Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 December 22

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.

December 22

Stefan Bekowsky's surname in L.A. Noire

So, I have a friend from Poland that goes by the surname of Byszkowski (I won't go into detail about him, obviously). I was wondering if the detective's surname in the game was an alternate spelling of it, or something like that. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My knowledge of Polish is limited to its similarities with Russian, but I don't think so.

Byszkowski is probably an alternate spelling of Byczkowski. In Russian, the root "by[cz]k" means "calf" or "bull". As far as I can tell, the Polish meaning is similar. "Bekowsky" is an unusual last name, it could be a corruption of "Bukowski" (Google gives 47,800 hits for Bekowsky and 14,600,000 hits for Bukowski), the root "buk" means "beech".--Itinerant1 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

So, it's a different one, right? Blake Gripling (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely a different spelling (i. e. a different last name), but there are two possibilities as to why. One: it could have been a different last name all along (i. e. the origins of the two last names, Bekowsky and Byszkowski) are not directly related to each other. Last names in Poland in many cases relate to locations where a family or a person was from, and there are (and were even more) many similarly-named localities in Poland. Another version is what Itinerant1 said - it used to be very very common in the Russian zone (during the partitions of Poland) for last names to be misspelled (as at one point they were transcribed from the Latin alphabet to the cyrillic, and at a later point they might have been transcribed back to the Latin alphabet - and for certain Polish letters there is more than one way to do it, i. e. consider ę which can become both ę again, but also em or even en, or the sounds ż and rz which sound the same but are used in different places - I have relatives whose last names are spelled distinctly from one another, but the origins are the same). It would also be very easy to mistake a handwritten lowercase u with a handwritten lowercase e if you have elegant and lavish handwriting. Such cases still hold many mysteries even for us Poles.

There is a third option of course. The name could be completely made-up without knowledge of how Polish last names actually do originate. Oh, and WHAAilE we're at it - Polish name. Hope I helped. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

See transliteration, and, if you are not satisfied with the answer here after a few more days, ask again at the Language RefDesk. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would transliteration matter? The Polish language uses the Latin alphabet, same as English, albeit with more diacritical markings. It isn't normal to transliterate Polish into English because they use the same script. Some people may deliberately alter the spelling and/or pronounciation of there names so that English speakers can work it out better, but that's not what Transliteration is. --Jayron32 00:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess she (right?) was referring to what I wrote - transliteration between the Latin and cyrillic script. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

moon conspiracy

is the arrival of moon by Neil Armstrong a hoax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandorup Sanyal (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Have you read Moon landing conspiracy theories? Edison (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim, that we didn't land, is the actual hoax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, he may have mooned someone in his younger days and then covered it up. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're playing Majora's Mask, no, the moon hasn't arrived yet.--WaltCip (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are of course people who believe the fact that, out of the many thousands who worked on the moon program, not one whistle-blower has come forward to expose it as a hoax simply proves how massive and all-pervading the cover-up is. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Which only goes to prove the aphorism "You cannot reason a person out of a conclusion they did not arrive at via reason." --Jayron32 02:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Belief in conspiracy theories often resembles religion, minus the thousands of years of precedence. Conspiracy theories are to conventional explanations what The Great Pumpkin is to conventional religions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The theorists seem to focus mainly on denying the Moon landing in July 1969. I've never heard anyone denying that the Apollo 8 mission in December 1968 actually took place, or that it orbited the Moon ten times, or that the pictures they took of the far side of the Moon were real. So, the theorists seem to accept we have the capacity and technology to leave Earth orbit and reach the environs of the Moon, but not to actually land on it. Weird. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
        • As I learned during a lengthy battle on that article, there are many different, and contradictory, theories about what "really" happened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
          • ...and why. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
            • The Apollo conspiracy theories tell us nothing about the reality of the Apollo program, but they tell us a lot about conspiracy theorists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Yes, a detailed analysis of why people want to believe the conspiracy theories would be interesting. I put it down at least partly to bad science teaching. (Now I run and hide) HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
                • I would put it at least as much on the students. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • Yes, there's truth in that. But I have another perspective. When I became a teacher 6 years ago I was qualified to teach Science, but the rules have changed from when I was a kid. While those NASA adventures were happening, we could virtually make rocket fuel in the school lab, and do all sorts of other spectacular things. Lots of fun! Now, you can hardly turn on a gas tap without filling in five pro formas. BORING! (I teach other stuff.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Pathological lying and chilldhood trauma

Has a link ever been found between people who are deemed to be pathological liars and childhood abuse? Also, is pathological lying also commonly linked with bipolar disorder? 76.64.255.81 (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder often follows childhood trauma per PMID 7949411. Selery (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, I know that, but I'm curious in knowing if childhood trauma is linked to pathological lying and bipolar disorder. Your answer isn't quite what I'm looking for. 76.64.255.81 (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Trying to identify or label a principle of motion or work

I have observed a principle about accomplishing some kind of work, but I don't know what to call it. It might be something similar to the principle of "diminishing returns." The easiest way to describe is by example:

Raking leaves - It takes just as long to rake up the last 10% of leaves in a yard as it does to rake the first 90%.

