April 25

I had 100cc Yamaha which was not self-start, i.e. you had to kick it to start. But still it had a 12 DC Battery...why ? 124.253.255.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kick start motorcycles used to primarily use a magneto to generate the high voltage required for the spark plug. However a magneto does not really lend itself to producing low voltage to run your lights. So, at idling speeds the lights would be very dim. Later motorcycles use an alternator to charge a battery. At idling speeds the lights draw from the battery and at high speeds the battery gets charged.196.214.78.114 (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mopeds and small motorcycles often have 6 volt batteries. Large motorcycles have 12 volt batteries. 100 cc is small to medium, therefore it can have a 12 volt battery. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a violent society we live in. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

with summer coming and the weather getting warmer, I feel like setting up a small pool in my new garden, but I'm wondering, are there any guidelines on how large a pool I can have, without having to get some sort of planning permission or authorisation from the water suppply or anything of that sort?

213.104.128.16 (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Canda I helped a friend put one in. The pool store that installed it knew all the local rules. It may be worth phoning/emailing them. We also found out later that if we had put in a low voltage light then we wouldn't have had to run $400+ worth of copper bond wire to all the metal parts and back up to the house. You may wish to look into electrical codes in case the pool guys don't know them well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the rules depend on where you live (e.g. National Park or conservation area). Some guidelines are here and here. Dbfirs 16:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are you planning to dig it yourself or to have one of those raised metal pools? how big is your garden? Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A small pool? You haven't asked this but what is your intended purpose for it. If it is one that is going to flush with the ground then the water will be very chilly for all but the two weeks that the summer lasts for in the UK (OK, I exaggerate - 2 days max). If you want something pleasant to splash around in and you have never experienced an unheated pool – it might be worth thinking about this first. If you find unheated pools too chilly then it might be worth factoring in the cost of some sort of heating and thermal over- blanket into your budget. Aspro (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't handicap parking rules be the same in all 50 states — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packertb (talk • contribs) 17:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure they're that different, but more generally, because the U.S. is a federalist republic and the

United States Constitution leaves most rulemaking power to the individual states, who can choose to do things differently, within some broad limits. You might be surprised to learn that most criminal law is state-based. Shadowjams (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

As far as handicapped parking goes, I do wish my state would allow me to park there if there's no other parking available. I find it both infuriating and a waste of resources to see a row of unused handicapped parking spaces in an otherwise full lot. StuRat (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what happens to the handicapped driver who turns up after all the handicapped spaces are taken by able bodied people? HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should they have more of a right to park in a lot than the able-bodied ? They can go shop elsewhere, just as the able-bodied must when the lot is full. I'm for giving the handicapped equal rights, and if that means they need to park closer to be able to use the store, that's fine. But I oppose special rights. (Incidentally, I always park way in the back, even if there are closer spaces, since I don't mind the exercise, want to avoid door dings, and can't stand being trapped in because some line of idiots are waiting behind me for some other car to pull out.) StuRat (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I don't quite see where you're drawing the line. Isn't being allowed to park closer a special right? HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, until the lot is full, it doesn't place an unreasonable burden on everybody else. But, when people can't park despite there being free spaces, that is an unreasonable burden. In another example, adding ramps to national monuments is not an unreasonable burden, in most cases, but, in cases where that's impractical, closing the monument is an unreasonable burden on the general public. StuRat (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some might suggest that life in a wheelchair is a pretty unreasonable burden to start with, and that anything society can do to help is reasonable. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To which I respond "some are handicapped due to their own reckless behavior, and some due to no fault of their own, but, in no case are they handicapped because of me, so I should not be punished". StuRat (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It always amazes me to find people with attitudes like yours, but thanks for the education as to the diversity of views in this wonderful world of ours. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a future world, able-bodied people will be allowed to park in spots reserved for disabled people with the proviso that when their remote alert sounds they will drop what they're doing and return to their car and move it, in under 5 seconds, or be fined for any degree of tardiness. Bus stop (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is possibly the most ridiculous complaint I've ever heard. You'd love it here, where we also have spots reserved for pregnant women, drivers with young children, and drivers with electric or otherwise "green" cars (maybe only at Ikea). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Adam. The purpose of legislation is to provide rules for the governance of society. People with additional mobility needs are no less a part of society than you, me, or Stu, and lawmakers are quite within their remit - especially as we, the members of society elected them - to rule that those who are more able to shift for themselves should do so, and that those in greater need should be provided for. That is how societies, and communities, operate. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, can you give an example of a national monument that was closed entirely because it was impractical to provide ramps for disabled people? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They may not come out and say why an area is not made accessible to the public, but this seems to imply a place which is closed for that reason: [1]. StuRat (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get that; but in any case you really seem to be clutching at straws here in order to defend a preposterous position, one bordering on offensiveness when you assume the role of victim (!) in relation to disabled people. Why not ride a mile in their wheelchair before coming up with such lame and selfish points. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack of Oz here, I'm not seeing any evidence areas were closed for that reason from the source provided. And I even did a search and couldn't find any discussion. Yet it's not like it's hard to find stuff telling us about the alleged negative effects of the ADA [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (comment section), [9], [10] (small mention at beginning), [11] (didn't obtain access to the whole source).

