Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Cooking for Engineers

Posted by michael on Fri Sep 10, 2004 08:12 PM
from the fold-spindle-mutilate dept.
gbjbaanb writes "It's not often I post about a website, but this one is different. It is Cooking For Engineers. No big deal, you'd think - a web site about recipes and cooking. But go look at how he's presented it. Most recipes are designed for women, and their funny way of looking at the world. These are very different and instantly understandable for tech geeks like us. Oh yes, although he's been affected by firefox, he blames Microsoft. :)"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Poor guy... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ack154 (591432) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:13PM (#10218343)
    Kind of ironic that todays post was about traffic:
    All I can say now is: WOW!


    On Wednesday, my readership started to increase from 20-40 hits per day to over 150 hits. I was starting to approach 1000 total hits and was pretty excited about that, when on Thursday I received almost 2000 hits. Right now, (a little past 2:30pm Pacific Daylight Savings Time) I have received almost 6000 hits for Friday.

    Yesterday, with less than 2000 hits I exceeded by bandwidth traffic limitations for the MONTH. Thursday's transfers were in excess of 1 GB. I immediately upgraded the service from doteasy.com's free service to the highest tiered pay service, but that only gives me 20 GB per month. So, I'm in a bit of a pickle. I'm guessing the 20 GB will last only through the weekend.

    So, I need suggestions on low cost HIGH traffic (I guess I'll need about 10 GB per day) servers that I can move my website to. I don't need too much space (100 MB will last a long time) because the site is currently only 8 MB.

    As a warning this website might go down, but I'll do everything I can to keep it up and running.

    I'm also thinking about putting up a paypal donation thing, but that isn't going to help unless I can find a host that will be able to allow enough monthly traffic for the website to survive.

    You can post comments here or e-mail me at cooking@cookingforengineers.com.
    Poor guy... already having bandwidth troubles and then someone slashdots him...
    • Coral Cache (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 10 2004, @08:33PM (#10218448)

      perhaps this might help him
      courtesy of the Coral Distribution Network [nyu.edu]

      http://www.cookingforengineers.com.nyud.net:8090/ [nyud.net]

      save his bandwidth and use that

        • Re:Poor guy... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dschl (57168) on Friday September 10 2004, @10:05PM (#10218908) Homepage
          >Use coral. In the articles I've submitted (0/2 posted) my links were coralized.

          The real question is, why don't the editors do it? Would it take too much time out of his busy, busy day for Michael to add nydu.net:8090 to a posting? If Perl is such a kickin' language, why doesn't Taco make links default to Coral if they are not submitted with it in the first place? That's largely what Coral was set up for - they even mention the /. effect by name on their site.

                • Re:Poor guy... (Score:5, Interesting)

                  by dschl (57168) on Saturday September 11 2004, @08:31AM (#10220357) Homepage
                  Generally, the people you reference who care deeply about statistics are not too worried about their bandwidth costs. I presume you recall how this thread started: the guy who runs the site is being crushed by the bandwidth demands, and a slashdotting was the last thing he wanted or needed.

                  A coral cache isn't for use for every link you post - it is a perfect tool for links from sites which act as a lens, focusing a ton of traffic (such as slashdot, memepool, etc), much like the flash crowds in Niven novels. Low traffic sites such as my personal sites will never need to reference third party sites via a coral link, but then I get so little traffic that a link from my site is not going to even be noticed, let alone cause problems to any third party. Such is not the case with slashdot.

                  Fine, don't use coral for a link to Amazon, or IBM. But use some judgement - it would be nice to be able to still visit the smaller (personal) sites and actually read the stories more than 1 minute after the site hits the main page. The smaller tech company site announcements about new products would likely appreciate avoiding a slashdotting.

                  Also, Coral lists the IPs and hostnames [nyu.edu] of all of their servers, and updates a page every five minutes - if you were really obsessive about your stats, you could flag coral servers, and write a script to pull them from your Apache logs. If you saw them every five minutes, you could then safely assume that someone was saving your site from a hammering.

                  You are truly paranoid, though. Coral [nyu.edu] is a university research project, hosted by volunteer mirrors. Apart from the fact that there are no hidden agendas or nefarious motives behind Coral, I doubt that the traffic stats for a flash crowd are very meaningful or marketable given the breadth of content covered over a month (mile wide, inch deep). For the revenues from the type of info Coral could collect, I doubt that it would even be worth the costs of setting up the hardware for caching servers, let alone writing the software and paying the bandwidth charges and staff time.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 10 2004, @08:14PM (#10218348)
    Also read: The Science of Cooking by Peter Barham
  • Charts (Score:5, Informative)

    by keiferb (267153) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:15PM (#10218353) Homepage
    Those charts are genious.

