Miscellaneous desk
< January 21	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 23 >

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.

January 22

Unrevisied versions of books

Once an author revises the text of their book, does every new printing always feature those changes? Or is the old version still sometimes reprinted? I ask because I'm looking for the original text of a book, which is apparently quite different from the one I have now, and I'm wondering whether I have any options apart from secondhand bookstores. 58.109.33.108 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would probably be released with a different ISBN number so, in theory both versions could still be printed. I have a friend who did this with one of his books so I'm guessing it's standard practice in publishing. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unusual for the "old" edition to be reprinted, though. I meant it seriously about Google books, sometimes you can "game" the snippet a bit to get a little more text.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except for some classics where the author revised his work during their lifetime and the different editions are then being printed later (like recently with the unedited version of Jack Kerouacs On the Road) or in case of pirate editions, I doubt very much you would be able find newly printed copies of older editions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does happen, but mainly with historic texts. For example Darwin's On the Origin of Species went through six editions in his lifetime IIRC, and was changed considerably. However, when printed now, it is almost always the first edition that is used. In terms of contemporary books though, it would be unusual to print an old edition once a new one has been released, so secondhand or finding a bookstore or warehouse with old stock would be your best bet. Some other reasons old editions may be used is that sometimes different editions are printed/used in different countries, and sometimes say with textbooks, a new edition may be released to reflect a new curriculum, but some institutions may continue to use an old edition for a year or two before adopting the new course and the new book; therefore both editions may be available concurrently for some time to cater to both early and late adopters. --jjron (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very clever Flash program that lets you see all of the differences between the six editions, broken up by chapter. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another classic example: According to War and peace#Reception the first, quite different version of War and Peace is still published, and translated. Pfly (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to Jjron's point, prayer books. Old-style ones may be published for years after the denomination has gone to a new version for congregations that need new ones as old wear out, but don't want to switch either because they like the old ones better or it would be too expensive. I'm fairly familiar with that for Jewish congregations, and assure you the expense, and passions, can be considerable.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarket ATMs

