Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 May 1

= May 1 =

Bad breath
I'm not trying to offend anyone with this question; apologies in advance if I do. I've noticed that a large percentage of African-Americans have bad breath. Why is this? 76.199.144.250 (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong question. You have to ask why a large percentage of human beings have bad breath, rather than singling out any particular group of people.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   00:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase. I notice that a lot of African-Americans have breath that is similar in odor, which I find distasteful. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.144.250 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you describe this putative odor? There are various flavors of bad breath: salami-ish, toilet-ish, cabbage-ish, etc. I've never noticed any correlation with race or ethnicity, however. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Different races can often smell differently, and I expect we smell funny to them also. If you have a black friend, ask him if your own breath smells bad. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As James Bond tells Kissy Suzuki in You Only Live Twice, "Why do Chinese girls taste different from all other girls?"... -- Jayron  32  01:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He actually doesn't tell Kissy Suzuki that; he tells the girl who helps him fake his death in the prologue of the movie.--WaltCip (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You may simply be mistaken (see confirmation bias, for example). If you aren't, then I would guess that the most likely explanation is that it is a cultural thing, rather than anything biological, most likely diet (second most likely is dental hygiene). --Tango (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have trouble with Bugs' assertion, too. Our Halitosis article discusses in in some detail, but traces it to diet and oral hygiene.  Perhaps Chinese girls taste different because of all that garlic and ginger.  PhGustaf (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be it. You are what you eat. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * People can share their love of garlic at the Gilroy Garlic Festival. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty well established that people from oriental countries think westerners smell odd. (http://www.chinaherald.net/2008/06/do-dutch-smell-more-than-shanghainese.html - for example). So I suppose this is not impossible...but it is horribly politically incorrect and insensitive to express this kind of idea.  There are times when curiosity is perhaps best left unsatisfied. SteveBaker (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Among African Americans (and black people generally), it's commonly said that white people smell like wet dogs. In Roots, an African states that white slavers smell like wet chickens. I'm not sure what causes this impression, but it is widespread enough to be the subject of jokes. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, it's probably got to do with diet and possibly with something race-connected. If orientals smell funny to us because they eat a lot of fish, just imagine how we who eat a lot of beef probably smell to them. Can't be helped. Except maybe by frequent showering. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the case of the "wet dog" thing, I always assumed it had something to do with hair texture. My intuition is that white-textured hair would tend to be less exposed to the air and therefore more likely to be damp and harbor bacteria. (Obviously, showering would disrupt that, but nineteenth-century slavers probably didn't shower regularly.) 129.174.184.114 (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt anyone in the 19th century showered regularly, except (possibly) the idle rich. I could point out that I've often noticed bad breath on Asian colleagues, but I don't say anything, as they might come back with, "You too!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Must've been a real treat to smell people who maybe showered once a month in the climates of South Carolina or Georgia. Rimush (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, there's is a correlation between poverty and poor dental hygiene, and between being African American and poor dental hygiene . Black people aren't innately prone to having bad breath, but social factors will mean that poor African Americans are more likely to have dental problems than the community average. FiggyBee (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Might some people report smells differently if they were blindfolded? See Illegal Odors | Psychology Today.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia depends on Reliable Sources. Famed anthropologist L. Ron Hubbard wrote of Chinese people "They smell of all the baths they didn't take." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that anyone who smells similar to you will be less noticeable, as you've become accustomed to the scent. Thus, people of other cultures, who are likely to eat different foods, have different bathing habits, etc., will be likely to smell bad to you. StuRat (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am reminded of a thread from the TV-movie Shackleton, which tells a true story of heroism in the Antarctic. Ernest Shackleton's expedition is stranded when their ship sinks, and the nearest place where another ship can be found is a whaling station 800 miles away. And they have no radio communication available.  So Shackleton takes a few of the men in a rowboat and they row the whole 800 miles in the open sea, then march across an island to reach their destination.  When they arrive and ask for help, Shackleton also apologizes: "I am afraid that we smell a little."  And he gets the answer: "This is a whaling station. We all smell a little."  --Anonymous, 04:57 UTC, May 2, 2010.
 * Are all of the ones you've noticed with bad breath living very close to each other? In my local town there are two pakistani families living next to each other and all of them have bad breath, yet other pakistanis I know don't.--92.251.185.162 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but did you know that it is caused by bacteria? Hence, if you live in the same environment you will pick up the same bacteria.  MacOfJesus (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, look for an article page on skin types, you may find that different skin types attract different proportion of bacteria types. Also look for an article page on bacteria.  MacOfJesus (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, there may be an article page on halitosis. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I too have noticed this. I worked in Dental as an assistant for many years. Some races are more susceptible to certain health conditions than others. It's a well known medical fact.

