Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 July 12

= July 12 =

Eating frequency
In the western world, we are often taught that it is customary / important to eat three meals a day (breakfast, lunch, and dinner), sometimes with the addition of traditional tea times / coffee breaks.

I am wondering what is the history of this practice? When did it become "normal" to eat three meals a day? Are there parts of the world where food is widely available but it is typical to eat some other number of meals (e.g. 2 meals or 4 meals per day)? People sometimes say that eating three meals on a routine is "better" (e.g. healthier) than simply eating when hungry. Assuming that an individual consumed the same number of calories and nutritional content via either eating pattern, is there some other objective metric by which one method of eating might be judged as superior? Dragons flight (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There seem to be 2 contradictory opinions:


 * A) Eat on a regular schedule.


 * B) Don't eat when you are not hungry.


 * I go with the 2nd opinion, which means I skip meals if I'm not hungry. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the origins of the 3 standard meals it must have begun after the Roman era, because they had only one main meal, cena. The other meals was reduced to simple "snacking" at no fixed hours. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In Victorian times there was another pattern - breakfast: lunch: high tea: supper. High tea was served around 4 pm, while supper was around 8 pm. I had heard that it was invented to fill the gap between lunch at noon and supper, to cater for "delicate ladies' constitutions"! Unfortunately the copy of Mrs Beeton that I have is a modern revision, otherwise I could check this. The other thing I have heard about English mealtimes is that they were actually brought over by Antoine Careme, the French chef who cooked for King George IV. I'm a bit busy today so may not be able to check this. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Found this which might help. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've spent a lot of time studying my own digestive tract (I had a history of ulcers) and stuff concerning eating habits and I know this much. First of all, eating more smaller meals a day (four to six) is much healthier than having two or three larger meals (this is not only a recommendation for ulcer sufferers but it's generally healthier as well). The reason for this is that lighter, smaller meals require less effort by the digestive system - but then again eating more often during the day makes you take more breaks from work, which might be considered damaging to corporate productivity (or other nonsense). Also, eating only when you're hungry is a bad choice for more or less the same reasons. If you keep a healthy regimen of eating more or less around the same time every day, do not skip a meal, but have something much lighter (i. e. instead of a full main course just a smaller salad or something). The reason for this is that your stomach (in simple terms) gets used to a fairly stable level of acidity and its own size, and only eating when you're hungry (and in those cases probably eating a lot in one sitting) just disturbs that equilibrium - because first the stomach will shrink somewhat, and then will need to expand to take in the meal. I know this isn't really what you asked about, but wanted to volunteer related information. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 10:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More nonsense about corporate productivity is expressed in the jibe "Why don't blondes get lunch breaks?". Answer: Because it takes too long to retrain them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a school of thought that disagrees with this notion of small meals being better by the way. See Paleolithic diet for instance. Expressing no opinion about any of that, just saying your basic conclusion that its "a healthy regimen" is not at all a consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Shadowjams that describing one particular pattern of behaviour as "healthier" can be problematic: what suits one person may not suit another. But I jumped in here mainly to add to TammyMoet's suggestion re tea: there is the Victorian distinction between afternoon tea, more of a snack to tide the ladies over till dinner, and high tea, for the hungry working class. And then there is just "tea", the normal word in much of the North of England for the evening meal. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The standard in the Shire is "six meals a day if you can get them." μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Manufacturers' coupons
Here in the U.S., manufacturers' coupons almost invaribly say "cash redemption value 1/20 of 1 cent (occasionally 1/100 of 1 cent) at the bottom. I've always wondered but never thought to ask:
 * 1.) Why is this cash value given?
 * 2.) If someone collected a slew of them and wished to redeem them, how would they do it?
 * 3.) When the coupon expires, does this "cash value" also expire? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to number 1, see "Do Penguins Have Knees?: An Imponderables Book" By David Feldman. In some US states, if no cash value was stated, a customer could demand the stated value of the coupon, so much off the purchase price of the product. The "cash value" value, in contrast,  was set so low that the postage would be more than the redemption value. In response to 2, within the last year I read about someone who collected say a dollar's worth of such coupons and presented them for redemption at a store of the company. The local people were perplexed, but the company's public relations department eventually produced a check for a dollar which was presented to the ardent coupon collector, along with a commemorative plaque they crafted especially for the occasion, and a photo was taken for newspaper publication. He must have just caught them on a good day. A quizzical look is the most I would expect if I marched into a commercial establishment with a bag full of such coupons. Edison (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If my memory serves me, it was a Pizza Hut that they walked into with all those coupons. I remember reading about it maybe 6 months ago.  Dismas |(talk) 03:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds right. Edison (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You read about it right here (not to mention June 13, 2007 and July 22, 2008. (I haven't found the June 2009 instance yet.)--Shantavira|feed me 08:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You missed the follow up Nil Einne (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Cecil Adams gives a slightly different response than Edison does : [The Straight Dope : Why do Grocery Store Coupons Say Cash Value 1/20 of a Cent
 * Not sure which is the whole store, or if they're both part of the reason. APL (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Coupon brokers" have always been a thorn in the side of manufacturers who seek to stimulate consumer interest in their products with cents off coupons. I saw a 1915 reference that said merchants would send in huge amounts of coupons they had supposedly redeemed, when a quick investigation showed that the merchant never had that much of the product. When coupons were printed in newspapers, unscrupulous newspaper employees or newsstand employees would clip the coupons out of unsold papers and a shady merchant would send them in for redemption. Similarly shady folks at a printing plant could run off thousands of extra coupons for fraudulent purposes. Edison (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

