Miscellaneous desk
< May 19	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 21 >

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 20[edit]

Enrollment and Credentialing[edit]

Hi,

I am often hearing the term "Enrollment and Credentialing" which something deals with the participating of the Provider/Doctor with the Payer/Insurances. Somehow, I cannot clearly differentiate between those two terms: 1. Enrollment 2. Credentialing. Please guide me by giving the difference between those.

Thanks in Advance. 103.252.161.245 (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whereabout are you hearing/seeing these terms? I've never seen 'credential' used as a verb at all, myself. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. medical insurance companies do indeed use "credentialling" as a verb. [1]. Credentialling is when a physician applies to an insurance company for coverage, and the company checks out and validates the physician's credentials for practicing medicine. Once the credentialling is done, if the insurance company agrees to give the physician coverage, the company will enroll the physician with the medicare program as a medical service provider. OttawaAC (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for giving the overview and the link to the resource. 103.252.161.245 (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate[edit]

I have two kinds of non-dairy, dark chocolate bars of equal weight, where one bar has 40% cocoa mass and one 80%, and the rest of each bar is sugar and other fillers.

Assuming that eating dark choclate is good for the health, if I eat 2 bars of the 40% bar, do I get the same "chocolate benefits" as eating 1 bar of the 80%?Bh12 (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say that neither is milk chocolate, which is good, because milk tends to neutralize the anti-oxidant benefits of chocolate. So, the benefits should be about the same, although obviously the extra sugar and other ingredients you get in the 40% bar are not healthy for you. (If you go from 20% bad stuff to 60% bad stuff x 2, that's 6 times as much bad stuff with two 40% bars.) StuRat (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, as unlicensed professionals, we cannot give dietary or nutritional advice, any more than we can serve as lawyers, physicians, brokers, or electrical inspectors. But feel free to value StuRat's advice at exactly the value you paid for it. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, Health_effects_of_chocolate, which (unlike any replies given so far here) contains sources for its information. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read Health_effects_of_chocolate (which itself has a note that it needs better referencing), and it looks like I would need to double my weekly intake of chocolate - from 1 bar of 72% to 2 bars - to get a significant "chocolate benefit". (I used 80% and 40% in the original question because the numbers are easier to work with.) The sacrifices one has to make for one's health...Bh12 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ignore the negative effects. Some chocolates are definitely a net negative for your health, and if yours is only 36% cacao, then that's probably the case. If you read the ingredients list, I'll bet the other 64% aren't anything good. If you see partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (trans fats), then it's definitely a net negative. StuRat (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Dogs' noses.[edit]

I understand that the rather and oftentimes annoying nose hairs inside my nostrils are there to protect me from inhaled foreign objects. Given that being the case, and also given that dogs frequent lower lying areas of contamination as well as other dogs' rear ends which are quite hairy (in both senses of the word), why then don't dogs have nostril hairs to protect them from inhaling foreign matter? 94.174.140.161 (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they don't? --Jayron32 14:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he's really asking about the nose hairs which extend well beyond the nostrils. These, along with eyebrows and ear hair that keep on growing seemingly forever in older men, are a bit of a mystery. I suspect that they were all originally defects, but since they don't do much harm and serve as age markers, those genes remain in the population, since it is helpful for a population to have a rough idea of the ages of it's members. (Baldness, gray/white hair, and wrinkles probably all have a similar story.) Do older dogs also get hairs hanging out of their nostrils ? StuRat (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have hairs extending out of their noses, from my experience with many older dogs. Dismas|^(talk) 15:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a good look up my dogs nostrils with a torch. Couldnt see any hairs. There was a bit of snot up there though!--109.146.20.31 (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this post should definitely win an award for best edit summary in the history of ever also, in response to op, i think the fact that humans don't have a similar rhinarium might be part of it?? i was never good at sciencing. ~Helicopter Llama~ 15:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. What biogical sense does it have that it's helpful for the population to identify the elderly? I don't think own theories are satisfying answers.--2.245.79.201 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the elderly are a poor choice for mates, as they are likely to be less fertile, and their children, if any, are likely to be less healthy, and the elderly parent is less likely to survive until the children are self-sufficient. On the other hand, the elderly may be a better source of "wisdom", having lived longer and encountered (and, critically, survived) a wider variety of situations. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page [2] has some good info on the rhinarium, and says that they can sense hair movements (also has some cool photos). It doesn't specifically say whether there's any hair inside a dog nostril though. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the reference section of Rhinarium says "The chambers and the turbinates are covered by a ciliated mucous epithelium" -- the cilia presumably help keep the nose clean, even if they are not considered true hair. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European cars remake[edit]