Development methodologies
There are an enormous number of software development methodologies in software engineering. To the best of my knowledge, the same is not true of any other engineering discipline - engineers in other disciplines seem to just get on with the job in hand (they go through the same basic steps as any software development methodology, but without the need to come up with lots of different formalised systems). Am I right about this difference existing and, if so, why does it exist? (I'm asking this on the Misc desk, rather than Computing, since I am keen to get answers from people with experience of various engineering disciplines.) Thanks. --Tango (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think part of the situation with software development is the luxury afforded by the fact that your end product lacks a physical nature; other than the labor to do the design and coding, and the server space to store and test it, a piece of software is essentially free. That means its a field that opens itself up to lots of experimentation in the methodology end.  Consider the problem with other engineering fields... If you screw up a piece of software, its a small problem that can be corrected via proper debugging.  If you screw up a bridge or a chemical plant or an airplane, well, you can't very well get 75% through it and decide "Maybe we should try something different".  Given the nature of those fields, you're best to stick with the "tried and true methods" since the cost of experimenting, and flubbing it, is MUCH greater.  -- Jayron  32  02:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would add to Jayron32's interesting answer that, because of its nature, a piece of software designed to perform process X might be doable in 1MB of hand-optimized assembly code, or in 100MB of C# code with lots of bolted-on assemblies and libraries that are 99% un-called code; and the customer may not care at all; the latter may well be cheaper for the developer to create, debug, and maintain, whereas, in a field like civil engineering, you wouldn't think Hoover Dam could be practical if it were 100 times the current size. But I'm a software person, too, so this observation is obvious.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that indicate that a formalized software development method isn't needed, since nobody cares if it's inefficient and any bugs can later be fixed ? My own experience with formal software project management is that it's less than useless, for example, making the developers fill out meaningless charts showing the percentage of each module that's completed.  Since each number is a wild-assed guess, the results are useless.  Then there's the attempt to analyze a developer's efficiency by "lines of code" they write per day.  Gak !  I suspect that these formal requirements arose out of management panic at not being able to see the interim progress in some coding, unlike, say, construction of a bridge.  This led them to put systems in place that give them the illusion of tracking progress. StuRat (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My 2c: Software development methodologies is just a set of project management techniques specialized to software development. As such, use of such management approaches is standard operating procedure in all engineering projects, and depending upon the focus variously referred to as operations management, systems engineering, industrial engineering etc. I think the confusion arises by conflating the "technical" aspects of engineering (such as, designing a control system for a chemical plant, or designing an algorithm for efficiently searching through a database), and the "management" aspects which are concerned with planning a suitable workflow. Software engineering (despite its name) is mainly concerned with the latter, though I realize that the demarcation between what I am calling the technical and management aspects is not always clear-cut. Abecedare (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The difficulty with verifying software is that of predicting all the responses that can arise when the software is exposed to real-world inputs rather than artificial test scenarios. I think there are comparable challenges in Pharmacology with the added complication that Destructive testing on the human subject is frowned on. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In software, after the "artificial test scenarios" are performed by the developer, then they typically run through a user test and/or beta test for the "real world" testing. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Software is typically a lot more complex than most other designed products, and all the difficulty is in getting the equivalent of a blueprint ready - "assembly" and "production" are trivial. Boeing says that a 747 has 6 million parts, "half of which are fasteners" . Very many of these parts are identical and exchangeable - bolting in one row of seats is very much like bolting in any other. By comparison, the Linux Kernel currently has 12 million lines of code, and essentially every one of them is unique, at least in its context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem with software development isn't the actual process of writing and debugging - it's the difficulty of accurately predicting the time it takes to get the work done. There are many reasons for this - one is that there is an incredible range of ability amongst programmers.  It is literally the case that there can be a difference in productivity of about 50:1 between the best programmer and the worst.  So you can't say "this is a three-man-year job".  Also, there is considerable uncertainty in the time it can take to find and fix a bug - if your QA people turn up 30 bugs - you don't know whether you can fix them in 30 hours, 30 days or 30 weeks.  These aren't problems for the actual programming team - but they cause total chaos for management who are trying to produce a particular product for a particular price and within a particular amount of time.  About the only approach that works is to gather large-scale statistics - but that's only viable with vast pieces of work and vast programming teams.  For a typical company with a dozen programmers working on a project, the variability between people and between 'hidden' task complexity makes any effort at a statistical approach pretty much worthless.


