Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:17, 17 April 2014

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

April 12

Fraction of Canadian land that remains undeveloped

I'm trying to find out what percentage of Canada's land remains undeveloped. Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding the relevant statistics online. Does anyone have any idea where I should look? 74.15.136.155 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody provided a map of Canada by land type here a few months ago, and that might be relevant. I will see if I can find it in the archives. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was 18 months ago, and the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2012_November_8#Is_global_warming_necessarily_bad_for_us.3F. However, some of those maps are now inaccessible, and others are huge, so be prepared to wait on a slow PC. I had argued that the reason most of Canada was undeveloped was that the cold, and particularly the permafrost, made in unprofitable to develop. Others argued that the soil quality was too poor, in any case. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two big reasons. Many also argue that our land animals simply work better in vegetation than mines, and our fish prefer water to pretty much everything. Some other reasoning in Northern Ontario Ring of Fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak to the provenance of the information contained but, this says Canada's urban land is about 0.27%. Plus our article says that agricultural land is 5.22%. Not counting industrial uses like mining and oil works, which wouldn't be a very big number either, we are talking somewhere about 94% unused or undeveloped land. Mingmingla (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see the map of Alberta at the top of Athabasca oil sands. Pretty big number, even percentage-wise. Also consider roads and railways (not sure if they're counted as "urban"). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, "urban" isn't even an official Statistics Canada term anymore. Now it's split into three kinds of Population Centres. "Rural" is still rural, which still involves houses, roads and other development. So that's a big chunk off the 94%, if that source was using "urban" in the old StatsCan sense. Judging from the copyright date, it was. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

Rural could still be counted under agrictulural. I don't imagine it would take a whole lot of a percentage overall even if it didn't.

And, to be fair to the oilsands, that map area is the whole deposit, not active mines. Still forest on top of most, and much is legally protected from development or unprofitably stuck. But it's in a constant state of pre-development prodding and measuring, so hard to call it "untouched". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Untouched isn't the same as undeveloped. Clear cuts are allowed to regrow, but I don't many people who would consider that developed. And Canada is freakin' huge. Mingmingla (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

