Miscellaneous desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

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.

May 10

Fonts.

Can anyone recommend some clean-looking nice fonts that look good at small sizes (10 - 12) like Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, Times New Roman, etc? Down M. 02:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Sans is nice and clean even at 10 pts. A lot of books are done in Garamond and Palatino. Bielle 06:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helvetica and friends? Skittle 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest Georgia, which was created specifically to be easy to read in smaller fonts. I'd avoid Comic Sans unless this was something private (within the home) or for children - many people consider Comic Sans unprofessional. --Charlene 23:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who think a "Hotmail" email address is unprofessional, too. The Comic Sans font itself is clean, with a little pizzazz. You don't have to tell anyone its name. 05:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I know employers who refuse to hire applicants who use Comic Sans on their resumes. Of course, I've also heard of employers who don't hire people who list hotmail addresses either, thinking that only a technologically inept person would have a hotmail address. Myself I don't care, but yes: hotmail is considered unprofessional. --Charlene 21:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Trebuchet MS; it's a smart but easy to read font similar to Arial/Helvetica but with sharper corners. Gill Sans also works well, but it does tend to remind British readers very strongly of the London Underground. Comic Sans has irregular kerning, so words written in it tend to look a bit funny.Laïka 10:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucida is another font family designed for low resolution. (It's what I use in my browser.) My favorite all-purpose typefaces are Minion and Myriad: graceful and understated. —Tamfang 05:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of getting older

Is there any available knowledge about the fear of getting older? Not the fear of getting old or the fear of dying, but the fear of becoming an adult? A.Z. 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything that splits it that finely; Gerontophobia is the closest I can see. However, "fear of growing up" and "fear of becoming an adult" garner many results, so I'd say you're on to something... V-Man - ^T/_C 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll definitely check the results. A.Z. 04:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pan syndrome ? StuRat 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article actually contains the assertion "Teenagers ... are also usually attracted to older women." A.Z. 01:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fear of just becoming "not young" (like if your in your 20's or teens)? basically, getting older?

I suppose gerontophobia would be the term, although the older you get the more you realize that "young" doesn't end at 29. It's not like you wake up on your 30th or 40th birthday suddenly massively changed. I wonder if younger people automatically (and very wrongly) assume that getting a tiny bit older means becoming not as able physically, so there could be a fear of being disabled in there as well. --Charlene 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

running and coughing

I was running the other day and noticing some lung congestion. Anyway, I coughed up something and was able to breathe easier. However, when I inspected what I coughed up, it looked like a small pinkish blob along with half-centimeter long piece of something browish that looked like a boiled onion skin. Does anyone know what that stuff is? Thanks. Gatorphat 04:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Go to a doctor and describe when you first noticed it etc. It could be a bacterial infection, result of air pollution, or even something more serious. It never hurts to get a blood test.

NByz 05:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GET YOUR ASS TO A DOCTOR !!!! 205.240.146.147 06:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did'nt want to scare you, but check out whats in the "Lung" and/or the respiratory articles. 205.240.146.147 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and we aren't allowed to give medical advice. So go see a doctor. If it happens again meanwhile - keep whatever you cough up in a sealed container for the doctor to examine. SteveBaker 11:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might just be mucus, but you should see an MD the first chance you get, as it could be something much more sinister. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does telling someone to visit a doctor count as giving medical advice? Or is that the main exception we use? V-Man - ^T/_C 03:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone to get to a Doctor isn't medical advice, it's just common sense advice. A surprisingly large amount of people nowadays will trust random people on the internet for medical care nowdays, and if they need to be told to go see a professional, it's better to hear it from those random people than EMTs -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 09:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started with sushi

