Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 June 18

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.

June 18

A fly touching mah cereal

Is it alright to continue eating cereal after an ordinary housefly lands or even touches it for a second or two? If not, why? 64.75.158.194 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Houseflies are known to be vectors for some diseases, see housefly. That being said, I have eat food that houseflies have touched my whole life, and have never had a problem. If you live in an area where the houseflies are likely to come into contact with certain disease agents, they can transfer those agents to you. If you live in a generally clean environment, you likely will fair better. --Jayron32 02:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You probably don't want to see the kitchens in many popular restaurants. hydnjo (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

if you're worried then just toss out the individual bit of cereal that the fly landed on, not the whole bowl. 75.57.243.88 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

75... You have some mighty disciplined flies in mind that land on only one bit of food. The ones around here seem to be in more of a foraging frame of mind - checking out everything in the bowl or whatever. Usually pretty tough to visualize their exact flight plan. hydnjo (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if I do manage to swat one of those critters it becomes a treat for one of our pets, whoever gets there first - and without any side effects. hydnjo (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

So far. As the housefly article states, a risk is "mechanical transmission of organisms on its hairs, mouthparts, vomitus and feces," and the article mentions Giardia lamblia, which does infect dogs and cats, so I would cut out that entertainment if I were you. The extra protein for the pet isn't worth the risk, IMO. Plus, you know, ewww. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My old grandmother ysed to dismiss such incidents with the phrase <you have to eat a peck of dirt before you die>, but she still swotted flies, and festooned the kitchen with adhesive fly papers.95.176.61.56 (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Froggie34

Before anybody asks - A peck is a dry measure of 2 gallons http://www.answers.com/topic/we-must-eat-a-peck-of-dirt-before-we-dieFroggie34 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's always been one of my mom's sayings. I've never known for sure whether the peck of dirt is the minimum needed to kill you, or a requirement that you'd better have completed before your death, or else.

A bit of my dad's favorite verse is also relevant here: --Berton Braley, see here for more such. --Trovatore (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The amount of bacteria a fly will transfer is quite small, so that eating something it touched isn't likely to cause you any problems unless it happens to be carrying something so deadly your body has no defense against it, or you are immuno-compromised from AIDS, having had your own immune system destroyed prior to a bone marrow transplant as part of a leukemia treatment, etc. So, if you're the boy in the bubble, avoid flies. For the rest of us, the major danger would be if you left the food for several days, where the formerly sterile food (say just-boiled oatmeal) would now grow bacteria colonies originating from the fly's footsteps. But, of course, flies aren't the only source of bacterial contamination, dust particles do nicely, too.

StuRat (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol, You people are so entertaining! @75.57.243.88, I can't always tell where the flies land, you know. @Comet Tuttle, yes eating flies sounds revolting, but I heard that some poor people eat roasted or cooked flies on a daily basis. @95.176.61.56, Im not gonna eat two gallons of dirt before I die! That would pretty much cause my death. @Trovatore, nice poem. @StuRat, you do know that dust is everywhere, right? That means that everyone is potentially bacteria contaminated! 64.75.158.195 (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are coated in bacteria right now, some of it known disease-causing agents. You probably have some Staphylococcus aureus and/or Staphylococcus epidermidis on you right now; both of which can cause staph infections. For most people this doesn't cause a problem. For unknown reasons, sometimes this makes you sick. See skin flora for the bacteria you are walking around with on a daily basis. A significant portion of household dust is sloughed skin cells, and its got much the same bacteria on it you have on you. --Jayron32 05:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! APL (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It could very well be a problem if it had time to try and eat off of the food it landed on. That basically means it vomits on the food, that also means that remains of its previous meal could be transfer to your food. And knowing that flies eats all sorts of things that could be potentially unhealthy for humans, like carcasses or feces, there is a good chance that it may be a transmitter of disease. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In the words of the great Humphrey Lyttelton 'the rabbit droppings of fate nestle in the fruit and nut muesli of destiny' Lemon martini (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Startup incorporation

