slkinsey

Most everything is soluble in either alcohol or water, and often both. Understanding that natural vanilla beans contain hundreds of compounds which give it its complex flavor and aroma, it would make sense to use both alcohol and water as solvents (i.e., to use 100 proof alcohol). Different percentages of alcohol to water will tend to have different properties when it comes to dissolving various flavor and aroma compounds over a fixed period of time. This is to say that a flavor/aroma compound that is pleasant at a certain concentration but unpleasant at a higher concentration might be overextracted by a 70/30 ratio of ethanol to water but wouldn't be overextracted by a 50/50 ratio. This is just an example, of course. The opposite might also be true. Presumably, commercial producers of top quality natural vanilla extract have figured out the best mixture of ethanol to water for the vanilla beans they use, the extracting process they use, and the signature flavor/aroma profile of their extract. To the best of my knowledge, some of the chemicals (also known as flavor and aroma compounds) in vanilla can be degraded by light. This is not such a danger when these chemicals are locked inside an opaque vanilla bean (not that I think it's recommended to keep your vanilla beans in direct sunlight), but the chemicals are far more exposed when extracted into a solution. This is not unusual, as light can damage the flavors, aromas and other desirable qualities of all manner of liquid foods. One shouldn't keep wine where it can be exposed to sunlight, for example.

My recommendations: Grimaldi's: Grimaldi's (duh!) Nearby Grimaldi's are Jacques Torres Chocolate and the Brooklyn Ice Cream Factory. Chinatown: Jing Fong. A specialty is Peking Duck. The menu is full of things that are "foodie appropriate" as well as items that are accessible to the less adventurous. The room is gigantic and clamorous. Chinatown Brasserie. This is a more upscale dim sum place. There's a thread on it somewhere. And there's always New Green Bo. Bagels: Ess-a-Bagel if they want bagel sandwiches. Absolute Bagels if they want the very best bagels in the City (the minibagels) to carry out. Deli: Katz's for pastrami and corned beef, Barney Greengrass for fish. Other: What about a subway ride to Queens for Thai at Sripraphai? For good food at a great price that's accessible to anyone from foodie adults to kids, you can't beat Landmarc. For something a little different you may be unlikely to find in NC, you might consider Zoma for Ethiopian food. For Italian, Lupa is a good recommendation, but make sure you get there early if you don't want to wait forever for a table. For accessible Korean with a huge menu, you could try Kang Suh. And for good, interesting, unique food there's always Momofuku Ssäm Bar. For a reasonably upscale experience that won't burn a hole in your pocket and won't be over the youngest children's heads, maybe the Tavern Room at Gramercy Tavern (how can you go wrong with an entre featuring roasted bacon?).

There's nothing wrong with Fee Brothers Falernum syrup. In fact, it was developed by Fee Brothers in consultation with Ted "Dr. Cocktail" Haig with the purpose of replicating a now-defunkt (?) Falernum produced by A.V. Stansfeld. According to Doc, this was the Falernum specified in all the Tiki drinks. His conclusion: "When I make tiki drinks, I use Fee Brothers West Indies Falernum. When I make traditional Swizzles, Slings and recipes genuinely native to the Islands, I insist on John D. Taylor’s Velvet Falernum." Read the whole article here. ...That's kind of an odd Queen's Park Swizzle recipe. As far as I know, the QPS is demerara rum, lime, mint, bitters and simple (and crushed ice, of course). We've got a good thread on swizzles here. I'd be interested to hear of your success in using the Fee Brothers Falernum in Tiki drinks.

