However, it's possible to score higher marks in the Indian education system, even in subjects such as English... For example, quite a number of people who do not necessarily write better English than me, scored more than me in this exam, simply because they had submitted the pre-school-worthy assignments that the teacher had set for them, which I'd been too disgusted to bother completing. (There were fill-in-the-blanks-with-appropriate-prepositions and such like. Been doing that throughout high school. Saw no reason to waste my time over them in college again. *eyeroll* ) Also, unbelievable though it may sound, I've seen the papers print names of students who scored 99s and 100s in everything, including English Literature. But I doubt whether that logically implies that they would have given Shakespeare a run for his money. *cough* 112.79.40.120 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you ever come to study in Britain, and with your level of English you shouldn't have any difficulty being accepted (might have difficulty paying the fees :-, don't expect to get 71% with any ease at all. I've never heard of anyone getting a 99% or 100% in any arts or social science subject. Maybe for some small test or assignment, but not for a whole module. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In the US, we call that "extra credit", and it's also possible to get 99 or 100 in many classes here as a result. And 71/100 isn't good, it's average or slightly below.  (Of course, this depends on the test and whether it's graded on a curve, but that's the general rule.) StuRat (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Here, in India, 71 is viewed as "not good"... 75+ is average, 80+ is good enough.... But most parents are satisfied only if it's 90+... I've seen some who're only satisfied with 95+.. =_=" I'm not sure whether expectations and parental pressure varies from country to country, but it's evident that maximum achievable scores vary widely... 112.79.40.249 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a really bad test, then, since half the scale is wasted. The purpose of a test is to discriminate between the candidates. If lots of people are getting over 90%, then that is very difficult to do (there's going to be a random element of +/- a few percent caused by how the candidate feels that day, how lucky they are with which questions come up, etc.). That's why British A-levels had to introduce an A* grade, because too many candidates were getting A's and it wasn't possible to distinguish between them (either because students are getting better or tests are getting easier, or a combination of the two - I don't want to get into that debate!). --Tango (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A secondary goal is to make students feel good about themselves and their accomplishments. If the average test result is 50%, they may give up on their studies.  I agree that a test so easy that everyone gets 100% is useless for evaluation purposes, so some compromise between these two goals is often applied, with the average grade being around 75%. StuRat (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that at British Universities, arts students (e.g. me) are marked on a scale that notionally goes between 0 to 100, but in fact 95.5% of students taking my subject got between 50 and 75 in their first year examinations (and 98.8% got between 40 and 75). Thus, our brightest and best would rank as just about average on your scale :P - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 12:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Violin purchase
My son's school will require him to take a violin course next year in 5th grade. We can rent one from the school for $200 for the year. To buy, it looks like new ones are $400 and used craigslist ones are $200, but they look like the $60 ones on Amazon (where the Mendini 4/4 MV300 seems to be the one with the most comments). I'd rather buy now in June so that he can get a head start for September 2012, not sure if new or used, and not sure which one to get. If he decies to contine with the violin after the class is over, we'll get a better one, but for right now we only need one to get him through that 5th grade class with his head held high. I don't know anything about violins. Any purchase suggestions are welcome. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The decision will, of course, depend on your financial circumstances. Personally, when providing a violin for a child who hasn't committed to it, I'd go with the cheapest one possible.  Also consider that it may be lost, damaged, or stolen.  Even if you did buy him a premium violin, I'd still suggest keeping it at home for everything but performances, and using a cheap model for daily school practice. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Cheapest one possible" is a terrible idea. Starting a child on a cheap piece of crap instrument is a disservice both to the child and to those attempting to teach the child. Bad quality instruments for beginners instill bad habits as the child (whether knowingly or not) attempts to overcome the problems that a cheap instrument will have. This does not mean a kid should start on an expensive instrument, but there are other considerations than cost. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the US, a fifth-grader is about ten years old. It may be a few years before he is ready for a full-size or 4/4 violin. In my opinion, it makes more sense to rent fractional instruments than it does to buy them, since a rented violin can easily be exchanged for the next size up as the player grows.
 * I have my doubts about "getting a head start" without a teacher's supervision, unless you know someone familiar with playing bowed strings, who can show you and your son how to tune and care for the instrument, as well as how to hold the violin and bow comfortably and securely. It is easy for young players to form bad habits; changing to more effective ways can be frustrating, and can take a lot longer than starting right in the first place.