    I can't count the number of times I've gotten lost following a recipe in a real cook book, but these things take a lot less time to read, and look like they'd be a lot easier to follow throughout the process.

    Plus, they're a lot more compact than a written-out recipe. That means I can fit more of them in my recipe bo...

    aw, who am I kidding?
    • As a food geek, I'm impresed. If more recepis were written out like that I know more people who would relise that they didn't need to be slaves to processed food.....your right, who am I kidding?
    • Re:Charts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AchilleTalon (540925) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:26PM (#10218411) Homepage
      Well, seems engineers are easy to impress. And these pizza eaters just don't know cooking is an art, not a science. So, even if you have a good structure to support the ingredients, turning it into a real chef d'oeuvre need more than finite element analysis.

      I'd rather than like to see a cooking book from a chemist. These guys knows the difference between concrete and whipped cream.

      • Re:Charts (Score:4, Interesting)

        by dschl (57168) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:45PM (#10218516) Homepage
        There are a couple out there. I got one for Christmas a few years back, called CookWise [indigo.ca] by Shrley O. Corriher. I haven't used it much (I tend to use Extending the Table [indigo.ca] more often). Most of CookWise is about the how and why - the science behind cooking.
        • Re:Charts (Score:5, Interesting)

          by AchilleTalon (540925) on Friday September 10 2004, @09:52PM (#10218826) Homepage
          Seriously, cooking has become really a scientific field studied at some universities. The reason I didn't mentionned it at start is I just don't remember the details. But I think a chemist at La Sorbonne a few others around the world, including one in Montreal (but may be it's a physicist) started studying and teaching cooking from the scientific point of view. Apparently, some well know Chef's are seriously consulting them. Among other astonished accomplishements, they found the exact ideal temperature and humidity to cook an egg. That's not a joke! The egg white is not liquid, nor solid. Something like this strange mix called liquid-solid.

          All this to say this engineering book about cooking is just a cook book about cooking and not real science.

      • Re:Charts (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Methuseus (468642) <<methuseus> <at> <yahoo.com>> on Friday September 10 2004, @10:16PM (#10218965)
        So, are you saying that the average joe, who can follow a table recipe instead of a standard recipe, won't make anything that tastes as good as a frozen meal?

        I agree that the average person won't make an excellent chef, and that it takes more than a recipe to make excellent food. But to make good food that most people will eat merely takes a recipe and someone who can follow it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 10 2004, @08:15PM (#10218354)
    I thought there was already a Patron Saint chef of geeks... Alton Brown!
  • XML (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TedTschopp (244839) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:16PM (#10218362) Homepage
    How about creating an XML namespace for this format...

    That could be fun....

    Ted Tschopp
  • Chart Idea Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MagicDude (727944) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:19PM (#10218380)
    That's a great way of presenting all the steps in the process. Whenever I cook, I always assume that the long step is always the last one (Bake for 90 minutes, simmer for 30 minutes, etc). I've had to order out for chineese many times when trying new receipies because step 4 of 12 is something like "Marinate for 29 hours", and you know, I didn't really bother to read past the list of ingredients. I just figure that if I don't have to shop for it, I can cook it that day.
    • by rgmoore (133276) * <glandauer@charter.net> on Friday September 10 2004, @08:56PM (#10218560) Homepage

      Perhaps you should learn a lesson from this: read everything before you do anything. It isn't necessarily just a question how long the recipie takes, either. Sometimes a recipie will call for a tool or pan that you don't have and can't improvise easily. Sometimes you'll have to time things so that two subcomponents of a recipie come are finished at the same time. Just remember that you should know the whole recipie before starting and you'll save yourself a world of grief.

  • by Daleks (226923) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:19PM (#10218381)
    1. Find a woman who can tolerate you.
    2. Enter the kitchen with her.
    3. Do whatever she says.

    Actually, if you leave out step 2 the other steps nearly always apply.
    • by kfg (145172) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:43PM (#10218506)
      3. Do whatever she says.

      Mine always says, "Feed me."

      I'm a much better cook than she is. That's ok, she's a much better welder. These are modern times. I make the Pad Thai, she makes the locomotives. It works for us.

      I read recipies, but I don't "follow" them. I read them to get ideas, just as I use engineering manuals to get ideas, not find solutions. The books never have the questions I'm working on in them. When we ride on trains she'd be happier knowing I had designed it, I'd be happier knowing she'd built it. We don't ride trains much. We know too much.