Narrow English country roads

How does one pass other vehicles on little roads like this one? I'm talking the guy going the other direction, not overtaking a slower driver. Street View is present at the nearest intersections in both directions; I saw no signs prohibiting entry in either direction, and the signs basically saying "X this way" appear at both ends — it's not a one-lane road. I've been on similarly narrow roads here in the USA, but those ones had grassy areas on either side, so you could go off the edge if necessary — quite different from this English road, with the trees on the left and the posts in the ground on the right. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That example looks relatively easy to negotiate. Those wooden posts are not common but there is an obvious pull-over place on the right, opposite which you would wait until the approaching vehicle reaches you. Good straight road also offers a long view. It requires cooperation with the vehicle approaching you and the distance between the two vehicles when they first sight each other. It is very likely that there will be a point in the road where one of you can pull over and allow the other through. Having spent 5 decades driving on roads like this (but not exclusively on roads like this) difficulties in passing are rare. I did once meet an agricultural tractor on a similar road with banks on each side which required me to reverse about a quarter of a mile to a passing point, but only once. Essentially it is about judging who is closest to a pass point, a subtlety that I would find hard to explain here but it works. Sometimes the cooperation goes overboard and you may find yourselves both flashing your lights inviting the other driver through. Of course one does occasionally meet with pigheads who insist on pushing through and forcing a back-up, but into every life a little rain must fall and it is forever comforting to know you are not a pighead. It is a very minor issue that does not normally detract from countryside driving. Richard Avery (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Richard says, this stretch presents no problem - no-one would object if you pulled in to the property entrance on the left to let someone pass from the opposite direction. Most country roads in many parts of Britain - especially in places like Devon (random example here) - have much less visibility than the road you indicate, by having much tighter bends and much higher hedge banks (and deeper ditches) at the side. The advice is to drive under the working assumption that there is someone coming in the opposite direction who you can't yet see (and who can't see you), and be prepared to reverse to allow them to pass. Night driving is often easier on these roads, because you can see the light of a vehicle coming towards you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all the above. Occasionally, you get a rude bastard (nearly always driving a Mercedes or BMW for some reason) who wants to try to force their way through, but most drivers approach the problem with the ethic that you let the other driver through unless it's clearly a lot easier for him/her to let you pass. A quick flash of the headlights indicates that you are giving way to the other vehicle - it's not in the Highway Code but it works and everybody knows what it means. Sometimes we can be TOO polite and you get a "You first" / "No, you first" situation until somebody backs down and accepts the right of way. It's not just country roads either, you get the same situation in town where Victorian terraced housing has no off-road parking facility - everybody parks outside their house leaving room for only a single track in the middle of the road. This is my old street in east London. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those cars would be ticketed for parking against the flow of traffic where I live. Rmhermen (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically an offence in the UK to park in the wrong direction, but I've never heard of anybody being prosecuted for it and nobody gives it much thought, in London anyway. Alansplodge (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How very interesting and how very much I agree with Gmyrtle above especially with his link to the road in Devon. My wife and I recently drove from Buckfastleigh Abbey to Chelston along such a road and it was bloody terrifying. We did all the right things such as driving slowly, keeping as far to the left as possible, sounding our horn on blind bends etc., etc. And still we encountered road hogs approaching us at speed, in the centre of the road, having taken no precautions as had we, and yes, they insisted on having us reverse to a wide enough passing point, and yes, they were usually driving BMW's and Mercedes. 94.174.140.161 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a reference for that: The Daily Telegraph, 12 Oct 2010 - BMW drivers were yesterday named and shamed as Britain's angriest motorists. Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the really narrow roads in Cumbria, we seldom have the problem of drivers with posh cars, because they avoid the narrowest lanes, not wishing to scratch their shiny paintwork on the encroaching hedges. People who know the road are often willing to reverse the odd hundred yards to a passing place because they realise that this will be quicker than waiting for an inexperienced reverser to reach a nearer passing-place. Dbfirs 11:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've experienced this in Wales. On a road with passing places with a drop one side and a cliff the other I had gone about 20 metres past a passing place when a land rover came round a bend. I thought "right, take it easy, sub walking pace and keep an eye on the wheels". Before I had started to move the other driver reversed back round the bend, then he went at about 10 mph. and another 80 metres or so to a passing place - all with a terrifying drop on one side! -- Q Chris (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you are too much of a soft touch. In the past I have stood my ground and insisted they back up the 15 metres to the nearest passing place, rather than me backing up 200 metres. Yes, there are passing places; but they can be a couple of hundred metres apart. Like others have said, it takes some cooperation, some thinking ahead and predicting of behavoir. Astronaut (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like a real delight to deal with. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One point which hs not been mentioned is that when a road is both narrow and steep, the advice is that the car coming downhill should reverse rather than expect the one coming up hill to do so. This is because it is much easier to lose control of a vehicle reversing down a steep slope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.37.240 (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Highway Code says otherwise for hills, Rule 155 says "Single-track roads. These are only wide enough for one vehicle. They may have special passing places. If you see a vehicle coming towards you, or the driver behind wants to overtake, pull into a passing place on your left, or wait opposite a passing place on your right. Give way to vehicles coming uphill whenever you can. If necessary, reverse until you reach a passing place to let the other vehicle pass. Slow down when passing pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders." DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misread the Highway Code there, Duncan: "Give way to vehicles coming uphill whenever you can" is equivalent to "the car coming downhill should reverse rather than expect the one coming uphill to do so". 86.146.28.229 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Highway Code correctly, but mis-read your original comment! My apologies. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Highway Code is addressed to inexperienced drivers in a country where manual gearchanging is the norm, so Rule 155 may be intended to reduce the need for uphill starts, which are more difficult for learners than downhill starts. The Code offers other advice for new drivers, such as "It’s most dangerous driving at night - don’t drive between midnight and 6am unless it’s really necessary." Right-of-way on narrow roads is never a problem when driving my vehicle. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because you can't get onto the narrow road in the first place... MChesterMC (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The UK Highway code makes good sense for all drivers because the car coming downhill often has a better view of passing places and can simply pull into one to allow the uphill car to pass. This conserves fuel and reduces total CO₂ emissions. Dbfirs 21:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While vehicle codes in the United States vary somewhat state-by-state, as far as I know, "uphill drivers have the right-of-way" is the standard rule everywhere in America. I had always understood the reason to be that backing up uphill, while challenging, is not as dangerous as backing up downhill. --Trovatore (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

