When you say "not to include editing," does that mean you are not choosing the editing software package but are choosing the machine which runs it?
If so, what camera/format are you using? For example, if you are using an HMC150, it will affect your editing choices if you want to work without transcoding - something you might need to point out to your staff.
If these are just glorifed email/webterms, sure, you can pick anything and Linux might be ideal if they are getting thrown on very untrusted public networks. If that's the case, the question just boils down to: can the staff deal with using Ubuntu and Firefox - in which case, why Ask Slashdot - ask them! However, If these machine will be editing platforms or even dual use business machine+light editing/review(1) - you'll be using OS/X or Windows(2).
(1)yeah, even review. VLC has some HD problems, which are ffmpeg related as I understand, and may show up on other Linux/OSS players. My i7/GTX280/6GB RAM was choking on a Hitachi made 1080p H.264 demo yesterday using VLC (on Windows). OTOH, AVCHD 21MB seems to be fine straight out of the camera, FWIW.
(2)Remember that if you want to burn Blu-Ray discs in the wild, there are no Blu-Ray drives (let alone burners) available internally on MBPs.
You aren't wrong. Thing is, it's more an issue of what sells best. or more accurately, what most people think works best for them. I remember how Palm was extolled for not trying to do much more than be a PDA; "who needs a computer that small," was a common objection. But the truth is, people will always want to do more if it's set out in an easy fashion for them. A decade later, PalmOS - in code base and system design philosophy - is dead, and for all its flaws, Windows CE is still around.
Additionally, people simply want to carry fewer devices.*
Geeks can embrace the UNIX philosophy and wear cargo pants with a pocket for each best in class device. That, however, is not the way to market dominance.
*It's also easier for the 24-35 young professional market to carry a cellphone with a 3D accelerator than it is to deal with the stigma of commuting with a PSP. In and of itself, that is market with disposable income, a degree of technical savvy, and preexisting justification for highspeed and powerful mobile data devices.
No, it does better than expected as a niche product. Still, I suspect a PVR+iTunes frontend+Gaming platform with strong iPod tie ins and in HD would sell very well. It would be a major initiative, and I doubt Apple would let a "hobby project" dilute that market.
As much as I dislike their products, if Apple goes after the Wii with stong iTunes and iPhone/Pod integration, as a gaming and convergence device, they could
hurt Nintendo. The saturated market isn't an issue when you can lower the standard of definition and quadruple the market space (e.g. the "smartphone" market).
They will probably have to kill Apple TV, though.
Rye, Corn (as Bourbon, Tennessee, or Corn Whiskey), Barley, or Wheat. Yeah, the last two are obscure, and it's the first time in a long time that someone in the U.S. has made a straight (i.e. more than half of) wheat whiskey, but as you know, most bourbon is a straight, not pure, corn whiskey, and has a significant amount of barley, wheat, and (sometimes) rye in the mash.
My point I am reasonably certain I would *never* confuse any of the other distilleries' expressions, but it is conceivable that I might carelessly make a mistake with the two Ls of Islay - especially in an older Laphroaig. I'm not going to confuse ginger beer with Pepsi, but if I'm not paying attention, I might confuse it with homemade ginger ale.
Incidentally, Ardbeg is so odd to me. It looks light in color, has a light, evasive nose and then in the palate and finish... well, it's like someone smacks all the keys in the bottom octave at the same time.
Distilleries* do attempt this from time to time, such as Laphroaig's Quarter Cask Scotch. However, even when the process is older (and good distilleries keep fastidious notes on the process of each cask and subsequent bottling), other issues can crop up - is the water the same as in the past? What about the barley? So on and so on. Of course, the best way to gauge the success of the men working the stills... is for the distillery to pull an older bottle sample from 100 years ago and give it to a skilled taster to compare the two.
*Yes, distilleries can collect the water, and do the malting, brewing, and bottling, but not always every step. I'm also surprised that no one has pointed out by now that Scotch, especially single malts, is in essence, double (or triple) distilled beer.
