Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 December 19

= December 19 =

The top speed of a cave spider, and a silverfish.
This is a very strange question but i am looking up the speed of some various creatures, and i have two that are missing. I need to know the top speed of some form of common poisonous cave spider, and the top speed of a silverfish. If this data or any data relating to speeds of these creatures is known, please share!

Thank you! 216.173.145.47 (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Insert obligatory Monty Python reference before the Brits wake up. Sai Weng (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * African or European silverfish? -- Jayron  32  07:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This paper covers silverfish (Lepisma saccharina) locomotion in great detail, and gives a running speed of 0.4 m/s. Tevildo (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The cave spider (Meta menardi) is generally described as "slow-moving" - I've not been able to find any numbers as yet, but this and this are videos of the spider, showing it moving at a couple of inches a second. Tevildo (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Doing a Desmond
Hello, thank you for your help in understanding what seems to be a British expression I found in the comments page of The Guardian : "He did a Desmond at university". What does this mean? And where does this expression come from? May I add another question? In the same comments pages, commentators mentionned people getting a 2.1 or a 2.2 at university. What does it mean? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.63.116 (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Desmond part is sort of explained here. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's rhyming slang for a certain degree classification, a 2:2 (as in Desmond Tutu). Not sure how much that is actually used though, I've never heard it in real life. Might be a London thing, or maybe it's just not used that much these days. Fgf10 (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In the 1990s, I heard it used frequently by students from all over the country. Its use seems to have died away, perhaps in parallel with Tutu's lower public profile, or maybe it's because I have much less occasion to speak with students now than I did then, given that I was, but am no longer, a student. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Better a Desmond than a Douglas. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One references Home Secretary to give the OP a hint, but not the answer. :) Tevildo (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One, incidentally, didn't even get a Douglas, because one failed the practical examination. Was there a colloquial term for one's degree? Tevildo (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your explanations. Even though the expression seems to be "old" (1990s), I saw it this week in the Guardian's website, and more specifically comments by readers about one article. It's the first time I asked a question on this site. It's opening a whole new world for me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.63.116 (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Blackboards in US universities?
Just watched a recent episode of Bones (TV series). A nerdy professor was seen working at his blackboard several times during the show. Most tertiary institutions I'm aware of in Australia use whiteboards almost exclusively, and often the electronic forms of those. But I've seen similar scenes in other American TV and movie coverage of academia. Is this reality, or just a cliché? HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, most of them have blackboards, in my experience. They have several advantages over whiteboards.  They're easier to erase.  They don't have that awful smell.  And they're already there. --Trovatore (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, forgot one &mdash; a piece of chalk never "goes dry". --Trovatore (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And both blackboards and whiteboards can make horrible screeching sounds. I'd rather see electronic boards, where students can download a copy, instead of having to decide whether to read and copy or listen to the lecture. StuRat (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Blackboards have no advantages over whiteboards. And is as obsolete as the abacus.
 * Whiteboard markers will last longer than chalk, which can snap and will dry out only if the lid is left off.
 * Whiteboards can be cleaned with any fabric, dry or wet, while a blackboard needs a wet rag to avoid scrubbing.
 * Chalk is harder to come by than markers in most shops.
 * Whiteboards are clearer and allow for easier readability, especially in a dimly lit room.
 * Whiteboards work well with projectors to run windows programs on the board, blackboards do not, and i don't believe many would even attempt for a multitude of reasons.
 * Whiteboards win =P ツ Jenova   20  (email) 12:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The abacus is by no means obsolete - see Soroban. Tevildo (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not really that clear-cut. Whiteboard markers last longer, but are more expensive and it's harder to gauge how much is left. What you can buy from shops is irrelevant to institutional use, And whiteboards do not offer better readability in all lighting conditions. They're more susceptible to glare.  And the point about projectors is less useful because any classroom with a chalkboard will almost certainly have a pull-down projector screen already installed. (Though I'll grant that it's nice to have a screen you can write on.)
 * I don't know about you but, in my life I've seen many whiteboards ruined when someone used the wrong marker or wrong cleaning solution. I don't know that I've ever seen a ruined blackboard. Worse, many whiteboards also have a finish that wears off with age, making it difficult or impossible to erase them completely.  (Some blackboards do to, but mostly cheap consumer ones. Good ones can last a century.)
 * Smart-boards are awesome, but the technology is new enough that it still carries a lot of hassle and technical issues. (Not to mention competing standards.)
 * New classrooms should certainly built with new technology, but the case for upgrading the old ones isn't really as clear-cut. Especially if the classroom is old enough that the chalkboard is actually built into the wall, and not just an off-the-rack board that was screwed onto some drywall. APL (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously some people prefer blackboards. I'm a university professor, and I much prefer chalk dust on my hands over marker residue. It also annoys me that I can't tell when my markers are about to run dry. It's pretty easy to tell by looking how much life remains in a piece of chalk. Staecker (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No idea where to find a reference on how common one is over the other, but when I started college in 2003 there were no whiteboards in any of my classes. I don't recall seeing them in any other school I've been in since then. I would guess that it's mainly cliche at this point. K ati e R  (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but when the chalk gets really small and is difficult to use, and you're about to need a new stick. Ever used it anyway and scratched your nail down a chalk board? Noise aside, the feeling is horrendous and makes me cringe just to think about. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 13:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen a blackboard used on a British campus since the mid 1970s. All rooms now equipped with electronic whiteboards. Next thing is supposed to be that we all have iPads. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The iPad thing is almost criminal in my opinion. I'd like to know how many shares of Apple stock the LAUSD superintendent has.  How can you in good conscience promote a platform owned by a single company?  If it were Android devices I wouldn't mind so much; that would be a little short-term gift to Samsung, but in the long run there'll be lots of choices. --Trovatore (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I might question the move for the reasons you say. It's supposed to be in order to keep up with the globalisation of higher education but if blackboards are still in use at MIT… I hardly use a board at all now. Lectures are expected to be on PowerPoint. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * PowerPoint is for wimps. I use Beamer. --Trovatore (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That would take the students out of their comfort zone. There has to be a .ppx posted in advance of the lecture and it has to be posted on…. Blackboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Obligatory cartoon --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. Duly copied into PP for 1st lecture of 2014. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The question is like asking why does England have architecture by Christopher Wren while Chicago had the first skyscrapers. Timing. British settlement in North America dates back 400 years, while Australia was only discovered by Darwin's transport, the Beagle, and only officially chartered by royal decree in 1971 as part of the celebration of Olivia Newton-John's first solo album.