When angel investors / VCs invest in a business, do they prefer for it to have already incorporated, or is it acceptable for them if incorporation is included in "startup costs?"--LastLived 04:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the costs of incorporation are startup costs. It has to be incorporated before they'll hand over any cash, though, otherwise there is nothing for them to transfer the cash too (I can't imaging them giving it to a private individual). Part of that cash can be used to pay back a loan (often a directors loan) that was used to cover the start-up costs. --Tango (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There are several other forms of business beside corporations. Rmhermen (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but not ones that angel investors/VCs would usually invest in. Sole traders and partnerships are clearly not appropriate for angel investors/VCs. --Tango (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be an interesting experiment to ask them to invest in a workers cooperative. But they would probably just say no and you would never know whether it was because of the business type or because they didn't like the product idea. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How would they get a return on their investment? --Tango (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Tango is correct. It needs to be incorporated first. An extra, secondary reason is that if the principals haven't even bothered to incorporate, then they obviously don't have much skin in the game which is an often cited reason that VCs and angels don't fund people's ideas. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If the startup has actually commenced operations, then investors naturally will expect it already to be incorporated. If there have been no operations at all, and the promoter is trying to get initial funding before doing anything, then it doesn't matter if the legal incorporation has not yet taken place. It might even be better if it has not yet been incorporated, in case the investors have specific provisions they want in the charter. However, the corporate name should have been reserved, if the promoter has one in mind. John M Baker (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What Novel are we talking about

There are two brothers. The elder secretly works for the mob. One day, due to his carelessness a big consignment of drugs get nabbed and the boy goes behind the bars. The bosses blame him and want the money back. But how can he arrange so much, especially when he is behind the bars, but the bosses don't care they just want the money back. They start harrasing the family. Now there is only one way out - the younger brother who is totally innocent and clean has to start smuggling to make up for the loss. But due to inexperience he too gets nabbed. But the authorities keep it secret and send him back to mob with a wire to capture the whole gang, the mob finds out and that's that...which novel was it ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Stereotypical criminal pulp fiction / no meaningful character development / starring faceless interests "the authorities" & "mob bosses" / zero female participation / zero romance / a dead end story. These distinguishing qualities should narrow your search for this literary gem. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Adidas Shirt

So I have this adidas shirt, and it's my most favorite shirt of all time, but it's seen better days. I got it at Rugged Warehouse (the Big Lots of clothes), and I'm having trouble locating where I can buy this shirt so I can replace it and keep rocking it. Here is the link for the picture, and any help is appreciated! http://s903.photobucket.com/albums/ac235/ziggeh/ 24.181.202.2 (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but here's where other people are discussing where to get that shirt: [1]. It seems to be from the Addidas Originals line offered at Urban Industry clothing store. However, when I go to their web site, they no longer carry it: http://www. u r b a n i n d u s t r y.co.uk/brands/adidas-originals.asp (I had to space it out to get past Wikipedia's stupid SPAM filter, remove the spaces to go to the site). StuRat (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that blog, but it doesn't seem to reveal anything about where I can actually buy it. Any more suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.202.2 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's available here (http://www.retrokillerclothing.com/adidas-originals-scattered-80s-rave-logo-tee-blue-t-shirt---mens---204329-4658-p.asp) but is in light blue. Not sure if that's close enough for you? ny156uk (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You could learn screen printing, print a similar design on white t-shirts without infringing copyright, and sell them. 92.15.4.168 (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a terrible answer - for two reasons:

Firstly: The design incorporates the Adidas name and logo - you can't make a reproduction of it without infringing on copyright. Just changing the color of the shirt wouldn't be enough to make it be considered as a new copyright-free work - and I don't see a way to claim this as 'fair use'. Even if the shirt had been around long enough for copyright to expire (which it hasn't) then the fact that the 'leaf' logo is also a registered trade mark of Adidas would still get you into trouble. So, no - do not make a copy - and selling them would be outright intellectual property theft - which would certainly get you into a ton of trouble if they ever found out!

Secondly: Even if you changed the design enough to get around those issues, you wouldn't need to learn screen printing to make yourself some - there are plenty of companies out there (like Cafe Press for example) who will print T-shirts for you in as few as one-off quantities - and you can even upload the design as an image file and order online. They'll also print onto colored shirts for you (although getting the design to look right on a colored shirt can be tricky).

