The problem with peanuts is that peanut oil is aromatic. ..
That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aromatic –adjective 1. having an aroma; fragrant or sweet-scented; odoriferous. 2. Chemistry . of or pertaining to an aromatic compound or compounds.
According to the CDC (which employs actual scientists, I'm told), the deadly threat from peanut allergies affects about 1 in 30 Million people. Deadly allergic reactions to fish and fish oils are more than TWICE as prevalent as peanut allergies. Yet fish sticks are served in school cafeterias, hippie daycare providers happily much on boxed sushi with bare hands, and gramma still makes tuna sandwiches... without an epidemic of people dropping dead.
I'm sad that this gets press, not because single real events aren't tragic. I'm sad because my kids have to suffer thru more of the secondary effects: an ongoing flood of hysterical peanut hypochondria.
The problem with peanuts is that peanut oil is aromatic and does not need to be injested directly to cause the allergy. Fish oil is not like that. At least the reactions aren't triggered as easily.
My wife has an anaphylactic allergy to onion and garlic. Trace amounts - a pinch of garlic powder in a pot - is enough to put her in hospital for a week, and is potentially fatal. A straw that was mishandled and exposed to onion has also put her into hospital. It means there are very few pre-prepared foods we can eat. Eating out at a restaurant is out of the question. Even Macdonalds chips are a gamble (though one we occassionally take). I've seen a sundae served with onions in it (thankfully to my cousin, not my wife). I can't eat the stuff either because if I slip up and kiss her it could be the kiss of death. I've seen her go beet red at a work christmas function just from smells but thankfully she does not proceed to have her airways close up. If they did she probably couldn't hold down a job. We both have plenty of sympathy for people with peanut allergies.
I have several relatives that are school teachers. Anecdotally, peanut allergies are indeed on the increase. How much of that is better diagnosis, and how much might be misdiagnosis I can't tell you, but the problem is real. People with these allergies aren't just faking it and don't have pyschological issues.
Now watch this get modded down and argued with, because people here can be assholes and can enjoy digging their heels in about their own ignorance.
Since then I never lock my car. People that do not know the story usually say things like "naive" but actually the opposite is true.
Here (Sydney, Australia) you might be charged. They've actually made it illegal to leave your car unlocked. The theory is you're making it easier for a criminal to commit crimes. Personally I think it's ass backwards and a sign of a sick society.
Are you for real? Don't you know bubbles are a detergent? A DETERGENT for God's sake! The situation was on the precipice of doom. DOOOM!
The most upsetting part is that now I am going to have to go and wake up my infant son and take him in to the police station. Just the other day he assaulted me with a bubble gun. Did you hear that? A bubble GUN! Yet somehow I had no idea I was being assaulted and thought he was "just playing". Now my son is beyond saving. He will forever be a hoodlum. Do you see how insidious this conspiracy is? Clearly the only solution is to ban all detergent and lock up all the manufacturers. Soap too! It is a little known fact that soap can be used to make bubbles.
Every Apple handset locks you out of using the phone the way you want to just the same. Every handset fails just the same if you touch it in the right place. Every handset requires you to buy apps from the same store.
Thank you Mr Jobs, now take your locked down phone, your cloud and your rant and fuck off. Don't let your iPhone hit yer ass on the way out.
I think you were lucky to find an architect that actually provided guidance. Probably an ex developer that knew what he was doing. Too often good programmers try to hoard their knowledge.
Now so that my comment wouldn't be moderated too high I slip something about my feelings towards software development models here: Waterfall rules! Agile sucks! You just need to plan your projects beforehand!;)
The reason Waterfall works is that it can be applied bottom up or top down very well, and the goal posts aren't shifting.
Agile in contrast is a mess. Define your test cases up front, but don't have your actual goals defined. It just doesn't work. It's bullshit. Like trying to make a cake by applying the icing first, then fill in and bake the dough...oh and by the way the cake mix and the pattern and colours for the icing keep changing.
So the best way to neutralise Darth Vader would have been a jolly good dose of antibiotics and instructions to wash his hands thoroughly before every meal?
That is certainly the case after the prequels. That's what you do when you get shit on your hands.
That's my problem with the cloud. Someone else owns it...and I have to trust my data to them.
Microsoft want to do fat OS, Office and dabble in media because that is their bread and butter and because these are capabilities that are needed on the desktop under the user's control.
To the contrary, most decent software architects will prevent the idle developers from writing YAF.