 * Almost all of the bewildering array of methodologies that I've been subject to over the years have made almost zero difference to the way the programmers actually work from day to day. They were all efforts to get a more reliable estimate of time & cost - I can't recall any that were an effort to reduce time and cost.


 * Other engineering disciplines have changed over the years - so many of them are using CAD systems of one kind or another that their processes are becoming more and more like software. You don't design a car, build the car and then test it anymore.  You design the car and do preliminary testing in the computer - and only when you think you have the right thing do you go out and actually build one.  Similarly with things like electronics.  It can cost a million dollars to manufacture a small batch of prototype integrated circuits - so you can't possibly risk a design/build/test cycle - you have to design and simulate the device so that you have a near 100% certainty that the resulting chip will work first time.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds about right. What managers often don't seemt o be able to appreciate is that people need a bit of quiet and a nice environment to get a bit of work done. I count every interruption as needing a quarter of an hour to get back into things again. About the difference in productivity, one place I was I suggested giving projects a super green priority if they were doing well in that one did not remove resources from them but let them finish what they were doing and then move on as a team to a problem area. But no that's too radical, they remove people from good teams penalizing them and stick them with other people who are making a mess. Dmcq (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the quarter-hour loss for each interruption is a huge under-estimate! If I'm deep "in the groove", I've wiggled my way into the depths of the problem and I'm keeping a complex set of concepts in short-term memory.  If you interrupt me, then short-term memory is erased and I have to start all over again.  That can waste an enormous amount of time.  I explain to interrupters that programming is like juggling chainsaws.  If someone interrupts you...yeah...it's like that.  We try to do business via email - you can read that on your own schedule so it's not a distraction.  I very often use email to talk to the guy who shares the office with me because I don't want to distract him.  SteveBaker (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One way around that problem is to make it seem that you're behind schedule and then, miraculously, manage to finish on time, so they all think you must be miracle workers. That's a little method I like to call the Scotty solution: "Ach, ya dunna expeck me ta rrrrite code to say 'Hello worrrrld' in but a single, wee man yearrrr, do ya now ?  That's agin all tha laws of physics, it tis." StuRat (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirk did eventually cotton on to the fact that Scotty was simply multiplying all his repair estimates by four. --Tango (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * SteveBaker is correct in saying being kept up to date and predictable is extremely important to a manager. Hiding things and adjusting dates is the way to really get everybody in a mess and annoyed. Dmcq (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I agree. Their jobs are tough enough as it is.  Don't make it any worse.  I try to treat managers as a resource who are there to do things for ME.  It's not uncommon for me to be more senior than my manager (and I certainly earn more than he does!) - if you can strike the right relationship with them and get them on your side - you can make better progress by helping them than by fighting them. SteveBaker (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How are you defining "senior" and "manager"? With the usual definitions, being more senior than your manager is a contradiction in terms... --Tango (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Seniority is generally about either experience or pay grade.  Management is about the process of organizing groups of people for the purpose of completing a task.  There's nothing about being a manager, even a good one, that is predicated on being older, more experienced, or a higher pay grade than those you manage.  In many settings, access to management positions is about term of service in a company; i.e. you just get promoted based on how long you've been around.  This model is still in widespread use, but it has its limitations (see Peter Principle), and it isn't inconceivable to organize your company such that managment is a job given to people who have an aptitude for it, regardless of seniority, while prople who are good at their jobs are compensated for their skills and seniority, and still get to keep doing what they are good at, rather than getting made managers just for being old.  -- Jayron  32  04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve mentioned being paid more than his manager as a separate thing, so clearly isn't using pay grade to determine seniority. He could mean time-in-service, but that's usually only used to distinguish between people at the same level, isn't it? --Tango (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Tango: It's fairly simple - the computer games industry is a hard-nosed, intensely rational place. We realise that the skill-set you need to be a manager is diametrically opposed to those you need to be a game programmer (which is what I do) - engineers typically make terrible managers.  So rather than promote engineers into management, we give them job titles like "lead engineer" or "technical lead" and we call our managers "directors" and "producers" (like in the movie business).


