Miscellaneous desk
< April 4	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 6 >

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 5

Oil startup economics

If a startup petroleum company wishes to become an integrated American energy corporation through rapid expansion, it will be involved in all oil processes. This includes upstream (exploration and production at the field), midstream (transportation of oil to refinery), and downstream (refining, marketing, and distribution). With the aspirations of the company described above, would it have a higher chance for vertical integration if it started in upstream or downstream? I reviewed Chevron's annual shareholders' report; the upstream created much more profit than downstream, but required hell of more money.--LastLived 01:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about that industry, but it seems to me that if everything you say is true, the upstream segment sounds risky whereas the downstream segment sounds predictable. If the startup commences its business in the riskier segment, then it sounds like there's a higher chance the startup will not survive to year 2 (or 3, or 4), which terminates any chance of success. Starting in the less risky but less profitable segment might mean the company has a higher chance of being able to expand to all segments, as it accumulates the capital needed in order to expand the business. On the other hand, if peak oil is around the corner, this startup might run out of time! Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Comet Tuttle mentions above, the Upstream industry is much more unpredictable. A oil or natural gas well on land in the USA (where my experience is) costs between $100K (very shallow, cheap well) and $1 Million+. Offshore wells might cost $1Million per day just to drill and can easily reach 100's of Millions or Billions to bring online. That means that the zone you are trying to produce must produce enough oil or gas to be profitable. In a certain number of wells (maybe 10-20%) you find nothing at all. So, you now have a very expensive hole in the ground. Then in another certain number of wells (I'd think 10-20%, but those numbers may be off) you find oil or gas, but not enough to make the well profitable. Sometimes those wells are plugged and abandoned, sometimes the operator produces very slowly and waits until global prices make the well profitable (which costs money to do so, and the well may never be profitable). So a profitable well, in addition to paying for itself, must pay for other wells which are "dry holes" and interest and overhead, etc.

A company that wants to stay in business, will therefore, only drill wells in areas that look like they will produce enough money to offset their expected failure or "dry hole" rate. So, a string of good wells will make a company very wealthy, very quickly as they are not having to pay for failures. Additionally, since global prices are very volatile, if you design your drilling plan to be profitable at $40/barrel and prices hit $180/barrel, your company can expand easily. On the other hand, if you have a string of bad luck, or if you design your drilling plan to be profitable at $80/barrel and oil prices crash to $40/barrel, then the company quickly goes out of business. The volatility of the market can also cause problems as a well may have a useful life of over 20 years. If you can pay off all your expenses quickly then the well remains a money-maker regardless of global oil/gas prices. But if it takes a long time to pay off the well, then it can cause a cash flow problem or even never become profitable.

In contrast to the upstream market, the downstream market requires a huge initial outlay (refinery, trucks, pipelines, etc) but is not as affected by volatility. The price a refiner pays for crude oil can be mostly passed on to consumers. But as long as refinery capacity exceeds or equals consumer demand, the amount of profit it pretty limited. Since consumers will often choose gasoline solely on price, if you raise your at pump prices to increase profit, consumers will often go to another gas station. So you can only increase profits by increasing efficiency at the refinery or in the distribution network or by using advertising to convince consumers that your gasoline is worth the additional cost (which also costs money). If global oil supply decreases or if global demand decreases, you're stuck with a very large, very expensive, very specialized and perhaps polluted site that may be operating below peak capacity and costing you money.