Everything about a game

I fancy a bit of a challenge, so I'm looking at the possibility of developing my own simple video game from scratch, including learning every part of the skills I'd need for it, providing the artwork, programming, design and other elements, and of course maintain a blog of my progress. It's something I've wanted to do for a while, but never been able to because I lack the formal training in these fields. However, I'm thinking, why should that hold me back, if I want to go out and just research all of this, sure it might be difficult and take a long time, but it'll be worth it in the end. But as I say, I don't have any formal training in this, I don't even know all the things I'd need to learn in order to do this, never mind where I'd find out how to do them myself. So that's where I'm relying on you, if anyone can provide me with the complete list of everything I'd have to find a way of doing? (and perhaps a few helpful links to places around the internet where I can study) I'd need to know not only each part of any program I'd have to write, but also everything else that comes with the package, art work, music, and so on, and on, (hence why I thought this might be better here rather than the computer section)

Thank you,

213.104.128.16 (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than try to do it all at once, you might start with a text-only game first, then maybe add in some basic graphics, like with Flash video, and then add to that. The idea is to feel a sense of accomplishment at each stage, and that will help you to move on to the next level rather than give up. Also, a full feature video game may take many man-years to complete, even for people who already have all the needed skills, and I don't know if you want to commit that much time. StuRat (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kongregate has a game making walkthrough. Rmhermen (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GameMaker: Studio can be a useful place to start. There's a free version available, and masses of good tutorial material available on the web. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starting simple and building up seems like a good idea, a text based game would be a lot easier to start and to build on piece by piece (assuming I can come up with an idea that would work in that format). I even have previous experience learning C, though I wonder if that is still the appropriate programming language for this. I'd rather avoid using pre-made game making software, I get the impression that would effectively take a generic program and allow me to customise it, though I imagine they've developed a little more in complexity in recent years. Either way, I'd still prefer to learn the underlying skills, things that could be useful elsewhere, and give more of a sense of achievement. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your impression is wrong. Gamemaker (in which I have no commercial interest), lets you choose your own path. It also incorporates its own language, GML (not too unlike C), with which you can be very creative. It's free. have a look at the product and the support out there. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that GameMaker is a good place to start. Check out its parent company's website, YoyoGames.com, for examples of what it can do. It has a huge community of people willing to help. GameMaker was designed for use in teaching game design, and its drag and drop interface is super easy to use, but it also uses a scripting language that isn't far from ActionScript. After a little while of using it I found that I hardly used the drag and drop features at all. Recently GameMaker struck a deal with Sony, which is interesting, but I don't know all the details on that. (For another option, Multimedia Fusion is the other one that was recommended to me when I was at the same stage as the OP). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Example games with WP articles: Spelunky, Nidhogg, Risk of Rain, Hyper Light Drifter, Super Crate Box, Barkley, Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden, Hotline Miami, Mondo Medicals. The latter two are by Jonatan Söderström (aka Cactus), one of the more renowned designers who uses Game Maker for most of his projects -- his repertoire itself shows a pretty impressive range of genres, mechanics, and aesthetics. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For an entertaining text-only video game, look at Hunt the Wumpus. You could later add sounds (wumpus screams), then still pictures of the wumpus, then animation of the wumpus, background music, etc. You can, of course, come up with your own concept, but think ahead to how you can add additional game elements to it later. StuRat (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea, whether I'm doing it through the GameMaker suggested above or any other method, though even if I am doing it step by step, I'm not sure I know what all those steps will involve. Sticking pictures and sound into the game sounds easy enough, for example, but I can't help thinking there's more to it than that. Is it really just as simple as- write program, create sound, create animation, import all three to software, stick them together? 213.104.128.16 (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you will have to have a way to display images or video and play sounds. If you aren't using something like GameMaker, which already provides these capabilities, and just using a general purpose language like C, then you will need to do a system call to do those things, or call a library which provides those capabilities, etc.

