Counting does not mean remembering where all the cards are. And no, they don't typically use 7 decks. double deck is common, some single deck exists, and Vegas has a lot of 4 deck shoe games. Outside of vegas you'll typically see 6 or 8 deck.
Do you often post when you know nothing about the topic at hand?
The reason why you toss a (good) steak on a raging hot grill is to sear the outside of the meat closed.
This is not true. Searing is good (Malliard reaction) but it does not prevent moisture loss. And while your cooking technique for the bird is close to Alton's, you missed the science behind it. From
"AB: No. Actually 'low and slow' is no way to go. 'Low and slow' the fat layer just melts and rolls off without browning the skin. Longer cooking time means dryer meat. No. You go 500 degrees for 30 minutes, then you slap on the turkey triangle, drop the heat to 350 and cook until the probe thermometer says 161. Then you rest it, you carve it, you eat it and take a nap."
His "turkey triangle" is not convection related (do you have a convection oven?), it is an insulator that prevents the white meat in the breast from getting as much radiant heat as the rest of the bird (dark meat).
my recollection is that the salt solution (brine) is higher concentration than the salt/water content of the turkey, and with a nice long soak will eventually get to equilibrium. the other goodies inthe brine (spices, sugar) get carried along with the salt water into the bird (the one time i brined i did not find a big flavor enhancement, but definitely produced a juicier bird).
after brining you usually pat the bird dry; if you were to keep it out of brine for a day, there should be may not be that much sugar from the brining on the skin. on the other hand, Shirley Corriher recommends basting, not to keep the bird from drying out, but to help crisp the skin. she uses corn syrup. it's the blessed Malliard Reaction (aka some carbonization is good).
Alton is against injections into meat (i've seen lamb and beef shows that say it's bad), he claims whatever you put in, plus extra, will just come running out this hole you made.
As for leaving the bird out of the brine, there're two problems; A) keep the temperature out of the danger zone (i.e. below 40degF), and yeah, the water you worked so hard to get into the bird will now be trying to get to equilibrium with dry, cool air.
I never 'got' cooking. I could follow a recipe, no problem, and I occasionally enjoyed the social aspects of cooking. I didn't understand how someone was 'able to cook' or not, and I had no curiousity in the kitchen. It was just following recipes, to me.
Then I saw Alton Brown's show, Good Eats. I saw an episode where he explained purchasing and maintaining knives, alongside his food lesson. I saw him explain numerous topics, and what I learned, above and beyond those details, is that there are things to learn in the kitchen. That cooking can be an intellectual endeavor. That "Food Science" is not an oxymoron, and there's still things to figure out w/r/t cooking, both personally and as a branch of science.
And once I started doing things to learn how to do them (I know how to make mayonaise... it's fascinating), I've seen some additional benefits. There's the old social aspect of cooking; there's the enjoyment of taking time in a fast-paced world to create something very tangible, and there's the kudos you get for knowing what the hell you're doing, and producing something enjoyable.
Alton Brown totally won me over to cooking. If the stereotypical/.er cares about understand and commanding the world arond him (and I think he does), he should check out AB's work.
but everyone should follow that link (http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com), it's the best fansite ever, giving (most importantly) complete transcripts to episodes, to help you conquer topics for shows you haven't seen, or refresh your memory about ones you have. and there's a ton of other fun stuff there, too.
To be able to build such a list on something as subjective as music is very impressive, and shows you just how good the quality of google's algorithms are.
not that it's not impressive, but i think there is both a lot of info around the web to group music by, and it is well-categorized by all the people who want to identify themselves by their music choices.
amazon suggests some really interesting music and books for me, and they have a lot less to go on.
So, if I, the perfect example of an unsigned musician, wouldn't want my music distributed over Napster, please fucking explain to me what possible legitimate purpose Napster has, apart from breaching copyright.
It's a legitimate source for all the artists that do want to use it as a distribution method. Look, you may be against people mailing concert bootlegs around, but that doesn't mean the mail's, or audio tape's, non-infringing uses are invalidated. You go after actual lawbreakers, who are trading _your_ stuff, not Napster.
