Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 October 28

= October 28 =

How can an "unincorporated association" function?
The National Football League describes itself as an "unincorporated association." Yet as we know, the NFL does lots of things: It negotiates television contracts, licenses products, negotiates contracts with the players' labor union, fines players and coaches, runs a website and a TV network, etc.

Some of this seems to be done through separate entities such as NFL Properties Inc. and NFL Enterprises LLC. Yet I'm still surprised the NFL itself can function if it has no official corporate existence. How is this possible? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this helps, but this document is supposedly "about how the NFL is governed in our Constitution and Bylaws". Pfly (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several ways in which the NFL is a sui generis organization. First, there are several pieces of legislation which give the NFL specifically unique rights.  It has a federal antitrust exemption, which allows it to operate its market as a "trust" or monopoly would, but it is specifically allowed to exist as a monopoly because of how it is organized.  Its TV broadcast rights are governed by the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which among other things, allows the NFL to negotiate exclusive broadcasting rights with networks.  This exemption to antitrust laws also places restrictions on the NFL, for example it cannot compete directly with high school and college football, and is practically prohibited from scheduling games on Friday and Saturday night (the legislation only says that it cannot televise any game which is being played with 75 miles of a college or high school game.  Except for some very remote places, nearly all of the U.S. is within 75 miles of a college or high school game on fridays and saturdays.)  The NFL is specifically organized as a non-profit organization, which allows it to avoid these antitrust complications.  It is a 501(c) organization, which is why all of the profit-making arms of the league are run as independent ventures.  The league itself operates basically as an organizing body.  It maintains the rules, organizes the playing schedule for the teams, organizes the player draft, sets ownership rules.  The teams themselves are independent for-profit companies; they are called franchises specifically because they are run like a fast-food franchise.  See Professional sports league organization for a basic overview of how it works in the NFL.  Another article which is enlightening on the way the NFL is organized is the National Football League Players Association article; see the section 1987 strike and decertification for the effect of the antitrust exemption on labor relations, and the article and section United_States_Football_League is also enlightening on the special status the NFL has in the American sports business climate.  -- Jayron  32  03:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * More simply, "unincorporated" specifically means "not incorporated". It doesn't mean "not a company".  Many companies are not incorporated; in the US, the 3 most popular types under the usual classification are LLCs, sole proprietorships, and partnerships.  To extend Jayron32's list of the unusual characteristics of the NFL, in the Supreme Court opinion American Needle v. NFL, the NFL itself claimed it was a "single entity", in antitrust jargon, and was hence incapable of colluding to restrain trade in the field of licensed headwear; the Supreme Court unanimously disagreed and ruled that, functionally, the separate NFL teams compete with each other for fans, players, etc., and that they were therefore to be considered separate entities for this purpose, and could be challenged under the Sherman Act (the NFL's limited protection against the Sherman Act doesn't extend to this matter).  Though the opinion noted that the NFL's profits from licensed merchandise are usually shared equally among all the teams.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comet Tuttle's second statement is true in the US, but not everywhere. In the UK 'not incorporated' does mean 'not a company'. I realise that the question relates to the US, but I am concerned with the apparent generality of the statement. --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Chicken catch-a-Tory
There is no page regarding the history, origin, meaning of; nor the recipe for, the food "chicken catch-a-tory".

There is a Wiki comment suggesting "chicken catch-a-tory" is politically in-correct (below is the quote):


 * "You just need to balance your food recommendations to insult all POVs equally, might I suggest a nice chicken catch-a-Tory ? StuRat 01:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)"

The name of the dish (food) 'Chicken catch-a-Tory' is colorful, and must have a rich history in its imagery: a Tory being chased and caught by a chicken.