Glenfiddich is far and away the most common single malt around, at one point accounting for over 1/3 of all single malt sold (it's around 20% these days), and for many people their first (and often only) taste of single malt. I haven't tasted everything they've ever made, of course, but in general, it's the Coca-Cola or Heineken of scotch. In its basic expression, it's a common, nondescript scotch, and regardless of your tastes in scotch, your money can be better spent elsewhere. Most bars in NYC will carry a few single malt scotches in their basic expressions: Glenfiddich, The Glenlivet, The Macallan, Oban, and Laphroaig are frequently available in that order - which is roughly the reverse of my preference (though Oban is arguably the "best" of these). Of course the issue is figuring out what taste you like.:-) Going to a bar with a good selection and drinking responsibly with a lot of water* (good water is very important to whisk(e)y at every stage) is a great way to start; in Manhattan, dba (a great place when not busy) and The Brandy Library, among others, are known for their wide selections. Additionally, small taster bottles and whisky conventions are very good ways to "work" on this. Do not get drunk on whisky. It can and will destroy you, and you are wasting good booze.
Glenfiddich is a brand and a distillery which has produced many different versions - the term "expressions" is usually used - of single malt scotch for over 100 years. I am curious about their Havana Reserve, not enough to import a bottle, but enough to order a glass next time I'm out of the U.S.
*As shown in that link, snifters are used for tasting and judging scotch. Most bars will serve in rocks or old fashioned glasses; there's nothing wrong with this and you will draw stares asking for a snifter, depending on the place. Snifters (or even certain types of wine glasses in a pinch) do have real advantages: the alcohol is both warmed and the vapors are more concentrated through the smaller opening. Remember, most of the distinctiveness you experience in food and drink is in the complexity of smell - not taste, which is a comparatively basic sense in man.
As many have already said, aging in the barrel changes the flavor and the alcohol content. That is the age of the whisky. A 30 year old whisky bottled in 1969 is a 30 year old whisky today. Note that 30 years is also a rough practical limit for casking, though there are some expensive, rare single malts that have been casked twice as long. Aging does necessarily equal quality or befit the taste of given mash/water combination (this is a neat link), but it does equal rarity and, ceteris paribus, demands a greater price.
Time spent in the bottle does not really change the flavor of a whisky; it certainly doesn't improve it. So yes, there is no gourmet value to an older bottle.
Except when the distillery goes out of business. Or the distillery changed their process, or they did something special for a particular version. In fact, because whisky does not appreciably change over time in the bottle, tasting older expressions by a distillery allows you a rare taste of how things were done in the past. You can compare how the distillery has changed its approach over time and have a sense of what whisky tasted like for previous generations. For some people, that is worth spending money.
And to be sure, there are people who simply collect, or want to brag. It's their money and their prerogative.
Personally, if I had $30K to spend on a bottle (that I'm not going to resell or hold as an investment) I'm drinking the bitch.
I don't know which state you are in, but seriously, check Google Shopping. In NYC, it is almost always competitive with the lowest price around, except when a discount B&M shop overstocks something. I am pretty sure that Google takes your zip code into account when pricing liquor to avoid cross state shipping issues. For example, it seems I need to order a lot of this. In NYC proper, $60 a bottle (all prices before tax) is very good for Lagavulin 16. Everyone seems to love that one, huh?
All true. If you saw my first post, I extolled the virtues of a $15 bottle of White Horse.
I think the reaction i largely due to:
People drinking "known" scotches which are at best inoffensive and at worst pretty crappy - largely for appearance (similarly, note the rise in drinks served in cocktail glasses just to call them "martinis." Also: the Rise of the Cosmo)
The fact that blended scotch was born in an attempt to tap an export market (England) that was accustomed to a different, "weaker," taste (Dry Gin).
Certain singular or notable flavors are not found in blended scotch; for examples, mixing the product of a wheat or corn mash with barley will only weaken any smokiness.
Finally, as you point out, it is a lot easier and cheaper to make a blended scotch and maintain a constant flavor; flaws can be compensated for.