It comes down to whether you feel lucky and want to take a risk on hitting a pay zone, or try slow and steady growth in the hope that you can eventually get enough capital together to expand. Tobyc75 (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your premise is very common: I don't think any startup has become a significant "integrated oil company" in many years (and even the majors contract far more of their work than they did a few decades ago, which is why their labour forces have shrunk so much). I'd say the usual story is for little (upstream) oil companies to find oil in an area and then either sell the whole or part of the asset to one of the majors or produce and sell the oil to a refinery, which may or may not be owned by one of the majors. If they are in an isolated area with no existing infrastructure, they may have to build their own refinery, but it is very unlikely that they'd do this alone, they would probably partner with other, bigger oil companies that have money and expertise to throw at it (joint ventures are extremely common in the industry, both upstream and downstream). I'd say it is usually much more common for startups to operate upstream than downstream: downstream operations benefit from economies of scale and require huge amounts of capital, while upstream companies can "hit it big" with relatively small amounts of capital (and large amounts of luck). As was said above, the economics of upstream operations are much less predictable than those of downstream ones, and you're much more likely to get successful startups from operations that can occasionally pay off 100 to 1 than from operations that can more reliably pay of at 1.3 to 1, or whatever. Of course you also get a lot more failed upstream startups than you do downstream ones. TastyCakes (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things you should keep in mind: Oil exploration companies contract with drilling companies to service their exploration wells. After that, I'm unsure, but I believe the explorer takes over and brings his own rigs on. The contracted drilling servicer could be a significant price determination factor.--LastLived 23:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the second part of that's accurate. Most oil companies (even big ones) do not ever "drill their own holes": whether they are exploration or development wells, they are typically drilled, logged and completed by contracting companies. TastyCakes (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Wikipedians and their weird tactics

I ask a question on the reference desk now and then, and a few weeks ago someone called Kainaw told me that I ought to sign my posts by typing four "~" marks at the end, and that this was very important because of the tactics of some people who are trying to bring down or sabotage Wikipedia. He claimed that one of the things they were doing to bring down Wikipedia was to post things without the four "~"s at the end. (Btw, Kainaw, if you're reading this, thanks for giving me credit for being a noob and not a jerk.) Anyway, I understand that some people aren't big fans of Wikipedia, and it's true that it has its limitations - but who are these people who have such an active loathing for Wikipedia that they need to waste some of the precious finite minutes of their lives trying to orchestrate its downfall? Why don't they find some encyclopedia they actually like, or create their own (a la Andrew Schafly)? And what sort of damage do they think they're going to do with improperly signed posts anyway? I've actually been wondering about this for weeks and I thought I might as well go ahead and ask. Please explain! Thanks from your non-enemy -----> 71.104.119.240 (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? You may be interested to read Wikipedia:The motivation of a vandal.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 05:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting - thank you. I'm always interested to know what motivates people to do weird things. 71.104.119.240 (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only a tiny select number of people actually hate wikipedia, and naturally I feel quite sorry for them. Kainaw was no doubt fibbing a bit, it's just easier to read when people sign their posts, though people aren't intentionally not signing out of malice, just laziness. I suspect the attention-seeking and humour types are the most common reasons for vandalism.--92.251.227.235 (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what Kainaw said, but they may have meant that vandals often don't bother finding out how things are generally done on Wikipedia, such as signing their posts with four tildes. That doesn't mean that they can cause any harm by not doing signing, but it might sometimes mean that other editors are more suspicious of people who don't sign, and want to closely check their contributions to see if they might be a vandal. Warofdreams talk 11:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that signing posts only applies to talk pages, like this one, and not to articles. Vandals will leave out signatures, since that makes it harder to determine their identity and take actions against them (reverting their posts or blocking them). StuRat (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, the anti-wikipedians tend to be users that were indef'd because they were trying to use wikipedia for some particular agenda, such as promoting a personal website or attacking a public figure and/or other editors. There are also some oddballs. I recall one user who absolutely, never-ever would sign his posts, despite being asked to many times. He finally said he would start signing, if certain conditions were met. He was under the impression that it was a personal issue somehow. Not surprisingly, his conditions for signing were ignored, as was the user itself from that point on. Some indef'd users (and sorry, but I don't have a list) have been known to start websites for the purpose of trying to "out" those who "wronged" them. There is no accounting for the lengths to which the obsessive types will go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't users allowed to remain anonymous if they so choose ? I think that's why signatures aren't automatic and the signbot even makes a provision for those who don't want to sign. True, some who refuse to sign are vandals, but many others just want us to respect their privacy. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their user ID or IP address, whichever they are using, will show in the talk page history. So privacy doesn't enter into it. It's mostly a matter of habit (or lack thereof) and consideration for other editors. For example, sometimes I forget. But not very often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, if you really want privacy, you should create an account because without one, anyone can find out your IP address - and that can make it much easier for someone to figure out who you really are. For example, we now know that the person asking this question has an account with Verizon and lives in the USA. If you use a named account, the only information that's available is what you choose to divulge. Not signing doesn't make things more private because your Username or IP address still appears in the 'history' tab. SteveBaker (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Who's more anonymous, a sinebot signed IP address, or me with my pseudonym that bears no relevance to my real name (except that I use it elsewhere with my real name attached)? I can see that ensuring that your post will not be signed is disruptive, but where's the problem with letting sinebot sign for you? --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not signing just makes it harder to find. But it's just a little tedious, not a show-stopper. As you say, once you're a registered user, no one can tell who or where you are unless you make it known. You can even make up a fake identity, and who would know? I, for example, spend most of my time in Lower Slobbovia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Sinebot add signatures to posts anyway? I've noticed it doing that to mine when I (almost invariably) forget the tildes. --Roydisco (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but only under certain circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not active on all talk pages, and there's also a "!nosine!" keyword you can put in the edit summary, to disable this feature. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it tends to be active for IP addresses, as they are always assumed to be newbies; and for any editor (redlink or not) that has less than a certain minimum number of edits. There have been a number of discussions/arguments around the signatures issue. One user (an admin, yet) was threatened with being indef'd unless he started using a proper signature (it's a long story) and the obvious solution seemed to be to have the background processes simply post a signature so you wouldn't have to remember to do it. But there were various arguments as to why that's not practical. So the debate continues to flair up from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if I was to respond to a question and then edit my reply to fix a broken link or something, it would be irritating to have an extra signature there. I rarely forget to sign, but I seem to screw up links fairly frequently. So, the current situation is better for me - and therefore better for all of you as well! Matt Deres (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are ways to program around that scenario. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Sinebot will not sign for users with more than 800 edits. And it'll autosign for those high edit users if they have the appropriate template on their user or user talk page. It won't sign if a user opts out, it won't sign if a page opts out, it won't sign things that don't look like they should be signed, eg if they're signed or if they're an edit to an existing post. It will complain to a user once if it has to sign their posts three times in a day. See Sinebot's user page for more info. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad to see I could start a lively discussion! And yes, I do have a Verizon account and live in the United States. Ooooh, that's kind of cool. And creepy. But mostly cool. 71.104.119.240 (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RDs are not for holding discussions; but for Qs and As only. See guidelines.--79.76.138.45 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a drive-by busybody. Besides which, this page is already archived. See guidelines. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

