Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 March 25

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.

March 25

birds of prey as game fowl

trolling by indef'd user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does any humans cook and eat birds of prey like owls and eagles. How do they taste. If they were not endangered, could we hunt them?--There goes the internet (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC) There is a problem with eating top predators, due to bioaccumulation and subsequent biomagnification of toxins. For a specific example, DDT tends to biomagnify in eagles, causing thinning of their egg shells. StuRat (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC) They probably taste like uncooked, room-temperature chicken, and with similar side effects. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Only if eaten uncooked and at room temperature. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Birth identity

Say you gave birth to triplets, and one died in a fire. Are the remaining two children now called "twins" or still "triplets"? Do their birth identities change because of the third sibling's death? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ask the siblings themselves what they want to be called. It isn't my position to tell them what they want to refer to themselves as. --Jayron32 12:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

From a genealogist's point of view, if three babies are born at one time then they are triplets, regardless of whether one, two or all 3 die at birth. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Or at any later time. If one or more die, however many are left are surviving triplets. That's the line genealogists would take, but the child itself may not. If two of them died at birth, the surviving one would be raised as if it had come from a single birth, and if they had no other siblings from other births, they could well be effectively an only child. It would be odd for such a child to regard itself as one of a set of triplets in any practical sense. They might never even know they were one of three, but even if they did, by the time they were given this information it might mean as little to them as knowing their mother had miscarriages or stillborn siblings from other births, and they might rarely if ever mention it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering the wording of the question, the correct answer is that it depends whether you ask Klaus Baudelaire or Mr. Poe... הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 14:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Tee hee. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking for imaginative answers here

Hi all, someone I know of has to worry about some funny safety procedure as part of his research at uni. In the metropolitan area, when interviewing someone off-campus, he has to phone someone from the uni both before and after, to let them know he's ok. This appears to be a silly procedure borrowed from off-road or country field trips, where it would make sense, because there is no one around for miles. In the city, if they have an accident, if a passerby can't find them, I don't know how someone from the uni can come and find them. There is a lesser version of the same procedure, that is more common: if you visit a stranger's home, you have to do the phone call system, to "tag on" and "tag off", but you don't have to do it if you aren't going to people's homes. Again, it seems rather odd, because if a problem happens while you are in the people's homes, and you can't call to "tag-off", I can't see what on earth they can do to help you. They can call the police, but the police will probably want you to file a missing persons report. If you are missing for any length of time, of course the people whose house you were at will become suspects. But the simple point is that if the strangers are going to kill you or harm you, sending someone out looking for you isn't going to help much. The strangers/ baddies will get their nasty business out the way before anyone gets there, so it appears the only useful thing is making sure someone knows where you are going, so the police will have a lead if you get murdered. So, long-winded intro, but the question is twofold: Firstly, can anyone give me a reasonable scenario (be as creative as you like, but keep it plausible) where this could work in either case (i.e. going to public places or actually going to people's homes)? Secondly, since it's a ref desk, does anyone know of any cases where this has actually helped in practice? IBE (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Safety works both ways. It is very rare that a person is killed or even attacked when visiting a stranger's house for any reason, whether to do research, read the utilities metre, perform repairs, etc. What if something happens to the owner of the house when the visitor (your friend) has left? You would need some element of proof in order to show that your friend was not present when the owner fell down the stairs, or collapsed of a head injury, or whatever it may have been. This may be part of the reason. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Very reasonable suggestion - yes, good comparison with meter readers, repairs people etc. You do have a point about their safety, but they require police clearance for that reason. I have heard of stories about things going missing when people visit people's homes even for uni research, although it is only a claim - still, the rule seems fairly common, and not unreasonable. But the phone procedure is only for your safety, no more, and is always expressed as such. IBE (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me a little bit of the police procedure to call in a license plate and location before approaching the car during a traffic stop. That way if something happens there's a record of the car and where the officer is. Shadowjams (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not quite sure what your point is - this procedure makes sense to me, as does leaving details of where you are going (but not so for the tag on - tag off procedure). Are you just making a side observation? IBE (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think I was criticizing it? I wasn't. The above reminded me of it, which is exactly what I wrote. Shadowjams (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It's quite common in the UK to have something similar in place, usually as part of a lone working procedure. It's usually phrased as "for your own safety", not as "just in case the person you visit dies and you become a suspect". --TammyMoet (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, although it appears to make more sense if you really are working alone - eg on a farm or something. IBE (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Trains reversing

According to Ascot to Guildford Line, trains at Aldershot "reverse".

