Glass Control:
From the BBC News:
Plans to replace the traditional pint glass with one made of shatter-proof plastic will not be accepted by drinkers, the pub industry has warned.
The Home Office has commissioned a new design, in an attempt to stop glasses being used as weapons.
Official figures show 5,500 people are attacked with glasses and bottles every year in England and Wales....
An accompanying statistic reports that "[a]pproximately 126 million pints of beer are served a week in the UK"; if the 5500 attacks were all using pint glasses or pint bottles, that would be about one attack per million pints served. Thanks to Kurt Kastorf for the pointer.
Seems they could make more headway by just banning cars and making folks walk everywhere or take mass transit.
I suspect that once this succeeds and they confront the problem of blunt weapons, they'll have a bit more trouble crafting the regulations.
[OK, my real reason for replying is that this reminds me of a very old Mad magazine piece contrasting two descriptions of a fictional barroom brawl that included just such an incident.
The contrast between the local rag's version and that in the NYT seemed hilarious at the time; if you can tell me where I can find this w/o violating any laws, I'd appreciate it.
One excerpt I can recall (not that it's done me much good): "...at this juncture Mr. McSweeney declined to continue the conversation and assumed a horizontal position on the floor of the establishment."]
(honestly they make better weapons than broken beer glasses anyway)
Sorry, wanted to change living to life.
Every time I object to “reasonable” gun control, someone comes up with “Oh, that’s just a ‘slippery slope’ argument. They aren’t valid.”
I have often felt that David Galway should be beaten severely about the head and shoulders with Jean-Pierre Rampal.
By coincidence, I am cutting beef tendons tonight for tomorrow's dinner. Cutting these is really difficult but I use a REALLY sharp knife. The knife might not work well for stabbing (it is an asian-style chef-knife) but it would make a truly gruesome weapon if I wanted to chop at someone with it, slice at someone with it, etc. Any knife that cuts through tendons with ease......
Sharp edges are just as effective at any attacks as sharp points.
Sharp edges are just as effective at any attacks as sharp points.
Sort of, but the point stands.
The Mrs. gave me a very nice cleaver recently and using it to break down a whole chicken is great. I was hoping to share a timely picture of a British warning sign about knives posted in front of a silverware display, but I can't seem to find it again. The UK has really gone down the slippery slope and is exploring the deep end.
Um, or am I giving them ideas...?
Have you seen the recipes? It was never that Great.
Keep plugging away on that software and you'll be able to afford better cuts of meat :-).
I followed the link hoping for a good laugh (do these knives collapse into their handles or something?) but I actually think these knives are a decent invention. They won't prevent *all* injuries, of course, but if a common household object can be made more safe without a loss in effectiveness, I'm in favor. For example, I'm delighted with the safer can opener design, and I'm keeping an eye out for one of these box cutter thingies.
In about ten years the Muslims will send one guy with a pointy stick to take them over and the English will be done.
Actually, although I enjoy steaks etc from time to time, my wife makes REALLY, REALLY good curried beef tendons.
My point is that these rules are STUPID. They address perceived problems "folks using X to cause injury to others" and failing to realize that folks denied X will use Y to cause injury to others. The problem is that humans can be violent sometimes, and unless everyone is stuck in padded rooms from birth with no contact with others, this will not change.
In other news, the UK government has announced that they will be banning bars of soap and clothing for sale starting next week. Apparently one can make a bl*ckjack out of a bar of soap and a sock, or strangle folks with shirts or pants. The simple solution is to require that nobody can obtain such horribly dangerous items....... This follows the ban ten years ago of all tools of all kinds......
DON'T GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!!!
The best beer package (other than a pigtail from the production line), according to most of the experts I trust, is a non-twist-off, nonreturnable, dark glass bottle.
At home, avoid clear glass (the reason a lime wedge accompanies Corona is not a palatable one), twist-offs, green glass (unless you prefer lightstruck, skunked product), and returnables. Cans are better than plastic, and for longer storage might even be better than glass bottles.
But glass is a poor choice in several circumstances, and plastic (or sometimes metal) packages are strongly indicated in some contexts, including outdoor venues such as sheds (grass) or parking lots (paved), hard-to-monitor venues (stadiums, arenas) and volatile venues.