SteveBaker (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well duh, it would be easy to do a similar design without infringing copyright. For example you could have the multi-coloured letters of Steve, with a different font as well. If there are people discussing it on the internet, then it could be an opportunity for the OP to make some $$$$ learn something about business and get a t-shirt they like. 92.28.240.72 (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

But if he used different letters and a different font then it wouldn't be the T-shirt he wanted, would it? He wants it to be the same as his original one, "duh". --Viennese Waltz ^talk 11:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You have assumed that he only likes one design only, but he has not said that. He may like other similar designs also. He likes the blue version for example. He may be able to design something he likes even better than his current favourite. Don't deny him a chance of becoming a fashion designer. 92.24.178.183 (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

He said he wanted to replace it, i.e. get a new one the same as his old one. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the light blue, but I would really like to have the white version as well; let's keep looking! haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.209.100 (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be legal to make one or two for personal use? Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, because "personal use" in this case is wearing it for everyone to see. As a practical matter, it's unlikely that anyone would find out, or care (not legal advice of course; copy at your own risk). Buddy431 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Personal use" is not an exception under copyright law - and even if it were - it's definitely not an exception under trade mark law - so this is still illegal whether you sell them or give them away or just hide them in your bottom drawer and wear them only on leap-days. SteveBaker (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not "illegal." No police or prosecutor will get involved. It's "actionable," which means you can do it without breaking any law; the owner could sue you, but that would be insane unless you were selling the product. (e.g., The Beatles sued people for selling buttons with Beatles images on them; they never sued anybody for making such buttons but not selling them. The point wasn't to recoup the lost sales revenue but to avoid diluting the brand and/or suggesting official sanction or sponsorship of the product.) Yet again, I'll repeat: in most cases (exceptions include pirating and so on), intellectual property torts are not crimes, hence are not "illegal." 63.17.90.134 (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Since people get arrested for selling pirate or counterfiet copies of goods in street markets in the UK, then I infer that it is illegal and criminal here, not just unlawful. 92.15.17.9 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

AA rechargeable batteries

How many hours does it take to fully recharge four AA camera batteries from a charger plugged into a household socket - I have no instructions on my charger - (I have fully discharged the batteries through my camera) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John23736 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but "overnight" seems to do it for me. StuRat (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It can vary considerably. NiMH AA rechargeables have a capacity of roughly 2000 mAh. My charger, a good quality one with an adjustable charging rate, offers charging currents of 200 mA to 1500 mA. That would correspond to charging times of (2000 mAh / 1500 mA) = 1.3 hours to (2000 mAh / 200 mA) = 10 hours. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Modern NiMH cells seem to cope with a higher charge rate, though I think it slightly shortens their lives. The early ones had a recommended charge of one tenth of their capacity (say 200mA for a 2000mAh cell) for fourteen hours, allowing for some energy wasted as heat. Fast charges often give only 80% to 90% of full capacity. If you know the manufacturer and model of the charger, it might be possible to find out whether it is designed for a fast charge or a slow one. Modern chargers tend to be more sophisticated and adjust the charging current as the cells gain charge, ending with just a trickle charge at the end, or switching off completely so that the cell is not ruined if it is accidentally left on charge. Dbfirs 16:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If the charger has coloured lights, it's done when the colour changes... Aaronite (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If the charger has coloured lights that change colour. Like Dbfirs says, there are a lot of different kinds of battery charger. Mine is twenty years old, has red lights that indicate only whether the batteries are properly seated, and takes about 8 hours. 81.131.52.194 (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If they're NiCAD, they get warm when fully charged. --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tell me something about yourself

TMSAY is the word which is probably heard by almost everybody asked in the interviews and also what are you weaknesses and strengths also what has been your achievments.why do you want to leave this job and why should we hire you. Are there any close to perfect answers to these, i have a job interview lined up ,can anyone help me with these please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A person who tells the complete truth at an interview is a wierdo so don't. Give an example of something where you had problems initially but eventually overcame them successfully. Having discussed it with someone else and taking their advice is a plus. Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I do recommend preparing answers, specific to you, for the standard questions like this, but I also recommend not trying to look up a "perfect" answer, because the perfect answers are a standard joke among the hiring managers. I believe it was I Married Marge in which the interviewees were asked about their worst qualities, and they instantly answered "I'm a workaholic" and "I push myself too hard". (But, also, don't answer as Homer did: "I'm kind of a goof-off, it takes me a long time to learn anything, and little stuff starts disappearing from the workplace.") Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

