Miscellaneous desk
< April 18	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 20 >

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.

April 19

Getting a water resistant watch battery replaced in Cambridge, MA

Does anyone know of an inexpensive place to get a water-resistant (200m) watch's battery replaced and then water-sealed? I've called around and couldn't find any place that would do it for less than $35. Thanks. --VectorField (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful to find a place that will guarantee the watch will remain water resistant. The place I went just tore the water proof ring to shreds getting the watch open and tossed it out. So now I have a non-water resistant watch with a new battery. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such events are depressingly common. One time when I had a battery replaced, I watched the teen-aged counter monkey drop the internal bits out of the watch, and then spend 5 minutes trying repeatedly to put it back together in working order. He then got offended that I was upset at his performance. - Back on topic, your best bet would be a jewelry store with a watch counter. I would probably call the manufacturer and ask for a list of authorized retailers. They would be the ones best certified to ensure the watch is in proper working order. Also, how much is the watch worth to you? It doesn't make sense to quibble over a $35 battery replacement for a $1000 watch, especially when you need it to be properly water-sealed. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin/Pollock

According to the Wikipedia article Pollock: On Monday 13th of April 2009 Sainsburys announced it would now refer to Pollock as "Colin" so as to save customers embarrassment. Colin is the English Translation of the French word "Pollack", literally pronounced "Col-an" What's embarrassing about Pollock? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pollock" pronounced "PAH-luck" is a fish. "Pollock" prounced "POLE-lock" is a durrogatory term for people from Poland. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that when Jay says "PAH-luck" he means "POL-uck". Many American accents don't distinguish the AH vowel from the short O. --Anonymous, 05:52 UTC, April 19, 2009.

Also note that when Jay says "POLE-lock", he means "Polack". Also note that it's "derogatory", not "durrogatory". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be pronounced "Po-lack". DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the rebellious colonies, surprisingly, the spelling of Polack has not overridden the (roughly) Polish pronunciation /ˈpoːlɑk/. —Tamfang (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Sunday Times, people were embarrassed to ask the fishmonger if he’s got any pollocks and could they see them?-gadfium 06:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We just got a fresh load of pollocks in." Yeah, that could cause an uncomfortable social situation. 88.112.62.225 (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't say "a load of pollocks", you would say "a load of pollock" - many fish are like that en masse. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to finally clarify, the possible embarassment factor is because "pollock" sounds similar to "bollock", not because it sounds similar to "Polack", which is not a widely used term in England anyway. Sainsburys appear to assume their customers have the sense of humour and sophistication of an 8 year old. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe they're the first major shopping outlet to realise this. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Just to be clear that Gandalf61 has the right answer. The stuff about "Polack" would be unintelligible to a Brit. It's an interesting insight into Wikipedia and the reference desk that several people assumed they knew the answer because it's the one that would apply in their culture. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can believe anyone would see this as anything more than press release from the marketing department of a major retailer to get them some free advertising over an entirely spurious issue. While a large proportion of shoppers probably did not know there was a white fish called a pollock those that did know I doubt would be all that embarrassed and mostly just mildly amused. It does have a serious side as overfishing of cod means people are encouraged to eat other species in their fish and chips that they might be initially reluctant to try. On an almost unrelated note I know someone who caught pollock on cucumber which sounds a lot more embarrassing than it was. meltBanana 14:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct culinary term for the item is prairie oyster. I am not the first to remark that, correctly prepared, it is the piece of cod that passeth understanding. (Not to be confused with a codpiece. I knew there was something fishy going on.) BrainyBabe (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