I think it depends on what kind of hash you're going for. Not all hash is supposed to be crispy. I call that a "dry hash" -- which says something not only about the final texture but also the way it's made. Anyway, in my experience, the variables that need to be controlled in order to make a crispy hash are: high heat, don't crowd the pan, use a low-sided frypan so water has a chance to quickly evaporate (this is why it's easiest top do on a big commercial griddle), don't agitate the ingredients until they have had a chance to crisp, use a floury potato as opposed to a waxy potato, keep everything as dry as possible, cook the potatoes all alone until they're 3/4 of where you want them to end up. Do these things, and you should be able to get it crispy. Here is a dry crispy turkey hash in process: If you want it to hold together in one mass, you could then pour all of that into a small skillet with some additional fat, crenk up the heat, toss in a little water to get the potato pieces to stick together, and cook it dry. Personally, I've come to prefer the non-crispy kind of hash that is bound with a little cream (in this case, cream on the left and leftover creamed spinach on the right),

Count me among those who don't quite get this. At this point, the evidence is simply overwhelming that exposure to secondhand smoke is a health hazard. Understanding that, I'm not sure why anyone would argue that smoke free air should be an ownership decision. For example, factories are private establishments. And yet, workplace law says that these factories must install ventilation and provide other kinds of protections against dust and fumes, because these have been deemed a health and safety hazard. There has been factory inspection legislation in this country since something like 1875. Secondhand smoke is also a health and safety hazard. So I'm curious as to why you think this should be any different? Is it because society has historically been tolerant of this danger? Is it because the creation of secondhand smoke (also known as smoking) in certain contexts is a legal behavior? There are myriad examples of behaviors and practices that were once universally allowed and which have subsequently been either curtailed or prohibited for a variety of reasons.

Again, Octaveman can undoubtedly speak with more authority on this, but... I think the reason steeling may not be useful for traditional Japanese knives is that they are tradidionally only sharpened on one side. Here's a graphic from the eCGI class on knife sharpening: The "chisel edge" is the edge used on most traditional Japanese knives, whereas the "V-edge" is the edge used on most Western knives. Since the practice of steeling is to align the edge back towards center, it's possible that steeling a chisel edge where the point of the edge is not in the center and the two angles are not symmetrical, wouldn't work and might even be detrimental. That said, I am given to understand that the gyuto is a "Western style" knife with a V-edge. Therefore, I'd think it should be okay to steel it -- especially using a smooth steel, a very acute angle and light pressure.

Yea. Orecchiette with bitter greens (often also with sausage) is a very typical Puglese dish. Simple and delicious. Most often seen in America as orecchiette with sausage and broccoli rabe. I've made it at home many times. I doubt they cook the pasta in chicken stock the whole way, but it wouldn't be unusual to finish the dish by cooking the pasta, sausage and greens together in a saute pan with a ladle of chicken stock. Personally, I like to add a pinch of crushed red pepper and a drizzle of raw olive oil off the heat, but a knob of butter, while not the traditional fat of Puglia, certainly wouldn't hurt.

Erik, where does that suggestion come from? Chilling the water close to freezing (e.g., to 3 degrees C) before putting it into the freezer would mean that the water would freeze very rapidly once it was exposed to the subzero environment. I can imagine that this would lead to increased trapping of gas bubbles due to the rapidity of the freezing. Also, and also because the solubility of gas in water goes up as temperature goes down. So, e.g., 3C water can hold more dissolved gas than 90C water. This is important because solubility radically changes as water undergoes a phase change from liquid to solid and the gas comes out of solution. This may be one way that johnder's "twice frozen" water example from London works. In the initial freezing, gas is driven out of the ice. Then, if the ice is quickly melted to a low temperature for a brief period of time and quickly refrozen, it may re-freeze with fewer trapped bubbles.

Interesting, Tim. I suppose one could use crab paste as a binder for crabcakes, no?

I recently made crab cakes for a friend who is dieting (crab is pretty good from a "points" perspective). I bound around a pound of lump crab meat (plus minor additions consisting of a fine dice of softened celery, some minced chives and parsley and plenty of Old Bay) with nothing more than a single English Muffin turned into bread crumbs in the food processor and a couple of egg whites. I formed the cakes in a ring mold, pressing down firmly to compact them well, dusted the outside with panko crumbs and let the whole thing sit on a plate in the refrigerator for a while to firm up. They were delicate, but held together well in the pan with a little TLC.

Ah. I can't comment on what is traditional for Japanese knives, although of course "traditional" and "best" or "reasonably good for home use" are not the same thing. I suppose it all depends on how much time you have to devote to handworking your gyuto on a stone. As to whether steeling is even something that would be good or appropriate for a single bevel edge is harder to say, and I don't know enough about it to offer an opinion.

