Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 May 22

= May 22 =

What is the difference between analgesia and sedation?
194.114.146.227 (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The difference between analgesia and anesthesia is that you're conscious for one. Both relieve or prevent pain. Sedation doesn't necessarily do that, just makes you tired. That can somewhat help with pain, but mainly used to stop movement. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Analgesia is relief from pain and sedation is relief from anxiety or irritability. Sedation does not necessarily render the patient unconscious. Richerman    (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye. I should have said reduce movement. You want a fuller stop, you'll want a neuromuscular-blocking drug. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Definition of planet
I have a hard time understand what is this sentence trying to say: "while the instructions to the Alfonsine Tables show how "to find by means of tables the mean motuses of the sun, moon, and the rest of the planets"? Especially what motuses means? Thanks! 67.4.220.217 (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Movements, probably. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, but then what exactly would "mean movement" mean? Movement or motion doesn't seem like something that it makes sense to take the mean of and tabulate in tables.  Note incidentally that the spelling "motuses" is applying an English plural to a Latin word; as indicated on the linked Wiktionary page, motus was a fourth-declension noun and the Latin plural was motus with a different pronunciation. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Math and Latin aren't my thing. Astronomy isn't, either, but I hear spinning things like to wobble and shift. Seems that would would create at least one set of deviant numbers a math wizard might try to level out, by any medians, modes or means necessary.
 * Someone smart will probably be along shortly. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Alfonsine tables might be something to ponder. I don't get it. These seem to be the deviations. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I also do not believe that using Latin word in this case is necessary. This is English Wikipedia, not Latin Wikipedia. Latin should only be used when it is required by contexts. In this case, it is only making things harder to understand. 75.168.154.95 (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's part of a quote here. Blame John of Saxony (astronomer). Though yeah, it'd make more sense to paraphrase that, or just explain the damn thing in modern layman. I'll leave that to the experts. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer the question implied by the heading of this thread: In the geocentric system, the sun and the moon were considered planets, since they moved with respect to the background of fixed stars. See Classical planet. Deor (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The term is used a lot in this book which is a translation of a manuscript that dates from the 14th century. The manuscript was written in Middle English which may explain the plural form of the word. You have to remember that in those days no-one had realised that the planets moved in elliptical orbits and they appeared to wander about the heavens in odd paths, so the 'mean movement' would presumably be the mean of the various paths one planet appeared to take. Richerman    (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Active resolution vs total resolution
This datasheet lists two types of resolutions: "300 x 225 active resolution" and "320 x 240 total resolution". What's the difference between the two? Which one would, for example, 1080p be referring to? My other car is a cadr (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Usually, such details refer to HBLANK and VBLANK. The device expects analog input, which means that the provider must also supply timing (by way of the HS and VS (horizontal- and vertical- sync) signals.  It is expected that these signals should be timed for 320x240 and that video data can only be valid after the blank periods on each line and at the start/end of each frame.  In plain english: there are only 300x225 dots on this screen, but the programmer who controls the screen has to send control signals to the electronics as if there were 320x240 dots.  This is a very normal procedure for analog display technologies like VGA.
 * This is not a data sheet - this is a product brief or "feature sheet"; if you were actually going to build a device using this display, you would need to contact the vendor's technical sales team to obtain the actual data sheet that would more clearly specify such statements and provide details of timing signals.
 * A 1080p signal usually refers to a high definition signal (and by extension, a digital signal protocol). Although it is possible to think in terms of active area, blanking interval, and so on, digital outputs for display on small consumer electronics usually use a packetized data format like MIPI Display Serial Interface (DSI), so "active area" will not be advertised as part of the specification brief (even though the engineers will still have to worry about it!)  If you wished to put 1080p signal into an analog representation, then it is probable that you would want an active area of 1920x1080 pixels, and then you'd want extra rows and columns sufficient to allow the display's control circuitry a sufficient amount of time to reset.  A rule of thumb is to add a (low single digit) percentage to the columns, and a (mid single digit) percentage to the rows, to permit the circuitry enough time to reset correctly for the next frame.  At high speeds (for example, 1080p pictures at 60 frames per second) on realistic hardware clocked at speeds you can buy today in 2015, there might not be enough microseconds to be so generous!  (And just wait until "4K" goes mainstream: your monitor control circuitry is going to need to be faster than your CPU!)
 * Nimur (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