 * Managers don't get to make calls on technical matters (that's a job for the lead engineer) but they do get to drive staffing, deadlines, business matters, hiring and firing, budgets, long term goals, etc. The amount people get paid is more a matter of supply and demand - so if we can recruit good directors and producers for less money than good engineers, we do.  Between managers, engineers, designers, artists and quality assurance, we have five separate career tracks - each with their own career progression and seniority.  It's possible to change tracks in mid-career - but fairly uncommon (well, people don't spend long in QA because the pay and prestige is terrible - so often QA people switch tracks - but that's about the only kind of change you see).  Obviously there are true managers in the conventional sense, but they are higher up the chain - steering "big picture" stuff.


 * The idea of "promoting" your best and most senior engineers into management is a completely irrational one - you lose your best engineers and gain your worst managers! Why the heck would you want to do that?  If you need a manager, go and recruit one with lots of the right experience.  Hence we end up with some really senior engineers - often with younger and less well paid producers and directors on their team.  Our engineering career progression allows for the best engineers to earn a ton of money and to have a lot of technical responsibility - along with junior engineers to allow them to delegate work - but we don't stop them from doing hands-on engineering, they just do more of high level design and 'architecture' work and less of the detailed programming than the juniors.


 * We don't encourage a "boss" and "workers" mentality. As an engineer, your producers and directors are resources to help you to find work to do, obtain the funding, staff and time.  As an engineer, when your producer/director says "we have to stop working on X and do Y instead - for some business need or other" - you listen to them and do what they tell you because you recognise that even though they might be younger, less well paid and have less years in the business, they have the management skills that (as an engineer) you probably lack.  Conversely, if the lead programmer on a team says: "in order to get this task done, we need to take this technical approach which we estimate will consume this much people/time/budget - and I could really use the help of Joe from team-Z who knows this stuff", then the producer or director has to do what he/she can to get the people/budget/time lined up to do it.  It's a two-way street - a symmetrical relationship - not "bosses and workers". I regard my managers as resources to get work done that I can't do myself - no different than designers, artists, QA guys, etc.


 * Time-in-service is not an explicit driver of anything. It tends to be that time-in-service relates to experience which equates to skill - which sets seniority.  So older people tend to be at the higher pay grades - but we certainly have young people who rocket up in seniority just because they're good - and I suppose we have older people who never get bumped up...but those tend not to last long in the business.  But we definitely  don't have a system where "X years of experience means Y pay grade" - we have annual appraisals and people who are performing above their pay grade get promoted.  People who are performing below their pay grade get an abrupt wake-up call - and if they don't do better soon, they get the boot.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to highlight one company whose corporate structure doesn't use a heirarchical management model, see W. L. Gore and Associates. I have had several friends work for them at various times.  They don't work on traditional models of management, something more akin to the type of organization SteveBaker notes above.  -- Jayron  32  20:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to note that I'm not sure the initial premise is correct. There are multiple engineering management methodologies. Some classics are Fordism and Taylorism. More modern ones include lean manufacturing. There are no doubt a lot—there are books written about this kind of thing. I think saying that "engineers in other disciplines seem to just get on with the job in hand" is probably incorrect. There are many ways in which engineering workflows are planned out and managed at a very high level. I am not an expert on this stuff but I get the impression that very few engineering operations are just a "get on with the job in hand" affair. (It might look like that to the lowest-level engineer, but that's no surprise.) There is a rich literature on studying engineering and management practices. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Peace Corps Training their volunteers
I am writing a ten page paper on the United States Peace Corps training program. This is not an easy subject to find inside information on! I have two questions. One is who funds the Peace Corps (taxpayers?) and two is how are the service countries selected? Do these countries ask for our help? What is the process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.91.254 (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read the article Peace Corps? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

