Miscellaneous desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 13 >

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.

December 12

Buying stuff on the internet from Czechoslovakia for delivery to the UK?

Will a customs charge, payable upon delivery, apply for items valued in excess of £15 (or whatever the figure is now) if ordered from Czechoslovakia? I'm not sure which countries this applies to these days. Thanks. --95.148.105.142 (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it says you are ordering from Czechoslovakia, you should be skeptical. That country doesn't exist. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Czech Republic and Slovakia. The two countries may have different arrangements. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both are in the EU so goods can be imported without any customs duty.[1][2] Note that different rules may apply to alcohol, tobacco, fuel oil, and certain other products, particularly if you're importing them for commercial purposes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phone behavior

I've noticed that every night at 12:49 AM my cellphone will light up its front screen as if I'm receiving a text- but no text comes. Why is it doing this? It's a Verizon phone. 184.98.169.135 (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you contacted your provider? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the phone set to back up its contact list? Dismas|^(talk) 11:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Nokia lights up at seemingly random intervals; I just assume it's doing some sort of checking or testing. However, it also lights up briefly when it's finished charging, so if you charging it at the same time every night, that might account for the behaviour.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked your phone alarms or alerts? You may have some alerts set for dates. My phone used to have one for pay day, and it would light up at midnight. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metric cooking measurements...

Imperial cooking measurements like teaspoon and tablespoon are attached to discrete volumes, but when I cooked a cake recipe the other day that was using metric measurements (yay!) I got a bit confused. It called for 235ml of vegetable oil and 250g of flour. I had a measuring scoop denoted as being 120ml in volume. What's with the flour? Was I supposed to weigh that on a triple beam balance? Grams are a unit of mass, not volume, unless we're assuming everything has a density of 1 like water. How do you metric chefs do it? The Masked Booby (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You weigh it on scales. Try googling "kitchen scales". Even Americans use weights for some ingredients (e.g. meat). --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) <Sarcasm>We have this amazing new invention called a kitchen scale. Tried one sometime, you won't believe the wonders they work.</sarcasm> I don't know what you do in China and in fact I'm surprised you use imperial measurements in China, but personally, I've never understood the American idea of using volume for non-powder solid stuff like butter. However whether you use volume, mass or a combination of both varies between country more so then between metric and imperial. I believe in parts of continential Europe they use weight for nearly everything (except possibily spoon size quantities), at least when baking. In Malaysia, NZ and Australia a combination of both is common, weight for things like butter and in some cases powders like flour, volume for liquids and in some cases powders like flour as well as for small amounts (spoon sized). In all cases metric is used, although in the NZ, Australia and Malaysia case this includes stuff like the metric cup and metric tablespoons/teaspoons, which particularly in the case of the tablespoon does vary. (As said in the US they seem to use volume for everything.)

Personally, I prefer to use weight for nearly everything except for spoon size quantities, since I have a cheap electronic scale with 1 gram resolution and probably close to that in accuracy (based on comparisons with stuff weighed on store commercial scales) that I purchased from eBay that came from China for under IIRC US$6.00. And using weight is more accurate for things like flour because of the possibility of it settlings/varying depending on how well packed it is although I don't tend to be that fussy on quantities anyway. I have cookbook which gives volume to weight conversions for common stuff you cook with like flour, sugar (varies between type of course) etc which I use when the quantity is specified in volume. I'm sure you can find something similar online.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitchen scale is the obvious answer here, but I actually also have a glass cooking measure (kinda like the one showed here) that has different ingredients (flour, rice, sugar, water) listed in both imperial and metric on the side. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you do in China -- Chinese don't measure anything, they just cook. The Masked Booby (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that none of these [3] [4] [5] were intended for people from China and these books [6] d[7] [8] were either not intended for people from China despite being published in simplified Chinese (and from what I can see from companies from the PRC) or perhaps were but don't give any idea of quantities and instead either just include pictures of what you can make perhaps with a list of ingredients and then tell you to just cook and hope for the best? Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and [9] [10] despite the labelling and pictures weren't intended as kitchen scales or weren't intended for the Chinese market, despite the printing on the scales? (I'm not even convinced scales like the one I got such as [11] are 100% intended for the export market, from memory the one I got did come with instructions in both Chinese and English.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I just noticed Cooking weights and measures discusses this briefly. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any proper recipe will tell you whether to use sifted, lightly packed, tightly packed, or mounded amounts so no difficulties arise. Don't know why y'all insist on weighing everything instead of learning how to cook. Seriously, though, about what decade did weighing replace measuring in some countries? Rmhermen (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about not learning to cook properly? If you're making something you've never made before and following a recipe rather then personal instructions, measuring whether by weight or volume is generally helpful to make sure it turns out right. If it's something which you can modify as you're cooking then it's easy to adjust to taste. This isn't usually an option while baking, and although the texture and viscosity and feel of the uncooked mixture may give some clue, this isn't always easy to tell if you have little experience with whatever your cooking and a difference of 20% or so can sometimes make a big difference to how the product turns out.

