Unfortunately not all kids, especially lower SE kids, have the opportunity to actively challenged in their non schools lives.
They most likely would have such opportunity were they not forced to spend 6-8 of their most productive hours a day in a classroom. It's self-perpetuating. The reason we must keep them in school is because they don't have opportunity to learn it elsewhere, yet the reason they don't have that opportunity is because we keep them locked in school.
Furthermore, they already knew they were only seeing a small slice of the observable universe, they just hadn't figured out why. They were looking for a UV signature of hydrogen, and someone figured maybe the UV signature wasn't escaping the old galaxies. They switched to another hydrogen wavelength and voila! Galaxies galore.
They already knew they were there, they just hadn't actually seen them yet.
Another way of looking at it, is that they were only able to see 1/100'th of the universe before, now they can see 1/10'th of the universe.
As you said, the figures for dark matter come from missing matter within nearby galaxies well within range of our telescopes, not from a number of missing galaxies.
Because of this, if this were a mass discovery of hitherto unknown galaxies, the figure for dark matter would simply jump 10x as well. Either way it doesn't change the ratio, because the ratio wasn't derived from the total mass in the universe.
You should have gotten that it was all visible light, and for galaxies they knew had to be there, from just the summary.
Dark matter isn't dark because they haven't seen it, dark matter is dark because it can't be seen. It's invisible, and doesn't interact with the visible universe except via gravity.
We already know there is a lot more to the observable universe that we just haven't seen yet, we can actually predict pretty accurately how much there is left to find. What we have left to find in the far reaches of the universe only accounts for about 10% of the matter (or at least, something that behaves exactly like matter anyway) in the universe. The rest is hidden from us, and is obviously not any kind of matter we've ever encountered.
"Dark Matter" is basically a pseudo-term used to explain observations that have no scientific explanation. It's like the way engineers use "unobtainium" for a material that does not exist, but if it did they could do x, y, and z with it. Actually, "Dark Matter" is the mirror opposite of "unobtainium" - we observe x, y, and z, but we know of no material that can explain it.
Basically, we see a large number of effects in the universe that would easily be explained by matter - strange lensing effects, the acceleration of the univers, etc - but there is no matter there to cause these effects. So maybe it's invisible, and doesn't interact with normal matter except via gravity?
There is no scientific evidence for dark matter, but there are are a number of strange observations with nothing observable to cause them. We have to come up with something to fill in the gaps and continue making workable theories about the observable universe, so "dark matter" was born. It works, for the most part, we just aren't sure if that's really what it is. We won't know until we can actually study "dark matter".
He set a record for the highest HAB (High Altitude Bioprospecting) flight at 22 miles, and he did it for about $700. That's pretty freaking amazing.
His balloons go so high NASA thought he was using rockets.
NASA's balloons go much higher, but they also cost several orders of magnitude more to do. Generally NASA only sends 2 or 3 balloons up a year. This guy is doing something similar on weekends in his spare time for a few hundred dollars. It's not unimpressive.
I don't think mcgrew was saying NASA was getting "huffy" about, but I think rwven thinks that is what mcgrew is saying.
In other words, y'all are saying exactly the same fucking thing, you're just sure the "other guy" is in opposition to you and your semi-ambiguous language is causing you confusion.
Removing the ambiguity, I believe the conversation is actually going like this:
Mcgrew: Either a: NASA thought the guy launched an expensive rocket to get the photos, and were curious how he managed it.
or b: NASA is interrogating the guy about why and how he launched a rocket into space (doesn't sound likely)
Rwen: Wrong, there is no reason NASA would be upset about this, if anyone is going to be upset it's the EU agencies - implied: there is no way NASA is trying to shut him down.
Garble Snarky: Uhhh, dude NASA is just curious man.
Rwen: Exactly my point, mcgrew had it wrong.
Sir Lewk: I still don't see why you think NASA is getting all bent out of shape over this.
In other words, one guy says "This marble is azure" and another guy says "No it isn't, it's fucking sky blue dumbass" and the third guy says "Dude, it's frickin light blue" to which the second replies "That's what I just said" and the fourth guy comes along and says "I still don't see why you don't think it's blue."
They've never done it for under $1000 though, which this guy did.