 * Unfortunately, world slate reserves were increasingly depleted during the 20th century, with the extinction of the slate-tusked Irish Elephant in 1950 ending the supply of new slate. After Ireland, the US has the largest stock of remaining slate ivory.  Forced to use an inferior synthetic product, the Australians nevertheless sing the praises of whiteboards, doubtless out of a wounded sense of national pride.


 * See also the story of the land-grant colleges Cornell and Rutgers, and how the former, but not, to its shame, the latter, managed to become a Ivy League college after the Ivy-League Ivy Blight of the 1890's. μηδείς (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I know that's an attempt at humour, but my question wasn't a "Why? one. It was a "What? question. Just seeking the facts. Happy to draw my own conclusions on the why. (Unless it's obvious. And I don't think it is yet.)
 * I think your question was more if than what, and the answer is yes. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to teach a course in creative writing. If you don't already. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I finished school in the 2000s and both my first and secondary school had blackboards, with the secondary school having blackboards and whiteboards about 50/50. Maybe it's up to personal preference of the teacher which they have to work on? Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 17:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably a function of what they can afford and/or what they feel like spending. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't as fancy as Eton, i'll grant you that ツ Jenova   20  (email) 09:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just thought of a secondary question. Is the Bart Simpson blackboard scene equally realistic for American elementary schools these days? (I know it's been around since the show began.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The punishment has nothing to do with the type of surface written upon. Or are you asking something else? μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm familiar with that type of punishment. Had to do it a few times myself as a kid, but it was on paper, not on the board, and the more constructive teachers would have us copy out a large slab of text from a book that was actually relevant to the subject. No, my question was again about the use of a chalkboard/blackboard. Are they still common in US elementary schools? They're very rare in Australian schools. (No comment from me as to what's best. As a teacher myself, I'm genuinely curious.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've heard anecdotally of a couple places in the US switching from chalk to whiteboards because the dust upset some people's allergies. Perhaps in a generation they'll all be that way. Of course, this being Wikipedia, we must point out that the best institutions use Sakai, not Blackboards. Sorry, the joke wrote itself. Sai Weng (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Every school I've gone to (and I have a list) had multiple buildings and I saw both. I think it would be a shame to graduate from college and never have seen a blackboard (or even better, those weird green ones). Which they have has no bearing on the quality of the institution. Newer construction will probably favor whiteboards, but go watch any of the MIT lectures and you'll see a 3 panel multi-board setup... with chalk. I'd be remiss if children never had to hear fingers on a chalkboard. Shadowjams (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder which one costs more. I imagine chalkboards are more expensive than whiteboards, but the markers are more expensive than the chalk.  So, the question then, is if over the life of the two, does the cost of the markers eventually make the whiteboard system cost more ?  (And personally, the fumes from those dry erase markers just about makes me pass out.) StuRat (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure someone's done this math. But I can't find anything. (Too many false search results from people comparing different brands of smartboards.) APL (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I attend Brooklyn College, a high quality if someone gritty (i.e., not fancy or lavishly endowed university) public university in New York City. My experience is that the smaller and older classrooms still have blackboards, and the professors use them gladly and effectively. The large lecture halls and more recently renovated classrooms all have whiteboards.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-profit corps
Why can't a CEO who also owns 51% of the company pay all the would-be profits to himself as salary, declare that there was no profit, and thus avoid any corporate taxes ? StuRat (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Most developed countries have some of system for protecting minority shareholders. In particular, see our article on Shareholder oppression and, for example, this article on UK . In a lot of countries, even with no explicit regulations, minority shareholders can take the management of the company to court since the management should act in the best interests of all shareholders (and some other stakeholders, depending on local practice) and not just the majority holders.129.178.88.84 (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm more interested in the "cheating the government" aspect rather than the "cheating the minority shareholders" aspect. So, for the case of my example, let's say the minority shareholders are all the CEO's kids, and are fine with him taking the huge salary, or maybe we could say that the would-be profits are evenly divided among all the shareholders, who are made officers of the company and paid it as a salary, versus a dividend.  So, are there laws to prevent this ? StuRat (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I missed the part about taxes, even if one owns 100% of the company, it rarely makes sense (certainly in Europe, maybe not in the US) to pay out the profits as a salary, since salaries are often taxed (including social charges) higher than coporate profits + dividends. 