Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
It's funny.  Laugh.

Cooking for Engineers 432

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. :)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cooking for Engineers

Comments Filter:
  • by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:22PM (#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 @09:23PM (#10218400) Journal
    no self-respecting engineer would use Imperial instead of metric

  • by stangbat ( 690193 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:24PM (#10218406)
    At least it is in my home: How to Brew [howtobrew.com].
  • Re:Charts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AchilleTalon ( 540925 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:26PM (#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:Poor guy... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dschl ( 57168 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:26PM (#10218414) Homepage
    Yeah, now's the time to indulge in complaining about /. "editors" not even bothering to look at the sites they post. Either Michael is stupid, or he is a heartless bast**d. Or both.

    Hope the site is still up in a month, and that I'll still remember to look at it by then.

  • I agree! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jon_c ( 100593 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:30PM (#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 Anonymous Coward on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:40PM (#10218492)
    If that's an Intel chip, it should be:

    11. MOV oral_cavity, product

    ~~~

  • by Coupons ( 793098 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:45PM (#10218520) Homepage
    Steps 2 and 3 look easy enough.
    I've been working on step 1 for 35 years without much success.
    Perhaps it could be factored into a. b. c. ...
  • by rampant mac ( 561036 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:49PM (#10218532)
    "But go look at how he's presented it. Most recipes are designed for women, and their funny way of looking at the world."

    "Designed for women and their funny way of looking at the world." I, honestly, can not even think of something remotely humorous to respond to this post. People wonder why we can't get laid? This statement effectively sets us back to the Stone Ages. Cro-Magna Phi Epsilon, represent!

    It ain't so funny when you consider the thing you want the most, their uterus, falls under the "funny way of looking at the things" category.

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AdamHaun ( 43173 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:58PM (#10218569) Journal
    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.
  • art not science (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:03PM (#10218590)
    cooking is an art not a science.
  • Weighing (Score:4, Insightful)

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

    Not measuring by volume.

    Especialy with dry good(flour, etc)
  • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:10PM (#10218616)
    To understand the modern recipie you have understand it's history and just what it is it's trying to tell you.

    The recipie as we know it comes to us from the French school of cooking. The French follow the practice of preparing all of the ingredients first and then applying process to them.

    So the list of ingredients isn't simply a list, it's a list of things to do.

    Chop some foo, put it in a bowl. Now take these spices, put them all in another bowl. Dice some bar, put it in a third bowl.

    Now apply process 1 to bowl 1, etc.

    It's perfectly concise and understandable once you understand the meta instructions.

    Frankly I find those diagrams nearly unreadable and representative of what's wrong with most engineering manuals, but then I was raised by women.

    KFG
  • Re:Charts (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pepsee ( 6891 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:13PM (#10218632)
    It is puzzling why most recipe books don't use a hierarchical format for the ingredients. I often recopy recipes into a structured format so I can maintain mise en place.

    If you want to make Chinese food, try getting some of the recipe books by Weichuan, the Taiwanese food company. I have one of their books from the 1980s or so, which uses a nice format of grouping ingredients.
  • Re:Basic idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spitzak ( 4019 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:14PM (#10218642) Homepage
    Tables look pretty good in an old Konqueror. I can see where he wants the vertical text, but to be honest I think the horizontal version I got is more readable.
  • Re:It's a forgery (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Moofie ( 22272 ) <lee@ringofsat u r n.com> on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:15PM (#10218646) Homepage
    Any self-respecting engineer would be comfortable using either system.
  • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sahrss ( 565657 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:25PM (#10218713)
    Way to overreact. I read that as he was just poking fun :)
  • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GnomeAttic ( 97126 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:30PM (#10218739) Homepage
    Don't forget female engineers! It really is a very ignorant post. Shame on the mods for including it.
  • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by radishthegreat ( 677501 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:40PM (#10218769) Homepage
    Mod parent up. The Slashdot Way is to cover ignorance with disdain...but I know more women who can't cook than I know men who can't (which sucks for me because I was hoping "excellent cook" would look great on my girlfriend resume *grin*).

