Here's what you do with your leftover pizza: Heat up an ordinary frying pan (Teflon coated works best)over medium- to medium-high heat. (Use lower heat for thicker pizzas.) Zap your refrigerated leftover pizza for just a minute or two in the microwave to "get the cold out of it." It should be warm, but not hot and melty coming out of the microwave.
Now, take your pre-warmed pizza and put it in the frying pan. Cover. Wait and watch. In a few minutes, the frying pan will have toasted the soggyness out of the crust, and because it's covered, you will have created a mini-pizza oven that should get hot enough to nicely melt the top.
I'm serious about this. I've used this trick many times when I was too impatient, or didn't want to heat up the whole kitchen by reheating pizza in the oven. It works. You have to watch to make sure your pan doesn't get too hot and char the crust, and some pizzas may have so much moisture that you need to vent the cover to allow steam to escape. Done right, it will almost rival the original pizza, and it beats the hell out of any frozen/mwave pizza I've ever bought.
Oh - for best results, start with a good pizza in the first place!
Hmmm.... maybe I should have patented this idea before posting it on Slashdot.
Can someone preserve the post so if George Foreman starts selling these on TV I'll have some sort of case against him? Thanks. I'll buy you a pizza.
Sorry if I'm repeating a sentiment but, with regards to:
What real people want is an appliance-like Windows which you *can* extend if you need to...
I'm sorry, but that's not true. "Real people" use AOL and are either ignorant of or just don't care about what they're missing. "Real people" bought Packard-Bell for years because it was cheap.
True - Corporate buyers may have wanted that choice... a few years ago. But now many are in with MS so deep, it can be very risky to start playing with competing vendors. (Not because the competing vendors are bad, but because this is the way MS has manipulated the market.)
IMHO - Pursuing a modular Windows is a horrible strategy for the states (and consumers). It will essentially give M$ the legal impetus to make a stripped down version of Windows that very few people will want ("Do you want the basic version for $99 that you have to add a whole bunch of software to to get it to work - but, you know, there are sometimes conflicts between apps... Or do you want the $199 version that lets you do everything right out of the box? Oh! It's on special for $149.")
Yeah - I don't like Windows bloat, either. But can you prove that forcing MS to make a modular Windows won't also give them the freedom to develop TWO (or more) sets of APIs (one for Windows Minor and another for Windows Major) thereby just compounding the problem for third-party ISVs?
And users will have not two, but MULTIPLE sets of security patches to watch...
I could go on. Something does need to be done, but this concept of two Windows just fills me with dread. MS is clever - they're going to use it to cement their monopoly further and then come back and say, "See! The marketplace decided! We were right all along. Of course, this distraction from our core innovations will mean we have to raise prices on Windows 2006."
Thomas Penfield-Jackson should have just kept his mouth shut instead of saying all the things that everyone (hoped he) was thinking.
Now, you can argue users need to be more savvy, or you can accept that Microsoft KNOWS end user behavior and uses it to their advantage.
Indeed - you never hear Bill Gates saying that computer users need to develop more tech know-how. The MS line is that the computer should take care of all this stuff for the users. Defaults are everything and Bill would just as soon people didn't know there was anything but defaults available.
Does anyone recall how NT 3.1 was supposed to be the desktop follow-up to Windows 3.x back in... like, 1994? When did NT finally achieve notable penetration on the desktop? Maybe around 1998? Maybe only last year with Windows 2000?
I don't have exact stats. My point is: it's taken at least 4-5 years for Microsoft to push their own "industrial strength" OS onto the desktop. (Win 9x was a stopgap measure because people were sticking with Win 3.x and not moving to NT.)
Whoever is doing doomsaying on Linux by claiming "it's been years and it's not on the desktop yet - therefore it's a loser" has been brainwashed by the MS PR spinners.
These changes take time. And Linux has made incredible progress considering the many hurdles it has to overcome in the marketplace. Now is no time to stop.
Excellent point! By taking this tack, the developers of this software have a solution that should appeal not only to viewers, but to the content producers as well.
I thought this was a terrible "sanctioned censorship" idea until I read your post. Now I say, "Great. Bring it on!"
Slashdot Mirror
Here's what you do with your leftover pizza: Heat up an ordinary frying pan (Teflon coated works best)over medium- to medium-high heat. (Use lower heat for thicker pizzas.) Zap your refrigerated leftover pizza for just a minute or two in the microwave to "get the cold out of it." It should be warm, but not hot and melty coming out of the microwave.
