Miscellaneous desk
< December 12	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 14 >

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 13

History of Rome as a City

I am looking for an English-language book about the history of Rome, as a city, from earliest times to the Renaissance. For example, the size/nature of population through the ages, the number, type and state of buidings, aquedaucts, bridges, etc. I am particularly interested in the change in the city over the centuries, not the state of the city at a specific period of time, such as at the height of the Roman empire. Although obviously it cannot be totally avoided, the history of Rome as the capital of an empire/seat of the Papacy is secondary - there are numerous books about that (and I have plenty!). Can anyone suggest anything? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callerman (talk • contribs) 03:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The art historian/critic Robert Hughes recently produced a book called Rome which offers a cultural history from the Roman empire to the present day.[1][2] Hughes is an excellent writer on art and architecture, and though I've not read this book, I'm sure it's worth a read. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what you're after will be adequately covered by a reasonably good tourist guide book, like the Rough Guide series. --Dweller (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Robert Hughes book generally gets poor reviews for the first 200 pages - basically covering the period I am most interested in. There is a similar book by Christopher Hibbert which gets better reviews - I'll have a look at that. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callerman (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does everyone find alcohol good?

Sorry if this question sounds stupid, but do all human beings find alcohol "good"?

When I drink alcohol I find there's nothing "good" about it at all. Beer tastes like barley water to me. I've tried both VOSP and XO and they both tastes like organic solvents. Me and family has never been part of a religion that forbids alcohol, so it's not the taboo factor. With respect to food I'd say my tastes are perfectly normal. What everyone else finds delicious I find delicious as well, so I don't think it's a physiological anomaly with my taste buds.

Is there a name for my condition other than "unable to taste alcohol"?99.245.35.136 (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding alcohol 'good' or 'tasty' is as subjective as finding any other food tasty, or anything else nice, good or bad for that matter. You're a perfectly normal person in this respect. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol is like most other acquired tastes, in that exposure can create a growing appreciation. It's not a coincidence that many acquired tastes involve chemicals that are psychoactive, like tobacco, coffee, and beer. The taste of concentrated ethanol is almost never itself pleasurable. Some people sip pure vodka, which is close, but I doubt many would do so if it wasn't intoxicating too. Beer and wines get into the borderline territory, imho. there's a broader point too about how tastes evolve. Children tend to crave nutrient dense foods a lot more than adults... and also tend to shun bitter foods more acutely. That may have an evolutionary basis. Similarly, pregnant women often report cravings for specific foods, and some of those cravings may have basis in subconscious recognition that a certain nutrient is missing. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I personally dislike the taste of alcohol, which I find very strong, overpowering anything else you try to mix it with. I gather this is an unusual position too. HS7 (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard telling how usual or unusual, but I'm with you on that. Generally I don't like alcohol at all, although there are certain beers and wines I can tolerate. The average drinker seems to like some stuff and not necessarily others, and obviously every drinker is different. Maybe it has to do with body chemistry as well as acquired tastes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you want more personal anecdotes.... there are certain beers I think are excellent from a taste perspective. As for a nationally distributed American beer, Sam Adams is one of the most consistently interesting breweries in my book. Sierra Nevada is a close second. After that, there are a few dozen breweries spread around North America, with a startling amount in Colorado, that are downright amazing. The American craft brew scene has exploded and there's a huge community built around craft brewing, homebrewing, and the general gastronomy snobishness movement. Like most beverages created by microorganisms, there are some subtle, weird, and intriguing flavors created in the process, and if they don't kill you you'll be certain some culture will find them interesting. If those chemicals also happen to make you feel good (psychoactive), then it's not surprising trends will evolve around them.

