Miscellaneous desk
< September 17	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 19 >

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 18

British working class leisure in the 1800s

What was the most common way British working class men, women, and children spent their leisure time, in the 1800s? Was there any leisure time activity that men, women, and children could all enjoy? Or was there no activity that included both genders and all ages? Rebel Yeh (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that working class men, women, and children in the 1800s didn't have much leisure time. In fairness, though, the situation changed enormously between the beginning of the century and the end of the century. The beginning of the century was the era of Oliver Twist. By the end of the century, many working class families could take a train to go bathing at the seaside. Looie496 (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liquor? Doesn't the line go something like "Work is the curse of the drinking class?" or something like that? --Jayron32 03:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming, fighting, animal fighting, church, education associations, labour (cf: Frame knitters in EP Thompson). The 19th century, and Britain both are very large. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the century progressed, the music hall became the most popular way for working people to pass the time. It was quite inclusive: audience and performers were all ages and both (or all) genders. I'm not sure what Fifelfoo means by listing "labour" as a leisure time activity: labour was what people did at work as far as I know! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not like the answers you got from Straight Dope (AK84 has the best answer there) or Yahoo? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EP Thompson argues cogently over a very extensive section of The Making of the English Working Class, that labour outside of the factory system, for example the frame knitters of the late putting out system experienced sufficient job control and pleasure in work that their work was effectively an extensive leisure activity. The factory system was imposed during the beginning of the 19th century, it was no more natural than people starving amidst plenty, or deliberately addicting millions of Indians and Chinese people to opium because of a balance of trade issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marxists should remember that the large majority of people were not relaxing by working, and that the question was "most common way", so something that appealed to only a small number of people has no chance at being the answer to the question. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical research has moved on since EP Thompson wrote, and there are records of the utter degrading poverty suffered by many framework knitters, especially in the area of Leicestershire. I shall try and locate the reference for the statements of the FWK in Kibworth later. I am not convinced that any of them would love their work so much that it was a leisure activity. What the OP was looking for is something that varied from place to place, decade to decade. However the life of the working class was never Utopian. (Now I remember why I read Thompson's book once and disregarded it - it just didn't ring true to my experience.) --TammyMoet (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look round and can only go to the secondary source I recall, which refers to the Muggeridge report on the abject poverty suffered by the framework knitters in Kibworth in the early 19th century. Also to Sir Frederick Eden's survey "The State of the Poor". As Michael Wood says: "the reality was anything but romantic... for all members of a family to be engaged in order to scrape a meagre living was a sign of poverty and wretchedness rather than well-being". The factory system hadn't reached Kibworth by 1850. One thing the factory system did was to establish set hours for work and leisure, and reading Wood's book, it could be said to have improved the lot of framework knitters, at least in Kibworth. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of the slow dissolution of the moral economy is still valid the last time I checked, and my reading on frame work knitters is that they were beneficiaries of a skill/power construction over a limited period of time. For the penury of the fwk look into Thompson. I think it is undeniable that pre-Factory work systems had a higher level of worker control of immediate performance of duties and that kinds of leisure were interleaved throughout the working day in many occupations due to that worker control. Penury isn't incompatible with leisure as contemporary advanced western societies demonstrate with regularity. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but what's all that got to do with the original question then. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. It's just the way of non-alienated work-leisure: hunting down a useful answer in the morning, fishing for a good argument in the afternoon, rearing controversy in the evening, and criticising after dinner. [1] Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Alan Metcalf in "Leisure and Recreation in a Victorian Mining Community" lists (non-sporting) reading and self-education, temperance societies, gardening (including flower and vegetable shows), friendly societies, choral singing, brass bands, "quadrill societies" (ballroom dancing), attending lectures and shows by travelling entertainers, religious activities, community celebrations and of course, the pub. I can't see the pages on sport, but whippet and pigeon racing had their origins in the Victorian working classes and of course football. Catriona M. Parratt, More Than Mere Amusement: Working-Class Women's Leisure in England, 1750-1914 argues that women were often excluded from leisure activities because of domestic duties or low wages requiring long working hours. She does say that on Saturday night, many would get dressed up and head for the main street of their town which would be busy with entertainers, stalls and booths like a fairground. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leisure was very much divided, not just by sex but also by location and religion. The Church of England didn't expand into the mill towns as quickly as the population grew, which gave the conservative Evangelical churches - Baptists, Methodists, etc. - an advantage in those towns. The Evangelicals were fairly strict, eschewing gambling, drink, theatre-going (in the beginning at least), and other forms of recreation considered less savoury, and the working classes in those areas were likely spent their time off work not on what we would consider hobbies but on Bible reading, attending services, attending speeches and sermons by travelling ministers, etc. --NellieBly (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying a cigarette carton