King George Washinton
I recal having read that George Washington was encouraged to become the new "monarch" of the U.S. at one point in the early history of the U.S. Is this true? I did not see anything about this in his article (though, it is very long; I could've missed it). If not, then OK...but, if so, it begs the question, had he become the "King of the United States", following the lines of succession, who would now be the current King (or Queen)? Quinn &#10048; BEAUTIFUL DAY 03:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I believe the fear was that a strong President would become king (I think a political cartoon by his detractors portrayed him as "King George"). This is why the first attempt at a US government, the Articles of Confederation, had no President (other than the President of Congress). StuRat (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * George Washington had no children, which makes an interesting primogeniture problem. He did have a LOT of nephews, however, follow the family tree of George's father Augustine Washington to see where it leads.  I checked some of the closest relatives, including George's younger brother Samuel Washington, but most of these lines quickly lead to redlinks.  By today, Augustine could have hundreds of direct decendents, many of whom aren't particularly famous or notable.  -- Jayron  32  04:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Seaching a bit more, it appears from the George Washington article that his legal heir was his nephew Bushrod Washington, who was not the "top" nephew via primogenture, but what the hey. Maybe he'd have been King Bushrod I.  However, our article has zero information on Bushrod's children, if he had any.  -- Jayron  32  04:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the University of Nevada, Reno, Bushrod (having no children) shared his property among numerous nephews and grand-nephews, the oldest of whom appears to be John Augustine Washington (not the one with an article on Wikipedia). John Augustine's heir was his wife, and then it becomes hazy. Warofdreams talk 09:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just find it hard to believe that in this day and age, where every (many, not "all") Southern women are involved in the "daughters of the confederates" that no on took the time to follow GW's lineage. We've got articles on Cthulu's lineage, for God's sake! Quinn &#10048; BEAUTIFUL DAY  05:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Did George Washington Turn Down An Offer To Be A King? The Story Behind the Myth". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Name that sound!
What are the pairs/sets of tones heard before the man speaks in the sound clip? Variants of the pairs unique to each fire station zone (rural fire districts have one set of three pairs and city fire zones have one pair) are activated right before the dispatcher dispatches fire trucks or ambulances to an emergency in that zone, or when a severe thunderstorm warning or tornado watch or warning is issued for the county they play the tones for all of the fire districts/zones in the county one right after another and then announce the watch/warning. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a Selective calling tone. APL (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Could easily be a Lyre bird as well...

Wheels rotation
Can someone please explain why, on film or TV, the wheels of a cart, car etc. appear to be revolving in the opposite direction to the direction of travel?85.211.153.35 (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the Wagon-wheel effect, most commonly thought of as the inability of the observer to 'keep up' with a very fast rotation. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify what is meant by "observer", it is initially the film or video camera that breaks the continuous "analog" rotation of the wheel into discrete frames at a sampling rate of typically 24 or 25 frames/sec. The persistence of human vision usually succeeds in reconstructing the continuous motion from the frames. The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem explains that correct reconstruction of spatial frequencies is only possible up to (theoretically) half the sampling (frame) frequency. At higher spatial frequencies, such as the spokes of a fast rotating wagon wheel, reconstruction is impossible and what the viewer perceives is a blur or an incorrect alias frequency. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The effect is also sometimes visible in "real life" if the wheel is lit by a light that's flashing. (Even if it's flashing faster than humans can percieve.)
 * It's sometimes noticeable on the highway at night, depending on the type of streetlights used. APL (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Searching for "mamones"
Several months ago I read an article about the Italian phenomenon of declining population due largely to so many men not marrying because of being "emotionally tied" to their mothers. The term used to name these men was something like "mamones" which I believe means "mama boys" (?) Do you have anything on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.61 (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's . PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. In Central America, "mamón" is a derogatory term for a male homosexual, deriving from the verb "mamar", to suck.  Reading 209's first two sentences was consonant with that usage!  The population is declining because of all the male homosexuals!  Alarm!  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