egypt, language, history!

What is the symbol for revenge in Egyptian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melenas (talk • contribs) 05:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean hieroglyphics? Chevymontecarlo. 08:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If so, most hieroglyphics represent a sound, not a concept, so there would be several required to make a word. StuRat (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of websites that will translate an English word into hieroglyphics, so a Google search should be a good first step. However, with the word you're wanting to translate, it's possible there could be a specific character or group of characters for that word, instead of just translating the individual letters/sounds (as these websites appear to do). --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are lots of Egyptian hieroglyphs for English words that start with 'R' but revenge is not among them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be totally out of it, but I don't think the Original Questioner wanted an English word in hieroglyphs, they wanted the Egyptian word. Woogee (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language, History

What is the symbol or translation for revenge in aramaic?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melenas (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this online Amharaic dictionary revenge noun is ቂም /qim/, verb infinitive is መብቀል /mäbqäl/. There are several other forms at the link given. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's Amharic, not Aramaic. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to shuffle things off, but this is definitely a Language Desk question and you'll probably get better results there. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History, Language!

What is the original Language of the Bible "old Testament" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.52.205 (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Hebrew (OT) (and Koine_Greek (NT), though Jesus spoke Aramaic). Dbfirs 07:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The books of the Christian Old Testament were originally written mainly in Biblical Hebrew, but some passages were originally written in Biblical Aramaic. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible Old Testament was written before there were any christians. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean there is no such thing as the OT qua subset of the Christian canon? —Tamfang (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where to get small rubber bungs for ink cartridge refills in UK?

