Miscellaneous desk
< November 29	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	December 1 >

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.

November 30

ISO 9000 and a food processing case

On several occasions I've bought and baked a particular brand of frozen stuffed chicken cutlet and had the sauce leak out. The chicken's being cooked to the proper temperature (I've checked with a meat thermometer). My landlord, a chef, says this is caused by the hole for the stuffing being too tall and leaving a ceiling and/or floor of meat and breading that's too thin to absorb the sauce. If the manufacturer were ISO 9000 certified, would they be required to do ongoing oven tests that would detect this, using cutlets from the actual production line? Neon Merlin 00:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd hope so, but ISO9000 procedures are only as good as the people writing them / people providing ISO9000 certification services, and some of the latter are pretty ropey. If testing is risk based, they may for whatever reason (cost) have determined that there's not an appreciable risk worth testing in this area. Bottom line is that ISO9000 is not a guarantee of anything beyond the company having heard of and thought ISO9000 a good thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All ISO 9000 really does is ensure that the company is testing that their product falls within standards; what those standards are isn't ISO's business - in some cases it's legal compliance, but mostly it's just the company's own quality standard. This may very well be within the limits of uniformity that one can get with any natural product, and it's likely that the manufacturer doesn't consider a modest leak to be a defect. A "defect" is most likely something more serious, like the product being dangerous, of a lower weight than described in the package, or exploding entirely when cooked. Moreover, some industrially-manufactured food items deliberately induce randomness: chicken mcnuggets are made to a small range of odd geometric forms, so as to appear to be naturally-random looking, when really they're mostly identical. Pringles crisps were originally so thick that they never broke; people found this unnerving, as they expected "real" crisps would be partially, but not entirely, broken. So Pringles changed their crisps (and the tubes they're packaged in) so an acceptable minority would be acceptably broken. It's very possible that the product design engineers down at the Frozen Stuffed Chicken Cutlet Corporation have deliberately introduced some randomness into the chicken stuffing applicator nozzle, so a controlled fraction of cutlets leak a modest amount of hot stuffing fluid, all to disguise the fact that you're not eating mom's wholesome hand-stuffed naturally-variable farmhouse barnyard grown chicken but rigidly controlled science chicken that's been autostuffed by a Mark IV robostuffulator which deposits type 3 stuffing material with milimetre accuracy. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I have an image of Homer Simpson eating one of these cutlets and muttering "mmm, scientific...". :) Franamax (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This, incidentally, is why ISO 9000 certification appeals for business-to-business purposes, but rarely business-to-consumer. Consumers buy goods based on obvious quality indicators, not (by and large) on the quality system that was used in their manufacture. You don't see an ISO 9000 mark on a packet of fish fingers. The law, and the quality system, don't differentiate between a nice stuffed chicken foodstuff and a nasty one; that's up to you and your taste buds. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience ISO9000 certification is done on a "say what you do, then do what you say" basis. First you have to define your key performance indicators, and then you have to prove that you are meeting them. In the case quoted by the OP, the manufacturers could set a key performance indicator of "70% of cooked cutlets will have some leakage of sauce", then as long as they have an audit trail which proves that this is indeed the case, then they would be deemed to have complied with their certification! It has nothing to do with whether the goods produced meet some standard, but whether the company can prove that it has systems and procedures in place to monitor their self-defined standards. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Shirts Shrink?

I somehow am unable to find the answer to this on Google:

Why and how (the physical mechanism) do some shirts shrink in the washer/dryer?

Acceptable (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites a Whirlpool "fabric technologist" who gives two reasons:

(1) the garments hitting the dryer walls

(2) manufacturers stretching their products as much as possible to save on fabric Clarityfiend (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this interview, a Cornell University associate professor also notes that animal fibers like wool have scales on the side which can lock together during the washing process (mentioned in Wool#History). She agrees that new clothes have stretched fibers, though she seems to attribute this to the actual manufacturing process, not greed. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural fibres like cotton and wool naturally shrink. 78.146.171.75 (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also after this treatment the clothes are wrinkled, the wrinkles take up cloth. When you iron it flat, it can stretch out a bit. In any case the cloth for clothes should be prewashed and preshrunk so that washing shrinkage should not be a problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me the rules of law about punishing football betting Realcxl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Chinese student in a law school.I wanna write a thesis about football betting.In China, there is no relative rules of Criminal law to punish football players who take part in football betting. Could you tell me the rules of law about punishing football betting in Britain,France,Germany or Italy? (Meanwhile,please tell me the source of the rules.I wanna quote these foreign rules in my thesis.) Thank you very much!