Yet to see this happen in practice. In practice you get a know it all architect who insists on doing things the hard way for future reuse, but that reuse never materialises either because it's too hard to make the code truely reusable and test it for reuse, or because the framework needs to be very specific to the project.
I heard that kind of statement a few years ago... where was it... oh yeah I remember, it was the mainframe guy at his retirement party, he was also talking about the good ol' days of CICS and hierarchical databases, and how nobody needs a GUI, textmode 80x25 was optimal.
CICS and mainframes did the job brilliantly, so much so that they are still used under the hood in a lot of places, with a thin web developed veneer.
A good software architect is someone with experience that will define the orientations and overview the selected design patterns; as such he is instrumental in improving the quality and avoiding useless complexity.
Again, I'm yet to see this in practice. My background? I'm a web developer. I've worked with a whole host of languages. Right now my focus is both Java and C. At various times I've worked with Powerbuilder, Visual Basic, Smalltalk, C++ and C#. When it comes to useless overengineering and unnecessary use of patterns Java absolutely takes the cake. I'd like to propose some alternate names to some of the patterns
Inversion of Control - Inversion of Common Sense with a sprinkling of XML hell Proxy/Bridge - Useless Fucking Wrapper when I don't know what the fuck I'm building and need to hide it Singleton - Destroyer of Scalability MVC - Most Varied Confusion (I've never seen someone put 2 views against a single controller in a real life commercial project, but these days everyone wears that complexity because it is accepted that this is how it's done)
All of the above, used in the right place for the right purpose are fantastic, and in some cases they are absolutely necesary. Unfortunately the almost never are used properly.
Oh and while we're on Java, what the fuck is it with minor revisions hosing backward compatiblity. I'm looking at you Spring and Hibernate.
Don't even get me started on the preaching of various methodologies.
Agile Development - Quick lets run around like headless chooks and redevelop 7 times on the whim of the business user Test Driven Development - Let's build the fucking bridge top down so we know that the arch looks pretty and works
The most productive I've seen software developed was in the pre-web days in the old Rapid Application Development environments. Delphi and C++ builder, to a lesser extent C# and VB. Yes I said VB. Nothing wrong with VB for screens so long as you hire competent programmers. It took 1 hour to lay out a screen where now the norm seems to be a week to lay out a web page with layer upon layer of MVC and patterns.
I think its more like having a single technical lead in a powerful position is a bad thing for management because they keep asking hard questions. So lets split the role into smaller project based positions, leaving the strategy to management and marketing.
I think it would be cheaper and more effective to leave the strategy to Paul the Octopus. He's probably nicer too.
I'm not a professional scientist or mathematician. I am however science qualified (Astronomy). I find their methods sloppy and their pandering to spectacular explosions revolting. It just isn't science. It's sloppy.
It's detrimental to keeping the science the domain of a snobbish elite. So people that try doing their own experiments are "idiots" unless done under conditions determined syousef? I agree with Carik, they often try to follow basic scientific principles and it is science (albeit rough and ready with a bit of added showbiz at the end for entertainment).
Phillip.
It's detrimental to present pseudo-science as science no matter who you are. Proper science is the antithesis of elitism. Some people are in fact idiots. Others are ignorant. This will be their only exposure to the scientific method. They walk away thinking they know science when in fact all they know is how to blow things up. It's not rough and ready science. If they were a little more focused on actually testing hypotheses instead of just blowing shit up they'd be brilliant. But they're not.
Unfortunatley, I always get modded down when I say this, despite the fact that it's true.
They are trained in special effects, not science. They like to make things go boom in a spectacular way. Science is just the excuse.
That is why you see weak hypotheses, flimsy controls, and wild generalisations. I don't know how many times I've looked at one of their "experiments" and thought "How the fuck can you conclude anything based on that sloppy bullshit" or "What if they'd tried this? There's a good chance it would have gone differently"
There is nothing wrong with a show about things exploding or about testing myths redneck style. But the issue I have with them is that they present things as science and make huge leaps of generalisation, which basically defecates on the scientific method. It goes completely against the scientific method. So idiots then turn around and mimic their sloppiness and think they are doing real science. It's very detrimental.
Chiropractors are not doctors. They're phonies with made-up degrees. You might as well call a gardener a doctor. Actually, a gardener probably has a greater degree of knowledge of biology than a chiropractor.