I only have one rubber bung, used when refilling ink catridges, and I would like to get a few more. It measures about two or three millimetres in diameter and about five mm in length as far as I recall, plus a disc-shaped lip to stop it falling in. I have several refilling kits but none of them has this bung, essential in making a waterproof seal. Does anyone know where I could get a few more of them in the UK please? 84.13.53.211 (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an illustration, I'm looking for four or five of something like the first or second things listed here: http://www.grommets.co.uk/documents/products/plugs_mushroom270110.pdf Preferably with thin flat (not domed) tops and something I could buy on the High Street. Thanks 89.240.59.32 (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My father used to work in the auto-parts industry. They used small rubber/plastic bungs (I found it rather amusing as a kid that they looked like minature top hats) in various colour-coded sizes to keep oils and other liquids in some components during and after manufacture. The same bungs were used during garage maintenance work. I assume these things were bought from an external supplier. Anyway, while not exactly "high-street", maybe you could seek out a supplier by asking at a local garage or car dealership. Maybe they will let you have a suitable bung, or you can ask them where they come from. Astronaut (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Running speed records and performance-enhancing substances

Are there any running speed records that would change if the anti-doping regulations were retroactively repealed? Neon Merlin 14:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, do you mean if there were no anti-doping laws ever? Well I suppose you'd have to give Ben Johnson (sprinter)'s 9.79 back. But it obviously wouldn't be current today, and are you really asking what records would be standing today if there had never been any anti-doping laws? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ibruprofen labelling.

(This might sound like a medical question - but bear with me - it's not).

I had a headache today and went to the company kitchen to grab some Ibruprofen. I wasn't sure whether this was the kind where you can take one or whether it's two for an adult - and I needed to know how long before I should go before taking another one if my headache comes back.

So I read everything on the label - and it's not mentioned anywhere! There are long lists of side-effects and warnings about not taking them with alcohol and ingredient lists and all sorts of other junk - but no dosage information! I look on the box that the bottle came from - same thing - there is no paper insert of any kind. I was on the point of looking it up on Wikipedia when a co-worker who'd gotten enmeshed in my rant^H^H^H^H train of thought pointed out that at the very bottom of the label - in teeny-tiny letters it says "More information beneath label"...and lo and behold, when I peeled off the label, underneath it - printed directly onto the plastic - was the dosage information!

WTF? Why on earth do they hide this information? Surely it should be in the biggest lettering in the most prominent place?

SteveBaker (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They got you to read all the warnings and disclaimers... from a liability standpoint, that may be the desired outcome. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, dosage information is pretty prominent almost universally. I can't find any reason for it being otherwise in the US, but this article suggests it is very common. Coneslayer's suggestion may be correct. Or, perhaps there are legal requirements to include all the side-effects and warnings in a prominent place, but no such requirement for dosages, so they hide the dosages away in order to say space. --Tango (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray for an overly litigious society! Making life difficult for people with common sense since whenever. Anyway, I always skim for the heading "Directions", which is where dosage information is usually kept. I wonder if this leads to unintended consequences—people can't find dosage information so they just guess, thereby doing something probably less safe than they otherwise would have done. It would be interesting to know! --Mr.98 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a parallel problem on US prescriptions. There, they do list the dosage, but don't say what the med is actually for. (This could be particularly problematic if it's an anti-senility med.) StuRat (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately hiding the dosage information sounds pretty stupid to me. I wonder how long will it be before some grieving relative sues a drug manufacturer for not putting the dosage information in a prominent place and therefore accidentally causing the "victim" to die of an overdose? Astronaut (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we can assume ill intent. Steve probably has a little bitty bottle, so there's not enough room to put on everything they're required by law on the front of it. Whether they should put the dosing or the warning first is debatable, but they have to do one or the other, and neither is perfect. On my itty bitty bottle of Vaseline, there is one of those peel back labels with 5 pages. Their contents, in order:

1. Ingredients: White petroleum USP, (100%) and a bar-code

2. Uses: temporarily protects minor cuts, scrapes, burns. Temporarily protects and helps relieve chapped or cracked ... etc. etc.