File:Simuation of carton production - showing problems with die cut.jpg is up for deletion at WP:PUF as a "Derivative work of a box or something". Can anyone identify the production date? It's clearly a US production (note the bit about US taxes), and I'm wondering if it might qualify as {{PD-US-no notice}}, but I know nothing about cigarette cartons and thus don't know how to search for information. Nyttend (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Clope" is apparently French slang for a cigarette, and the lack of a brand name makes me think they are either a generic product or meant to be repackaged as French cigarettes. I can't find anything about the elephant logo. So, no luck so far. StuRat (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like someone (with some knowledge of French) created a fake cigarette label for illustrative purposes. The elephant logo is also incongruous, and probably a play on a more famous dromedary-like brand of cigarettes. --Xuxl (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest clue might be in the the file name which includes the word "simulation". Indeed, the uploader, User:Peterqherman, seems to be working on a draft article in his userspace, though that and a few image uploads is all they have done in 18 months. Astronaut (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a waddy?

Not meaning an Australian Aboriginal weapon. This one is a kind of street. ... I have heard of streets, roads, avenues, lanes, boulevards and so on all over the place. But this one I remember from when I was a kid and lived near there. It's called "Whaleback Waddy" in Boonton Township, New Jersey (see map here). It's not Whaleback Waddy Street, just Whaleback Waddy. Does anyone know how and why this thoroughfare has such an unusual name? Is it related to the Australian term? Are there waddys (waddies?) like this anywhere else in the U.S., or elsewhere in the world? Thank you. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a corruption of wadi, a valley.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on Helen Gahagan Douglas a couple of threads above, and learned she was born in Boonton Township, New Jersey, a place I'd never heard of before. Now, it's mentioned again here. Spooky. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Ah! The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon has visited itself upon you, I see! --Jayron32 12:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will I survive? :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