Fair enough; it sound like prices are different where you are. In NYC, ordering online has gotten very cheap for some Scotches: Lagavulin 16, for example, has dropped over $20 since this past summer, but The Macallan (correction noted - the omission bothered me too) hasn't budged much.
When I said that the curve starts at $40, this is not to say there are no expensive Scotches that literally are worth their weight in gold. However, Ardbeg 10 is Ardbeg 10 - it's a known quantity of good quality, and if its particular taste is desired, a different Islay or an Ardbeg expression casked longer will not replace it. Similarly, there are $20 Scotches of value - even in single malts. I bought Tomintoul 10 for $19 a bottle locally in store for mixing Rob Roys but I would sip on that over Johnnie Walker any day. However, $40-50 seems to be the stating point of quality, especially if one avoids bottles with "Glenfiddich" on the label.
I'm not the best person to ask; I have more experience with Scotch, and even Rye, than Bourbon.
That said, I have had the basic Woodford Reserve bottling. It's a good Bourbon, but not superlative, and at $35, you are paying $5-10 too much
(using discount/delivery NYC pricing). Also, it depends on your use: is it for drinking straight/on rocks or for mixing? For example, I keep Maker's
Mark (a quality, nondescript, sweet Bourbon that is mixed with a wheat whisky) around to make a sweeter Manhattan for guests (vs Rye - the "right" way - or a Bourbon mixed with a Rye whisky).
It would be somewhat pointless for me to use Woodford Reserve for that as it is a somewhat smoky Bourbon, but on its own, it is a respectable whiskey. I prefer Knob Creek 9,
but I haven't spent too much time developing my Bourbon palate, so take that as you will. Perhaps another/.er will pipe up?
I will tell you the best way to develop a palate - other than tasting conventions/shows: order 50 ml bottles online and take notes or remember. It is a lot cheaper than buying high end whiskey by the shot in a bar or by 750 ml bottles at a time, and will allow you to access more expensive expressions and decide how to spend your money.
One last point: if you are not averse to a spicier taste, American Ryes, especially Overholt and Rittenhouse, probably represent the best deal in any form of whiskey -foreign or domestic - in the U.S. market. At under $20, give one a shot (no pun intended) or try mixing with them.
There are plenty of good reviews on the internet, once you have a little experience under your belt, you'll know from their comments who is full of shit and who has done their homework.
Sigh, there were some typos there. I wish I could attribute them to scotch, but I can't.
I can, however, explain chipping, making a reply to my own post a little more legitimate. One way to make a younger whiskey (I'm not
going to worry about the 'e' from here on) taste or appear older is to put roasted wood chips in the cask. Additionally, agitation may be used.
Flavor and color is imparted by the cask over time and surface area (a terrible cheat is to introduce caramel into a casking, a practice
which can disqualify the product from being marketed as scotch or whiskey in some areas). These tricks are more common in younger American
distilleries, however lots of bad distilleries pull this nonsense.
Now, younger whiskey will always taste "sharper" and less finished than it's older counterpart.
It is possible to control this by mixing a younger whiskey with distilled water (for a single or vatted malt) or with older or calmer whiskies
(for vatted or blended whiskies). Even so, there is a difference in taste between a whiskey that has matured and one whose alcohol content has been mitigated. Consumers can actually
try this on their own, without a trip to a distillery: purchase a younger cask strength whisky (usually >55% ABV) and an older finished expression
from the same distillery. Add distilled water until the ABV is the same level. Taste.
There is a sharp curve of diminishing returns once you cross the $40 mark in whisk(e)y. However, it doesn't take long to learn the difference between an Islay and a Highland, or to understand the difference between a younger or older scotch, or to understand that some expressions of whisky do better with longer casking and some are better when bottled at a younger age.