I've looked at the lines on Bing's OS maps and as far as I can see, it is a smooth track from Ascot to Aldershot and a smooth line from Aldershot to Guildford, albeit with a large chord to get across to the North Downs line.

If that is the case then the train changes directions at Aldershot. Is this what is meant by "reverses"? Does the driver get out of the cab and walk to the other end of the train and get into a different cab?

I saw a train once overshoot the platform by about 100 metres and it took over half an hour to get things set up for it to reverse back into the station at slower than walking speed. So this can't be what is meant by "reverse".

A similar thing happens at Redhill on the North Downs Line from reading to Gatwick. Is this managed the same way? -- SGBailey (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case then the train changes directions at Aldershot. Is this what is meant by "reverses"? - Yes

Does the driver get out of the cab and walk to the other end of the train and get into a different cab? - Yes

Trains in Britain nowadays rarely 'reverse' - as in drive backwards - they are nearly always set up with either a locomotive or a driving cab at each end so that the train can be driven 'forwards' from either position. When you need to change direction, as you suspected, the driver simply jumps out and jogs down the platform to the other end. Or, if a particularly speedy change is needed, a replacement driver can be carried in the rear cab, or can be waiting on the platform at the right end to hop on when the train arrives - a process known on the London Underground as 'stepping back': here, drivers arrive at a station and get out, leaving the train in the care of another driver. The first driver goes to the other end of the platform and picks up the next train.

The reason you saw a train take so long to turn round is in the fact that it overshot the platform - presumably running a red signal (known as a SPAD) into the bargain. This is A Bad Thing, and the driver would have needed to contact the signalman or line controller, explain what had happened and go through a procedure for resetting the signal and any train protection devices before continuing. He may also have had to be replaced by another driver pending investigation into the overshoot. This all takes a long time, so it's nowhere near as simple as just banging the engine into reverse and backing into the station. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I think 'reverse' here is used to mean 'goes back in the other direction' rather than, literally, 'goes backwards' with the driver guiding it using the rear view mirror. As said above, trains routinely have a driver's compartment at both ends - most terminals do not have a facility for the trains to 'turn around'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know about Bing's maps, but if you look at Google Maps, it's quite clear that a train traveling from Ascot to Guildford by way of Aldershot has to reverse direction in Aldershot. There is no through line passing through Aldershot. The same is true at Redhill on the route from Reading to Gatwick. The previous two editors are correct on how this is done. Marco polo (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Another reason why an overshoot take a long time to resolve, is because typically lines aren't signalled bi-drectionaly except in specific locations. Also points (US switches) may be involved. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the track diagram in the article and the lines on a map, it is easy to see what is going on here. Even though Aldershot is a through station, trains on the Ascot to Guildford line do not travel from Aldershot through to the next station at Farnham - that line terminates at Alton and goes nowhere near Guildford. Instead, to get to Guildford they must go back the other way and round the curve to Ash station. Astronaut (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- SGBailey (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look at how to get from Farnborough main to Farnborough North and was amazed it said zero changes and 17 minutes for the first route, but then I saw a pedestrian walking symbol beside it! You have to do two changes to do this by train and it takes 56 minutes. I was hoping this would take a shorter route through Aldershot but no luck, they seem to have problems finding routes. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Two other places in South East England where trains sometimes/always turn 180 degrees are Lewes and Eastbourne. Itsmejudith (talk) 22

38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hospital

I do not see any reference to a hospital in Bella Vista, AR community. Do they have one close by???? Ralph Neill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.87.138 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Google seems to think there are quite a few. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Rewards Checking Accounts in U.S>

