Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 March 27

= March 27 =

Gini coefficient
Does the trend in the Gini coefficient in a specific region have much value over the long term? Consider the following simplified scenario. You have a country with 2 rich people and a large number of poor people. The 2 rich people own the means of production to produce all the goods and services and the rest of the population work for them. The Gini coefficient at this point would show that things are quite unequal. Then there is a technological change and now the goods and services can be produced for a tenth of the cost. This would lead to increased profits for the 2 rich people. So the Gini coefficient would worsen. BUT, in terms of utility, the poor people can now consume more and thus their utility improves. The utility of the 2 rich people would also increase but not as drastically as the increase in their incomes (due to diminishing returns). Therefore, in terms of utility, the Gini coefficient has actually improved. So comparing the Gini coefficent over time periods is not very useful because it's measured in incomes and not utility. I'm looking for more information on this topic. TIA. --105.227.178.237 (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The limitation you identify is explicitly treated in the very article you linked, under #Limitations and #Alternatives. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The article does not deal with the limitation of Gini being based on incomes and not utility. --105.227.178.237 (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are missing something. In the process you describe, the price of goods and services drops considerably.  This means that sharp deflation has taken place, which will benefit the living standard of workers, whose nominal income apparently has not changed even though their real income has risen.  However, the nominal income of the capitalists has risen (relative to the flat incomes of the workers), and that rise is magnified in real terms by deflation.  The Gini coefficient remains accurate in its measurement of the income disparity between the more and less affluent.  Gini is not meant to measure absolute utility; it measures relative utility, and its accuracy is not affected by changes in price levels that affect the more and less affluent equally. Marco polo (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --105.227.178.237 (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What is it like to buy a lobster from a store
This is a weird question that I've been wondering about for awhile. When one buys a live lobster out of the tank in a grocery store (I'm picturing Wegmans, in the US), what exactly happens? I'm assuming one picks out the lobster(s) they want, the clerk pulls them out and weighs (?) them, but then what? Do they just put the lobsters in your shopping cart? In a plastic bag? That doesn't seem very secure. 129.3.151.74 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I googled [buying a lobster from a store], and quite a few entries came up. I tried to post one here, but it's on the blacklist. But it seems that you don't have to keep them in water, you just need to keep their gills moist and be sure there's air available, and store them in the fridge. And be sure to cook them within a day or so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * They put rubber bands around the claws. (The typical weakness of reptiles and anthropods is that they have a great deal of muscle enabling them to close their jaws or claws, but very little to open them, such that even rubber bands can hold them shut.)  I imagine they put them in some type of escape-proof box, beyond that, just to keep them from crawling away.  It always seemed entirely too creepy to me to buy them live, so I haven't done so, myself. StuRat (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (lobsters are arthropods, not reptiles Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC))


 * Lobsters are not reptiles - they are invertebrates, crustaceans like crabs and shrimp. In my experience they rubber band the claws and put them into a fairly sturdy paper bag for me. They are not very active out of water so they are unlikely to crawl away. Sometimes they give you ice. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's nice of lobsters to give you ice. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have always found buying a lobster from a grocery store was somewhat like getting your pubes shaved while mainlining, but with a real low-quality product that doesn't quite take the edge off. That may be OR, of course. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Plastic bag with ice is how I've usually gotten them. It's best to cook them as soon as you get them home (that is, don't buy them until right before you want to cook them), but if you must store them, the best thing to do is transfer them to one of those styrofoam beer coolers filled with ice.  The ice will keep them alive and in a sort of suspended animation for maybe a day or two, but that's probably the outside limit.  You shouldn't ever cook a dead lobster, unless you JUST killed it, they decompose really fast, even in a matter of an hour or two.  The best thing is to take the live lobster straight from the ice to a pot of heavily seasoned boiling water.  (post EC comment in response to Medeis)  Of course, if you live in a place where you can get to an actual coastline quickly, you should buy your lobsters directly from the dock, if possible.  Grocery store lobster is better than no lobster, I suppose, but if you have the means buying directly from the fishermen is both cheaper AND you will always get a much better lobster.  -- Jayron  32  02:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some stores will actually cook it for you while you wait, if you ask. They've got microwave steamers that can fully cook a lobster in a couple of minutes. Not the same as cooking it properly, I'm sure, but still very tasty.
 * Otherwise, yeah, they'll take a live lobster, weight it, toss it in a plastic bag, and hand you the bag. The lobsters' claws will already be rubber banded to stop them from fighting with other lobsters in the tank.   Lobsters are not as strong as they look, but they're strong enough that it's still a good idea to leave the rubber bands on until the lobster is dead.
 * They can live for a while "Breathing" air, but not forever, best to get them into the pot as soon as possible.
 * It's typically illegal to sell a dead lobster unless it's already cooked or flash-frozen. (This usually means cooking or flash-freezing them alive.)APL (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * They've always given them to me in a box similar to a Chinese take-out container. If it's going to be a few hours before cooking them, I've always heard it is best to store them in the fridge. 38.111.64.107 (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Lobsters again
This question is inspired by the one above.

