Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 October 8

= October 8 =

Jethro Tull horse powered hoe
Why is 'horse powered hoe' the only name given for this device? The original small-scale version looks suspiciously like what Americans call the 'plow.' Aren't they used for the same purpose, to overturn earth for additional fertility? Going by the pictured apparatus, Jethro Tull (or the Chinese or whomever) invented the plow and called it the horse powered hoe. Am I wrong? Shouldn't an addendum be added indicating that the horse powered hoe is also the plow - and that he is the modern day inventor? Thank you.2602:304:B017:7330:781C:54BC:1012:3A59 (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As suggested in Jethro Tull (agriculturist), hoeing is not plowing. Plowing is breaking up the soil as the first step in the planting process. Hoeing comes after the plants are growing, its purpose being to remove weeds. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is the English medieval period usually said to end in 1485?
The ascension of Henry VII as king of England in 1485 is traditionally the dividing line between the medieval period and early modern period. Why is this the case, since the major hallmarks of the modern era -- namely, religious reformation, renaissance humanist thought, and the age of exploration -- all belong to the era of Henry the VIII (1509-47) and his successors, not Henry VII? Thank you. Zombiesturm (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Middle Ages, they are using the Battle of Bosworth Field as the dividing line. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Henry VII became King right after the B. of B. Stop trying to pretend like you know what you are talking about.  Thank you. Zombiesturm (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is also where "time immemorial" stops. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Henry II died at Bosworth? —Tamfang (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good Lord! I've uttered an untruth. How could that possi-bly have happened!  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Inconceivable! —Tamfang (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

At my University, the medieval English history options ended with the start of the Wars of the Roses, and early modern began with Bosworth, which cunningly meant that undergraduates didn't need to study the WotR in anything more than the most trivial manner. A less conventional take on this traditional hard border. You get other traditional hard borders, some of which are really specific, like Christmas Day 800. Historiography has a field day attacking and supporting (but mostly attacking) these arbitrary boundaries. --Dweller (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See Periodization --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dweller - the key word being arbitrary. England really edged into early modern from the Statutes of Labourers in the wake of the Black Death, but rating a given year as 46% medieval is just as arbitrary and less than helpful. If you're going to stick a pin in a timeline, it might as well be Richard III's death and the accession of Henry Tudor. Henry, and the other Tudors, had a new style of government, appeasing the landed classes that kept them in power, while whittling away their power to destabilise the throne, centralising political power. Summarised on the BBC site. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, this question might get better answers on the Humanities Desk. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but these answers are not helpful. Could you please try harder?  I am asking WHY 1485 is the dividing line.  I gave specific examples of stereotypically "modern" events that did not get underway until the 1510's and later.  Thank you. Zombiesturm (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Another perspective, that's about when The_Renaissance started, and we can't have middle ages and Renaissance at the same time! If it makes you feel better, Early_modern_period is described as beginning "c. 1500."
 * More seriously: as described above, there are several fuzzy dates that could be chosen for designating periods of history, and academics will bicker about what is the "best" date to choose. There's just no way around that. I was taught by an art historian that the Italian Renaissance was definitely underway by 1485, though some people defend earlier dates. That time was picked because of certain influential artists and such, though you can read through the articles for other technological and military events of the surrounding time. Of course Italy is not England, but another key driver to modernity in Europe is the printing press, developed c. 1450. So by 1485, Movable_type was already moving ideas and culture around much more quickly than before, and England was starting to leave their middle ages, even if the change was not unquestionably marked by a dramatic historical event. (p.s. can you please be a little more polite? We are all volunteers here. I answered because I was interested, but "try harder" isn't a great way to get people to help you...) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry. Thanks for your answer.  Zombiesturm (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Fiddlersmouth gave you a great answer. Although you'll have to bear in mind that it is an arbitrary cut-off, it is a deliberate arbitrary cut-off and one that's reasonably well supported. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Pensions
What happen when a retired person does not withdraw his pension for a period of 10 years and he is still alive ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.101.237 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Medeis means he or she needs the help of a lawyer, the person actually is seeking help from random people. I also think that a call to the pension paying department or company might be useful. Richard Avery (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (I've removed Medeis' "hat" of this question because it isn't a legal matter unless & until someone violates whatever terms and conditions were laid out in the pension plan and you have to take legal action.  On that basis you'd have to hat every question that might possibly have legal entanglements, and 99% of questions would have to be hidden!   At this point, we can assume good faith on the part of the pension provider - and that this issue is simply a question about the facts of how pension plans are run).