If you don't get a particular buzz off of alcohol that's absolutely fine, maybe even a good thing. It is a powerful substance; certainly there have been plenty of problems caused by addiction to it. You certainly shouldn't feel like you're missing something. There are different individual responses to things like this. Some people like them, some don't, some are compelled to them, others can take them or leave them. If you're concerned purely about taste though (as your original questioned asked), I think the acquired taste explanation is the most useful. Shadowjams (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different taste perceptions and physical reactions to alcohol can - to summarise from several of the posts above - be due to the effects of ageing (body chemistry changes through childhood and adolescence through to adulthood); to an individual's conditioning through exposure or "acquiring the taste"; and to genetic variations that can be evident as trends in populations. This last is mentioned in our article Alcohol tolerance, and may reflect differential microevolution due to differing lengths of its availability (in significant quantities) to different populations/cultures, much as in Lactase persistence. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.63 (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are apparently familiar with the taste of various organic solvents, but dislike barley water, I think you defy classification. 81.131.57.95 (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember initial sips of beer as tasting like dishwater, and wine tasting like horribly spoiled and rancid grape juice. But just as a pig can learn to endure the sting of sliding under an electric charged fence wire to get into the garden and the delicious food there, we can learn that the sour/bitter/rancid/stinging taste of beer, wine whiskey or coffee are a signal signal that psychoactive effects are coming, and to "like" the taste of the beverage. Or maybe its just "educating the palate" and "broadening tastes." As for beer, I've been told that some young babies given a sip of it find it pleasing at first taste. Despite this, books on breast feeding say that a baby may breast feed less if the mother has consumed beer, due to the milk taste changing. Edison (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the best answer is that alcoholic drinks typically have an acquired taste. Most people don't appreciate the taste until after the first few times. TheGrimme (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the question and most of the answers baffling. To me, there is no such thing as the "taste of alcohol", just the taste of different drinks. I love whisky, I quite like whiskey, beer is OK but I can't abide real ale. Advocaat is delicious, but most other liqueurs taste too sweet. I used to like vodka but I don't any more, which I find puzzling. Alcopops taste abominable to me: ditto for arak. I love red wine, but am not too keen on most whites I've ever tried. I can't understand the fuss about champagne... all in all, what taste of alcohol? Try this: take a sip of Bailey's Irish Cream, followed by a sip of Cherry Brandy, followed by a sip of Laphroaig. Assuming they were all sips, you should be fit to answer the question - did the three taste anything like each other? --Dweller (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on what you mean by "taste". I think alcohol has little taste in the strict sense of the word, meaning whatever is detected by the taste buds. It's not sour or salty or umami; it might be slightly sweet and very slightly bitter.

But most people use the word "taste" to indicate a whole range of perceptions from the mouth and nose. In that sense alcohol certainly has a taste. --Trovatore (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way - can you taste the difference between beer and non-alcoholic beer? Many people (apparently) can. That difference is the taste of alcohol.