Can anyone find a word origin (who created the phrase, the recipe, and why) beyond those found on the Tory, Talk:Tory, and the Tory disambiguation page?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.17.97.170 (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, cacciatore? Haus Talk 01:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's this very dubious Revolutionary War story. Might I suggest fava beans as a side dish? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I heard that story decades ago, told by a radio host, and it was presumed to be a joke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, obviously Chicken cacciatore. The "catch-a-Tory" just being a phonetic play on words. --jjron (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Or a mondegreen. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   23:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a mnemonic for a word Cacciatore whose pronunciation is not apparent to English speakers from its spelling in Italian. The mnemonic is only an approximation to the pronunciation catchy-ah-t- o -ry. Since it crosses languages it is more correctly called a Soramimi than a Mondegreen.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not catchy-ah-t-o-ry, Cuddlyable, just catch-ah-t-o-ry. The i softens the cc from /k/ to /ch/ but is not pronounced itself.  Just as Giovanni is /jo-vah-nee/, not /jee-o-vah-nee/.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dream point of view
I'm just starting Julian Jaynes' book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (that really needs its own article). The first section talks about various definitions of what consciousness is and what it isn't and he talks for a bit about dreams. While it's a relatively minor point in his argument, he states fairly baldly that people never experience dreams from their own point of view, but rather always view themselves externally, almost like an audience watching an actor. Speaking for myself, while I can recall dreams that were like that, many of them seem to be from my own perspective - call it half and half, maybe. My question basically boils down to: "Is it true that most people experience dreams from an audience's perspective?" and, to follow up, "Has anyone theorized as to why that might be?" I've done some Googling, but terms like "perspective" and "point of view" give me hits regarding someone or something's "perspectives about dreams" or similar. Matt Deres (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you quote exactly what he says on that point? Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  03:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also what was the sample size of people he asked about what perspective they dream in. for something like that I imagine a rather large group would be needed to get an accurate result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I ever saw a dream as an observer, always first person perspective. Or maybe I'm just weird. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the general point is a bit of a truism in certain circles: The moment you become aware of a dream you actually aware of observing a dream, and as such you can't help but see yourself in the dream in a 3rd person context. This leads back to the concept of consciousness as the observer: consciousness is the one thing that you cannot ever observe from an external perspective, and everything that you can observe from an external perspective is not consciousness.  Buddhist and Hindu monks talk about that a lot.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If TomorrowTime is weird (on which point I shall remain diplomatically neutral) then my similar OR suggests I am too. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my experience is the same as Matt Deres's. I'm sometimes a participant and sometimes a spectator, often changing back and forth within the same narrative. I think I'm a participant more often. I can't remember ever watching myself; if I'm a spectator, then I'm not in the dream. Even if I'm a participant, I'm often not myself and there's no surrogate for myself in the dream. What I find most mysterious about dreams, though, is why anybody would care what Jaynes thinks about them. I don't care what Fritjof Capra has to say about physics. -- BenRG (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll add my data-point here as a first-person dreamer, too. It's possible Jaynes' point is more "subtle," though, which is why I wondered what exactly he said about it (I had a copy of that book myself, once, and read most of it, too, but I haven't seen it in a while and don't remember the part about dreams.  As I recall, though, his more general argument and conclusion about the "origin of consciousness" were not overwhelmingly persuasive...).  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never had a dream (that I remember) of viewing myself from some sort of 3rd person view. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

28 oz can = ?
I'm reading some recipes from US sites. One refers to a '28 oz can' of tomatoes. What is this in metric? Google gives me about 800 g or ml depending on whether it treats it as fluid ounces or no, which seems awfully large to me. A standard tin here would be maybe half that - I've only seen tins that large for soup, or in places like Costco. Thanks! 131.111.255.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC).
 * There's one here. You can just about make out 793g on the label. It would be considered a catering-sized can in the UK (I'm guessing you're writing from Blighty). You might try an "ethnic" shop - my local Turkish supermarket sells tomatoes and tomato paste in huge containers at knock-down prices. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why you would need such a large tin. Either adjust the recipe or use two tins. Of course you need to be sure of the size first. And if the price is cheaper in a Turkish shop or whatever so it might still be worth it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, two tins would be a very sensible work-around. What was I thinking? Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not an uncommon size in regular markets in the US... it costs about $2. For various Italian dishes I have often purchased said cans for my wife. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ounce. 1 oz. Therefore 28 oz ≈ 28 x 28 ≈ 784 g (to be more precise: 28 oz). A Fluid ounce is about 28 ml so would give about the same conversion. So yes, Google is correct, which is not to say the recipe itself isn't incorrect. But then you also don't say what the recipe is for or for how many people - 800g may not be that big at all, especially considering the water volume in that can. --jjron (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Or what you do with the tomatoes. Usually when we get a can of them we end up squishing them down, draining them, cooking them into a sauce, or something. It ends up being a lot less tomato that you'd expect from the outside of the can. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I would probably use two 400g tins for 4 servings (which is what this is), but I'm very much a 'cook by numbers' cook so wanted a sanity check. Thanks, all! 131.111.255.9 (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just by the way, I have here a 28-ounce can of diced tomatoes. The label actually reads "796 mL, 28 fl oz / oz liq", from which you can tell (1) that it means fluid ounces and (2) that it was bought in Canada. The can is almost exactly 10 cm in diameter and just under 12 cm high including the flanges, or maybe 11 cm from the top lid to the bottom, so the real volume inside would be about 860 ml, but presumably the measurement given is for the contents. --Anonymous, 00:57 UTC, October 29, 2010.