Prohibiting bottles on grass or a paved surface, or on a college-bar patio, is generally a good practice. The enjoyable atmosphere should outweigh any diminution in flavor. And most people at stadiums, sheds, parking lots and college bars are drinking mediocre beer (or malternatives) to begin with.
it would only pass muster if none of them were ever to kill anyone, if one were to kill someone the tattoo would have to be removed as unfairly stigmatizing the poor unfortunate killer.
I am not certain about the utility of replacing glass pint glasses with plastic ones, if they are solid enough to stand being washed and reused they will be pretty sturdy. From my own
experiencereading on the subject, the use of a glass pint glass is as a bludgeoning instrument not a cutting one. Sometimes they shatter when used as a bludgeon but that's incidental and the bludgeoning injuries inflicted by shatterproof plastic pint serving vessels (cannot really call the glasses if they aren't made of glass now can we?) may very well exceed those of shattering glass pint glasses. I demand the project be put on hold until a study can determine if the switch will lessen the injuries or at least not make them worse.Sigh. I hereby withdraw the rest of the substantive portion of my post. Leaving only the bleg, which I will now (heh heh) preemptively withdraw before someone less diplomatic than EV points out how off-topic
and excessively frivolousit was.Even most of the most extreme of us might say you have the theoretical "right" to keep and bear a Trident...
...provided you had the money to actually find one for sale and purchase one at market prices (the big issue) and then met all applicable local, state and Federal rules, laws, ordinances, regulations and zoning et al regarding said purchase, storage, maintenance, security (for nuke material already a matter of US and Int. law), shielding, launching, legal landing/detonation and such and so on.
Prior restraint of inanimate objects by the sane and law-abiding (covered in the purchase rules BTW) isn't actually necessary to restrict/control actual unsafe possession and use in the really, real world if you have half a mind or think about it for more than a minute or so.
Even if some idiot could theoretically totally above-board afford to meet all the rules on purchasing or building, keeping/maintaining and then launching even an intercontinental-capable plain rocket (which they can't in reality, as with or without a nuclear warhead that is already covered by US Federal and international law on space traffic mind you) and then find a safe, legal landing site for it, why in the hell do we need more redundant and duplicative regulations?
If some rich idiot could meet all those regs, where's the harm in theory or actuality? If what they did was illegal (and thus harmful) then the cops of any number of nations would by definition be all over them long before they managed any steps forweard, this isn't "Dr. No" after all.
Let go of the short term thinking and drop the puerile arguments, there are thousands of laws already regulating any rational soundbite weapons restriction you might think of, if you take the time to think of or research them.
I can live with that.
I think you meant sap
They can have my pint glass...when they pry it from my cold, drunk hand
couldwill inevitably be worse.Actually, it shows what happens whenyou don't have to worry that the guy you are about to glass might have a gun.
My former boss, who was from Council Bluffs, used to brag about what a tough town Council Bluffs was. I didn't believe him until the story came over the wires about a robber who went into a C.B. bar with a shotgun, which he fired into the ceiling to get everyone's attention.
He sure did. One patron threw a full can of beer, which hit him between the eyes, after which he fell to the floor. The other patrons then beat him nearly to death with pool cues.
Moral: The dangerousness of pint glasses depends on which bar you're in.
That is a cool story.
I once interacted with a guy (about 30 years ago) who arranged an escape from custody by castrating himself.
That's tough.
Stupid. Insane.
But tough.
For variations on this theme, see Bad Boys (the one with Sean Penn, not Martin Lawrence) and The Grifters. Both excellent flicks.
Wow. That takes balls.
(Sorry :-))
He once misunderstood the terms of a murder contract and killed the wrong guy. When informed of the mistake, he shrugged, drove to the home of the intended victim and promptly executed the agreement in accordance with its terms.
Another time, cornered by police, he was urged to surrender by a former girlfriend (very former, I suspect) police had brought to the scene. Sonny asked an officer to bring her to a spot at which he could see her. When told it wasn't necessary to see her to know it was her, Sonny replied that he knew damn well it was her, and that was why he wanted them to bring her out, because he wanted a clear shot at her.
One of my former colleagues called last week and said Sonny not only had been released but had just been arrested again . . . at 70, I would guess.
Belies the notion that crime is a testosterone problem.
Or how bout shots packaged in bubble wrap? It's protection, then it becomes sweet intoxication.
But I prefer the Barney method. No glasses, just tip your head underneath the tap and let 'er rip!
Perhaps the root cause is not the implement.
