Miscellaneous desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 30 >

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.

September 29

Bananas

I bought some green bananas three weeks ago (I swear I did NOT accidentally buy plantains), and they're still green as of now! They never ripened! WTF? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How well ventalated were they? Because bananas ripen better in a closed area. Ripening is caused by ethylene gas, which is also produced by the ripening bananas, so keeping them in a paper bag usually results in faster ripening. Also, it may depend on how green the bananas were to begin with. Did you check the banana, or just look at it? It could be that the banana ripened fine, but retained its green color. For the record, I find three weeks hard to believe. If a banana sits around in my house for three weeks, it's black. Normally, even for the really green ones, a week is the outside shelf-life. Is it possible someone ate the old bananas, and replaced them recently, and you just didn't notice? --Jayron32 03:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I am positive that no one touched those bananas. They sat in a fruit basket by the window... for three weeks straight. Not a single variation in color. At all. I guess they were picked before their time. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not plantains perhaps but are they discribed as Guineo--Aspro (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although until recently the large majority of internationally traded bananas were all of one variety, there are many different ones and the range of those widely traded is growing. Not all of these varieties turn yellow when ripe: when (in the 1960s) I lived in Hong Kong and Singapore, we always ate bananas that were green but nonetheless perfectly ripe - by the time they became yellow they would have been overripe! I suggest you try peeling one of your green bananas and check its ripeness directly; flesh texture and flavour are more important than the colour of the non-consumed skin. (87.81 posting from . . .) 87.82.229.195 (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the problem today is that the farmers cannot afford to allow the bananas to ripen on the tree because they loose too much production to birds, monkeys etc, pick early, sent to the distributor who stores them in cold storage till ready to send to the distributor. As a result this intefers with the natural process of ripening, resulting in them being green but ripe inside.this process also allows them to ship them anywhere in the world without loosing any and obtaining maximum profit.I'm from South Africa where they grow wild and am still able to eat naturally ripened bananas.Lawrence Crampton (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travel by horse

In eras when this was a major form of travel, how far did someone on horseback generally travel in a day? 165.91.175.11 (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horses we never a major form of travel. Most people walked, due to the cost of keeping said animal. Even when they did own one, it was usually reserved for productive work. Suppose a ball park figure for the average distance for an average horse would be about a couple of dozen miles. --Aspro (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the terrain, the horse, the rider, and whether or not you had a change of horses available. In our article Horses in the Middle Ages#Transport it suggests: "Large retinues ... could rarely cover more than fifteen to twenty miles a day. Small mounted companies might travel 30 miles a day ... Richard II of England once managed the 70 miles between Daventry and Westminster in a night". In the early 20th century, Louis and Temple Abernathy's 4500-mile ride from New York to San Francisco took 62 days, so 72.58 miles per day. And they were children, travelling alone. Ka renjc 09:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol armies managed 50-60 miles per day, by using spare horses (and, usually, suitable terrain). As a rule of thumb, in most situations horses are no faster or slower over long distances that humans on foot - indeed, humans are excellent long-distance travelers. The main advantage of horses is that they allow more baggage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought their main advantage was, that with their excellent night vision, they would always be able to get you back from the pub to your home, regardless of how much you had drunk and long before the advent of satnav. --Aspro (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's a joke, but do horses actually have excellent night vision? 96.246.58.133 (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joke!? If you had a trusty steed, which always manages to transverse two and a half miles, of wind swept moors, to a nice warm bed, stuffed with sweet smelling meadow grass, you would not have to question old dobbin's peepers. See:Your Horse's Night Vision. You're so green around the ears, I think we ought to have you mucking out the stables until spring comes 'round again. On a star lit night in the stables (with any one of the milk-maids), you will soon find three's a crowd ;—) --Aspro (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you hear about the time, when my horse went into my local pub looking for me... The barman said to him... “Hey! Why the long face?”--Aspro (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst we are on the subject: I like to think that it was my lovely Trigger, which inspired that wonderful Northern and Southern Ireland's favourite Euro vision song of all time. [1] Ah yes, that sax solo! He could never quite get his hooves around that – sham. He should have stuck to playing the piano. --Aspro (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