Not that I don't think this:
Don't fucking expect me to support something just because some naive assholes think it's making a stand against Evil Big Business.
isn't a great (and motive-checking) statement.
thank you for making me think.
but that doesnt make what we're doing any less illegal. Stop trying to justify it.
i will no longer attempt to rationalize it as legal, however, i think it can be justified as economically feasible, and/or moral. what is being argued is whether the law is justified, or should be changed.
the fact is, i the record companies would just license napster like they do for commercial radio (note: non-commercial radio does _not_ need a license), and then napster incorporated some advertising to pay for things, we might have a workable system within the bounds of current record company distribution.
i'd like someone do justify their decision...
russ
However, I think that any attempt to *JUSTIFY* things like Napster is foolish. Having MP3's of copyrighted material that you haven't purchased, irregardless of what your ultimate intentions are, is illegal.
could the same be said of someone who only listens to radio, and doesn't own any recorded material of their own? record companies license radio stations, but i bet the amount they pay is _way lower_ as it is an incentive for purchase thus an advertising avenue.
it sure looks like the only issue for the companies is control.
Basically, if you want your work distributed by Napster, Napster will act according to your wishes, but if you choose not to want your work distributed by Napster, Napster will ignore your lack of consent and happily continue to help distribute your work around the Internet with no payment to you.
So what you're saying is that artists who don't want to sell their works will be abused?
I'm legitimately trying to see the artist's POV, but i don't think this is it. If there's a business model where the artists get paid (perhaps better than current contracts allow for, even?), why would they not want to use Napster? Are there artists out there who refuse to allow put their work on CDs? if there are, their getting less money than they might, i'm sure.
there's a level of artist control that might be violated, but take concert taping as an example. for the most part, cool artists don't worry about tapes, as long as they don't get sold for the caysh. the same applies for, say, a demo track the artists doesn;t want out there.
what we need to ensure is that the little guy can still make it. that, i think is the one and only priority going forward.
As far as parenting goes, there is no evidence that these were bad parents. More likely, one or both of those kids were psychopaths by nature, and
picked up on the prevailing dark side of the culture as part of their fantasies.
if you admit that these kids were innately violent (not the fault of culter OR parenting), isn't more restriction and licensing for weapons the _only_ way to limit their killing?
russ
"a"/"an" before abbreviations
-----------------------------
"A" is used before words beginning with consonants; "an", before
words beginning with vowels. This is determined by sound, not
spelling ("a history", "an hour", "a unit", "a European", "a one").
Formerly, "an" was usual before unaccented syllables beginning with
"h" ("an historian", "an hotel"); these are "now obsolescent" in
British English (Collins English Dictionary), although "an
historian" is retained in more dialects than "an hotel".
Before abbreviations, the choice of "a"/"an" depends on how
the abbreviation is pronounced: "a NATO spokesman" (because "NATO"
is pronounced/'neItoU/); "an NBC spokesman" (because "NBC" is
pronounced/Enbi:'si:/) "a NY spokesman" (because "NY" is read as
"New York (state)").
A problem: how can a foreigner *tell* whether a particular
abbreviation is pronounced as a word or not? Two non-foolproof
guidelines:
(1) It's more likely to be an acronym if it *looks* as if it could
be an English word. "NATO" and "scuba" do; "UCLA" and "NAACP"
don't.
(2) It's more likely to be an acronym if it's a *long* sequence of
letters. "US" is short; "EBCDIC" is too bloody long to say as
"E-B-C-D-I-C". (But of course, abbreviations that can be broken
down into groups, like "TCP/IP" and "AFL-CIO", are spelled out
because the groups are short enough.)
Is it "a FAQ" or "an FAQ"? These days, probably the former,
although some of us do say "an F-A-Q".
Slashdot Mirror
Counting does not mean remembering where all the cards are. And no, they don't typically use 7 decks. double deck is common, some single deck exists, and Vegas has a lot of 4 deck shoe games. Outside of vegas you'll typically see 6 or 8 deck.