NASA's balloon would have been expensive mylar, a convoluted parachute deployment system, and vacuum insulation (which is utterly unnecessary) for the insulation of the $10,000 camera they would have used. The GPS and Camera timing software would have been custom, adding thousands more to the cost. I can't imagine NASA doing a balloon based imaging mission that cost them less than $50,000 in parts and another $200,000-$300,000 in engineering time.
And the results would be about the same.
That's why they were like "Holy crap, you did that for how much?" It's not that he did it, we've sent people to the moon - we know we can get these amazing shots whenever we are willing to spend the cash. It's that he did it so cheaply, with off the shelf and home-brew kit. Doing it for under $1000 is significant.
Pepper heat depends a lot on how they are grown as well, if your Naga supplier is cultivating them for flavor then it wouldn't be hard to significantly reduce the heat. Actually if you over-water them (but not enough to kill them) you can cut the heat in any pepper by a significant fraction. On the other hand, if you give peppers just barely enough water to grow you can get some extreme heat out of them.
Personally I hate the flavor of habeneros, I think it ruins any dish you put them in unless you are very clever with the flavors. The taste is so overpowering it just dominates, and it doesn't fit with so many dishes you'd ordinarily use chillis for.
No, because it has a plethora of other uses - like in food.
However, were you to go to war and try to use it as a pepper spray, you'd be committing war crimes. Geneva Conventions says it's a-ok to use it on your own citizens, just don't use it on someone else's citizens or military.
No, it just has a higher percentage. Pure capsaicin is about 15 times hotter than these peppers. There are other similar chemicals in peppers, but capsaicin is far and away the most potent and most prevalent.
There is a chemical in the same family as capsaicin which is 3-4 times more potent, but it isn't found in peppers, it's found in a leafy Moroccan plant that uses it as a defense mechanism similar to poison ivy. They've actually been using the stuff as a permanent pain reliever in dogs with bone cancer because it destroys the pain receptors wherever it is injected.
The idea the pepper spray is torture has never made sense to me. It's just pain - it doesn't actually damage you. Yeah, it can drive you nuts, yeah your body is designed to fear extreme pain because pain=death to your body, whether that is real or not. But for example, throwing a pepper-bomb into a crowd instead of opening fire on the crowd or spraying someone in the face with pepper-spray instead of shooting them in the face - I don't see how the pepper spray makes the attacker worse off than the bullets do.
Isn't that a kinder way to subdue a person than a bullet to the brain? A bullet may be less painful, but it robs you of every future possibility in your life. There can be no greater harm done to a person than to take his life. Yet it's a-ok to shoot someone in the head under the Geneva Convention, just as long as you didn't spray them with pepper spray and cause them pain for a few hours? WTF?
They say pepper spray is inhumane, but I can't see how it is less humane than a bullet, and a bullet is the only thing allowed.
Now, if it causes intense pain then kills you, yeah, that's worse than a bullet, because if you are going to die it's better to die quickly. But not-dieing is better than both.
If you want to ban certain techniques that's fine, saying you can only use it for large crowd control or whatever, good on ya, but banning it outright seems foolish.
Pepper spray is illegal for use in war under the Geneva Convention, it falls under riot control substances, which are banned.
What they are talking about doing is feeding it to their soldiers in cold weather. That definitely wouldn't help their cold weather survival because it would boost circulation, increasing heat loss, so it must be about making them more capable in cold weather - essentially making them "better soldiers" in the cold at the cost of having to be more careful with hypothermia.
Just because it tastes hot doesn't mean it'll help avoid hypothermia in the slightest.
Actually capsaicin tricks your body into thinking it is warmer than it actually is - that's why hot food makes you sweat. In fact the reason so many people in hot climates eat spicy food is because it tricks your body into thinking it is warmer, which cranks up your body's natural cooling mechanism, actually cooling you off significantly for several hours.
In cold weather, this is the exact opposite of what you want if you intend people to survive in extreme conditions. You want circulation to your extremities to essentially stop, and all heat to stay in your core. What they may be going for, however, is making their troops more capable of doing work in cold weather, which the increased circulation triggered by the capsaicin would do at the cost of losing body heat more quickly. Alcohol does the same thing, which is why drinking in cold weather makes you feel warm. Alcohol has the obvious side-effect of inebriation, however, so that's out.
Indeed, the reason so many buildings failed in Haiti is because they used substandard techniques - aka no rebar to support the concrete, and they probably didn't cure the concrete properly in a lot of cases as well.