We have a Cat's Fugue. I wonder what a Horse's Quadrille would sound like. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Compare these to the American Pony Express, which flourished briefly before the telegraph. The mail on horseback travelled coast to coast in ten days. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pony Express went from St. Joseph, MO to Sacramento, CA, not from coast to coast. Telegraphy could carry the message half the distance about instantly. The riders could cover about 1900 miles in about ten days, with fresh horses about every 10 miles.Edison (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17th Century highwayman, John Nevison, is supposed to have ridden from Rochester to York (200 miles or more) in one day, arriving at sunset to give himself an alibi. Daniel Defoe wrote an account of it, but the event was later attributed to Dick Turpin [2]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that horses were never a major form of travel. One person riding a single horse could not expect to travel much more than 20 miles a day. Anything more than that would exhaust the horse. As others have said, it was possible to travel much farther than that in a single day on horseback, but only if one changed horses every few miles, so that each horse could gallop. I believe that this is the way the Pony Express worked. This was only possible if one had a job with the Pony Express, or if one was the ruler or a powerful figure in a state that could provision or commandeer (or a criminal who could steal) a supply of horses for this purpose. Marco polo (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the extreme claims of distance from history are unbelievable. Another factor to consider is that a horse can be literally ridden to death, as in cases where a messenger sacrifices his horse to get an urgent message through. One report from the 1860's says a horse was ridden to death covering 25 miles in 1.5 hours, for an average speed of 16.7 miles per hour or 26.9 km/hour. Edison (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in school I learned that a lot of towns in New England were 20 miles apart. This allowed for 10 hours of travel per day at the rate of 2 mph, after which a traveler could find a meal and a room for the night. However, that was for travel on foot. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably apocryphal, since most New England towns are roughly 30-40 square miles, more or less (some are smaller, some larger), that would make an average of, say, 6 miles by 6 miles. Having lived there,^{[original research?]} I can attest that a) most towns have been around since the 1700's or early 1800's, and b) it's about 6-7 miles between town centers, maybe as far as ten in the more sparsely populated areas. So I am not sure that the rule of "20 miles apart" ever held in New England. --Jayron32 05:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember a documentary that said the US Cavalry rode a mile and walked a mile to maximise efficiency.Froggie34 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(just to beat this one to death;) If you have an Xbox or Playstation and not a horse: Red Dead Redemption provides some realistic experience with the issues involved. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think several of the commenters here are ridiculous for claiming that horses were never a major form of travel. Sure, most people walked. But after walking, horses were far and away the most common means of land transportation for hundreds of years. Britain is still covered with bridle paths. Dozens of police departments still use horses for transportation. Horses were the first land mass transit in the history of mankind. That's very much "major" as the word is commonly understood. --M @r ē ino 14:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until the Toll Acts, most roads were almost impassable in wet weather. After the Toll Act most roads were still impassable in wet weather. Most of the England however, was within 15 miles of a navigable river. Larger quantities of good could be taken long distances by water. One could walk to the river and back whatever the weather. That is one of the reason Henry the VIII built up the Royal Navy. A large part of the economy depended on coastal vessels plying up and down the coastal waters with goods. These where vulnerable to attack and capture. Had horses been as used as much as some people imagine, then their owners would have had to suffer the costs of keeping them idle when the non-metalled roads were a quagmire. This factor is what limited the growth of towns and cities. They could not grow larger than the local farming communities ability to supply them with food. After the Toll Acts, towns and cities slowly started to expand. Horse drawn trams and buses for the hoi polloi did not come about until there existed good roads. But just at that very point... the iron horse was invented, enabling towns and cities to expand at at ever accelerating rates thanks to the rail road. Horses had a part to play but look at old photographs and you'll see delivery boys on tricycles with the big square wicker baskets up front and general fetches and carriers who are pushing or pulling barrows for a living. --Aspro (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