When you're asked to say something about yourself, it's the chance to say the things they haven't asked you about that you really want them to know. Say you were going for a job and you have a skill they will like, but won't be asking most of the interviewees about, that's your chance to bring it up and demonstrate it. It's a chance to show off your strong points. It's good to think of what things related to that job you're best at, or that people have complimented you for. Something along the lines of "My previous boss/church leader/dance teacher often told me I was {good thing}, and that encouraged me to try {something interesting you have done}. I enjoy {thing you did} because {why you like it}. The best interviewees will never use such an obviously formulaic answer, but if you're having trouble thinking of something, it's a solid thing to fall back on.

Interviewers also often like to hear that you're enthusiastic and motivated about something, and it doesn't really matter what. They're also making sure you can construct coherent sentences and link them together, and that you do indeed have a personality. Even if you're a capable individual, people like to employ interesting and likeable people over boring and unsociable people. Steewi (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Very often this question is just a 'warm up' to get the candidate comfortable and to provide some sort of basis for ongoing questioning. I don't think you should obsess about it...just spend a few minutes beforehand thinking of something honest and comfortable to say so that you don't get the "Deer in the headlights" look and panic - then be a ball of nerves for the important questions that are yet to come!

I interview quite a few people and personally, I try not to ask that kind of question - I prefer warmup questions like "What's the most fun thing you've worked on in your career to date?", and unless the candidate is completely work-shy, that should elucidate a more relaxed answer and hopefully give you an idea of the enthusiasm the candidate can muster...then I'll ask "...and what's the worst thing?" - which also reveals interesting details.

But if you get stuck with a TMSAY then you'll need to have prepared with things like "I like working with people" or "I love working with computers" - which are OK if you're being honest about it. I've said things like "I'm an ideas man - sometimes I'll go home with a difficult problem and wake up at 4am with the complete solution in my head - and then I can't sleep!"...that's true and it seems to go down well. You can stick in some generalities to pad out the answer and make it sound more personal: Stuff like "I come from a large family" or "I'm an only child" or "My family are originally from Italy" - but keep that kind of stuff short, the interviewer really doesn't care about your family history and your home life - but it adds 'dimension' to your answer - makes you seem more human. If you get the "What's your worst quality?" nonsense - you can fend that off with mildly self-deprecating humor - "Oh that's easy! A weakness for Donuts! You do have free donuts here - right?" is one that I've used. But again, think about an answer up-front - it's not that the answer matters - it's that you don't want to let it rattle you into screwing up the rest of the interview. So if you can reply quickly and get it over with, you'll be more relaxed as the real questions come across.

The other question you might want to pre-prepare an answer for is the dreaded "So why do you want to work here?" (Hint: "Because I need a job" or "Because I need the money" are considered disasterously poor answers...even though I'm pretty sure they are the truth for 90% of candidates!)...Yuck! For that one, you need to mentally put the emphasis on the word "here" and not on "Why do you want to work" which is the thing most people focus on. The question is "Why here? Why not at our competitor or in some other industry?" - and you should definitely prepare a solid answer for that. Spend an hour cruising around the companies web site - see what their corporate message is - figure out how you can fit right in with that without sounding sycophantic (which is what you're going to feel because really it's "because I need the money").

Above all, try to be relaxed - it's hard to assess whether someone is right for the job when they are a nervous wreck. Preparation is the route to calmness.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, heh. "Try to be relaxed" - is a surefire way of not being relaxed. You have to just let it happen. :) But, as Steve says, if you're well prepared you'll be much more likely to achieve that confident and relaxed space you need. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you may have heard of the whole Zen doctrine of 'no mind'. I would say that just saying whatever comes to mind will do fine. What you don't want is to give a long-winded, boring, self-centered, or calculated, pre-determined answer. Entertaining, informative, or funny would be ideal. You want the employer to like you, first and foremost. That said, they may be deadly serious, so no joking or flighty anecdotes if that's the case. Vranak (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