Plenty is attributable to marketing - I'll take a $50 Lagavulin 16 over a $200 blended Blue Label any day of the week, twice on Sundays, and infinitely more on a mythical desert island. Those who are looking to impress coworkers, bosses, and clients may tell a different story, but it does not take long to develop a basic palate when it comes to whisky, nor does it require a ton of cash. Distinguishing between a chipped and truly aged scotch is trickier, but still doable.
Frankly, in the end, it is about taste: if you can make a four year old taste like a 20 year old whiskey cheaply through chipping and good distilled water (whisky weakens throughout the barreling process as the "angels' share" evaporates), I'll be happy to drink it. To wit, I avoid blends in general, but a $15 fifth of blended White Horse is a hell of a deal and sits near a Macallan, Oban, Ardbeg, Balvenie 21, and a Lagavulin and a Laphroaig 15 (not to mention some ryes and borboun) on my shelf.
And yes, I'm, might be fooled between the Lagavulin and Laphroig, but I doubt it when it comes to the others.
I think one has to remember that not everyone who drinks or enjoys alcohol partakes in the American binge drinking culture - including many Americans. In fact, I have found some American tastes to be far more diverse than other cultures (to which I have been exposed) in fostering mixing, homebrewing, and modern bootlegging traditions - all of which should be somewhat enticing to/.ers in the sense of experimentation and applied science.
IANAL, and from your comment, I'm pretty sure you aren't either.
Daubert superseded Frye generally at the federal level, and in most states. This does not mean Frye does not exist; some states use the older Frye standard (including, to the best of my knowledge, FL, IL, PA) or an amalgam of the two. Consequently it is still relevant.
The major change from Frye to Daubert (and its formulation in FRE 702) is the gatekeeper issue (as described in the wiki entry); whether scientific evidence should be presentable based on a majority acceptance of a theory or technique by the scientific community or the by the presiding judge's evaluation of the credentials of the expert presenting the information. Daubert would allow (IAALs, correct me if I am wrong) a judge to allow an expert to claim, e.g., a given breathalyzer unit has proven reliable in the expert's experience in establishing legal intoxication - without presenting a specific study of that model. Moreover, Daubert does not so much "require" as it does guide the judge, allowing the judge considerable leeway - and I suspect reluctance from appellate courts to reverse their decisions (especially considering the potential impact on their workload). If you want to contest expert testimony, bring an expert of your own : it seems one of the defendants was smart enough to do just that, and he got himself an appeal. The other didn't, based on his "legal intuition" and he got... nothing.
Again, IANAL; if there are errors in my facts or implications, I'd like to be corrected. Also, sorry for the lack of line breaks in the initial post. I'm guilty of hitting submit before preview.:-)
What you seem to miss this is the application of science in law, not science. As a result, the commonly held method of scientific consensus or peer review is not the issue, but rather how
American law deals with scientific evidence (and consensus/peer review):
Daubert StandardFrye Standard
Agree or disagree, there is plenty of literature on the subject; it's not like no one has thought about this.
No it's not. Altavista is owned by yahoo. I am reminded of this fact constantly, because my ping connectivity test has gone from google.com to av.com. Saving me four letters per use, this represents one of the better suggestions I've found on slashdot, one I use daily.
user@example:~$ ping av.com PING av.com (206.190.60.37) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.re4.yahoo.com (206.190.60.37): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=34.6 ms
As far as Swatch internet time goes, I bought a Swatch MSN Direct (remember that?) watch for $20 last year. It was fun, sort of, for the novelty, but not for the size of the charger. Or the frequency of the charging.
When CSPAN (or usually, CSPAN2) broadcasts bits of those drunks that the Brits like to call the House of Commons. Really, it's like someone started a government, and a soccer match broke out. Self effacing name, awesome TV.
(Yes, CSPAN has plenty of good stuff, and there is no need for TV to be "entertaining to have value," etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
WTF? Aside from the "I'm not picking the software" disclaimer, Blender is a 3D package, not a NLE. They are shooting a documentary, not Star Wars 7.
It is ironic: Win+OSX just beat the pants off of Linux in the low/no budget world, wheras Linux is just peachy for big budget 3D rendering clusters.
