I certainly agree with you that pure food science, while sufficient to cook food will never get you to the levels that you can attain when you add an artistic flair.
but your artistic flair wont get you far if you dont know the science of cooking.
Applying only art is to come up with a briliant set of omlet ingredients that would likely produce a wonderfull and complex flavor while overcooking the eggs untill they are dry and unplesent.
if you understand that (due to thermodynamics) the omlet keeps cooking after you take it away from the heat, then you can avoid this overcooking. because as AB says, if its done in the pan it will be overdone on the plate!
so your telling me that when I put cyane pepper into my fudge and it makes it taste better that I am performing art, or magic.
I dont think so. its pure science. the capsasin (sp?) in the hot peppers reacts with your taste buds in such a way as to enhance the chocolaty flavor of the fudge. its magical in a way I suppose but really, its just science.
quote: how many variations of 'proteins, acids, amino acids, fats, carbohydrates' are out there
Alot... if you watched Good Eats you would know that.
just look at how many forms a simple egg can take. or look at the different properties simple sugar can take on when you heat it to different temperatures and then cool it down again. You can make wildly different things with only one ingredient simply by applying a little science.
now imagine what you can do when you mix more than one of these ingredients.
a scientist would not use "rational analysis" (whatever that would be) to determine if paprika or cinnamon would work better in a dish. the scientist would make 2 dishes, one with cinnimon and one with paprika and then make observations while tasting them.
he might also set up a double blind test to determine which recipie works better.
do you think that the great cooks, when they finalize their recipies for thier 5 star resturants just take a guess and try what their intuition tells them and then slap in on the menu. hell no. you refine a recipie over time, through trial, error and observation.
seems to me that you should be allowed to take the seed from your own non GM crops and re-plant next year. If your crops are aquiring DNA from neigboring GM crops then it seem difficult to call falt on behalf of the farmer.
youd think that the seed companies would have a real desire to keep these things sterile... otherwise other people will start to do this to develop their own private strains of GM crops... you cant sue them all... but I suppose you could try
for what its worth, my confusion about the source of the seeds came from this quote in the article:
"Schmeiser argued the canola seed blew onto his property from a nearby farm. He has said the plants "polluted" his fields."
I got the impression from the article that the seeds blew into his land from a neigboring farm... probably before they germinated at all. i dont think this is a cross polenation issue.
thats pretty much what all the godlike centerfielders do. its an amazing gift to be able to read so much info out of such a small porton of the balls flight. these guys probably have a giant brain stem or something.
you dont have to do this to be a good centerfielder but you do have to do this to be a god in the field
i guess where I dissagree with you is that letting engineers build their own TVs isnt a special right. they just happen to be the normal people who can do that.
Im sure there are also non engineers in the US who can build their own TVs (defining engineers as people with a degree in engineering or something, not as the group of people who can build TV's) The argument is that anyone who wants to should be able to build their own tvs.
infact, the should be alowed to build and sell them to other. Right now, in order to do that you need FCC aproval to make sure you dont polute the EM spectrum, and although that is a barrier to entry, at least it has the best intrests of the entire population in mind. the broadcast flag has the best intersets of hollywood execs in mind, thats not justification for adding a significant barrier to entering the TV market.
The intresting thing about this is it makes the argument against the broadcast flag relavent to business ventures and not just crazy wire jockeys. do we realy want another cost barrier to american made TVs/electronics... or do we all agree that it is too late for america to get back into this game.
I realize now that we dont realy disagree at all do we? citizens should have these rights.
1) the argument is not against copyright... its about the DCMA and how it steps on fair use, which is apart of copyright.
2) if it is ensrined so well in the constitution why do we have to write stupid laws.
3) what does copyright have to do with me making my own DVD player, or building my own TV. how does my building a TV actualy infringe on anyones copyright at all.
quote: No, he's not saying that public policy should be geared towards the 284,000,000 people instead of 100,000 movie industry employees. He's saying "fuck 100,000 engineers over instead"
a better interviewer would have forced him into a position of looking like an idiot in the same way you are proposing here. with his own words no less.
if you have ever seen john stewart (a comedian, not a journalist) on the Daily Show, trap a hardcore conservative in the circles of their own logic well then you have an idea of the tactic that would trap this guy.
Me: so your saying that it is in appropriate to make a law that benefits a certain type of people (like engineers) at the expenses of everyone else.
him: yes
Me: so wouldnt it be wrong to make a law that benefits certain types of people (like holywood execs) at the expense of everyone else
him:... (try to imagine a reasonable response to this)
obviously you need to be well informed and skilled to trap fools like this, but it is not impossible
if we wanted to turn plants into fuel we would be growing hemp. between hempseed oil, which can make serviceable fuel (they are currently prefecting a way to make jet fuel which would be a big win), and the paper/cloth you can make from the rest of the plant it is one of the most productive plants per-acre.
Slashdot Mirror
didnt happen for me
I certainly agree with you that pure food science, while sufficient to cook food will never get you to the levels that you can attain when you add an artistic flair.
but your artistic flair wont get you far if you dont know the science of cooking.
Applying only art is to come up with a briliant set of omlet ingredients that would likely produce a wonderfull and complex flavor while overcooking the eggs untill they are dry and unplesent.
if you understand that (due to thermodynamics) the omlet keeps cooking after you take it away from the heat, then you can avoid this overcooking. because as AB says, if its done in the pan it will be overdone on the plate!
so your telling me that when I put cyane pepper into my fudge and it makes it taste better that I am performing art, or magic.
