Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 October 9

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.

October 9

coffee-making scheme

Is the following a reasonably conventional or sane way to make 1 cup of coffee?

1. stir coffee grounds directly into a cup of hot water;
2. strain out the grounds by pouring resulting mix into a second cup, through a paper cone filter / funnel. Then rinse out the first cup.

The result is supposed to be like using a plunger (french press) without needing the fancy equipment or resulting messy clean-up, and also to get the grounds out more completely than plungers usually do.

Right now I just use the cone filter, but it's a pain to get consistent results by pouring water through it manually. I'd rather not mess with fancy equipment including either plungers or automatic drip pots. I haven't tried the above method yet. I thought I would first ask if it has obvious drawbacks that I'm missing. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have at hand a paper cone filter / funnel, why not just make coffee in the usual manner? DOR (HK) (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2

Tread lightly here, lest you wake up the serious coffee fans who believe that coffee isn't drinkable unless it's freshly roasted from beans dug out of llama dung and brewed at exactly 192F. I don't believe it ever makes sense to brew one cup of coffee, so I grind pretty good beans (Peet's are fine; Trader Joe's will do) just before bedtime and set the timer. The gurgle and aroma make a much nicer wakeup than a buzz. The French Press is an evil device and should be disposed of by any means necessary. PhGustaf (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I do now, but as mentioned, it's a pain to get consistent results, and it needs a lot of attention to keep pouring water over the grounds uniformly etc. Zillions of people do it and it's certainly tolerable-- I'm just wondering whether this other method I've thought of might be better. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've evolved the laziest way to drink (non instant) coffee. I used to use a plunger, then i used the OP's method. Now i just use a big mug, put a big spoon of coffee grounds in, pour over with water and stir. A minute or two later i just drink it until I'm almost at the sediment grounds at the bottom. I still get the plunger out when guests are over. Vespine (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I can offer three possible solutions:

1. In the UK, you used to be able to buy coffee bags (analogous to tea-bags) which had one cupful of ground coffee in a bag that acted as the filter. Dump the bag into your cup - pour on hot water, jiggle it about for a while, pull the bag back out and you're ready to go. The result was indistinguishable from filter coffee - no mess, no cleanup, one cup at a time. I they are kinda expensive compared to buying beans and grinding them yourself. I don't recall seeing them in the US yet - but I could be wrong about that.
2. Personally, at home I use a french press - it's not that tough to clean - I give it a very quick rinse - and an odd, stray bit of coffee grounds from the last time around isn't going to kill me. I have a "one-cup" press and a larger one with a capacity for about five cups or so. I like that there is zero waste of materials or energy in the process. We have a fairly fancy coffee machine that grinds the beans and makes the coffee using a filter process - but without needing paper filters - we almost never use it precisely because you can't reasonably use it to make just one cupful.
3. For the ultimate in efficiency, here at work, we have a fancy Italian coffee machine that has the coffee grounds inside little plastic cups about an inch across - you stick the plastic cup into the machine, put your coffee mug under the spout and press the "GO" button. Since it's plumbed into the water supply, cleans itself automatically once a day and compacts the waste (plastic cups, used grounds, etc) into a little bag that you remove whenever it gets full - it's utterly minimal maintenance. It makes tea and chocolate drinks too and there are a bazillion types of tea, coffee and chocolate available for it. I like the coffee it makes and the wide choice available - it's about as convenient as it's possible to be. But I dislike the waste of materials (the plastic cups) and energy (the thing keeps water heated 24/7 so you get coffee the instant you press the button).

SteveBaker (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're pretty much describing Cowboy coffee, except for that gol-durn fancy city-slicker filterin' part. --LarryMac | Talk 12:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As an ignorant non-coffee-drinker who occasionally serves coffee to guests I ask what's so bad about Nescafé instant coffee? Following the OP's step 2 makes the drink get colder going into the second cup and since cups are not designed for pouring I'd probably spill some.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's analagous to instant mashed potato compared to real mashed potato; or computer-generated music, compared to real music written by a human, that has some heart and soul, and guts, to it. Or balls, if you like. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

SteveBaker's #3 is pretty much this, except the version I linked to doesn't heat all the water - only that which leaves the gadgetmotron. Oh, and I don't know what's actually inside the plastic cups, since I don't use it. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

They're just coffee grounds, and I think a filter. I opened one up once. Not very exciting. These things are on sale at Costco all the time, incidentally. Very popular with offices and places where you don't want to have to make sure someone tries to keep the coffee pot clean and operating. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Or try a home expresso machine. -- SGBailey (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever tried "backpackers' coffee"? Take your metal cup and boil water in it on your camp stove. Pour in coffee grounds. Wait until it cools enough to be drinkable. Strain out the grounds with your teeth.