I've only made bread a few times but from what I've read, e.g. I believe it's even more important to be close. In fact from what I've heard e.g. [12] [13] [14] Baker percentage even professional bakers in the US usually weigh ingredients nowadays. Even when you're making something you've made a lot before, it's usually helpful to measure stuff in some way even if you will adjust later as necessary. And with a digital scale, weighing is not only more accurate but often from my experience is easier, faster and results in less cleanup since you can weigh directly in the mixing bowl.

I don't know the answer to the later question but I would guess when kitchen scales could be produced relatively cheaply? According to the above link, precise measurements began to be introduced in recipes in the late 19th century, it seems possible by this time kitchen scales could already be produced fairly cheaply so perhaps they never really used volume in places like Europe where it's preferred now?

P.S. If you measure the flour after sifting, this sounds like an even more annoying thing to do to me. If not, I don't get how a 'proper recipe' can help you with the fact your flour will settle over time.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are baking properly you will sift the flour before using regardless of how you measure. Following the recipe to use 1/2 cup of lightly packed brown sugar, and 2 cups of sifted flour and a heaping tablespoon of baking soda gives you your measurements without the need for weighing. I think you will find that scales (or exclusive weight-measurements) are more recent. I see UK cookbooks using cups in the 1960s and a Delia Smith recipe from the 1970s using a rounded tablespoon of one item and grams of another. Rmhermen (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C) Cooking weights and measures doesn't really seem to answer that question - it claims that informal measurements (a leg of lamb, a cupful of lentils, a pinch of salt, etc.) were used in most cookbooks throughout most of history, and that the modern US system dates back to Boston Cooking-School Cook Book in 1896. According to apothecaries' system, though, masses have been used in medical recipes for millennia. As to why we 'insist on weighing everything' - modern digital scales have a tare button, which allows you to weigh something in any convenient container. For example, you can directly weigh different ingredients into a bowl or pan, instead of transferring them via a measuring cup. Having to 'tightly pack' things into measuring cups also sounds a bit awkward. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professional cooks tend to measure things with their eyes a lot of the time. After you've been in kitchens for a while you come to learn what certain things should look and feel like in your hands. Except when baking, which is exactly why I loathe baking. If you add 1/8 teaspoon too much of something to a soup, it is unlikely that the whole soup is ruined. If you add 1/8 teaspoon too much baking powder to your scones.... yep, ruined. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did cooks start using weighing? By the 13th century if this cookbook is to be believed. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When one is cutting steaks, making burger patties, or other things that are sold as being a specific weight it is of course important to be fairly accurate, but as I said after a while most cooks can do it by hefting the item, and maybe throwing it on a scale just to double check. Obviously, a burger or a pizza dough can always be made heavier or lighter, but if you can't eyeball the weight of a steak or other filet you are going to waste a lot of food trying to perfect your technique. Not that this really applies to home cooks who are more free to be creative when trying to correct an error. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following up the IP on cookbooks. Connell and Irving Class Structure in Australian History claim pretty explicitly that mass cookbooks were part of Fordist labour discipline in the household, supporting hegemonic power, and stealing traditional working class culture from workers. This can be seen in fourteen up in the 1970s where the domestic kitchen is inflicted by the state apparatus (schooling here) as part of labour discipline and domestic reproduction. Cookbooks: all about class warfare. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And gender, Fifelfoo, class yes, and gender! You are referring to the domestic labour debate and hope you have read Rosalind Coward on women and food. Alternatively, home cooking is self-provisioning, arguably interstitial practice a la Gibson-Graham and John Holloway. After guerilla gardening, guerilla cooking. Anyway, 70 mph winds are forecast here in Britain, so I am thinking about you having Christmas dinner on the beach and hoping you don't get sand in the turkey and sprouts. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you have to remember that by the 70s, what was left of working class cookery after the industrial revolution had been ravaged by the deprivation of the austerity years. Both my mother and my grandmother were heavily reliant on cookery lessons at school, and closely following recipes exactly, because there weren't the ingredients to spare to allow them to experiment, to have a go at cooking with their mothers, or any of that. They couldn't afford to cook something that didn't work. I'm puzzled by Beeblebrox's claim that 1/8 tsp too much baking powder would ruin scones. The smallest batch of scones I've ever made (and that was eaten so quickly it was barely worth making) is 8 scones, and 1/8 tsp too much baking powder would do nothing as dramatic as ruin that. If you're making a normal quantity for a hungry family, you could add a whole extra tsp or so and it would do no harm. The problem with scones is usually not enough rise! 86.164.79.174 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, usually they are flat and dense. So you may want to add more baking powder to make them fluffier. That might work, or you might ruin them. It was meant as a general example of how volatile baking can be. (which is why I hate doing it and probably why my example is less than accurate) I recall one kitchen I worked in where too much baking powder was added to a large fritatta which we would cook every Sunday in a casserole style. When it emerged from the oven it stuck up a good six inches out of the hotel pan it was in and had acquired a distinct bluish hue. After some discussion of covering it with gravy or trying to obscure it in some other way we eventually elected to throw the whole thing away and start over, wasting an immense quantity of eggs, meat and vegetables in the process. Luckily the chef hadn't shown up yet and we managed to get it out the back door before he arrived. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I've never known anyone ruin scones by adding a tiny amount too much baking powder. The actual mistakes are generally overworking the pastry or rolling it too thin, neither of which is about quantities of ingredients: normal baking simply isn't that volatile. I assume you seriously screwed up the frittata by something dramatic like using tablespoons instead of teaspoons. Scones are tricky mostly because newbies don't believe that you have to pat it out to an inch thick, with hardly any working, and cut it quickly, and brush the tops and get it in the oven as quickly as possible. Newbies roll it thin, making biscuits, or take ages and knead the dough. I have never known home baking be sufficiently volatile that a fraction of a tsp makes a real difference. 86.164.79.174 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Itsmejudith, I have a tendency to subsume gender that I need to interrogate. I will follow Coward on this. I'm squarely with Selma James and Mariarosa Dalla Costa: there is a circuit of labour power that flows through the household. But now I have Coward and Gibson-Graham and Holloway to follow up. Australia in many ways was the Cockagne of the 20th century working class diet—with exceptions prior to 1910, 1920–1940, and 1978ish–2000. Five decades of lamb roast, meat three times a day, and scones that rose in line with "consumer price" inflation. For IP86.164… one of the problems of finding the continuity of proletarian cookery is the repeated discontinuities of the proletariat. Leaving aside internal divisions (as bad as subsuming gender), when family continuity is broken by three or four reconfigurations of capital and class over 200 years, this means that the method of subsistence is forced into discontinuities. I always loved my mother's mass-market schools-oriented cookbooks (one explicitly a 4th Form Girls Cookery Book); but, the practice of her cooking was haphazard and far more successful. Whew! Time to go searching for articles as a result of this discussion! Fifelfoo (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 86.** IP, have never got the quantity of baking powder wrong with scones. How quickly you get them cut out and in the oven is much more crucial. I baked scones for French people, they were flat by English standards, but the French thought they were fine because they understood they were a vehicle for butter or cream (creme fraiche, missed out on clotted cream) and home made jam. They liked the cheese scones and fruit scones too. Basically, they liked anything new and containing sugar or salt. @Fifelfoo, will be interested to follow up discussion of theory and/or recipes. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, 235 ml is exactly one US cup, so I'd say that your recipe is only a partial metric conversion. --Carnildo (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete typography

