Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 September 26

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.

September 26

Chinese Restaurant Hot Mustard

When you get fresh hot mustard at a Chinese restaurant in America (at least between Boston and Baltimore) it is a very hot brown mustard about halfway to the hotness (or more) of restaurant wasabe. What is it made of? Our link to Chinese mustard takes you to the plant, and the Mustard (condiment) article is totally useless. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

See here. The "heat" of mustard is largely controled by its exact preparation, and the "hot" mustard you get in the little packets doesn't differ from good ol' yellow hot dog mustard by ingredients so much as the preparation method. Some of it is the specific variety of mustard seed chosen, but it's more in how it is prepared. If you crush mustard seeds in water, and nothing else, you'll get some ball-hair-singeing hot shit. Adding vinegar or another acid acts to stop the chemical reactions that produce the heat, so many commercial mustards control their heat by when and how much vinegar they add to the process. So the answer for really hot mustards is a) pick a hot variety of mustard seeds b) crush and add COLD water (hot water slows or alters the reaction like vinegar) c) wait a while for full pungency to develop and d) enjoy. If you add vinegar early in the "extraction" process you can halt the pungency at the desired level. See also isothiocyanates, the compounds that give mustard its mustardiness, mostly Allyl isothiocyanate. --Jayron32 04:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I had just read that most "wasabe" sold in the west was actually mustard, horse radish and food coloring. Given it still seems much hotter than the fresh hot mustard they make when you order it at our local Chinese, I was curious what their ingredients were and couldn't find anything. μηδείς (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious: I am Chinese and have lived in various English speaking countries but not the US, and I can't think of what you mean by brown-coloured mustard (I am imaginging some kind of BBQ sauce-looking sauce that tastes like mustard?). The only time I have come across mustard paste/sauce in a Chinese cuisine context is the yellow stuff served with Cantonese roast pork, but that looks yellow, not brown. What is this brown mustard, and what dishes do you use it for?

I presume "wasabe" is wasabi, or is it the marketing name for the preparation Medeis describes above? There is a condiment made from Chinese mustard the plant, the seeds are crushed and mixed with other ingredients, and it is usually yellow in appearance. It is usually found only in Shanxi and Shaanxi cuisine. Another alternative is mustard oil, which is of course very hot - you can buy it in some Chinese grocery stores and it's used in Pekingese cuisine. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's comparative. Many mustards in America have turmeric added which gives them a brilliant neon yellow color. If mustard lacks added turmeric, it is a darker and more muted color of yellow, which in comparison is a bit "browner", so such mustards are called "brown mustard" in comparison to the really bright "yellow" mustard. The actual color probably varies from khaki to tan to a darkish-yellow. Here is a picture of "yellow" mustard and here is a picture of so-called "brown" mustard. You can see that it is still fairly yellow, just not as yellow as the first one. --Jayron32 13:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"Wasabe" is just my mispeling. I wouldn't know from real wasabi if it bit me. I get it when I buy Sushi, not Chinese food. Then I get freshly made brown mustard from the chef, not the nasty plastic packaged kind. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

For comparison, here in England, there are three commonly-sold forms of smooth mustard. 'American' is a dull yellow / khaki colour, and seems very similar to the medium-hot hot dog mustard I've had in the USA. 'English' is hotter, thicker, and a vivid yellow. And 'French' is quite a dark brown colour, smooth, and milder in flavour. It's a lot darker and more consistently brown than Jayron's brown mustard example. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Format of best before/expired dates

