Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 November 3

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 3

Weight-loss based weight loss plan

My idea for a weight-loss plan is simple. First, eat a good meal, including a beverage (so you're not dehydrated) and then weigh yourself. Let's say you weigh 200 pounds. Then, say, you want to lose 1/2 pound a day. So the first day, nothing goes in your piehole until your weight drops below 199.5 pounds. If you weigh yourself and the scale shows, let's say, 199.2, then you can have 0.3 pounds of food and/or drink, but no more. If you want more, you have to lose some weight (through urine, feces, sweat, whatever) first.

This idea is so incredibly obvious I'm surprised I haven't heard of it before. Can anyone find any references to it, or is this original with me? 76.210.248.64 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No one in the history of the universe has come up with this idea until now. It needs a name. Let's call it a "starvation diet". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your idea won't work. Your body weight isn't based solely on the weight of the food that you consume. You're completely ignoring calories and a balanced diet. Let's say that you can eat that 0.3 pounds of food. There are many things that you could eat but having .3 lbs of chocolate isn't the same nutritionally as having .3 lbs of lettuce. Dismas|^(talk) 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well strictly speaking it will work. Conservation of mass is trivially true. What you mean to say is that if one only looks at the mass of food being eaten then one is unlikely to maintain a healthy diet that provides an appropriate number of calories, vitamins, and minerals, etc. Dragons flight (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Your body weight isn't based solely on the weight of the food that you consume." Oh? Then, what is it based on? Doesn't delta weight for all practical purposes equal eat minus excrete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.248.64 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Dismal Dismas (the "|" threw me) is saying that it depends on where the weight is. If it's fat, it can be burned off over time. But if it's muscle, it would be harder (and very possibly undesirable) to burn it off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Granted, I'm at work but I'm not dismal about it... Dismas|^(talk) 02:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Think of it this way: Is a pound of celery the same as a pound of lard? Is a pound of water going to have the same affect on your weight as a pound of Coca-Cola? (The answer in both cases is noooo.) Delta weight is more like energy consumed minus energy burned. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically the point I was trying to get across. If you drink a pound of water, it's quite easy to loose that water weight. But if you eat fatty foods then it's not as easy to lose it. Or, if you want more of an apples to apples comparison, consider a pound of water compared to a pound of beer. They're both liquids but quite a bit different when it comes to caloric intake. Dismas|^(talk) 02:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The starvation diet idea that you have works, in that you lose pounds. But if you're remotely worried about losing muscle mass, then I'd recommend against it (or if you're worried about, you know, being healthy as well). If you want diet ideas (which are bad ideas in the first place unless you gained weight through some temporary situation, otherwise why will temporary dietary changes have any long term effect on a stable pattern of excess calories?), then here goes one: find your BMR, modify based on your energetic needs. Then eat ~200 less calories than that total and combine with exercise for 30 minutes a day. Standard advice for a standard problem.--droptone (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with any diet is that you end up putting the weight back on as soon as you come off the diet. You need to change your whole lifestyle and maintain a diet and exercise regime that you can keep to for the rest of your life. Anything which means you are hungry all the time is not sustainable. --Tango (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd take issue with your last sentence, I've known models tolerate being hungry most of the time for years on end. It is something that people can learn to accept for long durations. Whether those people are happy or healthy is an important additional question, but some people do basically adopt hunger as their lifestyle. Dragons flight (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, diets can be useful. If someone is overweight, a diet plus exercise can be used until they are back to normal weight. Then normal eating plus exercise will keep them at normal weight. If the person was reasonably active all along but overweight due to excessive eating then the temporary diet (to fall back to normal weight) followed by normal eating could also work. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if you would be thirsty a lot of the time, as solids build up inside you so you'd be losing water to keep the weight the same. The thing with diets is to avoid putting on weight when you stop. Better to keep a food diary - write down the estimated calories of everything you eat. Decide on a daily limit. You will soon realise that eating more fruit and veg is the way to go, and fats are to be avoided apart from small amounts of for example Canola oil as a dressing. Hopefully you will gradually re-educate your body to eat healthily - it works with me. 92.26.163.34 (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Water chemistry in Berkeley, CA