surely a prairie oyster is a raw egg with Worcestershire Sauce, while the piece of cod that passeth all understanding is it's skull, which comes in about a hundred bits (I actually have a citation somewhere for the origin of the piece of cod...now if I could only remember where)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Adding to already-archived discussion:] Rick Stein just attributed that line "the piece of cod that passeth understanding" to Keith Floyd. Floyd may well have said it, but he wasn't the first: a Google search reminds me that it was said by "Nigel Molesworth", the fictional schoolboy in the books (1953-58) by Geoffrey Willans. That must certainly be where I first read it. But somebody else may have said it even before that. Andrew Dalby 19:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I heard this news story but I never made the connection with bollock, I'd assumed it was because it sounded a bit like pillock, a derogotory name for an idiot. AllanHainey (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a non-derogatory name for an idiot? DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Person with learning difficulties" is the politically correct term, you can decide for yourself if that is derogatory or not. --Tango (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe we're using idiot in a different way - when I call someone an idiot it's usually because they think that calling a fish "Colin" will make more people eat it (or some such nonsense, renaming the Post Office "Oblivia" or whatever it was, or buying a house next to a farm and then complaining that it's noisy at 5 in the morning when the farmer starts work), not because of any learning difficulty they may have. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would define "idiot" as "person with (very) low intelligence". Since "intelligence" is very poorly defined, "idiot" is too. --Tango (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consignia was what the post office choose.. Oblivia is either someone's bad experience with Parcel Force or the group the UK Govt. uses for burying bad news.. XD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We used to catch pollock off West Wales as kids, before most people had heard of it. Yes, we used to make pollock/bollock jokes, but that's because we were kids. Sainsbury's renaming it is absurd. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How odd about Sainsburys. :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Colin" nonsense was introduced without a citation by an IP editor who has made no other edits. I have removed it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did hear this information on the BBC World news this week, and Forbes.com has a reference to it here. I don't think the addition was vandalism though it may, indeed, be marketing nonsense. // BL \\ (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always knew it as coley, which is a redirect to pollock and sounds a bit like colin. My mother always fed this stuff to the cat. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coley is the coalfish (Pollachius virens), pollack is Pollachius pollachius. DuncanHill (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The re-naming may be nonsense, but it is valid nonsense - see this BBC News report. It was mentioned on several UK news channels at the time. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would rather eat a bollock than a colin. --Sean 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what Colin Pollock thinks of all this? DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's annoying having a fish named after me (my name is Colin), especially when it used to have a name that sounded like 'bollock'.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under-3 Mortality Rate

During ancient times and the Middle Ages, how many percent of babies born alive died before the age of 3 years?

Bowei Huang (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have found an interesting essay here that you might like. From own knowledge, I believe it would be quite high even until the 19th century, since among many families in Europe it was almost customary not to reveal the birth of an heir until the baby was over twelve months of age, since chances were pretty high that it wouldn't survive its first year. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the age at which babies were christened, i.e. welcomed into the community, varies considerably. You need to be more precise about where and when. Class and gender affected rates too, and still do in poor countries. See infant mortality for background. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

e-books (pdf format)

Could anybody suggest me a website where i can download heaps of e-books (.pdf format) easily for free?? Because I've been trying to download a couple of books (and some of them aren't that famous), and I've tried googling but all I came up with were sites that required registration and payment. And some of the sites don't seem to work because of geographical difficulties (I live in South Korea). Any type of suggestion or advice will be appreciated. thanks. Johnnyboi7 (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out List of digital library projects. 88.112.62.225 (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically this site [1] might be helpful to you. No payment necessary .Richard Avery (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link above (Gutenberg project) is surely amazing, however, the site do not offer pdf files.--Mr.K. (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Archive is a portal for a large number of online libraries as well as having its own collection of user uploaded books. Every book is available in pdf format and is copyright free. They have a very impressive collection of literature. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia view/edit/revert ratios

Is there anywhere to find out what the edit:view and revert:edit ratios are on wikipedia? Smartse (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might have better luck on the Help desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis has tons of information on this. Overall, the estimate is that 80% of edits are "normal" edits, 10% of all edits are reverted - and (of course) the remaining 10% of edits are the actual reversions themselves. However, I believe this is an underestimate because there are times when an editor will delete most of the words of a previous edit (and perhaps replace them) without using reversion tools. There are also times when the reversion is partial - or happens after lots of intervening edits - meaning that the reversion tools don't work. It's virtually impossible to know how often that happens - or even to define precisely what "reversion" is. If you write: "Machines that violate the laws of thermodynamics are not possible" - and I change that to "Perpetual motion machines are in widespread use in American Industry" and you change "n widespread use in American Industry" to "mpossible" - was that a revert? Logically/conceptually, it was - but textually - not even close. SteveBaker (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2009