I'm just curious as to whether you can use a supermarket ATM during the night while the supermarket itself is closed. For example, if you went to a Tesco superstore Saturday night/Sunday morning or Sunday night/Monday morning while it was shut because of the Sunday trading restrictions, would you still be able to use an ATM on the premises? It's not something I've ever tried to do so please forgive me for my ignorance. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've done it on trips to the UK. I don't think withdrawing money is considered trading.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming using it doesn't entail getting into the shop, then sure. Using an ATM doesn't count as "trading" when considering trading and licensing laws. Really the ATM has little to do with Tesco; they just rent a bank space and provide a phone line and electricity. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)(For those curious, this is a UK question with our supermarkets and Sunday trading legislation) - ATMs tend to be outside either on a side wall or occasionally under an alcove, and are thus unaffected. If you wanted to use one inside the store, they'd be inaccessible. --Saalstin (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have mentioned this was a UK question so apologies for that. My query really arose because someone asked me about it the other day and I wasn't really sure. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about "Tesco" was a hint. :)--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or any other supermarket, I guess. :) Tesco just came to mind as it's my nearest store. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - you can find Tesco in many countries these days :) There was one in central Prague when I was there in 1999, and I'm told they're quite big in parts of China now. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ATM Would not be part of the chain store. If there is no 'shutters' covering the ATM, then it's free to use 24/7. 195.200.159.1 (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UK still has blue laws??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Blue law (a term unknown in the UK}. Yes - see Sunday Trading Act 1994. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my local ASDA is open on Sunday, and sells alcohol. They close at 4pm, though (rather than being 24-hour as they normally are). Off-licenses are all open on Sundays (normal times). Shops in the UK have the option of remaining open on a Sunday these days (England and Wales, at least). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all shops - larger than a certain footprint, they're restricted to 6 hours (although they frequently have doors open for 7, the first hour is officially 'browsing', when you can fill your trolley, but not pay for the goods). Small shops can keep whatever hours they like --Saalstin (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To bring up a standard libertarian question: What is the government's interest in forcing businesses to close at certain hours? In the USA, blue laws have pretty much been abolished, with the exception of closely-regulated industries such as alcoholic beverages. Businesses tend to have short hours on Sundays, but as far as I know that's strictly voluntary and customary on the part of those businesses - no one's telling them they have to. As an extreme example, many pharmacies and convenience stores are open 24 x 7 x 365 (366 in leap years). As with any business, they set their hours based on whether they think they can do enough business to justify it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past in the UK, there has been a coalition of interest between religious (Christian) interests, other "conservative" (small c, but often traditional Conservatives as well) groups, and some trade unions, who want to "Keep Sunday Special". That has eroded over the years, but not to the extent of there being any major campaign to overhaul the legislation. Religious interests - especially the Church of England - still (some would say bizarrely) wield quite considerable power in the UK - see Lords Spiritual. Tradition tends to be more prized in the UK than any ideas of "liberty" (an alien concept associated with such foreign places as France and the US) - that's why we still have a monarchy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are still blue laws in Bergen County, New Jersey, mostly affecting Paramus but mostly because the residents endure heavy traffic from shoppers and commuters six days a week and aren't keen to make it seven.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty is 'an alien concept' in the UK? I'm not sure many people here would agree with that assessment, and our article on Liberty is full of references to British people, such as Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, and Isaiah Berlin. I would say that tradition is prized in most places, and certainly many aspects of the French and US political systems are more based on tradition than ideas of liberty or democracy. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "liberty" means different things in different places. In the UK it means freedom to roll a cheese down a hill. In the US it means freedom to own a selection of firearms and drive a car at 15. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may have stretched the point for effect, but certainly "libertarian" ideals don't have much resonance among the general British public. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Such "blue laws" (I never heard that term before) are very common across continental Europe. Of the two countries with which I have sufficient experience, France is pretty much closed on Sundays except for the occasional large supermarket and some major stores in Paris, while larger towns in the Netherlands have Sunday opening once per month though that excludes most supermarkets. Of course, the rules are relaxed a little in the run up to Christmas. Night-time trading is also very rare and is restricted to small high-priced night-shops. All a bit annoying for someone used to the UK's 24-hours-a-day, 6-days-a-week (plus limited Sunday opening) supermarkets that sell pretty much everything. Astronaut (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually associate the restriction on Sunday and Bank Holiday trading in the UK with religious issues: I associate it with hard-won workers' rights which are gradually being eroded under the banner of "greater freedom". The freedom in question only applies to those working office jobs and those running large corporations who want to remain open as long as possible, not to the minimum-wage workers who basically have to work the hours they're told if they want to keep their jobs. Without protected days and protected hours, they often get little time off at the same time as the rest of their family or social group, and often do not know ahead of time which hours they will get off. The right of the Guardian journalist to buy cheddar at 4pm on a Sunday is directly linked to the mother who has to take a 6 hour shift on Sunday or risk losing her job, or the young person who cannot make it to family gatherings because they never have bank holidays off. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having stores open only during the daytime Monday through Saturday doesn't have much to do with "workers' rights" - it has to do with a built-in assumption that men work, and women stay at home and do the shopping for the family. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has to do with the right to have a specified day off, at the same time as a majority of the rest of the population, to allow people to, for example, spend time with family members and friends (male, female, old and young). Without this, workers would have to fit their personal life 100% entirely around their work life or risk being unable to get a job (because they cannot fulfil the obligations of e.g. working completely different days to other people in their life) or being fired. It is a recognition and protection of the importance of personal life, to limit companies' ability to make employees choose between family and work where they want to (you can, of course, find Sunday jobs if you want to, as mentioned). Originally these laws evolved from the original need to protect people's right to have any time off at all, and they're still useful --81.155.175.235 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the Shops Act 1950 was legislation to protect the rights of shop workers and included the provision of seats for female saff, compulsory lunch breaks and half-days off as well as Sundays at home with the family (unless you worked in a newsagent or tobbaconists). It replaced similar legislation going back to 1912. Alansplodge (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cook pasta and rice in flavoured water or sauces?

