Miscellaneous desk
< June 4	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 6 >

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 5[edit]

Headless statues[edit]

What is the location of the headless statues featured in 2000's Keeping the Faith? I can't seem to find it with a Google search... DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen the movie, but there are headless male and female statues outside the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Most of that movie is apparently in New York City. Were there any scenes in L.A.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google search of those statues shows just two atop a π-like structure -- in the film, there are about 20 of them in about 8 rows of 4, or so... DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably in New York City? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~About what time mark do you see them?~~ 54:00 - 55:00 ish ^Avic _ennasis @ 00:58, 4 Sivan 5771 / 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's "Bambini" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Created by Magdalena Abakanowicz, as seen here. :-) ^Avic _ennasis @ 01:33, 4 Sivan 5771 / 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes! I was just going to link a youtube Peter Salett snippet. Thanks! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yad Vashem Council[edit]

What is the Yad Vashem Council? --Dandelo (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the council in charge of Yad Vashem. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Meir Lau is/was the chairman (last sentence of second to last paragraph). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of dish[edit]

What do you call a dish were an animal is stuffed with an animal which is stuffed with yet another animal several times over? _ 87.211.75.45 (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, it has a medieval origin. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One example is a turducken. I don't know a general term for the concept. --ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this originated with the Romans (which wouldn't surprise me, they liked to eat things they thought were hilarious). In that case you should ask Andrew Dalby (talk · contribs) or Iustinus (talk · contribs). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although there a many recipes where an animal is stuffed with all sorts of things, there is nothing in Apicius about this particular dish. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps whole stuffed camel would be of some help, which is listed as a "traditional Bedouin wedding dish" containing 5 layers of stuffed foods. 75.155.136.49 (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly the French: "The English style of Continental cuisine was planted, I've always thought, by some Anglophobic Frenchman who managed to persuade dozens of prospective restaurant proprietors and country-hotel keepers that the way to prepare sophisticated food was to stuff something with something—almost anything—else, and then to obscure the scene of the crime with a heavy, lava-like sauce. He demonstrated to all of them, for instance, how to stuff a chicken breast with a plum that is, in turn, stuffed with an almond. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he is now experimenting with hypodermic needles to perfect a method of stuffing the almond with paté. Since the dishes that result from these acts of cumulative stuffing all taste and weigh more or less the same, Alice and I have always referred to them by a single generic name—Stuff-Stuff with Heavy." Calvin Trillin.--Romantic Mollusk (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Americans like unripe bananas?[edit]

Is it the looks of the ripe banana, with its brown spots, that turn Americans off? The flesh isn't sweet until the skin starts to turn brown, but that won't happen with store and cafeteria bananas, which can be quite green. Is this the case anywhere else in the world? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Bananas are sweet before going brown. They aren't particularly sweet when still green, but they don't need to be brown. Different people have different tastes. Some like their bananas slightly green, some like they completely yellow and some like them going a little brown. People tend to like what they are used to, which means there could well be a correlation between people's preferences and their nationality. I'm not aware of one, though. In the UK, there is a lot of variation in what people prefer. --Tango (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, mostly personal preference and enculturation. I will also mention that bananas are sturdier before they get brown spots, and will fare better as part of a packed lunch. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like them when the tips still have a hint of green, and they are not so mushy. Chiquita always said they were best "when flecked with brown and with a golden hue", but by that point they're about a day away from becoming ingredients for banana bread. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but they only have about a day or two when they're actually good. I can't stand them if there's any hint of tannin. Just doesn't taste good. It's true that once the tannin's gone, the banana doesn't have that much time left, but that's the ephemeral nature of beauty (see sakura). --Trovatore (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. From slightly green-tipped to overripe is only 2 or 3 days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, "slightly green-tipped" is still too much tannin. Not exactly inedible, but not a pleasure to eat. I buy bananas to eat now, not two or three days from now, so I don't see the problem with buying them ripe. --Trovatore (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give me brown bananas you can mash with a knife on to the bread of a banana sandwich... mmm... and just before they turn ever so slightly alcoholic... --TammyMoet (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For banana sandwhiches, obviously being soft and slightly overripe is good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- there are many different varieties of bananas - the ones sold primarily in the US are from Central America - and are sweet when yellow (artificial ripening makes banana sweeter than naturally ripened one). The UK primarily gets bananas from Africa - and the major varieties are not the same. [1]. More than I needed to know. Collect (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that UK bananas come from Africa (one site said that the majority came from Caribbean) but perhaps UK bananas are commonly Dwarf Cavendish while U.S. ones are Grand Nain variety. I can't quite come to that conclusion from the Wikipedia articles but perhaps it is implied. Rmhermen (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance for what I'm about to say (and I'm not trying to impersonate Bugs), but I've never understood bananas at all. I mean, after you peel off the skin, and throw away the bone, there doesn't seem to be much left...