When you say "not to include editing," does that mean you are not choosing the editing software package but are choosing the machine which runs it? If so, what camera/format are you using? For example, if you are using an HMC150, it will affect your editing choices if you want to work without transcoding - something you might need to point out to your staff.
If these are just glorifed email/webterms, sure, you can pick anything and Linux might be ideal if they are getting thrown on very untrusted public networks. If that's the case, the question just boils down to: can the staff deal with using Ubuntu and Firefox - in which case, why Ask Slashdot - ask them! However, If these machine will be editing platforms or even dual use business machine+light editing/review(1) - you'll be using OS/X or Windows(2).
(1)yeah, even review. VLC has some HD problems, which are ffmpeg related as I understand, and may show up on other Linux/OSS players. My i7/GTX280/6GB RAM was choking on a Hitachi made 1080p H.264 demo yesterday using VLC (on Windows). OTOH, AVCHD 21MB seems to be fine straight out of the camera, FWIW.
(2)Remember that if you want to burn Blu-Ray discs in the wild, there are no Blu-Ray drives (let alone burners) available internally on MBPs.
No - if David Embury is to be believed, you use it as a base, with a healthy dose of modifying agents.
Awesome book. Should be the first thing you buy after a Boston shaker, a strainer, and a jigger.
Shame this story is done, slashdot should have an ongoing alcohol discussion.
You aren't wrong. Thing is, it's more an issue of what sells best. or more accurately, what most people think works best for them. I remember how Palm was extolled for not trying to do much more than be a PDA; "who needs a computer that small," was a common objection. But the truth is, people will always want to do more if it's set out in an easy fashion for them. A decade later, PalmOS - in code base and system design philosophy - is dead, and for all its flaws, Windows CE is still around.
Additionally, people simply want to carry fewer devices.*
Geeks can embrace the UNIX philosophy and wear cargo pants with a pocket for each best in class device. That, however, is not the way to market dominance.
*It's also easier for the 24-35 young professional market to carry a cellphone with a 3D accelerator than it is to deal with the stigma of commuting with a PSP. In and of itself, that is market with disposable income, a degree of technical savvy, and preexisting justification for highspeed and powerful mobile data devices.
No, it does better than expected as a niche product. Still, I suspect a PVR+iTunes frontend+Gaming platform with strong iPod tie ins and in HD would sell very well. It would be a major initiative, and I doubt Apple would let a "hobby project" dilute that market.
Apple's other attempt to enter the gaming market.
As much as I dislike their products, if Apple goes after the Wii with stong iTunes and iPhone/Pod integration, as a gaming and convergence device, they could hurt Nintendo. The saturated market isn't an issue when you can lower the standard of definition and quadruple the market space (e.g. the "smartphone" market).
They will probably have to kill Apple TV, though.
You most certainly can install whatever you want.
There already is a "central app store for WM." It's ugly, it ain't perfect, but it's very cheap.
Wow, I think you ended the need for comments in seven minutes.
Hat tip!
Rye, Corn (as Bourbon, Tennessee, or Corn Whiskey), Barley, or Wheat. Yeah, the last two are obscure, and it's the first time in a long time that someone in the U.S. has made a straight (i.e. more than half of) wheat whiskey, but as you know, most bourbon is a straight, not pure, corn whiskey, and has a significant amount of barley, wheat, and (sometimes) rye in the mash.
I knew I'd get shit for that comment. :-)
My point I am reasonably certain I would *never* confuse any of the other distilleries' expressions, but it is conceivable that I might carelessly make a mistake with the two Ls of Islay - especially in an older Laphroaig. I'm not going to confuse ginger beer with Pepsi, but if I'm not paying attention, I might confuse it with homemade ginger ale.
Incidentally, Ardbeg is so odd to me. It looks light in color, has a light, evasive nose and then in the palate and finish... well, it's like someone smacks all the keys in the bottom octave at the same time.
With the amp at 11.