Shipping packages - It takes as much production time and energy to manage the 3% of package exceptions as it does to process the rest of the lot (exceptions = anything that prevents successful shipping, i.e., wrong address, label improperly located for scanning, package misloaded, etc.)

So many more examples, but you get the idea. I'd like to be able to articulate the principle involved and to find ways to focus on spending time/energy/money on that part which is most productive.164.116.160.128 (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be pretty much the Pareto principle (aka the 80-20 rule). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

See also the ninety-ninety rule. --Carnildo (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also heard the expression "low hanging fruit", as in, "we should only go after the low hanging fruit and leave the rest alone". Or sometimes the reverse, "the low hanging fruit has already been plucked, so it's going to be quite a stretch from now on". StuRat (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

savings rates

I've noticed in savings accounts and cds, banks will usually show projected amounts after 5yrs, 10 yrs, etc. but at 8% interest or so. Isn't the actual interest less than 1% typically? Heck froze over (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about most accounts, but in my savings account I get ~.18% interest per annum. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Was that 0.18% or 18%? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If it really IS 18%, can you tell me where you save please?? Gurumaister (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Give a call to Bernie Madoff.--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a time when interest rates of 8% would have been normal. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

... and those of us who are a bit older and on this side of the pond can remember Building Society interest rates peaking at around 17% (not quite 18%), but inflation in the UK was running at about 26% at that time, so we were still losing! A growth rate of 8% was once standard expectation for some investments, but anyone who advertises such a rate in the present economic climate is probably a fraudster. Dbfirs 08:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is some kind of theorem in quantitative finance that says that, in a world with enough arbitrage, all instruments are equal. In other words, it does not matter where you park your money - in the long run, you should get roughly the same return, which is equal to the return on "riskless" bonds (in the U.S., federal treasury bonds). If someone offers you a higher rate, it comes with nonzero risk of default that exactly offsets the higher return. At the present time, market forecasts that your investments will average 2%/year over the next 10 years.--Itinerant1 (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That can't be right. The arbitrageurs would have to know the risk and return of alternatives in advance to actually even them out. Nobody knows where the S&P 500 will be tomorrow or in 10 years, so people who believe such a theorem will go towards the lower risk, taking demand out of equities and less certain bonds. So technically it's a self fulfilling prophecy to the extent people believe it, but it is not necessarily true. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrage works by exploiting pricing errors, to extract money for the arbitrageur. In a modern, fully liquid financial system, a security is priced and the future value of a security is priced, and the risk of default of a security is priced. Any and all pricing errors in there can be exploited by artbitrageurs, so given sufficient (competent) arbitrage, they have already taken the money and you personally can't get better returns than the lowest-risk investment available - because the pricing of risk will be perfect. Unless you are willing to take on some risk of your own, like where the S&P 500 or price-inflation or commodity index will be in 5 years, or whether you trust your visitor and their brochure, or go to the same church or workplace. It is actually the variable willingness to tolerate risk that drives markets - the correct guessers win, and arbitrage feeds off the mistakes. So the theory is correct: if you want the lowest-risk investment, you will get the same returns as a well-known low-risk investment. Anything else is risky. Franamax (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the question, stated returns are generally based on the long-term trend figures, and exactly what the long-term trend is could well be up to the business in question to decide for themselves (so they're probably picking whatever of period of time gives them the best looking figure). Of course a projected 8% return over the next 5 or 10 years looks far more appealing to a customer or potential customer than the rate the institution in question may really be expecting to pay out. Generally (although I can't say for sure in your country) they would be required to spell out their assumptions on investment returns in some type of fine print though. Again I can't speak for your country (not knowing where you are), but in Australia you can currently get safe, government guaranteed savings accounts paying between 4 and 6% (here for one example), with term deposits paying marginally higher (here), while standard transaction accounts from the major banks usually pay well under 1%, with many paying zero. I'd say you wouldn't get those savings accounts returns in countries with far lower official interest rates though, such as the US. --jjron (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. How can the same company offer a higher rate in Australia than in the UK or America? According to the theorem postulated above, this would suggest that the Australian dollar is likely to depreciate against the US dollar and British pound, but I don't see any other indicators that this is a possibility. Are the Australian banks competing to attract savings and offering an unrealistic rate for a short time? Dbfirs 17:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

