Miscellaneous desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

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 7

Naturally spicy figs?

Earlier today I bought some figs from an Arabic store. I'm not sure where they're from but they are threaded through a string. The store is one of those places owned by Arabs and everything is imported from their homeland, not sure where but you know: a spices by the barrelful type of place with homemade baba ghanoush and fresh baked pitas and so on. These are dried figs but they're not as dry as the typical figs you get in the supermarket. Anyway they are by far the best figs I've ever had and they're mildly spicy! They are not marinated or flavored. I was wondering if this might be natural, like for example, the mild spiciness you get from actually fresh olive oil (totally gone once you get it in the supermarket; if you're ever in Greece, during the season, try it!). I suppose they could have been stored next to some spice but they have no smell whatever of something else, and I tried the center alone and it's the same thing. This is not a lingering spiciness; just a very very mild one that goes away quickly. Googling "spicy figs" just gets you recipes.--108.54.16.72 (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have such an Arab market near us, and they seem to ignore labeling laws here in the US. If yours is the same, they might very well have added spices but just not tell you that. Some spices do have far more taste than smell, such as capsaicin. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gallo Salame gelatinous moisture?

I bought a chub (weird word) of Gallo Salame about a week ago, and immediately stored it, unopened and still sealed in its airtight plastic bag and outer paper sack, in the fridge. I know this isn't really needed, but I did it. Today, the salami looks and feels and smells fine, but the interior of the bag had gelatinous moisture on it, and the paper sack itself felt strangely and very, very slightly soggy. The plastic bag appeared to be still airtight insomuch as that I couldn't immediately push any air out. I'm still going to consume it (yum) but what just happened? Did the cold of the fridge cause the salami to perspire? Reflectionsinglass (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it froze. That might have increased the pressure and slowly drove some of the fat and water out of the salami and through the plastic wrap, or it might have just been under pressure to begin with. Fat and water would have a gelatinous feel. Conceptually, think of the plastic as having many tiny holes. Over time, with continued pressure, liquids can pass through those holes, but not much air would pass through quickly, when it was squeezed. See reverse osmosis. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have cars that drive faster than your speed limit?

Don't get it. What is the max speed a regular car can drive? For what do you need the higher speed capability of your cars? Please explain this in the article.

I got for myself a middle class car. It is licensed for 160 mph. But I am using tires with a accredited maximum for 150 mph at the moment. So 150mph is what I drive maximum. Even if my normal speed for long distance traveling and fuel saving is about 112 mph. If I am in a hurry or while overtaking I use my car in the recommended manner. And many drivers have got faster engines because they can afford it. (180mph and beyond you can only drive in the night.)

Why do you got fast cars if you dont drive it fast? Only 75mph on interstate? Here 50mph is the minimum speed allowed on highway. If one fall under 50 one can get a ticket for reckless slow driving and acting as an obstacle to traffic. 178.12.122.74 (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Germany. Are you asking about the US? You should be aware of a few points. First, speed limit laws are state law, ever since the national speed limit of 55mph was repealed. So, while in New Jersey the maximum is 65 for the entire state, historically at least, in many western states there have been roads with no speed limit, just a requirement that one drive reasonably according to current conditions (weather, visibility). So obviously there'd be no point in making 50 different car models to meet each states regulations.

Also, the speed limit is not a law of physics, nor is it a moral absolute. Intentional speeding can be reasonable in case of life or death emergencies, or in order to avoid an accident. Someone who drives 50 mph in a 25mph zone and makes an illegal left turn on red to get a passenger who's been shot to the hospital is most likely not going to face traffic tickets.