The largest concrete dome in the world is in a church about 400+ years old. It is large, but not even close tothe size of conventional buildings, let alone sports stadium. Concrete is great at some things, but not everything.
Most likely use for memory-steel would be as the internal reinforcement in concrete structures, similar to what they already do, just better.
Ground meat should -always- be cooked through. The contaminated exterior of the steak has been mixed with the clean interior, which means there is potentially harmful bacteria throughout the meat.
The key to good ground meat and meats like chicken, pork, and most fish, which are all generally cooked through, is to get it just barely to the temperature of done-ness without going over. This will give you meat that is cooked through and safely wile remaining tender and juicy. Some meats you don't have a lot of wiggle room, though, so it can take practice. Chicken and pork are very often over-cooked because people just cook it until it can't not be done, which means they've cooked the hell out of it.
If you want a nice crust on your ground meat, the best technique is a quick sear in a very hot pan, and finishing in the oven, just like you would a roast. This will give you a larger margin of error than attempting to sear then lower the heat on the stove.
"Steak" is, by definition, the opposite of "ground meat".
A sustained internal temperature of about 145F makes for medium rare steaks, but it's likely that they hit 155 for at least 15 seconds towards the end.
That's false. If the internal temperature rises to 155, the steak is no longer rare. That's why reading the internal temperature gives you an accurate measure of doneness in the first place. The temperature alters the proteins, and it happens gradually as the temperature rises (this is why the color changes, as well as the texture). With beef steaks the internal contamination risk is extremely low, making rare steaks perfectly fine. With ground beef, the contamination risk is much higher, which is why the USDA recommends (and requires for restaurants) a 155 degree sustained temperature for ground beef. There is no such requirement/recommendation for beef steaks.
Rare steaks are safe because it is the outside of the steak that can be contaminated by bacteria, and a quick searing is all that is necessary to kill them. Ground beef is less safe because the contaminated outside of the steak is mixed together with the uncontaminated inside, contaminating all of it. Raw chicken meat (non-ground) is unsafe because salmonella is something the chicken picks up while it is still alive, which contaminates all of it. Same with pork, except the risk is tapeworms and other parasites, not salmonella.
Article 1.5 prohibits the use of riot control agents in warfare, of which pepper spray is one. It's the catchall. Article 2.9 permits riot control agents for law enforcement.
In other words, in war they have to shoot you dead or blow you up, none of these more humane methods to bring you under control. Way to go international treaty!!;)
It does the exact opposite, actually, by destroying your pain receptors. To do so, it binds to them first, which triggers them. That's where the burning sensation comes from, it's actually firing off your pain receptors. That's also why the next pepper isn't as hot - you've killed off some of your pain receptors and they can't be triggered again.
It doesn't damage anything else though, so they are perfectly safe to eat - unless you're really attached to the pain receptors in your tongue.
This is actually why doctors are starting to use pure capsaicin as a near-permanent pain reliever. Inject it at the site of the chronic pain, and it kills off the pain receptors allowing you to continue pain-free. I should hope they are being restrictive with that though, because pain is your body's warning system and you don't want to kill it off willy-nilly.
TRPV1 antagonists (of which capsaicin is one) can cause rashes and inflamation on the skin, but it takes a very high concentration. The only way I could see getting a blister is from a serious allergic reaction.
Obviously all the cooks and cooking shows you've ever seen never actually tried it, because everybody who actually likes hot peppers knows about it.
Drinks high in alcohol (not beer or wine) also work, because capsaicin dissolves nicely in alcohol.
Very acidic foods work as well, because capsaicin is an alkaline. Bite into a lemon when you feel the burn if you want to try this solution.
Starch is the weakest but also most common remedy, and it serves to soften the heat more than eliminate it.
If you'll notice, almost all communities that make very spicy dishes serve them with milk products, lots of starches, and acidic sauces or side dishes. They usually have some potent alcohol to go along with it. Mexican food is a perfect example, but Thai and Indian foods follow the pattern just as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately not all kids, especially lower SE kids, have the opportunity to actively challenged in their non schools lives.
They most likely would have such opportunity were they not forced to spend 6-8 of their most productive hours a day in a classroom. It's self-perpetuating. The reason we must keep them in school is because they don't have opportunity to learn it elsewhere, yet the reason they don't have that opportunity is because we keep them locked in school.