Thanks for that. Why hasn't there been any data since then? Smartse (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because most of these statistics are a pain to collect and they simply aren't all that useful. For the reasons I explained, there is no clear, bright line between a reversion - and a removal or changing of meaning of the content of the words without replacing all of them. SteveBaker (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping away from home

How come some people can fall asleep anywhere and other people like me have falling/staying asleep unless we're in our own beds? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because everyone is different. Your question contains the answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people tend to go to bed more fatigued than others; those that go to bed when they're less tired will often do so as part of a routine, and being outside of familiar surroundings will disrupt that routine. Anxiety (conscious or subconscious) may also keep you awake. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have experienced that I have more or less developed the ability to sleep wherever and whenever, having travelled a lot and having slept in cars, lorries, on porches, gas stations and in scores of beds and rooms, trains, buses and so on. If the situation seems safe enough dozing off is no problem. The presence of a familiar person (friend) sleeping by one's side might increase the feeling of safety. On the other hand, I personally know people who are my age (or close to it) that for example would neither take a night train across the country nor allow themselves a short nap while taking a day train somewhere. We are all different, it's true. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can sleep lying down just about anywhere if I'm tired enough but I've never been able to fully doze off when seated (unless passing out drunk on buses and trains counts). I do sleep better in my own bed, however. The me-shaped indentation probably has something to do with it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that horses will sleep standing when in unsafe surroundings, but sleep laying down in safe surroundings. I don't know if this is true. My hunch is that peace of mind facilitates sleep, though under less than perfect circumstances, sleep is still possible. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found out my fair share about horses, and from what I know, it's normal for them to sleep standing up, safe conditions or not, and that they just need a few (2-3) hours of sleep each day. Random fact: I've driven a few horses from Belgium to Poland, giving a grand total of over 1000 km, and we've found out that the horses were calmest while we were driving, and were getting restless when we used to stop whenever we needed to (regulations require checking on horses often when you do that). --Ouro (blah blah) 17:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm like that too. When the car is in motion, I'm calm. When it stops, i get restless. 'Guess I'm a horse. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm hoarse I find it difficult to neigh. Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some people are not as used to sleeping away from home as others might be? ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two White Doves Flew to my balcony

I was standing outside on my balcony with my boyfriend when two white doves flew up to the ledge about 2 feet away from us and states there! What does this mean?71.129.120.246 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking into Eastern European folklore, I am not sure if it's doves or something else

but isn't 2 meant to be positive for the relationship? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, I'd say that they were probably waiting for you to feed them. The pigeons and gulls in my local town centre do that regularly. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Prague, it's illegal to feed pigeons, due to the damage they cause to historic buildings in the old town[2]. Strange but true...! — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have signs up in town here asking people not to feed the pigeons. I don't know if there's any specific local bylaw backing it up, though - people seem to do it anyway, regardless and I've never seen anyone getting in trouble. Feeding the gulls doesn't seem to be an issue, however (well, feed the pigeons and the gulls end up getting 90% of it anyway). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In St Ives you don't need to feed the gulls - they will steal the food from out of your very hands. DuncanHill (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means you and your boyfriend will get married and live happily ever after! (This was the answer you were really looking for, wasn't it?) Livewireo (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect so. What unromantic people Misc. ref deskers are! ;) --Tango (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think that's unromantic? I think it means if you continue your relationship you're going to end up poor and destitute and will have to beg random strange couples for food (like the doves) Nil Einne (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing the damage they do to buildings, as opposed to their symbolism, seems unromantic to me. --Tango (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More unromantic then suggesting the symbolism is they're going to have a very sad live together? Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Feed us" is probably close to the mark. Most wild doves are colors other than white. The likely source of the white doves (especially since there are a pair of them) is a dove release. There probably was a wedding nearby where a pair of domesticated white doves were released (symbolizing the purity of the bride's and groom's souls as they embark on their journey of marriage, or other such saccharine malarkey). They'll find their way back to their coop eventually, but may have stopped on your balcony to rest for a bit. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what the doves mean isn't particularly interesting. That you're asking this question, however, indicates that you're a very insightful person, and I just might have a great deal on some extremely romantic swampland in Florida for you! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling through a red light in the UK