name of shooting device
i saw this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRLCh0Re_LA&feature=PlayList&p=2CA7AB94E58204FB&playnext_from=PL&index=0

what is the name of the shooting device  he is using? not the gun but the device that the gun is attached to that makes it have no recoil. its not called a bench rest because thats something else. i want to buy one and need to tell the gun store exactly what im talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom12350 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see the gun recoil, it is on a sliding mount. You could print a still from the video and show it to the storekeeper. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Or just describe it. They are professionals who own their own store.  They should be able to take your description and realize what you're talking about.  Dismas |(talk) 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Our article on benchrest shooting notes that most such systems are custom-made. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed - the comments added beneath that YouTube video say that the guy in the video made that bench rest himself. This may be one of those things that money can't buy! SteveBaker (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No article on sleeping positions?
I'm looking for an article with information benefits/warnings etc. for each sleeping position (front, back, side, etc.). Is there no article for this?? I seriously can't find it. 210.254.117.185 (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you Google "sleeping positions" you'll find plenty of (dubious) articles. I doubt it's a topic considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Most people unconsciously adjust their position while they sleep anyway. With the possible exception of very small babies, I doubt it matters what position you adopt for sleeping as long you are comfortable.--Shantavira|feed me 12:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I did google it, and it seems to be universal that sleeping on back/side is better than sleeping on your front. Obviously I don't want to trust random websites, which is why I turn to Wikipedia. Certainly there must be some scientific literature on this, no? Even if it just states that any benefits are inconclusive. 210.254.117.185 (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A Wikipedia article notes that a Neutral spine position is ideally maintained during Sleep. That is presumably the aim of Mattress designers, notably of the Orthopedic mattress (stub article) and mattresses of Memory foam. Lying in the same position for a long time can lead to Bed sores at the points of pressure. The linked article notes treatments such as turning the patient at least every two hours and using antidecubus mattresses and cushions that contain air chambers that are alternately pumped.


 * For infants, sleeping on the back has been recommended to reduce incidence of Sudden infant death syndrome based on theories that infants may, while face down, inhale their exhaled breath (high in carbon dioxide) or smother themselves on their bedding, or that babies sleep too soundly when placed on their stomachs to recover from breathing difficulties. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The advice for babies changes with dizzying speed - during the first six months of my son's life when we were paying attention to this stuff, the advice changed twice - and a year later, it went back to the first advice we'd gotten! For healthy adults and 'normal' sleeping patterns - I don't think it matters, we naturally change position as necessary as we sleep.  If a person has some kind of health issue, then the advice might be more specific to your condition - and might perhaps be critically important.  Our stock advice under those circumstances is: "If in doubt - ask a doctor". SteveBaker (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the old-timey advice on babies: "wrap them in swaddling clothes and hang them from a hook". That's one way to keep the rugrats from under foot. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See Orthopedic pillow. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * From a Wikipedia viewpoint, I'm surprised that we don't have an article on it since I would think that quite a bit of research had been done on it, whether it be babies or adults. Dismas |(talk) 19:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can rest easy now: Sleeping position. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The back-sleeping position is covered at supine position. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 01:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The BBC personality thing seems a bit silly, but it's sourced so what can I say? I wonder if there are any sources that claim any benefits of choosing supine/prone sleeping positions are superficial. 210.254.117.185 (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I once read an article in USA Today, I think, about what your sleeping position (prone, semi-fetal, etc.) tells you about your personality. It also gave advice as to the compatibility of people with certain sleeping positions. It might have been based on this scientific (?) article: -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheap fish products, less healthy than pricier?
Dear Wikipedians, I work as a fishmonger in Norway. Among our most popular products are fishcakes; meat from white fish held together by flour. The meat content is approximately 50-60% on our 'fine' cakes, and 75% on more roughly textured, higher quality fishcakes, typically haddock/cod/etc. Now, these first are perhaps 90 NOK/kg. However, the supermarkets can sell prefabricated products (mainly from argentina silus), and these can be around 25 NOK/kg. Their content is approx. 45% meat, and several additives to prolong duration, increase flavour, etc. I've been told that the meat used in these fishcakes come from the meat that is left on the Gr. Argentine's bones, after all meat has been cut away; they put them into big machines, hurl them around and collect the meat that comes off. Now, as unattractive as that sounds to any customer, is this meat less healthy? I am not about to be swayed in my opinion just by colourful talk, and would love it if someone knew if the meat is typically any less decent for human consumption. I would be very much obliged and thankful for any answers, in particular from those educated on the field in a more firsthand manner. Regards, 88.90.16.212 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't answer for fish, but for (mammal) meat, the articles mechanically separated meat and advanced meat recovery discuss similar processes. The issue, at least for the former, is the amount of non-muscle material that ended up in the food product, and specifically the enhanced the from BSE that this might bring. I'm not aware of any specific risk from eating piscine nervous or connective tissue. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue (at least for large animals) is that the mechanical separation process can break the bones and result in things other than meat getting into the mix. The specific problem with BSE was that spinal cord material could get into the meat, and that is what contained the infectious agent ('prions') for mad cow disease - which can (in extremely rare cases) cause Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease in humans.  There was a lot of fuss over this - but only 166 people in the UK died from it, more people were struck by lightning over the same period.