3. Warnings: When using this product, do not get into eyes. Etc.

4. Keep out of Reach of small children. If consumed by children, call poison control. Etc.

5. Questions? Call 1-800-457-xxxx. Contains no colors, fragrances or irritants. Etc.

With the exception of the barcode and phone number, they're probably required by law to have everything in there (even though it's essentially inert), and there isn't even dosing instructions! Buddy431 (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - it wasn't a small bottle - it was a giant industrial-sized 500 gel-cap plastic bottle. I don't think there was that much shortage of space. But even if there were - it's bizarre that the most important info is hidden. SteveBaker (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one to take any sort of medication when I get a headache. I have a high tolerance and such, so I'm not that accustomed to pill bottles. A month or two ago, I actually broke down and took some Advil or some such thing. I read every word of that label looking for actual dosage info. Under dosage, all it said was "Do not take more than directed" but nowhere on the bottle did it actually say how many were "directed". So, I took two and figured that the actual dosage was likely on the box that the bottle had come in and which was now in a landfill somewhere. Dismas|^(talk) 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dosage is always on there. It's under "Directions". It is a tiny, tiny section, and does not distinguish itself the way it used to (when there used to be a table or something). It just says: "Directions, adults and children over 12 take two pills every four hours as needed -- children under 12, consult a doctor" or something like that. It's very easy to miss. The argument that it has been done purposefully is in part that it has changed really dramatically in the last few years. I can still remember when dosage information used to be pretty easy to find. Now it is all impossible to find, but in a standardized, predictable way. It is definitely the result of some regulation change. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is this regulation change? Do you have a reference? SteveBaker (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which one started it, but the FDA has regulation changes fairly regularly. Here's one from 2009, for example, which explains in painful legalese what must be on a label and in what typeface and in what order. It even has little, impossible-to-read samples that show how "Directions" is forced onto a second page! Wonderful. The idea is probably that active ingredients and warnings are more important than dosage (you'd want to know if it conflicted with existing medication, which is a big health problem), but I agree that in most cases people probably just skim the warnings at best. It's like the research that's been done on how people deal with warning boxes on computers—if your operating system (read: recent versions of Windows) is constantly giving you alerts and possible warnings and so forth, people are inclined to just stop reading them altogether. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More OR here: I've rustled up four other drug cases (Claritin, Cepacol, Sudafed, and Tylenol), which along with the Vaseline make five. They all appear to have the same order of stuff on the label:

Active Ingredient
Uses
Warnings
Directions (which includes dosing)
Other Information (except the Vaseline)
Inactive Ingredients (except the Vaseline: there is none of course)
Questions or comments, except the Cepacol, which has "Questions" in a different font at the bottom.

All of them use the same typeface and formatting, and all but the Tylenol have each category in a box. I agree with Mr. 98: there's definitely some sort of regulation standardizing these. As to why yours had a little peel off label and not a big one, I suppose maybe they use the same label for all their sizes, but that's just a guess. Buddy431 (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They all have dosage information in the U.S. Chapstick isn't a "drug" as far as the FDA is concerned, but ibuprofen is, and it most definitely has dosage information listed on the packaging. Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canned bean slime