I'm looking for some obsolete symbols, as illustrated in the image. The text comes from an eighteenth century printing of a seventeenth century book, but the symbols are drawn from a sixteenth century work, so may have been obsolete even then. Obviously supported Unicode would be nice, but mathml might be an alternative. Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The thing that looks like a 3 is probably Ezh (letter). I found this using shapecatcher, where you (slowly) draw the glyph with the mouse, and it finds all the unicode glyphs it knows about that it feels resemble your drawing. I've not tried the others there, but you can give that a try. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great start, it's earlier than IPA of course, I transliterated it as Z, and the 16th century book is black letter so a tailed z (ℨ)from fraktur looks like the best one for that symbol. Rich Farmbrough, 14:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

ʑ will suffice for the loop tailed "z", that just leaves the thing that looks like φ which I shall assume is φ, and the squiggle. Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I guess the question is whether you're simply trying to roughly reproduce the appearance of the table in characters, in which case any glyph that looks like its counterpart will do, or whether you're trying to actually use the correct glyph. If it's the latter case, I'd try on the math reference desk - I've had good results there with a couple of people who had books about the history of mathematical notations, which might very well cover these symbols too. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the latter, but will accept the former.

I'll do that., I think the squiggle is an "ss" ligature of some kind. Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Your squiggle appears in one of the magickal alphabets, but I can't find a font of any kind that supports it (so far). Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah great. I had checked the astrological signs, since I had a vague recollection, but hadn't got as far as Enochian or magickal stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The first three symbols are evolved versions of 'r', 'z' and 'c', standing for 'res' (Latin: 'the thing'), 'zensus' (square), and 'cubus' (cube). It was a very common algebraic notation in use from the early 1500s through the early 1600's, and a transitional step from the "ancient" way of spelling out equations with full words, to modern highly abbreviated notation.

They do not originate in magickal alphabets and they were not introduced by Recorde, as the system appears to be of German/Italian origin. Recorde was not even the first to stack them. Michael Stifel uses the same symbols in Arithmetica integra in 1544, including 'zz' and 'zc' to denote fourth and sixth powers.--Itinerant1 (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the only other unusual symbol, denoting the fifth power, looks like a Long s (for 'sursolid'). So, in the notation of the first image, 'z'=2, 'c'=3, 's'=5, 'Bs'=7, 'Cs'=11, 'Ds'=13, etc. The second image is the same except the fifth power is 'sz', the seventh power is 'Bsz', etc. --Itinerant1 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the use of the alphabet to denote successive primes from 5/7 (arguably there is an implicit A) is slightly amusing in what appears at first sight to be an attempt to create a universal nomenclature of powers. Further thought, though, indicates that this was a practical system, the names and abbreviations could be used to lay out an order of operations to create the powers or extract the roots of even some very unlikely indices. Even our modern entities such as the petabyte would be ZZZZSSSS(2) (to mix notations). Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Oh that's interesting. (We didn't suppose that they originated in magical alphabets, which are, I believe, far more modern, but merely that they might generate suitably glyphs, derived from the same source, or not.) I'll follow up the Stifel stuff later. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You might go even further back. Look at this reproduction from the manuscript Coss by Christoph Rudolff (1525): [15]. Notice the similarity between the symbol for the cube and the blackletter 'z'. That's another place to look for the glyphs.--Itinerant1 (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also google "Alte Deutsche Schrift" and "Gothic handwriting".--Itinerant1 (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fascinating! Rich Farmbrough, 15:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hell, am i so old? That "thing that looks like a 3" was how I was taught to write capital "Z" in joined-up writing. I must have been 10 years old at the time, so 1972.

Phew, I'm not obsolete. Its still taught nowadays. See here. That only shows the "little letters" but the capital Z is just the same.