 * The situation is very different for fish. Firstly, the bones are much lighter and less likely to break during this process - secondly, diseases cross species relatively easily within more closely related species - but quite rarely between distant relations.  Cows and humans are a lot more closely related than fish and humans - so there is really a vastly lower chance of a disease spreading this way.  All in all, without some actual research, I think you're on shaky ground in making any kind of health claim here.


 * If I'm being honest - I'd have to say that there is a good chance that the meat from argentina silus could actually be more healthy than your haddock/cod-based meat. Fish are known to accumulate toxins like mercury - and fish that are longer lived and higher in the food-chain are much more prone that than small fish from lower in the food chain.  Of course, we'd have to wonder at the health risks from these 'additives' that the supermarket uses - and about how fresh they are compared to your version of the product.


 * On balance, I'd prefer your fishcakes in a heartbeat - but making specific health claims without careful research is probably inappropriate.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa! Are you saying that more than 166 people died from lightning strikes in the UK during that period? Do you have a source?--Shantavira|feed me 15:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a fair old number of sources on the web, saying how many people are struck by the UK annually. This one  says that around 5 people in the UK are killed annually by lightning, and that the chances of being struck (which is what Steve said, not killed) are one in three million (per annum).  So about 20 people are struck by lightning in the UK every year.  --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Does a woman cry when they commit adultery with somebody for the first time?
I don't know if people would read sexist tones into this question. I have first hand knowledge of one who cried bitterly, desperately seeking consolation. I have heard many others narrating their experience. Almost every time there are tears at the first rendezvous. Why? Has anybody theorized on that? --117.204.85.60 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmation bias. I didn't. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether people cry or don't cry is always a matter of their emotional state (obviously). if anyone (man or woman) sleeps with someone and feels ashamed, bitter, sad, or etc. they may cry.  if they feel good about it, they will have no inclination to cry whatsoever.  I had an affair with a woman once that was one of the most joyous relationships either of us ever had (her marriage was on the rocks - no pleasure there at all).  no one cried in that relationship until we broke up.