String Theory with less scientific literacy
This inquiry resulted from a conversation I had with a man who has a BA in quantum physics. To my understanding string theory is the result of "combining" the current model of particle physics with general relativity. The layman community seems to have 2 statements on this subject. Either "string theory is nonsense" or "insert large claim based on an interpretation" ( infitite number of possible universes, multi-verse etc ). So there is a lot being said in regards to string theory. (meanwhile there's no hype about the photoelectric effect, the strong force, superconductivity etc). I have an inclination that string theory should be called string hypothesis. Every discipline of science has 2 fundamental pieces of evidence for a theory. A "formula" (physics computations, math, something written on paper in general) and experimental/observational evidence. So where is the experimental/observational evidence for string theory? By no means am I making a claim in regards to the validity of string theory. (due to my ignorance) Do physicists get special exemption or something? Agent of the nine (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still a theory without experimental evidence (or for that matter an equation). What makes something a scientific theory is it's explanatory or predictive purpose.  That is, in basic terms we have scientific laws, which are simply statements (in either words or mathematics) which accurately describe some aspect of the physical world.  To take well-known examples, E=mc2 is a law, or the law of natural selection, or the like.  Such statements simply describe, but do not explain.  That is, laws are the "whats" of the language of science.  Theories provide the "hows" and "whys" of science.  A theory is the explanatory framework that gives laws context.  From our earlier examples, the theory of special relativity explains why there is a particular relationship between mass, energy, and the speed of light, and the theory of evolution provides an explanation for natural selection.  Now, anyone can propose a theory or a law; they are then hypothetical theories and laws.  But they don't stop being theories or laws merely because they haven't been proven yet; they're just hypothetical or speculative or unproven theories and laws.  Of course, some theories and laws are later disproven conclusively, Phlogiston theory and humor theory and Aristotlean elemental theory are all examples of theories which are actually disproven, and replaced by better theories (i.e. modern Atomic theory).  One can even have theories which operate simultaneously and which complement each other (for example molecular orbital theory and valence bond theory).  String theory as a concept, lies in the inbetween state, as a theory without proof or disproof.  It meets Karl Popper's standard for a sound theory because it is falsifiable in the sense that one could disprove it if one had access to the correct experimental set up, but it's just a theory which hasn't yet been shown one way or the other to be proven or disproven.  Physicists like it because it is consistent with existing behaviors, and it explains lots of behaviors in elegant ways that other theories do not; we're just waiting on ways to provide experimental evidence for such strings.  -- Jayron 32 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Our article currently states that scientific theories do need supporting evidence, with the first sentence "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation" citing (among others) the SEP here . I don't think the SEP really supports the need for "repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation" as a necessary condition to be a scientific theory, but the SEP article is very good related reading regardless. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, to be an accepted or proven theory it needs supporting evidence. Phlogiston theory didn't stop being a theory when it was disproven.  It just stopped being accepted.  -- Jayron 32 18:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I agree, but that's not what our article says, and I'm not relishing the thought of making major changes to it anytime soon. I suspect many users are watching it, and changing the lede/definition would require a serious campaign. I just wanted to point out that the definition in the article is a little wonky. Maybe I'll sneak in some bits about aether and phlogiston and humors, mentioning that sometimes the assessment of supporting evidence can change - after all, that is core to the self-undermining nature of scientific research. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A comment on terminology. There is a lot of misconception around, so I will put this in bold: A scientific theory is distinct from a hypothesis. You seem to know this, but it bears further consideration. You can read the definitions in our articles, but understand that there is no one true canonical definition of what constitutes a theory. A shorter one that I like: a scientific theory is a body of knowledge, with supporting evidence, while a hypothesis is basically an educated guess. People who say "that's just a theory" to challenge something aren't arguing in good faith. The germ theory of disease has essentially no credible criticism. Nor does the gravitational theory. It's little different in math, because math is not science. So while e.g. gravitational theory follows inductive reasoning, it cannot prove anything, not in the logical sense of the word. Modern science mostly works through falsifiability. Math, in contrast, needs no evidence (n.b., the definition in that article does not cite any sources. Suffice it to say that mathematical proof is generally considered distinct from evidence, which, in the scientific world, must be empirical). For example group theory is a self-contained system, and mathematical proofs in the area are instances of deductive reasoning. As string theory is basically part of theoretical physics and mathematical physics, some people think of "theory" in "string theory" as more similar to the "theory" in "group theory", comparte to the use in "gravitational theory". We do have String_theory, but I will not weigh in on whether this constitutes a broadly repeatable body of supporting evidence that would place string theory in a similar position to the germ theory of disease. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I get the heebie jeebies from reading both of your posts. That you can have a proven or disproven theory gives people ammunition to say "well its just a theory". A hypothetical theory is just a hypothesis. right? These words should have more strict definitions. (based on the context) A good read is "the relativity of wrong by Isaac asimov". Neutons theory of gravity isn't wrong it's just not as correct as general relativity. If a theory is wrong that means that the conclusion was misinterpreted and/or there was missing evidence. In my mind a theory is an idea that is expressed in a formula and is supported by evidence. In fact a theory should just be the sum of evidence one finds/observes with nothing extra added. Agent of the nine (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC) I would like justification for why string theory is a theory. Biology would have never gotten away with only presenting natrual selection without the observational evidence and calling it a theoryAgent of the nine (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, you get to think whatever you want, but that won't make it correct in terms of the way the scientific community uses these terms. There is certainly no need for a "formula" to make something a theory. If you want to start calling string theory "the string hypothesis", nobody can stop you. The responses from Jayron and myself are consistent with each other, as well as the general way that science is conducted and taught. Words mean different things in different contexts, and there is no escaping that. There is no regulatory body deciding what is called a theory. There are some regulating bodies in science that govern names, like the IUCN, ICZN, etc., but they don't weigh in on what is and isn't a theory. I do recommend reading the SEP article linked above, it is far more reliable and authoritative than our article on scientific theories. One justification for why string theory is called a theory is by analogy to the way the term is used in mathematics, but there are other, independent justifications discussed in our responses and references above. Jayron is certainly right that it meets the Popperian sense of the word - the claims of string theory are conceptually falsifiable, and nobody seriously doubts that. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A hypothetical theory is a hypothesis. yes or no? jay said that theories can be hypothetical in his first post. By formula i refer to a broad sense of an explanation which would be required for a theory. A theory has one or more claims but i feel we are talking past each other.Agent of the nine (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That statement is about as logical as saying "an red apple is a red, yes or no?" Hypothetical is a condition a theory can have, it can be either hypothetical (that is, merely a logical proposition) or a well-established theory.  String theory is both a theory and a hypothesis, not just one or the other.  Try it this way.  Use synonyms because you don't seem to understand these words.  Everywhere you read "theory" put the word "explanation" in its place.  Everywhere you read "hypothetical" put the word "proposed" in its place.  Everywhere you read "hypothesis" put the word "proposal" in its place.  If you do that, does it make anymore sense?  -- Jayron 32 18:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, string theory is an odd bird, because of how it spans math and science, and that precludes putting it in to a simple box. It can be considered as a conceptual framework, a mathematical theory, a scientific theory, a body of research, etc. There is nothing hypothetical about e.g. monstrous moonshine - there are proofs that demonstrate the truth of the claims it makes about abstract objects, independent of any physical objects. One the other hand, I don't think anyone would be bothered if you said "the so-called strings proposed by string theory are hypothetical objects, whose physical existence has not yet been firmly established or falsified. But you just can't change the name. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By extension: "the so called 'numbers' of number theory' are hypothetical objects, whose physical existence has not yet been firmly established or falsified..."
 * I think there is still significant confusion about what a theory is, and how we use this word in the context of a scientific theory. Allow me to present yet another example: consider music theory.  Nobody reasonably denies that music exists; nor that there are tones, notes, harmonies.  Nobody reasonably denies that we can observe the frequency of a vibrating string, and relate that frequency to its tension and length.  Nobody reasonably denies that we can write geometric ratios of frequencies.  But all of these concepts are theoretical constructions that allow us to describe detailed abstractions about observations of more mundane occurrences.
 * String theory is much the same. It is a framework in which we may discuss abstractions, using common terminology, in order to make better sense of observations.  One can use string theory to make predictable hypotheses: one can use music theory to make predictable hypotheses, also.  For example, you could predict that if you built a larger musical instrument, that it could be used to generate bass tones; you could test that hypothesis.  There is no requirement to use the theory in this way.  Sometimes, people simply study and develop theory because they enjoy abstraction.  Nimur (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's a good one about number theory! And music theory is another good example to illustrate the breadth of the term. But note that, unlike strings and string theory, number theory does not posit the physical existence of numbers, and hence there is no need to support or falsify their physicality. I can point to two apples, or the numeral '2', but I can't point to two :) Philosophy_of_mathematics covers some of the most notable perspectives, though none of them suppose the physical existence of a number. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If a hypothetical theory is a hypothesis why call that a theory to begin with just call it a hypothesis?! (reference to jay) I read this post all over again and then asked myself the definitions of these words (which you claim i dont understand at all) I look them up and find out i have a reasonable understanding of these words according to the page "scientific theory" that you were kind enough to post. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation" if it doesnt meet that definition it's not a theory (i would think?) At the bottom of that page it talks about how a theory in physics differs.