regarding plug sockets

Supposing I have something that would normally be plugged in to that little round socket inside a car, but for a while will be in a place where I have no access to the car, is there any way I can plug it in to a normal socket instead, anywhere I could, for example, buy an adaptor for it?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The little round socket is a cigarette lighter receptacle. cars once upon a time had ashtrays in them too! Dismas|^(talk) 09:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I think this will do what you want. It was the first result of a search of "cigarette lighter adaptor to AC". Dismas|^(talk) 09:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address locates to the UK, so the OP might find this item a better choice. Having said that, both people who left reviews said theirs didn't work. Astronaut (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that these are all low-power switched-mode power supplies, and will work only for low-power applications. We need to know what power the OP's "something" requires before we can give sound advice. Dbfirs 19:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there many things that come with a cigarette lighter adaptor that require anything but low-power? Dismas|^(talk) 06:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low power is something of a relative term. The fuses are normally 15 amp, so with anything else that might be on the same circuit switch off, there is at most only 180 watts to be had. As it is a very low voltage circuit the actual voltage drop experienced across the terminals of any given device might be higher as well, reducing the power still further. So yes, I would say not just many but all devices are limited to low power.--Aspro (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "low power" is a relative term, but I would restrict it to an amp or two in most contexts. I have several devices fitted with cigarette lighter plugs, including a screen heater, a water boiler, a tyre inflater, etc that would not run from a switch-mode adapter, and which I would not regard as "low power" in this context. Many switch-mode adapters are restricted to a fraction of an amp. Dbfirs 09:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now. I was dismissing all those devices with current ratings in single figures as any sort of distinct group to be considered, because all the ones I have also came with mains chargers. Therefore, the need of getting another adaptor for any of them, doesn't arise. However, as the OP has not offered up any more info, I suppose it has now become a purely abstract question.--Aspro (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC with Dbfirs) I think the relative term part is important. I wouldn't personally consider 180 watts to be 'low power' particularly when we're talking about consumer electronics. Okay even though the 180W is perhaps a high end you can't achieve, I wouldn't consider 100 watts to be low power either.

However I'm not here to argue personal definitions of terminology. If you look at the above link you can just barely make out the adapter is rated at 500mA giving 6W. I can easily imagine devices which draw at least 10W-20W, probably more. Laptops for example. And hobby chargers depending on model can use 200W or more and being able to use them 'in field' is commonly an important point since no one wants to have to drive home every time they need to charge their RC aeroplane or whatever. (Although hopefully anyone using a high wattage one is smart enough not to try to use it's maximum draw with a cigarette lighter plug whether in car or adaptor.) Heck even the XTAR WP6 Charger which supports up to 6 li-ion batteries claims it needs 2A [3] at 12V (since it can do up to 6 batteries and up to 650mA for each at up to 4.2V that is 16.38W without any efficiency losses so the 2A isn't that unresonable).

Most of these devices general come with mains adapters or in the case of a hobby charger, hopefully no one will be dumb enough to try and use a cheap cigarette lighter adapter but still, Dbfirs was quite right to point out you should make sure your device (or worse devices) isn't going to draw too much from the cigarrete lighter adapters since cars can very likely provide more power then some cheap adapters can.

I would note from www.hdforums.com/forum/touring-models/475864-max-current-draw-from-accessory-cig-lighter-3.html (blacklisted site) it's claimed that in theory the wiring etc is supposed to be able to support up to 15A as well although as you noted, that doesn't mean it can supply up to 180W due to voltage drop in the system.