 * My view: if a woman cries after sex, it's a pretty damned good sign that you've taken advantage of her (caught her in a vulnerable moment and got her to do something she really wasn't ready to do). If it happens once you made a mistake, but if it happens twice you're a jerk, and the more it happens, the bigger the jerk you are.  don't be a jerk.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Worth noting that we can sometimes cry as just a result of having had an orgasm. "The question of the function or origin of emotional tears remains open", as it says at crying, and people cry at weddings and in moments of victory, etc. 86.21.204.137 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As the OP let me clarify that I was not talking about post-coitum sadness. The stories I heard also mention pre-sex tears. In my case, she started crying at first and I had to exert a lot to console her. I hadn't sex with her either. There were a lot of kisses and she left with a smile. I later asked her why she cried and her reply was that she felt I was being kind rather than love her. --117.204.80.19 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We're a Reference Desk. We really can't diagnose your specific, personal relationship issues. If you're asking whether all women do this, the answer is, "obviously not." If you're asking why this particular woman did this, there's no way we can really know much at this kind of distance. It's fairly obvious that sex in general, much less in an affair, is an emotionally powerful event for a lot of people. I'm not sure we're going to be able to get any more specific than that on here. Again, this is a Reference Desk. You wouldn't expect your local librarian to have much to say on this, would you? --Mr.98 (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Human beings are complex machines. The tears and sex alluded to have too many variables associated with them to allow for definitive explanation. Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually my original question didn't ask for opinion but wanted to know if this matter has been dealt with in writings. --117.204.93.205 (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article Crying is what we have. Your friend's answer is what you have. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, crying is obviously a means of conveying your need for consolation. Maybe, a woman requires something else than a man requires from a relationship. Or, maybe the sense of guilt prompts her to legitimise an adultery by putting herself in a desperate position where she needs to be cared. I don't know. Thanks to everybody who replied. I don't think there isn't anything more to come. Please close this thread.--117.204.92.73 (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Things to do in Kraków
What is there to do in Kraków for about two days? I'll be arriving in the centre of Krákow in the middle of July, in early afternoon, and leaving from the centre two days after that, in late evening.

When I was in Prague last year, I had a very nice time. I saw the Prague Castle, the Prague television tower, the Palac Akropolis, the Czech National Museum, the Prague Police Museum, and some island on the Vltava river right in the centre of Prague. I enjoyed every one of these very much, with the possible exception of the Prague Castle, which I felt was interesting as a historical monument, but beyond the fact that it was a historical monument and the architecture, there was little that held my personal interest.

But when I had a look at the Krákow tourist guide I bought, it seems to recommend almost exclusively churches. I couldn't be less interested in churches. In Prague, I only ever went to one, and even that only because it was in the Prague Castle I was already visiting. Other than churches, the only places even remotely interesting in Krákow I have found in the tourist guide are the cloth market (Sukiennice or something - I can't spell Polish words) and the National Museum. Is that all?

