I know fermentation is what gives those foods its taste. He's trying to say certain ethnic foods taste/smell horrible yet here we are eating these fermented foods in this country that probably get the same reaction from them.
I think you'd be surprised just how much your sense of sight plays in your food choices. Most of it isn't even a conscious choice.
You are right, smell does sense further than sight most of the time. But in a restaurant with competing smells, it's only when you can see what you are supposed to be smelling (your own food) that it gets heightened and "zeros in" on your own food.
Not sure why you dislike seafood so much, but to each their own. (: I have yet to come across a food that I didn't like (or at least try once).
Actually how it looks is just as important as taste and smell. When you eat a meal, the first part of your body that perceives the meal is your eyes. Most people will not eat food that looks unappetizing. Next is your nose (which strongly correlates with your taste buds). Many more people will not eat food that smells unappetizing. Only then does taste play a role. Almost no one will eat food that tastes unappetizing.
If I had the money to further my skills to where they need to be NOW, I wouldn't have a problem. As a web designer, I'm about 5 years behind the times and without a major influx of books, at the very least, I'll probably stay there for the foreseeable future. Heck, getting used to xhtml (I spent relatively little time with HTML4.01 before hitting XHTML) was difficult enough, now I have HTML5? Ugh, I almost don't want to bother with it.
And don't get me started with ADA requirements and the like. It's enough to drive me bonkers. I just want to build nice, simple sites that look, work, and act the same across all platforms and browsers. Unfortunately the browser makers keep implementing their own garbage (anyone remember glow?) *gets off soapbox and goes to bed*
To be honest, I never even thought there was a market for mobile advertising. Except on the smart-phones, the screen real estate is too precious to give over to ads. Content is more important, and if it's on a mobile I'm more willing to pay for it than if I am on a netbook on up.
It isn't all that inconsistent. An advertising network with a few dozen advertisers and a few dozen content providers is probably viable.
Agreed whole-heartedly, but Google already has AdSense and Doubleclick.net I don't see why they can't just branch out without buying a competitor. Are they afraid of the competition?
A consumer operating system with a few thousand users is probably a joke.
I could insert jokes, but I think my first comment (the GP in this case) is going to get modded down pretty quickly as it is. I just want to say I think that comparison is apples and oranges.
A more appropriate one would be where MS buys up work-a-like competition just to take them out of the game (and grab their patent portfolios) in order to establish a monopoly. Sort of similar to what it looks like Google is trying to do, except in the web space and not the desktop space. For some reason MS wants to play in both spaces, too; that is neither here nor there, though.
This is how I see it, to be less confusing (I hope):
Google is dominating the web space, others are trying to play catch-up (which is pathetic for a portal like Yahoo which has been around longer). MS is also trying to do the same, but also be dominant in the desktop space too. The only competition Google offers there is Docs and Wave.
Where as MS is dominating the desktop space and doing so by attempting to establish (again) a trust/monopoly in every part of the market. It has the money to make a good run at it. Right now it's skirting the law (and I'd be willing to bet they are lobbying hard to get the law changed).
Every purchase Google makes to make itself more dominant in the web market is pretty much approved, despite the lowering of competition and raising the bar to entry for start-ups. Exactly the same thing MS has been doing for what, almost 3 decades now (and possibly longer)? So why is Google getting special treatment? Because they have a motto that says "Do no evil?"(TM)? Bah, I say. Either the rules are equally applied to all, or they are completely removed from the game. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget Natto.
I know fermentation is what gives those foods its taste. He's trying to say certain ethnic foods taste/smell horrible yet here we are eating these fermented foods in this country that probably get the same reaction from them.
whoosh?
do you realize that sauerkraut and kimchi are fermented before served? As is Natto?
I'm not necessarily talking about presentation.
I think you'd be surprised just how much your sense of sight plays in your food choices. Most of it isn't even a conscious choice.
