Miscellaneous desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

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.

May 29[edit]

California property tax history[edit]

Property tax payments are payable in two installments. The delinquent date for the 1st installment is December 10 the delinquent date for the 2nd installment is April 10th.

Why were those delinquent dates chosen?

I heard that, in the early days, each county had to send its property tax payments by train to Sacramento so the money would be deposited by December 31st. Is that true? Where can I get more info about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcotterl (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Bros.?[edit]

In Roger Ebert's review of the first Sex and the City movie, he says: "The girls go sunbathing in crotch-hugging swimsuits, and Miranda is ridiculed for the luxuriant growth of her pubic hair. How luxuriant? One of her pals describes it as 'The National Forest,' and there’s a shot of the offending proliferation that popped the Smith Bros. right into my head."

Question: What does that last sentence refer to? Smith Brothers doesn't seem to fit. --zenohockey (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at Smith Brothers, I wonder whether the luxuriant facial hair of the gentlemen in question could be a clue? Ka renjc 09:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt. Ebert is old enough to recall the nearly ubiquitous presence of Smith Brothers cough drops, whose bearded namesakes seemed retro even 40 or 50 years ago. I'm not sure the product is as well known today, which may have led to the OP's question. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QUERY REF WOOD FLOORING[edit]

HI I AM A WOOD FLOOR INSTALLER LIVING IN IRELAND I HAVE BEEN INSTALLING FLOORS FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS ALL MY WORK HAS BEEN DOMESTIC WORK I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO INSTALL A SOLID FLOOR IN A GYM THE SPEC IS ;;;; RUBBER FIXED TO BATTONS THEN 18MM PLYWOOD THEN SECRET NAIL FLOOR WHAT EXPANSION IS NEEDED ???? WHAT ELSE SHOULD I LOOK OUT FOR???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heffo7 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use all capitals when posting a question, it looks as though you are shouting. Richard Avery (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12mm Cork strips around the perimeter, or at least along the long side of the boards.--Artjo (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a simple sprung floor. Dmcq (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except some expensive sprung floors are based on two or sometimes three layers of crossing joists.--Artjo (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In North America a gym floor would have at least 2-3" free all around, with a ventilated wood or rubber base covering the gap. Otherwise, it will buckle. Acroterion _(talk) 23:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italicizing 'of,' 'the,' etc.[edit]

I often see words like 'of' and 'the' italicized in titles, designs, etc. – for example, Department of Chemistry or DEPARTMENT of MATHEMATICS (college-related examples). Is there a name and/or reason for this? Thanks, [sd] 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about trying the language reference desk - WP:RD/L? It's to do with fonts and stuff so the people there might know. Chevy monte carlo 16:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If anyone reading this would like to respond, please reply there. [sd] 17:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hijabi feet[edit]

Is there a site where I can view of photos of barefeet of Hijab-wearing Muslim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.33 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This wins my award for creepiest question of the week. No idea, but you could try searching Google images for "barefeet of Hijab-wearing Muslim". Just make sure that if you do that at work, you have a good explanation for the IT guys and your boss. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cat fish reared in captivity[edit]

Is Cat Fish reared in plastic tanks toxic or harmful to human health when consumed? Emma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.205.163.97 (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on many factors:

1) Are they plastics which leach out chemicals ?

2) Is the water otherwise pure and disease-free ?

3) How healthy is the naturally caught fish you are comparing with ? StuRat (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the tank would also be an issue - because the amount of plastic in contact with the water (and thus able to leach) is proportional to the square of the size of the tank - but the amount of water is proportional to the cube of the size. So in very small tanks, you'd expect leaching to a much more serious issue than in very large tanks where the effect of dilution would help immensely.

The issue is more complex than that though. Most of the problems with chemicals in fish comes about through the effects of biological concentration. Suppose that whatever chemical impurities there are end up being accumulated in the fishes' body. If small fish take in the chemical in the water and store it - and some larger fish eats those small fish throughout it's lifetime, it gets one dose of the chemical from the water it passes through - and ANOTHER dose from the fish it eats. If that fish is then eaten by a yet bigger fish then the amount of the chemical is increased again. For large carnivorous fish, this is a big issue - hence the issue of Mercury concentration in Tuna.

So in the case of tank-raised catfish, we should be concerned that they live in large tanks. We'd need to ask how the food they are fed on is raised. If fed on live food - you'd want to know how those creatures were raised or caught.

One mitigating factor is if the chemical in question is stored in a specific part of the fish. If, for example, the chemical ends up being concentrated in the liver or kidneys of the fish - then if we only each the muscular parts of the fish, there is likely to be no risk to humans even if the leaching is severe and there is biological concentration. But if the chemical is concentrated in the muscles - there should be more cause for concern.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the article on biological magnification of interest. Dismas|^(talk) 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that catfish, especially farmed catfish, are pretty much at the bottom of the food chain, so biological magnification isn't relevant in this case. Buddy431 (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the wild, they are carnivores - so most definitely not at the bottom of the food chain - however, (and as I already explained) the source of their food in factory farmed setups is less certain. SteveBaker (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but wonder what psychological factors pertain to the eating of an animal that had been so dependent on our care for so long. I realize it is only a fish, but its care requires providing for it an environment so different from our own. Providing it with an aquatic environment artificially situated within our own dry environment is in a sense no small undertaking. Chickens by contrast either roam free or are contained in cages not necessarily always within our view. But I'm assuming the tank in question is within a room of human living quarters. And the creature within that environment is heavily dependent on us for an extensive range of its needs: aeration, feeding, cleaning of the tank and water. I am not saying that one should not eat such a creature when it reaches sizable portion. But I think that it is not entirely out of the question that there be potential psychological consequences that it might do well to consciously give consideration to. I think that there is a phenomenon by which attachments are formed to that which is given care and assistance in its existence. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catfish is one fish where farming beats wild hands down from an ecological standpoint. Catfish farming is quite sustainable: the fish are farmed in inland ponds with recirculated water, and fed a mostly vegetarian diet (so that production is quite efficient). See [1]. We also have the article Aquaculture of catfish. As for health, Steve's concerns about being high on the food chain are largely non-existent for farmed catfish; they're fed soybeans. For wild catfish, it may be more of an issue; they're essentially scavengers, after all. Quite apart from healthiness, wild catfish are often said to taste "muddy", probably owing to their habitat in shallow cow ponds, and such. However, I did discover one article that claims that farmed fish, including farmed catfish, don't have as many of the Omega-3 fatty acids that are one of the reason fish are so good for you [2]. Most store-bought catfish in the US is farmed. It's usually suggested to make sure that it's USA produced; some of the Asian stuff can a) be different species than you're used to and b) be farmed in a less sustainable/healthy/regulated manner. Buddy431 (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]