See British_betting_scandal_of_1964. I've followed some of the links given, and I can't actually find a reference to any laws or rules of football! However, it seems that the players in this scam were jailed for defrauding bookmakers. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were jailed for conspiracy to defraud, according to List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes. Bruce Grobbelaar was tried for the same crime in the 1990s, but was acquitted. Germany seems to be the same; referee Robert Hoyzer was jailed for being an accessory to fraud in the Bundesliga scandal (2005), which suggests there isn't any more specific law against match fixing. For Italy, the article on the 2006 Italian football scandal doesn't say what law was broken, but it does give some names and links that you can use for further research. Ironfrost (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be doing homework for you. I bet too that betting on, and throwing a sporting event in China would be illegal too. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador appointments to first world countries as political spoils

In the US any appointment to a first world country goes to a rich political supporter of the ruling party. Is this the case in every country?

Contextneeded (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., it's actually a mix of purely-political appointees, career U.S. Foreign Service officers, and talented outsiders chosen more for policy than political reasons (e.g. Mike Mansfield and Edwin Reischauer to Japan or John Kenneth Galbraith to India). The first practice is, I understand, much less common in other countries. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, ambassadors will be experienced members of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service. As with civil servants, their own political views shouldn't be at all relevant (although in the real world that isn't always true, but I think it is for most jobs). --Tango (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Sir Nicholas Henderson's financial contributions (which as a civil servant, he probably wasn't even allowed to make) mattered, but his political views were certainly a factor in his assignment, retention and reappointment. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was a career diplomat, though. As I said, in the real world politics does occasionally rear its ugly head, but I think that it only does so in the minority of cases. --Tango (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In NZ it's primarily career diplomats I believe. But it may also be experienced politicians, e.g. Jonathan Hunt (New Zealand) who was the High Commissioner to the United Kingdom or Jim McLay who is the Permanent Representative to the UN. I believe other people with extensive experience in public service (although can't think of any off hand although Jim McLay was New Zealand's representative to the International Whaling Commission before becoming the Permanent Representative to the UN) or highly notable people e.g. Edmund Hillary was the High Commissioner to India. The closest thing I can think of relating to someone who's a rich supporter is Owen Glenn who was alleged offered the position of Honorary consul in Monaco which was controversial for a number of reasons including the fact that he'd donated to the governing party of the time and as it later emerged the party the Foreign Minister of the time was from. But as explained in our article or here [1] these aren't diplomats anyway and have a far reduced role from that of an ambassador and therefore are usual lay people with other jobs and not needing much relevant experience. New Zealand doesn't have many wealthy donors of political parties anyway (that we know about). I also found List of Sri Lankan non-career diplomats which may be of interest Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada it's usually some career diplomat although ambassador to the US is often a well-known politician; the current one is the former NDP premier of Manitoba, apppointed by the Conservative prime minister. This particular ambassador is usually, but not always, a member of the ruling party. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Patten's appointment as Governor of Hong Kong, despite his lack of previous diplomatic experience, was seen by many as compensation for losing his seat in the House of Commons. Astronaut (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rudd has raised eyebrows in Australia by appointing former political opponents such as Tim Fischer, Brendan Nelson, Robert Hill and Peter Costello to ambassadorships or senior government roles. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to ensure a spanner is properly thrown into the American-bashing works, one of the key differences between the US and parliamentary democracies such as the Commonwealth is that an American ambassador is the personal representative of the President, whereas British ambassadors represent “Her Majesty’s Government,” and not its Prime Minister (or, elsewhere, Premier) personally.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of former members of the British Cabinet who are now Ambassadors (ie. Valerie Amos, Baroness Amos and Paul Boateng), but it's mainly civil-servants who've worked for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for many years! ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 07:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For many years the previous US president failed to appoint an ambassador to Australia. Probably confirming the idea proposed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Specky" and American football