I am not very familiar with sushi, I might have tasted a bit once or so. What are a few names of dishes a beginner like myself could order? I'd like things that aren't too advanced for my simple taste and perhaps go reasonably well together. Also I want to avoid making a fool of myself (as in "You ordered shrimp and salmon, how dear you?!"). Thanks. —Bromskloss 07:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are conventions about ordering combinations in sushi, I don't know about them, but perhaps others will. As for types of sushi, if you read up on the sushi article, you'll see a description of different types. As a general rule, not too many maki sushi rolls contain raw fish, but some do; most raw fish is in sashimi, which is considered part of the 'sushi experience', but some pedants like to say 'sashimi isn't sushi! It's Sashimi!'. So when you order maki sushi, rolls made with seaweed, rice and fillings, the 'fillings', other than tuna and salmon rolls, are usually either cooked seafood, vegetables, egg, or occasionally fruit (pickled plum, and avocado if you call that a fruit). I recommend that you probably won't be disappointed with dynamite roll, california roll, tuna and salmon rolls (unless raw fish really squicks you; most people who like sushi like these rolls), kappa maki if you like cucumber (it's a good palate cleanser), and avocado roll, yam roll and veggie roll (if they have them). If you're a little more adventurous, a lot of people like octopus (order it spicy) and eel. Tomago is a tiny omelette in or on top of rice (this serving style is called 'nigiri'), and inari is sweetened deep fried tofu in a maki roll, or sometimes puffed and stuffed with rice. Anchoress 08:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second the recommedation for california rolls. I don't like the stereotypical fish taste, so I was hesitant to try sushi and I found the california rolls to be very good. If you're going with some friends or if you're not trying to impress a date by looking worldly with your knowledge of sushi, then there's no harm in just asking your server or the chef if it's prepared in front of you. The first time I had sushi, I just explained that I didn't like a heavy fish taste and the sushi chef was able to make some good suggestions. Dismas|^(talk) 08:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and how could I forget to recommend the BC roll??!! Anchoress 08:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to go to a good restaurant, too. There is considerable variability in sushi quality, even with California rolls. I far prefer the California rolls that have crab instead of imitation crab, for example. --Philosophus ^T 09:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sashimi is raw fish. Sushi is the preservation of fish in rice and seaweed. "Maki" are sushi rolls - and I highly recommend you don't buy those "large" rolls you see on sale as fast food - rather get the much smaller maki. These days sashimi uses a very high standard of raw fish which are supposed to be free of parasites and checked by the sushi chef. As for the sushi these days, the whole process has been corrupted into using things like tereyaki chicken in your sushi rolls - or cooked fish. A lot of westerners get hooked into this without ever really experiencing the wonderful taste and texture of raw fish with the various condiments (soya sauce, ginger, wasabe, mayonnaise, etc.). Most of the people I know --for whatever reason -- don't like raw fish, and you too may find you take issue. I on the other hand love sashimi. Might I recommend that you begin by tasting salmon as your first raw fish because salmon isn't very fishy at all, and is also an 'oily' fish, and all in all gives you the perfect 'texture' of raw fish for your experience. You can then try dipping it soya sauce, putting a little bit of fresh washabi (no sachets) and dunking it in a little bit of mayonnaise. If you're anything like me you should love it. Moving back to sushi, if you find you're not a sucker for raw fish then you're going to have to settle for the various other concoctions that are still very favourable: smoked salmon, cooked tuna, avacado, etc. As you can imagine sushi conisisting of smoked salmon with avacado, mayonnaise, and cream cheese (a major corruption) should be very nice indeed. As your sushi tastes expand and you grow fond of raw fish, then I would suggest you try the less palatable raw fishes that your sushi place may have available. Good luck, and enjoy! Rfwoolf 09:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raw tuna is not unlike rare beef; raw salmon strikes me as considerably "fishier". YMMV. —Tamfang 06:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. I'm not particularly freaked out by raw fish, so I don't mind trying that. I just don't want to offend anyone or otherwise do things that are considered wierd. So, have I understood this correctly, you order several different... things, not just one type? How many of them makes for a lunch? Are there something poisonous, overly strong, overly expensive or unorthodox combinations I should avoid? —Bromskloss 11:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just order what you want. The only potentially dangerous sushi product is fugu, but very few restaurants in the whole world serve it. An adult can probably eat anywhere from two to four or even five maki (rolls) in a sitting (most maki sushi rolls are six to eight pieces), and think of each sashimi as being the equivalent of about a third of one roll. It's nice to get a variety; one raw fish, one cooked seafood, one veggie, and a couple of nigiri (rice with non-fish toppings), and a couple of sashimi. Edited to add You might want to just order a combo - most Sushi restaurants have them. And I used to work in a sushi restaurant, and a very common combo for sushi 'newbies' was: 1 dynamite roll, one BC or california roll, 1 tuna or salmon roll, 1 kappa maki, and 1 tomago or inari nigiri. If you are feeling adventurous, try the squid or eel, or clam or other shellfish. Anchoress 11:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to take a moment out to talk about my experience with sushi. I had tried sushi once, long ago, and I didn't like it, I believe due to the seaweed wrap. I was at a video game convention, and since it was for an Asian game, of course their snack booth served mostly plastic sushi boxes. Well, I bought a box, and took it up front, to go watch a dev talk that was coming up. I nibbled on the sushi, still didn't like it very much, so I decided to try this vegetable off in the corner. I tried to pick it up with my chopsticks, but the damn thing was pretty squishy. After a little bit of rotating my chopsticks around, I finally got the green blob of whatever it was in my mouth. I still haven't gotten that damn taste out out my mouth, I still have that horrible flavor every now and then. Moral of the story? Know the difference between food and sauces. Just because you can drink a bottle of ketchup doesn't mean you can stand a bite of (what I think was) wasabi -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, be very cautious when applying wasabi, it can be very spicy. I find a single drop is all I want. For those unfamiliar with it, the best comparison is horseradish. StuRat 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wasabi" is to "horseradish" as an RPG is to a popgun. It is an efficient way to clean out your sinuses, though. Bielle 05:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much should I squirt into my sinuses to have the desired effect ? :-) StuRat 01:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your first visit, order three salmon nigiri, miso soup, ebi sunomono, and a dynamite roll. Very accessible. If the salmon is good quality it will be delicious, if not you will be put off sushi. Good luck. Vranak