    Cooking is truly a joy for geeks; it's a big science experiment everytime you try something new. Plus, cooking is very analogous to programming; there are certain conventions and vocabulary you have to learn, and from there out you get better the more you do it. Make something enough times, and you can spot ways to do it better/faster/more elegantly, and pretty soon you don't even need the book. Once you learn a certain style it's even easier to pick up new ones. And the GADGETS!

  • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kaimelar ( 121741 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:50PM (#10218812) Homepage
    Why can't cooking be a combination of art and science?

    I agree. I love to cook -- it makes people happy to serve them good food, I get to play with knives, alcohol, and fire, and I find it a great way to relax after work. Work for me is software development, and I see a lot of parallels between my profession and cooking. The way I look at it, in both you are given a set of tools and basic rules to follow -- in software the "rules" may be syntax or design patterns, in cooking it may be "rosemary goes well with tomatos" or "olive oil allows spices to soak into the chicken in a marinade". These "rules" are there for a reason, because they work. You can get a lot done following them, be they an algorithm or a recipie. However, as one spends time in either dicipline, you can begin to be more creative -- you see the overall trends, you use shortcuts, hacks, and other tricks gained from experience.

    I find writing code and playing in my kitchen to be both codified and science-like, as well as being spontanious and creative.

  • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RovingSlug ( 26517 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:52PM (#10218827)
    Most recipes are designed for women, and their funny way of looking at the world.

    Is completely uncalled for. ... Way to be sexist, Slashdot.

    What makes it sexist? Did he say the recipes were bad? That women were bad? That the recipes were dumb? That women were dumb? Anything at all that implies anything bad? ... or are you just inferring something bad, which is more a reflection of you than the original comment?

    As an engineer, I'm proud of my funny way of looking at the world. Most engineers are. So, I don't see how it'd be an insult to describe someone else in the same manner.

  • Re:Poor guy... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:02PM (#10218890)
    The worst part about it is after he spends a buttload to upgrade his service, things will go back to where they were and he will be paying for way more than needs.
  • Re:Poor guy... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dschl ( 57168 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:05PM (#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:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AdamHaun ( 43173 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:05PM (#10218910) Journal
    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:Charts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Methuseus ( 468642 ) <methuseus@yahoo.com> on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:16PM (#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.
  • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RovingSlug ( 26517 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:26PM (#10218998)
    Well, I checked with my girldfriend. Apparently, I'm an insentive clod. :)

    You're still reaching when it comes to a direct insult. Half the people that call me "funny" don't mean it precisely as a compliment, and definitely don't imply superiority. And, I'm sure plenty of the women that are excellent cooks are perfectly proud of their abilities, so I don't see why it's presumed to be odd and ineffective to refer to them as "funny" in the same manner.

    The biggest generalization of the statement is the implied "women cook, men don't". That I'll agree is sexist and warrants issue.

  • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by starm_ ( 573321 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:37PM (#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.
  • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MacDork ( 560499 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @12:19AM (#10219194) Journal
    Most recipes are designed for women, and their funny way of looking at the world

    What, exactly, is so offensive about that statement? Men and women have very different information processing abilities. Don't let yourself get so wrapped up in political correctness. As I've already said in an earlier post, read the part about drawing bicycles. [abc.net.au] Ignoring scientific fact in the name of political correctness is for politicians, not nerds :-)

  • by Desert Raven ( 52125 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @12:23AM (#10219206)
    "Designed for women and their funny way of looking at the world."

    What a crock of shite.

    OK, first, nearly half of my cookbooks are written by *men*. Highly successful men in their field. I can't find any difference between their books and those written by their female counterparts. I have no trouble at all understanding these instructions, nor do I have any trouble with adjusting them to my own tastes.

    This isn't about male/female, it's about whether you ever learned to cook. It certainly isn't rocket-science, though I'll admit that some things require a LOT of skill and patience. Making puff-pastry requires a very skillfull hand, and 1-2 days. But this is no different than experience and learning being the difference between "hello world" and being able to code a polygon shading algorithm.