Furthermore, they already knew they were only seeing a small slice of the observable universe, they just hadn't figured out why. They were looking for a UV signature of hydrogen, and someone figured maybe the UV signature wasn't escaping the old galaxies. They switched to another hydrogen wavelength and voila! Galaxies galore.
They already knew they were there, they just hadn't actually seen them yet.
Another way of looking at it, is that they were only able to see 1/100'th of the universe before, now they can see 1/10'th of the universe.
As you said, the figures for dark matter come from missing matter within nearby galaxies well within range of our telescopes, not from a number of missing galaxies.
Because of this, if this were a mass discovery of hitherto unknown galaxies, the figure for dark matter would simply jump 10x as well. Either way it doesn't change the ratio, because the ratio wasn't derived from the total mass in the universe.
You should have gotten that it was all visible light, and for galaxies they knew had to be there, from just the summary.
Dark matter isn't dark because they haven't seen it, dark matter is dark because it can't be seen. It's invisible, and doesn't interact with the visible universe except via gravity.
We already know there is a lot more to the observable universe that we just haven't seen yet, we can actually predict pretty accurately how much there is left to find. What we have left to find in the far reaches of the universe only accounts for about 10% of the matter (or at least, something that behaves exactly like matter anyway) in the universe. The rest is hidden from us, and is obviously not any kind of matter we've ever encountered.
"Dark Matter" is basically a pseudo-term used to explain observations that have no scientific explanation. It's like the way engineers use "unobtainium" for a material that does not exist, but if it did they could do x, y, and z with it. Actually, "Dark Matter" is the mirror opposite of "unobtainium" - we observe x, y, and z, but we know of no material that can explain it.
Basically, we see a large number of effects in the universe that would easily be explained by matter - strange lensing effects, the acceleration of the univers, etc - but there is no matter there to cause these effects. So maybe it's invisible, and doesn't interact with normal matter except via gravity?
There is no scientific evidence for dark matter, but there are are a number of strange observations with nothing observable to cause them. We have to come up with something to fill in the gaps and continue making workable theories about the observable universe, so "dark matter" was born. It works, for the most part, we just aren't sure if that's really what it is. We won't know until we can actually study "dark matter".
He set a record for the highest HAB (High Altitude Bioprospecting) flight at 22 miles, and he did it for about $700. That's pretty freaking amazing.
His balloons go so high NASA thought he was using rockets.
NASA's balloons go much higher, but they also cost several orders of magnitude more to do. Generally NASA only sends 2 or 3 balloons up a year. This guy is doing something similar on weekends in his spare time for a few hundred dollars. It's not unimpressive.
I don't think mcgrew was saying NASA was getting "huffy" about, but I think rwven thinks that is what mcgrew is saying.
In other words, y'all are saying exactly the same fucking thing, you're just sure the "other guy" is in opposition to you and your semi-ambiguous language is causing you confusion.
Removing the ambiguity, I believe the conversation is actually going like this:
Mcgrew: Either a: NASA thought the guy launched an expensive rocket to get the photos, and were curious how he managed it.
or b: NASA is interrogating the guy about why and how he launched a rocket into space (doesn't sound likely)
Rwen: Wrong, there is no reason NASA would be upset about this, if anyone is going to be upset it's the EU agencies - implied: there is no way NASA is trying to shut him down.
Garble Snarky: Uhhh, dude NASA is just curious man.
Rwen: Exactly my point, mcgrew had it wrong.
Sir Lewk: I still don't see why you think NASA is getting all bent out of shape over this.
In other words, one guy says "This marble is azure" and another guy says "No it isn't, it's fucking sky blue dumbass" and the third guy says "Dude, it's frickin light blue" to which the second replies "That's what I just said" and the fourth guy comes along and says "I still don't see why you don't think it's blue."
All saying the same damn thing.
They've never done it for under $1000 though, which this guy did.
NASA's balloon would have been expensive mylar, a convoluted parachute deployment system, and vacuum insulation (which is utterly unnecessary) for the insulation of the $10,000 camera they would have used. The GPS and Camera timing software would have been custom, adding thousands more to the cost. I can't imagine NASA doing a balloon based imaging mission that cost them less than $50,000 in parts and another $200,000-$300,000 in engineering time.
And the results would be about the same.