Although lead acid batteries are capable of supplying very large amounts of current, they need it to start the car and welding screwdriver to battery by shorting terminals is a well known phenomena so it wouldn't surprise me if it isn't that far off in the right conditions (which means you do know some headroom although if you care you may find out what your car can supply e.g. when the engine is on but the battery is idling, some devices may be able to internally limit the current as necessary anyway), vehicle power supplies are also known for being very noisy.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP was wanting to run a 12v device from a mains supply rather than a mains supply from a 12v car battery, but both are possible. I have found that there is a problem running two switch-mode converters in series - the first set of switching seems to interfere with the second. For example, I tried to run my laptop, requiring 19v using a mains switch-mode transformer, but running this from my car battery using a 12v to mains switch-mode converter. It was not a success, and my laptop certainly didn't like the output, though I don't think it caused permanent damage. I agree that it is wise to keep the engine running when drawing over 100 watts (as in a car hot drink maker) for any length of time. In the case of the OP needing to run a device from 12v and having only a mains supply, I suggest that the best solution might be a sealed lead-acid booster battery with a mains charger. These are readily available from car accessory suppliers, and will run a "low power" device for up to a week between charges, or a "high power" (i.e. several amps) device for an hour or two. In some cases, the mains charger can be left connected, giving an almost perfectly smooth 12v - 14v output at any current up to 10 or 15 amps. Dbfirs 18:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I drifted off topic somewhat. My point about car batteries was more that while I'm not sure what sort of power a car battery is capable of supplying via the cigarette plug, it's probably not that far off from the theoretical 180W in the right conditions and it's not unresonable that some people are actually drawing close to that with certain devices even though hopefully most of those won't try it with a cheap wall plug adapter. The in between e.g. 10-50W is probably the bigger problem since it's easier to imagine someone trying it with a cheap wall plug adapter. Nil Einne (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity I looked at Immersion heater – 12V. The manufactures are obviously assuming (as they are entitled to) a terminal voltage of a properly charged lead acid accumulator to be 13.7V, in order to claim a thermal power output of 200 watts. I'm happy to accept that as a guide figure, despite having said 180 watts max, because we're considering real world expectations. With my first cars (circa 1955) with their simple voltage and current regulators, it was very easy to keep the engine running whilst boiling up a cuppa and still (or because of the engine running ) blow a fuse. At the end of the day it was check your charging circuit first -then the terminal voltage of the 'whatever' rather than the other way around. Low budget European cars were terrible. Blown fuses and/or blown dashboard bulbs indicated that the regulator box needed the attention of a screw driver and AVO meter- (failing any of those .. a universal 4 oz hammer or bigger) and sometimes all four at once (oh, I nearly forgot: your fiancées emery board too) Still, my grandfather's first car had carbide lamps, which from time to time, would explode and set alight the grass verge and hedges, so I suppose we are slowly making progress -of a sort.--Aspro (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See AC adapter. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non lethal trap

My kitchen has a new resident. I've seen it a few times now and it's some type of mouse or vole. Very cute little thing. I am a cuteness bigot and do not kill cute furry mammals (whereas if it was a rat I'd have no qualms). Anyone have a recommendation of a specific non-lethal trap to use? (or one that I can make?).--162.83.168.103 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because rats aren't cute and furry mammals? [4]. Buddy431 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A pest-control supplier should be able to sell you a no-kill mousetrap (see mouse trap#Live-catching mousetraps). Note that, as in Ratatouille, there is very rarely such a thing as "one rat". -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Cheese - Live Catch Mouse Trap. Very cheap.--Aspro (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Havaheart" trap. Catch the critter, release it outside, and it will be back in the house before you are. Take it to the forest preserve, and it will enter someone else's home. Edison (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should you have a change of heart however, here is a wiki article that solves the problem without leaving your kitchen. Souris a la Creme--Aspro (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here are some more durable live rodent traps (more expensive though). It appears that the entire website is to sell all sorts of live traps for all manner of critter. Buddy431 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you are but here in the UK, living as I do on the edge of the Scottish countryside, we experience a lot of mice, rabbits, foxes, bees, spiders, wasps and squirrels etc., in our garden, and we don't mind their presence one little bit - outside the house. But last year, we had an infestation of "little cute furry things" in our basement and loft, and we did use a lot of killing machines successfully, but then thought it wasn't fair to kill a nice wee furry thing, just for adopting our home as theirs, when the country is awash with illegal immigrants claiming social security benefits for themselves and their extended families; so we decided to give them (the furry things) a second chance and started using a neat little and very cheap device available from our local garden centre that invites the mouse to come inside and partake of this "nice little repast I prepared earlier for you". It's a little grey box that has a kind of portcullis gate that drops down behind the mouse when he investigates the food at the back of the box - it's on a kind of rocker platform that shifts its fulchrum as the mouse moves inside it. And it works without killing the mouse - but boy, does that mouse get angry??? I have collected several from inside the box that have gnawed great big holes in the plastic; and I have seen several mice that have eaten their own limbs off trying to make themselves small enough to escape through the resultant hole. Poor things. But if you are intent on catching a mouse in any kind of a trap - forget the cheese - mice aren't attracted to cheese. Try peanut butter or something equally sweet and sticky like condensed milk - and the mice will beat a pathway to your door - as the saying goes. 92.30.7.243 (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get (or borrow) a cat. Astronaut (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though not if you want to live-release your mice. If you want to dead-release them, then no problem! I have always been amused by the conceit of "building a better mouse trap" when Mother Nature has spent millions of years carefully crafting a machine which does little more than sleep in the sun and catch mouse-sized mammals - and does them both very, very, well. Matt Deres (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

