gknl

Oh Tommy, since when did you get so sensitive? Why did you have to link to the recipe rather than just post it here? People can get it, it's not a secret anymore. Why make us click? Copryright law. And copyright law does not only apply to public dissemination. So if you don't see the incongruity between not sharing something you have the legal right to share while sharing something you don't, that's your problem no matter how many links to recipes you provide.

Published recipes are still the property of the creator and the publisher. Sharing the recipe deprives those people of whatever gain they may get, for example the sale of a book or a visit to the website. Publishing does not negate copyright. Which is why the RIAA is suing children over unauthorized "sharing" of music. Legally, the only things you have the right to share are things you've created yourself or things that have entered the public domain. "I created it so it's mine to keep to myself" is an "interesting position" to take on a message board the success of which depends on free exchange of information. I don't think anyone questioned your right to do what you wish with your recipes, but what we have the right to do and what we ought to do are often different things. Ayn Rand aside, selfishness is not generally seen as a virtue.

i don't know of many people who don't share, say, batali's recipe for bolognese. given that it's in books and on the internet, there doesn't seem to be much reason. So why can't we post it here then? And you're doing nothing (imagine that) to address the underlying ethical disconnect between valuing your own creation too highly to share while not caring about giving away someone else's work when in the real world, it's only your own work you have the right to distribute, unless you've cleared (paid for or gotten explicit permission) the copyright.

So you'll only share other people's work? That's an interesting application of intellectual property rights and ethics. errr, perhaps she meant that if she god it from a book, TV, class, or one of many other sources, then it's not hers to share. No, I think it reads that her original creations are hers, while stuff she got elsewhere is fair game for dissemination. Which is, of course, completely contrary to how intellectual property works in the real world.

But we also have the esteemed member who shared recipes from his yet to be published book. Think will hurt or boost his sales when it finally gets published (when is that anyway?)? I share. The only reason I wouldn't is if it had been told to me in confidence, then the onus is on me to keep the secret no matter how silly I might think it is. If I were making money off of it then I'd have to think about how much disclosing the recipe would hurt my business. Which I suppose depends on what percentage of sales are derived from that recipe and whether it would be worth it to my customers to make it themselves. A lot of restaurants don't have much trouble giving them out though.

So you'll only share other people's work? That's an interesting application of intellectual property rights and ethics.

I think that statement, on its face, is illogical. It makes perfect sense to me. If you can write an honest review, then whatever you have to disclose is irrelevant. Conversely, if you can't write without letting personal relationships affect what you say, then you should find something else to do. So if a reviewer who likes his job allows relationships to affect his work, but he doesn't want to do anything else, concealing those relationships would be in his best interest, right?

Did you see the thread about Mama Buzz Cafe? Well, not much of a thread, but it's owned by an egulleter's cousin: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=27514 I haven't been there, but perhaps it's worth a look-see? I miss hanging out in the Mission too but it's not really the same there anymore.

Grey Wolf in San Leandro on E 14th St, a few blocks north of Bayfair Mall. Half-price books at various locations, one on Solano Ave in Berkeley. Others in Fremont and Concord, I think. The Pegasus and Pendragon group, Solano Ave, College Ave by the Rockridge BART and Market Hall, and one on Shattuck and Durant. The bookstore in Montclair, on LaSalle by the video store, can't remember the name, is small, but occasionally has a catch or two.

Bake the layers in separate pans. There's a recipe in Death by Chocolate by Marcel Desaulniers for a double layer chocolate pumpkin cheesecake. The chocolate layer is baked in a springform pan with the crust and the pumpkin layer is baked in a regular cake pan with buttered parchment paper. You just invert the cake pan over the springform pan. I think about trying different flavor combinations, but never seem to get around to it. Here's a question though: in almost every cheesecake recipe I've read, it says to be careful not to overbeat the mixture. The recipe above though calls for beating the mixture for several minutes on high speed, seemingly in direct contradiction to the others. How come beating the hell out of the batter works here but is a danger in other recipes? It's been bugging me for a while, I feel like I must be missing something really obvious. ediot: here's a link to the recipe chocolate pumpkin cheesecake and an excerpt of the beating instructions: Beat on low for l minute and on medium for 2 minutes. Scrape down the sides of the bowl, then beat on medium for 2 more minutes and on high for 3 minutes. Scrape down the bowl. Add 3 eggs one at a time, beating on high for 20 seconds and scraping down the bowl after each addition. Add l tsp vanilla extract and beat on medium for l5 seconds, then beat for 2 more minutes on high.

Good luck getting this asocial bunch to do anything. A business lunch sounds like a good idea though. Maybe easier than getting people together for dinner , at least those of us in the East Bay.

That's the law, yes. Non-profit agencies are able to be classified as non-profits because they provide services that benefit the public in some way. That's why they are able to utilize vounteer labor. Free labor at for-profit businesses provides no benefit to the public at large, and questionable benefits to the individuals who have been convinced to work for free. Actually, I think it's hypocritical for profit-making enterprises to pocket money from the free labor of unpaid workers by claiming that they were somehow providing intangible benefits equivalent to earning wages and getting benefits. If you don't believe in labor laws, you don't. I do. You still haven't explained why if I pay (to enroll in college) I can work for free, but if I want to do the exact same thing on my own, it's wrong. Non-profits providing "public benefit" is a joke. You're basically arguing that working for free is exploitive of the individual to the point that the coercive power of the state must be used to prevent it from occuring unless the exploitation to the individual is being done in the name of some state-sanctioned greater social good. That's hypocrisy. As is calling the benefits derived from working for a for-profit company "questionable." Isn't it up to the individual to decide whether the benefit of the experience outweighs the cost of working? People all across this country are working for free anyway, the question is whether or not their behavior should be considered criminal. You believe in labor laws, I believe in freedom. I'm reminded here of one of my favorite quotes: Behind every urge to save humanity lies the hidden urge to control. And another one: Sometimes the law is an ass.

I'm sure the show made money. Reality shows are cheap to produce and with as much product placement as they had, probably was in profit before it aired. I wasn't arguing the show was a flop so much as discounting the notion that it was in any way significant to popular culture or Rocco's career. Even with a sequel. I was trying to put the show in perspective, that's all.

So why was it buried in this time slot? Perhaps because the network programmers thought it had limited appeal? It was fine for what it was, but that's not saying much except that it did well in the young adult demographic. A second season is hardly a mark of quality anyway. This was just another silly little show that I doubt will have much, if any lasting impact. Think there will be a "Restaurant 5?" I don't, even if it does slay the Sunday 10 pm crowd.

Sheesh, it's just a tv show. Is anyone going to remember it next summer? According to the Aug 4-10 ratings(http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/entertainment/television/6531088.htm), it didn't crack the top 20 nationally and here in the Bay Area was 19th. Nationally, the reality shows ranked higher were "Big Brother 4" (twice, Tues and Wed), "Fear Factor," "For Love or Money," "Who Wants to Marry My Dad," "The Amazing Race" and "Last Comic Standing." Not to mention two pre-season football games. In the Bay Area, a presumably food-interested market, more people watched the two football games, "Amazing Race," "Big Brother" (Wed), "Who Wants to Marry My Dad," "For Love or Money" than "The Restaurant." I'm too lazy to look up all the ratings week by week, but I don't think this show captured the general public's interest. I doubt if Rocco has anything to worry about as long as his serious cooking doesn't suffer from his flirtation with media success and pop culture glory.