Also, we haven't mentioned this yet, but if you want to play the game with other people at other locations, then you need some way to communicate actions between your copy (instance) of the game and their copy. (If playing on the same copy on the same computer, you could either take turns, or, if you need to move together, use different keys for each person, but this presupposes the program can accept multiple keystrokes/mouse clicks at once.) StuRat (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the text-only version, there are also two approaches:

1) Command line interface. This is probably the easiest way to start, maybe using one letter for each possible command. It would look ike this:

What would you like to do ? (move North, East, West, South, Up, Down, fire Arrow, Help, or Quit)  
>

2) A text menu interface is the next step up from there:

+----------------+
| N = move North |
| E = move East  |
| W = move West  |
| S = move South |
| U = move Up    |
| D = move Down  |
|                |
| A = fire Arrow |
|                |
| H = Help menu  |
|                |
| Q = Quit       |
+----------------+
What would you like to do ? 
>

Note that the text menu requires a fixed-width font, where "I" is as wide as "W". Otherwise it looks ugly:

+----------------+

| N = move North.|

| E = move East..|

| W = move West..|

| S = move South.|

| U = move Up....|

| D = move Down..|

|................|

| A = fire Arrow.|

|................|

| H = Help menu..|

|................|

| Q = Quit.......|

+----------------+

Also, if your font's code page includes a line-drawing set, you can make the borders of the menu look nicer, without gaps between the characters. Typically an extended ASCII code (in the range 128-255) is needed to specify each line-drawing character. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, as much as my programmer heart hates to admit it, you could skip a lot of that technical stuff if your planned game relatively straight forward and isn't too far off the beaten path. The new unreal engine 4 is affordably priced, even for hobbyists, ($20/month plus 5% of your profits) and they've really put a lot of work into their completely visual scripting language where "code" is basically just a flow-chart that you can drag-and-drop.

There's other mostly non-coding paths you could go down too, but UE4 is probably the most "professional". APL (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some alternative sources of learning not yet mentioned: I'd suggest becoming involved with a few reddits, e.g. /r/gamedev, /r/truegamedev, /r/roguelikedev, etc. Many people choose roguelike as a first game making experience, because the style has low overhead for graphics, but high complexity due to mechanics. Learning about procedural content will help you in a lot of areas, but is often used as a fast way to design levels. Good games can be created in as little as seven days, e.g. 7DRL [1], [2]. Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup is free and open source. It has graphical and console versions. If you're interested in that type of game, you could learn from reading the code. Other languages that might be useful: Lua_(programming_language) is very popular in indie gaming circles these days. But a lot depends on what genre or type of game you want to make. E.g. BulletML [3] is great, but only if you're making a shmup. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

Where is Gunnam Island?