Hi all, I was wondering if anybody knew what the water coming from the municipal source in Berkeley was like, chemically speaking. I don't see a lot of deposits on the showerheads and stuff, so it must be pretty soft. Thanks for the help!169.229.76.114 (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

When I lived in Berkeley, most domestic water was supplied by the East Bay Municipal Utility District ("East Bay MUD"), a creation of the 1920's progressive reform era in California. The Wikipedia article says that East Bay MUD's source is the Pardee Dam (built in 1929) along the Mokelumne River in Northern California. Perhaps EBMUD's web site can tell you more about the water quality. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) ¶ See, for example, Water Quality (EBMUD) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC) ¶ And further investigation shows that the Orinda reservoir, which serves Berkeley, like almost all of EBMUD's other sources, has very low levels of almost all the significant contaminants: EBMUD 2008 Water Quality Report (PDF). I'm sure a little further probing can tell you about other elements that aren't harmful to human health but could still affect taste, corrosion, etc. The water in San Francisco and the near East Bay (piped in from isolated rural points along the Sierra Nevada) was generally considered by their residents to be pretty good when I lived in Berkeley and Oakland from the mid-1960's to the early 1990's. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Very strange things they drink at Berkeley these days . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Chemically speaking it is like H₂O. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vague reference to previous section: If you're on a diet, stay away from "heavy water".

Illegal Advice

I just came across this blog http://animeharvester.blogspot.com/ and by the looks of it, its author will be giving advice on how to illegally download stuff from the internet (presumably using torrents. Is there any way to block or ban this user/ author? 117.194.225.66 (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think a blog is breaking Blogger's content policy, then you can flag it using the flag icon at the very top of the blog page or by filling out the form linked on the policy page. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The copyright owner could pursue their legal right by identifying the jurisdiction under which the torrent tracker operates and presenting a compensation claim that the tracker operator has caused them a loss that is quantifiable financially. This type of claim is difficult. See the defiant stance here of a torrent operator. ISP's generally deny responsibility for material they convey and torrent distribution per se is not illegal. France has introduced legislation by which ISP's can be held responsible.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In the US, the copyright owner can get the host (blogspot, or an ISP) to take it down (DMCA takedown requests). If the host complies, then they have no liability themselves (the "safe-harbor" clause). This makes some sense. If ISPs are responsible for user actions, users get a lot less freedom, and our ISPs suddenly become interested in law enforcement, which is not necessarily a good thing—in such cases, ISPs will err on the side of conservatism regarding copyrights, which is not necessarily good for users of copyrighted material (consider where Wikipedia would be if the copyright status of its contents was enforced by its webhost). On the other hand, of course, the DMCA approach just makes copyright protection a game of whac-a-mole, and one can see the economic consequences of that pretty clearly as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In general it's unlikely that you'll get anyone banned or prosecuted for something you think they may do in the future, and maybe you should wait to see what they are actually doing before you seek advice, as otherwise it will be purely speculation. --Lesleyhood (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I would add that telling someone generally how to pirate software is probably not a violation of any laws, nor necessarily should it be. I could tell you how to use a torrent site to find pirated movies—it is almost certainly not illegal for me to do that (in my jurisdiction, anyway), though one may dislike the ethics or morals of it. There's of course a fine line between enabling a crime and describing it, but if we outlawed everything that described how to commit crimes, we'd be impinging on quite a lot of speech. (Note that this is not the same thing at all as violating the terms of service on a private site.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Space tourism