Sure. Personally I think most distilled water tastes terrible. I wouldn't necessarily recommend making water out of distilled water if taste is an important consideration. I'd recommend a nice, sweet, relatively soft water that's been filtered to remove chlorine. You know... like filtered NYC tap water. My recommendations were only applicable to the goal of creating maximally clear ice cubes with normal home equipment (which I personally don't think is worth pursuing, but to each his own).

I don't want to speak for Octaveman, but... extra-fine ceramic steels like this aren't recommended for what I'd call true sharpening. For that, you'd like to have a stone. Rather, they combine the effect of traditional steeling (straightening the edge) with a small amount of "polish sharpening" to remove any tiny weak parts of the edge. Once the knife really needs to be sharpened, you wouldn't want to do that with a ceramic steel.

No, there is no point whatsoever to paying big bucks for a steel. Especially when you can go to HandAmerican and pick up the S-14GS 14-inch Glass Smooth Steel for 35 bucks (use this for steeling) and the C-14 14-inch Steatite Rod for 25 bucks (use this extra-fine grit ceramic steel for steeling with very light sharpening). What you do not want are the grooved or nubbled steels that come with most knife sets. These will damage your knives more than helping them.

The Mpemba Effect is dependent on certain conditions. It would have to be a huge Mpemba Effect to freeze a tray of 98C (just off boiling temperature) water faster than a tray of 22C (room temperature) water or a tray of cool tap water at maybe 15C. In the context of a normal home freezer and plastic or latex ice cube trays I don't think the conditions would be right for a Mpemba Effect of this magnitude.

You'll probably have the best luck making clear ice cubes doing this: 1. Use distilled water (this makes sure there are no minerals which could cause clouding). 2. Boil the water (this gets rid of any dissolved gasses which could cause bubbles). 3. Use the water immediately after boiling (this makes sure that the minimum amount of gas is re-dissolved into the water, and also will cause the ice to form more slowly -- both of which result in better clarity). 4. Make the ice cubes in layers (this makes it less likely that any remaining gasses will be trapped in the ice as the water freezes and the gas comes out of solution). 5. Open the freezer and agitate the ice trays every 5 minutes or so to release any bubbles that may be forming. This is an awful lot of work just to get clear ice cubes at home. And, of course, clear ice cubes are not any better than cloudy ice cubes when it comes to chilling in the shaker for an "up" drink. So, I could see maybe taking a lot of trouble to make one tray of clear ice and using that ice exclusively for rocks drinks. 1, 2 and 3 will already make a big difference compared to regular tap water. 4 and 5 are for fanatics.

How many bars have kitchens? How many bars would pass health inspections with something made at home in a mason jar? Doesn't matter. I can virtually guarantee you that no bar is purchasing bottled pre-made simple syrup. All it takes is to mix equal volumes of granulated sugar and water in a bottle and shake until the sugar is dissolved. There are some disadvantages to using 1:1 simple syrup, primarily not-so-great shelf stability and too much water relative to the sweetening power. But the advantages for a bar tend to make up for these defects: the less concentrated sweetening power means that overpours are not as much of a concern, and (most importantly) it does not require heat to dissolve the sugar. In addition, shelf stability is not a real concern as it is not a big deal to toss out leftovers and make more. Besides, bars that don't use enough simple syrup to use it all up before it would have a chance to turn aren't likely to have it around. Anyway, this is the reason most modern-era professional recipes call for 1:1 simple syrup.