Distilleries* do attempt this from time to time, such as Laphroaig's Quarter Cask Scotch. However, even when the process is older (and good distilleries keep fastidious notes on the process of each cask and subsequent bottling), other issues can crop up - is the water the same as in the past? What about the barley? So on and so on. Of course, the best way to gauge the success of the men working the stills... is for the distillery to pull an older bottle sample from 100 years ago and give it to a skilled taster to compare the two.
*Yes, distilleries can collect the water, and do the malting, brewing, and bottling, but not always every step. I'm also surprised that no one has pointed out by now that Scotch, especially single malts, is in essence, double (or triple) distilled beer.
Glenfiddich is far and away the most common single malt around, at one point accounting for over 1/3 of all single malt sold (it's around 20% these days), and for many people their first (and often only) taste of single malt. I haven't tasted everything they've ever made, of course, but in general, it's the Coca-Cola or Heineken of scotch. In its basic expression, it's a common, nondescript scotch, and regardless of your tastes in scotch, your money can be better spent elsewhere. Most bars in NYC will carry a few single malt scotches in their basic expressions: Glenfiddich, The Glenlivet, The Macallan, Oban, and Laphroaig are frequently available in that order - which is roughly the reverse of my preference (though Oban is arguably the "best" of these). Of course the issue is figuring out what taste you like. :-) Going to a bar with a good selection and drinking responsibly with a lot of water* (good water is very important to whisk(e)y at every stage) is a great way to start; in Manhattan, dba (a great place when not busy) and The Brandy Library, among others, are known for their wide selections. Additionally, small taster bottles and whisky conventions are very good ways to "work" on this. Do not get drunk on whisky. It can and will destroy you, and you are wasting good booze.
Glenfiddich is a brand and a distillery which has produced many different versions - the term "expressions" is usually used - of single malt scotch for over 100 years. I am curious about their Havana Reserve, not enough to import a bottle, but enough to order a glass next time I'm out of the U.S.
*As shown in that link, snifters are used for tasting and judging scotch. Most bars will serve in rocks or old fashioned glasses; there's nothing wrong with this and you will draw stares asking for a snifter, depending on the place. Snifters (or even certain types of wine glasses in a pinch) do have real advantages: the alcohol is both warmed and the vapors are more concentrated through the smaller opening. Remember, most of the distinctiveness you experience in food and drink is in the complexity of smell - not taste, which is a comparatively basic sense in man.
No.
As many have already said, aging in the barrel changes the flavor and the alcohol content. That is the age of the whisky. A 30 year old whisky bottled in 1969 is a 30 year old whisky today. Note that 30 years is also a rough practical limit for casking, though there are some expensive, rare single malts that have been casked twice as long. Aging does necessarily equal quality or befit the taste of given mash/water combination (this is a neat link), but it does equal rarity and, ceteris paribus, demands a greater price.
Time spent in the bottle does not really change the flavor of a whisky; it certainly doesn't improve it. So yes, there is no gourmet value to an older bottle. Except when the distillery goes out of business. Or the distillery changed their process, or they did something special for a particular version. In fact, because whisky does not appreciably change over time in the bottle, tasting older expressions by a distillery allows you a rare taste of how things were done in the past. You can compare how the distillery has changed its approach over time and have a sense of what whisky tasted like for previous generations. For some people, that is worth spending money.
And to be sure, there are people who simply collect, or want to brag. It's their money and their prerogative.
Personally, if I had $30K to spend on a bottle (that I'm not going to resell or hold as an investment) I'm drinking the bitch.
I don't know which state you are in, but seriously, check Google Shopping. In NYC, it is almost always competitive with the lowest price around, except when a discount B&M shop overstocks something. I am pretty sure that Google takes your zip code into account when pricing liquor to avoid cross state shipping issues. For example, it seems I need to order a lot of this. In NYC proper, $60 a bottle (all prices before tax) is very good for Lagavulin 16. Everyone seems to love that one, huh?