What about Chiropractors that are gardeners? They're the best. So good that they wear their underwear on the outside. I use to see a guy who'd adjust my back and my pot plant's back all for the low fee of $399.99. I saved thousands on that deal and my pot plant's spine was never better. Unfortunately, on day I tried to ring and couldn't get through. I found out later that he retired early and moved to the Bahamas. Then I ran out of money and my pot plant died of malnutrition. But while we were seeing that Chiro, it was magic times.
I wasn't talking about injustice, nor modern conveniences. These are silly straw men.
I was talking about:
1) Manual labour and slavery, robots replacing slaves. We're not there yet. Robots are not sophisticated enough to replace human beings for many basic tasks - espeically household tasks required for luxury.
2) Your ridiculous claim that Romans had it good but everyone after them had it bad. You've taken the top tier of Roman society at the peak of the Roman empire, ignored the common man, and the lower and slave classes. Sure some Romans had it good for a while (at the expense of others). That doesn't mean everyone went from a life of opulence to scratching in the dirt with the fall of the Roman empire. Some of "The ancient Romans" you're talking about would have thought that slums were a huge step up from being beaten and raped on a daily basis. Others would consider rich and famous people having to do their own washing insane. You should study some history before making wild generalisations about it.
So what? Now we have mechanization and automation, rendering slavery needless.
Computers still can't do basic tasks that an ill educated servant could handle easily.
Show me a robot that can do all my household chores and mind my children unsupervised for a day. And I'm not talking about primitive Japanese gimmick vacuum robots.
Exactly. The Romans had a society and technology that was far, far more advanced than what came after. What came after was not pretty, nor fun to live in (unless you were a feudal lord perhaps).
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that Romans had slaves. Do you think it was much fun living in their technologically advanced society as a slave?
I'm sorry but I go to these stores for books that I wouldn't otherwise find, even online. how does THAT fit into your model of him removing value from brick and mortar stores?
If people start buying all the best books and selling them online there's no longer a need to go to the store.
It will never be all used book sales unless it becomes illegal to give a book away, or to set your own terms of redistribution.
Which is exactly how it is with books that are "licensed" rather than sold"
As a consumer you have a choice as to which media to purchase. I don't buy DRM-restricted media.
No you don't. It's not always an option to go without the book as it is with entertainment. Think textbook. Unless of course you're claiming your convictions are so strong you'd give up an education just so you don't buy something DRM encumbered.
I had my one brief stint with systems designed to shit on First Sale law when I purchased Half-Life 2; Never again will I touch anything Steam-powered. Nor, indeed, will I purchase any media which has any purchase proof requirement beyond a CD key.
Never say never. I too like to avoid DRM and have no DRM encumbered books or music. I can't say the same about software because I would be missing out on a lot if I refused to buy any piece of software that had DRM. Again, I'm not just talking about games. I have no illusions that under circumstances where DRM or going without is my only options that I can always go without.
Don't you mean that it's dying for all the right reasons? Used bookstores which buy rafts of crap just to build stock are the problem, and good riddance.
The problem is it's not just them that will go, it's all used book sales. Instead we'll likely wind up with licenses and have to keep re-buying in multiple formats as the publishers milk us for every cent.
The reason's simple. These retailers make a profit by offering the opportunity to find a precious gem in amongst a ton of crap books. If someone takes all the gems, the viability of the stores diminish. If the stores did this themselves, no one would come to the physical store, and they'd make a pittance selling the few worthwhile books.
So the underlying problem is that the stores are unsustainable, and the guy with the scanner exacerbates the problem.
I'm afraid the second hand book trade is dying for all the wrong reasons. You simply can't build a long term bookselling system on greed and hoarding. By now all books should be freely available online in a searchable format and unencumbered by DRM (but not necessarily free to access). But again there are problems with that because too many people would just take the books (in fact that's already happening).
My wife has severe food allergies that make eating out akin to Russian roulette (for both of us since I can in theory cause an anaphylactic reaction just by kissing her). She compensates by cooking wonderful food. It tastes no less wonderful eating it in front of a TV.
Airline food is bland because it is pre-packaged long life shit and instant tv dinners produced in a tiny galley on a budget. Blaming the background noise is ridiculous. It's a "dog ate my homework" excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with peanuts is that peanut oil is aromatic. . .
That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aromatic
–adjective
1. having an aroma; fragrant or sweet-scented; odoriferous.