We had mice in our kitchen cupboards once, Mum took all the saucepans out and put Kitty Fisher (our splendid pure-bred Bristolian mog) inside for twenty minutes or so. Never had any mice again - the smell of cat put them off. DuncanHill (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides locking the cat in cabinets, did you have other favorite methods of pissing off your cat(s)? :-) As far as non-lethal methods, you could put some tasty smelling substance in a bucket and then provide them with a way to get into said bucket. The walls of the bucket will be too high for them to get out. Then just release them. Dismas|^(talk) 06:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty had a lovely time hunting, didn't upset her at all. The problem with cathc and release is that the cute-and-furry little mammals will be back, pissing and shitting in your house and eating or shredding your food, bedding, books, carpets, curtains, wiring and anything else they can get their vicious little teeth into. DuncanHill (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“There have been reports of "house dogs" contracting leptospirosis apparently from licking the urine of infected mice that entered the house.”--Aspro (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope that anyone smart enough to figure out how to write out that question and post it here would also be smart enough to not release what they caught just outside their back door. Dismas|^(talk) 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this, and this. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fused LED in LED tv

what will happen if one or more LED of Led tv fuses. Is it repairable? will it deteriorate the picture quality? thanX............--Myownid420 (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of LEDs fusing (though I've melted them by running them at overly high voltages; perhaps that counts). It seems more likely that the TV would have a fuse that could blow. That could be the case regardless of whether LEDs are present, and fuses are generally trivial to replace. — Lomn 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think the OP is talking about individual dead or frozen pixels.--Aspro (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I assumed. As far as I know, these are not repairable individually, and manufacturers will not guarantee individual pixels, but usually put a limit on the total number of failed pixels for "acceptable" use. Every single failed pixel represents a tiny deterioration in picture quality, but this is seldom noticeable in normal use unless there are several failed pixels together. I think there are several failed pixels on the screen I am using at present, but I cannot spot them when viewing this page. ISO 9241-302, 303, 305 and 307:2008 standards include pixel failure tolerance during the life of the monitor as follows: 1 full bright (“stuck on white”) pixel; 1 full dark (“stuck off”) pixel; 2 single or double bright or dark sub-pixels; 3 to 5 “stuck on” or “stuck off” sub-pixels (depending on the number of each). Our articles on LCD television, ISO_13406-2 and ISO 9241 give more detail. Dbfirs 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are various guides to trying to fix pixels online, particularly I think stuck pixels where rubbing the area with pressure with a soft cloth I think either unsticks it or kills more pixels (the later may enable you to claim warranty if it's still under warranty although some may consider that ethically wrong). Do a search if you're interested. BTW the display is almost definitely LCD. I don't know if true LED displays have pixel problems much but there are only like 2 or so real LED TVs (i.e. OLED) as of late last year. Most TVs sold as 'LED' just have LED backlighting Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I should have clarified that I was writing about LED-backlit LCD television not LED display. Dbfirs 18:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also see no one linked to defective pixels (although it's linked to in one or more of the above links) which discusses types of defective pixels and briefly discusses methods of attempting to fix stuck pixels. The ref [5] which you can also easily find by searching (with many other things as I mentioned earlier) has more detailed discussions. It seems the rubbing method is probably not the best thing to try first. Nil Einne (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mining and forest laws