The key to good sashimi or sushi is fresh fish. If you want a good experience, be sure to go to a sushi bar that is busy, because a high turnover and popularity correlate with freshness. I strongly recommend against prewrapped sushi from the supermarket or ordering sushi in a Chinese, Thai, or other Asian restaurant because they tend not to know what they're doing with sushi, and the fish is likely not to be very fresh. Fish that has been sitting around can cause food poisoning, but I have never had any stomach upset after eating at a busy sushi bar. Marco polo 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your sushi help! —Bromskloss 08:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't resist adding to this since I adore sushi. While I enjoy a california roll as much as the next guy, they really are the egg foo young of sushi. I can't stand the rolls with mayo. <shudder> First, make sure that you are going to a real sushi place that has Japanese people in it. Avoid "Asian fusion" places - they will give you some bizarre concoction that has no resemblance to Japanese sushi. You want your first sushi place to be good, so if you don't like it you know you don't like sushi, as opposed to the sushi in the place you ended up.

Vranak offers a good choice above. I would say that that, even more than salmon, maguro, bluefin tuna, is the vanilla of sushi. It's entirely inoffensive, unless of course you really do hate sushi. It comes in several grades, by which I mean fattiness, maguro is the basic, while toro is the lowest quality slice from the fatty belly, then chu-toro, and o-toro. O-toro can only be found in the best restaurants and you pay through the nose for it, but a pair of chu-toro nigiri is affordable and can be found in a good restaurants. A decent bit of chu-toro should be of sufficient grade that you won't have to chew - put it on your tongue (I don't like soy when eating a delight like this) and it should slowly dissolve like a pat of butter. I second the choice of miso soup and sunomono (pickled vegetables). Since a plate of toro will destroy your wallet, filling out the plate with salmon, maguro and maybe ebi (boiled shrimp) nigiri would be a decent choice. A roll to fill you up is a good suggestion as well - dynamite rolls are a fine choice, though I tend to fill up on kappa-maki (cucumber rolls) - filling and impossible to do wrong. There are any number of dishes that I would avoid on the first try - mackerel (saba) is very very fishy (though I love it too), while uni (sea urchin) is an acquired taste that requires multiple sittings fresh from the ocean before one comes to anticipate the next tasting. Similarly, the texture of raw fish egg throws many people. Go easy on the wasabi. Try not to lose your rice in the dish of soy when you dip the nigiri with your chopsticks; you're getting a thin coating, not soaking the nigiri.

