slkinsey

Looks good! Interesting that you cut it on a chitarra. Any particular reason why? When I do that -- and when I've had pasta alla chitarra in Abruzzo -- it's tended to be fairly thick (almost square) and rustic (I'll roll it by hand rather than in a machine).

This is something for which I think you'd need a good quality juice extractor.

Good question. I've never seen anyone use one here in the States. Most people would just use the back of a bar spoon to float liqueurs for a layered drink.

Oh, I'm quite sure you're right about that. But, of course, construction workers didn't exactly rise up en masse for OSHA regulations either. The bottom line is that being exposed to a lot of secondhand smoke is bad for your health, and most of the time there is no reason people should have to be exposed to it. I don't think (although I don't know) that most of the people behind measures like this care whether or not you smoke. I think they care about whether they, and other people, have to breathe your smoke. This seems reasonable to me, and I'm not sure it's fair to characterize them as "self-righteous prigs." As someone who supports workplace antismoking measures myself, I couldn't care less whether people choose to smoke or not. I have been known to smoke a cigar every now and then myself, and I'm certainly not one of those people who wants to pass legislation that prevents people from doing things that are "bad for you." Heck, I do plenty of things that are "bad for you," starting with drinking way too much. Similarly, I don't get the impression that the people behind this legislation want to prevent people from, say, eating fatty meat. But let's go back to my bad behavior: I drink too much. Now, my drinking too much doesn't affect the other people at the bar. Their alcohol-related health risk factors are not affected one bit by sitting next to me in a bar. On the other hand, drinking too much does affect other people, for example, on the roads when I am behind the wheel of a car. So, while I would not like for a bunch of self-righteous prigs to push legislation that limits my ability to drink too much in contexts where no one else is affected by my drinking, like a bar, I think it's just fine for there to be limitations on my blood alcohol levels in contexts, like driving, where other people are affected by that drinking. In fact, I think it's reasonable to be fairly restrictive about this because I recognize the fact that I don't have to drink. I feel pretty much the same way about smoking: I don't have any problem with the fact that some people choose to smoke, and I am happy for them to continue to smoke. But I recognize that smokers don't need to smoke, and I think it's reasonable to put limitations on smoking in contexts where there is a high likelihood that other people who are not in a position to choose to be elsewhere will be adversely affected by that behavior. . . like in the workplace.

Interesting. So it's like a 1:1 syrup using ginger juice instead of water? If that's made up fresh every day, I'm sure it has plenty of bite. Sounds awesome, although impractical for home use due to the aforementioned loss-of-bite issues unless one will be making a lot of ginger drinks for a specific occasion. Ginger gets its spicy bite from the compound gingerol, which is a relative of capsaicin. Heat (and presumably degradation over time) transforms gingerol into the compound zingerone, which is not spicy-hot like gingerol but is rather an aromatic flavor compound. Zingerone is not present in fresh ginger.

What a fun and interesting topic, Dave! I think you have the Cosmo nailed as the drink of the 1990s and I like the wine spritzer as the drink of the 1970s. But I do wonder a bit about the other post-1950s era drinks... They're tricky. Do you think the drink of the 1950s was really an untradry gin martini and not the vodka counterpart? I tend to think of the 50s as the decade that begain the vodka craze, and I also think of the 50s as the era where the highball overtook the "up cocktail" over in popularity. Perhaps a Moscow Mule? For sure, I'd think that the 1960s would have to be some kind of non-gin based highball. That's a tough one, of course, because the 60s were the beginning of the American cocktail's nadir.

Your first point may be correct, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the militant nonsmokers are wrong. Although it is of course not an analogous situation, one could accurately say that suffragists imposed their will upon others through their work to obtain voting rights for women. Your last point is also correct. A customer can always choose to eat elsewhere. Your second point, however, is not well made. Suggesting that restaurant, airplane, bar and office workers who do not wish to be exposed to the risks of secondhand smoke should "choose to work elsewhere" is simply not acceptable. Any such argument you may make that restaurant and bar workers would apply equally well to workers in office buildings. As I pointed out upthread, secondhand smoke is not a necessarily inherrent risk of working in these industries the way getting squashed with heavy machinery is a necessarily inherrent risk of the construction business. You can't construct skyscrapers without heavy machinery, but you can serve people food and/or drink without secondhand smoke. And, of course, the construction industry is highly regulated (some would say not highly enough) to mitigate the necessarily inherrent risk of being squashed by heavy machinery to the greatest extent possible. No, this doesn't really work -- and I'll tell you why: If this argument worked today for bars and restaurants, then it would have worked for office buildings and airplanes as well. And they we'd be right back in the 1980s with smoking allowed just about everywhere, and no way for workers to protect themselves from secondhand smoke. I find that it is instructive and useful to try to apply any argument against smoking restrictions in the bar and restaurant workplace to the office workplace. If it's something you agree should be regulated and largely disallowed in office buildings, then it's something you should likewise agree should be regulated and largely disallowed in the restaurant and bar workplace. I have a large number of friends in the NYC bar business, and without fail (smokers included) they are all overjoyed with their now smoke-free workplaces and feel that their overall health and well-being has improved.