Exceedingly few American establishments maintain their draft lines in a manner consistent with ordering or recommending draft beer. Cleaning schedule and technique is one issue. Improper pouring technique (dunking the spigot in the beer already in the glass) is another. The velocity issues associated with the trend toward 15- to 30-tap systems (I have yet to encounter the establishment whose sales volumes sustain fresh product in the least popular lines of a 24-tap system) are a substantial problem.
Non-twist-off, nonreturnable, dark glass bottles.
Covered in bubblewrap.
(By the way, I'm beginning to doubt you're who you say you are. The Arther Kirkland I knew wasn't very fussy about his beer.)
Remarkably reliable rule: The better the beer (and, perhaps related, the more the brewer cares about the product and the consumer), the more likely an opener is required.
A fine accompaniment to a fine beer would be My Cousin Vinny, currently offered on A&E. Among law-related entertainments of the most recent three decades, it ranks alongside The Verdict , The Firm, Philadelphia, Liar, Liar and . . . well, modesty restrains me . . .
If you can't reach a television, here is Vincent LaGuardia Gambini's initial courtroom appearance.
So are you the one I have to blame for Sierra Nevada going from twisties to regular caps? I skinned my friggin' hand!
Twisties never stopped Sierra from being one of the best brews in the land... But now you tyrant beer snobs demand that a tool get between me and my beer :P
I couldn't agree more, the Karate Cousin and Judge Munster notwithstanding.
I am not responsible for Sierra Nevada's standard crowns. Ken Grossman is, and he knows what he is doing.
The pry-off package has more integrity, homebrewers can refill standard bottles (in line with Sierra Nevada's environmental concerns), and Sierra wanted to ditch the PVC liners associated with twist-offs (ditto). It was surprising that Sierra Nevada stayed with the twisties so long.
Negotiating a beer bottle is like the annual maintenance of a corporation . . . anyone unwilling to take a small amount of time and effort to do it right does not deserve a good result.
We'll have to differ there, but in the overall scheme of things it's a quibble. Even if the judge had been played by Sylvester Stallone, there's no ruining a movie with Marisa Tomei in it.
. . . just as there's no ruining a thread with self-castration, tips on beer delivery systems, weaponry debates ranging from broken glass-vs-pool cue to the anti-stab knife, And Justice For All, an ode to curried beef tendons, and Marisa Tomei in it.
The essential factor seems to be Marisa Tomei.
I don't think that is a big factor. If the seal isn't air tight the first thing that would happen would be that the beer would go flat. There is more pressure in the bottle than outside it. Since I don't notice a lack of carbonation in twist-offs, the seal must be airtight even under pressure.
However, I don't know what the bottling process for twistoffs is and how it differs from pop-tops. Certainly a simple pop-top setup won't properly seal a twistoff bottle. I don't know how these requirements might affect quality.
There are a couple major reasons I prefer to go with pop-tops though. The first is that I brew beer and I can reuse the bottles (after properly washing and heat-sterilizing them-- I don't chlorine-sterilize).
Another is that I just prefer drinking out of them if I am drinking straight from the bottle.
Maybe so, but you're providing aid and comfort.
It was prolly due to the ruffian influence of people like me.
But in this age of twistie vs poptop strife, it's good to know that we can all agree on Marisa Tomei.
There will always be twist-offs, for people who don't know or care about the advantages of standard crowns or for whom convenience is the ace of trump. There will always be cans, for circumstances in which glass is inappropriate or affordability is key. There will be, probably with increasing frequency, plastic containers, perhaps even two-liter containers.
Even clear glass will, apparently, be not only available but indeed popular. The beauty of the market is that, despite reason and evidence, someone willing to make Corona and someone willing to drink it are free to find each other and transact. Meanwhile, someone able to deliver a quarter-millenium's wisdom (Guinness Stout) in an ingenious pressurized-widget can and the person who appreciates that achievement are transacting elsewhere.
Different flavors for different folks, as it should be.
Only if the child in question hasn't been exposed to other brewing and bottling points of view.
It's not that I think clear bottles are WRONG, per se. And it wouldn't be right for a government to take a position like that concerning spiritual issues (spirit? See what I did there?).
But I do think that such attitudes concerning clear bottles reveal the soft 'beerism' of lowered expectations.
The proper course would be to consider those issues over a beer.
The proper course would be to consider those issues over several beers.
Nick
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.