    There are a lot of things around that remind me that women have different viewpoints on things than men, but cookbooks aren't on that list.
  • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 808140 ( 808140 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @12:47AM (#10219278)
    There are lots of people that claim that there is an inherent difference in processing capabilities between women and men; everytime some crackpot does, it's all over Newsweek and other "scientifically rigorous" sources, like Fox News or CNN. More often than not, the research is not published in peer-reviewed journals. When it has been, all of these claims have been completely debunked, everytime. People used to claim that Black people were more like monkeys than white people, too. There's lots of "scientific evidence" for this from even fairly well respected scientists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Saying that this is complete and utter bullshit is not being politically correct, it's just actually paying attention to science. There's just no basis for it.

    You say you're a nerd, but you throw around meaningless trite like "scientific fact" and link to ABC TV as a source of science?

    You know, when John Lennon said "woman is the nigger of the world" I thought he was exaggerating, but running into people prattling this sort of ridiculous nonsense just makes my blood boil. You should be ashamed of yourself, really. If you're going to try to convince some backwoods uneducated redneck that women are mentally inferior -- oh no, wait, they aren't inferior, it's just that they suck at math and science and are good at "social things", right? (sarcasm) -- then by all means, go ahead and give them your link.

    If you're going to come onto Slashdot and do it, have the decency to respect our intelligence and provide links to peer-reviewed journals with experiments that have been repeated by people that didn't come into the equation already agreeing with the experiment's outcome. Then -- and only then -- will I begin to take this "Women have different mental strengths than men" bullshit.

    You call it science, but it's just sexism. Plain and simple.
  • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @01:19AM (#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 connorbd ( 151811 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @01:52AM (#10219430) Homepage
    I mentioned in another post Cooks Illustrated -- they've got the scientific approach down. And we can't forget Julia -- after all, Mastering the Art of French Cooking was as much about technique as it was recipes.

    Truthfully, I think Alton Brown would point to Harold McGee, as would Shirley Corriher and Howard Hillman.
  • Re:Charts (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pbaumgar ( 595159 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @01:56AM (#10219438)
    "I agree that the average person won't make an excellent chef, and that it takes more than a recipe to make excellent food." No. Most recipes suck. They assume the person knows how to cook at the basic level (ie. saute, braising, broiling, baking, seasoning, etc.) Most people don't understand basic cooking skills. You don't learn these by following a recipe. You don't learn proper seasoning by following recipes. Cooking and cooking correctly is a skill, honed by hours of practice. There is no right or wrong, but when it comes to basic cooking techniques and seasoning, there is. Salt is good... most people don't understand that simple phrase.
  • Strange (Score:2, Insightful)

    by davidgay ( 569650 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @02:11AM (#10219472)
    I could've sworn I had several cookery books in the same style (list of ingredients, list of instructions). Strangely, they weren't marketed as "cooking for engineers", rather they tend to be basic cookery books. An example: ISBN: 0140460179. Original edition: 1952 (predates slashdot, and most (99.99%?) of the computer industry).
  • Re:Poor guy... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @04:46AM (#10219763)
    Not having thought it through much, I am guessing some sites would be upset about a :8090 link because it could affect advertising tracking and revenue.

    Hopefully, someone who knows a bit more about this matter will hop in the thread and explain it all.
  • by shermozle ( 126249 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @05:42AM (#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.
  • by AdamHaun ( 43173 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @11:02AM (#10220635) Journal
    Nobody said that this guy's recipes aren't different or that the idea isn't cool. What I dispute is the idea that a list of materials followed by a list of instructions is in any way tied to women, or that there was any justification for that comment. For comparison, go here [smartdesks.com] and read any of the instructions on assembling desks. Surprise! They follow the same format! Maybe you should stop being anti-"PC" long enough to read what's actually being said.

    On a side note, the original site's recipe format would work very well for furniture, too.

  • Good riddance (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ExistentialFeline ( 696559 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @11:50AM (#10220893)
    Thank you, slashdot, for posting those kinds of comments on the front page. As a female engineer I really don't need this first thing in the morning. I am rewriting my hosts file right now.

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...