So I was cooking some Gigli pasta today, and it was delicious. But without the sauce (a plain tomato sauce) I put on it would have been fairly bland. Which set me thinking; could I have cooked the pasta in the sauce? And if so, would it have 'worked' and been tasty? I presume you could cook it in stock fairly easily, but has anyone done this, and is it effective. How about a thicker sauce, would that work at all, and what would it taste like? Prokhorovka (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When one makes Spanish rice it's common to use stock rather than plain water, and maybe to add vegetables. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site (http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/682565) has a bit of a discussion about the relative cons from cooking pasta in the sauce. In terms of rice there's always Risotto which is rice cooked in stock (Arborio rice I believe - at least that's what it says on my packet of rice for risotto). ny156uk (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carnaroli rice is, in many ways, superior for risotto. → ROUX ₪ 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of soups have pasta cooked in them for bulk, chicken soup especially. Couscous (which is technically a form of pasta) and grains such as quinoa I find far better if cooked in stock, and recently I've started cooking the couscous in with the casserole, rather than cooking it separately and serving it alongside. Less washing up too. I have tried cooking the "pasta bake" type of ready-made sauces, but I find that whereas the bottle instructions say "no need to cook pasta beforehand", it helps to at least part cook the pasta before you add it to the sauce. Good luck experimenting! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For quick snacks, or sometimes as part of a meal, I sometimes have this, which is cooked (boiled) in the sauce (powdered sauce, plus milk, water, and a blob of butter). There is no harm at all in cooking the pasta in the sauce itself. As for rice, when I was in Japan I had a rice-cooker, and very often I'd add sauces, vegetables, and various spices into the rice + water before I pressed the start button. Again, no harm done, and it made an otherwise bland meal into something quite impressive at times. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Italian pasta it is generally best to cook it in a large amount of boiling water rather than in the sauce, simply because the pasta needs a good amount of space to move around in when being boiled. It is rare that the amount of sauce would be sufficient to properly cook the pasta and sticky or unevenly cooked pasta may be the result of cramping them in the pot. That being said there is not reason why you couldn't flavour the cooking water itself with stock or spices or some of the other things being mentioned here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the answers everyone, which I think covers it all fairly well. The RD is truly a wonderful thing. Prokhorovka (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One note—for many pasta dishes, you will get the best results cooking the pasta until almost done in boiling salted water, then finishing the pasta (just a minute or two) in the sauce immediately before serving. This allows the pasta to absorb flavor from the sauce, and ensures the pasta is uniformly well-coated with sauce. It also means that you don't end up with all the starch from the pasta in the sauce (which you would if you were to try to cook the pasta in the sauce). See, for example, Bon Appétit's suggestions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One downside to cooking in a thick sauce is the increased likelihood of burning the sauce, since you will need to bring it to a boil to cook pasta, but otherwise would only need to warm the sauce. (Room temperature sauce is even good enough when added to hot, cooked pasta boiled in water, eliminating any possibility of burning the sauce.) I also disagree with adding salt to the water used for boiling, as most of us get way too much sodium in our diets anyway, so don't need to add more salt beyond what's in the sauce. StuRat (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The salt in the pasta water serves two purposes: it seasons the pasta (every part of a dish needs to be seasoned, and tbh the reason why people eat too much sodium is processed foods; salt is a cheap replacement for flavour), and it helps the actual dough retain cohesion and density as the starches gelate in the water. → ROUX ₪ 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you buy pre-made spaghetti, that's a processed food and probably already has salt added, you don't need to add even more, in addition to that in the processed sauce, processed grated cheese, processed meatballs, etc. (and maybe you even sprinkle a bit more on top of everything ?). StuRat (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that about the salt, and that's a fair point about the sauce. Rice/couscous in stock would probably work better more easily. Having said that, the BA link above method of combining pasta and sauce and making it all glossy and so on looks intriguing, I may try this shortly. Prokhorovka (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used to add salt to pasta when boiling, in the belief that it would cook faster, as salt raises the boiling point of water by 10C. After it was soft enough to eat, I would then rinse it in cold water (to get rid of the salt), and put it into a sauce mixture to warm it up, then serve. Always seemed to be right for me and my guests. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rinsing pasta removes free surface starches which, if left on the pasta, allow whatever sauce you use to adhere to the surface of the noodle. It will not remove the salt, which is conveyed into the structure of the dough itself as the starches gelate (absorb water). → ROUX ₪ 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that would mean it would take longer to bring to a boil in the first place. Rinsing pasta is also a no-no, as it washes away many of the nutrients. And cold water would make your pasta cold, who wants that ? Finally, there's the environmental concern of all that salt-water eventually entering the rivers and lakes into which it drains (I'm assuming that sewage treatment plants don't remove salt). If you're dead set on boiling pasta in salt-water, I suggest you leave it unrinsed and use a low-salt pasta sauce to compensate (or cut your regular pasta sauce with unsalted tomato paste). StuRat (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of salt you would have to add to pasta water in order to see any significant change in boiling temperature is so much that anything cooked in said water would be completely inedible. → ROUX ₪ 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, surely the problem if there is one of salt water isn't salt on the pasta but salt in it? You can't rinse away the salt if it's been absorbed into the pasta itself? Prokhorovka (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the claim that you add salt to raise the boiling point before although it seems to be fairly common. However it makes little sense. I'm lazy to calculate how much salt you will need to add to the water to raise the boiling point by 10 degrees C but I'm guessing it's a lot. Our article Boiling-point elevation suggests a much more likely elevation is 0.17 degrees C. A number of sources suggest that while taste may be a reason, a more significant reason to add salt it because of the effect on Starch gelatinisation [1] [2] [3] although there is some doubt about whether you will definitely get a desired effect [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently cook pasta in water which has had chicken bouillon cubes added to it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cook rice often with 1/2 water, 1/2 carrot and cashew (fairly watery) tetrapak'ed soup, and it tastes just dandy. I also throw in a bunch of garlic though, so I might not be the best culinary guide. :) Franamax (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's tetrapacked ? StuRat (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Tetra Pak. Oda Mari (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware that the cooking abilities of rice varies greatly from Italian pasta. It doesn't need a large quantity of salted boiling water to get an evenly cooked result with rice. A dish like risotto for example requires the rice to cook in the sauce, and with that dish it is important to hit just the right amount of liquid or it will either get too dry or too soggy. And as TenofallTrades mentioned above, cooking the pastasauce in a sautépan and then finishing it off with mixing the almost done pasta and the sauce and then giving it a couple of minutes on low heat is a must for most Italian-style pasta dishes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pasta does not require a large amount of water either. The only reason to use huge pots of water is to avoid sticking; hot water and a bit of stirring will gain you the exact same result, with less wastage of water and a concomitant lowering of the energy used to heat it. → ROUX ₪ 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]