2. Chemistry . of or pertaining to an aromatic compound or compounds.
According to the CDC (which employs actual scientists, I'm told), the deadly threat from peanut allergies affects about 1 in 30 Million people. Deadly allergic reactions to fish and fish oils are more than TWICE as prevalent as peanut allergies. Yet fish sticks are served in school cafeterias, hippie daycare providers happily much on boxed sushi with bare hands, and gramma still makes tuna sandwiches... without an epidemic of people dropping dead.
I'm sad that this gets press, not because single real events aren't tragic. I'm sad because my kids have to suffer thru more of the secondary effects: an ongoing flood of hysterical peanut hypochondria.
The problem with peanuts is that peanut oil is aromatic and does not need to be injested directly to cause the allergy. Fish oil is not like that. At least the reactions aren't triggered as easily.
My wife has an anaphylactic allergy to onion and garlic. Trace amounts - a pinch of garlic powder in a pot - is enough to put her in hospital for a week, and is potentially fatal. A straw that was mishandled and exposed to onion has also put her into hospital. It means there are very few pre-prepared foods we can eat. Eating out at a restaurant is out of the question. Even Macdonalds chips are a gamble (though one we occassionally take). I've seen a sundae served with onions in it (thankfully to my cousin, not my wife). I can't eat the stuff either because if I slip up and kiss her it could be the kiss of death. I've seen her go beet red at a work christmas function just from smells but thankfully she does not proceed to have her airways close up. If they did she probably couldn't hold down a job. We both have plenty of sympathy for people with peanut allergies.
I have several relatives that are school teachers. Anecdotally, peanut allergies are indeed on the increase. How much of that is better diagnosis, and how much might be misdiagnosis I can't tell you, but the problem is real. People with these allergies aren't just faking it and don't have pyschological issues.
Now watch this get modded down and argued with, because people here can be assholes and can enjoy digging their heels in about their own ignorance.
Since then I never lock my car. People that do not know the story usually say things like "naive" but actually the opposite is true.
Here (Sydney, Australia) you might be charged. They've actually made it illegal to leave your car unlocked. The theory is you're making it easier for a criminal to commit crimes. Personally I think it's ass backwards and a sign of a sick society.
Are you for real? Don't you know bubbles are a detergent? A DETERGENT for God's sake! The situation was on the precipice of doom. DOOOM!
The most upsetting part is that now I am going to have to go and wake up my infant son and take him in to the police station. Just the other day he assaulted me with a bubble gun. Did you hear that? A bubble GUN! Yet somehow I had no idea I was being assaulted and thought he was "just playing". Now my son is beyond saving. He will forever be a hoodlum. Do you see how insidious this conspiracy is? Clearly the only solution is to ban all detergent and lock up all the manufacturers. Soap too! It is a little known fact that soap can be used to make bubbles.
Every Apple handset locks you out of using the phone the way you want to just the same. Every handset fails just the same if you touch it in the right place. Every handset requires you to buy apps from the same store.
Thank you Mr Jobs, now take your locked down phone, your cloud and your rant and fuck off. Don't let your iPhone hit yer ass on the way out.
I think you were lucky to find an architect that actually provided guidance. Probably an ex developer that knew what he was doing. Too often good programmers try to hoard their knowledge.
Now so that my comment wouldn't be moderated too high I slip something about my feelings towards software development models here: Waterfall rules! Agile sucks! You just need to plan your projects beforehand! ;)
The reason Waterfall works is that it can be applied bottom up or top down very well, and the goal posts aren't shifting.
Agile in contrast is a mess. Define your test cases up front, but don't have your actual goals defined. It just doesn't work. It's bullshit. Like trying to make a cake by applying the icing first, then fill in and bake the dough...oh and by the way the cake mix and the pattern and colours for the icing keep changing.
So the best way to neutralise Darth Vader would have been a jolly good dose of antibiotics and instructions to wash his hands thoroughly before every meal?
That is certainly the case after the prequels. That's what you do when you get shit on your hands.
That's my problem with the cloud. Someone else owns it...and I have to trust my data to them.
Microsoft want to do fat OS, Office and dabble in media because that is their bread and butter and because these are capabilities that are needed on the desktop under the user's control.
To the contrary, most decent software architects will prevent the idle developers from writing YAF.
Yet to see this happen in practice. In practice you get a know it all architect who insists on doing things the hard way for future reuse, but that reuse never materialises either because it's too hard to make the code truely reusable and test it for reuse, or because the framework needs to be very specific to the project.