What is it about lobsters that makes them go bad almost instantly? Even without refrigeration most meats can last some time in raw form, why not lobsters? Is this problem found in all crustaceans? Or do lobsters in particular have some sort of self-destruct mechanism? APL (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fish seem to have the same problem. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There's two issues with shellfish (which includes crustaceans like lobsters and crabs, and bivalves like clams and oysters)
 * This is more true of bivalves than of crustaceans, but with many shellfish, it is difficult to tell exactly how long it has been dead. A shellfish which has been dead an hour or so may be fine, but if it's been dead over a day, it could be inedible.  And since you can't tell the difference between "dead an hour" or "dead a day" if you haven't seen it in a day, it's best to cook it alive.  You can also cut it up just prior to cooking.  A common way to cook lobster tail is to grille it: take the live lobster, hack off the tail, and grille it.  The claws and legs can be put right into boiling water to make claw meat for a nice stuffing for the grilled tail, and the boiling water can be saved as a nice stock for other seafood applications.  The concern is that you want it to be as fresh as possible when you do cook it, and if you can keep it alive until your ready to cook it (however you choose to prepare it) that is for the best.  This would be true of ANY animal, really (fresher is better), but keeping a cow alive until you're ready to hack off a steak is impractical.  Keeping a lobster alive until you're ready to cook it isn't that tough, if you plan it right and buy fresh the day you're going to use it.
 * Once the animal is dead, its immune system stops working. If the lobster has some sort of bacteria in it somewhere (indeed, it likely will, for example in its gut flora, as all critters do!) that bacteria is kept in check by a careful homeostasis regulated in large part by the animal's immune system.  As soon as it dies, that immune system stops working, the bacteria start multiplying, and more to the point, many of these bacteria produce waste products which may be toxic.  So, when the bacteria were few in number and kept in check by the critter's immune system, these toxins are kept at low levels.  Without that system in check, the bacteria multiply like crazy, produce huge amounts of waste, and that waste can be toxic.  Again, if its within an hour or maybe two of death, you might be OK, but minutes after death is best.  And if you don't know exactly when it died, assume it was too long ago.  Now, why is this sort of thing more of a problem with shellfish than with cows or chicken?  It isn't: cows and chickens are usually butchered within a very short time after death, to prevent exactly this problem from happening, and the method of butchering needs to be handled carefully to prevent, for example, intestinal contents from contaminating the meat of the cow.  With crustaceans and bivalves, you aren't usually butchering pieces of it, you're planning to cook it whole, so you really have to be sure it's alive until you cook it.
 * See also which has a short bit that confirms the bacteria spreading after death problem.  -- Jayron  32  04:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Re "this would be true for any animal": This is definitely not true for cows - prime cuts of beef are much better if you let them mature for a couple of days at slightly below room temperature. Pork, on the other hand, would be rotten and inedible if you tried to let it mature using the same process...so now I'm intrigued. Followup question: what are the differences in the composition of fish and white meat vs red meat that allow you to mature one at room temperature while spoling the other with the same treatment? -- Ferkelparade &pi; 06:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Followup to the followup: I'm not sure if this is a general white vs red meat thing, it's just that I am most familiar with using pork and beef, and there's a very pronounced difference between the two...in any case, swine are butchered and prepared in a way that is generally very similar to cows, so the things Jayron mentions above about cows being butchered within a short time after death can't be the reason for the pork/beef difference. Hm...maybe I should have split this off into its own question...I won't oppose to anyone doing so, but I'm too lazy to do it myself -- Ferkelparade &pi; 06:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaving a steak inside a cow which is dead, but has not been prepared in any way, does not lead to a good cut of meat. It leads to an inedible, and possibly toxic, mess.  A properly butchered and aged steak is a sublimely wonderful thing, but this isn't analogous to a dead lobster because a steak is not a whole, unprepared cow.  -- Jayron  32  13:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of you are right in the case of beef. The carcass is immediately cut and the intestines and offal removed. The main carcass is divided into two sides of beef, which may then be sent to cold storage "hanging", for some days or weeks. The edible offcuts like liver and kidneys are prepared separately. At least, that is the traditional way. With modern industrial slaughter goodness knows. Poultry is usually also drawn before being hung. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly: the issue with shellfish as different from land animals is that they aren't usually butchered before cooking. When you cook a crab or a lobster or clams or mussels or oysters, you cook the whole thing, and in that case you DON'T want the offal to contaminate the lobster, which is why you let it live until the moment you want to cook it.  When you slaughter a cow or any large animal, you really need to prepare it properly to keep the offal from contaminating the meat, which is why that is removed as close as possible to the death of the animal.  Once that is done, the meat itself will keep much longer.  Hunters know this because the will field dress their quarry as soon as they kill it, lest you ruin the meat.  -- Jayron  32  13:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, one difference is simply scale. That is, in larger animals the bacteria will have farther to go to get from the intestines to the meat, which will take more time.  I don't think this is the only difference, though. StuRat (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There's another important factor that I didn't see mentioned above. Animal tissue is full of enzymes that don't lose their activity just because the tissue is dead.  