I was curious as to the formats used by various countries as to the best before or expiry dates. I noticed that most of the ones I've seen in my small centre of the universe have been in the format yyyy/mm/dd but I have seen some written as yy/mm/dd. The second format can cause some confusion as you get things like 14/07/08 (2014, July 8) but looks as if it's 14 July 2008. I first noticed this when people were posting complaints about the local store selling 4 year old baby food. Have there been any confusion in other places? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that problem, too. And, sometimes, I stare at a series of numbers stamped on the lid, can't figure out how to interpret it, so decide it must be a lot number, instead. Some effort at standardizing these labels would be a good idea. StuRat (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The industry has a vested interest in making it as obscure as they are allowed to get away with. If you buy an almost expired product, you're more likely to throw it away before you finish it, and have to replace it sooner. So, the industry makes more money the more confusing the label is. For a product that millions of people buy every day, even confusing a few percent of the population with an obfuscated date code is enough to make a signficiant increase in profits. --Jayron32 05:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, people may be turned off by either products with unclear codes or which are spoiled, and switch to another brand. Here I use the old maxim "Don't attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity". In this case, I doubt if they ever coordinated across the industry to come up with standards. This is a classic case where government may play a role, to set those standards. One "less intrusive" way to do so is an ultimatum: "If the industry doesn't do it by this date, we will impose a standard". StuRat (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's Hanlon's razor. Replace that with Jayron's Maxim: "Never attribute to anything else what can adequately be explained by profit motive". If anything makes more money than the alternative, that's what will be done. Profit motive isn't malice, so Hanlon's razor doesn't apply. They aren't trying to be evil, they're trying to maximize their value for their shareholders. That's the whole point of what a business is to do. --Jayron32 05:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, tricking people into buying rotten food could be called malice, and, as I pointed out above, it's not a good way to increase long-term profits. StuRat (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, cause we all know how well food poisoning and profit motive go together. How about you two find some cites. Shadowjams maxim about reference desk, if you can sorta maybe give a reason for it, it has to be true! Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I read this and thought "Hmm, I don't think I've ever seen a food date code here where I didn't clearly understand what date was meant." So I checked, and yes, we in the UK do have a statutory format for such codes (see here). There can still be confusion over the various meanings of "best before", "sell by" and "use by" (all addressed in the same document) but all must comply with this: The ‘best before’ date mark consists of the words ‘best before’ and the date in terms of the day, month and year in that order ... As long as the date is shown in the order required by the FLR (i.e. day, month, year, as appropriate), there is no reason why different forms of expressing the date should not be used, provided it is given in a form which consumers are going to understand. For example, 1 January 2012, 31 Mar 2012, 1.6.2012 and 01.08.12 are all quite clear. Bolding is mine. - Karenjc 08:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Here in the US, it might say "101112", with no other text. Then you have to guess at if that's a date, batch number, or something else (and, if it is a date, which digits are what). StuRat (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see how US consumers might wonder whether that meant 12 November 2010 or 11 October 2012, but I guess they wouldn't consider either 10 November 2012 or 11 December 2010 as possibilities. Or would they? We in the UK tend to be little-endian - the final example in my quote above, for example, (01.08.12) gets into the regulations as acceptable because it is "quite clear" (1 August 2012) although I'm sure it wouldn't be to middle-endian US consumers. In the same way, I end to use "September the 11th" rather than the 9/11 shorthand, just because to me "9/11" looks and sounds more like 9 November. - Karenjc 10:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am assuming that the dates you're seeing are ISO 8601, which mandates year-month-day. Marnanel (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So far we seem to have,

UK - national standard with no confusion because they use the standard UK format

Canada - national standard (Date Labelling on Pre-packaged Foods) using ISO 8601. But because the country uses both d/m/y and m/d/y this may be confusing due to lack of awareness of the regulation and some companies using a bastard version yy/mm/dd.

US - as of 2010 no national standard or even a requirement to have a best before date.