Interesting article about the Spectacular mark -- is there any sort of regulation that would prohibit such a move in the US National Football League in order to catch a ball...or is it just that the players are a) too massive b) too macho and c) wearing too much gear for such a move to be plausible? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As awesome as that would be, a foul would be called for offensive pass interference. —Akrabbim^talk 13:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was his own teammate he climbed on, it wouldn't be interference, but there might well be a rule against it. It could also be rather dangerous, as the climbee could get spiked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a soccer player myself, so I wouldn't be able to say for sure about if it was your own team-mate. They would certainly have to be an eligible receiver themselves, but other than that, I don't see anything in Penalty (American football) that would rule against it. With the way that forward pass plays have come to be constructed, it would be incredibly unlikely in professional football. As far as spiking goes, what kind of shoes do these Australian players wear? —Akrabbim^talk 14:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible during a Fair catch. Nanonic (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that jumping off one's own teammate is illegal during placekicks (I think under the heading of unsportsmanlike conduct, due to risk of injury). I'd expect that it holds elsewhere on the field, too. Referencing the 2008 edition of the NCAA football rules, rule 9-1-2-n prohibits any defender from stepping, jumping, or standing on an opponent to gain an advantage. Rule 9-3-2-b prohibits a runner from grasping a teammate and prohibits teammates from grasping, lifting, or pushing to assist. Rule 9-3-5-b prohibits a defender from standing on, being picked up by, or otherwise elevated by a teammate. However, none of the examples in the appendix cover the specific scenario. — Lomn 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble seeing how you could gain any advantage from this in any normal situation. Usually the receivers run different routes, to force the defenders to spread out since they don't know to whom the ball will be thrown. Then the passer tries to drop it in ahead of the receiver, in such a way that the latter has to catch up to it. That's the best way to make sure there's only one man on the field who can catch the ball, and it also means that the receiver is already moving in the right direction.

So it would be extremely unusual for the receiver to have a teammate right there to climb on.

I have trouble understanding how it can be an advantage in Aussie Rules either. Is there some difference in the tactical situation I don't know about? Say, are you not allowed to run once you have the ball, like in Ultimate Frisbee? Or is it just something like a spin-around dunk in the NBA, where a flashy move that's actually a bad idea from the standpoint of cold strategy can fire up the crowd and help you out by changing the emotional landscape? --Trovatore (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Aussie Rules the player taking a mark takes a free kick from the spot where they took the mark. --203.202.43.54 (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The videos that I have seen on youtube of these "speckies" (the full extent of my Aussie rules football knowledge) are all under the situation of a long kick, and then a contested reception, with people from both teams coming from all directions trying to catch it. This situation never happens in American football. For punts and kickoffs, there is one receiver, stationary. For forward passes, there is usually one receiver and one defender, with the ball coming in low, with little arc. So the whole situation that leads to "speckies" is completely absent in U.S. rules. —Akrabbim^talk 18:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except maybe during on onside kick, when the kicking team is trying to recover its own kickoff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, but I'll offer the Hail Mary as another example, and one closer to the Aussie rules situation as I understand it. — Lomn 19:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onside kicks are usually bouncing and skidding along the ground, which would make a jumping catch unlikely, and all the players are still running in the same direction for a hail mary, making jumping off of someone difficult. —Akrabbim^talk 21:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of hail marys where all eligible receivers (offense and defense both) are milling around waiting for the ball to arrive. Those would be the likely candidates for climbing up other players -- though, as I note earlier, this appears to be illegal. — Lomn 21:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With a long pass in NFL, you can not jump on a defender to catch a ball as that is offensive pass interference and will result in a penalty. I do not know about a rule saying you can not jump on a teammate (there probably is one), but it would require your receiver to slow down to perform the feat, which would limit his range and reduce the chances for success. I do wonder if this would be permissible for a defender to do with a teammate though. Googlemeister (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an NFL rules book someplace. I could check that when I get home, although someone might be able to find one online in the interim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything that really addresses it. Obviously, a receiver climbing on a defender's back would draw a flag and a penalty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting

Wasn't there a shooting in Valdosta, Georgia, USA earlier this month or last month? B-Machine (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A search at Google News for "Valdosta Georgia shooting" finds many stories; here's the first result. — Lomn 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not an article here? B-Machine (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't an article is just because no one wrote one.ProteanEd (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible the shooting is simply not sufficient notable. Remember wikipedia is not a news source try Wikinews:Main Page for that Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tablature