You will, as long as you can avoid Boonton Township. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP's question. Interesting. Occasionally, you do run into street names that don't have "street" or "road" or "way" or "avenue" at the end. The most famous I can think of is The Bowery in New York City, which isn't "Bowery Street" or "Bowery Road". It's just "Bowery". I wonder if that is a case here. I can't find any reference to Waddy being used as a street or road designation anywhere. It's not listed at Street or road name, so perhaps this is a case where Waddy isn't supposed to be a street designation, but it is somehow part of the name in another way. Though I also can't, for the life of me, figure out what a Waddy is in this context, even what a Whaleback Waddy is. The street definately exists (a google search brings up addresses, and confirms that that is the complete name). I'm still looking, but I've turned up nil so far. --Jayron32 12:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a town called Waddy in Shelby County, Kentucky. No idea if there is a connection. --Jayron32 12:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Samuel Danks Waddy. No idea if there's a connection there either. Marnanel (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This says it is Western US slang for cowboy / origin uncertain. The same is stated here. Ibid, whaleback is defined as a cargo vessel with a convex deck. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a word for an Australian weapon is more likely to be relevant here than a word for a cowboy, despite the relative geographic distances. —Tamfang (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so, Tamfang? Are there any other examples of weapon names being used for road types? Pennsylvania Rifle? Wall Bazooka? Hollywood Dagger? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer, you can read "more likely" as "not quite as absurd". Perhaps the road is shaped like a sketch of a whatsit. —Tamfang (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shantavira's suggestion has some logic to it as wadi is a geographical term, but as I recall, Whaleback Waddy is not in a valley, but on a hillside, and a rather steep one at that. (Although it has been about 45 years since I have been there!) → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that roads are often not named for where they are but where they lead. For example, we have Michigan Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois. So, if Whaleback Waddy leads to a valley, that may explain the name. Think of it as "Hill Valley Road", a road on a hill, leading to a valley. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Michigan Avenue does end up at Lake Michigan on LSD, but Ohio Street doesn't go to Ohio. --Jayron32 17:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's just no accounting for some things. Obviously, Michigan Avenue fronts on Lake Michigan, or at least it used to before all the landfill. It's crossed by streets named Ontario, Erie, Huron and Superior. There's an Ohio street, yes. There's also an Illinois Street and a Chicago Avenue, in case anyone forgets where they are. There are other state streets, including Delaware, and fittingly enough, State Street (that Great Street). There are also presidential streets, including Adams, which is often skipped in cities that use presidential streets, as he wasn't very popular. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. When I lived in Chicago, I lived in the midst of the President streets, on Polk Street; other parallel streets were Harrison and Taylor, two presidents that don't often get streets named after them either. --Jayron32 02:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer will probably be in the bowels of the local municipal authority's records. Someone must have decided to call it that, and that decision must be recorded somewhere. My own experience of looking for the origins of certain street names has been fraught with surprising difficulties. As often as not there's no online record, and you have to go to your local library or track down the council's archivist and look up some dusty old tome recording the deliberations of the council in 1943 or whenever the street was named. Even then, it might record only that that name was chosen on that day, but not why. Best of luck. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A relative of mine came home drying some tears from elementary school one day. At the end of the day, the teacher announced that anyone who lived on a road was dismissed. Then anyone who lived on a street. Then anyone who lived on a way. Anyone who lived on an avenue. Anyone who lived on a court. A place. The only student left, she broke out sobbing. "What's wrong?" asked the teacher. "I live on a North!" μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extra-antipodarians might not quite get it, but there’s a whimsical little gem of a movie called Road to Nhill (1997). It includes a scene where someone’s phoned the tow truck driver to explain where the scene of the accident is, and they say it’s on (what sounds like) Nhill road. The truckie comes back with "Is that Nhill Road or the road to Nhill?" Because it turns out that there is a road called "Nhill Road" somewhere in the locality but it doesn’t take you to Nhill. You have to be on "the road to Nhill" to get to or from Nhill. That road has some other official name, probably the Western Highway, but the locals call it "the road to Nhill". Hence the title. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is Nhill pronounced? μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly like "nil". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the person that named the road was once a sailor on a whaleback that happened to be called Waddy. Odd name for a ship but not unheard of, 1929 and 1891. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waddy is so rare that there isn't an official US Postal Service abbreviation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this which seems to say ,see second definition,that it's a word for cowboy or rustler in the US.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/waddy Hotclaws (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huge differences in the number of patents generated by big companies in different industries

This is something I've noticed and it confuses me. Why is it that a company like Samsung produces thousands of patents a year and another company like Cessna produces only 10 patents every 10 years. It's not like Cessna isn't developing new planes and I'm sure there are thousands of little innovations in every new plane that could be patented. But why is there such a huge gap in patent activity?