Anyway, perhaps more relevant, what I did find is sources [12] (from [13]) and [14] suggesting that not all the open facilities or tours of Wind Cave and Crystal Cave are even accessible to the disabled. So while I can't rule out StuRat's allegation, it seems there's no evidence other then a rather strange reading of their source. (To me it's more likely the reason some areas are closed to the public is either because they felt it would be too dangerous or difficult even for fully able bodied people or they didn't want to risk damaging the cave or a combination of factors.)

P.S. To be clear, I'm not saying that no facilities were ever closed or not made because of the cost of compliance, I'm sure it has happened, some of the sources I provide suggest some. I'm simply pointing out there's no evidence for the one StuRat is referring to. And I have no desire to start a discussion about the merits of the ADA or similar legislation or whether they indicate a flaw in the legislation.

P.P.S. If anyone is wondering, Crystal Cave which was not mentioned before but I confused myself in to thinking was discussed is also not completely accessible to the disabled [15] [16]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing able-bodied to use handicap spots in full parking lots would probably help you much less than you imagine when you see the empty spots. A small part of the spots are reserved for handicapped. If the lot is full and everybody was allowed the handicap spots then they would usually have been taken before you got there. And how should the rule be administered when able-bodied drivers claim "The lot was full when I got there". Should video recordings of the whole lot be required to show it wasn't full? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is remarkably on topic for the usual reference desk suspects, but still, I think we're veering off topic. I know for a fact there are studies that talk about the number of handicap parking spots designated by the