That's a question that's hard to answer. I would absolutely agree with you that most people in the media, on discussion forums like this and "on the street" who opine about workplace smoking bans are more concerned with their experience as individuals and consumers. But they're not the lawmakers. I'm no expert on Constitutional law, but I'm not sure that a law based on reducing the exposure of individual restaurant customers to secondhand smoke would be one that held water. But, then again, maybe it would. Regardless, whether or not lawmakers were concerned more for the workers or the customers (or themselves), this doesn't diminish the effect or the ostensible purpose of the legislation. Lots of studies have shown that nonsmoking bar and restaurant workers have significantly reduced presence of various smoking-related substances in their blood following a ban, and the air quality is greatly improved. Have a look at this article in the Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, for example, or this article in BMC Public Health. There are many such studies now in publication. So, regardless of whatever "hidden motives" the lawmakers may have in enacting these legislations, the ostensible purpose is to protect workers from exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace, the the effect is to do just that. As I've pointed out in other threads on bar and restaurant smoking bans, there are all kinds of laws regulating legal behaviors. One of the primary factors for consideration seems to be answering the question: does this behavior impact negatively on others in this context to an unreasonable degree? In the case of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, lawmakers have answered in the affermative. And it's not like invididual business owners can decide whether or not to allow drunken driving on their property. If you own a huge factory lot, it's still against the law to drive around in the fork truck three sheets to the wind. Well, the evidence pointing to the negative health affects of exposure to secondhand smoke is at this point overwhelming, especially now that several bans have gone into effect and medical scientists have been able to conduct before-and-after air quality tests, blood tests and surveys of medical complaints. So, it seems reasonable to act to protect workers. This line of discussion begins to move away from what would be topical for eGullet, but I have a hard time believing that any corporation could get away with this and I'd have to see some evidence that it's being done before I'd believe it. Regardless, I'm not sure it makes a convincing argument against this kind of smoking legislation either way. If some companies decided that they would try to prohibit their employees from drinking alcohol, not only in the workplace but completey, and were testing employees and potentially terminating them based on the results of these tests, that would be wrong. But it still wouldn't be a convincing argument against drunk driving laws. Time and time again, the argument "they can choose to work somewhere else if they don't want to be exposed to this danger" has failed the test. Factory owners can't say, "get a job somewhere else if you don't like working with machinery that has open moving parts -- there are plenty of factory jobs." Construction companies can't say, "get a job somewhere else if you don't like working without a hard hat -- there are plenty of construction jobs." Office managers can't say, "get a job somewhere else if you don't like the occasional pat on the behind from your boss -- there are plenty of secretarial jobs." And, under a ban, bars and restaurants can't say, "get a job somewhere else if you don't like working in a room filled with tobacco smoke -- there are plenty of bar and restaurant jobs." The fact is, of course, that few factory workers, construction workers and secretaries in America today would continue to work in the environments I described. But it's also a fact that the work conditions I described all used to be commonplace... commonplace until legislations were passed to improve the workplace in those areas. Today, there are plenty of NYC office workers who would never think of taking a job at a firm where smoking was allowed on the office floor. Ten years from now, it's entirely possible that it would be unthinkable for a bar or restaurant worker to take a job at a bar where smoking was allowed. As people are frequently wont to say, your freedoms extend only insofar as they do not injure your fellow Americans. No one can reasonably suggest that secondhand smoke doesn't affect the health of nonsmokers. I do think it's too bad that there aren't more choices for smokers, although most bans do offer loopholes for businesses that make 15% or more of their revenues from the sale of tobacco and related products. So it's entirely possible for a restaurant or bar to take the trouble to make itself friendly to smokers (unfortunately, studies have demonstrated that current ventilation and filtration technology is simply not effective). The difference is just that the status quo has changed. Now the status quo is to not allow smoking. But, if a bar or restaurant really wants to allow it, there are steps they can take to make that happen. The difference is that the easy way out is now to disallow smoking, and as we know most bar and restaurant owners are going to take the easy way out and dn nothing. It would seem that the majority of polls do not agree with you. And yet, the unregulated free market does agree with me, as I said. So go pound sand. We don't have an "unregulated free market" in the United States, nor to any modern nations in the world. Looking around at other countries, by and large one can observe that the less regulated employers are as to workplace conditions, the more abused workers are and the worse workplace conditions are. And, again, "wanting" and "tolerating" are not the same thing. Your so-called "unregulated free market" only agrees that a smoking-permitted environment was tolerated, not desired, and demonstrates that business owners generally take the easy way out and do nothing if that is an option. As I point out above, there are steps bars and restaurants can take if they really, really want to have smoking. But most of them can't be bothered. Just like they couldn't be bothered to do anything about it before when the shoe was on the other foot. So what's your point?