How much money will it cost to visit space? Will it require any special fitness? Who should I contact for this? Is there any special tax I need to pay to visit space? --USAndrew1980 (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See Space Tourism. The first few people paid around $20m (USD) apparently, I suspect the costs have come down a bit but it's still incredibly expensive. Virgin the Richard Branson firm have Virgin Galactic, but there's also the article Private spaceflight too. You basically need to be very rich (at least for now). Hopefully in my lifetime (i'm mid 20s) it'll be cheap enough for me to give it a whirl - but i'd not want to spend huge amounnts. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There's always the option to become skilled at something (flight crew, medical, cook, concierge, masseuse, housekeeping) and be part of the staff, especially in the future when "space hotels" or "space luxury liners" are in service. Becoming very skilled might be easier than becoming very rich. A multiple skill set could be useful. Edison (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bigelow Aerospace has been in the news recently just for stating that their Space hotel is still on schedule. Whether it actually succeeds and what the pricing will be are still big questions Rmhermen (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the price has gone up to about US$30m due to the devaluation of the dollar. The starting price for Virgin Galactic trips (which are just suborbital - you spend a few minutes in space rather than a week that previous space tourists have spent on the ISS) is US$200,000, so much more affordable but still only in reach of the rich. That price ought to come down after the first year or two of flights, though. --Tango (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The price of eggs

I know that flu vaccines are grown on chicken eggs. Due to the increase in the amount of flu vaccine production, is there a corresponding decrease in the number of eggs available for consumption, and therefore an increase in the price of eggs? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The eggs themselves haven't been part of the normal food egg production chain, as flu vaccine is grown in fertilised chicken eggs (and almost no-one eats those). They're produced, and fertilised, to order. Now you could say that those chickens could be producing food eggs, and if that's true then using them for vaccine would raise the price of eggs. But this article says people in the developed world eat on average 226 eggs per year (I guess that includes all the eggy ingredients used in packaged foods) and vaccine producer Glaxo-Smith-Kline says that one dose needs one or two eggs. So that's a reduction in theoretical egg availability by around 1%, so not really very much. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, great answer. Are the eggs artificially fertilized? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think they're done the old fashioned way, as a proper embryo needs to form, and doing intra-chicken AI seems like a bunch of work when you can outsource it to a professional for free. Incidentally my numbers above assume 100% of people get the jab, when seasonal jabs are something like 20% and maybe H5N1 swineflu will be ~40% -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

H1N1. H5N1 is the type of Influenza A that the recent bird flu scare (which everyone has now forgotten about) was part of. --Tango (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The price of a eggs might go down with extra demand because production can be increased easily so some overheads per egg can be reduced. An interesting question which prices go up or down with demand. Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually in my experience, in the US anyways, the egg prices rise in the winter time, because if eggs freeze they most often break. This increases the cost of getting salable eggs onto the store shelf, and of course that cost increase is passed on to the consumer. Googlemeister (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And hen laying slows down then too any way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this! There are farms that specialize in providing fertilized eggs to vaccine manufacturers. They usually choose the breed solely by the number of eggs produced; criteria like size, shape, uniformity, size of yolk, etc. are less important. The amount of eggs needed for vaccine production therefore has nothing to do with the availability of eggs to the consumer - the farms know in advance to raise more hens if a bad flu season is expected. And yes, fertilization is natural. --NellieBly (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Best of 7 postseason series

How many have been tied 1-1, 2-2, and 3-3 (in the same series) in all sports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.29.109 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Do curling and caber count? PhGustaf (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll research the baseball when I get home. I actually have a list of that info somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, here it is for Major League Baseball. The answer to OP's specific question is TWICE: 1962 and 1997. No guarantee or warranty in the following list, but this is how I have it. Someone else will have to research the NBA and NHL. There have been 104 World Series prior to this year's (1903,1905-1994,1996-2008) which of course isn't over yet, but will go at least 6 games. Of those 104, 32 have gone the distance, i.e. have been decided in the final possible game. All of those 32 were the best-4-of-7 variety. 4 Series (1903,1919-21) were best-5-of-9, but none went the limit. So 32 of 100 have gone 7 games. There are 20 possible patterns for the wins and losses, but not all the possible permutations have occurred:

W-W-L-W-L-L-W 1972 OAK/CIN

W-W-L-L-W-L-W 1947 NYY/BKN

W-W-L-L-L-W-W 1987 MIN/STL, 1991 MIN/ATL, 2001 AZ/NYY

W-L-W-W-L-L-W 1967 STL/BOS

W-L-W-L-W-L-W 1962 NYY/SFG, 1997 FLA/CLE

W-L-W-L-L-W-W 1934 STL/DET, 1973 OAK/NYM

W-L-L-W-W-L-W 1960 PIT/NYY, 1964 STL/NYY

L-W-W-L-L-W-W 1926 STL/NYY, 2002 ANA/SFG, 1982 STL/MIL

L-W-W-L-W-L-W 1931 STL/PHIA, 1975 CIN/BOS

L-W-L-W-W-L-W 1957 MIL/NYY

L-W-L-W-L-W-W 1924 WAS/NYG, 1940 CIN/DET, 1946 STLC/BOSR, 1952 NYY/BKN

L-W-L-L-W-W-W 1925 PIT/WAS, 1968 DET/STL, 1979 PIT/BAL

L-L-W-W-W-L-W 1955 BKN/NYY, 1956 NYY/BKN, 1965 LA/MIN, 1971 PIT/BAL

L-L-W-W-L-W-W 1986 NYM/BOS

L-L-W-L-W-W-W 1958 NYY/MIL, 1985 KC/STL

For 2009, there are these possible outcomes for the winners: PHI W-L-L-L-W-W-W; and NYY L-W-W-W-L-W or L-W-W-W-L-L-W. The possible 7-game patterns have not happened before. The 6-game pattern has occurred a number of times. 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

For the NHL it has only happened once, since they introduced the best-of-seven series in 1939. Seven-game series have happened only 15 times:

1942 - Detroit, Detroit, Detroit, Toronto, Toronto, Toronto, Toronto

1945 - Toronto, Toronto, Toronto, Detroit, Detroit, Detroit, Toronto

1950 - Detroit, New York, Detroit, New York, New York, Detroit, Detroit

1954 - Detroit, Montreal, Detroit, Detroit, Montreal, Montreal, Detroit

1955 - Detroit, Detroit, Montreal, Montreal, Detroit, Montreal, Detroit

1964 - Toronto, Detroit, Detroit, Toronto, Detroit, Toronto, Toronto

1965 - Montreal, Montreal, Chicago, Chicago, Montreal, Chicago, Montreal

1971 - Chicago, Chicago, Montreal, Montreal, Chicago, Montreal, Montreal

1987 - Edmonton, Edmonton, Philadelphia, Edmonton, Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Edmonton

1994 - Vancouver, New York, New York, New York, Vancouver, Vancouver, New York

2001 - Colorado, New Jersey, Colorado, New Jersey, New Jersey, Colorado, Colorado

2003 - New Jersey, New Jersey, Anaheim, Anaheim, New Jersey, Anaheim, New Jersey

2004 - Calgary, Tampa Bay, Calgary, Tampa Bay, Calgary, Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay

2006 - Carolina, Carolina, Edmonton, Carolina, Edmonton, Edmonton, Carolina

2009 - Detroit, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh

Calgary was robbed in 2004! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, wait, aren't we misunderstanding the question? There are several more times that this has happened in our lists, Baseball Bugs. I don't think the OP specifically meant WLWLWLW. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he said tied 1-1, 2-2, 3-3 in the same series. So you're right, for example it could go W-L-L-W-W-L-W (which I chose randomly, and happens to match 1960 and 1964). I already gave the list, so one could look through it and find the ones that fit. I was thinking W-L-W-L-W-L-W because it's kind of the "perfect" case of that scenario. In general, it has to start W-L (or L-W from the other team's viewpoint), and from Game 2 onward, there can't be any more than 2 consecutive wins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Revised to include all possible 1-1 then 2-2 then 3-3 situations in same Series:

W-L-W-L-W-L-W 1962 NYY/SFG, 1997 FLA/CLE

W-L-W-L-L-W-W 1934 STL/DET, 1973 OAK/NYM

W-L-L-W-W-L-W 1960 PIT/NYY, 1964 STL/NYY

L-W-W-L-L-W-W 1926 STL/NYY, 2002 ANA/SFG, 1982 STL/MIL

L-W-W-L-W-L-W 1931 STL/PHIA, 1975 CIN/BOS

L-W-L-W-W-L-W 1957 MIL/NYY

L-W-L-W-L-W-W 1924 WAS/NYG, 1940 CIN/DET, 1946 STLC/BOSR, 1952 NYY/BKN

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, so in the NHL, in addition to 2004, it has also happened in 1950, 1964, and 2001. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unusual rainbow