America Alone. Duh? μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Duelling in California
In Duel it states that the law prohibiting duelling (pistols at dawn, that kind of thing) in California was repealed in 1994.

OK - Why? Who decided that duelling ought to be legal in California? 216.136.51.242 (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently this was part of an effort to get unneeded, archaic laws off the books. According to some op-ed columnist, the repealed law required the winner of the duel to compensate the surviving spouse of the loser.|+duelling+repeal&hl=en Dueling is certainly still illegal in California, just under other laws (assault, battery, attempted murder, murder, weapons charges, etc.)--no need to have laws specific to dueling. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that if the duel doesn't end in death (and when they were commonplace, only 15% did) then it presumably requires the loser/victim to press charges against the winner...which rarely happened. Hence why duelling was made illegal in the first place.  But only a small fraction of US states ever banned duelling anyway.  Thanks for the references!    216.136.51.242 (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Consent isn't always a defence. I don't know about California, but in England grievous bodily harm can be consensual and still illegal. --Tango (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A victim does not need to press charges if there is evidence of a crime. The state brings criminal cases, not the victim. A duel is basically the definition of attempted murder, as far as I know, so I can't imagine that any dueling laws are doing work that couldn't be done by attempted murder laws. If a (still-living) participant would not willingly participate in the prosecution his duel opponent, he could theoretically be subpoenaed to testify, or the state could proceed on the basis of physical evidence or other eyewitness testimony alone. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The victim couldn't be compelled to testify because doing so would incriminate himself as well. --134.10.113.106 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Duels with swords or rapiers would generally be fought to 'first blood' rather than to the death...although that was always a possibility. So "attempted murder" would be a tough charge to make stick. 70.112.121.164 (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Assault with a deadly weapon or some similar charge would still seem likely Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

online selective mutism
Have there been any studies on selective mutism affecting people online? For example, being able to talk on one forum but not on another, despite desperately wanting to 82.247.223.93 (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? What sort of online forum do you talk in? Looie496 (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Selective mutism refers to speech (you know, talking, like people do in real life), not participation in online forums. Writer's block is the psychological inability to write. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Writer's block is a temporary lack of creativity. It is very different from being unable to participate in some forums due to shyness and anxiety, while being perfectly able to in others. The strict definition of selective mutism may only apply to real world speech, but the symptoms seem exactly the same. 82.43.90.27 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

La la la la la. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Earls in the 1840's
Would two British men who lived in or around London in the 1840's each with the title "Earl of &lt;whatever&gt;" have been highly likely to know each other (eg because they'd have met at the House of Lords - or just generally have been socially aware of each other)...to the point where they'd be likely to know each other on sight? 216.136.51.242 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly. The number of Earls is a relatively small group; and they likely run in the same social circles.  There are currently 193 Earldoms listed at List of earls, I can't imagine there were ALL that many more Earls 150 or so years ago.  The actual number of Earls at any one time is likely somewhat smaller, as many Earldoms are lesser titles also held by Marquesses and Dukes.  The average person probably knows more than 1000 or so people "on sight", that is can keep the name and face together, and probably a far greater number of people whom they recognize as familiar, even if they have trouble placing the name.  Two Earls, both living in London at the same time would likely have been at the same parties, known each other from the House of Lords, heck probably came from families which had long associated and probably knew each other from childhood, given how Earldoms pass down through families.  -- Jayron  32  19:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ..and they may well have been members of the same club, such as White's. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the numbers, they'd be likely to know of each other or have a passing acquaintance, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they would necessarily have been well acquainted with each other. Even a real extrovert might be well acquainted with only 50 or so people, some of whom would be family or servants rather than other earls.  But if there were 100 or so earls living in and around London in 1845, attending the House of Lords and moving in the same social circles, you'd expect that they would be likely to at least recognize one another.  Marco polo (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)