"'In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework—derived from a small set of basic postulates (usually symmetries—like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.)—which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is classical electromagnetism, which encompasses results derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell's equations. The specific mathematical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory are termed 'laws of electromagnetism,' reflecting the level of consistent and reproducible evidence that supports them. Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations. Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately tested, with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested. An example of the latter might be the radiation reaction force. As of 2009, its effects on the periodic motion of charges are detectable in synchrotrons, but only as averaged effects over time. Some researchers are now considering experiments that could observe these effects at the instantaneous level (i.e. not averaged over time)'"

That paragraph answers my origional question.. kinda funny but also frustrating the way this conversation went. Probably would have been easier if this was in person. I thank you both for helping meAgent of the nine (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I did tell you in my first post that the theory in string theory is like the theory in group theory. Also, note the comments at the top of this thread, and recall that WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source. The initial definition at scientific theory is not a very good one, and perhaps better suited to "widely accepted scientific theory]]. I do still suggest you read the SEP article, but I also agree that the final paragraph you quote is a good way to understand string theory- in part, it is a type of mathematical theory. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

- The reality is that the theorists are doing the best they can. There is a crisis in particle physics right now because of a lack of experimental guidance, but that isn't anyone's fault. Nature has just decided to stop giving us hints. Gravity is incredibly weak, and that makes any approach to quantum gravity equally untestable. People working on non-stringy quantum gravity are in the same boat. I don't know how to solve the crisis, but I'm pretty sure that renaming "string theory" to "string hypothesis" is not going to make any difference. -- BenRG (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Theory /= Hypothesis
I would like to stress the importance of the point made by Jayron32 and SemanticMantis of the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis. To call an explanatory framework a theory does not mean that its validity is still awaiting verification. That confusion of terminology is especially significant with regard to creationism. Creationists stubbornly refuse to understand that calling evolution a theory does not mean that it is a hypothesis, and that calling evolution a theory does not mean that any scientist doubts its truth.

Creationists also stubbornly think that ongoing debate as to the details of evolution, in particular as to gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, is debate over the validity of the overall fact of evolution.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC) I completely agree with you. Agent of the nine (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear I never said that a theory lacks validity because it is called a theory. My contention lies with calling an idea a theory when that idea is still awaiting verification. i.e. calling a hypothesis a theory. Agent of the nine (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A hypothesis is a theory if it is an explanatory framework that is awaiting verification. String theory is an explanatory framework that is awaiting verification, and is therefore both a hypothesis and a theory.  Biological evolution is an explanatory framework that is considered by mainstream scientists to have been thoroughly verified, and is therefore both a fact and a theory.  Phlogiston is an explanatory framework that has been falsified, and is therefore incorrect and a theory.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jayron32 that our article scientific theory is incorrect in that it appears to require verification of theories before they are considered theories. Phlogiston has been falsified, but is still a theory because it is an explanatory framework.  (It is true that the explanation is wrong, but it was a reasonable explanation in the eighteenth century.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Healthy processed foods ?
Standard nutritional advice seems to be to avoid processed foods, since they are all unhealthy. This results from the goals of the manufacturers:

1) To produce the food at the minimum possible cost.