 * I haven't seen a Mendini MV300. Most mail-order violins at that level have, umm, plenty of room for improvement in the setup. Your best bet is to find someone you can work with at a local shop specializing in bowed strings, and let them help you. Without a violin shop within reasonable reach, it might make sense to check out businesses such as Shar, Johnson Strings, or Southwest Strings. You will still need to have someone nearby who you can go to when little things crop up, as they are bound to do.
 * If you have further questions and I don't answer here promptly, feel free to drop a note on my talk page; I will come back and answer as best I can. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that 4/4 meant full size or that there were fractional violins to account for my son's size. I also didn't consider that mail-order violins would need setup or that getting a head start might lead to bad habits. Lots to think about! -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I bought a $500(US) cello through Amazon for my daughter for music classes and it seems to have been a very good deal and decent quality. But like buying anything else on the interwebz you dont know til you get it.  He  iro 22:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all your replies. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Chinese zodiac
Why doesn't the Chinese zodiac have a panda? --108.227.31.161 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Pandas are rare and live in isolated bamboo forests. As such, the ancient Chinese may not have known about them.  This contrasts with the other animals in the Chinese zodiac which were more common, either in reality, or, in the case of the dragon, in folklore.  If you wanted to replace an animal with the panda, I suggest the rabbit (zodiac), which has attributes that seem to match the panda.  Actually, the rabbit is supposed to represent being relaxed, which seems better suited to the panda.  (Rabbits often seem nervous to me, being potential meals for just about every predator.)  StuRat (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't buy that the Chinese didn't know about them. For one, the Pandas range was likely much greater in ancient times.  For another, other cultures had a clear awareness of animals quite remote from themselves.  Ancient Europeans clearly knew about lions, but wouldn't have had any reason to run into one on a daily basis.  The correct answer is: For the same reason they didn't include any of a thousand other animals in their Zodiac.  There are thousands upon thousands of animals that are native to China, and I don't see why the Panda would be any different than any of them.  There are 12 signs in the Chinese Zodiac.  So some of those thousands of animals were going to be left out.  -- Jayron  32  18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)What's now China is a vast extent of territory. The people who devised the Zodiac could have been thousands of miles away from the areas where pandas live. And perhaps the Zodiac wasn't devised in China at all but in Vietnam or one of the other countries where it is used. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Europeans knew about lions because there was a European Lion (and lions lived in the Middle East until pretty recently). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I hardly think the English had much knowledge of the European lions (who died out something like 3500 years before there was such a thing as the English) when they chose the lion for their national symbol. Again, knowledge of the animal must have spread much farther than the animal ranged.  -- Jayron  32  23:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, they still existed in Greek and Roman times, and a bit later. English crusaders (like the non-coincidentally named Richard Lionheart) certainly encountered them in the Middle East. I imagine it might have been more likely for an English person to see a lion than a Chinese person to see a panda. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We already answered this back in January . It seems the panda was just obscure. Rmhermen (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, pandas just don't seem able to compete (with other animals, people, etc.). The only way they have managed to avoid extinction is by living in isolated areas where they didn't have to compete, similar to the marsupials in Australia. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Chinese don't want to be seen as Pandaring to cute animals. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But it is easy to be bamboozelled by them. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese Zodiac comes from the classical period. The western areas of modern China were inhabited by nationalities not subjugated by the Han until much later in China's history. The Tai, Tibeto-Burman, and Miao-Yao territories covered much greater areas in the past.

Furthermore, Pandas have little problem defending themselves, and little competition. Their aposematic coloration is a warning that they are not as gentle as their docility would imply. Their range is more a matter of their diet. Continuous bamboo forests in Eastern China have long been cut down for agriculture. When bamboo forests stretched across the Alpide belt there were Pandas in Spain. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Chinese probably knew about the giant panda: the aritlce giant panda article references various historical references as well as isolated archaeological finds that suggest knowledge of the animal.