If you take a cold-water fish or shellfish, with enough enzyme activity to keep the fish metabolizing in cold water, and warm up the tissue, you can get enough biochemical activity to cause the tissue to deteriorate very rapidly even in the absence of bacterial activity.  That doesn't happen so much in warm-blooded animal tissue. Looie496 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a rather fascinating and insightful comment, Looie. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just want to note that you don't have to buy lobsters alive at all. Frozen lobster tails keep well enough that they are frequently sold separately, and you can buy lump lobster meat if you have an desire to spend a huge amount of money. (Where I live it is impressively expensive, anyway; a recipe I had called for it, and I balked at spending $40 for one ingredient for a salad. I opted for shrimp instead.) This is more the analogy to the steak, though again, these things are usually kept frozen until use. Shrimp are also sold quite dead, albeit usually (but not always!) without their heads. Whether this is because Americans generally don't eat shrimp heads, or because it prolongs the edibility of the shrimp, I don't know, but I suspect the former. They are usually chilled at least, if not frozen, and I can say from experience that it doesn't take very much time for shrimp pieces left at room temperature to acquire the ammoniac smell of bad seafood.
 * John McPhee's curious little book, Uncommon Carriers, includes a chapter about the lobster shipping business. It has been some years since I read it but I recall that the salient thing there is that lobsters in particular are very sensitive to temperature. They die super quick if at the wrong temperature, and they rot super quick at it. Just another datapoint. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct, though as noted above parts keep much longer than the whole animal because of the removal of the parts from the parts of the animal that may contaminate it (the digestive tract, usually). You'll note that it is lobster and shrimp tails that are sold frozen.  The "head" of the shrimp which is removed isn't merely the head, it's all of the internal organs as well.  So, when you butcher the lobster or shrimp before you freeze it, you're doing the exact same thing as when you butcher a cow before selling it, and the tails of both lobster and shrimp would have been removed essentially immediately at the point of death, or very close to it.  That allows the meat to last MUCH longer, which is exactly the entire point of every thing said in the discussion above, which is good, because it confirms what I and others have already said.  To clarify your first sentence for the point of this discussion (which is slightly wrong).  You do essentially need to buy lobsters alive, you don't have to buy lobster tails alive.  The distinction is between buying the whole animal, and buying a properly prepared part of the animal.   -- Jayron  32  18:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Jayron, but it's simply not correct that you only buy the tails of lobsters and shrimp in a frozen state. There aren't 4.6 million Ghits for frozen whole lobster for nothing. Whole frozen shrimp, lobsters, crabs, etc. are indeed for sale - and whole frozen lobsters at least, for what it's worth, are regular items at my local grocer. I don't often get crawdads/crawfish, but I've only ever seen them frozen whole. What it comes down to is that removing tails is relatively easy, can be upcharged significantly, have less wasted weight/space, and are a popular item. In other words, it's a win-win situation for the producers to chop the bug in half, freeze the tails, and use the rest of the animal for other purposes (canned meat, cat and dog food, fertilizer, flavoured items like crackers, etc.). But it's also no biggie to freeze the entire animal either; the blast freezers used can accomplish the task so quickly that putrefaction is not an issue. Matt Deres (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, again, if frozen at the moment of death. If you freeze a lobster that's been dead for two days, you get a possibly toxic, definitely inedible mess.  You keep missing the entire point: You cannot leave a dead lobster around attended for any significant length of time.  You can do things to the lobster to keep it from spoiling, like properly butchering it, or like freezing it alive.  What you still cannot do is buy a whole lobster, bring it home, forget about it for 2-3 days, find it dead, and then cook it.  That is the only scenario I have been providing references for and arguing against, and people keep bringing up unrelated scenarios, like aged steaks or frozen whole lobsters.  The problem, which all of these responses confuse, is the specific scenario of taking a whole lobster, which has been unprepared and unfrozen and purchased alive some time ago, and then allowed to die for some indeterminate amount of time before cooking.  You can't do that.  Any other scenario you create for handling lobster meat or any other meat is irrelevent.  -- Jayron  32  00:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, was it a typo where you wrote "You do essentially need to buy lobsters alive."? Because that's the part that's wrong and that's the part I was replying to. Other than that, I'm in agreement with you. Also, I'm not sure why you think I keep missing your point when the above was my first post in this thread; I may have missed your point, but only once - so far. :) Matt Deres (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, English lacks a difference between the non-specific plural second person and the specific singular second person, which leads to unfortunate misunderstandings such as this. And yes, I overstated my case regarding the availability of whole-non-alive lobsters.  My intent (which I only just communicated well enough in my last post) has always been to remind people of the differences between "Why do I have to cook a whole lobster alive" and various other times when cooking live critters (lobster or otherwise) is not required.  Simply put, yes, if you intended to buy a live lobster from the store, take it home, and cook it, you must cook it alive.  The reasons for that (hopefully) have been explained now, but I did a bad job of explaining that the requirement to not cook dead lobsters means just that: a dead, never frozen, whole lobster should never be cooked and eaten.  I hope things are clearer now. -- Jayron  32  02:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are 80,800 ghits for "frozen whole lobster"--you have to remember the quotes or you get all sorts of nonster. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