Different alcholic drinks might taste different - just as different salty foods taste different. But the "taste of alcohol" is no more fictitious than the taste of salt. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PalaceGuard, I can taste the difference between different alcoholic beers, so I'm not sure your point proves anything. And I'm not even particularly into beer. The fact they taste different is because they're different. Different processes, different quantities, different machinery, sometimes different ingredients. Heck, if you're into whisky (without an e) the distillers often make grand claims about how amazing and important the water - found in their particular snippet of Scotland - is in producing their distinctive taste. --Dweller (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to call ^{[citation needed]} on the difference between beer and non-alcoholic beer being only the taste of alcohol. This must vary by brewer. Our non-alcoholic beer article explains that some breweries cook the beer at one stage to remove the alcohol, others use a vacuum evaporation system, and others use both; I would guess that any cooking step is going to alter the flavor, so the difference isn't merely the "taste of alcohol". (This is a guess because I'm not going to voluntarily drink low-alcohol beer any time soon.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference desk, no? Anyways, current research says alcohol has a sweet tasts (at least to rats), along with a bitter component [3] (Perhaps more surprising is that rats can be trained to avoid alcohol). It's clearly silly to suggest that alcohol has no taste. Alcohols have pretty distinct smells, which of course is a large part of taste. Get some relatively pure ethanol (some types of vodka), and give it a smell. Taste a little bit too (not too much of course - it is poison). Get some isopropanol, and try it a whiff too (the stuff you find in drugstores is often adultered with other stuff to keep you from drinking it - if you can find some pure stuff, give it a little sip). Find some methanol and smell it (probably don't want to be drinking that though). Buddy431 (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This phenomenon may account for the proliferation of the old alcopop market - drinks that taste sweet and fruity and have the same sort of alcohol content as good old fashioned beer. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly need a large amount of sugar to be able to tolerate the "taste" of alcohol, which is extremely bitter to me. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I first tasted alcohol, a glass of beer during a meal on my 18th birthday, I remember that I didn't particularly like the experience. The taste itself was OK, but the alcohol made it taste very fiery, which I disliked. But later as I grew accustomed to alcohol, I began to like beer and other low-alcoholic drinks, to the point where I now consider myself as something as a beer enthusiast. I still don't like high-alcoholic drinks, such as distilled spirits or liquors. JIP | Talk 20:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there is, indeed, a gene which causes some people to experince ethanol as an unpleasant taste, while to others it has little taste, just as there are genes that cause some to hate cruciferous vegetables and the smell of urine from somebody who ate asparagus. If we could isolate that gene and provide it (or the protein(s) it produces) to alcoholics, that might reduce their addiction.StuRat (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally despise almost all alcoholic beverages. When I was younger, I drank them to fit in with everyone else, but now I'm old enough that I can say, you know what, forget it, I'm not going to force myself to drink beer or wine or, God forbid, whiskey, if I don't like it. They just don't taste good to me. I'd rather have a diet soda. Yes, there are a couple alcoholic beverages that I'm OK with, and I'm sure if I spent a lot of time I could find some beer that I'd really like. But why should I push myself to drink alcohol? One can live a perfectly full life without it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost like the opposite of alcoholism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identification request

Can someone identify the location of this report? It's not at Freeport nor Blackthorn. Thanks, HurricaneFan 25 18:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the top message? The "CGC BLACKTHORN" (presumably Coast Guard Cutter Blackthorn), "GALV" (i.e., Galveston), and "FREEPORT" in the other messages suggest a Texas location. Could the "BRO" stand for Brownsville? Deor (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that BRO is the FAA identification code for Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport, where there is no doubt a weather station. Deor (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BRO is the NWS weather station in Brownsville. There are three messages here. The first message appears to originate from "ALCKTS", which, by context, would seem to be some kind of station in the vicinity of Brownsville, but I don't think it's affiliated with Weather Service. It could be a TV or a radio station. The second looks like a message from Coast Guard Cutter Blackthorn to a ship called Deight(?) and to its home base in Galveston, which somehow made it to "MKYC" (probably "MSYC", the weather station in New Orleans) and "NOCG" (New Orleans Coast Guard). The third is from MSYC to GLSC, the weather station in Galveston.--Itinerant1 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BRO appears to be a (former?) WBAS; I'll ask the NWS about it. HurricaneFan 25 01:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask them what ALCKTS stands for. Again by context, it sounds like the sender assumed that the recipient in Brownsville would know its location. But most people who worked there at the time are retired or dead (the message is dated 1959). ALC might stand for Atlantic, and S stands for Station, but I have no idea what KT means. Google yields nothing. ALCKTS could even be a misspelling.

By the way, there actually was a Coast Guard Cutter Deight, stationed in New Orleans. Strings ending with 'Z' denote dates and times when each message was sent. For example, first message was sent by ALCKTS to BRO on the 24th of the month, at 00:27 Zulu (in other words, GMT). The section starting with "FM CGC BLACKTHORN" can be read as basically an email header, where "FM" is "From:", "TO" is "To:", "INFO" is "CC:", and "BT" stands for "Body Text" and denotes the start of the actual message text.--Itinerant1 (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALCKT I belive is all circuits or anybody who is listening or to quote http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/CNT/2-1-A.htm all offices having send-receive teletypewriter service on circuit MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milled almonds ?