I've been searching for guitar tabs for Jump then Fall - Taylor Swift, I have found loads of chords, but none of the tabs actually indicate the other-than-chord playing at the beginning of the song. Any help? Sifting through Google has not helped me thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubydane (talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could look for Taylor Swift songbooks at music stores/online. Online tabs are usually created by guitarists on a volunteer basis and collected at certain websites like guitaretab and ultimate-guitar and the like. There just may have been no one who voluntarily posted said tab anywhere, so your best shot is to find an official songbook you can buy. Many (but certainly not all) artists release songbooks that go along with their albums, so you can "learn to play" along with your favorite albums. If you can't find a tab online, your best shot is to start from scales or arpeggios of the chords themselves, so if you know what chord goes with a particular bar, you can usually work out the individual notes in the melody on your own. I'm not a particularly good guitarist myself, but I was able to put together the basic guitar melody from the chord charts alone on simple songs like Sweet Home Alabama and I Heard It Through the Grapevine and Blister in the Sun. You often don't get the exact same melody as the original, but you get something passable, and usually I feel much more sense of accomplishment when I "work out" a song on my own rather than just read it from a tab. --Jayron32 21:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ear piercing question

When you get your ears pierced what happens to the skin that was there? I cant just dissapear, as the law of conservation of mass says it cant.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No skin is lost at all. As an example, pierce a hole in a sheet of paper with a needle to see what effect it has. Nanonic (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Ear piercings defy the laws of physics! A small wormhole is used to....OK so it doesn't really. The skin is simply "moved aside" by the needle, it doesn't go anywhere. Fribbler (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it possible that the lobe gets bigger because of this?Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 20:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlobes are pretty elastic, so I doubt it, but it is possible to a very very small degree. Fribbler (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if you pierce it, let it healkeep doing this, will your lobe eventually get bigger?Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 20:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Fribbler (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is pierced with a typical gun, then it just forces the earing through the skin, much like the piece of paper description earlier. If it is pierced at a good piercing shop with a needle, they actualy remove the skin where the hole is.74.218.50.226 (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skin is elastic,so it shrinks back from the piercing which is a wound.The hole itself however is so small,it's hard to see what actually happens.Eventually.as the wound heals,the raw edges of the skin grow back and cover the flesh but usually because of the irritation of the stud in the hole,scarring occurs in the hole so it will stay open.Also look at how some people exaggerate this. stretching..hotclaws 01:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a bit stretched, but it appears to have been done with sequentially larger and larger bore rings, so that there is no tension per se. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know you're in a cut-rate ear-piercing salon if you spot them using one of these. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What stops the London Eye from falling into the River Thames?

I have read the Wikipedia article on this, which says it is supported on one side only by an A-Frame. But I can see from the main picture that there are cables attached to the A-Frame itself leading into (apparently) the County Hall Building adjacent to the Eye. Is that sufficient to hold the structure up, and what are the cables themselves attached to? And finally, is there a rim around the Eye that runs on rollers to offer vertical stability and support? The picture looks like that might be the case, but I would appreciate some more expert opinion. Thanks. 92.21.178.205 (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cables are attached to very deeply piled ground anchors (and not into County Hall itself). There is a rim running on rollers, which provides part of the structure of the turning wheel. Not sure what you mean about vertical support, though. It's a rim, from which spokes are hung and to which pods are attached. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit more here - 33 metre pilings beneath the A-frames; 1,200 tonnes of concrete forming the ground anchors...--Tagishsimon (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Those cables are apparently called "back-stay cables". They're illustrated in this page. They're anchored into a second foundation (behind the one that the a-frame rests on). This page says "The compression foundation is situated underneath the A - frame legs; it required 2,200 tonnes of concrete and 44 concrete piles - each being 33 metres deep. The tension foundation, holding the backstay cables, used 1,200 tonnes of concrete." It also says there are six of these backstay cables. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schools district eliminate junk food style

Wen scholl district said by 2006 all the schools in one district have to eliminate soda machines, does that necesairly mean all the schools n that district eliminates soda machine compeltely at the exact same time, or one indivual schools can take away soda machines few yars earleir. Becasue when I was in tenth grade, when I ask San Clemente High School still had soda machines at that time, but other high school in Capo District completely eliminate soda machines completely. When I ask people about middle school in one district, some people said they took away the soda machines 5 years ago but when I ask the student about the other middle schools at the same district they don't know.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand your question, such limits are usually maximum times. In other words, soda machine had to be removed by 2006, or before. This is common practice for this sort of target, and would account for the various times they were removed, according to your sources. I don't know the specifics here, but I think it's a fair generalisation.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In such situations, a school district might give a deadline that is far in the future so that the individual schools can finish out their contract with the vending company. Each school may have a separate contract with the vending company. Pulling out the machines and breaking the contract might incur some sort of fine from the vending company. By giving all the schools in the district a deadline that is far in the future allows them to finish out each of their contracts without breaking them. And then at that point, they simply don't renew their contract. Dismas|^(talk) 01:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]