So... taking Vranak as a model, my suggestion would be 3 types of nigiri (chu-toro, salmon and boiled shrimp), miso soup, sunomono, and I guess the dynamite roll, since this dish needs a bit of livening up and kappa-maki is boring. Mmmm... hungry now. - Banyan Tree 11:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cashing a cheque made out to your "other" name

A few months back I did some very minor acting work for a new agent of mine and when I signed up I created a stage name for myself, like "Bert Adams" (just an example).
In this fabricated example my actual name was "Adam Bert Clark".
My agent (who should have been more professional and asked me who I wanted the cheques made out to) has sent me two cheques both made out to "Bert Adams".
In your experience, and using your knowledge, how do I get the bank to allow me to cash the check? How can I prove that I, Adam Bert Clark am indeed Bert Adams?

(Yes in real-life my stage name consists of my middle name followed by my first name with an added 's'
Thank-you 138.130.23.133 09:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should get back in touch with the agent and get them to make a new cheque. If you want to receive cheques made out to your stage alter ego, you need to open a separate account under that name. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the 'olden' days (before rampant identity theft), it used to be possible to get a rider put onto your main bank account allowing for cheques made out to another entity to be deposited into yours. I'm not sure if that's still true. I personally think it's very unlikely that you'll be able to cash those cheques. Better bite the bullet and get them re-drawn in your proper name. I had a similar problem when I used to get cheques made out to my company name, when I just had a personal bank account. I alleviated the problem with a line at the bottom of all my invoices saying, "Please make cheques payable to 'Anchoress W. G. Queen'". Anchoress 09:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchoress, if you have a bank account payable to "Anchoress Wikipedia Google Queen," I will PayPal it so hard. V-Man - ^T/_C 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably still can, though it might depend on how much your bank values you (ie, how much you have held there) --Philosophus ^T 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to just try depositing it, or talk to your bankers (after all, the names are similar). In my experience, I've had checks written out to different names and have had no problem depositing them; I'm not sure whether this is because my bankers know about the situation and have flagged my accounts, however. I also am in a bit of a different situation - I have photo IDs and significant documentation under both names, and can prove myself to be either one. --Philosophus ^T 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophus has made a good point. I have to remember that I'm in the identity fraud capital of the world; not every banking institution is as paranoid as those in Vancouver, Canada. Anchoress 09:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you sign the cheque over to yourself? Write 'please pay Adam Bert Clark the full amount' on the back and sign it (as Bert Adams), then deposit it in your account. You shouldn't have any trouble - I've had several friends who've had to do this on occasion after changing their names. Natgoo 09:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm no apparently not, because the cheque/check is marked "Not Negotiable". 138.130.23.133 09:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. Unless you have a program with a photo of you next to the name Bert Adams, or are particularly charming to bank tellers, I think your only option then is to contact the agent and get the cheques redrawn. Natgoo 10:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can't hurt to talk to the bank first, if they're easier to get to. --Anon, May 10, 22:50 (UTC).

If it's marked Non-Negotiable, it is not a negotiable instrument, meaning it is not a check. You cannot cash it.anonymous6494 00:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was the case also, but footnote one in our check/cheque article seems to indicate otherwise - "many countries have provided by a combination of law and regulation that all cheques should be treated as crossed, or account payee only, and are not negotiable." It seems that there are very precise terms in use for these financial entities. --LarryMac | Talk 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for the United States, but you cannot cash a check (or what appears to be a check) if it is marked 'Non-Negotiable'. anonymous6494 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous6494 speaks wrongly for the United States. See Patrick Combs. --Anonymous, May 12, 2007, 04:40 (UTC).