How to give attribution under CCby3.0 from WikiCommons?
I'm about to make some commercial use a piece of music from WikiCommons that's licensed under CCby3.0 (File:浏阳河 何婧.ogg - background music for a Kickstarter video). CCby3.0 requires that I provide "attribution" to the original author. Since the performance is a pretty good one, I'd be more than happy to do that even if the license didn't demand it. But the contributor (who says he performed it himself) doesn't give his real name or any contact address - and he hasn't replied to a request for that information on his WikiCommons UserTalk page.

My question is: In the absence of other information, is it enough to say "User:XXXX on WikiCommons.org" in order to satisfy CCby3.0? If that's not enough, then WikiCommons fails in it's objective to provide freely downloadable "stuff" - but it's hard to imagine that this kind of lame description of the performer is sufficient in such cases.

16:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the guidance given by Creative Commons themselves, attributing to a pseudonym is fine. I actually encode my WP username in the metadata of any images I create and upload to WP to facilitate this; here's an example. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sansrif
Is there a collective name for typefaces like Rosario, Arsenal, FF Angie, and Linux Biolinium? They don't have serifs, but otherwise they have all qualities of a serif face. Pokajanje &#124; Talk 22:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with sans-serif ? StuRat (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with sans-serif is that the term encompasses a huge family of type and the OP is clearly looking for something more precise than that. I would describe the typefaces presented above as "humanist lineal" or "humanist sans" typefaces. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that such faces get a classification of "humanist" when they have such calligraphic qualities. I might use the term "calligraphic sans", but that could imply something like the completely unrelated class of Fertigo Pro, so I'm sure that's not correct. Pokajanje &#124; Talk  01:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The FF Angie one has small serifs but I'd agree that Humanist seems overall a good description. They are certainly not what I would expect under calligraphic if I went to a font foundry. Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)