chamcha

What is the meaning of "chamcha" or chamchagiri in hindi?? anyone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Try asking at the Language Desk. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Chamcha means "spoon", and chamchagiri "spooning". It's a colloquialism for a follower, particularly an obsequious one, so it could mean "toady" or "sycophant". The Satanic Verses features a character named Saladin Chamcha, an actor who has sold out his heritage and become a voice-over artist in England. See wikt:chamcha Karenjc 18:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Karenjic, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Not many people are familiar with the origins of this very interesting hindustani joke-term. It literally means "spoon" of course, and is pointed as an allegation for a sycophant, chamchagiri meaning the trait of obsequiousness. But what has spoon got to do with sycophancy ? Durning British Raj the officers, both Army and civil, used shoehorns to help the easing of their foot into a shoe. Which were also used by thier overtly loyal servants to help their superiors tying their shoes, hence the term  Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wild turkeys

I am trying to find some information on Wild Turkeys. I am trying to find out how to deter them from my garden and yard. They have been around for almost a week. Six or more at a time. Besides going through my garden, they leave large droppings around. They are beautiful creatures, but it's not good having them in your yard. Thank you Ron Bombard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.104.171 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Contact your municipality or county's Animal Control Officer, who would be interested in knowing the ecology involved and most likely knowledgeable about solutions, especially if this is a protected animal. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2010

(UTC)

"... they leave large droppings around." Wow, what great manure, dig it into your garden it is loaded with nitrogen. It's their way of saying thank you. Richard Avery (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a handy turkey season in most states. Shadowjams (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Corn & Sweetcorn

Does anybody happen to know if Corn and Sweetcorn are safe for canine consumption? Thanks 92.15.60.29 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Corn is a common ingredient in manufactured dog food but it should not by any means be a major component of a dog's diet. Acroterion _(talk) 21:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Corn is the first ingredient in many brand name dog foods such as Purina Dog Chow and Purina Beneful. Other dog foods like Innova Evo lists beef and lamb as their first ingredients claiming that this is better. A simple Google search will show a lot of results saying that it's not good to have corn as the first ingredient but this site claims that ground corn is 91% digestible by a dog. Dismas|^(talk) 21:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

With the notable exception of chocolate, most things humans eat is generally safe for dogs. Most dogs can eat just about any meat or vegetable humans can. Chocolate is problematic because of the theobromine in it. See Theobromine poisoning. I suspect that other similar alkaloids (such as caffeine) may have similar problems for dogs. But any simple vegetable or meat or cereal that you would is probably OK. If you have doubts, call your veterenarian. They can tell you more. --Jayron32 05:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding that raisins are bad for dogs, as well. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking about table scraps, consider that the ingredients in commercial pet food have been processed in ways that may transform them to be (optimally) digestible, let alone nutritious. A recent query on answers.yahoo suggests: "onion and garlic contain the toxic ingredient thiosulphate...pets affected...will develop hemolytic anemia" (that destroys blood cells). There's some mention of "high doses," but why take chances? That dogs are omnivores doesn't qualify them as garbage disposals. A web search on "cooking for dogs" might yield practical suggestions, but I'd advise following up with a veterinarian's professional opinion. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To the original poster: The fact that you use corn distinctively from sweetcorn, and that your IP traces to the UK, makes me think that maybe you're using corn to mean wheat. Is that right? You should be aware that any responses above that happen to be from Americans almost certainly assume that corn means the same as what I think you're calling "sweetcorn" (technically maize, although we use that word a bit differently as well). --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the sense I got too... which begs the question, what form is your corn in? I mean, sweetcorn, out the can, but corn not so much. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular prior reason to believe that corn is either better or worse than wheat, for dogs. I take it you think wheat is OK but corn is not? --Trovatore (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

But wheat is corn. DuncanHill (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dogs are primarily carnivores and their diets should be based on meat, but most commercial dog foods are based on grains because they are cheaper. Grains are "safe" for canine consumption in one sense -- dogs can often eat them with no ill effects -- but they're not ideal, and many people believe that grains are actually responsible for a lot of health conditions in dogs. Corn in particular is not an ideal ingredient for dogs.