Why do some cans of beans have lots of slime in them? The amount of slime tends to vary somewhat from can to can and from brand to brand. My guess has always been that lots of slime and gunk means the beans are really old, and I tend to throw them out. But the expiration date on the cans is really no help in determining whether a can will have lots of slime or not. What is this slime? Where does it come from? And is lots of slime in the can a cause for concern? -- noosph e re 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. By "slime", do you mean the sauce ? I always toss out any cans that are bulging, and, if I open them up and they are separated (clear liquid and clumps of color), that's also a bad sign. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the slime might be what the liquid (or maybe "sauce") turns in to somehow. Some cans of beans have relatively thin liquid in them, in others the liquid is very congealed and slimy. It's just slime. I don't know how to better describe it. Maybe I should take a picture. -- noosph e re 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably talking about cans of cooked beans. Having cooked dried beans myself, I can tell you that after beans are cooked and allowed to sit and cool, the fluid that they have been cooked in will thicken. Sometimes a gelatin-like substance will form. This is perfectly natural and not a sign that anything is wrong. This material is probably one or more non-starch polysaccharides that are released from the beans by cooking. These polysaccharides are natural thickening agents and may give the bean juice a "slimy" quality. If the can is not bulging and if it doesn't have a bad odor when you open it, it's probably safe, though of course we cannot offer any guarantee. Marco polo (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting my mind at ease. It looks pretty nasty, but at least I know now that it's not dangerous. -- noosph e re 17:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that canned beans are cooked in the can after it's sealed up (sterilizing the contents in the process, for food safety). As a result, all that "stuff" Marco Polo describes is going to stay in the can, and since there's not a lot of liquid in there, it's likely to be more concentrated than if you cooked the beans in a big pot of water on the stove. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of beans? DuncanHill (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black beans. Though I'm pretty sure I've seen the slime in other canned beans (perhaps kidney beans). Here are some pics: [1] [2] [3] -- noosph e re 17:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of black beans? DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just plain black beans. Imported from Italy. -- noosph e re 17:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main ingredients in the sauce would be water and fat (especially if it's "pork and beans"), with some tomato and spices in there, too. Could the white slime be fat ? You can probably tell best by feeling it. If it doesn't rinse off, without soap, it's fat. Does the ingredients list include fat or meat ? StuRat (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no added fat or meat in these cans. They're cans of just black beans. From the label on the can: "Ingredients: Black Beans, Water, Salt. Antioxidant: Ascorbic Acid." The slime does usually rinse off with just water. -- noosph e re 17:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to go with Marco Polo's answer above, then. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine once had a can of kidney beans that had botulism in it. Fortunately, before she got around to serving it to her family, the pressure built up inside the can and caused it to explode malodorous slime all over the cupboard. So if it seems as though the actual food product is liquefying (slimifying?), or it smells wrong, get rid of it! Also, don't open any cans if the lid is swollen. 71.104.119.240 (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mexican revolution

the numerically dominant racist group in mexico is the? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sritanshu.negi1 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the largest racial group ? If so, what does this have to do with the Mexican Revolution ? StuRat (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racial categories are social constructs that have little if any scientific basis. It is obvious that this is true because different cultures have different sets of racial or quasi-racial categories such that two people who belong to a single racial category in one culture are considered members of two different categories in another culture. Mexico is a perfect example. According to Mexican racial categories, the majority of Mexico's population is mestizo. This is not a racial category that is recognized by the United States Census or other U.S. agencies. Marco polo (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the Mexican revolution was a social movement, so it makes a lot of sense to talk about social classifications. There was a census done in Mexico in both 1910 and 1921, so presumably the information is available. The census cite is here: I don't speak Spanish, so I can't wade through it. This interesting source gives some information: evidently the 1921 census catagorized people into four groups:

“Indígena pura” (of pure indigenous heritage)
“Indígena mezclada con blanca” (of mixed indigenous and white background)
“Blanca” (of White or Spanish heritage)
“Extranjeros sin distinción de razas” (Foreigners without racial distinction).

and also gives some statistics about the groups. Buddy431 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I bet you can find the data [4], if someone who reads Spanish wants to search. Buddy431 (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though the US Census racial categories is hardly a good standard for that. Even they acknowledge that it is not "scientific" or even "anthropological," and recently even Census officials have made a point of the fact that it has nothing for Arab-Americans, continues to use the out-dated term "Negro", and so on.