raisab, you are entirely missing my point -- and indeed the point of all such legislation. Workplace nonsmoking legislation is not intended to protect you, the customer. As you correctly point out, you have the choice to go elsewhere. Workplace nonsmoking legislation is intended to protect workers in the workplace -- in this case, workers in the restaurant and bar indistry who work in bars and restaurants. As you correctly point out, "work is something you need to do," and it is something that various government bodies have determined that workers who "need to work" in office buildings, airplanes, restaurants and bars (etc.) should be able to do without exposing themselves to the unnecessary risk of exposure to secondhand smoke. According to your own logic, this is not "government interference in something one has a choice in," but rather government regulation of workplace safety. There is ample scientific evidence (I have cited some very compelling studies in these forums) that the hazards of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars is significant. And it really doesn't matter whether the percentage of restaurant and bar workers who smoke is 25% or 75%. The nonsmokers still deserve protection -- not to mention that even the smokers are exposing themselves to increased risk by working in a smoke-filled room. Any argument one can make otherwise would apply equally to smoking in office buildings, airplanes, etc. FWIW, my anecdotal experience suggests to me that the percentage of bar and restaurant FOH workers who smoke is not meaningfully greater than perhaps 35%.

Interesting. For some reason I thought M&H used ginger juice (or maybe they also use ginger juice?). I wonder how often the ginger syrup is made and if it is a cold or hot infusion. I've found that ginger syrup loses its bite after a day or two -- but of course sometimes you want the ginger flavor without the bite. I suppose one could use a round and mellow hot-infused ginger syrup for flavor and then muddle fresh ginger to order for a customized amount of bite.

I would recommend not making "cocktails" per se, but rather that you offer house-created aperitifs. House made ratafias, for example, might be a good idea (a specialty of 'Tafia in Houston). You could also experiment with infusing or flavoring vermouths, or even making your own. But without distilled spirits, I don't think there's likely to be much interest in the "shaken or stirred" kind of cocktail.

I don't quite understand this. You're saying that you're against things like government-mandated workplace safety standards, sexual harassment laws, nondiscrimination laws, etc. (these would all fall under "government control of our business habits")? It's a common misconception to suppose that workplace smoking bans are enacted to protect customers. They are enacted to protect workers. They have nothing to do with whether you or I want to be around cigarette smoke because, as you say, we can choose to go elsewhere. Saying that workers can "choose to work elsewhere" or can "choose to work in another industry" doesn't seem to cut it in this case (inhaling secondhand smoke is not a necessary risk of working in the restaurant or bar industry the way that the possibility of being burned alive is a necessary risk of putting out oil rig fires).

Some good information on Wikipedia here.

Mmmmm... A Ramos Fizz sounds good. Usually I end up having a lot of these:

A little diastatic malt powder in the dough should also make a difference.

I don't see why. Just simply multiply the number of quarts by 0.9464 to get liters. Nothing to it!

Spices do carry all kinds of nasty things. Which is why they are irradiated.

Sorry I didn't see this one earlier... To a certain extent, I'd say that using heavy copper on an electric coil stove top is a waste of money. A big part of the reason copper is so nice is that it is extremely responsive to changes in the heat setting. The nice thing about a gas stove is that it responds immediately when you turn the flame down, and that response can be translated into a responsive pan. Electric stoves -- and especially the coil types -- are notorious for being very slow to respond to changes in the heat setting. So it your heat source is slow to respond, it automatically means that your pan will be slow to respond. This means that is is impossible to reap one of the major rewards of using copper. Some people do have trouble with the weight of copper -- although I have to wonder whether there is a truly significant difference in the weight of a fully loaded aluminum pan and a fully loaded copper pan of equivalent size. The only move I could see for which heavy copper would potentially create a problem due to its weight is the "flip-toss" move where you are trying to turn the ingredients over in a fry pan. For that, I'll often use two hands. For the classic saute technique in a saute pan, all you should need to do is shake the pan back and forth on the burner without lifting it. The food should bounce off the straight sides and tumble around in the pan. I also find that, when lifting heavy and brace the rest of the handle's length against the underside of your forearm. Your mileage may vary, of course. I have strong hands and, if pictures are any evidence, "Popeye forearms." I haven't had a chance to measure the MC2 line myself yet, but I have to believe that it still has more aluminum than the Stainless line. Are you locked into All-Clad? You could get a lot more aluminum where it counts at a much lower price going with something like Sitram or another thick disk-bottom design. Yes, I think your instincts are right about getting a saute pan. It's very versatile, and you already have two frypans. As long as your stove is powerful enough, I'd suggest you go for the largest diameter pan. Depth is not so important in a saute pan, so there is no significant functional difference between the 3 quart and 4 quart pans above (as an aside, I think it's silly for manufacturers like All-Clad to list saute pans by quarts instead of by inches in diameter).