 * But knowing that some black-and-white bear lives in some remote mountains does not mean said creature would be placed in your "top 12" list of animals. It was simply not common enough. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure this question was asked before because I remember giving a related answer. Edit: See someone already noted this and gave a link to the previous discussion. Looking at the discussion, I see as I expected it looks to be the same person asking. Perhaps they forgot to check back for answers last time because they got distracted by their later block and their actions leading up to it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Another fact is that there is no one-syllable word for panda in Chinese. A panda is called a bear-cat or cat-bear in Chinese. If you want a Chinese person to list the zodiac, there will be 12 syllables, very compact. --2.245.123.38 (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia - Nelson M. Cooke
A week ago the following showed up:

01:44, 31 May 2012‎ Ktr101 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (13,122 bytes) (0)‎. . (Ktr101 moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nelson M. Cooke to Nelson M. Cooke: Created via Articles for Creation

To date, this article cannot be reached via web. Is something wrong? Raymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nelson M. Cooke works for me? --Saalstin (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the OP is wondering why the article doesn't show up on search engine results. If so, the answer is that it takes a while for search engines to update their results, and it's not something that Wikipedia has any control over.  The page will start showing up in web searches soon, if it remains in articlespace.   Ka renjc 20:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's weird. Google can pick up Wikipedia articles in as little as 6 hours, especially if it's a copyvio. But in this case the first hit seems to be on page 5 of Google. The 8th entry on the first page links to Wikipedia mirror. Also look at the result of this search. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * At the moment, new articles are set to NOINDEX until patrolled through Special:Newpages; this might be what's causing it. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nelson M. Cooke It has now been 18 days since the articleNelson M. Cooke was moved to Articles for Creation. It still does not show up in searches, and cannot be reached simply vis Wikipedia. Can someone help, or tell me why? Raymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want to post this on the current page, this page is too old to get much visibility, since it has been archived. StuRat (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Natural resources
Why are most important natural resources in dangerous/unstable/etc. countries? --108.227.31.161 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * They are? -- Jayron  32  23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think our OP may need to give some examples. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's all natural resources, but those which can only be extracted by large corporations, like oil, tend to lead to large, rich corporations and/or a few rich families which control the government, with the majority of people kept poor. This leads to instability and revolution.  On the other hand, resources which can easily be used by everyone, such as farm land, tend to lead to a more equitable distribution of both income and power, leading to a more stable nation. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Australia's (relatively) booming economy right now is based on mineral resources. It's a stable country. Maybe internationally you only hear about the places that aren't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. In terms of mineral resources, Canada has quite a lot of them.  Canada is second in the entire world, after Saudia Arabia, in oil reserves (see Athabasca oil sands), perhaps the world leader in logging and timber, second in the world in uranium mining (see Uranium mining in Canada); much of Canada's economy comes from extraction of natural resources, and is a world leader in many of those resources.  Last I heard, Canada was not particularly dangerous or unstable.  -- Jayron  32  00:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. The colour of the links Canadian revolution and Australian revolution are a bit of a clue. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But, unlike Saudi Arabia, Canada and Australia also have farm land. StuRat (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Canada got bumped down to #3 recently. Please see List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves. Depending on your POV Venezuela could be another counter-example to OP's thesis. Anonymous.translator (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got the causation backwards. Dangerous and unstable countries don't encourage the development of commerce and industry. What is left is the extraction of resources which don't require a lot of human capital and complex infrastructure. You can usually find someone willing to extract those resources and give the ruling regime a huge cut. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We do have the article Oil curse, with a number of associated references. Buddy431 (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, strategic natural resources tend to be mentioned in the news more often when they are in an unstable nation, as an explanation why country X wants to/doesn't want to get involved in the area. 83.248.189.150 (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Norway is another good counter example - abundant oil and gas reserves, hydroelectric power and about as stable a country as you can find. Mikenorton (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Resources in developed countries are likely to have been exploited long ago - the UK is a good example, originally its coal and iron ore fueled the industrial revolution, but now there's no deep coal mines left and all iron ore is imported. The USA has vast natural resources (oil, coal, iron, etc) though they've dug a lot of them up. Even North Sea oil is declining from its peak. The big European coal and iron reserves from northern France and Wallonia through western Germany to Silesia are all quite depleted. Canada and Australia are exceptions because they developed far more recently and have vast wildernesses. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Another possible explanation why certain industries, especially those with less desirable ecological consequences, tend to congregate in certain countries is given by the Center/periphery approach of World-systems theory. Shortened the logic states that: Extraction of certain resources is seen as inacceptable because of the environmental cost in cour countries or becomes economically unfeasible because of the costs protective or other public measures add to the price tag of the product. Therefore those industries are "out-sourced" from the economically developed core country into its periphery countries where the costs become invisible to the public of the core and the economic price tag is reduced as well. This line of thought is particularly prominent with Wallerstein. --Abracus (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As for farming supposedly being less susceptible to despotism, see hydraulic empire and the histories of China, Egypt, and the Fertile Crescent.