Finally, many speed limits are tacitly ignored. Looking at New Jersey again for an example, many of its highways were built to handle 70mph or 80mph traffic. Although the Law says 65, that is a political pose, not a physical reality. Traffic on most NJ Autobahn-style highways averages 75-80mph. Since everyone is going that speed, the police don't pull over random speeders for tickets for going the same speed as everyone else. In this case the speed limit is just a pious hypocrisy. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble here: There never was a national speed limit, per se. The federal law coerced the states to impose a 55 mph speed limit, on pain of losing national highway funds. ISTR that in the legal challenges, some court at some level, don't know which one, noted that Congress could have imposed a national speed limit if it wanted to, and that was supposed to make it all right. And perhaps they could have, but who was going to enforce it? I don't really see turning the US Marshals into a highway patrol. --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The act itself declared that "The purpose of this section is to conserve fuel during periods of current and inmiinent fuel shortages through the establishment of a national maximum highway speed limit." (Emphasis added.) --174.88.135.200 (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they might have called it that. But it wasn't. There was no national law directly regulating how fast you could drive on any highway. --Trovatore (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The specific federal vs state mechanics of the defunct act are probably of little interest to the OP, and certainly irrelevant to a current answer to his question. I simply mentioned it to point out that as opposed to the not too distant past the states are back to having their own standards. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I wasn't criticizing your answer, just giving a little extra information that might be of interest to someone interested in American-style federalism, which seemed to have come up.

To expand on that point just a little more, the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority to write state laws, nor to compel legislatures to write them, nor to comandeer state law enforcement for federal purposes. Under the Commerce Clause, at least as the courts were (mis)construing it at the time, Congress probably could have made it directly illegal to drive faster than 55 mph on public highways anywhere in the country. But enforcement would have been up to the feds. That would have meant either repurposing one of the US federal law enforcement agencies, or creating a new one. I don't think anyone particularly wanted to go there.

So the sneaky way they got around it was to say, as one can see in the link provided by the IP, that "... the Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any project ..." using highway funds in states that failed to enact the limit. --Trovatore (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Dad's car can go from 0 to 30 mph in about two seconds, and 0 to 60 mph in about five seconds, but only if I give it the sort of power that gets it going to 80 mph (and climbing) after ten seconds. In theory, it's supposed to be able to go about 140 mph or so. I suspect that if they built it so that it capped at 70 mph, it'd take at least twice as long to get speed (which, considering how often I have to pull onto a highway and immediately put the pedal all the way down to avoid an accident, does not strike me as a good idea). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. Yes this is what I always wondered about. Now I know it. I am glad to hear that normal driving is also possible to you. ;-) I know the cars in europe can drive free because most of them are by german brands and are developed with the autobahn in mind. Look at here wow this aggressive treatment for only 95 mph ... lol [1] 178.12.122.74 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian. I think the quality of cars is also important. If I am on the road it is not about to go on 140 mph for some minutes. It is about to take a CD of a Beethoven's symphony and drive for hours. The car has to tolerate this habits for many years. I have an middle class Volkswagen Passat with a larger V5 engine from Audi. And I am driving this in a high speed over hundreds of kilometers on one single ride. For 240 megameters since the last 10 years. And during this periode I had not a single repair. It even got no V-belts to change. It is simple a car that I can trust in. I want that feeling if I sit in, and if I kick the gas pedal .. it has to follow as it should be. As long as I appreciate it. :-) You are not a free man as long as you can not say: 'I like songbirds. Thats the only reason I do not drive more than 180 mph during sunshiny daylight.'178.12.122.74 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People who can't speed can't pay speeding tickets, or other related fines and bonds. It'd mean fewer accidents, which means fewer dollars spent on repairs, replacements, lawyer fees, compensation, insurance and per-head prison funding. Probably more I'm overlooking, but even without that, it would significantly stifle an economy. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about hospitals. And public transportation. And tow trucks. And funeral homes. Slower cars take food from all these tables. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would also entirely sink the street racing industry, and ruin car chase movies (somewhat; CGI movies seem to draw some people, sometimes literally, just fine). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dying by speeding may have done more for Paul Walker's brand image than staying alive would have, which benefits far more people than just Walker. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People who don't die by car accidents, die by other causes. On the other hand speed dont kill. We got no speed limit and a low rate of accidents. Bad habits behind the wheel kills. Like eating, drinking koffee, talking with the driver, arguing, phoning, nose picking and so. Children in the car. Drive under influence. Bad driving surface, no hard shoulder, overtaking on the right lane, not set the blinker, slow driving and this sort of things kills. Not speeding. I am rushing since many years and nothing happens. I am still alive completely normal.