 * Clearly this depends on what the terms of your pension plan are. You need to either discuss this with the pension provider - or find the documents that describe the pension plan that you're talking about and read what they have to say.   You don't tell us whether this is a private pension or a government pension - or in which place this is happening, so it's going to be impossible for us to answer without more information.   But (as Richard says), your first move should be to ask the pension provider what the terms of the pension plan are regarding unclaimed pensions.   It's perfectly possible that the back-pension is just sitting there waiting to be claimed - or that there might be some clause saying that unpaid pensions are forfeit after some period of time.   It's not impossible that you'll need to talk to a lawyer in the event that you don't get a satisfactory answer - but at this point, there is no reason to assume that the pension provider won't just say "Oh sure, we have $100,000 sitting here just waiting for you to pick it up!"....but you won't know until you ask. SteveBaker (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to place any referenced answers outside the hat. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Old New York
what is the old name of New York city ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.101.237 (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Try New Amsterdam. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it was Nieuw Amsterdam in Dutch. --174.88.135.222 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And a newer old York (which replaced the old capital, Newark, across from New York) became Old Toronto. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is never called "Old Toronto" outside of Wikipedia. It's a pity that the attempts to rename that article have failed. --174.88.135.222 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While I had thought that Newark in New Jersey came from New York, it appears it came from "New Ark" or "New Work" (History of Newark, New Jersey). But what do the older Newark's name mean? 75.41.109.190 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also a Newark, Delaware but the names are not pronounce the same. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's named after Newark-on-Trent in Nottinghamshire. "The name means ‘new work’ (with reference to Newark Castle) to distinguish it from an unidentified defended site known as ‘The Aldwark’". Alansplodge (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably the same for the Upper Canadian one. Those English sure liked to name places after English places. The particular Englishman who named it was born southwest of Peterborough. Where's Toronto today? Southwest of Peterborough. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also studied at Oxford (not Oxford) and died in Exeter (not Exeter). And of course, he named a town after himself in Norfolk County (not Norfolk County). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Pink Martini: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAgu7RloMn8&index=24&list=PL3993679FB0700D34 DOR (HK) (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to be confused with The New Amsterdam. Now pass me a bottle, Mr. Jones. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I'm confusing that with another place in the song, unless Adam Duritz is 100 years old, or he and Jones literally looked into the future. Seems to have been in San Francisco, but not this one. Somewhere on Columbus Avenue (not Columbus Avenue). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha! That old New Amsterdam is now the International Sports Club. Not that anyone asked. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

All-you-can-eat salad bars near Detroit ?
I'm trying to find one that doesn't also offer other (fattening) items. So far the best I've found is BD's Mongolian BBQ, which has a soup and salad bar for $7 at lunch. Now I'm sure everyone will say I can go to a place with an all-you-can-eat salad and taco bar and only eat the salad. No, I can't. I don't have that kind of self control. Outback also has an unlimited soup and salad offer at lunch, although they bring it to the table. That would be acceptable, but they also bring bread, and I can't resist that or the fattening soup. So, does any place offer an unlimited salad bar only (or unlimited salads brought to the table only) ? If so, I'm sure it would help my dieting efforts, as I would eat so much salad I wouldn't want anything fattening. (It's OK if they offer more expensive options to include other things besides the salad bar, since I only have to resist that at the beginning, when I place my order.) StuRat (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you manage to ask the wait-staff "Please don't bring bread to the table."?? Seems like that should be manageable.   Honestly, if you don't have the willpower to avoid putting certain foods onto your plate, what make you think you'll have the willpower to go to the selected restaurant?