AWDA, but I don't see any referenced here. Shadowjams (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Being compelled to walk a little ways is not a "punishment", in fact it's good for you, if you can actually walk. And if all the handicapped spots are taken, additional handicapped persons will have to park some distance away also. And some stores have short-term (15 to 30 minutes) spaces near the handicapped spaces. And stores often require their own employees to park a distance from the store so they won't hog the good parking spaces. It would be nice if everyone could park near the entrance, but when there are many customers at once, it's not possible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to walking a bit. It's not being allowed to park at a store at all, when there are still open parking spaces, that I object to. You might be thinking of a situation where you can just park in an adjacent lot, but that's not always possible. In Los Angeles, at least, many business owners will tow your vehicle if you park there but aren't their customer. Consequently, when a lot was full, I had to walk for miles from the nearest free parking area. Parking isn't normally so bad here in Detroit, but lots can fill up with Christmas shoppers, etc. Some stores don't have any adjacent lots, and may not even have sidewalks to the next lot, so that would mean walking in the street quite some distance. StuRat (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take the bus? HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can those of you using the term "handicapped" lay off it please, it's offensive. "Disabled people" (thanks Jack) is much better. And no, I'm not being PC. --Viennese Waltz 13:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google [handicap signs] and then maybe direct your PC complaints to those companies advertising that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious VW's request was being made to people here. Do you usually tell people to get lost when they ask for your sympathy and consideration? The people putting up the signs don't read RD. You and I do. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out below, it's in common usage in America, even by those who are disabled. So cease your attempts at nannying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the term "handicapped parking space" is in common usage. And it's funny to hear "handicapped" described as offensive, when it was once the euphemism. Bill Veeck, who wore an artificial leg, said in the early 1960s, "I'm not handicapped, I'm crippled." Now he would say, "I'm not disabled, I'm crippled." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least, the word "handicap" fell out of favour 20 years ago or more. It was deemed in the top ten offensive terms for disabled people in this vote by disabled people. That excellent BBC News article includes this snippet (apologies for reproducing another offensive word): ""Handicapped" is a word which many disabled people consider to be the equivalent of nigger. It evokes thoughts of being held back, not in the race, not as good, weighed down by something so awful we ought not to speak of it." --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as I pointed out above, "handicapped" was once considered a polite euphemism for "crippled". And maybe it's an N-word in the UK, but in America it's commons usage, including by people who get those stickers for their cars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it, do you. It being common usage is neither here nor there in terms of whether it should or should not be used. The point is to change offensive language. And disabled people get to call themselves whatever they like. You don't. (I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the RD should be coming out with such offensive claptrap as we have seen here today.) --Viennese Waltz 14:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's YOU that doesn't get it. Comparing the common euphemism "handicapped" to the N-word is truly offensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop it with the opinions. This is a reference desk. I've presented a reference showing that disabled people in the UK believe that it is a valid comparison. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've presented a reference that shows it's in wide, ordinary usage, at least in America. So stop it already, with your own opinions and nannyism. Wikipedia is supposed to be about description, not prescription. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a semi-legalistic article from just a couple of years ago that uses the terms "disabled" and "handicapped" interchangeably and matter-of-factly.[17] You will find references like this all over the place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page says you are English. This is an international encyclopedia and the connotations you have with a word may not be experienced in other countries. I guess it was mainly voted in the top-10 because it's a common term and not because it's among the worst things a person can say. Few people will vote for something they rarely or never hear. Whenever a term for mentally or physically challenged people or whatever we call them has been used for a while, there are some who will use it in a derogatory way (often about people it doesn't apply to), and some who will advocate for a new term. See Euphemism#Disability and handicap, and try not to judge others for using a word that may be perfectly acceptable where they come from. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to scroll up a few lines and refresh your memory: I was careful to write, in the opening words of my comment, "In the UK at least". To dismiss the reliable source I brought with a personal opinion is poor Reference Desk form. Calling the comparison and by (extension therefore calling me) "offensive", is itself, offensive. --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive area, isn't it? Do we have an article on the linguistic differences on disability around the English speaking world? There seem to be plenty. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The odd thing is that the term "handicap" actually has to do with "leveling the playing field". Hence the use of the term in sports like horse racing and golf. And likewise, the handicap / disability parking spaces allow someone to park nearer the entrance so they won't have to put in a lot of extra effort than would a fully able-bodied person when parked far away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All true, but that won't stop meanings changing, and gaining value loadings in some parts of the world, something we do have to pay some attention to here in our global encyclopaedia. Now, if I was to go back to describing some darker skinned Americans as Negro, because the original meaning was a valueless descriptor... HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I well remember 1981 being the International Year of Disabled Persons. There was a huge focus, at least in Australia, on this section of the community, and I'm sure a lot of people's and governments' attitudes changed permanently. For the better. However, more recently I've encountered resistance to this expression, from people who want to call them "differently abled". I can see what they're saying but it just seems too PC-for-its-own-sake for my taste. And it hasn't caught on. Not surprising. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that term's just plain wrong. If somebody couldn't walk, but could fly, now that would be "differently-abled". StuRat (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is primarily in relation to the above discussion but I'm indenting it here because the above discussion is a bit of a mess and I can't be bothered working out where to indent it. Anyway while I don't know how things work in the US, here in NZ a mobility/accessible parking space isn't just about being close to reduce travelling distance (although that is a factor) but is also larger [18], this ensures that the person has more space which may be needed by whatever mobility aide they are using. I'm reasonably sure in some cases a person may choose a more distant mobility parking spot for that reason. Also as I said, distance is a factor. Depending on their condition, (and I know someone in a wheelchair), a person in a wheel chair which they are able to push themselves may actually not really have a problem travelling distances if the terrain is flat (or downhill, but if they're going downhill to go somewhere from where they parked their car, that likely means they'll be going uphill when coming back) and there is a decent footpath (which from what I've heard, can sometimes be a problem in the US) or in a carpark, the carpark is relatively safe to travel around. However, again at least here in NZ, mobility spaces aren't just used by people in wheelchairs but by anyone with significant mobility problems including those using crutches and those who have a condition (such as a heart condition), which makes it difficult to move long distances [19] [20]. If StuRat is complaining about having to travel over a mile to get to a store (if the parking is that bad I would either use public transport or just not go to the store), imagine someone on crutches or who needs to rest for 10 minutes every 200m doing the same thing. I would add, while again I don't live in the US, in most cases particularly for large stores with lots of parking, the number of mobility spaces is usually less than 5% (the general requirement is mentioned here [21], for large parking spaces, it's generally 2% or less) so these so called 'wasted' parks are generally a small number. Perhaps the rate is higher in the US given various factors there such as the number of mobility impaired veterans as I said, I don't know and from what I saw no one provided any figures. Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did a quick search and found [22] [23] suggesting the number in the US required by law is similar to that here, about 2% for large car parks. Also like here, the spaces are larger. (Of course the larger spaces means the relative effect may be close to 3 or 4% in terms of space taken.) I've tried to avoid personal comments here, but really for all the possible criticism of the ADA (or similar legislation), the negative effect to able bodied people in large car parks is something silly to worry about. Perhaps for small car parks, but more significant things are the cost and difficulties implementing them in certain scenarios or other things about the ADA like toilets etc. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to polish a stainless steel splashback, and want to buy a set of polishing attachments for an electric drill. But when I look online it is really confusing. Has anyone got experience of this? What should I look for in a store like B&Q or Wickes? How much should I spend? I don't want to use glasspaper, but I need to use something more than just cloth in the first instance. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a large flat surface like that I would think what you need is a kit that includes a large cloth disk and polishing compound. Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As all ways.... Wikipedia has an article meeting your needs. The splashback is probably already polished so you only need loose cotton buffing wheels and 'Green” polishing compound. The green colour comes from the fact that Chromium(III) oxide is blended with the fine alumina abrasive. Use vinegar first, to dissolve any lime scale. Get rid of that stuff first. This looks like suitable kit.[24] Personally, I just use vinegar, my daughter's old cotton sweat shirt as a cloth (wash it first if its thick with motorcycle grease- Oh why can't she ride ponies like other normal girls?), stainless polish, and a little of the wife's elbow grease. Doesn’t take her long. Its just polishing.--Aspro (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider what finish you want. Often stainless has a finish with a "grain" or brushed finish is linear. If you use mild abrasive it is easy to produce this finish or to restore an area where someone has gone the wrong way with a scouring pad. A factory where I once worked used a belt sander to finish stainless, with fine sandpaper. But that was to apply the brushed finish to virgin metal. Avoid any sanding/buffing attachment which places a whirling disk against the surface producing curved abrasions. You can just using commercial stainless polish and a cloth to polish a stainless appliance. A perfectly smooth "mirror" finish is also doable with metal polish and a soft cloth. If I were using a cloth buffing wheel on a drill, I would make sure there was no grit left on the wheel from when a more coarse abrasive had been used in the past, and that the edge of the wheel was moving parallel to the grain of the surface if any. I have not had good luck with a rotating buffing hood placed flat against a shiny surface, since circular marks are easy to leave and hard to get rid of. Edison (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One caution about using a drill instead of a device actually designed for polishing: A drill is normally only used for a few seconds at a time (even if you are drilling a series of holes, there's a rest period between each). So, a drill may overheat if used continuously for long periods, as in polishing. Hopefully it will shut off automatically before it damages itself, but a cheaper drill might not. StuRat (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the 'time' that a constant speed motor of a drill runs for but the 'torque' it has to deliver at that speed that courses it to heat. The effectiveness of the drill's internal fan should be more than is required for it to drive a buffing wheel constantly.Aspro (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all this helpful advice. I think I will start by hand like Aspro says. I found these compounds in this store which looks like it is aimed at professionals. [25]. Given that they're not expensive, would I just buy the green one? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to purchase several different grades of Green. Some for initial buff and the others for final buff. I suggest that you try final buff first, because sometime, if you try to do it too perfectly, the end result can look too out of character to the rest of the kitchen. This of course, is not the way that a professional would go about doing a 'professional' job on just a splashback. Yet, it may give you the finish that blends in with the rest of the decor and not cause too much of a eye catching contrast in finish. So, try that first, then stand back consider ... is this the look I desire (ask your friends for their opinion as well, they will soon spot any cringing short coming). Some kitchens are so perfect, that just a crumb on a work-top can make them look untidy – but a kitchen is a work-place, where one's time is better spent, preparing food in a hygienic environment, rather than fussing about how just the splashback looks. I can not however, comment on branded products that I haven’t used.Aspro (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Aspro. The too-perfect kitchen is not likely to be one of my problems, but the warning is appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be cautious -- the "stainless steel" may be a "simulated finish" which can be easily harmed. Collect (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IS it true that sometimes "savers" or "basics" (the cheapest supermarket own brand version of a foodstuff) is the same food as in their "normal" food but just with different packaging? I bought a "basics" blue cheese and a "normal" one and same for corn flakes and I personally can't tell the difference. so now I am going to buy the cheaper one, but is it actually just the same foodstuff but in different packaging, or are there subtle differences that I cannot detect with my palate? Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about