Weirdnoises (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that at least part of the answer is that patent portfolios are important elements in the corporate "armoury" in the IT and electronics sectors: "I've got more patents than you have, so you're probably infringing more of mine than I am of yours. Do you want to slug it out, or shall we come to an amicable arrangement recognising my superior fire power?" --ColinFine (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil aviation manufacturers are in fact extremely conservative when it comes to product design. The designs of some of Cessna's most popular products such as the 182 and 210 date back many decades. Any change that is significant enough to be patentable would most probably require the entire aircraft to be certified as a completely new type - an extremely expensive and high risk excercise. One could say that in aviation the first law of design is "Don't fix what aint broke!". The differences between a 1970 Cessna 182 and one that came off the factory line yesterday are either cosmetic or in accessories such as radios and instruments - which are not made by Cessna. Even the engines they use are basically WW2-era technology. Cessna does not in fact develop more than maybe one or two models in a decade and then in most cases its a matter of detail tweaks of existing designs. New "blank sheet" designs are very rare. Roger (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but is it possible Cessna has no significant business rivals? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Roger hit on the reason. Completely new designs in aviation are very risky. Consider that composite materials used in recent decades in aviation have been the cause of at least one crash (because, unlike normal materials, composite materials are more flammable and those weakened due to delamination aren't always visually apparent: [2]). It's better to stick with proven technology. In consumer electronics, on the other hand, anyone selling a decades-old design would go bankrupt fast. StuRat (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different industries have different economic ecosystems and different relationships to patents. Consumer electronics as a field has been engaged in patent wars for decades now. Comparing Samsung (or any electronics company) with Cessna is comparing apples with oranges when it comes to making sense of their patent situation, much less the nature of their research and development cycles. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and there are many patents for Apples. StuRat (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This actually was being discussed today on NPR just an hour or so ago. According to that discussion, the competition level among technology companies these days is so intense that they tend to patent every little development in every little part, in an attempt to stay ahead of their competitors (and to hold them back). It might be a new kind of microcircuit that they have no use for at this time, but someone at the company thinks it might be useful someday, and if it ever does get used, they want to be certain it is their company that uses it. (I forget who was making that point. However, it was on the program "Talk of the Nation" on 18 September 2012, in a segment titled "Can Anyone Compete With Apple?" Go here if you would like to listen to it. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do delivery services intentionally delay slower deliveries ?

I am expecting a package to be delivered soon (my dimmer switches), and have been tracking it's progress. I choose the free shipping option, which promised 5-8 days. It looks like they may actually be delaying it to make it exactly 8 days. I say this because it was "scanned in" at the FedEx processing center one day and not "scanned out" for 48 hours. Now, they certainly can process a package through the center quicker than that, and this time of the year I wouldn't expect any backlog (unlike at Xmas). So, do they intentionally hold up packages which haven't paid for premium shipping, to make customers more willing to pay for the upgrade ? StuRat (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the reason, but I've seen, while tracking packages coming to me, entries of "Not scheduled for delivery" or similar.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any special knowledge of FedEx, but I do have a few points that might be useful. From personal experience with UPS and a few other courier services (though not FedEx, oddly), there's little or no difference between the "free shipping" option and the expedited services until you get into the premium same-day kind of thing. The slower, "free", option seems to have more to do with the supplier getting around to putting it in the post; i.e. the slow down is internal to the vendor, not the delivery company. I've also worked in the distribution business for years and can tell you that, for courier services, hanging onto your stuff is the last thing they want to do: space is always at a premium. If there's a lag, it probably comes down to the individual run (eg the plane flight or the truck run, etc.) being filled to beyond capacity so lower priority stuff would get bumped first. Matt Deres (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the capacity argument makes sense. Just like passenger airlines like to have passengers on standby so they can jam somebody in every seat, shipping companies might benefit from using lower priority packages this way, to ensure that every truck is full. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good analogy. In this context, your "shipped free" package is flying economy while the package shipped with the next day guarantee is flying first class, with predictable results when there's an unanticipated bit of crowding. Matt Deres (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you live in a remote or sparsely populated area they might make a delivery there once a week or when they have to send a priority item in your direction. I don't know if FedEx do this, but I know that this is the way a furniture store scheduled deliveries. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a furniture store presumably has far fewer deliveries to make than FedEx, so needs to do that. And I am in the middle of a city. The dimmer switches were delivered today, BTW, and they all work, too ! StuRat (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Retrieve all questions asked on Wikipedia by Sunny Singh (DAV)

I have asked a number of questions on "Wikipedia:Reference desk" but I don't remember their topics and the date on which the question was asked. Is there any way to retrieve all of them? I searched archives but it didn't displayed all of the asked questions. Sunny Singh (DAV) (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sunny_Singh_(DAV) 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

That's OK in his case, since he has few contributions outside the Ref Desk. However, it does list all contributions here, whether posing a question, updating it, or answering one. A search of the archives using his name is another option: [3]. However, this also lists all Ref Desk contributions, whether they are questions, updates, or answers, and also omits the title of the Q. In addition, recent questions aren't in the archives yet. We do seem to lack a more rigorous way to list all of the questions a person has asked here, without any chaff. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this problem, too, when I want to look at a Q I posted a few days back, but don't recall the desk, or know if it's archived yet. I generally end up manually searching multiple Desks for it, by doing a find on my screen name. I could also look through my contributions, but that tends to be just as tedious. StuRat (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can narrow down the search by selecting the "Wikipedia" namespace from the pull down list (like so). However, I've often wondered why the new section tag doesn't seem to work like a proper tag and appears invisible to the filter. Matt Deres (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can set user contributions to display 500 entries at a time then ctrl eff for "new section"--but agree, there's gotta be a better way.