I heard that kind of statement a few years ago... where was it... oh yeah I remember, it was the mainframe guy at his retirement party, he was also talking about the good ol' days of CICS and hierarchical databases, and how nobody needs a GUI, textmode 80x25 was optimal.
CICS and mainframes did the job brilliantly, so much so that they are still used under the hood in a lot of places, with a thin web developed veneer.
A good software architect is someone with experience that will define the orientations and overview the selected design patterns; as such he is instrumental in improving the quality and avoiding useless complexity.
Again, I'm yet to see this in practice. My background? I'm a web developer. I've worked with a whole host of languages. Right now my focus is both Java and C. At various times I've worked with Powerbuilder, Visual Basic, Smalltalk, C++ and C#. When it comes to useless overengineering and unnecessary use of patterns Java absolutely takes the cake. I'd like to propose some alternate names to some of the patterns
Inversion of Control - Inversion of Common Sense with a sprinkling of XML hell
Proxy/Bridge - Useless Fucking Wrapper when I don't know what the fuck I'm building and need to hide it
Singleton - Destroyer of Scalability
MVC - Most Varied Confusion (I've never seen someone put 2 views against a single controller in a real life commercial project, but these days everyone wears that complexity because it is accepted that this is how it's done)
All of the above, used in the right place for the right purpose are fantastic, and in some cases they are absolutely necesary. Unfortunately the almost never are used properly.
Oh and while we're on Java, what the fuck is it with minor revisions hosing backward compatiblity. I'm looking at you Spring and Hibernate.
Don't even get me started on the preaching of various methodologies.
Agile Development - Quick lets run around like headless chooks and redevelop 7 times on the whim of the business user
Test Driven Development - Let's build the fucking bridge top down so we know that the arch looks pretty and works
The most productive I've seen software developed was in the pre-web days in the old Rapid Application Development environments. Delphi and C++ builder, to a lesser extent C# and VB. Yes I said VB. Nothing wrong with VB for screens so long as you hire competent programmers. It took 1 hour to lay out a screen where now the norm seems to be a week to lay out a web page with layer upon layer of MVC and patterns.
I think its more like having a single technical lead in a powerful position is a bad thing for management because they keep asking hard questions. So lets split the role into smaller project based positions, leaving the strategy to management and marketing.
I think it would be cheaper and more effective to leave the strategy to Paul the Octopus. He's probably nicer too.
I'm not a professional scientist or mathematician. I am however science qualified (Astronomy). I find their methods sloppy and their pandering to spectacular explosions revolting. It just isn't science. It's sloppy.
It's detrimental to keeping the science the domain of a snobbish elite. So people that try doing their own experiments are "idiots" unless done under conditions determined syousef? I agree with Carik, they often try to follow basic scientific principles and it is science (albeit rough and ready with a bit of added showbiz at the end for entertainment).
Phillip.
It's detrimental to present pseudo-science as science no matter who you are. Proper science is the antithesis of elitism. Some people are in fact idiots. Others are ignorant. This will be their only exposure to the scientific method. They walk away thinking they know science when in fact all they know is how to blow things up. It's not rough and ready science. If they were a little more focused on actually testing hypotheses instead of just blowing shit up they'd be brilliant. But they're not.
Unfortunatley, I always get modded down when I say this, despite the fact that it's true.
They are trained in special effects, not science. They like to make things go boom in a spectacular way. Science is just the excuse.
That is why you see weak hypotheses, flimsy controls, and wild generalisations. I don't know how many times I've looked at one of their "experiments" and thought "How the fuck can you conclude anything based on that sloppy bullshit" or "What if they'd tried this? There's a good chance it would have gone differently"
There is nothing wrong with a show about things exploding or about testing myths redneck style. But the issue I have with them is that they present things as science and make huge leaps of generalisation, which basically defecates on the scientific method. It goes completely against the scientific method. So idiots then turn around and mimic their sloppiness and think they are doing real science. It's very detrimental.
And she is unable to mention one magazine she reads. How they could be proud of such a moron I will never understand.
Wait! Hold the press! Sarah Palin can read????
Chiropractors are not doctors. They're phonies with made-up degrees. You might as well call a gardener a doctor. Actually, a gardener probably has a greater degree of knowledge of biology than a chiropractor.