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you misunderstand what a banana is. It sounds like you're trying to eat mice. Hope this helps. --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am an American. I read the title of your question, and I said, "What? I don't eat green bananas. Ew." Then I read the body of your question, and I said, "He isn't asking why Americans don't like ripe bananas; he's asking why Americans don't like mushy rotten brown bananas. Ewwwwww." I am sure this is helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? He wasn't talking about bananas where the flesh is brown, just the skin. I'm also American, and I agree with the OP that most bananas don't taste good until there are at least a few flecks of brown on the skin. The flesh is rarely mushy at that point (there might be a mushy spot or two; you just cut those out if you're finicky) but at least the tannic taste is mostly gone. --Trovatore (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a United Statesian of South American birth and I prefer them when they have no brown spots on the peel. I find the pasty texture of ripe bananas to be off-putting, unless they're fried or on a sandwich. I like them al dente. --Sean 14:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am mostly with the OP on all fours. I am an American and cannot understand why *most* Americans eat unripe bananas. It is basically impossible to get a good smoothy or banana split anywhere because of the trend. Unripe bananas have some type of very noticeable chemical taste that goes away completely jut as they start to get brown speckled that is so strong and offputting just a few days before. The only quibble with the OP is that the brush is a tad broad. I prsonally think many Americans who eat greenish bananas actually would like brown speckled much better but have never given it a chance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I shared an apartment with three other students, it was impossible for me to eat a ripe banana from the common larder. In a Tragedy of the commons, we would buy a big stalk of supermarket bananas, still a bit green. The perfect banana for eating, in my judgment (as opposed to a mashed banana sandwich or banana bread) would have the green gone from the stem and little brown spots all over. They would get closer and closer to perfect ripeness, then they would be gone, consumed by someone with a greater tolerance of unripe banana. In any household with more than one person, nothing would be so funny as someone angrily demanding to know who ate his almost-ripe banana. (Clearly the making of a Monty Python sketch). The only recourse would have been to hide a banana in the sock drawer to let it ripen undisturbed. That was all to likely to result in a sock drawer full of little fruit flies (almost makes one believe in Spontaneous generation). Edison (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Tragedy of the commons is the loss to everyone of what should have been a renewable resource by collective poor judgement. That profile does not fit Edison's banana saga where only 3 out of 4 lost a non-renewable consumable. The image of covertly inserted bananas-in-socks is strangely erotic. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could scratch your initials on the skin which would show up quite quickly and be permanent Hotclaws (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Penny[edit]

Is the US Penny legal tender at this time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.2.26 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something has happened in the last couple of days that I didn't hear about, the 1-cent piece is still legally worth 1 cent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't quite as silly a question as you might think, Bugs. It's also more subtle that you may realize—having a legally-recognized nominal face value does not mean that a piece of currency is actually legal tender.