Do you often post when you know nothing about the topic at hand?
russ
I like:
"To put it simply, in deference to Kent, it's like lasing a stick of dynamite."
justruss
The reason why you toss a (good) steak on a raging hot grill is to sear the outside of the meat closed.
y Tr anscript.htm
This is not true. Searing is good (Malliard reaction) but it does not prevent moisture loss. And while your cooking technique for the bird is close to Alton's, you missed the science behind it. From
http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/SeasonMisc/Turke
"AB: No. Actually 'low and slow' is no way to go. 'Low and slow' the fat layer just melts and rolls off without browning the skin. Longer cooking time means dryer meat. No. You go 500 degrees for 30 minutes, then you slap on the turkey triangle, drop the heat to 350 and cook until the probe thermometer says 161. Then you rest it, you carve it, you eat it and take a nap."
His "turkey triangle" is not convection related (do you have a convection oven?), it is an insulator that prevents the white meat in the breast from getting as much radiant heat as the rest of the bird (dark meat).
russ
Alton did a whole show on brining:
y Tr anscript.htm
http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/SeasonMisc/Turke
my recollection is that the salt solution (brine) is higher concentration than the salt/water content of the turkey, and with a nice long soak will eventually get to equilibrium. the other goodies inthe brine (spices, sugar) get carried along with the salt water into the bird (the one time i brined i did not find a big flavor enhancement, but definitely produced a juicier bird).
after brining you usually pat the bird dry; if you were to keep it out of brine for a day, there should be may not be that much sugar from the brining on the skin. on the other hand, Shirley Corriher recommends basting, not to keep the bird from drying out, but to help crisp the skin. she uses corn syrup. it's the blessed Malliard Reaction (aka some carbonization is good).
Alton is against injections into meat (i've seen lamb and beef shows that say it's bad), he claims whatever you put in, plus extra, will just come running out this hole you made.
As for leaving the bird out of the brine, there're two problems; A) keep the temperature out of the danger zone (i.e. below 40degF), and yeah, the water you worked so hard to get into the bird will now be trying to get to equilibrium with dry, cool air.
russ
this is funny, for any mods in the know.
Late night Presti's is the same, but the day-time version (down the road) is upscale now.
If you look on the floor of the Adelbert Gym, you'll see the approved shortened name is "Case Reserve", abbreviated there CR.
russ
I never 'got' cooking. I could follow a recipe, no problem, and I occasionally enjoyed the social aspects of cooking. I didn't understand how someone was 'able to cook' or not, and I had no curiousity in the kitchen. It was just following recipes, to me.
/.er cares about understand and commanding the world arond him (and I think he does), he should check out AB's work.
Then I saw Alton Brown's show, Good Eats. I saw an episode where he explained purchasing and maintaining knives, alongside his food lesson. I saw him explain numerous topics, and what I learned, above and beyond those details, is that there are things to learn in the kitchen. That cooking can be an intellectual endeavor. That "Food Science" is not an oxymoron, and there's still things to figure out w/r/t cooking, both personally and as a branch of science.
And once I started doing things to learn how to do them (I know how to make mayonaise... it's fascinating), I've seen some additional benefits. There's the old social aspect of cooking; there's the enjoyment of taking time in a fast-paced world to create something very tangible, and there's the kudos you get for knowing what the hell you're doing, and producing something enjoyable.
Alton Brown totally won me over to cooking. If the stereotypical
russ
Hard to believe Mikemenn follows slashdot...
but everyone should follow that link (http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com), it's the best fansite ever, giving (most importantly) complete transcripts to episodes, to help you conquer topics for shows you haven't seen, or refresh your memory about ones you have. and there's a ton of other fun stuff there, too.
russ
To be able to build such a list on something as subjective as music is very impressive, and shows you just how good the quality of google's algorithms are.
not that it's not impressive, but i think there is both a lot of info around the web to group music by, and it is well-categorized by all the people who want to identify themselves by their music choices.
amazon suggests some really interesting music and books for me, and they have a lot less to go on.
russ
> When was the last time you saw a frail, withering and feeble astronaut?
a couple years ago
> become hard coded over time
i think you're muddying the waters here. hard coded means it doesn't change, it's "instinctual", it isn't learned.
btw, i'm a frisbee player. those things have lift, and don't fall parabolically at all... and i can catch 'em!
russ
Ravens (-7 1/2) at Browns:
Go Browns! -7.5 my tuckus...
half of america didn't even vote in last year's election.
russ
that adam duritz is a sell out. he wears hair extensions.