[2] Here you can see how some girls gets punished for slow driving (80 kmh). So called 'lame ducks'. First the undercover cops make a measurement. Then they pull them out and give them tickets and penalty points. You can hear those unregenerate girls complaining about the penalty points. Boy I hate lame ducks![3] --178.12.122.74 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still, when you're picking your nose and texting your children in the backseat (or whatever), it's better for the profiteers if you do it while driving fast. Less time to react, harder impact. Distraction officially came in second, at least for people down with OPP. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile took the term "lame duck" to another level by ending its 20 mph nightcrawl over a bridge and completely failing to float. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the US speed limits and other traffic violation tickets don't apply to the rich. That is, if it costs some $1000 for the ticket and insurance bump, and you have millions of dollars, you just ignore it and go on speeding. Only when they lose their license is there a slight inconvenience, in that then they must hire a driver to speed for them. StuRat (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The inconvenience in chaffeurs is in their ability to remember what they see. Best to just drive yourself sometimes, and pay the $90,904 fee, than spend two months in non-suspended jail. Besides, it's rude to inconvenience someone specifically employed to drive you places by asking he drive you places, especially while he's "enjoying the fellowship". They don't call them "manors" for nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a rich man in Chelsea who is so snobbish that he will not even travel in the same car as his chauffeur". (David Frost & Antony Jay). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

See the murder of Kirsty MacColl. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being tracked in Chrome?

I was looking at TripAdvisor and lo and behold, I had a popup with my name on it clearly stolen from Facebook, saying x number of my friends are using la la la.

I'm fuming, this is an outright breach of my privacy. How can I prevent websites scooping up my personal information off FB? Prevent tracking cookies, third person cookies?

176.14.210.100 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NoScript is a start. Not handing your info to companies that thrive almost exclusively on actively selling (not allowing scooping of) your info, like Google and Facebook (even TripAdvisor, to a degree) is harder, but the obvious next move. It's not a breach if you accept any terms of service allowing it, regardless of the rights you think you had. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, if you visit TripAdvisor by "clicking through" from a site operated by one of our business partners, and you have registered with that partner, then information about you that you have provided to that partner may be shared with us, such as contact information and demographic information. As another example, if you access third party services, such as social media services, through our Website or before coming to our Website, we may collect information such as your user name, password, and other information made available to us through those services."

My bold. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If you decide to turn off personalization, you can do so by first logging into Facebook and (1) selecting "Edit your profile" from the "Your TripAdvisor" drop-down menu on the Member Profile page and clicking "Disconnect" in the Facebook Connect status box, or (2) selecting "Connected accounts" from the "Your TripAdvisor" drop-down menu on the Member Profile page and clicking "Disconnect" under "Facebook Settings." You can also turn off personalization by editing your app settings on Facebook. Please note that if you have Facebook friends who are using TripAdvisor, they may also have shared information about you with us through Facebook. If you wish to prevent that sharing, you can do so by editing your Facebook privacy settings."

Note that this only applies to what you see about you, not what they do. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the Firefox then the "Facebook Disconnect" add-on will block the Facebook add-on to webpages. However, it can interfere with the "Sign on via Facebook to comment" controls that some blogs use. The best bet would to be use another browser to Facebook. LongHairedFop (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or not use Facebook. People have gone without for millenia. Contrary to popular belief, they didn't feel disconnected before 2006. Less so, generally. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The best option if you do not want your personal information tracked is simply to not use Facebook, because it is FB itself that is tracking you, not the browsers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mainly the browser, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whisky question