I think the reaction i largely due to:
(similarly, note the rise in drinks served in cocktail glasses just to call them "martinis." Also: the Rise of the Cosmo)
Fair enough; it sound like prices are different where you are. In NYC, ordering online has gotten very cheap for some Scotches: Lagavulin 16, for example, has dropped over $20 since this past summer, but The Macallan (correction noted - the omission bothered me too) hasn't budged much.
When I said that the curve starts at $40, this is not to say there are no expensive Scotches that literally are worth their weight in gold. However, Ardbeg 10 is Ardbeg 10 - it's a known quantity of good quality, and if its particular taste is desired, a different Islay or an Ardbeg expression casked longer will not replace it. Similarly, there are $20 Scotches of value - even in single malts. I bought Tomintoul 10 for $19 a bottle locally in store for mixing Rob Roys but I would sip on that over Johnnie Walker any day. However, $40-50 seems to be the stating point of quality, especially if one avoids bottles with "Glenfiddich" on the label.
Between Lagavulin 16 and Laphroaig 10, sure. There are other expressions though :-).
(To be fair, I should have said "between a Lagavulin and a Laphroaig." I also should have checked my post for spelling.)
I'm not the best person to ask; I have more experience with Scotch, and even Rye, than Bourbon.
/.er will pipe up?
That said, I have had the basic Woodford Reserve bottling. It's a good Bourbon, but not superlative, and at $35, you are paying $5-10 too much (using discount/delivery NYC pricing). Also, it depends on your use: is it for drinking straight/on rocks or for mixing? For example, I keep Maker's Mark (a quality, nondescript, sweet Bourbon that is mixed with a wheat whisky) around to make a sweeter Manhattan for guests (vs Rye - the "right" way - or a Bourbon mixed with a Rye whisky). It would be somewhat pointless for me to use Woodford Reserve for that as it is a somewhat smoky Bourbon, but on its own, it is a respectable whiskey. I prefer Knob Creek 9, but I haven't spent too much time developing my Bourbon palate, so take that as you will. Perhaps another
I will tell you the best way to develop a palate - other than tasting conventions/shows: order 50 ml bottles online and take notes or remember. It is a lot cheaper than buying high end whiskey by the shot in a bar or by 750 ml bottles at a time, and will allow you to access more expensive expressions and decide how to spend your money.
One last point: if you are not averse to a spicier taste, American Ryes, especially Overholt and Rittenhouse, probably represent the best deal in any form of whiskey -foreign or domestic - in the U.S. market. At under $20, give one a shot (no pun intended) or try mixing with them.
There are plenty of good reviews on the internet, once you have a little experience under your belt, you'll know from their comments who is full of shit and who has done their homework.
Sigh, there were some typos there. I wish I could attribute them to scotch, but I can't.
I can, however, explain chipping, making a reply to my own post a little more legitimate. One way to make a younger whiskey (I'm not going to worry about the 'e' from here on) taste or appear older is to put roasted wood chips in the cask. Additionally, agitation may be used. Flavor and color is imparted by the cask over time and surface area (a terrible cheat is to introduce caramel into a casking, a practice which can disqualify the product from being marketed as scotch or whiskey in some areas). These tricks are more common in younger American distilleries, however lots of bad distilleries pull this nonsense.
Now, younger whiskey will always taste "sharper" and less finished than it's older counterpart. It is possible to control this by mixing a younger whiskey with distilled water (for a single or vatted malt) or with older or calmer whiskies (for vatted or blended whiskies). Even so, there is a difference in taste between a whiskey that has matured and one whose alcohol content has been mitigated. Consumers can actually try this on their own, without a trip to a distillery: purchase a younger cask strength whisky (usually >55% ABV) and an older finished expression from the same distillery. Add distilled water until the ABV is the same level. Taste.
God bless you, Mr. Master. Had I not already /. befriended you, that comment alone would have led me to do so.
Respectfully, B.S.
There is a sharp curve of diminishing returns once you cross the $40 mark in whisk(e)y. However, it doesn't take long to learn
the difference between an Islay and a Highland, or to understand the difference between a younger or older scotch, or to understand that some expressions
of whisky do better with longer casking and some are better when bottled at a younger age.