You are right, smell does sense further than sight most of the time. But in a restaurant with competing smells, it's only when you can see what you are supposed to be smelling (your own food) that it gets heightened and "zeros in" on your own food.
Not sure why you dislike seafood so much, but to each their own. (: I have yet to come across a food that I didn't like (or at least try once).
You must be new here.
Now that is interesting.
Hrm.
Actually how it looks is just as important as taste and smell. When you eat a meal, the first part of your body that perceives the meal is your eyes. Most people will not eat food that looks unappetizing. Next is your nose (which strongly correlates with your taste buds). Many more people will not eat food that smells unappetizing. Only then does taste play a role. Almost no one will eat food that tastes unappetizing.
Want citations? Look 'em up yourself.
still have to deal with the speed of light.
ansible
Next time, define the terms yourself, you insensitive clod.
someone mod insightful, please.
Ouch dude.
must be why I don't bother with mobile sites that have inline advertising.
How long did it take Microsoft to get to the same place?
Ouch. (:
If I had the money to further my skills to where they need to be NOW, I wouldn't have a problem. As a web designer, I'm about 5 years behind the times and without a major influx of books, at the very least, I'll probably stay there for the foreseeable future. Heck, getting used to xhtml (I spent relatively little time with HTML4.01 before hitting XHTML) was difficult enough, now I have HTML5? Ugh, I almost don't want to bother with it.
And don't get me started with ADA requirements and the like. It's enough to drive me bonkers. I just want to build nice, simple sites that look, work, and act the same across all platforms and browsers. Unfortunately the browser makers keep implementing their own garbage (anyone remember glow?) *gets off soapbox and goes to bed*
To be honest, I never even thought there was a market for mobile advertising. Except on the smart-phones, the screen real estate is too precious to give over to ads. Content is more important, and if it's on a mobile I'm more willing to pay for it than if I am on a netbook on up.
I guess. I would I say I personally welcome it, but I can't even find work right now, much less run my own business. *shrugs*
Sometimes it sucks to be right.
Are you kidding me? They have MS style weight in the web market.
good point.
15 years to get to 1.0? That is seriously slow development.
It isn't all that inconsistent. An advertising network with a few dozen advertisers and a few dozen content providers is probably viable.
Agreed whole-heartedly, but Google already has AdSense and Doubleclick.net I don't see why they can't just branch out without buying a competitor. Are they afraid of the competition?
A consumer operating system with a few thousand users is probably a joke.
I could insert jokes, but I think my first comment (the GP in this case) is going to get modded down pretty quickly as it is. I just want to say I think that comparison is apples and oranges.
A more appropriate one would be where MS buys up work-a-like competition just to take them out of the game (and grab their patent portfolios) in order to establish a monopoly. Sort of similar to what it looks like Google is trying to do, except in the web space and not the desktop space. For some reason MS wants to play in both spaces, too; that is neither here nor there, though.
This is how I see it, to be less confusing (I hope):
Google is dominating the web space, others are trying to play catch-up (which is pathetic for a portal like Yahoo which has been around longer). MS is also trying to do the same, but also be dominant in the desktop space too. The only competition Google offers there is Docs and Wave.
Where as MS is dominating the desktop space and doing so by attempting to establish (again) a trust/monopoly in every part of the market. It has the money to make a good run at it. Right now it's skirting the law (and I'd be willing to bet they are lobbying hard to get the law changed).
Every purchase Google makes to make itself more dominant in the web market is pretty much approved, despite the lowering of competition and raising the bar to entry for start-ups. Exactly the same thing MS has been doing for what, almost 3 decades now (and possibly longer)? So why is Google getting special treatment? Because they have a motto that says "Do no evil?"(TM)? Bah, I say. Either the rules are equally applied to all, or they are completely removed from the game. Period.
It seems to me, though, that there is no merger/acquisition that the government won't approve if it's Google. Almost the complete opposite of MS.
alright, enough already on the grammar. About 10 other people have pointed it out!