In the 1955 book The wild flowers of Kuwait and Bahrain [4] mention is made of the "plants of Gunnam Island" collected by Sir Rupert Hay in 1940-50. Where is this island?--Melburnian (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a town (or myeon) in Yeonggwang County named Gunnam. Not sure if it's an island, but Korea is a peninsula. Close enough for some people. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

It has a Flood Control Theme Park, which sounds fun. It may also suggest floods turned hills to islands, and needed to be controlled. With places like Duck Island, Water Spider Habitat and Typhoon Observatory (on Typhoon Road), sounds at least a bit wet. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks InedibleHulk, that's quite possibly the coolest Flood Control Theme Park I've ever seen :-) I'm assuming, however, that this particular Gunnam Island is likely to be the Middle East region.--Melburnian (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, wasn't a very confident guess, especially given the book title. But worth a swing. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

Probably Al Ghanam Island now in Oman of the Musandam Penisular, have a look at http://wikimapia.org/24333902/Jazirat-al-Ghanam-Goat-Island or http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/jazirat-umm-al-ghanam/view/?service=0 MilborneOne (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems likely to be it.--Melburnian (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

victory ship Twin Falls Victory

was air force radio tech assigned to this ship on Inchon Korea Invasion.. we had a cook knife another and stopped entire convoy in middle of ocean to have doctor come over to tend the injured crewman. Om Board from Japan and departed at Inchon, Korea Just wondering what happened to that ship/ Art Weart, USAF Sgt telcom guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.12.13 (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's this article about the USNS Twin Falls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Twin_Falls_(T-AGM-11) --Dreamahighway (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Figure for human lifespan

I know that there is no real fixed age limit to a "normal human lifespan" and that there is no real way to measure it either. Like it's hard to determine when a person is supposed to die. So what is the traditional age given for the human lifespan? Personally, I would use either 60+ or 38+. I was thinking of age 60+ because cardiac arrest usually (but not always) occurs between ages 58-62 (and 60 is the median age), and cardiac arrest is what usually causes cerebral anoxia, which in turn is the way our brain should die. On the other hand, I was thinking of 38+ because bone loss, in fact, usually (but not always) begins at age 38. But I'm not sure if there's a specific age cut-off used for statistical purposes. Ac05number1 (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional age, at least in Christian-influenced cultures, is 70; the Biblical "three-score and ten". Rojomoke (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's Psalm 90 by the way.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the CDC, life expectancy in the U.S. was 78.7 in 2011. I'll keep looking for something more global. (I notice someone inserted a map of median ages worldwide, but I don't think that represents life expectancy -- I think it is the average age of living people in each region, not the average age at death.)--Dreamahighway (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See List of countries by life expectancy: "Worldwide, the average life expectancy at birth was 71.0 years (68.5 years for males and 73.5 years for females) over the period 2010–2013 according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2012 Revision, and 70.7 years (68.2 years for males and 73.2 years for females) for 2009 according to The World Factbook." Not sure if this is what you want, I'm a little confused about what you mean by "traditional" and "statistical."--Dreamahighway (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other related articles Biological clock (aging), Senescence, and telomere. --Jayron32 18:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a massive difference between life expectancy at birth and the average age at which adults die. Even in the most highly developed countries, infant mortality reduces life expectancy at birth by a measureable amount, and in places where many children die, the average adult will live many years beyond life expectancy at birth. Other factors are also relevant, such as the fact that males are more likely to be killed in warfare or in other types of physically risky situations. Old people in poor, war-torn countries may not live quite as long as old people in Japan, but once you're old enough that most people are living quiet lives (i.e. not doing much of anything that's intentionally risky), the gap between the two countries will be far less. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite true. Most major gains in life expectancy have NOT come from extending the age at which healthy adults die of "being old". There's actually been very little change at that end of the equation. Instead, most life expectancy changes have come from two things 1) preventing deaths from communicable childhood diseases by the use of vaccinations and 2) safe, clean, and medically supervised methods of childbirth. Prior to modern medicine, what killed most people before "being old" killed them was diseases they got in childhood (before they had a strong enough immune system to deal with them) or women dying in childbirth. In his book A Little Commonwealth, John Demos did a detailed demographic study of Plymouth Colony in the 17th century. If you were a man who lived into adulthood, OR if you were a woman who lived to menopause (and thus stopped having children) you basically could expect to live into your 70s pretty reliably. That hasn't changed much. So the "natural" human lifespan (whatever that means) seems to be basically that number; other studies, both formal and informal, basically confirm that. You can see at Life expectancy, there's a small section that looks at a study of members of the English aristocracy who were males who lived to at least 21. Excepting for the time period of the Black Death, the numbers for that specific subpopulation (varying from 64-71 years depending on the century) don't look that bad even compared to modern life. The aristocracy would have had every advantage possible (sanitation, relative isolation from others, good food, not-too-strenuous a lifestyle) and thus would have had the best advantage to live to whatever age "being old" kills you. And the numbers don't look too bad, even compared to modern life. --Jayron32 11:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to steam cook my Easter ham

