firkin, I have never found a finer habanero based salso than the green El Yucateco bottle. Try it if you haven't already. It imparts a subtle soapy flavor... like cilantro. munk
Thanks, Munk I'll look out for it. Theres so darn many hot sauces out now, it's hard to find the good ones. Habaneros are usually easy to get here, so I often make up my own concoctions. I've grown them too. For a while there weren't any but one store had what they called manzano peppers, which I found out were rocotto peppers, originally from Peru. If you ever see those, or products made from them, buy! They had the complex fruity flavor of habeneros, but the slightly lower heat was of a different kind, that really let the flavor come through without getting blasted. They were slightly larger than habaneros, but had thick flesh like tiny bell peppers so you could easily roast and peel them. Wonderful! Of course, after a few months, they vanished from the store. At least they stock habaneros again. I saved some seeds, which were black!! But I found out it's supposed to be quite a pain to get them started, and haven't tried. From what I could find about them, these hot peppers don't crossbreed with other varieties, which is unusual, and they have a different mixture of hot tasting compounds. A Peruvian woman who did some work for my neighbor got very nostalgic when I asked about them. Sigh, always seems like once you discover something like this, you can't get it anymore. At least I got to experience them.
Roger: Pure Cap 100 is mixed with vegetable oil. It rates a level of 10++. If you go to http://firegirl.com/home.html you can go to the "off the scale" section and check it out. 357 hot sauce is 357,000 scoville units. It comes in at just under the hottest natural pepper so it can be sold as hot sauce. It is rated at 10+ Those concoctions hotter than the hottest natural pepper must be sold as food additives only. Again, Pure Cap is rated as 10++. Other food additives in the firegirl catalog rate 10+++ with the hottest rating out at a fantastic 10++++ from a product testing out at 1.5 million scoville units. Something over 4 times as hot as the hottest legal hot sauce. The product The Source from Original Juan mentioned by Firkin is rated at 7.1 million scoville units. That is nearly five times hotter than the previously available 10++++ 1.5 million scoville units food additive which is WAY hotter than the 10++ Pure Cap you mentioned. Something like one of the milder food additives such as Pure Cap 10++ might even be able to cure Tsimi's research problem, and if not, go up to 10+++ or 10++++. Then only if all lesser treatments fail, give Tsimi final absolution before administering the 7.1 million unit stuff. Continuing to provide more information than you ever really wanted to know,
Firkin - Check out the seed section of Firegirl, and check the Davis Products section for rocotto seeds for sale. I'm on a roll tonite!
Not at all Firkin! This is just my regular behaviour as a person! This is just the first glimpse of me as a person in this discussion. We have been doing an intelectual discussion so far. You didn't commit the old mistake of confusing a person's intelectual ideas with the capabilities of his personality did you? Good thing you say "..what appeared to be..." ("appeared" is the important word here). And good thing to see you honestly admitting an agenda. Some times you had me wondering if you were just an academic myopic or actually having an agenda. Yes! Every view looks different depending on which mountain top you stand on. And from my view point, reading your posts, you looked like the big academic myopic. I imagened you were one of those reading so much physics that you had lost the ability to look beyond that and lost your philosophical mind. (Note that I am speaking in past sentence about it.) You have hit the nail on the head! Perfectly! This is an important part of my field of science. It is such a spear tip in biology that we are not quite sure what we are doing yet. Nobody have walked this path before us and we have no earlier experiments to lean on. One earlier student here at my university actually managed to show in his thesis that we are mentally connected to nature by our genetical heritage! I still have problems believing that!
I once grew habaneros in San Bernardino, but have had no luck farther north. Rusty, people with pure cap, pure hot, worry me. For all you pepper lovers, here's something a chef from the Yucatan taught me; fry the habanero in oil, crisping the skin. Remove the pepper. Take out seeds if desired. Remove the skin and mash the pepper on a small plate with lime juice. YOu won't believe the results. Why is it when you are faced with God, in the presence of God, it is as if you had always been. Why is it without God, it is as if He never was? Substitute 'enlightenment' as needed. munk
Rusty, Thanks for quantifying the "The Source"'s silly degree of hotness. I knew that the hottest peppers were a couple hundred thousand units, and that a particular new habanero cultivar was up at over 350,000. And that 7.1 mil was the biggest # I'd seen for an extract product by far. From a culinary viewpoint the super-hot, only-hot extract products seem useless to me. Sorta like the really phony one-dimensional, one or two component artificial flavorings used in really cheap candy and the like. I guess they appeal to adolescents and the type of person who would consider loading ammunition with nitroglycerin instead of gunpowder. I've still got the rocotto seeds, but they won't last forever so thanks for the sources. They are supposed to be black, BTW. Problem for me is the soil apparently needs to be at least 75 deg F for sprouting, and the seedlings kept that warm under grow-lights for a while before you can transplant outside. Results to date suggest that my thumbs aren't green enough to attempt this. Maybe some day.