 * The other issue is that most restaurant salads have dressing - and very often the dressing has significant numbers of calories - so "all you can eat salad" doesn't necessarily work better than a fixed-portion of a relatively higher calorie food.


 * Honestly, I think it would be hard to find a place that doesn't offer a range of foods including a few less-healthy options - because even people who want to eat healthy often bring people along with them who don't.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you missed the gist of my Q. I can control myself long enough to ask for the all-you-can-eat salad bar.  If that comes with nothing else fattening, then I'm good.  As for salad dressings, those generally have good fats, as the good fats tend to be liquid.  Unhealthy fats tend to be solid at room temp, which makes them not suitable as salad dressings.  And yes, if I could eat just a small portion that would be a solution too, but I can't.  I will eat until my stomach is filled.  So, I need a large quantity of nutrient-dense, low-calorie food, with lots of fiber, as that makes it filling.  I also need protein, but I can get that at home (I cook salmon fillets).  But I find making lots of salad to be too labor intensive (washing, chopping, etc.), so I'd prefer to go out for that.  And no, if bread comes with my meal, I won't be able to resist it.  I'm guessing you don't have a weight problem, if you think "just eat less" is practical advice.


 * BTW, I'd love to open a "healthy food only" restaurant, for people like me, who can't resist temptation. Judging from the number of obese people in the US, even if only 10% would go to such a place to lose weight, that's quite a market.  StuRat (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I do have a weight problem...I was up close to 300lb and now I'm at 210lb after two years of hard calorie restriction...I'm getting close to my goal of having a weight in lbs that starts with a '1', but those last 10lbs are proving to be incredibly stubborn.  :-(    So I know exactly where you're coming from.  The problem I've always had is that I can "eat less" at mealtimes - but I get so insanely hungry between meals.   It's taken some cunning trickery to find foods that, while they don't seem so satisfying at the time - actually hang around in my stomach for long enough to get me through to the next meal.  Salads quite utterly fail to do that for me - I can stuff myself to bursting and STILL crave a snack an hour later.  I need nuts and other foods that are slower to digest....that whole glycemic index thing.  What's worked for me is having a bagle for breakfast (200cal), nothing more than 150cal for lunch, and whatever I fancy for supper (500 to 600 cal, typically) - and I can lose 1lb per week fairly reliably.  Exercising seemed to have little or no effect on me, but to make me miserable...but no two people are alike, so where your head is definitely matters.  SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * When I was last there, Charlie Brown's (a chain I assume may be in your area) offered an all-you-can eat salad bar for $10. The food was excellent, I can't say there was nothing fattening.  You'll have to ask the server what their policy is when they seat you, since I am not sure it is an advertised menu option.  The branch I used to go to closed two years ago, unfortunately.  Best chain I have ever eaten in. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of that chain, so I guess that means we don't have them in Detroit. StuRat (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * StuRat, you can ask at http://detroit.askalo.com/Dining-Out/506/.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure if they still do, but Pizza Hut used to have an unlimited salad bar only, that was mostly greens/veggies/fruit/dressing. I think it had croutons, but not "bread" per-se. They may have changed their policies though, in reaction to people abusing the "one plate" pricing option . For alternate/local places to ask, try reddit.com/r/detroit. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll check them out. StuRat (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest PizzaHut, but you said that you didn't want somewhere where high-calorie food was available. IIRC, PizzaHut tends to put its salad buffet beside the pizza buffet. As you pay less for salad-only, you must not take any pizza. Will the staff shouting at you give you enough will-power? CS Miller (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yea, as long as it's not included in the price I paid, I'm OK. StuRat (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If weight control is your objective, why all-you-can-eat? I am in constant weight-control mode (successfully, as I am not overweight), and my strategy for lunch (when I don't bring lunch from home) is to order just a salad.  I find that it is important to get protein and healthy fat with my salad, so I usually order a grilled chicken Caesar salad with some parmesan or a Greek salad with feta and olives.  Just don't order any bread.  Ask them not to include bread with your order.  Salads like these are available at most pizza joints in my region. Panera Bread also does good salads; you just have to refuse the bread or potato chips they offer along with it.  Protein and healthy fat are important to include in the salad because they will make you more satiated.  As a result, you will be less tempted to snack and will not be ravenous and pig out at suppertime. Marco polo (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The idea is to cram so much salad in my stomach that I'm no longer hungry. If I eat a small meal, I will be hungry later and eat something I shouldn't.  And I can't manage to refuse food I've paid for, that's the whole point.  (Croutons I don't care for, so those I can refuse.)  The salad dressing has the healthy fat and I cook salmon for the protein. StuRat (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Cramming so much that I'm no longer hungry" doesn't sound like a recipe for success. Surely you need to somehow find a healthier relationship to food and eating (which I readily admit is not an easy thing to achieve).  