2) To make people eat as much as possible, so they will use it up quickly and then buy more.

3) To cause an addiction to that food, so they won't switch to another food.

This combo leads to adding things like corn syrup, excess salt, etc. But, it seems to me that processed foods could potentially be healthier than many unprocessed foods, say by adding unsaturated fats, no saturated fats or trans fats, adding HDL cholesterol, but no LDL cholesterol, sodium only in the recommended amount, adding all of the recommended vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, enzymes, etc.

Of course, many processed foods claim to be healthy, but it's usually just an attempt to trick the consumer, not an actual attempt to make them healthy. For example, "granola bars" that are mostly sugar. (My favorite claim is "Part of a healthy breakfast", which really seems to mean "The unhealthy part of an otherwise healthy breakfast".)

It also occurs to me that capitalism may be the problem here, and we would need a food coop or some such organization, to truly offer healthy packaged foods.

1) So, what food manufacturers are actually trying to make processed foods that follow all of the latest nutritional recommendations ?

2) Do we have an article or category for this ? (The term nutraceuticals seems to include what I mean but also includes pills, powders, etc.  Functional foods seems to just mean vitamin enriched, not so much removing the naturally occurring unhealthy parts of the food.) StuRat (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well seems like nonsense because there are living examples that prove that you can eat unhealthy foods and still be healthy. Agent of the nine (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, and you can play Russian roulette and survive, too. That doesn't mean I want to take that risk. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is controversy about how bad saturated fats and salt really are, and you can't put HDL cholesterol in a food - it is the part of your body that carries the food. Also, according to our article a good HDL level is not actually known to be anything more than a symptom of good health, though I would kind of expect/think i.e. guess that it should facilitate useful clean-up processes.  Most of the rest is a matter of saying don't make food so tasty... but who eats the virtuous variety?  I do think that there are some industrial short-cuts, like using pure sodium rather than a mixture of electrolytes, and of course the dreadful practice of passing artificially generated trans fats as food, which can be avoided without much downside. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't want to get sidetracked by a discussion of what the current best recommendations are, I just want to know what food manufacturers are attempting to follow them.  And natural foods can be healthy and tasty, but they often quickly rot and/or are inconvenient, like say beans that need to be soaked overnight or berries that are fuzzy by the time you get them home.  StuRat (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Processed foods are always going to have some compromise between convenience and health. It's not just about minimizing the cost, it's also about maximizing shelf life. If you take out all the unhealthy ingredients, then it's not really "processed", it's just "precooked." As for added vitamins, I think there's some debate about whether simply adding vitamins to food is really as effective as a diet naturally containing the same nutrients. Does grinding up a multivitamin over a hot dog make it as healthy as a kale salad? See Nutritionism. Also, FWIW, you don't need to soak beans. Mr.Z-man 17:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, adding vitamins to a hot dog doesn't make it healthy, but if you also added other important nutrients and took out the unhealthy components, like saturated fat, it should theoretically be possible. Pet food (particularly dry) has been manufactured for many decades now with the health of the animal in mind.  As long as they don't use ingredients from China they seem to do a reasonably good job of it, resulting in healthy pets, and still make a profit.  It also must taste good, as pets seem to want it.  So, why can't we do the same for humans ? StuRat (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't assume that pets think all pet food tastes as good as any other. Pets do get "spoiled" and refuse to eat their old food once they have gotten used to something better.  (They'll eventually eat out of hunger.)  Cats and dogs are not naturally picky, since they usually have to wolf down what they can get in nature.  Unlike humans they do not sit and calmly choose from a variety placed before them.  If they've been brought up on one product, they basically don't know what they are missing. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not everyone would agree that pet foods are made to be healthy for the animal - see: and  It is often made using cheap ingredients which provide no nutritional benefit, and it often has colouring added that makes it look more appetising to humans but provides no advantage to the animal. Also your premise that all manufactures try to cause an addiction to the food they produce is ridiculous.  