A number of countries place a limit on the maximum value of coins which must be accepted as legal tender. (For instance, in the United Kingdom, 1p coins are legal tender only for amounts up to 20p: [2]. In Canada, pennies are legal tender for amounts only up to one dollar. In all cases, creditors may choose to accept greater amounts in coin than these minimum thresholds, but they are not compelled to by law.) In the United States, pennies and nickels weren't legal tender at all prior to the Coinage Acts of 1873 and 1879. After that, they were legal tender only for amounts up to 25 cents, a restriction which remained in place until the Coinage Act of 1965 removed all such limits: [3]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that businesses typically aren't required to accept large quantities of coins in lieu of bills. But they are still valid money. It's not like you're trying to buy that pack of chewing gum with bus tokens or wooden nickels or Confederate money or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he asked specifically about "the US Penny", and technically speaking there's no such thing. It's a 1-cent piece, and "penny" is just a nickname, borrowed from the British. But if I were to go to my bank with a big jar full of coins, I would pour it into their little machine, it would count it, and I could deposit it into my account. I've also occasionally had too many coins with me and "dumped" a few dollars worth to buy lunch. No one's ever objected. So I still say the straightforward answer to the OP's question is YES. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, legal tender does not mean what most people think it means. There are no requirements that any business transaction be concluded in any particular demonomonation of bills or coins, or even in cash at all, in the U.S. Businesses can refuse to accept cash for any number of reasons, for example if you attempt to buy an item using nothing but pennies, or they may prefer to deal with an EFT or certified cashiers check rather than cash at all, because of the liability in dealing with large sums of cash. If you, say, attempted to put a down payment on a mansion with $100,000 worth of $20 bills, they may politely ask you to take it to the bank and get a cashier's check instead. The two parties to a business transaction are free to negotiate any form of payment they wish, and the entity providing the good or service cannot be forced to accept a type of payment they do not wish. They are within their rights to refuse to sell to you if they believe you are not acting in good faith (for example, trying to buy a car with pennies). A business is fully allowed to accept an all-coin payment like that, if both the buyer and the seller are comfortable doing business that way, but they are not required to. So, for example, if you bought your meatball sub at the local deli with a pile of pennies and nickels, the shop owner may grumble and accept them, but he may also tell you to GTFO... --Jayron32 19:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's suppose that I owe someone 25 cents, and attempt to pay that debt with a 100 dollar bill. What then? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The answer is 'yes', just not for the intuition-based, reference-free reasoning that you've provided. 'Legal tender' does not mean the same thing as 'might be accepted at the store' or 'can be deposited at the bank'; you seem unaware of – or intent on muddying – the distinction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insulting comments. I'm enriched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you've offered your own personal, unsourced, unreferenced opinions on currency-related questions several times in the last couple of weeks. You've been around at the Reference Desk for enough years to know that we're supposed to – and most of us try to – provide, detailed, thorough, factual information in response to questions. If you can't be bothered to understand and research the questions that are asked before chiming in, you don't have standing to feel insulted when other editors call you out on it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're either my mother or Dr. Phil, it is not your place to lecture me or anyone else on how I "should feel" about any given situation. Thanks to the attitude I see more and more, in you and others, I'm coming around to the viewpoint that LC is right on the money, about you and your little "holier than thou / we're way much better than you are" clique here at the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued insulting comments. I'm sure the OP is entertained. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that the OP is informed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously a lot smarter than me, so how about trying to answer my 25 cents question that I posed to Jayron? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a proper citation, or would you be prepared to settle for something of much lesser value and quality (a personal, unsourced, unreferenced opinion, for example)? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want one of you smarter-and-better-than-me types to answer this question: If I owe someone 25 cents, is a 100 dollar bill "legal tender" for repaying them and demanding 99 dollars and 75 cents back? Or is that every bit as "abusive" as trying to settle a 100 dollar debt with 10,000 one-cent pieces or 1,000 dimes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is in the final sentence of the US section of legal tender: "all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor in the U.S. There is, however, no Federal statute that requires private businesses, persons, or organizations to accept it as payment for goods and/or services." --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The article is a hodgepodge of minutia and contradictions. Is there a "yes" or "no" answer to the OP's question? Or is the answer "it depends"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... this makes my head hurt... I would take the sentence "all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor in the U.S. There is, however, no Federal statute that requires private businesses, persons, or organizations to accept it as payment for goods and/or services." to mean that while there are multiple legal ways to pay, the creditor doesn't have to accept any particular way of payment. The basis of refusal cannot be that the payment offerred would be illegal. Cantankerous giganticus (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron's correct about the legal tender piece. The basic point is that it is legal tender for debts... doesn't mean people can't otherwise contract around things, or more importantly, refuse to contract in the first place. For example, refusing to sell you something because you think it's clever to pay for it with pennies. Volokh Conspiracy has mentioned this subject a few times in the past, and some of their discussion about it might be of interest. Shadowjams (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the answer to the OP's question? All I've seen here is attitude... and an article called "legal tender" that reads like the Dead Sea Scrolls. What's the answer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'll admit I'm a bit confused about some things, notably a business being able to refuse cash. If I get a bill from a company (debt), and I pay using bills (Which say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"), how can they refuse accepting my money without canceling my debt? ^Avic _ennasis @ 22:49, 3 Sivan 5771 / 5 June 2011 (UTC)

For in depth legal analysis check out the link I provided and some similar searches to it.