Cars in Bangladesh

Which cars of which automobile manufacturer do Bangladeshi regular drive with like Toyota, KIA or others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.209 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive industry in Bangladesh indicates that Mitsubishiand TagAZ build cars there, and that there are several motorcycle manufacturers. Unfortunately our article on Transport in Bangladesh is of rather poor quality and does not even mention road transport. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most Bangladeshis don't own a car. --Soman (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York

Wife and I are spending six days in Hilton Times Square on a room only basis next year. Can anyone give us a rough idea of costs of food in the. city. We are modest eaters!85.211.158.57 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing of NY is that it has it all, but you have to know where to look. You could spend $5 for food from a street vendor, or $150 a plate for fancy-schmancy food, or anything in between. I would urge you to be adventurous, seek out ethnic enclaves and you can find flavors form around the world without paying tourist prices. Finding an actual New Yorker to advise you can help immensely in this regard. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP suggests you're in the UK, so we can meaningfully compare NYC to London. As a general rule, like-for-like, eating out in the US is cheaper (and more commonplace) than in the UK. New York, like other large metropolises, is probably a bit more expensive than poor rural places, but not hugely so. Manhattan, being the business, tourism, and retail centre is a bit more expensive still. But there are plenty of ordinary working people even in Manhattan, and plenty of inexpensive places to eat out. Naturally you want to stay away from the high-end restaurants and you'll quickly spot the overpriced tourist-trap places. New York is replete with ethnic food options so diverse that it makes the Edgeware Road look like Midsomer, and the stereotypical american fast foods (burgers, pizza, hotdogs, cheese-steaks, deli sandwiches) are usually very good (in an "oh my aorta" kind of way); street vendors of such are usually good, but avoid the big chains you're familiar with (curiously a US Big Mac is a vile grey horror even worse than a UK Big Mac) - you can get the same things better and with a much more pleasant, authentic environment in a little diner or corner deli. If you're on a budget, I really recommend one of the Lonely Planet or Rough Guide city-guide books for NYC - they're good for finding little places you'd not think to look. When in doubt, eat where cops eat; I've twice found myself in an unfamiliar neighbourhood and asked a cop (once a street cop, once a transit cop) and both times they steered me really good places that I'd never have thought to go into otherwise. 87.115.92.26 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are chain restaurants a step up from fast food places, and the prices actually overlap between the two. I often go to Outback Steakhouse, here in Detroit, and, if I share the main course, skipping the appetizers, drinks, and dessert, we can get out of there for under $5 each, 15% tip included, and without getting too much fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, and calories. (Dinner is a bit more than breakfast or lunch.) This might not sound like enough food, but keep in mind how huge serving sizes are here. So, for a modest meal, I suggest you try this approach. StuRat (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the average Briton is unprepared for the magnitude of US portions, or for the bottomless coffee and fountain soda. I should have mentioned too that eating out for breakfast is much more common in the US than the UK (and so there are breakfast-food places and diners have a proper breakfast menu). You're quite right about the chain restaurants, but it'd be bit disappointing if someone travelled all the way to NY and spent their time eating at Red Lobster or Dennys - not because they're bad (because in fairness they aren't) but because they're just a bit dull. 87.115.92.26 (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To back-translate for the OP: US chain restaurants (like Olive Garden, Dennys, Applebees, Red Lobster, IHOP, Outback) are a bit like Harvester, Brewer's Faire, or TGI Friday's. 87.115.92.26 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TGI Friday's is also in the US. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know some Canadians (including myself) who specifically seek out chain restaurants in the US that aren't here (or are rare here), because it's a cultural experience unto itself. I love eating at IHOP, TGI Fridays, and Jack-in-the-Box when I'm in the States, not because the food is particularly great, but just because it's something different. It's easy to find a small ethnic restaurant in my city, but a TGI Fridays is a rare thing that I've only ever seen south of the border. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get a Zagats or Lonely Planet style guide book. There's tons of great stuff that's not anymore than London. In fact with exchange rates as they are... you may find New York cheap. Shadowjams (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to eat cheap in NY, head to Chinatown and get some bao and jiaozi. There are a number of great places to get delicious steamed buns and dumplings down there. These things can be terrifyingly cheap ($3 for enough for two), to the point where I can scarcely imagine how they can make money. I gave this advice to a friend of mine and he hardly ate anything else. --Daniel 07:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About nine years ago, I went to New York to hear my brother's orchestra perform at Carnegie Hall and stayed for less than two days. But eating a variety of meals in Manhattan from the Port Authority Bus Terminal to the Carnegie Deli, the only disappointing meal was from a multi-state chain (a fruit salad in Union Square from I think Café La France). All of the other food was great. ¶ Although I was born in London, it's been decades since I last visited, but a late Irish-Swedish-American friend who'd never visited London completely revised his negative opinion of English food after staying there for a week or two in 1999. I think the reason is the same for both cities: the competition caused by waves of new immigrants. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly a ringing endorsement for English food if the immigrants brought their own food, and thus improved the dining scene. StuRat (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) By that logic one could say the same of New York food; (2) One of George Orwell's most celebrated essays was In Defence of English Cooking (publisher's extract here.) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US food tends to take the "melting pot" approach. That is, they start with ingredients from all over and then "Americanize" them. For example, the hot dog started off as a German sausage, but putting it on a bun with chili, ketchup, mustard, onions, etc., was first done in the US. Another example is pizza, which started off Italian (although the tomatoes came from the Americas), but in the US it was changed to add any combo of toppings you want, and delivery was added. StuRat (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all this, useful splendid stuff, but now can I ask a more difficult question, what would you suggest as a daily budget for two modest eaters meals?85.211.158.57 (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lonely Planet gives advice.[16] They suggest $3 for breakfast, lunch a sandwich for $6-$7, and the cheapest dining out sub-$10 or $10-15 for a midrange dinner. So that would make $20-$25 per person per day, plus snacks and drinks. If you buy food from stores rather than eating out, it'll be cheaper. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is way too low. Coffee at Starbucks is gonna be about $3 per person. You're not going to get breakfast for that unless you're really a local. The only local advice I can give you is don't ever eat near Time Square. It's all tourist trap around. Shadowjams (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I also think $3 breakfast is too low, you could get a full breakfast meal off the value menu at Denny's for it. No need to pay that much just for coffee. Rmhermen (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Including tax and tip ? I'm a bit skeptical. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my impertinence, Shadowjams, but how come a local doesn't know it's Times Square (named after The New York Times)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The oddity is that Time Square is a redirect created over 6 years ago. The history of the editor on that item is also curious. Maybe they thought it was named for magazine instead of the newspaper. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem that odd - redirects from common or likely misspellings are useful and widespread. Warofdreams talk 14:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too hard to eat well but inexpensively in NYC. There are plenty of diner-type places that serve good American comfort food or what not for reasonable prices. There's a burger joint on Lexington, whose name I can't recall, that I like to patronize when I'm in the city, but it's not unique. It's not a crummy fast-food place like McDonald's. You can pay $16 for a genuine New York corned beef sandwich at the Carnegie Deli, or you can go to the Hello Deli nearby and get a great corned beef sandwich for 1/3 the price (not many seats though). Of course, I'm the kind of person who's happy with sandwiches and simple stuff. You can also dine for cheap in Chinatown, but when I tried that I got super sick, or ill as you'd say. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The advice comes (thick and fast), rather as I like my soup. Many thanks to all for the above; any more advice always welcome. Regards. 85.211.148.143 (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May sound like a help desk problem, but I don't think it is

A few minutes ago, I went to edit this page and got the blocked IP page with the message you get explaining that your ISP is blocking Wikipedia and so your IP is blocked to avoid vandalism because everyone goes through a proxy. It suggested I go through the secure server, and sure enough that had no problem. However, I hadn't heard that BT was blocking any of Wikipedia at the moment, and can't find a mention anywhere. Also, it seemed to say I had an IP that started 198 or 176 or something, which isn't what it says now: surely switching to the secure server wouldn't change my IP address, and I'd be surprised if it rotated in that time? And surely I'd have had to go to a proxy to find myself editing through one?

So, clearly I'm more confused about this than I thought I was, but my main question is whether BT is blocking any part of Wikipedia at the moment. 86.164.79.174 (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BT is doing something weird, routing a proportion of their customers through one (or a few) IPs. We don't know why. It's discussed here. Strictly we're anon-blocking those addresses, because they've been used by vandals (this is inevitably what happens when many people are funnelled through a small number of IP addresses). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very helpful. I understand much better what is happening now, although (like everyone else) the why is still baffling! 86.164.79.174 (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we persuade BT to implement XFF? Rich Farmbrough, 12:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]