Who owns the money in a U.S. rewards checking account? Does the bank have ownership and the depsitor only have an I.O.U. from the bank? Thanks Tom 184.21.157.163 (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Banking law is complicated by a lot of interweaving legal issues involving insurance, banking regulation, and basic contract law. But at its most basic, yes, when you deposit money into a bank you're exchanging a right for the bank to pay you back in the future for your money. That's why when if a bank fails the depositors are out their money (notwithstanding depository insurance). Shadowjams (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what "the depositors are out their money" means, Shadowjams. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That if the bank fails, the depositor does not own any of the money he may have deposited; rather, he is in the position of a creditor attempting to recover the debt owed. As Shadowjams further notes, though, many (most?) countries have some form of deposit insurance at the government level intended to protect average depositors against bank failures. In the US, that's the FDIC and the NCUA (depending on the variety of banking institution), and they protect deposits up to $250,000 in value -- but if, say, you've got $1 million deposited in the bank and it fails, there's no guarantee you'll see the remaining $750k above the insurance threshold. — Lomn 21:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Mr. of Oz may be referring to the colloquialism of "I'm out <object>", meaning that "I have lost <object>". Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's an expression I've never come across, hence my query. I've heard "I'm out of <something>", meaning "I've used <something> up and need to replenish my supply". But the expression without the "of", meaning "I've lost <something>", is new to me. What parts of the anglosphere use it? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Commonly-used colloquialism in the US. "I lent the guy a C-note, and he split town, so now I'm out a hundred bucks." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Or "The insurance company is going to pick up the bill for most of the damage and I'm only out my deductible." I can attest that it's common in the Midwest and Northeast. I would suspect other areas of the US as well. Dismas|^(talk) 00:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We use that phrase in Canada too. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

info. on the existence of a company named Pinnacle incorp., Bloomingdale,NJ. Do they exist;is it a scam; what line of business are they in

Is Pinnacle incorporated an actual brick and mortar business or a bogus scam business set up to fleece someone. The physical address is listed as 1612 Matheson Street, Bloomingdale, NJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triangularstrength (talk • contribs) 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No such address exists at google maps. We can't advise you on whether a company is involved in crime, seek a lawyer if you have a legitimate complaint. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Meat in desserts

I am aware of bacon ice cream and Burger King's bacon sundae, but I'm curious as to whether there are any desserts that feature meat. If there are, do any cultures commonly use meat in their dessert items? Ryan Vesey 21:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There's chicken with chocolate sauce, but it's usually served as a main rather than a dessert. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(you need to change the header; I thought this was about meat conservation in dry places Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC))

Yet another example of the strange but common (or common but strange) practice where a person spells a word one way in one place and a different way in the very next sentence. I see it often, but I have yet to get to the bottom of it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually spelled it incorrectly all three times, caught myself, and only changed it twice. Ryan Vesey 22:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Obligatory PBF reference. Tevildo (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess it it means that you define dessert=sweet. Many people eat crackers and cheese after the main dish; and some include sausage... but I guess that's not the point here, is it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Mince meat pie. RNealK (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Although modern mincemeat rarely contains any meat. Alansplodge (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Suet (raw beef or mutton fat) is the basis for many traditional British puddings, as well as mince pies. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Gelatin is a common dessert ingredient, and would be considered a "meat product", although not actually meat. Tevildo (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The same can be said of rennet. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Romans were found of fish sauce, garum, even in desserts (and deserts, too) Rmhermen (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sweetbreads. I also found a recipe in Mrs Beeton's Cookery Book (1911, p. 163) for pork cheese.--Auric talk 00:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the article on blancmange mentions chicken as an ingredient in the past and a contemporary Turkish dessert with chicken in it. 83.104.128.107 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

On a trip to Japan, a friend once found raw tuna in a sweet custard - a dish he had initially assumed was dessert. I would not be surprised to find it has a proper name and was not just some oddity served up by that particular restaurant. Astronaut (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If we ignore when it is served, and just look at high sugar content, then quite a few meat dishes might qualify as desserts. For example, BBQ sauce is often high in sugar, and glazed hams are, too. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)