Yesterday, I was at a bar in Tampere, and had a look at their whisky collection. For a chance, I decided to try Lagavulin 16 years old Scotch single malt whisky, even though the glass cost me about four times as much as the whisky would have cost in Alko. The whisky tasted exceptionally smooth, with none of the "stinging" feeling I usually get from strong distilled alcholic drinks. Is this because of the 16 years of age or somehow specific to Lagavulin? JIP | Talk 21:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I hear someone call whiskey "smooth", the only thing I'm sure they mean is it's blended whiskey. Other than that, I'm no connoiseur, and any liquid is "smooth" enough for me. Lagavulin didn't make this "smoothest" list, so probably not particularly special. Haven't tried it myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lagavulin is not a blended whiskey, it is a single malt whisky. Single malts are almost always smoother than blends. It also didn't make the "smoothest" list because that list was limited to blends, and did not include single malts. It is also listed at this best list, this list, this list, this list, and so on. GregJackP Boomer! 14:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a correction, but merely a comment by an anal-retentive single malt drinker (me). If you liked Lagavulin 16, try Talisker 10-year. Not near as expensive and a similar taste. GregJackP Boomer! 21:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "smooth", I mean that the first thing that hit my tastebuds wasn't alcohol, even though Lagavulin 16 years old single malt has over 40% of it. Most other whiskies, whether single malt or blended, had such an effect. JIP | Talk 22:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, what I call "whiskey" and isn't Johnnie Walker is actually called "Canadian whisky", and is "typically lighter and smoother than other whisky styles." Maybe that's why I don't notice a difference. Have you had any of that to compare Lagavulin to? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the definitive feature of Canadian is that it tends to be sweeter than other whisk(e)y styles. Maybe what people are calling "smoothness" is really just sugar? This is pure speculation and "original research" on my part, and not particularly high-quality research either, but maybe someone can confirm or deny. --Trovatore (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me, at least, sugar does indeed seem to mask the nasty taste of alcohol. So, this explanation would work for me. Others may have a more complex palette than me, with respect to alcohol. StuRat (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that smoothness comes from it being doubled distilled. Some whiskeys are triple distilled to make then even soother. However, there a balance to be sought between smoothness, cost and losing the much of the aroma. The aging allows chemical reactions to take place but they don't really affect the smoothness you refer to, rather they give the spirit a fuller well rounded flavour.--Aspro (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! This site explains it all perfectly: A whisky tour. COI disclaimer. Some 50 years of enjoying the odd wee dram.. or two. --Aspro (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't explain what full or well-rounded tastes like. Can whisky taste cold, like beer? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as whisky enters the mouth a chemical reaction takes place with the enzymes in one's saliva and the changing response of the taste buds. A good whisky should have a detectable for, middle, and after taste. So for example, if one holds a sip in ones mouth for a little while and can still detect a taste, one can say it has a late palate. A another way of describing a whisky like that is that it has a good finish meaning that one can still taste it after you have finished swallowed it. A better explanation could be provided by a Master but then you will have to pay him oodles for the privilege. Whereas I'm proving this for free (as in cold beer). Yet, don't take my word for it – drink your way around Scotland's finest. Never remember any whisky tasting cold – are you getting confused with Crème de menthe? Thats a vodka based spirit.--Aspro (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, but I think I've just been drinking to get drunk for too long to start understanding things the taster way. Not too expensive, and not absolutely awful, that's the whiskey for me!

I've gotten confused with creme de menthe before, but not about it. That's winterfresh, not cold. I don't think cold-flavoured whisky is a thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the relevance of sweetness, see "Schnapps": produced by mixing neutral grain spirit with fruit or other flavors. This mixture is then bottled with added sugar and (usually) glycerine, producing a smooth, syrup-like drink with an alcohol content of between 15% and 50% ABV (30–100 proof). μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does raise an obvious question in the case of whiskey, though, one I sort of neglected to mention. Sugars have (I assume) a very low vapor pressure; you would not expect any significant amount of sugar in the distillate. So where does the sweet taste of the sweeter whiskeys come from? If it's sugar, then how does it get there? If it's not sugar, then what is it? I don't know the answers. --Trovatore (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting thirsty . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about sweetness, but a great deal of the pleasant aroma and taste of malt whiskies and brandies comes from the ageing in oak barrels. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I'm talking more at a chemical level. What are the flavor chemicals that give whiskey a sweet taste, and where do they come from? I suppose they might come from the oak, which is usually charred. Does charring turn some of the cellulose of the wood into sugar? --Trovatore (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem like something fire should do, but maybe. Maybe something about corn? Corn whisky, corn syrup, sweet corn, Corn Pops, candy corn, Lucky Elephant Popcorn? All part of some grand corn connection? If there's no corn in the blend, maybe something that acts like corn (perhaps after adding fire)? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's lots of sugar in the mash. The question is, how does it get into the whiskey? Very little, it seems to me intuitively, would be expected to make it through the distillation process. --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]