laws governing mining and forests in india —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravipranay1988 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? Do you have a question? Astronaut (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Forest Rights Act (India), illegal mining in India and mining in India? ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramen Noodles

Is it alright to eat Maruchan ramen noodles raw? It's certainly better for you than eating them cooked, seeing as how you wouldn't be consuming as much sodium... Battleaxe9872 ^{وکیپیڈیا} 20:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? Is there sodium in your boiled water? In either case, I would say they are safe to eat. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:), they have flavoring packets, like here, which are like 8/10ths salt, so if you don't mix in the packet, you wouldn't eat as much sodium. Battleaxe9872 ^{وکیپیڈیا} 20:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you meant you were going to have crunchy noodles :). Merely not adding the flavouring packet is not what I would consider eating it 'raw', and the flavouring packet is perfectly optional. You can add what you want to the noodles, or if you prefer, not add anything at all. I hope this helps. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about eating them w/o cooking. Battleaxe9872 ^{وکیپیڈیا} 21:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are good uncooked. :) And there is nothing on the packages I have on hand to say cooking is required. See Ramen#Health_concerns for various other health concerns. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can eat them raw, as in uncooked. For one, they are dried which inhibits the growth of most nasties, two, they are intended to keep for very long periods of time and are thus designed to not grow any bacteria. In fact, when he was much younger, my nephew's favourite snack was dry ramen noodles. Further, almost all foods are safe to eat raw as long as one is in good health. Regulations about cooking times and temperatures are geared towards edge cases and the greater good. For most products, assuming that one is not very young, very old, or immunocompromised in some way (e.g. HIV, leukemia, chemotherapy, etc), it is perfectly safe to eat raw. I eat raw fish, egg yolks, beef, etc on a regular basis. Do bear in mind of course that those are my choices and to be completely sure you should check with your physician before consuming raw foods which are generally intended to be cooked. → ROUX ₪ 21:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Really, now, this is idiotic. Edge cases? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people per year who get sick from salmonella, parasites, and other foodborne illness that's preventable by cooking. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By 'edge cases' I was referring to erring on the side of caution. For the vast majority of people, med-rare pork, raw egg yolks, and raw fish are perfectly safe. Hundreds of thousands of people per year--even a million people per year--is significantly less than one percent of one percent of the world's population. This is, of course, also exacerbated by the industrial animal rearing processes of the west, which makes food less safe to eat via the contamination by waste products. Look at Sweden (I think it's Sweden), where salmonella has been eliminated in poultry. One can safely eat raw chicken there. → ROUX ₪ 22:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. This is a reference desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot be bothered digging up my notes from culinary school, sorry. Also I really don't like your attitude. The fact that you don't know what you're talking about doesn't mean the rest of us don't. → ROUX ₪ 00:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roux, this is a reference desk; we're supposed to supply references, especially when asked. Telling us that the cute sous-chef who taught you egg-flipping says its okay is not good enough. Get something from a reliable source, please. Matt Deres (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can certainly see on this page how many references are provided. And I beg your bloody pardon about the 'cute sous chef'? Do explain. No, really... I want you to explain precisely what you meant by that comment. → ROUX ₪ 02:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that they're not a reliable reference, despite your attempts to trot out your time at a cooking school as such. As evidenced by the fact that restaurants are required to get inspected by health officials, cooks and doctors have very different ideas about what constitutes "safe