This year I want to try steaming a ham (for the first time). I have a rather large steamer (a stock pot with a metal steamer basket insert). I'm also an advocate of slow cooking, which allows the heat and flavors to distribute more evenly. The ham is 10 pounds, refrigerated, precooked and partially spiral sliced. I intend to spread out the slices and insert pineapple slices between them when I steam it. I realize I won't get any browning by this method, so may pop it in the oven at the end to brown it.

So, my question is, how long do I need to steam the ham, presumably at 212F/100C, at normal atmospheric pressure ? I've only found figures for steaming much smaller portions, in my web searches. I realize that this temperature is much lower than you would use to bake a ham in the oven, but the steam in the air should also carry the heat to the ham more quickly, right ? This ham is precooked, so I could get by with just warming it up, but would prefer to heat it enough to kill any bacteria. StuRat (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This recipe suggests 6-8 hours on the "low" setting on your slow cooker, no added water needed. --Jayron32 18:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately, that recipe doesn't specify the size of the ham or what temperature "low" is. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most slow cookers don't have temperature settings, just "low" and "high". This reference suggests the low settings tend to be around 200F. - Eron^Talk 23:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. I'm not sure what the point would be in setting the temperature higher than boiling, though. Wouldn't a non-pressurized cooking vessel stay at boiling temperature, as the water boils off ? So you'd just use more electricity, producing more heat and steam in the house, while not cooking it any faster. StuRat (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd trained as a Chemical Engineer, Stu? [5] Maybe it was some other type of engineering. Regardless, boiling with more heat, giving a more vigorous boil, empirically cooks it faster. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Engineering, actually, although I've only worked as a computer programmer. That chart seems to show the best heat transfer is around 140C, if T_s is the boiling temp, and if I can read that nonlinear scale correctly. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a reasonable conclusion. I hope this has helped. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "Easter ham"?

An obvious follow-up to the above question...

The question is written as if all readers are expected to know what an Easter ham is. I don't. I'm familiar with a custom of fish on Good Friday (and chocolate on the Sunday), but ham?

Is this a custom on which Wikipedia doesn't have an article? Who follows such a custom? HiLo48 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I've been able to tell, this is an American custom. They have a ham instead of lamb (as in Britain, much of Europe, and many other places) or some other festive food. I can't really find any good references (there's a lot of the usual suspect sites, with a lack of references and attributing everything to Eostre as if we knew anything about her), but the general believable idea seems to generally be that sheep weren't really an important food-source in America, and pigs were; therefore, the Paschal Lamb became the Pascal Ham. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ham is the traditional Easter Dinner dish served in America. I have no idea why or how it came to be, but like turkey is served on Thanksgiving and hot dogs are traditionally eaten at baseball games, ham is traditionally served for Sunday dinner on Easter. this site suggests that ham, as a preserved food, kept over the long winter, so was the available large cut of meat which most people had access to in the early spring, when Easter tends to fall. This site claims that the pig was a symbol of luck, though I am disinclined to believe that over the other, more practical, explanation. --Jayron32 17:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron. We do have an article on the Christmas ham, something with which I'm very familar. Should we have one on the Easter ham? ("Mmmmm, ham!") HiLo48 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone in the States has ham for Easter. My family tradition (going back at least to the early 20th century) is lamb. Marco polo (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember going to an Easter service once, where the preacher was doing that lead-in thing that they do to get the crowd comfortable before they address the meaty topics (aside: I suppose it must have a technical name in homiletics? Anyone know?). He was talking about the meal that most of the parishioners would be having at their family homes, and said ham was fine, as long as you didn't know the reason for it, which he claimed was that Jews don't eat ham, so it was a symbol of not being like the Jews. (Aside: I expect the pig doesn't feel "ham is fine" even in that case.)