Are there any other standards in other countries? By the way those seem to apply only to food other products such as tires and Mary Kay cosmetics may differ. @Jayron32, do people not look at the date before buying the product? I always look and if the date is soon then I will dig through the shelf to find a later date or if the store has one buy a competing product. Not always possible as we only have two stores and they each only carry one brand of certain items such as eggs or milk. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Although it is probably right in this case, Livestrong isn't generally a good source. The content comes from Demand Studios and isn't usually fact-checked by the editors - they mainly look for format and typographical problems and that's it. Writers must provide references, but the editors don't normally check them. I know when I wrote eHow articles there, I tended to reference books that your average editor wouldn't have lying around. The standards are a bit higher than their eHow requirements, but not by much. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've worked in food distribution for many years (in Canada). While BB/expiry dates are often ambiguous here in terms of formatting, the non-date codes are virtually always a production date. For example, many manufacturers use what's referred to in the industry as a "julian date" (which is definitely not what our article is about). And even there, the julians are not always formatted the same way, so that two items manufactured on Feb 11, 2012 might have a julian of 2042 or 20042 or 042-2 or something else. These often have a time stamp (in either 12 or 24 hour style) immediately following. So, if you see a weird code like 002042 13:56 or something, you don't really need to try figuring out what it is because it won't tell you the expiration anyway :-).

In deference to the respondents above, there is another reason why codes are used rather than expirations and that is simply that the expiration is unknown because there's no way to know how the item has been handled after leaving the manufacturer. For example, many food items are "made" frozen and then thawed or made fresh and subsequently frozen. In those cases, putting the "wrong" expiration would either be pointless or fraudulent. Matt Deres (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the three food products I've just bought, they have best before dates of "02 OC 12", "09 OC 12", and "10 JA 13". From my experience, this means that the first one, yogurt, will be fine on October 2/12; the second one, fluid milk, will be foully rotten and completely disgusting long before October 9, 2012; and the third, Parmesan cheese, will be found covered in mould in the back of the fridge on or around January 10, 2013. --NellieBly (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

US products almost always have an 800 number as a product help line, call that if you care. My opinion is that if you can't tell whether food's rancid that's nature's way of improving the population. μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. I was able to use this to make a minor update to Shelf life. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Phrase "crib about something"

I've heard many people use the phrase "crib about something" to mean complaining about something. But I haven't been able to find any sources which verify its authenticity. Is the phrase correct? 117.226.179.218 (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure you aren't mishearing gripe ? In some accents they could sound similar. StuRat (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure. I've read it in writing too. 117.226.179.218 (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is correct. This thread contains the information from the OED: "crib v. b. To complain, to grumble. colloq. Cf. crib-biter." It's informal. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Still in fairly common usage; a Google search for "have a crib about" brings up several examples, although the first few results refer to the type of crib that is a baby's bed ("cot" in modern British English). Alansplodge (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I went and looked in the OED, and the derivation may amuse you. The basic meaning of "crib" is a food-trough for horses. "Crib-biting" is "the vice or morbid habit of seizing the manger (or other object) with the teeth and at the same time noisily drawing in the breath", and a "crib-biter" is "a horse addicted to crib-biting; also fig.; also, a grumbler." Hence the verb "to crib", which is "to practice crib-biting" and hence "to complain, to grumble." Marnanel (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Environment

I remember reading that Thames was much dirtier in the past than at present and similarly, of Kings slaughtering wild animals for pleasure as well as destroying forests over short period of time eg Easter Islands. In comparison to our forefathers, I would say that we are far more environmentally conscious. Despite this, why do environmentalists speak fondly of the past when according to them life was much better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.154.180 (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you give us an example of an environmentalist behaving in this way? Marnanel (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You are making a lot of statements here. When is "in the past"? The Thames was at its dirtiest during the "great stink" of the 19th century, and that was arguably caused by a new invention, the water closet. Members of the British royal family still take part in hunting, whether it is for pleasure or not you will have to ask them. There is doubt about the account of Easter Island forests being destroyed. And not all environmentalists prefer the past to the present. Hardly anyone thinks that all changes are positive, and hardly anyone thinks that all changes are negative. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the water closet was really to blame - it was just the sheer number of people. Whether you have a flushing toilet or a hole in the ground, that waste has to go somewhere. --Tango (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Leave waste in a hole long enough, and it decomposes into soil. It's only when it quickly finds it's way into the river, that the river becomes polluted. StuRat (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. You would be hard put to find environmentalists who say that people were more responsible in the past than they are today, but there were far fewer of them and they didn't have the technology to consume resources at the rate we can today. There were of course exceptions, such as the "dark Satanic mills" of Blake, but they were limited in scale. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there are examples of societies in the past maintaining habitats in a sustainable way, that benefited the community commercially AND preserved a rich variety of flora and fauna. An example of this in western Europe might be coppicing where a harvest of usable wood was taken from a forest in a way which actually improved its bio-diversity. This sort of economic activity began to be abandoned during the industrial revolution, and in many third world countries, is being abandoned at present. So if environmentalists DO look back at past practices, perhaps it is the sustainable ways of our pre-industrial forebears that they wish to highlight and adapt for modern economies.