The worst hot sauces on the market cater to the new found yuppie titilation and have fancy lables, but rely upon heavy garlic and vinegar, destroying what pepper flavor there is and reminding me of a a psychotic oriental's bad breath, what ever that is. Any thing put out by the Rooster label is good. munk
Eik, I'm not really big on academic philosphy or many-page mathematical proofs that 1+1=2 "starting from the most elemental thesis". Some people are, and that's fine. I'm a bit touchy about what gets labeled scientific. Some hearalded "new" things just look like old problems dressed in the trappings of recent disciplines. So you did push a couple of buttons. "Nature vs Nurture" isn't new, nor is the concept of determinism. New tools and perspectives with which to examine these things are exciting, but sometimes it looks to me like restating the problem in new language is mistaken for progress in solving it. Could be an invaluable first step, but demonstration of progress is required before one knows.
Well, science is a slow thing, 20-30 years is a normal time to work on an issue. Old things are supposed to be investigated with new tools. That's just how it works. Nothing wrong there. And progress there is. Only slow and painstaking. Well that's how it's supposed to be done I think. It is just that human behavioural ecology has gotten a lot of attention since it deals with stuff that pokes into our souls by saying: "Look! An animal". It disturbs people since they consider themselves unique and great. And social scientists in particular are doing their best to label this kind of work as ridiculous. Social scientists are true enemies of human behavioural ecology. For them the human being has no biology. They have a doctrine saying that the human being is a white sheet of paper when born. That is their starting point and that is all they are interested in learning at all. They are in majority, they have a certain mass media control, control of the educational system, and they control the economical funding given to scientists by the government... so this doesn't make things easier for biologists. In truth I like to call it a sort of regime. Bandits like this guy: http://www.passionateape.com/index.htm hasn't made things easier for biologists either. This book is pure rubbish and if it gets known it will get used against human behavioural ecology like a weapon by social scientists. It has happened before.
I don't follow hard science. But I read the news and have seen in my lifetime a disapointing number of deliberate falsifications in order to do what? Sell books? Maintain status at university? Even supposed stalwarts like Johnson and Masters are found to have serious problems with pop groups they used for averages. Bellesiles has fabricated data, at least published data not available to anyone since the fire at the turn of the last century. I just figured either there were always liars, or the scientists had joined the lying culture around them. Hard to know which. munk
So Munk, since you have some insights into me that I don't have myself. Could you give me a hand and do the real thing of "pool our resources"? I assume you have some informative facts to enlighten me with since you are able to make the above statements.
Eik: Yes, slow is normal, but people expect instant results, and some scientists sadly worsen things by catering to this false expectation for their own benefit. Science and what is really very specialized engineering/technology have become very intertwined, which doesn't help. And politics is alays unnavoidable--I would agree that your discipline is certainly facing the dirty end of the stick at this time. That link was a hoot! Still laughing... Aquatic apes was a new one, and much of the rest, err ,sounds like a rework of a familar, somewhat radical social agenda. Still it appears to be an artful job of weaving all kinds of disparate hokum together. Surely that's the mangiest of the outer fringe elements?? Must have aleady hit the tawdry daytime talk show circuit? Not a best-seller I hope. Who IS the Masters and Johnson for (non-human) primates? Sounds a tough job. Any activity seems to attract the attention of some industrious wackos, I guess. BTW, I think you have more to fear from "weapons" that can be brandished with a straight face...but I don't doubt that they're out there.
So Munk, since you have some insights into me that I don't have myself. Could you give me a hand and do the real thing of "pool our resources"? I assume you have some informative facts to enlighten me with since you are able to make the above statements>>Eikerang In this american culture, in english, this does not sound either sincere or interested in actual dialogue. Per your usual return to form, it is condescending and arrogant. Is this what you intended? Then you have successfully communicated. munk
how about this then: "Gravity: Photons in a "mass" emit the electric and magnetic fields just as do photons free in space. Photons traveling through the same local area must share the available "action" of that area since the action is a property of space and not a property of individual photons. A photon reaches saturation at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields present in this local area. This causes photon paths to bend toward massive objects and since massive objects are comprised only of photons, massive objects change direction toward increasing photon field strength. So they approach each other or are attracted. Remembering that a massive object is composed of moving photons, then moving a massive object causes it to be more massive. Relative rate of photon field change must increase to accommodate the motion. That composition is also why mass can never exceed the speed of light and why the theory of relativity is real. Relativity is a necessary consequence of the photonic construct of mass" http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/zeigler/willis.htm (I know most folks think I'm a little off by being interested in the why and what of gravity. But honest-to-gawd, it really started as a simply inquiry some years ago.) Kis
In that case, this explains why I many times saw statements on this forum (by other people) that I saw as way too self secure. And I expected that you would be the one to attack those as you did with statements from me that you did not like the sound of. To my surprize you seemed to target only me and leave the other ones in peace. So now it looks as if we have a linguistical barrier to a certain degree. E-mail me would you?
Eik, for whatever reason, I get 'failure to deliver' from email sent to you. I am not the PTA mother of the universe, but was facilitating what a healthy group will do- check itself. Pooling our resources means only lowering individual egos so that more free flow of data can occur, something too rare in academia where a take no prisoners approach is prevelant. By 'pain' I meant only what life will bring to you; not by my hand. If there are person's stepping over others in the forum I would like to know. I haven't seen very much of that at all and have no Eikerang agenda. You will find, in time, that I am who I say I am. munk