Now, take your pre-warmed pizza and put it in the frying pan. Cover. Wait and watch. In a few minutes, the frying pan will have toasted the soggyness out of the crust, and because it's covered, you will have created a mini-pizza oven that should get hot enough to nicely melt the top.
I'm serious about this. I've used this trick many times when I was too impatient, or didn't want to heat up the whole kitchen by reheating pizza in the oven. It works. You have to watch to make sure your pan doesn't get too hot and char the crust, and some pizzas may have so much moisture that you need to vent the cover to allow steam to escape. Done right, it will almost rival the original pizza, and it beats the hell out of any frozen/mwave pizza I've ever bought.
Oh - for best results, start with a good pizza in the first place!
Hmmm.... maybe I should have patented this idea before posting it on Slashdot.
Can someone preserve the post so if George Foreman starts selling these on TV I'll have some sort of case against him? Thanks. I'll buy you a pizza.
-jmk
Good point.
But without technology, AotC (shot all-digitally) wouldn't exist.
Sorry if I'm repeating a sentiment but, with regards to:
What real people want is an appliance-like Windows which you *can* extend if you need to...
I'm sorry, but that's not true. "Real people" use AOL and are either ignorant of or just don't care about what they're missing. "Real people" bought Packard-Bell for years because it was cheap.
True - Corporate buyers may have wanted that choice... a few years ago. But now many are in with MS so deep, it can be very risky to start playing with competing vendors. (Not because the competing vendors are bad, but because this is the way MS has manipulated the market.)
IMHO - Pursuing a modular Windows is a horrible strategy for the states (and consumers). It will essentially give M$ the legal impetus to make a stripped down version of Windows that very few people will want ("Do you want the basic version for $99 that you have to add a whole bunch of software to to get it to work - but, you know, there are sometimes conflicts between apps... Or do you want the $199 version that lets you do everything right out of the box? Oh! It's on special for $149.")
Yeah - I don't like Windows bloat, either. But can you prove that forcing MS to make a modular Windows won't also give them the freedom to develop TWO (or more) sets of APIs (one for Windows Minor and another for Windows Major) thereby just compounding the problem for third-party ISVs?
And users will have not two, but MULTIPLE sets of security patches to watch...
I could go on. Something does need to be done, but this concept of two Windows just fills me with dread. MS is clever - they're going to use it to cement their monopoly further and then come back and say, "See! The marketplace decided! We were right all along. Of course, this distraction from our core innovations will mean we have to raise prices on Windows 2006."
Thomas Penfield-Jackson should have just kept his mouth shut instead of saying all the things that everyone (hoped he) was thinking.
I wonder how far a company can go copying MS's look and feel before they get slapped with a nice lawsuit. Maybe as far as profitability?
Well - at least this distro ensures you won't be running Linux on an old 486 with 32MB of RAM. How much is that worth?
Still, to be fair, if they've really done the work to make the installation truly painless, that's a good thing.
Now, you can argue users need to be more savvy, or you can accept that Microsoft KNOWS end user behavior and uses it to their advantage.
Indeed - you never hear Bill Gates saying that computer users need to develop more tech know-how. The MS line is that the computer should take care of all this stuff for the users. Defaults are everything and Bill would just as soon people didn't know there was anything but defaults available.
I'm thinking of looking into it just for the David Mamet impression. David Mamet's a very good writer.
Does anyone recall how NT 3.1 was supposed to be the desktop follow-up to Windows 3.x back in... like, 1994? When did NT finally achieve notable penetration on the desktop? Maybe around 1998? Maybe only last year with Windows 2000?
I don't have exact stats. My point is: it's taken at least 4-5 years for Microsoft to push their own "industrial strength" OS onto the desktop. (Win 9x was a stopgap measure because people were sticking with Win 3.x and not moving to NT.)
Whoever is doing doomsaying on Linux by claiming "it's been years and it's not on the desktop yet - therefore it's a loser" has been brainwashed by the MS PR spinners.
These changes take time. And Linux has made incredible progress considering the many hurdles it has to overcome in the marketplace. Now is no time to stop.
Excellent point! By taking this tack, the developers of this software have a solution that should appeal not only to viewers, but to the content producers as well.
I thought this was a terrible "sanctioned censorship" idea until I read your post. Now I say, "Great. Bring it on!"