The second point about hunting is a contentious one in the UK, where many small areas of woodland are maintained so that farmers can earn money from people paying to shoot game birds. If this activity were to be banned, as some wish, the economic reason for keeping these woodlands would be lost. Even if they could be somehow preserved, it is the active management of these woods (and I forgot about wetlands too) for shooting that can make them a valuable habitat.[1] Alansplodge (talk)

I agree that some historic cultures did things in an environmentally friendly way, but not all. And note that, for those who did, it may not have been explicitly to preserve their natural resources. Some may have just lucked into a sustainable method, and then survived to pass those methods down, while those unlucky enough to use non-sustainable methods all died out. StuRat (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any environmentalists think that we should completely return to the past. Have you got a reference that says that they do? Alansplodge (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Did I say they do ? Or is this a response to somebody else ? StuRat (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Many apologies - I really shouldn't post when I'm in a rush. Alansplodge (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ecological Indian Is a Myth: Neither criminals nor saints, early natives were simply human talks about wasteful buffalo jumps in which "200 to 300 people camped for weeks near 100,000 kilograms of meat slowly rotting in the summer sun". It didn't matter so much back when there were a lot more of the critters than hunters. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Our various articles on this subject, and even their "criticism" sections are entirely worthless. If you want to read a radical criticism of environmentalism, this http://www.capitalism.net/ is a good source which offers a huge free free market defense of capitalism and a well referenced and argued criticism of environmentalism, assuming that the latter is largely hypocritical and pseudoscientific. My personal opinion is that the criticism often goes far too far. (I am a libertarian who majored in plant ecology and philosophy as an undergrad.) But given the way in which "articles" such as IPCC are policed by leftist lunatics, that might be a welcome corrective. In any case, please think for yourself and assume an agenda on every partisan's part. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if you could prove that some article, like the IPCC is being policed, there's no way of know if it's by leftist lunatics or by an amateur or by anyone else. Don't invent stuff in the RD, that's not serious.Ptg93 (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a quite serious comment about the IPCC article, its editing has received plenty of comment outside Wikipedia. But my concern is providing a "balancing" resource, which I have done. It is up to the OP if he wants to follow up with his own reading or has other questions. μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

From the various complaints I've seen over the years, it would seem that wikipedia is totally controlled by political polar opposites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

To address the OP (something I feel I must announce, since Medeis has once again broken with our an entirely sensible comment indentation policy), the work of William Cronon, one of the foremost environmental historians, directly addresses this question in a rigorous historical fashion. Cronon's argument is more or less that modern environmentalists rely on a sense of wilderness which is not historically accurate — many of the things that environmentalists regard as being the true "state of nature" are actually themselves quite modified by humans and not nearly as old as they think they are. Cronon argues that environmentalists ought to acknowledge this fact, since it doesn't actually preclude taking a conservationist or even environmentalist stance. Anyway, his work is pretty interesting on the question of what we think of as "nature" and "the environment." My experience is that actual activists don't take to this argument very well, because they misinterpret it as being against preservation of the environment, but it's pretty clear that this is just a misinterpretation. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are bitching about, Mister, but in the future if adding or subtracting a : to my post won't change its relation to the one immediately above it or the one it is obviously responding to, feel free to do so, rather than to attack me so pointily. If I have a problem I'll revert and say why. Last thing I want to do is irritate the irritable without a good reason. μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