It won't be the best coffee you've ever tried, but you may like it better than instant, and it'll keep you from getting a caffeine-withdrawal headache on the trail to add to the altitude headache you have anyway. --Trovatore (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Best way to get forgiveness

Say you ssid something incredibly mean to someone (but I said it out of sheer frustration). That person in return says they never want to speak to you again. They don't return your phone calls and don't want to see your face. Then, later you send a long letter of apology of how you were wrong and feel horrible for your actions and ask if they was anything to rectify the pain you caused them. Apparently, the words are not going to make them feel better. What extra steps can I do to convince this person how utterly horrible I feel for my actions? I am at a loss and mys stomach is in knots. --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you ask this question elsewhere? Give it time. Time heals all wounds, and wounds all heels. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear about all the things going on in your life, but the Reference Desk (and Wikipedia in general) is not the place to get relationship advice or counsel for life. You should talk to your friends and family, and move on - nobody is worth being with if they don't want to be with you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The only way to get over something is to give into it. The shame, the heartache, the agony. Vranak (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You have to go through a "grief cycle". Let the cycle "have its way", go through it, and you'll get past it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You are asking how you can change somebody else's feelings/perception/view. The answer is, You can't. Period. It is not in our power, any of us, to do this. The only part of the relationship you do have control of is yourself: you can choose how you are going to be and act, including how you are towards that other person. You may decide to continue to offer your goodwill again and again, and hope that something will change for them; or you may decide to stop doing so; or many other choices. But as long as you make your own happiness conditional on how they are, you are giving away your power, and probably your happiness.

This is much easier to say than to live, I know. But I believe it is the truth.

"The open hand may be taken or rejected / but it holds all possibilities open." (K. Bradford Brown)

Best wishes. --ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is in nobody's power to change the feelings of another person?!? Interesting opinion.Popcorn II (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

But one that I agree with. We often hear "s/he made me feel <something>", or get asked "How did that make you feel?". Sorry, but no. We all have total control over our own feelings. Eleanor Roosevelt agrees with me: "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So nobody has ever made you feel anything and you have never affected anybody elses emotions? Of course we have an element of control over our own emotions, but to say that "we all have total control over our own emotions" is a massive exaggeration. Lots of people have very little control over how they feel. This is why we don't just sit in a room on our own feeling all the emotions we need, we are social creatures and the interaction we have with others is paramount to our emotional security.91.109.245.193 (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You've misquoted me. I wrote "We all have total control over our own feelings". I never used the word "emotions". They're different things. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with with that. And I'm not the only one, for example [1] [2] [3]. Obviously this depends by what you mean by 'feelings' but I would argue it's not supported by scientific fact either. We know that drugs can influence feelings (make you happier, sadder, more angry, more depressed, more scared etc). Are you saying a P (methamphetamine) addict is in total control over their feelings and should just put their mind to it and won't be angry? If they aren't being forced to take the drug, they obviously could not take it, but this doesn't mean they have total control over their feelings. For that matter I'd like to see you try and tell a couple going thorough a difficult breakup they just aren't trying hard enough, if they did they'd feel love for each other. No sorry but our feelings are influenced by our emotions and our upbringing and a whole load of external issues. We have indirect control over them and we can develop ways to to better control them but we don't have total control. I would agree people should be encouraged to better control their feelings and not let others have too great an influence over their feelings but that isn't really a topic for the RD. Note that the Eleanor Roosevelt quote seems a good general sentiment. I don't know if she was supporting your POV. I don't know if you're understanding the stuff about "made me feel" either. Perhaps you think people are saying "they forced me to feel this way". Most probably aren't. Rather they're saying "these feelings arose in me when the person did this action" or "what feelings arose in you when the person did whatever action". Perhaps they should phrase what they say differently but I think most people understand the idea and have no problem with it. Whether or not people feel it's reasonable that they felt that way will vary depending on many factors and could be of relevance. For example if someone punched you in the face or calls you a typical racist Australian for no good reason I think many would agree it's entirely reasonable if you say that made you feel anger even if these actions didn't force you to feel angry. Then again if someone says seeing an Aboriginal man kiss a white woman makes them feel angry, people may ask them to seek help I doubt they'd try to explain that make is the wrong word since they aren't being forced to feel that way Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you messed up by saying something objectionable or unforgivable, the best outcome is to school yourself to avoid saying faux pauws in the future. People hear what you say, and they react forevermore to it, so engage the filter and avoid saying every objectionable thing that you think. Edison (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent to previous) The thing is, each person has a unique worldview, the way they look at the world. It's based on all their experiences. Some peoples' feelings about things, or people, are more easily changed than others. For example, I might dislike a certain thing. A good friend tells me they like it, and explains why it's so good. If my respect for that friend outweighs my distaste for the thing, I might choose to change my feelings toward it. They will likely change slowly, but feelings can change mroe quickly at times, for things like heroic acts by someone.