Well, that's a nice story, and mathematically, a single counterexample does indeed effectively refute a conjecture, but I still think it's safe to say that in general, you cannot cash a check if it's marked "Non-Negotiable"! —Steve Summit (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air Lines Flight 007

To my surprise, this morning, I discovered that a copy of a FAA certified radar map I uploaded had been removed along with my comments. Are those who have an interest in hiding the truth from the public still at work? I've been on this project for 23 years. This ranks among the most blatant acts of propaganda I've encountered. What, if anything, to do? (My Contributions still hold a copy of the map.) RAllardyce

The content was moved to Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories per the discussion at Talk:Korean Air Flight 007. In other words, there is no conspiracy. — Lomn 14:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah they've got to you too to stop you from talking :) Lemon martini 12:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia colours

Is it just me, or did, a few minutes ago, nearly all the unvisited links with something on them on Wikipedia go a sort of maroon colour to you? If it is not just me, does anyone know why this change has happened? --It's-is-not-a-genitive 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to me too. I'm guessing someone screwed around with the monobook skin where they shouldn't've -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 15:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! I'm glad that it's back to normal... I thought that it might have been a policy that I somehow did not manage to see, from some bright spark who thought that it would be good to have links to pages that are there and links to ones that are not there nearly the same colour. I could never get used to a maroon Wikipedia. It's strange how small things can change so much. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more information/discussion, see WP:AN#Everything going red! and the subsequent topic.

Also, WP:VPT#Redlinks that aren't.

Atlant 16:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for those pages, Atlant! --It's-is-not-a-genitive 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soup

Who invetned soup?

I am quite sure the invention of soup predates any exisiting records and couldn't be credited to one individual. The soup article actually has some good history. Vespine 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, boiling food in water would be an obvious and convenient way to cook something for any couture with the capability to heat liquid. S.dedalus 00:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which requires fire and the ability to contain boiling water. I don't think most types of pottery can handle that, so soup might not have been possible until the invention of metal pots in the copper age. Copper mining dates back to around 6000 BCE (in North America), so I would speculate that a Native American was the first to make soup. StuRat 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, 'cos there's no copper in Africa, Stu... --Tagishsimon (talk)

None that was mined by 6000 BCE, AFAIK. StuRat 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Cadfael was often seen to be heating and boiling mixtures in clay pots; Ellis Peters wouldn't lie to us about that, would she? Seriously, fired clay containers can certainly be used to boil water for cooking, for example, the common crock pot.