I bought some almonds that I really liked once, but I haven't been able to find them since. They had the shells removed, but also the woody-looking brown part right around the white "meat", which is normally left on. I expect that they had to use a machine to mill this part off. So, are these called "milled almonds" or something else ? A Google search under that term doesn't seem to find this product. (The packaging for the original isn't of any use, since they apparently just put them in the same bags as their regular almonds.) They were "Markets of Meijer" brand, one of the house brands for Meijer. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like your referring to 'Blanched Almonds'. The don't mill but use hot water to remove the skins. I don't know if you have ever heard of a free encyclopedia called Wikipedia but they probably have and article mentioning them.--Aspro (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go:[4]. Enjoy!--Aspro (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche Almond? Didn't Vivien Leigh play that rôle in some Tennessee Williams play? Or perhaps she was married to a recent Governor of Rhode Island? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Personally, I'd rather see Noce blanche again; but not to be too philosophical, I hear the next Bond film will be called 'Carte Blanche'. No doubt they will make a lot of money since they can claim to have their own blank cheque.--Aspro (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've blanched my own almonds now, which just involved dropping them into a pot with boiling water and letting it cool, then peeling them. The water turns brown. They taste so much better blanched, I wonder why they are so hard to find. StuRat (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not here. Any ordinary Aussie supermarket (let alone specialty shops) that didn't sell blanched almonds would not be worth patronising. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can see that the OP didn't spend much time sitting on his mother's knee in the kitchen :-) [5]--Aspro (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to make me feel kilty for not growing up in Scotland ? :-) StuRat (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria's Gardener

I was informed by my mother and grandmother that her grandfather used to play with Queen Victoria when they were very young. Her grandfather was born in 1818 and died in the US in 1906. So the age is correct. He immigrated to the US with someone? when he was 11. Records show 1829. His name was John H. Russell. It is also said that he came from the Isle of Wight. His father (perhaps William?) was said to be the gardener for the Queen. My question of course is there any credence to any this information? Richard Karkau <e-mail address removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.2.123 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your e-mail address as any answers will appear here and to protect you from unwanted spam. The young Victoria visited the Isle of Wight on holiday twice, staying at Norris Castle (her first visit was in 1831 and her second was in 1833). In 1831 she stayed there for two months with her mother - information from here. I'm not sure that helps entirely, because she didn't have a permanent house there until she was married. Mikenorton (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the most famous Victoria doesn't seem to fit, you could look at one of these Queen Victorias, but I'm not optimistic for you. --Dweller (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course quite possible that a man from the Isle of Wight moved from it and became a gardener in some other locality. While there was considerably less mobility among the lower classes of the time than today, many British men served in the Army or Navy during the Napoleonic wars of 1803–1815 and necessarily left their home localities. Doubtless some also found employment in "furrin parts" (i.e. other counties of England) for varying periods after being discharged, and your great-great-grandfather William Russell might have been employed as a gardener at Kensington Palace where the young Queen-to-be Victoria spent her childhood.

That said, Victoria was raised by her mother Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld largely in isolation from even her aristocratic relatives as well as from other children (as detailed here, and also here), so it seems even more unlikely in Victoria's case than for any other aristocratic or royal girl child of the period that she would have been permitted to play with the son of a lowly outdoor servant such as a gardener. Note also that the gardens of Kensington Palace, as with similar aristocratic residences of the period, were quite extensive and would have employed dozens of gardeners; "the gardener" implies a Head Gardener, which is the sort of detail likely to have been exaggerated in the telling of such a tale.

On the face of it, without any kind of corroborative documentary evidence the story must be rated as possible but extremely unlikely. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.30 (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course possible that the dates are slightly out and that your great-great-grandfather was employed as a gardener at Norris Castle. It seems unlikely that the 12-year old Victoria would have been allowed to 'play' with a gardener's son, but they might have talked on occasion. I wouldn't rule out such a scenario completely. Mikenorton (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]