College application
I took precalculus early and over the past two years I've accumulated (through outside study) a strong grasp of calculus. Next year will be my junior year, and I will be expected to enter calculus and in my senior year Math Topics (a course not connected with Calculus), the highest level offered at my high school. However the math department chair at my school (after several interviews and assessments) has told me that with what I know now I could easily test out of calculus and enter Topics junior year, then take a college level math (at no expense to myself) at my high school's associated college (which I do not plan to attend for "real" college). My problem is, when applying to colleges they will be asking for my mathematics history and expecting calculus either for admission or for placement. On the standard form you just list courses you have taken, so there's not really room to explain why I haven't taken calculus if I test out. On one hand, I waste a year in a class that's below my level, on the other, colleges might put me in an inferior course or don't take me at all because I don't "officially" have calculus. I'm discussing this with school counselors and stuff but I'd like an outside view: how will it be viewed by colleges if I test out of calculus, and how can I convey to them that I did so? In other words, what should I do? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are actually in the United States as your IP address suggests, then most colleges (from what I've heard) testing out of a class will earn you the equivalent credit for having taken that class (for testing out of a college class). As for testing out of a high school class, when I filled out an application to the University of Oklahoma a few weeks ago, they gave a spot where you could put your classes you have taken along with any notes (an open text box where you could add notes about a class in parenthesis) and when I filled out an application to the University of Kansas today, they just asked for the classes, but again put a spot where you could make any notes about the classes as necessary. It really depends on what college you intend to apply for, in the end, but most will either leave a spot for you to make notes about the classes you've taken or will go based off of your transcript, if not a combination of both. (I'll leave the questions about what to do and what the colleges would think of it to other editors, as I'm on the wrong side of college to know about such things very well). Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't ever take a class as a mere formality, life is too short. If the picture you're giving is accurate, you probably intend to apply to a good college, and at a good college the people who evaluate you should see that you're well ahead of the game.  I will add one point though:  college-level calculus is usually a lot more intense than high school calculus.  I was in a position a bit like yours, going to a local college my senior year because I had exhausted the resources of my high school -- I took calculus there even though I had already had it in high school, and was glad of it, because the class went at a much faster pace and covered a lot more material. Looie496 (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be spaces to indicate college credits that you intend to transfer. Having college math credits already would be a good indication on an application. There are also AP tests which some colleges give credit for. Earning college credit in high school allows more room to add interesting classes into your schedule. Rmhermen (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Topographic map series codes and layout.
The Norwegian topographic maps 1:50.000 have a series code. Other map series have other codes. So I'm not talking about the codes for the individual maps here, but for the series as a whole. Also, maps such as this one have the same layout as modern Norwegian topographic maps (like the grid zone designation and where it says "ISKANDER, USSR") and the International Map of the World. Is this just a US-military thing that happened to be adopted by the Norwegians (since their maps were started by the US military, I think) or is there an international standard for map series numbering and layout? --Gerrit CUTEDH 23:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When I went to Norway in the 1970s, I was surprised that the 1:50,000 maps were marked "surveyed by the US Army" or words to that effect. It was a long time ago though. Alansplodge (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the US Army went around after WWII and offered its surveying services to practically every country in the world, saying, "let us all get a universal mapping system here and we'll give you all of the maps of your own country you'd want." Specifically they used UTM. The Soviets did something similar as well, I think, with their own format. The underlying political goal is of course obvious: it was realized by the Cold War powers that you can't make good war plans without good, standardized maps. But they offered to do this basically everywhere. Anyway, I don't know if that helps you at all, but it would explain why most countries of the world have very similar formatted maps that credit the US Army on them. I'm not sure it is a true standard in the sense that everyone agreed that UTM is the only way to go, but I do think there was a "de facto standard" since the US was willing to pay for all of this for them. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Philip Pendleton Barbour
i was reading about phlip pendleton barbour. in the bio it was mentioned that both homes of the barbours (governor james barbour and philip pendleton barbour)were destroyed by fire. from my research governor james barbour home was the home that burned not philip pendleton barbour. can more info be given regarding that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.255.5 (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I made the change. You could have too. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We have an article on his house: Frascati (Somerset, Virginia). Rmhermen (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)