I ride my bike to work most days, and I've been wondering if it's legal to run a red light when I wouldn't cross any lanes of traffic or greenlit pedestrian crossings in doing so. Mostly this would apply to left turns, but also lights on a straight road covering a smaller road merging from my right. I couldn't find it explained in the Highway Code. Anyone know where the rules are written down? — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not allowed to give legal advice, but I can tell you I've been told off by the police for turning left at a red light on a bicycle. However, there have recently been proposals to allow this [3].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highway code rule 69 is '[Cyclists] MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.' That seems fairly clear. Algebraist 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the default position would be that I have to obey all signals. Was just looking for an exception, in case one existed. Thanks! — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are junctions (one in Cambridge, where cycling is popular since it's so flat) with a left-turning cycle lane that simply doesn't have a red light on it where cars would - but this is a separate lane and has a = = = give way line on the road. Incomprehensible, 128.232.241.211 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get off and walk.86.197.44.151 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

In London, some cyclists do regularly ignore red traffic lights on pedpestrian crossings, apparently believing that pedestrians will either get out of their way, or they can manoeuver around them. As Algebraist says above, I have always understood this to be illegal. It is certainly very dangerous. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always understood it to be illegal too. Some cyclists claim it is safer - something to do with avoiding being run over by buses stopping next to you and then turning left into you, I think. --Tango (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing more guaranteed to make me "see red" (if you'll pardon the pun) than cyclists who think they don't have to obey the same laws that I do as a driver. I've lost count of the number of cyclists I've seen :-

Running red lights
Cycling on the pavement
Not using lights at night
Cycling the wrong way down one way streets
Failing to signal turns
Riding two abreast preventing vehicles from passing them safely.
Riding on the wrong side of the road against the oncoming traffic
Riding across pedestrian only crossings

Factor in the fact that you don't need a license, or to have passed a test, or any insurance cover to cycle on public roads and you can see why I tend to lose my temper with these idiots. Exxolon (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I buy the "very dangerous" thing. Sure there are examples of pedestrians being hurt by bikers, but it must be minuscule compared to how many bikers are hurt by cars. As I see it, bike's differ form cars when it comes to traffic laws because by ignoring them they are far more likely to only hurt themselves. So I don't really stress out when I see a biker run a red light when there's absolutely nothing coming from either way, just as I don't really stress out when I see someone jay walking under similar circumstances. What does annoy me, however, is when bikers ride on busy roads when one block over there is a road with a designated bike lane. They hold up everybody because (usually) they haven't bothered to investigate the city's bike plan. TastyCakes (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer specifically for the UK, but I have cycled extensively in the U.S. and in Germany. The rule in both places for both automobiles and bicycles is "right turn on red after stop, unless there is a sign". I would guess that if it is legal in the UK for cars to turn left on red after stopping, then it should be the same for cyclists. I am probably more scrupulous about this, as I have been teaching cycling to youth for 30 years. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case in the UK. All vehicles (but not pedestrians, horse riders, or the like) must not pass red lights. Algebraist 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been campaigns to introduce a law allowing turning left at a red light, though. I don't believe any of them have gotten particularly far. --Tango (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In NZ it's perfectly legal for cyclist to ride two abreast. Courteous behaviour is of course encouraged so riding two abreast on a busy road holding up traffic would not be a good idea on the other hand if it's an empty road and you just come up to them and they get out of the way it seems entirely reasonable to me. Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What eye colour am I?