But it's still on the list, eh.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see why you don't follow the perfectly sensible format that everybody else uses, one that allows for no ambiguity. I don't have a lot of interest in refactoring your posts, or the ones under it, just so it's clear that I'm addressing someone else. It was less effort for me just to make it explicit, so that's what I did. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

bid against the union

I was speaking to the owner of a small business. He was talking about the owner of a competing business. He said that some years ago (before they were in business for themselves, I assume), the other person "bid against the union". What does "bid against the union" mean? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A union is a supplier of a commodity, namely labor. In some situations other entities, such as contractors or other unions, may feel that they would be able to supply equivalent labor at a lower price, and may make a bid to the employer to do so. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So why is that a bad thing? The guy I was talking with implied that the other guy had done something wrong when he "bid against the union". Maybe the other guy was a member of the union, and then I can see a problem. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your original question didn't say anything about him thinking it was a bad thing. I don't know why he thought that; I only know what the expression means. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps to clarify Looie's answer, and expand: unions set pay-rates in a number of sectors. Unionised contractors will pay the union rate to their staff and hence have to charge at least the same amount to customers. A non-union contractor is not signed up to a union rate, and may compete by lowering staff pay and hence having the ability to offer a lower-priced job to the client. That would be bidding against the union (rate). It might be perceived as bad for a couple or three reasons: 1) it can be perceived as "unfair competition" by a unionised company competing with a non-unionised company that differentiates itself by paying staff less 2) all things being equal, employees in the non-unionised company will earn less than their unionised counterparts. 3) A variant of 1 is that bidding against the union disrupts the market, in the sense of throwing another variable into the marketing mix. Companies arguably like stability and are dismayed by unwanted disruption. Beyond these narrow points, there's a whole lot that could be said about unionised versus non-unionised companies. I trust we'll not digress into those areas. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't remember what he said for sure, but probably the other guy was in the union at the time (or had been). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Push-ups and the marines

Why don't the Marines test for push-ups? See: United States Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test. Ptg93 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there are probably two reasons: (1) it's hard to come up with operational criteria for good form for pushups; (2) a person in good shape can keep doing pushups for a long time, so it's hard to get a good assessment of this quickly. The longest of the other tests is the three-mile run, which takes less than 20 minutes for a person in prime condition. Looie496 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

And why does the Army count push-ups? See: United States Army Physical Fitness Test#Standards. BTW, (2) is not really valid, since you can set a top on the number of push-up or time allocated that max the test. Ptg93 (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The British Army goes for 44 in two minutes[2], while the Royal Marines asks for a minimum of 60 in 2 minutes[3] (push-ups are called press-ups in the UK). These are joining tests. The US Marines go for pull-ups instead of push-ups; presumably they think it's a better measure of upper-body fitness. Doing both would work some of the same muscle groups twice, so it would have to be one or the other. Alansplodge (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not hard to come up with a criteria for a good pushup - the official criteria for pull-ups and crunches are quite detailed (see this) and unofficial criteria for push-ups are equally detailed (this for example). I suspect the real reason we use pull-ups instead of push-ups is it's much easier to cheat at push-ups. Zoonoses (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect Zoonoses it is 'a criterion' or 'some criteria', a very common mistake, I thought you'd like to be ahead of the pack ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.182.75 (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware that, in your correction of Zoonoses, you committed at least three (3) grammatical errors crimes of your own? What was that about being ahead of the pack? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

One commits crimes; one makes errors. ;) --Tango (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed now. (Was this the result you were hoping for? :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Marines are cheaters? Get down and give me 20! No wait, get to the pull-up bar and give me 20!OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC).

It seems that they wanted a simple way of testing fitness, and they chose 2-3 exercises, aerobic and not. Pull-ups are generally more difficult than push-ups, so the Marines test just the tougher. In the practice, you'll have to have many others physical abilities to get through any program. They also don't test your swimming ability or climbing a rope. The physical tests are meant to exclude the realy unfit. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)