At first look, I'd have to agree with gkg680. It appears to be from the 2.0 mm line. One thing to look for is a rolled lip on the pan (which this saucepan appears to have). As far as I know, a rolled lip is not employed in Mauviel's 2.5 mm line.

Sam, what book? Uncorked : The Science of Champagne by Gérard Liger-Belair.

It depends on what makes the pan "nonstick," I suppose. But there is no reason to season a pan with a PTFE coating or similar. "Seasoning" is the gradual buildup of polymerized fats that fill in pores in the metal that forms the cooking surface and provide some degree of "stick resistance" (the "nonstickness" often claimed by cast iron fans is, in my experience, wishful thinking). There is simply no reason you should have to (or would want to) do this on a nonstick cooking surface. Indeed, there is no way any kind of "seasoning" could possibly be less sticky than the nonstick surface itself. So any other stuff stuck to the surface of the pan will only make it more sticky, not less. T-Fal's "seasoning" instructions sound suspiciously like "cleaning before first use" to me.

Less-is-More: you don't season nonstick. mrbigjas: There are a few things leading to the approximately $110 price difference. First off, yes a 2.5 mm copper/stainless bimetal lid really can cost that much. I've seen prices for copper/stainless bimetal lids that would fit that pot at seventy-plus dollars. It's also the case that the more expensive one is overpriced whereas the less expensive one is quite underpriced. FWIW, you can get a 3.4 quart saucepan from Falk for $175 (no lid).

Unlike with still wines, where one is more likely to decant older wine, I would think that sparkling wines might be the opposite. I recently read a very interesting book on the science of champagne, and one of the notable differences between aged champagne and young champagne is the amount of dissolved gas (with the aged wine having less). This leads directly to smaller bubble size and other things that are perceived as being desired qualities.

percyn, was the "D'artagnan Duck Confit" already confit-ed by D'artagnan? I assume that you made confit out of a D'artagnan duck leg using sous vide technique? If it was already confit, I would think that cooking it LTLT sous vide amounted more or less to very complicated reheating.

All: I'm going to say this one more time, and then I'm going to lock this thread if it continues to wander away from our topic. We are a food-focused Society. The guiding idea behind the eG Forums is that they are for substantially food-related discussion. Let's keep that in mind when making any further posts in this thread. If it's not firmly in the realm of food, please step away from the "add reply" button and think it over. I have not done a lot of deleting in this thread thus far, and have left some posts stand that I might reasonably have deleted. From this post on my expectations as to topicality will be much higher, and my next piece of moderation will be to lock the thread. This could be an interesting discussion about how the many ways the transit strike is affecting various facets of the NYC food and restaurant industry. Let's do that.

Most likely, this is a kind of thing where they bottle a whole bunch of the sauce and then they bottle other things for a while and then they do another run of the sauce, etc. This is more or less set forth in the final sentence of the article, which says "although Baumer posted $54 million in revenue in 2004, a large percentage of it was private-label bottling for other clients." (Emphasis mine.) Baumer, of course, also bottled all kinds of things under its own label besides hot sauce. My guess is that they lost some stock in the storm, but didn't lose all or even a substantial percentage of it. If Crystal's process is anything liks Tabasco's process, they're aging the mash for multiple years. That makes it somewhat unlikely to me that they had a year's worth of fermenting product sitting around in barrels at the bottling plant. This supposition is reinforced by the article when it says, "Four different companies are bottling the hot sauce" and "[baumer] will continue using private bottlers until he can build a new plant or buy and retrofit an existing building" and "though the sauces have been off shelves for several weeks, Baumer Foods began distribution to Publix Grocery Stores in Florida last week and will begin deliveries to local Winn-Dixie Stores this week." These things all suggest to me that their problem is the need for a new bottling facility rather than catastrophic loss of stock (although I am sure they did lose some stock). This is all good news, I think, for people who hope to see Crystal hot sauce back on supermarket shelves soon. The article also makes it somewhat clear that the eventual departure of the Baumer plant from Orleans Parish was a foregone conclusion, hurricane or no: "Baumer has been seeking a new location for its plant for about a year."