So, your only hope might be to approach a mutual friend. Explainyour true remose, and perhaps discuss how difficult it is to find the right words, and that you know that's not an excuse for what you said. Inform that friend that in the future, you will not speak like that. You may not get anywhere, but at present, the thing this person can't stand is you. They need someone they respect more than they loathe you to help them to realize you might be sincere.

Even then, it could take a long while, and if their worldview is that they don't forgive a certain thing, well, it takes a *lot* to change a world view. That's really what I think of as being almost unchangeable, not feelings. Because there are things which influence us to change. (Then again, some peoples' world views are that they dont' change, ever.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your input. He has not returned my calls. However, he sister has contacted me offering friendship but I would feel wrong "usuing" her totry to repair my relationship with this person. Im just so scared and I really want to be friends with him again.--Reticuli88 (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'v learned from expeariance that the best way to get someones forgivness is to just give them some time, till you get the chance to show them your truly sorry for what you've done. if you can at least talk to him, let him know what was going through your mind at the time and how you feel about it now. if hes still mad, all you can do is give it time. --Talk Shugoːː 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Send them a gift. 92.29.57.166 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Kings head on a stick

I have a memory that King Charles' head was put on a spike and displayed somewhere like the Houses of Parliament. But apparently I'm wrong, they sewed it back on after his beheading. So where have I got this from? What king did they do this to? Or was it not the king but someone else like Cromwell? Popcorn II (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably Oliver Cromwell's head. Which I found by clicking your link up there. Part of one of my favorite Wikipedia categories, Category:Famous body parts, which has a few other heads. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

or James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth--80.176.225.249 (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for signposting me to Category:Famous body parts. Wikipedia is indeed a source of great joy. Karenjc 22:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Dick, a befuddled but benign character in Charles Dickens' David Copperfield is perpetually looking at the head of a penny (I think from King Charles' day) and gets upset thinking about what happened to King Charles' head. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which... what, no entry for Napoleon? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, in case you don't know, is referring to Napoleon's famous Bonaparte. PhGustaf (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It must not have a standalone article. It was, apparently, not all that notable. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have good evidence for that? I doubt it would stand up to scrutiny :) --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the Cromwell article is weird. It apparently took eight blows to separate his head from his body -- after he had been dead for two years!!!!.

It's hard to figure out, at this remove, which side of that conflict was more vicious. Of course as an American, my small-r republican instincts have to be on Cromwell's side for the long haul, and against the Stuart restoration. What would have come of the republican experiment, had it been allowed to continue? But the absence of a monarch is certainly no guarantee of individual rights or liberal government, and there was little indication that the Protectorate was headed in the direction of either. --Trovatore (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Speak to the Irish about Cromwell and see whether you think he's so great then. Bear in mind that the Puritans banned theatre, alehouses, gambling and the celebration of Christmas, so what you call "the republican experiment" was probably rather closer to a theocracy. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe so, but I just find it really strange that the English still have a queen. It doesn't really matter much; it's just annoying. I wonder how things might have evolved if the restoration had never happened. --Trovatore (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You're "annoyed" that monarchies still exist? I've never heard anyone say anything quite like that before, Trovatore. But to each his own. Btw, she's queen to 132 million people in 16 countries, not just these "English" you speak of. Some people are annoyed that certain countries still haven't decimalised their weights and measures ...  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Cromwell got what was comin' to him. I note it was 300 years before they re-buried the head. Even the British make mistakes now and then. But they always correct them. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell wasn't a republican, he just wanted to be the King. --Tango (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he didn't. If he had wanted to be King he could easily have become so, but he did not. Don't confuse republicanism with democracy. Algebraist 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

But then his son Richard succeeded him as Lord Protector, merely on Oliver's say so; this is hardly a hallmark of democracy, more of an inherited dictatorship like North Korea. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I made no claim that Cromwell's England was a democracy, or was not an inheritable dictatorship. Algebraist 22:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting stuff into Afghanistan