Anyone know whether there's anything to that claim? --Trovatore (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've been able to find online, ham is a US tradition mainly because it was the meat most widely available at this time of year in pre-refrigeration days. Sheep were historically not raised much in the early United States. (Pastures in much of the US don't hold up well to sheep grazing due to hot and sometimes dry summers.) The explanation that ham is a "Christian meat" looks like an attempt to give religious sanction to a practice that developed for other reasons. Marco polo (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it was clear he said "...as long as you didn't know the reason for it". --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found references to ham as a traditional food in some European countries as well, also based on the availability of ham in spring over any other meats. Some sources suggest that Easter tended to coincide with when the first hams from the fall slaughter were cured and ready to eat. - Eron^Talk 20:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed ham was traditional for a Byzantine Catholic Easter, as all my Rusyn and Polish relatives served it. But apparently Lamb was tradition if you could afford it. Ham was cheaper and preserved longer, since it usually lasts for most of a week. This website I can't link to, www.examiner dot com/article/how-to-put-together-a-traditional-carpatho-rusyn-easter-basket-for-the-blessing-of-the-easter-foods website] confirms my mother's explanation. Lamb shaped molds were created for the butter, and peppercorns wer used for its eyes. μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This website shows a traditional Easter basket taken to the church for blessing, with a Ham, and the priest's assertion Ham was traditional among Slavs. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain my slavish devotion to the Easter ham. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Traditional Russian Easter fare includes kulich and paskha. The article makes no mention of it, but the Russians of my acquaintance eat kulich with ham. It's a slightly sweet bread, so that combo doesn't sound quite right, but it's delicious. Imagine eating panettone (minus the raisins etc) with ham and you're more or less in the gustatory ballpark. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tradition of eating lamb at Easter is symbolic, the Paschal Lamb eaten at the Last Supper "prefigured symbolically Christ, "the Lamb of God", who redeemed the world by the shedding of His blood".[6] Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

code

Can someone tell me what kind of code is this YnV0IGhpZ2ggc2hlIHNoT290cyB0aHJvdWdoIGFpciBhbmQgbGln, and how do i decode it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asff1123 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's Base64 encoding, and I think the "T" should be a "b". --Carnildo (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of a quote from Thomas Moore's O That I Had Wings: "Where idle warblers roam; but high she shoots through air and light, Above all low delay, Where nothing earthly bounds her flight, Nor shadow dims her way."-Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dividend distribution by mutual funds

How does a mutual fund distributes dividend. what is the source of income. Is it from the dividend earned from the investment in equities or the profit earned from trading in the share market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.102.236 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's from dividends produced by the individual stocks. The profit from trading stocks is reflected in a change in the price of the mutual fund itself (less management fees, etc.). StuRat (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 196: / Line 196: @@
 ::::::Mechanical Engineering, actually, although I've only worked as a computer programmer.  That chart seems to show the best heat transfer is around 140C, if T<sub>s</sub> is the boiling temp, and if I can read that nonlinear scale correctly. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
+:::::::That seems a reasonable conclusion. I hope this has helped. [[Special:Contributions/86.146.28.229|86.146.28.229]] ([[User talk:86.146.28.229|talk]]) 17:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 == What is an "Easter ham"? ==