Each page has "What links here" in the left column (under "Toolbox"). Do that from your User page; unlike your Contributions list, you won't get duplicates. I see that the list is conveniently short (unlike mine!). —Tamfang (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tamfang. That was really neat. Easy access to ancient contributions that would have been very difficult to localize otherwise! --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you won't get edit summaries either telling you whether a new section was created. Do admins have a stronger tool? I have inferred from some of the comments on ANI's that admins are either insanely more willing to do detailed searches, of have better tools. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That must work because signatures have a link back to your home page. However, signatures on other talk pages would also be included, as would any other links to your home page, and it only lists each day/Desk combo in the archives, whether you asked one question, multiple questions, or none (but responded to somebody else's). As for questions not yet archived, then it only lists the entire desk, which isn't very useful. So, it's another option, but still far from perfect. StuRat (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault that the RD doesn't archive more quickly. —Tamfang (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure whether that's your fault or not, Tamfang, we could debate it on the talk page. :) μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden Spoons

Why when you put a wooden spoon across a pot of boiling liquid no matter how long it boils it will not spill over the sides of the pot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.45.98 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, it's not true. It's very easy to construct scenarios where boilover will happen with a spoon (for instance, if the pot is filled to the brim). There's also this sort of boilover, which won't be meaningfully affected by a wooden spoon, either. But the general concept is going to be a scenario where something in the pot boils and produces large bubbles, such as the starch-reinforced bubbles that form when you boil pasta. A rough-surfaced whatever (such as a wooden spoon) serves to break those bubbles on contact, reducing the chance that the pot foams over. — Lomn 18:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the wikipedia article Boiling chip which has a short description of how something like a wooden spoon can work to reduce boilovers. In chemistry, the term "boilover" is also often called Bumping. --Jayron32 18:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'll note, though, the distinction between boiling chips and the spoon: the chips are intended to prevent superheating that leads to the sudden explosive onset of boiling; what's key is that they have nucleation sites to allow bubbles to form. The spoon across the top of a pot is to break up bubbles occuring during normal boiling; the rough texture disrupts rather than enables bubbles (but note that a wooden spoon in the pot serves as a boiling chip). In the case of a pot foaming over, boiling chips won't have much effect. There's also the other pasta option of adding oil to the water to disrupt the surface tension that enables large bubbles. — Lomn 18:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AH. Thank you. I misread the question. I thought this was refering to putting a wooden spoon inside the pot. Mea culpa. --Jayron32 18:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New research of TOBACCO,,, health item.

Recently I was reading an very interesting story about Tobacco, they were looking for why the tobacco was so indicting and they found a complely different substance with valuable results. I was called away and when I returned all was lost on my computer. It had a note that GNC was selling it but the local GNC store was no help. I would like to find out what it is, which company is selling it and other due diligence, can you help.; I was on the GNC site but suddenly I was here?? Yours Truly Peter Epp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.143.164 (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I've reformatted this for ease of reading. Matt Deres (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Assuming you mean "addicting", it's primarily the nicotine in tobacco which makes it addicting, although people then develop a psychological link between the tar and nicotine, so that they crave the tar as well. For this reason, nicotine gum, patches, and inhalers aren't 100% effective at smoking cessation. StuRat (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Nicotine is chemically similar to, and was discovered along side of, several B vitamins, including Nicotinic acid (aka Niacin) and Nicotinamide. The first synthetic Niacin was created in the lab by reacting nicotine with nitric acid. That doesn't mean, of course, that Nicotine of itself has any particular benefit like B-vitamins do. But the history of the two compounds and their discovery is linked. --Jayron32 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]