So, if I, the perfect example of an unsigned musician, wouldn't want my music distributed over Napster, please fucking explain to me what possible legitimate purpose Napster has, apart from breaching copyright.
It's a legitimate source for all the artists that do want to use it as a distribution method. Look, you may be against people mailing concert bootlegs around, but that doesn't mean the mail's, or audio tape's, non-infringing uses are invalidated. You go after actual lawbreakers, who are trading _your_ stuff, not Napster.
Not that I don't think this:
Don't fucking expect me to support something just because some naive assholes think it's making a stand against Evil Big Business.
isn't a great (and motive-checking) statement. thank you for making me think.
russ
but that doesnt make what we're doing any less illegal. Stop trying to justify it.
i will no longer attempt to rationalize it as legal, however, i think it can be justified as economically feasible, and/or moral. what is being argued is whether the law is justified, or should be changed.
the fact is, i the record companies would just license napster like they do for commercial radio (note: non-commercial radio does _not_ need a license), and then napster incorporated some advertising to pay for things, we might have a workable system within the bounds of current record company distribution.
i'd like someone do justify their decision... russ
However, I think that any attempt to *JUSTIFY* things like Napster is foolish. Having MP3's of copyrighted material that you haven't purchased, irregardless of what your ultimate intentions are, is illegal.
could the same be said of someone who only listens to radio, and doesn't own any recorded material of their own? record companies license radio stations, but i bet the amount they pay is _way lower_ as it is an incentive for purchase thus an advertising avenue.
it sure looks like the only issue for the companies is control.
russ
Basically, if you want your work distributed by Napster, Napster will act according to your wishes, but if you choose not to want your work distributed by Napster, Napster will ignore your lack of consent and happily continue to help distribute your work around the Internet with no payment to you.
So what you're saying is that artists who don't want to sell their works will be abused?
I'm legitimately trying to see the artist's POV, but i don't think this is it. If there's a business model where the artists get paid (perhaps better than current contracts allow for, even?), why would they not want to use Napster? Are there artists out there who refuse to allow put their work on CDs? if there are, their getting less money than they might, i'm sure.
there's a level of artist control that might be violated, but take concert taping as an example. for the most part, cool artists don't worry about tapes, as long as they don't get sold for the caysh. the same applies for, say, a demo track the artists doesn;t want out there.
what we need to ensure is that the little guy can still make it. that, i think is the one and only priority going forward.
As far as parenting goes, there is no evidence that these were bad parents. More likely, one or both of those kids were psychopaths by nature, and picked up on the prevailing dark side of the culture as part of their fantasies. if you admit that these kids were innately violent (not the fault of culter OR parenting), isn't more restriction and licensing for weapons the _only_ way to limit their killing? russ
from the alt.usage.enlish FAQ:
/'neItoU/); "an NBC spokesman" (because "NBC" is /Enbi:'si:/) "a NY spokesman" (because "NY" is read as
"a"/"an" before abbreviations
-----------------------------
"A" is used before words beginning with consonants; "an", before
words beginning with vowels. This is determined by sound, not
spelling ("a history", "an hour", "a unit", "a European", "a one").
Formerly, "an" was usual before unaccented syllables beginning with
"h" ("an historian", "an hotel"); these are "now obsolescent" in
British English (Collins English Dictionary), although "an
historian" is retained in more dialects than "an hotel".
Before abbreviations, the choice of "a"/"an" depends on how
the abbreviation is pronounced: "a NATO spokesman" (because "NATO"
is pronounced
pronounced
"New York (state)").
A problem: how can a foreigner *tell* whether a particular
abbreviation is pronounced as a word or not? Two non-foolproof
guidelines:
(1) It's more likely to be an acronym if it *looks* as if it could
be an English word. "NATO" and "scuba" do; "UCLA" and "NAACP"
don't.
(2) It's more likely to be an acronym if it's a *long* sequence of
letters. "US" is short; "EBCDIC" is too bloody long to say as
"E-B-C-D-I-C". (But of course, abbreviations that can be broken
down into groups, like "TCP/IP" and "AFL-CIO", are spelled out
because the groups are short enough.)
Is it "a FAQ" or "an FAQ"? These days, probably the former,
although some of us do say "an F-A-Q".