That's why they were like "Holy crap, you did that for how much?" It's not that he did it, we've sent people to the moon - we know we can get these amazing shots whenever we are willing to spend the cash. It's that he did it so cheaply, with off the shelf and home-brew kit. Doing it for under $1000 is significant.
I wouldn't call him lucid.
Pepper heat depends a lot on how they are grown as well, if your Naga supplier is cultivating them for flavor then it wouldn't be hard to significantly reduce the heat. Actually if you over-water them (but not enough to kill them) you can cut the heat in any pepper by a significant fraction. On the other hand, if you give peppers just barely enough water to grow you can get some extreme heat out of them.
Personally I hate the flavor of habeneros, I think it ruins any dish you put them in unless you are very clever with the flavors. The taste is so overpowering it just dominates, and it doesn't fit with so many dishes you'd ordinarily use chillis for.
Now goat peppers, those are some tasty peppers.
No, because it has a plethora of other uses - like in food.
However, were you to go to war and try to use it as a pepper spray, you'd be committing war crimes. Geneva Conventions says it's a-ok to use it on your own citizens, just don't use it on someone else's citizens or military.
That's fucked up.
No, it just has a higher percentage. Pure capsaicin is about 15 times hotter than these peppers. There are other similar chemicals in peppers, but capsaicin is far and away the most potent and most prevalent.
There is a chemical in the same family as capsaicin which is 3-4 times more potent, but it isn't found in peppers, it's found in a leafy Moroccan plant that uses it as a defense mechanism similar to poison ivy. They've actually been using the stuff as a permanent pain reliever in dogs with bone cancer because it destroys the pain receptors wherever it is injected.
The idea the pepper spray is torture has never made sense to me. It's just pain - it doesn't actually damage you. Yeah, it can drive you nuts, yeah your body is designed to fear extreme pain because pain=death to your body, whether that is real or not. But for example, throwing a pepper-bomb into a crowd instead of opening fire on the crowd or spraying someone in the face with pepper-spray instead of shooting them in the face - I don't see how the pepper spray makes the attacker worse off than the bullets do.
Isn't that a kinder way to subdue a person than a bullet to the brain? A bullet may be less painful, but it robs you of every future possibility in your life. There can be no greater harm done to a person than to take his life. Yet it's a-ok to shoot someone in the head under the Geneva Convention, just as long as you didn't spray them with pepper spray and cause them pain for a few hours? WTF?
They say pepper spray is inhumane, but I can't see how it is less humane than a bullet, and a bullet is the only thing allowed.
Now, if it causes intense pain then kills you, yeah, that's worse than a bullet, because if you are going to die it's better to die quickly. But not-dieing is better than both.
If you want to ban certain techniques that's fine, saying you can only use it for large crowd control or whatever, good on ya, but banning it outright seems foolish.
Pepper spray is illegal for use in war under the Geneva Convention, it falls under riot control substances, which are banned.
What they are talking about doing is feeding it to their soldiers in cold weather. That definitely wouldn't help their cold weather survival because it would boost circulation, increasing heat loss, so it must be about making them more capable in cold weather - essentially making them "better soldiers" in the cold at the cost of having to be more careful with hypothermia.
Just because it tastes hot doesn't mean it'll help avoid hypothermia in the slightest.
Actually capsaicin tricks your body into thinking it is warmer than it actually is - that's why hot food makes you sweat. In fact the reason so many people in hot climates eat spicy food is because it tricks your body into thinking it is warmer, which cranks up your body's natural cooling mechanism, actually cooling you off significantly for several hours.
In cold weather, this is the exact opposite of what you want if you intend people to survive in extreme conditions. You want circulation to your extremities to essentially stop, and all heat to stay in your core. What they may be going for, however, is making their troops more capable of doing work in cold weather, which the increased circulation triggered by the capsaicin would do at the cost of losing body heat more quickly. Alcohol does the same thing, which is why drinking in cold weather makes you feel warm. Alcohol has the obvious side-effect of inebriation, however, so that's out.
It all depends on what you're after.
The chemical is called capsaicin, capsicum is the genus for peppers.
Indeed, the reason so many buildings failed in Haiti is because they used substandard techniques - aka no rebar to support the concrete, and they probably didn't cure the concrete properly in a lot of cases as well.