I will post a pic later if necessary, but basically this is most similar to my eye colour out of the pics I could see there.

I live in northern Britain, Scotland to be precise. It says that this sort of eye colour, grey eyes with mixed yellow element is more common in Finland, the Baltic states and Russia, yet I'm relatively far away from that.

It's weird 'cause my eyes are almost exactly like those in that picture, I always think the colour in the middle looks too much like piss.--Voodoo Lounge (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say bluey grey. As far as the colour in the middle (apart from the black pupil) looking like piss goes I think you'e spending far too much time looking at your own eyes. AllanHainey (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your piss is that colour, you're not drinking enough water and/or you're drinking too much coffee. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My best friend has eyes like that. I tell her they're blue with a golden halo. :) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They look like gray eyes to me, the hazel ring is called central heterochromia. — jwillbur 04:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow,I just thought my eyes were weird ,thanks for this88.96.226.6 (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Railway Enforcement Officers APU Melbourne Victoria Australia

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: I keep hearing about a special unit in the Victoria Railway Enforcement area called the APU. I have found out that APU stands for Asset Protection Unit. However I have found out very little other than they target graffiti vandalism. Does anyone know anything more about this unit?Be4four (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Military Water Bottles

What kind of water bottles do frontline, combat US Marines use to carry their water? Do they still use metal canteens? Acceptable (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're plastic now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have been plastic for at least 30 years. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the desert soldiers have water bags built into their packs now, with a tube they can sip from on the front? Camel Bags or something? Gunrun (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hydration packs, and I would expect they use them for any long journeys on foot. --Tango (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are three types most often used. A 1 liter rigid green plastic canteen, a 2 liter folding plastic green canteen, often carried in the issued fur lined pouch like a purse, and the most modern "Camel Back" re-hydration backpack systems that come with a drinking straw. These are either carried inside a back pack, with the issued hydration back pack. USMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.197.126 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How common is it for people never to have been to an island?

I'm just wondering. I think it's obviously quite common in certain impoverished areas, but this would obviously exclude people on impoverished islands like those in the East Indies, West Indies and Great Britain.

I mean, the World Island... how many Eurofags have been on an island from that?--One Term's Longitude (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could have Eurofags from Sicily, or Eurofags from Great Britain, or Eurofags from that island that Denmark's capital is on, but what I'm asking is what the ratio of people who have been on a continent and people who have only been on islands is.--One Term's Longitude (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I know this guy on an anthropology forum who is Sicilian-American, and I agree with him on a lot of things, but he's obsessed with island mentology.--One Term's Longitude (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, couldn't *every single piece of land on earth* be considered to be part of an island? :D --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Thanks Kurt, a breath of sanity! 86.4.180.199 (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better ask if there is any body who has not been to an island differing from the one they were born on. There would be many in land locked countries in that situation. On islands like Nauru, it is too isolated and expensive for most inhabitants to travel anywhere else. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMPOVERISHED ISLANDS LIKE GREAT BRITAIN???????????????????????? Quick Martha, there's no coal left in the cellar - throw another kid on the fire................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.194.66 (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is poorly written. Indeed, he could have meant that the impoverished islands in Great Britain (some of the islands in Scotland, for example) and not Great Britain as a whole.--Mr.K. (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the term "Eurofag". We seem to have a page for the term, redirecting to Metrosexual, yet the latter includes no mention of the term. Is it an Americanism? --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is troll-language. Let it starve.--Saddhiyama (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurofag is the opposite of Americunt.