What about Chiropractors that are gardeners? They're the best. So good that they wear their underwear on the outside. I use to see a guy who'd adjust my back and my pot plant's back all for the low fee of $399.99. I saved thousands on that deal and my pot plant's spine was never better. Unfortunately, on day I tried to ring and couldn't get through. I found out later that he retired early and moved to the Bahamas. Then I ran out of money and my pot plant died of malnutrition. But while we were seeing that Chiro, it was magic times.
I wasn't talking about injustice, nor modern conveniences. These are silly straw men.
I was talking about:
1) Manual labour and slavery, robots replacing slaves. We're not there yet. Robots are not sophisticated enough to replace human beings for many basic tasks - espeically household tasks required for luxury.
2) Your ridiculous claim that Romans had it good but everyone after them had it bad. You've taken the top tier of Roman society at the peak of the Roman empire, ignored the common man, and the lower and slave classes. Sure some Romans had it good for a while (at the expense of others). That doesn't mean everyone went from a life of opulence to scratching in the dirt with the fall of the Roman empire. Some of "The ancient Romans" you're talking about would have thought that slums were a huge step up from being beaten and raped on a daily basis. Others would consider rich and famous people having to do their own washing insane. You should study some history before making wild generalisations about it.
So what? Now we have mechanization and automation, rendering slavery needless.
Computers still can't do basic tasks that an ill educated servant could handle easily.
Show me a robot that can do all my household chores and mind my children unsupervised for a day. And I'm not talking about primitive Japanese gimmick vacuum robots.
Exactly. The Romans had a society and technology that was far, far more advanced than what came after. What came after was not pretty, nor fun to live in (unless you were a feudal lord perhaps).
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that Romans had slaves. Do you think it was much fun living in their technologically advanced society as a slave?
I'm sorry but I go to these stores for books that I wouldn't otherwise find, even online. how does THAT fit into your model of him removing value from brick and mortar stores?
If people start buying all the best books and selling them online there's no longer a need to go to the store.
It will never be all used book sales unless it becomes illegal to give a book away, or to set your own terms of redistribution.
Which is exactly how it is with books that are "licensed" rather than sold"
As a consumer you have a choice as to which media to purchase. I don't buy DRM-restricted media.
No you don't. It's not always an option to go without the book as it is with entertainment. Think textbook. Unless of course you're claiming your convictions are so strong you'd give up an education just so you don't buy something DRM encumbered.
I had my one brief stint with systems designed to shit on First Sale law when I purchased Half-Life 2; Never again will I touch anything Steam-powered. Nor, indeed, will I purchase any media which has any purchase proof requirement beyond a CD key.
Never say never. I too like to avoid DRM and have no DRM encumbered books or music. I can't say the same about software because I would be missing out on a lot if I refused to buy any piece of software that had DRM. Again, I'm not just talking about games. I have no illusions that under circumstances where DRM or going without is my only options that I can always go without.
Don't you mean that it's dying for all the right reasons? Used bookstores which buy rafts of crap just to build stock are the problem, and good riddance.
The problem is it's not just them that will go, it's all used book sales. Instead we'll likely wind up with licenses and have to keep re-buying in multiple formats as the publishers milk us for every cent.
Why aren't the books doing this themselves?
The reason's simple. These retailers make a profit by offering the opportunity to find a precious gem in amongst a ton of crap books. If someone takes all the gems, the viability of the stores diminish. If the stores did this themselves, no one would come to the physical store, and they'd make a pittance selling the few worthwhile books.
So the underlying problem is that the stores are unsustainable, and the guy with the scanner exacerbates the problem.
I'm afraid the second hand book trade is dying for all the wrong reasons. You simply can't build a long term bookselling system on greed and hoarding. By now all books should be freely available online in a searchable format and unencumbered by DRM (but not necessarily free to access). But again there are problems with that because too many people would just take the books (in fact that's already happening).
My wife has severe food allergies that make eating out akin to Russian roulette (for both of us since I can in theory cause an anaphylactic reaction just by kissing her). She compensates by cooking wonderful food. It tastes no less wonderful eating it in front of a TV.
This whole study is nonsense.
Airline food is bland because it is pre-packaged long life shit and instant tv dinners produced in a tiny galley on a budget. Blaming the background noise is ridiculous. It's a "dog ate my homework" excuse.
You failed to use a car analogy so I'll fix that for you.
Actually, mine was a Simpsons reference. That is an approved alternative to a car analogy.
Goddamn operator overloading ;-)