I've also thought of visiting Auschwitz, as I'm interested in World War II history, but I fear that the trip there will take an entire day, as it's located in another town entirely. Is there some sort of on-line timetable available about the practical details on how, where, and when to get from the centre of Kraków to Auschwitz and back? J I P | Talk 19:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Take a look at these rather detailed guides from WikiTravel on Krakow and Auschwitz. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 01:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You just asked this a couple of weeks ago... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not look on a site like Lonely Planet. There should be some recommendations on there, and content from the guidebooks and you can post on the forums too. It's a pretty good site. Chevymontecarlo . 09:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a native of Kraków, so I'd be glad to help, but perhaps you could first tell us what you are most interested in? If it's not churches and historical monuments, then what? Modern architecture? Art galleries? Technology museums? Local food and drinks? Music? Clubs and parties? Nature? Hiking, climbing, etc.?
 * For WWII history, there's the Kraków Ghetto in Podgórze (not the same as Kazimierz on the opposite side of the Vistula) with Tadeusz Pankiewicz's pharmacy, Oskar Schindler's enamelware factory, and the Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp. There's also a small Home Army Museum, but it's not the big hit that the Warsaw Uprising Museum is. The Polish Aviation Museum should be interesting for you though. And for the aftermath of WWII in Kraków, you may want to visit Nowa Huta.
 * You can search for train and bus connections here and here. Just remember that Auschwitz is called Oświęcim in Polish. — Kpalion(talk) 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Things I would be interested in: Museums - national museums, and museums about exotic topics, like the Prague Police Museum. Art galleries. Buildings with interesting architecture (like the television tower and the Dancing House in Prague) - I guess this would mostly include modern architecture. Large outdoor parks (the Englischer Garten in Munich is one of my favourites). Restaurants serving local food. Pubs. I won't be staying long enough to have time to go to clubs or parties, and I'll probably be tired enough from the rail trips to be able to go on hiking or climbing trips. Does this help? J I P  | Talk 15:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, it's not easy to answer your question because churches and historical monuments are really Kraków's best. It's like recommending Yellowstone to someone who can't be bothered with all those geysers, grizzlies and petrified trees. While Kraków has a lot of beatiful medieval and renaissance architecture, it doesn't have much modern architecture – certainly nothing comparable to Prague's Dancing House or TV tower. That said, I hope you find something to your taste there.
 * The most recommendable museum – the Czartoryski Museum – is unfortunately closed for renovation. But you might want to visit some of the art collections at the Wawel Castle – especially the State Rooms, the center of Poland's political power at the height of her might and glory. There's much contemporary art at the National Museum. For more exotic museums, you can try the Aviation Museum I already mentioned, Museum of Municipal Engineering (mostly old buses and trams), Insurance Museum, Stained Glass Museum, Ethnographic Museum, Pharmacy Museum, and Museum of the History of Photography. And then there's of course the Wieliczka Salt Mine, certainly woth visiting, but you'd need to travel a little outside Kraków. The Planty is a nice park that goes around the Old Town; in fact, it was created in place of old city walls and moats, and a small fragment of medieval fortifications that have been preserved – the Florian Gate and the Barbican – are a nice bonus. There's also the Błonia commons west of the National Museum – unique for being a huge stretch of meadow right in the city center.
 * There's a wide range of places serving local food, from street stands selling obwarzanki (Old Town) and zapiekanki (Kazimierz) to "milk bars" (cheap "fast food" joints dating back to Communist times, but a great way to sample real hearty local food like that which people eat at home) to expensive elegant restaurants like Wierzynek, Hawełka and Pod Aniołami. More restuarants at Cracow Life. Events scheduled for mid-July in Kraków include a street theater festival (8-11 July), commemorations the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Grunwald (15 July), a gala of pyrotechnical art (17-18 July), and the Jazz Night (18/19 July). Any more questions, please let me know. — Kpalion(talk) 19:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies. Based on them, I have found some interesting places, mostly museums and World War II history sites, very near the centre of Kraków. I will have to mark them up on a map of Kraków so I can plan what I can go visit when. Most of them fit inside an area of about ten square kilometres, which is very well within the limits of where I can walk, so I will only have to make sure to have a good enough street map to prevent me from getting lost. I don't think I will be bothering to travel outside Kraków. I had a look at each three of the webpages of the "elegant restaurants" provided above. Their prices are certainly within my budget. The prices of the main courses are over twice what I'm prepared to pay for a normal working day lunch, but this is going to be a holiday, and good dining is part of it. It's expected it's going to cost more than a normal working day lunch. J I P  | Talk 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is usually a choral/music festaval on about this time. The Cathedral in the centre of the square.  If you are into religion, then the Convent of Mercy, where Saint Faustina was and the Divine Mercy.
 * MacOfJesus (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One correction: you're probably talking about Saint Mary's Basilica, which is not a cathedral. The only cathedral in Kraków is the Wawel Cathedral. — Kpalion(talk) 09:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was, pardon, My Polish is not great! MacOfJesus (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I still stand by my recommendation of Wieliczka Salt Mine. You really are unlikely to see anything like it anywhere else in the world. Well, much less likely then war museums, architecture and medieval town squares. Vespine (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A good resturant: "Pod ikime", that is how it is pronounced! Means: "Under the eye".  Other good ones too, but expensive!  MacOfJesus (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way: there is excellent transport. Trams, buses, taxis, all reasonable. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just checked here; there's a bus line 304 which leaves every 15 minutes from the city center and takes half an hour to get to the salt mine. — Kpalion(talk) 12:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Kiyoshi Tanimoto
What was his address and how do you write his name in kanji? --75.33.219.230 (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * His name was 谷本清 in Kanji. The Japanese Wikipedia article about him is here. You're asking for his address? All I can tell you is that he was born in Sakaide City in Kagawa Prefecture. The article says he was pastor of Nagarekawa Church in Naka Ward of Hiroshima City until 1982. The Japanese Wikipedia article on this church is here. Do you need the address of the church? This navi page says it's 広島県広島市　中区上幟町 ８−３３ --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the address in regular letters? --75.33.219.230 (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 8-33 Kaminobori Cho, Naka Ku, Hiroshima Shi, Hiroshima Ken. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  23:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)