It would seem that the majority of polls do not agree with you. For example: Almost three-quarters of people (73%) who responded to a BBC survey want a ban on smoking in all public places as a way to cut tobacco-related illness. Health groups released polling data today showing strong support among Virginia voters for a aw that would prohibit cigarette smoking in most public, indoor places. A 57 percent majority of Arizona's registered voters agree with the customer on this debate: There should be no smoking allowed in public spaces such as bars and restaurants, according to the latest Arizona Republic Poll. Nearly two-thirds of likely voters in Charles County favor a comprehensive statewide workplace smoking ban, according to a new poll that could bolster efforts by Commissioner Robert J. Fuller (D-St. Charles) to pass a similar local measure. A smoking ban in Memphis restaurants has broad support locally, a Memphis Business Journal online survey found. ...a vast majority of New Yorkers have said in recent polls that they are happy with the new law. One survey shows that many regular restaurantgoers see a smoke-free environment as an attraction I could go on, but I would suggest that tolerating smoking in public spaces is not the same thing as preferring smoking in public spaces. Times change, and what people are willing to tolerate has changed. It used to be that movie theaters were filled with cigarette smoke. Nowadays most people, many smokers among them, would find that intolerable. I'd love to hear what you think about seat belt legislations. Let me guess: rabidly against them?

One hopes that there will be some effort made to scan all these microfilms with OCR at some point. Maybe someone will invent a fast and economic method of doing so.

I think you miss the point of these legislations. I agree that bans on things like trans fats are going too far. And I would also agree that an outright ban on smoking would be going too far. But that's not what this is. This legislation isn't preventing you from smoking. It's only telling you that you can't do it in a public building or workplace, where your smoking has a negative impact on the health of other people. So, this is legislation that offers protection to people against the negative effect that your smoking has on them. This would be like enacting legislation that offers protection to people against the negative effect that your drinking has on them. Hey, wait a minute! We do have legislation that offers people protection against the effect of your drinking on them! It's called drunk-driving laws! See, the law doesn't care about your drinking in restaurants and bars, because when you drink in restaurants and bars your drinking doesn't have a negative impact on the health of the workers in the restaurant or bar -- only, potentially, on you. The law does care about your drinking, on the other hand, as soon as it does have a negative impact on the health of other people: to make one example, the minute you get behind the wheel of a car. Similarly, the law doesn't care about your smoking when it doesn't have a negative impact on workers in their workplace, like in the privacy of your own car or your own home. It does care about your smoking as soon as it does have a negative impact on the health of workers in their workplace, like when you are in a restaurant or bar. I'm sorry you're losing the ability to have a cigar with your dinner. Really, I am. But I bet most restaurant and bar workers aren't -- or, if they are, they won't be sorry about it once the bans becomd more widespread and the business self-corrects. Similarly, there were an awful lot of people who got all up in arms about losing the "right" to sip an open beer while driving their cars (something that was legal in Texas until September, 2001), and maybe for some people this would have coninued to be okay. But I think most of us would agree that on balance it's a good thing that it's not allowed anymore. I'm curious: Do you not care about the health of restaurant and bar workers, or do you care mostly about your ability to smoke a cigar? This is to say, if there were a way that you could enjoy your cigar in such a way so that the restaurant workers were not exposed to your secondhand smoke, would you prefer to do it that way? I'm thinking of something like a clear plastic, externally vented "tent" that could be lowered over you and your table for a reasonable markup. Would you want to do this? How about dining in a sealed, externally ventilated smoking room, and served by waitstaff with respirators -- again, for a reasonable markup? Do you think something like this would be reasonable and fair? Would you be willing to pay more?