Plenty is attributable to marketing - I'll take a $50 Lagavulin 16 over a $200 blended Blue Label any day of the week, twice on Sundays, and infinitely more on
a mythical desert island. Those who are looking to impress coworkers, bosses, and clients may tell a different story, but it does not take long to develop a basic palate
when it comes to whisky, nor does it require a ton of cash. Distinguishing between a chipped and truly aged scotch is trickier, but still doable.
Frankly, in the end, it is about taste: if you can make a four year old taste like a 20 year old whiskey cheaply through chipping and good
distilled water (whisky weakens throughout the barreling process as the "angels' share" evaporates), I'll be happy to drink it. To wit, I avoid blends in
general, but a $15 fifth of blended White Horse is a hell of a deal and sits near a Macallan, Oban, Ardbeg, Balvenie 21, and a Lagavulin and a Laphroaig 15 (not to
mention some ryes and borboun) on my shelf.
And yes, I'm, might be fooled between the Lagavulin and Laphroig, but I doubt it when it comes to the others.
I think one has to remember that not everyone who drinks or enjoys alcohol partakes in the American binge drinking culture - including many Americans. /.ers in the sense of experimentation and applied science.
In fact, I have found some American tastes to be far more diverse than other cultures (to which I have been exposed) in fostering mixing, homebrewing,
and modern bootlegging traditions - all of which should be somewhat enticing to
IANAL, and from your comment, I'm pretty sure you aren't either.
:-)
Daubert superseded Frye generally at the federal level, and in most states. This does not mean Frye does not exist; some states use the older Frye standard (including, to the best of my knowledge, FL, IL, PA) or an amalgam of the two. Consequently it is still relevant.
The major change from Frye to Daubert (and its formulation in FRE 702) is the gatekeeper issue (as described in the wiki entry); whether scientific evidence should be presentable based on a majority acceptance of a theory or technique by the scientific community or the by the presiding judge's evaluation of the credentials of the expert presenting the information. Daubert would allow (IAALs, correct me if I am wrong) a judge to allow an expert to claim, e.g., a given breathalyzer unit has proven reliable in the expert's experience in establishing legal intoxication - without presenting a specific study of that model. Moreover, Daubert does not so much "require" as it does guide the judge, allowing the judge considerable leeway - and I suspect reluctance from appellate courts to reverse their decisions (especially considering the potential impact on their workload). If you want to contest expert testimony, bring an expert of your own : it seems one of the defendants was smart enough to do just that, and he got himself an appeal. The other didn't, based on his "legal intuition" and he got... nothing.
Again, IANAL; if there are errors in my facts or implications, I'd like to be corrected. Also, sorry for the lack of line breaks in the initial post. I'm guilty of hitting submit before preview.
What you seem to miss this is the application of science in law, not science. As a result, the commonly held method of scientific consensus or peer review is not the issue, but rather how American law deals with scientific evidence (and consensus/peer review): Daubert Standard Frye Standard Agree or disagree, there is plenty of literature on the subject; it's not like no one has thought about this.
No it's not. Altavista is owned by yahoo. I am reminded of this fact constantly, because my ping connectivity test has gone from google.com to av.com.
Saving me four letters per use, this represents one of the better suggestions I've found on slashdot, one I use daily.
user@example:~$ ping av.com
PING av.com (206.190.60.37) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.re4.yahoo.com (206.190.60.37): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=34.6 ms
As far as Swatch internet time goes, I bought a Swatch MSN Direct (remember that?) watch for $20 last year. It was fun, sort of, for the novelty, but not for the size of the charger.
Or the frequency of the charging.
When CSPAN (or usually, CSPAN2) broadcasts bits of those drunks that the Brits like to call the House of Commons.
Really, it's like someone started a government, and a soccer match broke out. Self effacing name, awesome TV.
(Yes, CSPAN has plenty of good stuff, and there is no need for TV to be "entertaining to have value," etc.)