Things ain't cooking in my kitchen

[venta]

Culinary help requested:

We have a bottle in our kitchen of Tesco's Extra Virgin Olive Oil. The label informs me that the oil comes "straight from the olive", which I think I'm abivalent about. I wouldn't object too much if it had popped to the shops on the way.

However, it also says the oil is extracted "solely by mechanical means". Now, that sort of thing isn't usually a selling point. I'd expect it to tell me it was hand-squozen at the very least. Has there been a scandal about child labour in the Med which I've been, up til now, blissfully unaware of ? Have the donkeys who used to turn the presses finally unionised ? Is the finest oil made from olives pre-masticated by Sicilian mafiosi grandmothers, a thing which the squeamish English market can't stomach ? Enquiring minds need to know.

In other news, we've nearly run out. I must buy some more.

It's the season of mellow fog and fruitfulness and all that, and apart from continual demonstrations of gravity courtesy of the apple tree in our garden, we appear to have a fine crop of quinces. They look plump and appealing. However... what the hell does one do with quinces ?

I know there are many things you can do with them - and the internet will readily supply the recipes - but thus far the only personal opinion I've heard thus far is "you can make quince jelly but I wouldn't recommend it".

And on a final note:
[Poll #578537]

Right. I'm very late for rapper.

Comments

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

Really though, how many people in the world must have any given name? In most cases it's "lots". So the only real worry is that someone might deduce which Jim, Bob or John is being referred to by knowledge-linking. So e.g. if I know that some_dude is named Ozzy and he then posts in his LJ that Sharon is crap in the sack, we can probably deduce who it is.

I think it's down to personal preference, and you have to respect other people's desire, rational or not, that they not be named on LJ. It does seem a bit superstitious sometimes, though.

[wimble.livejournal.com]

But I, personally, believe that such knowledge-linking is not difficult.

I've got a huge problem with potential interpretation of the data protection act, because it's entirely possible to publish "anonymous" data, which never the less, is highly indicative of specific individuals. Eg. "here is some anonymous data, but it includes a link between factor A and factor B". If you know the pool of people (eg staff at Some Institution), and that very few of them meet one of those two factors, it's easy to infer the other factor (which they may prefer to keep private).

Admittedly, it involves "knowing the pool", but that may not be too hard to look up. I guess the resident's parking permits in my area are public information. So the end result is that chains of public information can be connected with privacy invading results.

Which, in essence, is my objection to the ID card: it's not the card per se, but the fact that it'll make it much easier to chain data references together and extract something unnecessary.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

You don't need to tell me - my job used to be to prevent such links from being made.

We (at the Office for National Statistics) used to consider it unethical to release data that was disclosive by deduction. E.g. groups with very few members, groups with no members, datapoints lying on the borders of administrative areas (every time the boundary changes you can subtract the old area from the new to derive potentially disclosive data), etc.

Whether it is illegal to release such data, I'm not so sure. frax could probably tell you, but I doubt she's reading this.