to eat". Your casual denial of the links between the consumption of improperly cooked/stored/handled food and disease is a good example of why restaurants need to get inspected in the first place. Now, are you going to cite something for us to look at or will you continue leaving snippy messages on my talk page and dismissing other posters for "not knowing what they're talking about"? Please read WP:NPA before you respond. Frankly, you've already skated over that line. Matt Deres (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you quite deliberately meant to belittle me via my sexuality. Let's not pretend otherwise. When you stop doing insulting repellent crap like that, I might be interested in doing what you want. You've done this before, remember, and then actually lied about what the references I provided said. So why exactly should I bother? You'll just lie again, or complain that you can't access the reference, and then make some insulting comment about my sexual orientation. In this case, implying that some putative sous chef's (ps, she wasn't; she was my nutrition instructor, BSc in microbiology, masters in nutrition, and was supposed to defend her PhD work last year) (ah, and sous chef is a position one only finds in a working kitchen, not in a school) attractiveness has anything to do with how I received instruction. Grow up. → ROUX ₪ 17:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we collapse this off-topic argument? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of if or how he meant to belittle you, you're still contributing hearsay, not referenced fact. APL (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on that whole section of that article. (The first paragraph comes from here [6], with "In modern times" tacked on the front and a spurious quote mark on the end. Unless of course the WHO copied us.) As a point of interest, I had two raw eggs for breakfast every day between the ages of 7 and 12. Perhaps I was lucky, but those 4000 or so raw eggs didn't make me sick. And then of course there is sushi. Seems likely that general food safety is one thing and specific is another. 81.131.15.168 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean sashimi. Sushi is rice, and I am pretty sure it's cooked, as it says in the article. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Americans use "sushi" to mean sushi rice with something on top of it, especially raw fish; "sashimi", for the minority who know the term, is used to mean raw fish by itself. Looie496 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that most Americans use the term 'sushi' to cover nigiri, sashimi, maki, etc. → ROUX ₪ 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the CDC suggests that 1 in 10,000 eggs may be infected (though the rates seem to be different in different areas - no surprise), so you had about 3,000 more breakfasts to go before you caught the bad one :-) Matt Deres (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding salmonella and Sweden, they did claim to have eliminated it from their chicken breeding in 2004, but when it comes to a disease eliminate is never quite eliminate. Let us just say they have managed to bring the risk of contamination down to the lowest possible. It is still advisable that chicken-meat is properly cooked before eating it, that goes for Sweden as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling them "raw" is inaccurate. Most (all?) of the Raman-type instant noodles have been deep-fried before packaging. They're only "raw" to the same extent potato chips/crisps are. That said, even something that has been cooked previously may need to be re-cooked in order to kill bacteria that might have slipped in afterward. That said, there are a number of Raman salad recipes which use the un-boiled noodles as a crunchy topping. -- 174.31.192.131 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note for clarification - I believe the link in answer above should be to ramen, not raman. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The official corporate FAQ says they are safe to eat dry. (Note that even without the salt packet, they are pretty unhealthy. They are deep fried and contain some trans fat, though apparently less than they used to. There are much better ways to eat cheaply.) -- BenRG (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facial Features

I'd really like a book that describes different facial features with illustrations, preferably using proper names where they exist. So, for example, it might talk about noses, and point out the main parts that vary (the nostrils, the bridge, etc?) and how they vary, and illustrate this, and perhaps name the parts and the most common variations.