129.178.88.84 (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that an individual could do as you describe in the United States, but it wouldn't "cheat the government" or offer much advantage to the majority shareholder. Even in the United States, the top marginal individual tax rate is higher than the top corporate rate. (Social charges would be trivial, since the main one, FICA, is not levied in the plutocratic United States on income over $114,000.)  While there are various tax shelters individuals can use to lower their tax rate, such shelters are available to corporations too. A smarter strategy for such an individual would be to put the profit into the corporation's cash reserves and then, eventually, sell the corporation, or alternatively award himself stock options in lieu of pay.  The cash reserves would be reflected in the sale price or share price, and the seller could claim the proceeds as long-term capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than salary income.  Wealthy people in the United States find lots of ways to claim income as capital gains rather than ordinary salary income for this reason.  Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What you describe is actually a common practice: The corporation calibrates the salary of its executives/shareholders to equal what would otherwise be its annual income, so that there are no net profits.  The recipients still have to pay taxes on their salaries, of course, but it means that these monies are taxed only once, not twice.  For various reasons, including the ones Marco polo alludes to, it doesn't make sense in every scenario.  John M Baker (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Common where? Let's say the company is able to write off all operating expenses one to one with profits (which reflects a gross misunderstanding of how corporate tax works)... the "employee" CEO is still taxed on that income at the standard income tax rate, which as others have pointed out, is higher than the corporate rate for most people you'd contemplate doing this. Moreover, as a practical matter the study of corporate law is either about tax or it's about minority shareholders. The Delaware Corporate Code has intricate rules about minority shareholder protection that makes these sorts of schemes difficult to pull off in most corporations that rely on corporate identity for its actual purpose, which is efficient capital. There are also a handful of business structures that allow pass-through taxation without the "loophole" of paying salary, such as LLCs, LLPs, plain old partnerships, and even individual businesses. They all have similar business expense deductions like the one that's oversupposed in the OP. Shadowjams (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the tax rate, I think the issue is, given the choice of distributing all would-be profits as either salaries or dividends, aren't they taxed twice if distributed as dividends (once as business profits, then again as either income or capital gains ?). And I'm talking about a scenario with a small business where all shareholders are also employees, so they can take the money either way. StuRat (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's correct for a typical C-Corp stu, but for a very long time, and still today, a huge number of businesses are not "corporations", which typically means a c-corp. There are partnerships, LLCs, LLPs, PCs, and a host of other business arrangements that all feature pass through taxation. Not to mention just running a business on your own ("sole proprietorship"). All of those treat income gained as transparent to the "business" structure on top of it, but some provide differing legal protections. I'm sure there are tax code discrepancies between all of them and that's what people pay $300/hr for... but on a fundamental level, there is no free lunch with C Corps. In fact, the traditional corporate structure has double taxation problems, as you seem to know. Shadowjams (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess a more fundamental answer to your question is that (absent some weird tax thing... which is possible) nobody who had majority ownership would organize a company like that in the first place. Instead they would use one of the more flexible limited partnership or limited liability corporation methods, which protect investors legally. But it also taxes income to individuals as "earned income" in the typical IRS way. Yes there's payroll tax vs. independently employed tax issues, and I have no idea how those work out. Similarly, there's all sorts of deductions that certain businesses can take, but those largely apply regardless of the corporate structure (which is almost always state based... it's based on state law... federal corporations created by congress are incredibly rare). There may be huge exceptions to what I've said in the tax area, and I know for a fact the code is full of economically inefficient loopholes like the one you suggest, but I seriously doubt you've stumbled upon one so generic. Shadowjams (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all ! StuRat (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Longest article on a person
I have noticed that the wikipedia articles on Sachin Tendulkar and Michael Schumacher are really long. Which the longest wikipedia article on a person. Also which article contains the maximum number of ciitations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.203.40.216 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * For the first question, have a look at Special:LongPages. Currently, it looks like your person is René Vilatte. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Articles with the most references is edited manually. Bobby Fischer currently has 532 references. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)