I dont think so. its pure science. the capsasin (sp?) in the hot peppers reacts with your taste buds in such a way as to enhance the chocolaty flavor of the fudge. its magical in a way I suppose but really, its just science.
quote:
how many variations of 'proteins, acids, amino acids, fats, carbohydrates' are out there
Alot... if you watched Good Eats you would know that.
just look at how many forms a simple egg can take. or look at the different properties simple sugar can take on when you heat it to different temperatures and then cool it down again. You can make wildly different things with only one ingredient simply by applying a little science.
now imagine what you can do when you mix more than one of these ingredients.
there are a practicaly limitless combinations.
a scientist would not use "rational analysis" (whatever that would be) to determine if paprika or cinnamon would work better in a dish. the scientist would make 2 dishes, one with cinnimon and one with paprika and then make observations while tasting them.
he might also set up a double blind test to determine which recipie works better.
do you think that the great cooks, when they finalize their recipies for thier 5 star resturants just take a guess and try what their intuition tells them and then slap in on the menu. hell no. you refine a recipie over time, through trial, error and observation.
if that isnt science then I dont know what is.
Becoming a nation of services and intellectual property?
Where the hell have you been?
what disk drive eject button?
what are you... living in 1997?
and it was over priced... dont forget over priced!
yea... but the whole deal fell apart when Bill Gates showed up to "Buy out" Hyperglobalcompumeganet.
hes still trying to replace his 28.8 kilobaud connection with a 1.5 megabit fiber optic T1 line.
unfotunately the internet king was unable to provide an IP router compatible with his token ring ethernet LAN configuration.
well, there doesnt seem to be any frame damage
damnit... your right... this isnt the first time I have changed it either.
I must have blown it the last time someone pointed that out.
everyone knows that west springfield is 3 times the size of texas!
seems to me that you should be allowed to take the seed from your own non GM crops and re-plant next year. If your crops are aquiring DNA from neigboring GM crops then it seem difficult to call falt on behalf of the farmer.
youd think that the seed companies would have a real desire to keep these things sterile... otherwise other people will start to do this to develop their own private strains of GM crops... you cant sue them all... but I suppose you could try
for what its worth, my confusion about the source of the seeds came from this quote in the article:
"Schmeiser argued the canola seed blew onto his property from a nearby farm. He has said the plants "polluted" his fields."
assuming of course that he isnt simply lying.
I was going based on this quote from the article
"Schmeiser argued the canola seed blew onto his property from a nearby farm. He has said the plants "polluted" his fields."
sounds very intersting. Were the crop lines with this gene in them supposed to be sterile?
If so that is seriously alarming.
I got the impression from the article that the seeds blew into his land from a neigboring farm... probably before they germinated at all. i dont think this is a cross polenation issue.
thats pretty much what all the godlike centerfielders do. its an amazing gift to be able to read so much info out of such a small porton of the balls flight. these guys probably have a giant brain stem or something.
you dont have to do this to be a good centerfielder but you do have to do this to be a god in the field
i guess where I dissagree with you is that letting engineers build their own TVs isnt a special right. they just happen to be the normal people who can do that.
Im sure there are also non engineers in the US who can build their own TVs (defining engineers as people with a degree in engineering or something, not as the group of people who can build TV's) The argument is that anyone who wants to should be able to build their own tvs.
infact, the should be alowed to build and sell them to other. Right now, in order to do that you need FCC aproval to make sure you dont polute the EM spectrum, and although that is a barrier to entry, at least it has the best intrests of the entire population in mind. the broadcast flag has the best intersets of hollywood execs in mind, thats not justification for adding a significant barrier to entering the TV market.
The intresting thing about this is it makes the argument against the broadcast flag relavent to business ventures and not just crazy wire jockeys. do we realy want another cost barrier to american made TVs/electronics... or do we all agree that it is too late for america to get back into this game.
I realize now that we dont realy disagree at all do we? citizens should have these rights.
1) the argument is not against copyright... its about the DCMA and how it steps on fair use, which is apart of copyright.
2) if it is ensrined so well in the constitution why do we have to write stupid laws.
3) what does copyright have to do with me making my own DVD player, or building my own TV. how does my building a TV actualy infringe on anyones copyright at all.
see... there are good traps for everything.
quote:
... (try to imagine a reasonable response to this)
No, he's not saying that public policy should be geared towards the 284,000,000 people instead of 100,000 movie industry employees. He's saying "fuck 100,000 engineers over instead"
a better interviewer would have forced him into a position of looking like an idiot in the same way you are proposing here. with his own words no less.
if you have ever seen john stewart (a comedian, not a journalist) on the Daily Show, trap a hardcore conservative in the circles of their own logic well then you have an idea of the tactic that would trap this guy.
Me: so your saying that it is in appropriate to make a law that benefits a certain type of people (like engineers) at the expenses of everyone else.
him: yes
Me: so wouldnt it be wrong to make a law that benefits certain types of people (like holywood execs) at the expense of everyone else
him:
obviously you need to be well informed and skilled to trap fools like this, but it is not impossible
In washington your skill at debate is directly related to the size of your wallet...
if we wanted to turn plants into fuel we would be growing hemp. between hempseed oil, which can make serviceable fuel (they are currently prefecting a way to make jet fuel which would be a big win), and the paper/cloth you can make from the rest of the plant it is one of the most productive plants per-acre.
not only that, it grow like... well... a weed.
It's the policewoman's helmet and the suspenders that I don't understand!
obviously you havent read the article. he claims it is 330% efficent!