I've had trouble, because I don't know what area to look in. Art? Anatomy? I haven't seen what I need. Ideally, it should be available in a British library, or at least on general sale in the UK. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you mostly interested in the "art" aspect of this, yourself? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly interested in learning to spot the facial features that are likely to allow me to identify someone in future, and verbalise these features (in my head) so that I can remember them! I have great difficulty spotting unchangable-yet-distinct features, and when I do I have to 'explain' them to myself, as I can't just 'picture' them in a distinctive way. I'm trying to re-educate myself, but I think I'll need a lot of connected words and pictures to do it. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article facial composite is the best information I know of on Wikipedia, although it's pretty weak. A Google Scholar search for "facial composite" will get you a lot more. As far as I can see there is a lot of variability in how this is done by different people. Looie496 (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also take a look at Eigenface Craniofacial anthropometry and Human physical appearance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Facial composite looks like a useful term to use, although it still isn't throwing up what I need. Eigenfaces are sadly why computer facial recognition information proved unhelpful for me, as I cannot use the technique myself. I can hardly think 'Alice's face is eigenface A, plus 50% eigenface B and 10% eigenface C', and then later go 'This person's face is a combination of eigenface A, 50% eigenface B and 10% eigenface C: it must be Alice'! That would be harder than the problem currently is. I had wondered if I'd need to find an old phrenology textbook! But the link Craniofacial anthropometry suggests I might have luck in Forensic Anthropology or even Physiognomy. So thanks, this gives me some leads, although I'm still interested in any recommendations. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's cost margin

How much does a large soda cost McDonald's to produce? I'm looking for a detailed breakdown: cup, straw, soda, ice. I've heard anecdotally the cost was lower than $.10 Procrastinatus (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That particular anecdotal cost is all I've ever heard quoted, and I've heard it a few times before from employees of the place. A quick google search doesn't provide much of what I would call reliable sources, either. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that the physical inputs to the product cost peanuts. But you also have to factor in the fixed costs, which relative to a large soda can be taken to include management and staff costs, the cost of buildings, advertising, and the 1,001 other costs associated with running companies.

There are many different ways of calculating how to allocate a quotient of fixed costs to each increment of variable output, but broadly the allocation could either be relative to the number of things sold (we sell x zillion things, and each one is considered to have cost [total fixed costs] divided by [x zillion]) or relative to the costs of the number of things sold (The variable costs of product A sold this year is $A zillion and of product B, $B zillion, which means we allocate (A/(A+B) * [total fixed cost]) / A to each product A sold, and B/(A+B) * [total fixed cost]) / B to each product B sold.)

Within reason, a person doing this sort of analysis can decide to allocate fixed costs to variable goods produced in any way they wish - it's basically a statistical exercise which depends on the conventions they chose to use.

Ultimately, the only numbers that make actual sense are the profit figures of the company. If they're making 20% profit per annum, then you can say that on one level, the cost of the soda was 4/5 of its sale price.

After all that, it may be that what you're asking is, what is the marginal cost of production of a large soda. By & large it will be the cost of a cup, & the syrup, each bought in vast quantities; the cost of the straw, the soda and the ice must surely be one or more orders of magnitude less than the cup or syrup. Can you produce a cup and a small dollop of coloured sugar for around $.10? Surely yes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the cost of the labour of the person filling the cup and giving it to you.124.171.93.13 (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends where you live surely. My local McDonalds since not sure when (they didn't use to), lets walk in customers fill up themselves (with free refills of course). There will probably be usage of soft drink (spills, discarded soft drink because the person decided they want something else and otherwise taking advantage of the free refills) but in that case you only need to person to provide the cup, and of course someone to refill the machine every so often. (Well there would be a bunch more things like unpacking the cups, moving them around in bulk, perhaps even cleaning up spills which I guess you should consider, dunno whether the average cost of those combined per cup will be significant enough to make a difference though.) Drive thorough customers still need a person to fill their cup of course.

In any case, if it takes say 30 person-seconds per cup (probably a little on the high end) and given the minimum wage of NZ is $12.75 (the actual wage will vary and the cost is probably greater then $12.75 anyway given the need for administration etc) that works out to be $0.10625 per cup for the labour.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read (but do not have a citation handy) that in a fast food restaurant the profit margin is much lower for food (a hamburger) than for soft drinks or coffee. You are killing them, profitwise, if you just eat a plain hamburger or cheeseburger and a free cup of water. Edison (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]