No, that's not correct. The ban does not say that workers cannot smoke inside while they are on the job. The ban says that no one can smoke in the workplace. The reason no one can smoke in the workplace is that smoking in the workplace creates secondhand smoke in the workplace. The effect of the legislation is to say: "Secondhand smoke is a danger in the workplace, therefore there will be no secondhand smoke in the workplace. Since secondhand smoke is created by smoking, there will be no smoking in the workplace." The purpose of the legislation is to protect workers from inhaling secondhand smoke at their place of work. If people want to expose themselves to secondhand smoke outside the workplace on their own time, that's their own business. No one has anything to say about that. The government has determined that secondhand smoke is a sufficiently dangerous workplace hazard that it should not be allowed in the workplace. Similarly, the government has determined that fires in restaurant kitchens are a sufficiently dangerous workplace hazard that restaurant kitchens must have fire extinguishers. If people would like to expose themselves to firsthand or secondhand smoke outside of the workplace, or if they would like to cook without protection of a fire extinguisher outside of the workplace, that is their own decision to make. Your "secondhand smoke in the car" example does not follow, becase the car is not the employee's workplace. In the cases where it is the employee's workplace, I think that certain exemptions might apply (e.g., if the employee is the only person to use the car, smoking might be allowed). Your "making the employees clock out on a smoke break" also does not follow. Employees are provided (again, by the exact kinds of workplace regulations you don't like) with a certain amount of paid break time per shift.

Hmm. I'm not sure about this. Of course, I live in New York City and have access to amazing quality ricotta -- way better than I've had homemade -- at places like Fairway. I'd also argue against homemade being much cheaper than bought. A half-gallon of milk is going to run around 2 bucks, and at best will result in something like 2 cups of curd cheese (homemade "ricotta" isn't actually real ricotta cheese). So, we're talking about something like another buck fifty for an equivalent amount of much better ricotta. And it's a pretty big pain in the butt to make for what you get. I might feel differently if all I could get were Polly-O.

Daniel, I don't object to smoking in principle (in fact, I feel very strongly that cannabis should be legalized). Also, it's a fact that 99% of the places I'd want to go don't, didn't and wouldn't allow smoking anyway. So it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, because it doesn't affect me. You just seem to have an attitude about this that says, "they're the owners and therefore they should be able to do whatever they want in their business." All I'm saying is that this is not only unrealistic but incongruous with the known history of workplace and public health legislation. The facts are that the government can and has made legislations and rules of this kind to protect workers in the workplace. I think you will find that there has not been a single successful lawsuit protesting a workplace and public space smoking ban. So, no... you haven't made the case. Not at all. Let's go back to my earlier example of an analogous situation: The law requires that restaurant kitchens be equipped with a portable fire extinguisher suitable for a Class K fire, with a maximum travel distance of thirty feet. That fire extinguisher must be serviced by a certified fire extinguisher servicing company. This extinguisher is there for the protection of the employees. Let's say we have an outdoor restaurant like Shake Shack where the structure contains only the kitchen, and let's further say that the only people working in this kitchen are owners of the restaurant. Now, keep in mind that it is legal for individuals to be in their own kitchen without a fire extinguisher. Plenty of people do this in their own homes every day. What you are suggesting is that the owners of that restaurant, because they are the only kitchen employees, should be able to decide that they don't want this government-mandated workplace protection. It's their restaurant, right? And if they're only endangering themselves and no one else by not having a fire extinguisher, they should be able to make that choice, right? This is analogous to the argument you're making. Do you think you can make this case? If sole proprietors should be able to decide to forego the workplace protection of a smoking ban, then it follows logically that sole proprietors should be able to forego the workplace protection of having a fire extinguisher or certain kinds of ventilation, the requirement that employees not operate machinery under the influence of narcotics and alcohol -- well, pretty much any workplace safety protections they want. You're saying: "they're sole proprietors, and as long as no non-owner employees are affected, they should be able to do whatever they want." Well, guess what: they can't. They're subject to the same laws, regulations and rules as business owners who have employees. If you're not happy about that... hey, I feel you. Take it up with the Supreme Court, not me. I'm not telling you how it should be, I'm explaining how it is. Going back to my example of an analogous situation, the restaurant would still be required by law to have a fire extinguisher.

Daniel, I get that you feel that way. But the fact remains that you simply haven't made a case that this legislation is meaningfully different from any other piece of workplace safety and public safety legislation.