Eurofag is a man dressed in a supposed European style. It doesn't mean necessarily an European or a homosexual. --Mr.K. (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good meat sausages

Sausages are, from what I've heard, ade from all the meat that's crap and doesn't go anywhere else. Am I right? If so, how much would a sausage cost if it was made from the best meat from a pig, instead of the worst? And weren't stuffed full of filler and everything else that makes it cheaper. Basically, how expensive could you possibly make a sausage using just pig meat? Vimescarrot (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds if not thousands of varieties of sausage made from various parts of different animals. Not all use organ meats and most add herbs, spices and other non-meat ingredients. Also, "best meat" is a matter of opinion and not necessarily the same as most expensive. Some of the tastiest and least expensive cuts of meat are the offal. If you want to use the priciest pork cut in your sausage, you'd probably want organic pork tenderloin. This website lists it at US$20/lb. But you could really jack up the price by mixing your pork with aged, grass-fed filet mignon ($80/lb.), white truffles ($3000/lb.) or gold leaf ($14,000/lb.). —D. Monack ^talk 22:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gold leaf and truffle sausage...o_O Vimescarrot (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an over-generalization. Not all pork sausages are made from the ikky bits (although some undoubtedly are). But you can figure out the cost - look at how much a pound of decent pork costs (pick your cut) add that to the cost of a pound of the cheapest sausages you can find (which we would assume to be mostly the cost of manufacturing them) - and that's pretty much your answer. It also depends on the nature of the sausages - in the UK, it is traditional to add bread as a filler to sausage meat (presumably, originally, to save money - but actually, I'm a firm believer that you get a better product that way) - so you wouldn't need even a pound of a good cut of pork to make a pound of sausages. But then some sausages have herbs or beer or who-knows-what spices in them...then the cost of the final product will be whatever the gormet sausage market will bear. SteveBaker (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just get meat you think is not yucky and make your own sausage. It's easy. Google it.--Levalley (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of making my own sausage. I don't like sausages. Thanks, though. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

One of the purposes of a sausage (I am referring here to the traditional British sausage, not some foreign pretender) is to use up all the bits of the pig that may look slightly disconcerting in their non-minced-and-tubed form. Some of these bits (cheeks, snouts, ears) are actually very tasty and enjoyed by some in their own right - Bath chaps (inexplicably a redlink) for example. Steve's right about the bread - it improves the texture of the sausage. Remember - you can eat every part of a pig except the squeak! DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's scrapple. — Michael J 22:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And haslet, which is delicious. DuncanHill (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once I saw a TV program, and part of it listed the pig's body parts that can be used in hot-dogs (a type of sausage). These included the heart, esophagus, and stomach, and a different program mentioned ears and snouts. Also, I've heard that some skins used for the sausage come from sources such as sheep intestinal linings. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best sausage skins are made from intestines - when you buy expensive sausages this is one of the things that makes them expensive. DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cured meat products saltier in the US than elsewhere?

Is it true that cured meat products (e.g. ham, sausages) in the US are saltier than comparable ones from other parts of the world? If so, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.18.189 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about cured meat products specifically, but my anecdotal evidence having eaten in various parts of the world is that the US does use significantly more salt than other countries. They also use more sugar. I don't know why it started, but once you get used to food with lots of added salt and sugar it becomes normal and food without it tastes bland, so it is natural that is continues. --Tango (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more salt + sugar also means that you can add more water to meat to bulk up the weight and increase profits. Smartse (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A concern about weighted clothing

I dug out a pair of wrist/ankle weights out of the shed a couple of days ago. I believe they're five pounds each (I have no scale). I was thinking of leaving them on for extended periods of time, a la Rock Lee, but I've heard here and there that doing so can actually be bad for you, usually something having to do with ligaments. I also saw on Wikipedia's article that taking that weight off without training to do so can be harmful, overextending a tendon or tearing a muscle. Is that former danger real, and would that latter one apply to cross country running?--The Ninth Bright Shiner 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot give medical advice - it really isn't a good idea to get information which could affect your health from random people on the internet. I suggest speaking to someone with professional expertise in this area, such as a doctor or perhaps a personal trainer. Warofdreams talk 10:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have seen that coming. Well, thanks for the reminder, at least. :-) --The Ninth Bright Shiner 16:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]