If you've been raised on the "three square meals a day, and (almost) nothing in between" mantra, and you feel guilty whenever you do eat anything in between, particularly when it's something you "shouldn't", do you stop and ask yourself whether there's something wrong with that picture?  Who or what determines what's on the "shouldn't" list? If you're going (at least sometimes) to eat those things regardless, what purpose is the list serving other than to make yourself feel guilty for your own choices?  Eating should never be accompanied by guilt or shame, and if it is, then that's a deeper issue that needs to be addressed, and if your focus is only on the composition of your diet and the timing of your eating, you're skimming over the real problem and you'll likely struggle forever.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * When my stomach is full I can resist lots of things, like chips & donuts, that I can't resist when my stomach is less than full. The same things either seem disgusting or delicious, depending on how full my stomach is at the time.  Similarly, when I go grocery shopping, I buy a lot more junk food if I'm hungry.  I don't think I am in any way unique there. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, certainly not unique. But you've confirmed what I said about needing a healthier relationship with food.  Whether something is "disgusting or delicious" depending on the fullness of your stomach seems to be a very un-useful paradigm.  Firstly, it inhabits the extremes and ignores the middle ground, and that's always a worry; and secondly, it displays its own inherent illogicality.  By that I mean, the food itself doesn't change, and your general liking of doughnuts never changes, but somehow an inherently delicious item can sometimes be considered disgusting.  That's misattributing a change of characteristic to the food itself, rather than to your current personal place on the satisfaction-hunger scale.  From various questions you've asked and comments you've made over the years, you seem genuinely conscientious about healthy eating, but at times you're waylaid by stuff you know is bad for you, because you happen to be hungry and it happens to be there, and you can't resist it.  That's an issue you have to address, otherwise it will undermine all your good efforts to eat well at other times (and clearly has been undermining it for some considerable time, maybe most of your life).  Doing anything in life that your head tells you is bad for you, particularly when you ignore your head on a regular basis, is a path to self-destruction. To your focus on the dietary aspects of eating, you need to add a focus on the emotional aspects so that you can regain control and make saner choices and not be governed by "see food = eat food", and that may require professional help.  I'm not talking dietician here, but psychologist/therapist.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You're going a bit off the deep end here to suggest that anyone who overeats or does anything else unhealthy needs to see a shrink. And, as I recall, you have a bit of a belly yourself.  As for food seeming to be more appetizing when hungry, that's a normal physiological reaction, so you eat when you need food, and not when you're full.  The degree changes from person to person, but the truly abnormal part would be someone whose appetite does not vary in response to the fullness of their stomach. StuRat (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Talking of going off the deep end:
 * I did not use the word "shrink" (which to me implies a psychiatrist, who deals with mental illness); there is no stigma in seeking help from a suitable professional
 * my remarks were directed not generally, but specifically at you because of your acknowledged difficulties in resisting things you know defeat the purpose of healthy eating
 * yes, I have had my own weight issues with which I have grappled for many years, which gives me an educated insight into what may be going on beneath the surface, and why I know how futile it is to concentrate only on trying to control what and when to eat, ignoring the "why" question and the emotional drivers involved. Do you think that it's only people who have no personal experience of difficulty in weight control who are qualified to have opinions on weight control?  There's no need to be defensive and reactive to genuine attempts to help a fellow sufferer.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be a Charlie Brown's in Almont, MI. http://www.restaurant.com/charlie-browns-almont-pid=167549 μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you mean Charlie Brown's Fresh Grill, those are only in New Jersey (15 restaurants), New York (2) and one in PA. Rmhermen (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks, User:Rmhermen, that is the logo. Seems the name itself is not trademarked.  I witnessed an altercation once between a waitress, who charged a customer who did not order an entree a $10 fee, when he pointed to the menu saying there was a $2 fee for unlimited salad bar use along with an entree.  Apparently he expected his girlfriend to buy the meal, and to pay $2 to eat what was otherwise a rather sumptuous meal on her coattails. Stu's invited next time he's out east, but the $10 fee will be on him. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Stu, your situation seems fairly similar to me. My suggestion, strangely enough, is to work hard with a good specialist to find out exactly what's going on.  Being overweight is not one disease, like chickenpox, it's a whole bunch of not necessarily related syndromes.  As an anecdote, I personally, since my late 20's, have had a habit of eating a normal, even controlled dinner at dinnertime, but then eating an even larger meal at bedtime--basically a second dinner plus a snack.  I have largely been able to cut carbs out of my diet.  I have tried to do the fill myself up with salad and unbuttered popcorn trick.