Richerman    (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I heard a story recently from Bruce Ames that Nestle once explored the idea of adding folic acid and perhaps other healthy additives to chocolate on the general theory that it would make their product more healthy at minimal cost (folic acid being dirt cheap). According to the story, they approached the USDA about this, and were told that they would never ever get permission to do that.  Apparently the USDA at that time (I think a decade or two ago) was categorically opposed to the idea of making "unhealthy" foods more "healthy" because such action would appear to undermine their efforts to get Americans to eat fewer "unhealthy" foods in the first place.  Though milk and fruit juices and other things are often fortified with vitamins and minerals, apparently the idea of similarly fortifying "junk foods" was politically unacceptable.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Chocolate is one of those things that could be made reasonably healthy. Cocoa powder is pretty healthy, it's just all the added sugar and saturated fat that makes it unhealthy.  Also, milk products seems to block the absorption of some of the beneficial nutrients in cocoa.  I like dark chocolate, myself, with a low sugar content. StuRat (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A bit off-topic, but mashing up a banana with fresh cocoa powder (not any that's been sitting in the pantry for months for it can become stale) is a sweet treat which is easy to make. -Modocc (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll have to try that. (I'm also surprised cocoa powder goes stale so quickly, when properly stored.) StuRat (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * From time to time the notion of adding folic acid to alcoholic beverages is raised (to prevent Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome in chronic alcoholics). Not sure it's ever progressed to the USDA level, though. - Nunh-huh 07:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Processed" is basically a euphemism for "processed in a way that I don't like". Foods have been processed since before the dawn of recorded history, using methods such as smoking, salting, drying, grinding, soaking for an extended period in water, soaking in an alkaline solution such as made from wood ashes, and, of course, cooking.  One traditional method of processing that clearly increases the nutritional value of food is nixtamalization, in which cornmeal is soaked in an alkaline solution to turn it into masa, which is used to make tortillas, tamales, etc. The most important effect is to make the niacin in the cornmeal usable by the body, but there are additional good effects as well.  Native American tribes have been doing this in various ways for thousands of years. Looie496 (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, precooked canned beans seem like a good thing, to me, as long as they don't add too much salt or sugar. (Beans are healthy, and I will eat a lot more of them if I don't have to cook them myself.) StuRat (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I will reluctantly advise that most of the processed stuff in canned beans is in the liquid matrix. Drain this off and just use the beans.  Goya black beans (plain) need a little more cooking.  The Sopa de Frijoles Negros is ready to eat, but is swimming in oil and whatnot. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

pocket calculators
I've noticed a strange thing. Calculators have a constant mode, which substitutes a different operand into the calculation every time, e.g.: 3+4&#61; 7 0&#61; 4. So, the four became the (implied) operand it substitutes into the calculation. This works with all four operations. However, with addition, substraction and division, it's the second operand which becomes the constant, whereas with multiplication, it's the first operand: 3&times;4&#61; 12 1&#61; 3. Is there a reason for this? Asmrulz (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt if there's any reason for it. If it's an undocumented feature, they wouldn't spend many resources testing it for consistency between operations.  Is there more than one model of calculator affected ?  If so, I suspect they use the same chip. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All that I tried are affected (except the one that has an editable input line with a cursor in the upper half of the display), like, 5 or 6 of them, different manufacturers, too. It's not undocumented, manuals do acknowledge this (for instance), but they don't say what the purpose is. Asmrulz (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One of my calculators also does it. Google results for various calculators show that this is the norm when they have such a constant feature. Maybe it's because many people are used to think of multiplication like that. Multiplication tables like http://www.sosmath.com/tables/mult/mult.html are often written with the constant first, and most people probably prefer to read a grid like in Multiplication table by row with a constant on the left. Once a few calculators have done it, it may become a de facto standard followed by others. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's probably because we normally write 3x + 7 rather than x3 + 7 or 7 + 3x or 7 +x3. Looie496 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)