See Interest rate parity. I've only skimmed the article, so I'm not sure how well it will answer your question, but it should get you started. --Tango (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Dbfirs, not really unrealistic. Well, yes, they are competing to attract savings (especially as global funds have become tighter), but these rates have been up there for years. They are simply a reflection of the official interest rates as set by the Reserve Bank of Australia; currently the official cash rate is 4.25%, but individual banks may offer slightly more to attract local funds, so you wouldn't really say they're unrealistic at between 4 and 6% (though note that those nearer 6% are generally just honeymoon rates). They dipped significantly during the GFC 1, but quite quickly went up again. And in fact they have again dropped about 0.5% in the last three months or so. The point is that Australia was relatively unscathed by the GFC and has avoided much of current problems striking throughout Europe and also in North America. This is significantly due to trade staying strong within the Asian region, esp. with China. Thus the official rate has not been dropped massively in order to stimulate spending, as has happened elsewhere such as the US and Japan (where I believe the official rate has been close to zero for a significant period?). Re the dollar, yes it does fluctuate significantly, but it is currently at or around parity with the US$, and has been for probably six months now, if not more. This is a level not seen for over 20 yrs (in fact not that long ago, probably within the last 5yrs, it dropped below US 50c). There are no strong indicators that it will depreciate significantly at any time in the near future though. --jjron (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for both replies. ... so should we all be investing in the Australian economy? According to the above theory, the whole world should be doing this! May I send you some funds to invest? Dbfirs 08:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha, maybe if you want to invest in fixed funds (if it's possible to do so), but I wouldn't recommend our sharemarket. This pretty closely follows the fluctuations on global markets no matter what the local economy seems to be doing, and has made most of us significant losses in the last few years! I will note however that since the government scaled back protections on foreign investment in the property market a few years back, there has been a huge inflow of investment in both residential and commercial markets, largely from the Asia region, so there certainly is a lot of investment in that sense. Also not sure what happens elsewhere, but here bank interest returns are taxed as straight income, while returns from shares and property often attract lower tax rates (there's a number of complexities to this and I'll spare the boring and lengthy details). Anyway, considering fixed interest, if you factor out inflation (around 2 - 3%), and take into account the marginal income tax rate at let's say typically 30%, then in real terms you're still losing money, even if it is pulling in around 5% return. Not sure how this would impact a foreign depositor though. --jjron (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Feeding squirrels

What is the best way to start wild squirrels feeding so you can watch them feed? What is the best way to begin squirrels feeding up close? From your hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.187.252 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

First, determine if this is legal in your location. Rmhermen (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of different species of Squirrel, so it would depend where in the world you are and what species you want to feed. My comments here are about red and grey squirrels found in the UK and other parts of northwestern Europe. If you want to feed other species of the squirrel family, like chipmunks, flying squirrels, or prairie dogs, then this won't apply. If you want to feed them up close, find a place where squirrels are used to being fed. If it's a park where they're commonly fed, they will be much more fearless and willing. Wild squirrels living away from people will be much more afraid: they are quite likely to come out for food you leave out for them (or leave out for birds) but not if anyone is around. The BBC recommends "Squirrels love unsalted peanuts (but don’t put out whole ones during the breeding season as baby birds can choke on whole peanuts), walnuts, almonds, hazelnuts and apples."[1]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not difficult to feed squirrels, what is difficult is to feed anything else without the squirrels stealing the food. Just leave a pile of nuts out and they will come and take it (I once had one come down the chimney and take a loaf of bread, which he then formed into little nut-sized spheres). I recommend you place them where you can view, photograph, or videotape them through a window (preferably one without a window screen and which has been recently cleaned). This will allow you to sit in comfort while you await your "prey". Also, they will be far less afraid of you behind a window, if they even notice you at all, allowing you to view or take pictures from much closer. Make sure your flash is turned off though, since it won't do much good from inside and might be enough to scare them off. I wouldn't try to hand-feed squirrels, as you might get a nasty gash for your trouble. StuRat (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The OP is in Florida. So one must ask the question: Why feed squirrels when they can feed you? Gosh, I'm feeling hungry again--Aspro (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's what he's got in mind. He just wants to fatten them up first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I put out a bird feeder and then try to keep the squirrels away from it. RJFJR (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

in the dark

the ultimate theory of particle transport if dark matter is centrifugally located originally as a photon which HASNT lost the primary electron in nucleus, are the gargantuan number of microwave black holes the most ultimate witnessed phenomena in the universe?? and if localised recapture of electrons is witnessed by those who by monocle see the sun, would we all be blinded by the vastt amount of electtrons we could recapture??

yours questioningly mikkyo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkyo (talk • contribs) 23:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, what? The words are english; the sentences not so much. I'm afraid I cannot parse your question to answer it. --Jayron32 00:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Let us consult our monocular astronomy expert and get back to you. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha, and I was expecting this monoculared astronomy expert Richard Avery (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect a poor translation, with "centrifugally located" = "centrally located" and "monocle" = "monopole". However, it's so bad that I can't quite figure out what is meant by it all. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Are microwaved black holes as tasty as oven-baked ones? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Joking aside, I don't think 'monocle' is a mistranslation for 'monopole' (not even a monopole antenna). I think the user is referring to looking at the sun through a smoked glass, and asking if we can see dark matter when we look at the sun - are we looking at loads of dark matter being created. I think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

'Monocular' - perhaps what is intended by "monacle" - is a lesser-known synonym and/or a particular type of what we more usually call a telescope ("binoculars" are more properly 'binocular telescopes'). I can't make any sense of the rest of it, however. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.126 (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)