To Whom It May Concern: I was travelling in the southern central states of United States and I noticed a short vertical rainbow appeared. This rainbow did not have any circular angle to at all. It was as if the rainbow had lost the top and bottom of the rainbow. The weather conditions that day were some showers & partly sunny. This rainbow appeared about 60 degrees off the horizon in bright sunny clouds that have some dark clouds in the background. I have research for quite some time and been unable to found someone that has seen this image before. I have several questions, if someone would like to interact, from scientific, to religious, or mythology.

Thanks, Joe Broadus e-mail address deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.134.205 (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Could it have been a sun dog or halo? --Tango (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Or a Circumhorizontal arc? --Tango (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the article Rainbow ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can recommend the Atmosperic Optics website. Its sections on rainbows and ice halos contains descriptions and images of most common and not-so-common effects of this kind, along with explanations of how they are created, and may help you identify what you saw if the above links do not. Karenjc 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the sort of partial rainbow that you describe. I don't think it's so very unusual. Marco polo (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In some places they are fairly common. The OP didn't say it was unusual, I did - the OP didn't give a header so I came up with one without giving it much thought. --Tango (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw one of these today, they're fairly common. I think they're just rainbows with te top covered by clouds so it looks almost verticle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.238.46 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

has HM The Queen ever wore a hard hat?

anyone got pictures?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8340989.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.102.120 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this film clip shows her down a coal mine, wearing a hard hat, although it's not working at the moment. Warofdreams talk 21:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In what way is her hat 'not working'? Is it the light? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.geevor.com/media/images/Geevor%20Underground/the%20queens%20visit.jpg Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

HM Princess Elizabeth as she then was worked as an army mechanic during WWII. I would be surprised if she didn't wear a hard hat at some point during that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Go on, I'll be the one to say it. Considering the crown is made of gold, I would hazard a guess that that was a pretty hard hat. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Gold is actually a very soft metal. I'd take a steel hard hat over a gold one if I had to do real work in it! --Mr.98 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd put my money on it being harder than this ! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The purple hat in that first clip, matching her coat, is more typical of what she wears in public. The crown is only for special occasions, yes? But note the shape of that hat. Remind you of anything? How about "Oddjob"? That hat could in fact be a deadly weapon, just in case HRH gets into a scrape of some kind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And I like the photo of her in the white hard-hat, reading a sign that says "Victory Shaft". Now I'm hearing her say, "Mr. Prime Minister, we must not allow a Victory Shaft gap!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hard hats in WWII? I don't think Health and Safety had been invented then. Richard Avery (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hard hats as we know them were developed around WWI, and were first used extensively in construction of the Golden Gate Bridge in the 1930s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Her Majesty was working on the Golden Gate Bridge was she? I was dryly referring to the UK and her war time employment. Richard Avery (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

According to her article, she only joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service in 1945, so there wasn't much of the war left. Plus, she was a a driver and mechanic - two professions now that even with health & safety around don't need a hard-hat. It's not as if she was deployed to the front at all. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen pictures of her wearing a hard hat riding ,it's just not quite the same sort of hard hat..hotclaws 13:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

non-manufacturing cost and product cost

generally non-manufacturing cost is not included in product cost. are there any situations where it is appropriate to include non-manufacturing cost in product cost? my friends say there are but i can't think of any yet! Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.4.190.179 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an accountant, but some companies, particularly small ones, may organize their books so that expenses not directly related to the manufacturing cost of a product, like office rent and other overhead, is included in "product cost". Does that help at all? I mean, if you're not going to be audited by some outside group, a business can organize its accounting in whatever way it wants. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that “generally non-manufacturing cost is not included in product cost” might be applicable in some accounting, but not as a general rule. The cost of a product is the price the seller pays the buyer. The cost of production, however, includes things such as capital and labor. While it is certainly possible for a seller to agree to sell a product / service for less than the cost of production, this is generally a special case such as dumping or a loss leader. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)