In an ideal dog food, grains are either totally absent or represent only a small proportion of the ingredients. Bear in mind that ingredients are listed by weight, and the food may actually contain less of the first ingredient listed on the label (say, chicken) than those listed further down because meats are weighed fresh but lose their water content during processing, and grains are often split into their constituent parts on labels so that they can be listed further down: rice, rice brain and rice flour may be listed separately, but they are all parts of the same grain.

It's all exceedingly confusing, but there are websites that review dog foods. Because someone mentioned Purina above, and because its primary ingredient is corn, here's an excerpt of a review for Purina Beneful Healthy Harvest, which they rate as 1 out of a possible 6 stars:

"The primary ingredient in this food is corn. Corn is a difficult to digest grain of limited value in dog food, and which is also commonly associated with food allergies. Even if this had been a good quality grain, we would still note that grains are an unnatural foodstuff for canines, and that dog food products should be based on meat rather than grain. Corn gluten meal, next on the ingredient list, is also low quality"

See more at www.dogfoodanalysis.com. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, what do you mean by "corn"? DuncanHill (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you follow the link, you'll see that the first ingredient in the food analyzed is "ground yellow corn", and that there is a reference to "Animal feeding tests using Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) procedures". So I think we can assume that Exploding Boy is using the word correctly. --Trovatore (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you mean maize, do not give the dog the cob as it can easily be swallowed and cause a bowel obstruction. My boss' dog died from that very thing. --Sean 16:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant the yellow knobby stuff that grows on cobs, but wheat is also not an ideal food for dogs. Like yellow corn, wheat is often found in dog foods, and like corn, it is often associated with food-related allergies in dogs. By the way, I've never heard wheat referred to as corn in the UK; is this some new or regional thing? Exploding Boy (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See the corn disambig page. I gather that corn means more or less "grain in general" in the UK. Because of that ambiguity, most WP articles refer to real corn as maize, which is supposedly unambiguous, even though it isn't really (in the States, outside of very technical uses, maize refers specifically to corn with hard, dry kernels, usually deeply colored — we have an article, flint corn, that seems to be talking about maize as I understand it). --Trovatore (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did read that, but it's the first I've ever heard of it. I've never known any British person to call anything corn except the stuff that grows on cobs, and maize is not commonly used either. At any rate, I think this question has been answered. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A Human Egg

I was wondering how long it would normally take for sperm to fertilze a egg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.225.229 (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on where you start and stop the clock! The egg can only survive for 24 hours after ovulation - and the sperm can only survive for 48 hours - so the process is necessarily shorter than that. The sperm have to swim 'upstream' for about 10 hours to get into the fallopian tube where they can meet the egg. Only a microscopic fraction of them survive to make it that far. But around 300 million of them set out - so it's OK that only a small fraction get there! After that, the sperm has to get through the outer casing of the egg (the zona pellucida) - which is a fairly tough membrane - and that takes about twenty minutes. So if the egg is ready - 11 hours after intercourse...more or less. But if ovulation happens a day or so after intercourse, I suppose it could be as long as the sperm can survive - which is 48 hours. Once egg and sperm are together, that 'stops the clock' on the survival of the resulting cell. It takes another 6 days for the fertilized egg to actually implant in the womb and start dividing...and much can go wrong before that happens. SteveBaker (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What is your source for those 24 hours and 48 hours figures? They are shorter than I remember and I can't find any Wikipedia article that gives figures (I haven't looked anywhere else, yet). --Tango (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any sources for it but I remember being told those figures myself in my high school health class and on trips to science museums and such. Dismas|^(talk) 16:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's now 13 hours since our IP posted.Wonder how they're getting on? :) Lemon martini (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably still at it, stop watch in hand!--Artjo (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

According to these people, the time for sperm to reach an egg varies a bit, between about 12 to 48 hours, so I'm going to go with them because I have no obvious idea. And now, if you don't mind, i shall quote something that my friend once said to someone else.

"You moron!!! Thats not what you're supposed to do!!! God, over 300,000,000 sperm and 20 hours later, YOU'RE the one that got through!!! Damn!!!" XD 64.75.158.194 (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)