I was wondering, is US and NATO military equipment all brought in by air? Are there any road routes that are used, and if not is heavy equipment (like Abrams tanks) unavailable in the theatre? TastyCakes (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean how they get stuff to Afghanistan in the first place, the US gave Pakistan (which has a long border with Afghanistan) an awful lot of money, materials, and winking non-awareness of Pakistan's nuke program and other issues. They must have gotten something for it. Within Afghanistan itself, yes of course there are roads, though not everywhere. They fly stuff around on helicopters a lot. 67.119.3.190 (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably brought in by a combination of air and through Pakistan. The C-17A_Globemaster_III article indicates they are used to bring in heavy military equipment to Afghanistan. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you aren't aware, an Abrams tank and other heavy equipment can certainly be delivered by air. See here. --Zerozal (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but my understanding is that the vast majority of them in Iraq were shipped there, since you can only get one on a C17 without going overweight (which agrees with the C-17 article, which gives a maximum payload of 85 tons and the Abrams weighs 70). Is that incorrect? I guess Abrams aren't particularly suited to a lot of the Afghan war anyway... Do the militaries there rely largely on smaller vehicles? So Mr 98, you think the various militaries do have agreements with Pakistan to supply the missions by road, but that weapons probably wouldn't be included? I have a hard time imagining tractor trailers pulling American tanks across Pakistan in any great numbers... TastyCakes (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

US and allied forces use air transport when necessary, but as TastyCakes points out, air transport capacity is very limited. During the first few years of the war, most heavy equipment was shipped by sea to Karachi and then in convoys overland to Afghanistan, but during 2008, that route became too perilous due to frequent attacks (per this article). A new agreement with Russia (see this article) allows NATO's heavy materiel to transit Russia by rail on a route from Europe through Uzbekistan to Afghanistan's (for now) more secure northern border via the Afghanistan-Uzbekistan Friendship Bridge. Marco polo (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks a lot. TastyCakes (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If relations between the U.S. and Iran weren't so unbelievably awful, there would be another route. The irony is that for a long time, and regardless of who was leading either country, both the U.S. and Iran had broadly-common interests in Afghanistan. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the point that has to be made here is that heavy equipment is just not suitable for the terrain in Afghanistan. This is the mistake the Russians made when they invaded - they started off with heavy equipment, then gradually realized (in the most horrific way) that it just wasn't the right stuff to be using when fighting an enemy that uses mountainous terrain and caves and valleys to stage its attacks from. This is why the US and British armies don't have huge numbers of heavily armoured vehicles out there (by which I mean MBTs) - they are just pointless. For this reason, airdrops are fine. They get the gear that we need in (when it's available, that is, but I digress). I cannot imagine much (if anything) coming in from Pakistan, for a lot of reasons, including the fact that the Afghan-Pakistan border is reputedly where most of the Taliban hang out. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That we need? Are you in-theater? Would love to hear more.... --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The border is indeed an important supply route as is often mentioned when it's closed [4] (see the middle) [5] [6] [7] Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

auto rentals in ventimiglia, italy

Does anyone know of a car rental agency at Rome's international airport that rents cars so they can be returned at ventimiglia, italy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.56.39 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The only auto rental company I could find that has an office in Ventimiglia is this one. (It also has offices at Fiumcino Airport in Rome.) It might be possible to arrange rentals with other companies only if you are willing to return the car in a larger town such as San Remo and then proceed by taxi, train, or bus to Ventimiglia. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I imagine (no sure knowledge) that all the large chains will do this - at extra cost. Hertz, Avis, Sixt etc. Just check that the chain has an office at both ends. -- SGBailey (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have rented a car "one way" (though not in Europe), and have been stung with a $500 "one way fee". You might find it considerably cheaper to consider a different means of transport.

Nice airport is much closer, so how about flying into Nice? It would be a lot easier to return the car to a much closer airport. Astronaut (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The train from Rome to Ventimiglia (yes it has a train station) will take about ten hours and can cost you less that $100. Half of the ten hours is the connecting train from Genova - from Rome to Genova the time is about five hours. [8] DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Current Certificate of Deposit rates

Hi all,

I'm considering putting money into a CD, but the rates look very low. Even for a 3-year CD will only fetch me 2.30% with Ally, which claims to have the highest rates.

1. Am I right in thinking that these rates are very low, historically speaking?
2. Am I right in thinking that if I buy a CD, I'm locking in those rates, even if the rates were to go higher? (I know it may vary with banks, bit I'm asking in the general case.)
3. Since I'm already getting 1.8% on my savings, the 3- and 6-month CDs are no good. I'm thinking I should wait until there are better rates before buying a long-term CD. In your opinion, which I won't hold you accountable for, is this the right choice?

Thanks! — Sam 76.24.222.22 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not supposed to give financial advice on the Refdesks. For the factual parts of your question, yes, the current rates of money market return are at or near historical lows; and when you buy a CD, yes, you are locking in those rates. If the market interest rates rise, your returns will not rise. (On the other hand, if the prevailing rate falls, your rate won't fall.) You can cancel a CD before its term is up, and get most of your money back, but there are "significant penalties" — you must check what those penalties are before buying the CD. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to adjust your return for inflation: +2.3% (annualized) was actually +3.8% in real terms over the past 90 days, if you're in the US. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)