 * But I still have this 40% of my calories at 6pm and 60% at midnight habit. I feel I cannot sleep without a full stomach.  I would also wake and feel the need to eat a heavy snack to go back to bed.  For years I have had people say this was binge eating or sleep eating--but it's not, and I dismissed the suggestions.  I don't binge, I have a normal meal, and maybe a snack (my dinners tend to be small and very controlled) and I don't eat in my sleep.  My midnight meal is a normal size one for a dinner of a person of my size.


 * This summer I read an article describing a syndrome like mine where bedtime eating was pretty much compulsory, and that I got sick if I ate before the late afternoon. It said this was a separate syndrome, identifyied by the inability to eat before dinner, and it turns out we have an article on it, night eating syndrome.  I meet every single component except depressed mood.  There is actually one prescription medicine available for it of label, and although I have only been one it for a week, and was told to wait a month for signs of change, I have noticed that I am voluntarily waking slightly earlier, going to bed slightly earlier, and am eating 20% at lunch, 50% at dinner, and 30% before bed--which is not the right cycle, but is still a huge improvement.  I have been able to cut down m sleeping pill prescription by almost 1/2.  My point is not to suggest this is your problem User:StuRat, but to suggest that identifying your specific problem with a specialist might make a huge difference. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Food really doesn't look good to me in the morning, either. I try not to eat right before bed, though, because then I get acid reflux. StuRat (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Without suggesting you have the same syndrome, User:StuRat, it's usually defined as eating more than 25% of your daily calories after 8pm or more than a larger portion after dinner. (What I've seen on the net differs from what's in our article, but the DMS-5 mentions the syndrome, and there are books on the subject, one of which I am awaiting through ILL. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't hold with the Frenchwomen Don't Get Fat thesis in its entirety but there is something to be said for the structured day when it comes to eating patterns. In France everyone knows that breakfast is at 7 am, lunch 12 to 2 and dinner at 7. No food after that. Worth trying for a few weeks to see if it suits. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)