To add on, the link I provided has a very good explanation. Here's the relevant part: " A legal tender may be rejected even after the payee has performed, and a rejected legal tender does not discharge the obligation. All that happens with a rejected legal tender is that "interest . . . ceases to accumulate . . . parties secondarily liable are discharged and securities on property are lost." Herman Oliphant, the Theory of Money in the Law of Commercial Instruments, 29 Yale LJ 606, 609 (1920)."" Shadowjams (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. I wonder if the OP had any clue what a megillah he was opening by asking that question. It would be nice if he would comment, but that was his only edit since November. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good Buddhist would accept Baseball Bugs' $100 bill and bless him for it with good karma. However concerning the 99 dollars and 75 cents, the dharma teaches that change must come from within. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was that intended as a joke?Cantankerous giganticus (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the 'how can a business refuse a bill (debt)' well I presume if you had a contract with them which specified you would pay in some way other then cash you're violating the contract by trying to pay in cash. If you keep trying to pay in cash they could likely demand a penalty for said breach of contract in addition to the original debt (and also cancel any contract they have with you and refuse to ever deal with you again). They would probably accept your cash payment for your eventual total debt. If you feel their penalty is excessive you could perhaps fight it, I can't guess what would happen here but it would likely depend on the contract and their justification for the penalty.

About the BB $100 for 25 cents debt thing, there are two obvious possibilities here. 1 is they can accept the $100 but are required to enter in to debt to you for $99.75 (which is effectively what you are doing if you demand change). The other is they accept the $100 but are not required to enter in to the debt to you (so if you want to pay $100 for 25 cents thats up to you although they would probably have to specify this before accepting the payment). My guess (and it's only a guess) is it'll probably be the later since I can't see any reason why you could force someone to enter in to debt, unless perhaps there was some indication before the whole thing started they would do so. Note that the law in most countries usually only says something like 'legal tender for payments of debt'. It doesn't say if you choose to overpay your debt with legal tender the person is required to enter into a debt with you. Ultimately of course only a court can decide and as SJ notes, it's rather complicated.

P.S. This 1912 book [4] page 534 suggests that for a while in the 19th century the law in the US was intepreted that people can't contract out of accepting legal tender but this was reversed (although I can't read the rest)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going to an authoritative source (the US Treasury) [5], the page there says "all United States money as identified above [coins and currency] are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services." Note that they're legal tender for all *debts* public and private, not all transactions. If you're in the checkout line at a grocery store, even though you have a cart full of groceries you haven't yet incurred a debt to the store (e.g. you could technically decide you don't need the items and leave the cart with the cashier without paying for them - see Invitation to treat) as such, the store can refuse to accept US bills and coins (leaving you to walk off in a huff). I believe the situation is slightly different for places like restaurants, where you pay after eating (but not places like McDonalds where you pay before receiving your food). In that case it could be argued that you've incurred a debt to the restaurant, and that refusing to take cash would be illegal (although that may be tempered if they have prominent "no cash" sign, which might cause them to argue that you committed fraud by expecting to pay with cash when you knew they don't accept it - whether that would hold up in court, I have no clue). Note that "public charges, taxes, and dues" are specifically mentioned in the statute, so I think there's little argument that if you showed up to the appropriate* IRS office with a sack full of pennies, they would have to let you pay your income tax with them. (*that's the qualification that's going to get you). -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you tried to pay that $5000 of taxes in pennies to the IRS, they might require that you sit around while they count it. Googlemeister (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I heard of someone trying to pay their tax bill in pennies, the IRS required the person doing the paying to do the counting. --Carnildo (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, I know, but what's the "LC" that bugs mentioned? Cantankerous giganticus (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lightcurrent. If you don't know who that is, you're better off than the rest of us. If you really want to know, chances are good that they are arguing about him on the reference desk talk page at this very moment. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pennies-303394-bill-bills.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mark of the Beast (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]