Atlant 12:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is possible with modern technology to make ceramics which can withstand severe temperature variations, yes, like Corningware. However, this would have been quite a challenge to the ancients. StuRat 01:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have fire, you can make soup in a large sea-shell - or the skull of a large animal - even leather or carved wooden containers will work if you know how. But I don't see why you couldn't boil water in even unglazed pottery. Remember - the water inside can't get over 100 degC - that's cool enough to stop most materials from bursting into flames. As for leather or wooden containers - one way to boil water in such a container (that might catch fire if you put it directly into the fire) is to heat up rocks in the fire and toss them into your container of water. That way the container never gets in contact with the flame and since the water doesn't get over 100 degC, you are unlikely to damage the container. Our ancestors weren't stupid. I bet they were making soup within a month of figuring out how to tame fire. Cooking food is a tremendous survival advantage - it makes tough, inedible foods edible and it kills off undesirable bacteria - so even mildly spoiled food can be consumed safely - we can expect the great minds of the time to have been working hard on clever solutions. On a recent Survivorman episode, the guy made soup in his hat using the 'tossing hot rocks in until the water boils' technique - so I know for sure it works. SteveBaker 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food can also be cooked in other ways, such as on a spear. I would expect pottery or sea shells placed on a fire to shatter, not burst into flame. After all, I don't think they had Corningware at the time. :-) 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Um - so how exactly do you make pottery? I take clay - shape it into what I need - then I toss it into a really, really hot oven to 'fire' it. Why on earth would putting it on an open fire with water in it (to keep it at 100 degC) make it automatically disintigrate?! SteveBaker 03:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about how high the temperature gets, but rather how evenly the temperature is distributed. Kilns are typically designed to heat slowly and evenly, while placing pottery on an open flame causes huge temp variations. This leads to uneven stresses which cause the pottery to shatter. Also, the temperature of the water will be limited to 100°C, but the outside of the pot could be much hotter, as ceramics are excellent insulators. Try taking a cereal bowl you don't want anymore outside and put it on the grill, and stand way back, wearing goggles. You will see what I mean. See thermal shock. StuRat 03:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As is well known, a potter can manipulate several technical choices in order to improve a vessel's thermal shock resistance (Amberg and Hartsook 1946; Bronitsky 1986; Kingery 1955; Salmang 196 1; cf. Searle and Grimshaw 195 9; West 1992), including (1) clay composition; (2) temper composi quantity, size, and shape; (3) wall thickness; (4) vessel size and shape; and (5) firing temperature. We propose that surface treatments, both interior and exterior, can also affect the thermal shock resistance of traditional, low-fired, clay cooking pots. Aronson, Meredith et al. "New Perspectives on Experimental Archaeology: Surface Treatments and Thermal Response of the Clay Cooking Pot," American Antiquity 59(2)

The earlier home cooking style...seems to have been primarily boiling by placing oven-heated clay balls in baskets or skins and grilling or roasting directly in the oven. Later...there was the addition of ceramic cooking vessels, concomitantly with fewer clay balls. This reflects more boiling of meats and plants by direct fire cooking using pottery and perhaps less emphasis on toasting and drying. Atalay, Sonya and Christine A. Hastorf "Food, Meals, and Daily Activities: Food Habitus at Neolithic Catalhoyuk," American Antiquity 71(22)

—eric 05:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the American Northwest, and now that I think about it I have heard that the native peoples would heat water with hot rocks. If I remember correctly, it can even be done in special baskets that are woven so tight that they are water proof. Soup then could theoretically have been made well before metalworking. S.dedalus 04:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to put this comment. There are places (near volcanos, for instance) that have really hot water lakes where --I think-- you could make soup one hundred thousand years ago. A.Z. 04:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how would you contain the soup ? You need some way to get it out of the steaming hot pool to a place where you can let it cool enough to eat it. Perhaps something like a sheep stomach would work, if you don't mind your food turning into haggis. StuRat 04:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would use, let me see... a large sea-shell - or the skull of a large animal, perhaps? I would use small bones to manipulate the containers, so I wouldn't get burned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A.Z. (talk • contribs) 05:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Flawless victory. V-Man - ^T/_C 05:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note. It is quite easy to heat liquids without pottery or metal. You heat stones in the fire and put them in your skin of water, to boil it. Thus soup probably predates pottery, and pastry! 217.43.138.193 22:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stone soup! I've heard of that!--Prophys 10:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

old wives tale

if a cat drinks a bowl of milk with a asprin disolved in it willl it harm the cat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjw73 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's not an old wives' tale. Cats can only tolerate very small amounts of aspirin. Even a baby aspirin can be too much. If you've done this or someone you know has, your cat should see a vet within the next hour. --Charlene 23:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely see a vet immediately if this has happened. 325 mg (5 grains) of aspirin can be lethal to a cat [1]. --Joelmills 00:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And milk isnt good for cats either, most cats cant digest the lactose (sugar) so this can ferment in their digestive tracts and cause diarrhea Mhicaoidh 08:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or just let it die and buy a new one. Zain Ebrahim 09:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't do that. :) Joseph Montalbo 08:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]