      The trick is to learn your ingredients and processes, then whatever you happen to have in the house (and/or lawn. Dandelions, purslane, violets, clover, day lilies, chicory, all wonderful foodstuffs) becomes your "recipie."

      Recipies are great for the beginner or casual cook, but the idea really is to go beyond them, to use them as lab practicums to understand what you're doing and why.

      Recipies are rarely presented this way though. Read James Beard's Theory and Practice of Good Cooking. It's full of recipies, but they're all there to illustrate a point, much as a good engineering manual.

      KFG
        • by kfg (145172) on Saturday September 11 2004, @12:19AM (#10219363)
          That's why God invented soups and stews. You make one huge pot of something that you can eat out of at will during the week. Keep "evolving" it for variety. What starts out on Sunday as a couple gallons of lentil soup ends up as a few bowls of lentil and potato curry by Thursday.

          The entire art of homemade "convienience" foods seems to have died out, in fact the two are often considered antithetical, but the microwave oven makes them an more valid than ever.

          Rice and bean dishes are also excellent for cooking in bulk.

          Then when she wants to eat at 6, but you want to cook until 9, you can prepare her (or she can help herself) a quicky mini-meal with a cup of hot chocolate (or wine if her taste turns in that direction), and you're free to cook until the contentment of that wears off.

          KFG
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 10 2004, @08:20PM (#10218387)
    "layer and spread twice." I don't know whether to be hungry or horny!

    ~~~

  • by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Friday September 10 2004, @08:22PM (#10218397) Homepage Journal
    In a standard recipe, ingredients are listed in the order in which you use them. I don't see what's so peculiar about that that makes it "womanly"

    If you look at the whole recipes on his site, there's still your normail, detailed instructions. I guess it's nice having a quick synopsis at-a-glance, but I'm going to carefully read the entire recipe if it's new to me before I even begin mis en place

    This is especially true with baking which is much more akin to chemistry than, say, tomato sauce.
  • It's a forgery (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nutshell42 (557890) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:23PM (#10218400) Journal
    no self-respecting engineer would use Imperial instead of metric

    • by El (94934) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:33PM (#10218454)
      Yeah, but where do I find an oven that's calibrated in degrees Kelvin?
      • by base3 (539820) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:42PM (#10218503)
        <nerd>It's just "Kelvin," not "degrees Kelvin," damn it :).</nerd>
      • Re:It's a forgery (Score:5, Informative)

        by GrimReality (634168) on Friday September 10 2004, @09:57PM (#10218854) Homepage Journal
        Yeah, but where do I find an oven that's calibrated in degrees Kelvin?

        If you are an engineer, you could probably get one, albeit, really expensive and probably not built to easily accommodate standard kitchen stuff. :-)

        By the way, there is no 'degrees Kelvin'. It is an absolute unit, and it is just 'kelvin'. Yeah, there is no 'Kelvin' only 'kelvin', unless you are saying 'Lord Kelvin' :-)

        So much pedantry for the day :-) LoL

    • Re:It's a forgery (Score:3, Interesting)

      by irokitt (663593)
      Alright, I'll bite. I'm American, and I hate the Imperial system, and use metric whenever I can. But I got sick of all of my friends asking me to convert things to Imperial, so when talking to other people I just try to make the leap.

      If this guy had used metric, every US reader would have either left his site right away or e-mailed him to complain about it.

      To make matters worse, you wouldn't believe how hard it can sometimes be to find metric measuring cups in America!
    • by frantzdb (22281) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:59PM (#10218572) Homepage
      Bah! Unlike scientists, engineers are bilingual. Just remember, there are about 0.1554slugs of flour in a five-pound bag.
  • by stangbat (690193) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:24PM (#10218406)
    At least it is in my home: How to Brew [howtobrew.com].
  • by hattig (47930) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:27PM (#10218421) Journal
    Come on ... "cooking for engineers" ... use Metric for chrissakes.

    I once read a recipe : "1 cup banana" ... no kidding.