Besides Mini Cooper and FIAT 500,. what other European cars have been remade into modern version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.154 (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most iconic is probably the Volkswagen Beetle. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where does one start? Cars evolve as technology move on. The Rolls-Royce

is nothing like the modern

. It even has a radio and climate control now. Liberace liked to boast about his custom Rolls-Royce convertible. When it started to rain he just had to pressed a button on the dashboard – and it stopped raining! --Aspro (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are entirely different models from Rolls-Royce. It should be apparent from 10oaT's question that he wants direct remakes of the same underlying model. However, there is a middle ground. 10oaT - what do you make of transitions like Vauxhall's substitution of the Corsa for the very similar Nova? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regrading the middle ground. What is similar between the original Mini and the latest? It is just the aspect ratios are the same. Rolls-Royce, likewise keeps to its ratios of adequate leg room, superb finish, adequate power, etc. Is that not obvious remakes into modern version? Now, that the poster has some answers, let him come back for clarification -as to what he meant.--Aspro (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I own both a '63 Mini and a 2012 MINI. There are definite efforts to bring "design elements" from the classic mini into the modern one. For example, both cars have the weird quirk of having the speedometer be a huge circular instrument that's right in the center of the dash instead of in front of the driver. Both use a row of five distinctive toggle switches under the center console. The MINI convertible has the same downward opening boot ("trunk") flap...the same kind of bonnet ("hood") stripes and contrasting roof colors are offered on both versions of the car. They both have transverse engines and front wheel drive with the wheels pushed out to the corners. The sporty versions of the classic Mini had to use after-market wheel-flares to accommodate wider tyres - the modern MINI has black plastic wheel arch trim that echoes that design. The most popular wheel design for the classic Mini is the "Minilite" - and that's still available as a standard wheel in the modern car. The most popular colors of the original Mini (Red, blue and British Racing Green with a white roof) are the colors that the new MINI launched with (and remain the most popular!). The placing of the pedals for easy heel & toe driving style has been beautifully preserved. Heck, they even remade the iconic 1960's movie "The Italian Job" with the new MINI to promote the thing! As I worked on restoring my classic Mini, I kept finding more and more tiny details from the original car that had been either directly copied or "hinted at" in the modern car. While there is mechanically, not a single thing that's the same - the designers clearly made a strong effort to carry over many of the design elements. Beyond that, all y ou can really say is that by the standards of their times they are both small, efficient cars that are more fun than a barrel of monkeys...even though the 2014 MINI weighs literally twice as much, has double the top speed, three-times the power-to-weight ratio and 40% worse fuel economy and less rear-passenger leg room than the 1958 version! SteveBaker (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well explained. Thanks for the extra input. The first and only car that I have come across that had a communication cord to open the doors. Eat your heart out Lord Beaching.--Aspro (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'63 Mini. Uhm. That must have cost a staggering £800 back then (for comparison: a pint of Watneys Red Barrel was about one and tuppence). What is the car worth to day? --Aspro (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My '63 Mini is the "Super-Deluxe" model (WooHoo!) - so it has an actual handle for opening the door rather than the pull-cord. However, the handle is small and easily broken - so the rope might actually have been the better solution! Any yes, according to the Heritage center records, my car was originally bought for 850 UK pounds. The owner sprang for the extra $50 to include a radio - yet decided not to buy the optional-extra seat belts! I'm quite staggered that the radio was 6% of the cost of the car...that's like spending $1500 on the radio in a modern MINI! Anyway, here in the USA - a '63 Mini in rough condition will fetch maybe $2000 - in restored-but-not-perfect condition, you might get $10,000 - and a picture-perfect showroom quality example might go for $15,000. Some of the rarer variants (such as the pickup-truck version or an authentic Mini Cooper 'S with all of the engine serial numbers agreeing with the body) might sell for vastly more than that. I assume they'd be cheaper in the UK. A modern MINI can be had for around $20,000. SteveBaker (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Especially for the radio bit. I can't remember anybody even forking out the extra £25 to have a heater installed. I don't think they would necessarily be cheaper in the UK, as when it comes to classic cars, it is condition that is important. Yet, either way they are priceless heritage. Gosh, I think I am feeling envious.--Aspro (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two pictures are not even the same class of car. The one on the left is a touring car and the one on the right is a luxury sedan. The OP is clearly asking for cars models that the manufacturer is recreating past stylings from prior models. The modern BMW-made Mini Cooper and "new" Beetle are styled to closely resemble their earlier counterparts. There's a trend in that regard lately. I know the OP asked about European cars, but in American cars, the trend is happening as well. Many modern pony car remakes like the modern Dodge Challenger and modern Ford Mustang have stylings that recall earlier models the way that the modern Beetle does for it's classic version. Compare the dual headlamps, inset grille and headlamp assembly, hump over the back wheel, hood vents, etc. in the "classic" 1970's Challenger and the similar style of today's version:

Side by side comparison of Dodge Challengers

1973 Challenger
2010 Challenger

--Jayron32 02:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main diff is not class. One is a convertible. That's all in this context.--Aspro (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That Challenger looks pretty close to the original. If car companies were smart, they would go back to some of the classic styles but modernize it otherwise. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a new version of the Citroën DS; in this case the modern version looks nothing like the iconic original. A new Alpine is supposedly also in development, and would likely be truer to the original. --Xuxl (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Alpine most British people will remember was hardly a classic! DuncanHill (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although its earlier namesakes, the Sunbeam Alpine in various incarnations, had a little more glamour about them. Alansplodge (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]