The largest concrete dome in the world is in a church about 400+ years old. It is large, but not even close tothe size of conventional buildings, let alone sports stadium. Concrete is great at some things, but not everything.
Most likely use for memory-steel would be as the internal reinforcement in concrete structures, similar to what they already do, just better.
Ground meat should -always- be cooked through. The contaminated exterior of the steak has been mixed with the clean interior, which means there is potentially harmful bacteria throughout the meat.
The key to good ground meat and meats like chicken, pork, and most fish, which are all generally cooked through, is to get it just barely to the temperature of done-ness without going over. This will give you meat that is cooked through and safely wile remaining tender and juicy. Some meats you don't have a lot of wiggle room, though, so it can take practice. Chicken and pork are very often over-cooked because people just cook it until it can't not be done, which means they've cooked the hell out of it.
If you want a nice crust on your ground meat, the best technique is a quick sear in a very hot pan, and finishing in the oven, just like you would a roast. This will give you a larger margin of error than attempting to sear then lower the heat on the stove.
"Steak" is, by definition, the opposite of "ground meat".
A sustained internal temperature of about 145F makes for medium rare steaks, but it's likely that they hit 155 for at least 15 seconds towards the end.
That's false. If the internal temperature rises to 155, the steak is no longer rare. That's why reading the internal temperature gives you an accurate measure of doneness in the first place. The temperature alters the proteins, and it happens gradually as the temperature rises (this is why the color changes, as well as the texture). With beef steaks the internal contamination risk is extremely low, making rare steaks perfectly fine. With ground beef, the contamination risk is much higher, which is why the USDA recommends (and requires for restaurants) a 155 degree sustained temperature for ground beef. There is no such requirement/recommendation for beef steaks.
Rare steaks are safe because it is the outside of the steak that can be contaminated by bacteria, and a quick searing is all that is necessary to kill them. Ground beef is less safe because the contaminated outside of the steak is mixed together with the uncontaminated inside, contaminating all of it. Raw chicken meat (non-ground) is unsafe because salmonella is something the chicken picks up while it is still alive, which contaminates all of it. Same with pork, except the risk is tapeworms and other parasites, not salmonella.
Article 1.5 prohibits the use of riot control agents in warfare, of which pepper spray is one. It's the catchall. Article 2.9 permits riot control agents for law enforcement.
In other words, in war they have to shoot you dead or blow you up, none of these more humane methods to bring you under control. Way to go international treaty!! ;)
Pimiento Morron is simply roasted sweet bell pepper, is it not?
Bell peppers have virtually no capsaicin (though they are in the capsicum family and do have trace amounts of capsaicin).
Capsicum just lowers your threshold of heat
It does the exact opposite, actually, by destroying your pain receptors. To do so, it binds to them first, which triggers them. That's where the burning sensation comes from, it's actually firing off your pain receptors. That's also why the next pepper isn't as hot - you've killed off some of your pain receptors and they can't be triggered again.
It doesn't damage anything else though, so they are perfectly safe to eat - unless you're really attached to the pain receptors in your tongue.
This is actually why doctors are starting to use pure capsaicin as a near-permanent pain reliever. Inject it at the site of the chronic pain, and it kills off the pain receptors allowing you to continue pain-free. I should hope they are being restrictive with that though, because pain is your body's warning system and you don't want to kill it off willy-nilly.
TRPV1 antagonists (of which capsaicin is one) can cause rashes and inflamation on the skin, but it takes a very high concentration. The only way I could see getting a blister is from a serious allergic reaction.
Obviously all the cooks and cooking shows you've ever seen never actually tried it, because everybody who actually likes hot peppers knows about it.
Drinks high in alcohol (not beer or wine) also work, because capsaicin dissolves nicely in alcohol.
Very acidic foods work as well, because capsaicin is an alkaline. Bite into a lemon when you feel the burn if you want to try this solution.
Starch is the weakest but also most common remedy, and it serves to soften the heat more than eliminate it.
If you'll notice, almost all communities that make very spicy dishes serve them with milk products, lots of starches, and acidic sauces or side dishes. They usually have some potent alcohol to go along with it. Mexican food is a perfect example, but Thai and Indian foods follow the pattern just as well.
Alcohol works too, but it has to be relatively high concentration. Beer won't cut it, but tequila will. :)
Or, combine the effect with some creme based liqueur. Mmmmm... Bailey's Irish Creme.