    Americans ...
  • I agree! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jon_c (100593) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:30PM (#10218437) Homepage
    As am amateur cook and professional engineer I was very impressed with the layout. I can not tell you how many times I have misread a recipe because I skimmed the English looking for the next step. Last week I skipped 3 hours of a second rise on a bread I already spent 18 hours on, if only I had not missed that step! This layout is simply brilliant, ingredients on the Y, steps/time on the X. It couldn't be more strait forward. Now we just need to get EVERYONE doing this!
  • by GillBates0 (664202) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:31PM (#10218439) Homepage Journal
    1. Goto store
    2. Insert 12, eggs, cart
    3. Insert 1lb, butter, cart
    4. Mov $5.00, wallet, store_clerk
    5. Goto home
    6. Mov pan, grill
    7. heating = 05
    8. Mov 1oz, butter, pan
    9. Mov 2, eggs, pan
    10. sleep (1000)
    11. Mov product, oral_cavity
    12. end
  • by TheMysteriousFuture (707972) * <TheMysteriousFuture@@@gmail...com> on Friday September 10 2004, @08:33PM (#10218447) Journal
    Here's the Coral P2P Webcache [slashdot.org] of the Main page [nyud.net] and a example recipe [nyud.net]

    Note: Cache includes images (vs google link posted above).

    PS: somebody [slashdot.org] wrote a javascript bookmarklet [gotdoof.com] that'll take you to the coral cache of the page you are on. There's also a offical Coralize plugin for Mozilla [nyu.edu]
  • by lakeland (218447) <lakeland@acm.org> on Friday September 10 2004, @08:34PM (#10218462) Homepage
    I found the layout of the recipe very nice, but it just doesn't scale if the steps are particularly complex -- look at how creme brulee was described if you don't believe me. However, something very similar that does scale is the latex style cooking by Axel Reichert (CTAN link: http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contr ib/cooking/ [ctan.org])

    The essential difference is that instead of nesting columns, Axel's style uses only two columns which enables the second column to be very large if necessary. Though I've got to admit that for simple recipies, the cooking for engineer's site looks very good.

    PS: Cooking is a great way to unwind after spending all day coding, especially if you don't mind the meal taking a few hours (and glasses of wine) to prepare...
  • by MsGeek (162936) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:36PM (#10218475) Homepage Journal
    http://www.kitchengeek.com/ [kitchengeek.com]

    Very good site...very geeky guy...very kewl recipes.

  • Here's Mine (Score:5, Funny)

    by superid (46543) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:38PM (#10218485) Homepage

    "Microwave Until Hot"

    yep, and I'm an engineer too
  • Phewww!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ImTwoSlick (723185) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:39PM (#10218488)
    For a second there, I thought the title said:

    Cooking Foreigners

    Needs more salt.

  • by bunnyman (121652) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:53PM (#10218549)
    1) Point out that IE is not standards compliant.
    2) Submit story.
    3) Allow web server to bake until golden brown.
    4) Enjoy!
  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AdamHaun (43173) on Friday September 10 2004, @08:58PM (#10218569)
    The linked site actually gives a pretty cool way of doing recipes. This comment, however:

    Most recipes are designed for women, and their funny way of looking at the world

    Is completely uncalled for. What part of

    Name of Food

    Ingredients

    Instructions

    is in any way some sort of "funny way of looking at the world"? It's not like there aren't plenty of male cooks, either. Way to be sexist, Slashdot.
      • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AdamHaun (43173) on Friday September 10 2004, @10:05PM (#10218910)
        sexism (skszm)
        n.

        1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
        2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

        Note in particular definition 2. The original sentence was a blanket statement with nothing to back it up and no purpose other than to say "hey, look, women are *different* and *weird*". Sexism is about more than calling people bad. If you must find an insult in there before you're satisfied, compare "funny" with "for engineers"; the implication being that the latter is superior while the former is odd and ineffective.

        If there had been any context whatsoever for the statement, I wouldn't have bothered to say anything, but the fact that it was so out of place led me to speak up.
      • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by starm_ (573321) on Friday September 10 2004, @10:37PM (#10219046)
        yeah really I can't believe that none of the posts complaining about sexism didn't notice that the text implied women's arent (or maybe even shouldn't be) engineers.
  • Weighing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quill_28 (553921) on Friday September 10 2004, @09:07PM (#10218605) Journal
    Engineers should be weighing their ingredients.

    Not measuring by volume.

    Especialy with dry good(flour, etc)
  • CSS mindwarps (Score:4, Interesting)

    by danharan (714822) on Friday September 10 2004, @09:26PM (#10218723) Journal
    OK, the guy is doing something quite nice with his recipes- a way to quickly see how ingredients are grouped is a very creative and useful way to organize things.

    My frustration is how he expresses the problem with CSS:
    My recipe summaries don't display properly in browsers other than Internet Explorer. This is mainly because Internet Explorer is not fully CSS standard compliant and I had to come up with creative ways to get IE to present the table the way I desired it to.
    Unfortunately, some of the other browsers are standards compliant and render the tables awkwardly.
    I find that interpretation frustrating.

