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.

Interesting article in today's paper. I'm glad someone was paying attention. Nice work! http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/living/...ood/6574823.htm Posted on Wed, Aug. 20, 2003 Fruit cobblers a cakewalk to prepare By Kathleen Purvis KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS Posted on Wed, Aug. 20, 2003 Fruit cobblers a cakewalk to prepare By Kathleen Purvis KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS Take fruit, usually peaches, cook it in a syrup, cover it with a top crust and bake it. That's a cobbler. Or you can take fruit, usually peaches or blackberries, toss it with a little flour, sugar and butter, top it with soft biscuits, and bake it. That's a cobbler, too. Or you can cover any fruit, from peaches to blackberries to cherries, rhubarb or apples, with a thin batter and bake until the topping is puffy. Yep, that's a cobbler, too. Sometimes the fruit is put on the batter, which rises to cover it. Sometimes the batter is put on the fruit and flows down to enrobe it. Sometimes there's a bottom crust. Sometimes there's a biscuit dough covering the whole thing. So just what in the heck is a cobbler? [material omitted] And as far as defining a cobbler, what's a food writer to do? Only this: Admit that a cobbler is whatever you think it is, which is probably whatever your mother or your grandmother told you it was. And when summer fruit is at its height, when every corner of every country highway has a stand filled with peaches and blackberries, a cobbler is a mighty fine thing to consider.

There's an article in this month's "Food and Wine" (it was free) about how much she suffered with the dorm food. I think it was supposed to be flattering. . . . .

Grad students are whiners anyway. So it's okay for someone to volunteer in a soup kitchen (non-profit), but it's not okay for someone to volunteer in a professional kitchen unless that person is paying money to attend college. That's hypocrisy at its government regulated finest.

When I was in grad school, there were only 5 paid TAships and to get one of those you pretty much had to TA some other class before. Whether or not you got independent study units for it was up to you. You might argue that 3 units is the same as getting paid, but it's not. Even the paid job only paid a token salary that came out to half of minimum wage if you included all the hours the job required. I TAed 5 classes; got paid for 2 and got units for 1. The others I did for the experience and it was worth it because all it cost me was time and time was what I had. The whole internship system is a joke. Requiring people to be enrolled in college means that they're paying money for the privilege of working for no money. Is that fair? Why should someone who wants on the job training be forced into college with all the associated expenses if that's not what they want? I teach part time at a community college now. In my beginning class, I have former students assist me with some of the hands-on instruction, mostly the mechanics of how to use the camera. The school has no money to pay them and I don't make enough to pay them out of my own pocket (except for a dinner). So, there's no pay, no chance of moving into a paid job, and they don't want units because then it will cost them money to help me out. Is it immoral that they help me out? And help the students out? And allow me to accept many more people into the class than I would otherwise be able to take, thus helping the department and college out since our funding is in a large part enrollment based? Each person who does this does it because the costs (time) are outweighed by the benefits (the fun of being part of the department). They're adults and fully capable of deciding how to spend their time without the government getting involved. I also sponsor the student organization even though I don't get paid extra for it. College regulations require faculty presence at on campus student events. I don't get paid for those days and nights either, but if I didn't do it, they wouldn't exist. Am I just an idiot? Or is there more do the job of college instructor than just what happens in class? For me, the benefits of having a (mostly) functional department where students have the opportunity to interact with each other outweighs the few nights a semester I give up. But I guess I better worry now that some lawyer here will figure out where I teach and bring a suit "on behalf of the people" to stop the outrage of using unpaid labor. Sometimes the law is an ass.

All those jobs require education and certification which the food industry doesn't. With the rise of culinary schools, perhaps certification is on the way, but it's not there yet. And for someone who can't go to cooking school, perhaps working for free on the side is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Restaurants are hardly the only business where people work for free too. Any field that requires a certain skill-set yet lacks a codified training program will allow if not require people to start at the bottom and work their way up. And the bottom jobs are frequently unpaid. For example: motion picture production and photography. And academia. Is it opportunity or exploitation? Depends on the person and the situation. Sometimes trading time for experience rather than money is a rational decision.

They're called eye teeth because developmentally, their roots begin just below the eye socket (orbit bone). Why is this over time? Oh, that ot, shhhhh, don't tell anyone and maybe they won't notice.

point of fact, or rather question of fact: what the hell are eyeteeth? The canine teeth. Now for the more than you ever wanted to know part. We have four of them, one on each side on both the upper and lower jaws. If you cut your mouth in half vertically and work your way from front to back, it goes like this on each jaw: 2 incisors, 1 canine, 2 pre-molars aka bicuspids, 3 molars unless you've had your wisdom teeth removed in which case it's 2. God I'm bored today.

Yeah, but I don't think it would have been nearly as satisfying for him. After all, hasn't a lot of the snarky stuff in the book come out in bits and pieces over the last few years since his return to the public eye? Does anyone besides me have his latest cookbook Jeremiah Tower Cooks? It's up there with the Zuni Cafe and Chez Panisse books.

By all accounts, she's a perfectly nice, decent person, but she does have a carefully crafted and managed public persona too, St. Alice the Sustainably Organic. Takes a lot of effort to stay on message. Celebrity's a bitch.

ahem. i only know a.w. from "culinary artistry" from -96. her comments and menus there strike me as very clever and delicious. but you were joking, of course Of course. That is the standard industry criticism of Waters... why? What she is primarily known for is sourcing good ingredients and for emphasizing those ingredients rather than for preparations or techniques. So the saying is that what she really does is shop rather than cook. This is from the introduction to Chez Panisse Vegetables (pg. xix): Good food depends almost entirely on good ingredients. Not long after Chez Panisse began to acquire a national reputation, we were invited to prepare one course of a charitable benefit banquet in New York City. We flew to the east coast with boxes and boxes of absolutely fresh, organic, hand-picked seasonal greens from which we prepared a simple salad. One famous chef looked at our contribution and remarked, with mock censure and perhaps a little envy, "That's not cooking, that's shopping!" Of course, he was right. The terminal handling of a vegetable in the kitchen before it is eaten is far less important for taste than what kind of variety it is, where and how it is grown, when it was harvested, and how long it has taken to get to your kitchen. Cooking is only a small part of this.