store brands?—Wavelength (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, shop in question is Sainsbury in the UK but could apply to any really as a question? Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, supermarkets sell "own brand" goods and then an even cheaper version. Baked beans are an example; Sainsbury's sell the Heinz version at £1.51 per kg, Sainsbury's own brand at £0.80 per kg and Sainsbury "Basics" at £0.60.[26] In this case, the cheap ones seem to me to have more sauce and less beans, but this is original research. Alansplodge (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK you probably don't have subscriptions to Consumer Reports (or reasons to subscribe, they testing us and canada market products), but:

In blind tests, our trained tasters compared a big national brand with a store brand in 29 food categories. Store and national brands tasted about equally good 19 times. Four times, the store brand won; six times, the national brand won.[27] i think that page is free without subscription. 206.213.251.31 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we don't, but we do have Which? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be quite so generous in my assessment of house brands. Some are good, but many are not. Spaghetti sauce is an example of one where the store brands I've tried seemed inferior. But, I suggest you do a blind taste test, to determine if the store brand is as good as the name brand (you'll need a helper to bring them to you in random order).

Incidentally, a store chain near me, Meijers, follows a bizarre strategy of positioning their store brands to compete with premium brands, as opposed to generic and discount brands. I doubt if that strategy will work. StuRat (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsbury's (to continue the UK thread) does all three: It has a "Basics" range at the budget/discount price point, a "By Sainsbury's" range at the standard/everyday price point, and a swanky "Taste the Difference" range at the premium price point. All three appear to sell well. (I buy items from all three ranges, for a start.) I agree with Alansplodge that the 'Basics' range often appears to contain a bit more filler for a bit less actual food; it also often provides a way to buy mis-shapen or uneven fruits and vegetables. But the chopped tomatoes in the 'Basics' range certainly appear no worse than 'everyday' price-point chopped tomatoes, whether the store's own brand or a competitor's. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Target does the same thing; "Target Brand" stuff is the economy brand, and "Archer Farms" is their premium store brand. --Jayron32 12:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that the fruit and vegetables are usually the same in the 'basics' and 'normal' levels, with occasional (and visible) use of mis-shapen fruit and veg. For everything else, you can generally look at the nutritional information to see whether they're likely to be identical (without having to buy both and do a taste test). It's why I usually don't buy 'basics' butter. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's intriguing. What ingredients could be in butter other than butter and a little bit of salt? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The ingredients list is the same, but the nutritional information is different. Given that I spent some time working in the food industry (but not dairy) I have some suspicions about how this happens, and so I always buy at least the next one up, or no butter at all. No matter how tight I am for cash. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proportions of each ingredient might be different, as well as the preparation process. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Stu, only the amount of salt could vary, and that not much. Butter is butter. There is sweet cream butter, but that is at the high end of the market. The preparation process is churning, from milk. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have found the nutritional information for Anchor butter, a cheap brand, and for Lurpak, a more up-market brand, Anchor salted is 81.3g fat and 0.68g sodium per 100g while Lurpak slightly salted is 81.5g fat and 0.47g sodium. Both are mainly fat, which is what butter is. The slightly salted butter has less salt than the salted. The only other component is water. If you are really worried, you can buy milk and churn it into butter in the food mixer. You don't have to add any salt unless you want the butter to keep. If you want less fat you can buy cheap butter and mix it with water. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year or so back there was an episode of the Food Program (BBC Radio 4) and it went to Gales honey packing factory. The same factory also does Sainsburys, Tescos and Asdas honey. --TrogWoolley (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tesco own-brand tea bags are identical to, and in the same packaging as Typhoo tea which is rather more expensive, and I suspect comes from the same producer. Their "Value" teabags are noticeably inferior. Alansplodge (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]