    What is unfortunate is not that a standards compliant browser would properly display IE's mangled HTML/CSS- it's that we have to mangle it for IE in the first place.

    I wish more designers would design for the standards-compliant browsers first. Add a ie-kludge.css import every time you detect IE if necessary.

    Anyhow... I hope the guy does well. You can't be too upset at a guy's CSS if he has a nice recipe explanation for making Tiramisu on his front page.
  • Cooking HOWTO videos (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kaimelar (121741) on Friday September 10 2004, @09:58PM (#10218861) Homepage
    While we're on the subject of cooking, Epicurious [epicurious.com] has a pretty neat section of HOWTO videos (, covering everything from dicing an onion to carving a turkey to working dough properly. They can be seen at http://www.epicurious.com/cooking/how_to/video/ [epicurious.com]. Lots of other great content on that site -- I've learned a lot from them.

    The videos are in Real format, just in case you were wondering.

  • by Animats (122034) on Friday September 10 2004, @11:13PM (#10219172) Homepage
    There's such a thing as engineered recipes, but these aren't it. Engineered recipes are for volume production in food plants.

    Serious recipes have tolerances. What temperatures are needed, and how tightly do times and temperature have to be controlled? What's the effect of ambient humidity? Here's a oven for a commercial bakery. [nicholsonequipment.com]. 6 heat zones, digital temperature control, and a conveyor belt. The bakery with a unit like that has recipes that tell how to set it up for each product they make. There's no market for a few thousand slightly burnt rolls. Some jobs need a fancy oven like that. Others are less critical. Some jobs (especially pastries) [hornoslago.com] need even finer control.

    There are safety issues. See this microorganism lethality calculator. [rpaulsingh.com] That's a key part of an industrial recipe.

    Here are some engineered home recipes [qis.net]. These are intended for use in a programmable home bread-making machine. [walmart.com] Note the comments:

    • Measure all ingredients exactly -- close is not "good enough".
    • Water temperature must be between 70 and 80 degrees Farenheit.
    • Use flour specifically designed for bread machines; it rises better than all-purpose flour.
    • Load ingredients in the pan in the order listed.
    • Keep yeast away from liquids.
    Now that's what real engineered recipes look like, tolerances, computer control, and all.
  • by I don't want to spen (638810) on Saturday September 11 2004, @01:36AM (#10219532) Journal
    ... It must be open sauce ...
  • by shermozle (126249) on Saturday September 11 2004, @04:42AM (#10219879) Homepage
    If this was truly for engineers, it would use metric units and wouldn't mix volume and weight units unnecessarily. Using cups for recipes is ridiculous considering the possible variations in texture and grain size.
  • tech cooking (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mabu (178417) * on Saturday September 11 2004, @02:08PM (#10221963)
    I wouldn't consider this site to be more than a cooking-enthusiast's blog with an interesting recipe format. There doesn't seem to be any "engineer"-included aspects or approach to the content IMO.

    As a software designer that goofs off with cooking, I think I take a more tech approach. For example, I've started smoking various meats and making my own beef jerky, but I've also been trying dozens of different kinds of woods, some plain, some soaked in different types of liquids and alcohol and researching the ways in which the smoking process with different wood imparts flavor to the food. I've also been working on designing a way to interface an electric smoker to a dehydrator to automate the process of making beef jerky with a true smoky flavor.

    I have friends who have designed their own cooking grills and monitoring systems. Those things seem more like an engineers approach to cooking. This site, while interesting, isn't anything special.

    Then again, maybe this guy is using an overclocked Pentium as his heating element?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 11 2004, @12:51AM (#10219426)
      "People wonder why we can't get laid?"

      1) Turn the box off.
      2) Open the blinds, curtains, shades, etc. and check to see if it is day or night.
      3) Clean up the old pizza boxes, dirty dishes, and other assorted junk around the box.
      4) Clean and bleach the kitchen and bathroom, and change the sheets on the bed.
      5) Shower, brush your teeth, slath on some deoderant, and dress in clean street clothes. (Put the the old plaid bathrobe you have been wearing for the past 3 months in a strong plastic bag. Or better yet burn it.)
      6) Walk out the door.

      This method isn't foolproof, but with the simple act of getting the hell out of the house you will increase your odds of getting laid by 100%.

      Oh yes......if you do find yourself in the company of an interesting female you may further increase your odds by asking for what you want. We can't read your minds.

      Just a thought from a female...