Anyway, Demographics of Mexico might be the more useful article here, in particular the "Ethnography" section. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd's Medal-- 1st World War

Mr William Flynn, we believe, won this medal for helping to rescue sailors from a sinking ship during the war. Can you help with confirming + getting any detail ? Many thanks for trying-- Peter Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.0.201.226 (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lloyd's of London is a large insurance ~~company~~market that specializes in ships - so they are presumably the ones who gave out the medal. That ~~company~~market still exists - http://www.lloyds.com/ so, I presume you could contact them to get more details. There is a little more detail about a recent recipient of the medal here. It says that the medal is made of silver and has been awarded (albeit rarely) since 1917 - so if this one was awarded in the First world war - it would probably be one of the first! Also, since Lloyds don't insure military vessels, it would suggest that Mr Flynn saved these sailors from a commercial vessel that was insured by Lloyds. Their web page says: "The Silver Medal shows on one side Neptune and his chariot reflecting Lloyd's links with the sea, and on the reverse shows "For Services To Lloyd's". The recipient's name is engraved around the rim.". The two contacts at the bottom of that page (Louise Shield and Bart Nash) might be a good people to contact because they are likely to be PR types who are at least somewhat familiar with the medal. I bet they could find a complete citation for you. SteveBaker (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - more: We have an article Lloyd's War Medal for Bravery at Sea. This is initially confusing because Flynn isn't mentioned there - but it seems that this award wasn't made until 1940. However, this page says that there are/were at least three different medals given out by Lloyds: Lloyd's Medal for Saving Life at Sea and Lloyd's Medal for Meritorious Services and Lloyd's War Medal for Bravery at Sea. Sadly we only have an article on the last of these. So it seems that the medal you need to know about is Lloyd's Medal for Saving Life at Sea - which was first awarded in 1836 and was renamed Lloyd's Medal for Saving Life in 1971 - those come in Gold, Silver and Bronze versions. I suspect that the information you need is contained in this book (you can click on the "Find in a library" link there to get a list of places where this book may be found. SteveBaker (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this has a bunch of places you could try also. SteveBaker (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find a copy in a library someplace, you can buy a copy of "Lloyd's Medals, 1836-1989 by Jim Gawler" here for $25. SteveBaker (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one point: Lloyd's is not a company, it's just a market where companies do their business. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I fixed my earlier replies. SteveBaker (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put the record straight; Lloyd's of London IS a market, but insurance companies can't do business there directly. The underwriting of insurance is done by Lloyd's Syndicates, made up of individual investors called "Names" who are members of Lloyd's and have unlimited liability. Insurance companies can buy reinsurance from the Syndicates but only through a Lloyd's Broker. The markets in London that companies can participate in directly are: the Institute of London Underwriters for marine and aviation business and the London Underwriting Centre for international and reinsurance. Lloyd's Register of Shipping records and grades merchant ships to make them insurable. I'll stop now before you all fall asleep. Alansplodge (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to [5] it was not the gold Lloyd's Medal for Saving Life which has only been awarded twice. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - but there are also silver and bronze versions of that medal that (presumably) have been awarded more frequently. SteveBaker (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Fail

Does anyone know who came up with the phrase "epic fail"? Truthsort (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with most Internet memes the origin is hard to pinpoint. Epic fail attempts to sort out the origin, but in my opinion does not do a very good job at doing so -- the article's best answer is "a random Urban Dictionary user". I read some time ago that it was invented on 4chan's /b/ (random) board, where some users took the badly translated phrase "You fail it!" from the video game Blazing Star, shortened it to "You fail" and eventually "FAIL", then combined it with "Epic", which was another /b/ meme. I don't think there were dates provided for either action, unfortunately. Given /b/ has a long track record or originating memes (lolcats, Rickrolling, etc.), I'm inclined to believe this anecdote, so my best answer is "some random /b/tards." Not a lot of help, for sure. Xenon54 / talk / 21:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Guardian reader , eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.186.107 (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. How do you get "Guardian reader" from any of the above? --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Guardian recently had an article on it: [6] --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

It's funny to see this question here - I've been working on a post on "epic fail" for my blog, so it's interesting to see someone else interested in the same topic. From the research that I've done, it seems that "epic fail" was originally a Dungeons and Dragons term. There's a pretty good explanation here: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/878966 I can't be absolutely certain, of course, but this is the likeliest explanation I've found, and it seems that any other uses can be traced to D&D or to the popularity of the phrase itself. The phrase "epic fail" supposedly appears in the original 1974 D&D handbook, although I have no way of verifying this. See Comment #15 here: http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/wtf-does-epic-fail-mean/ Hope this helps! - Truth Unleashed 71.104.119.240 (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]