Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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This discussion has been archived.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 Anonymous Coward on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:14PM (#10218348)
    Also read: The Science of Cooking by Peter Barham
  • XML (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TedTschopp ( 244839 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:16PM (#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 @09:19PM (#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 lakeland ( 218447 ) <lakeland@acm.org> on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:34PM (#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...
  • Re:It's a forgery (Score:3, Interesting)

    by irokitt ( 663593 ) <archimandrites-iaur@@@yahoo...com> on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:36PM (#10218477)
    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 kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:43PM (#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
  • Re:Charts (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dschl ( 57168 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:45PM (#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.
  • Wikimeda Cookbook (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mnemonic_ ( 164550 ) <jamec@umich. e d u> on Friday September 10, 2004 @09:56PM (#10218558) Homepage Journal
    Also try Wikimedia Cookbook [wikibooks.org]. Try the Lembas Bread [wikibooks.org] recipe.
  • Re:Poor guy... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:20PM (#10218683)
  • by Moofie ( 22272 ) <lee AT ringofsaturn DOT com> on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:23PM (#10218705) Homepage
    What you mean "we", white man? My ability to prepare cheesecake has gotten me laid more times than my ability to analyze a free body diagram.

    I totally agree that the article header is pretty offensive, though. I've been a cook longer than I've been an engineer, and I wouldn't trust an engineer that can't follow a simple recipe.
  • CSS mindwarps (Score:4, Interesting)

    by danharan ( 714822 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:26PM (#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.
  • Re:What is a cup? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hattig ( 47930 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:48PM (#10218801) Journal
    Apart from 'cup' which is not a measure of weight.

    I've never seen a cooking book in the UK that uses a measurement of volume for non-liquids in a recipe. I simply have no /concept/ of what a cup of beef chunks is. I understand what 1lb or 450g of beef chunks is though.

    I mean, I have tea cups, coffee mugs, my big double sized coffee mug, an expresso cup ... which one?

    What if I've cubed the beef wrong and am in fact putting too little or much in?

    And finally, since like forever cooking books in the UK have been dual Imperial/Metric. And finally+1, converting from US English into Imperial can go wrong horribly sometimes because you messed up and have slightly different weights/volumes with the same names. Not that anyone under 35 years old in this country will have ever been taught in Imperial, and even less know that US "English" is actually different.

    So my point is, why not give recipes in dual metric and US?
  • Re:Charts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AchilleTalon ( 540925 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @10:52PM (#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.

  • by CanadaDave ( 544515 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:13PM (#10218947) Homepage
    I agree, I have a cookbook which I am slowly adding to, and it uses this cooking class by Axel Reichert. It is awesome. I'm still debating whether or not to form a copyleft cookbook on sourceforge and open up cvs to the geek-masses and start a cookbook from there. Recipes can be voted on and tested to ensure that only the best are there. Wanna be the first co-developer?
  • Re:VisalC++, good? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by smithmc ( 451373 ) * on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:15PM (#10218959) Journal

    Those charts are genious.

    They look kinda like Nassi-Schneiderman charts [smartdraw.com]...

  • Re:Poor guy... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:18PM (#10218968)
    he could turn his recipes into an open source project and host it on source forge where the bandwidth flows abundantly.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:27PM (#10219006)
    He is pretty interesting to watch. He gets into the science a bit, and he's nutty enough to keep you coming back for more. O
  • I'm a Woman here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shockingbluerose ( 810180 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:31PM (#10219022) Homepage
    And yes, I see your point where most recipes are designed for the average female and her strange viewpoints.... but I'm definently not your average female.I can totally see the logical set up here and I love it! This website is Awesome. If only all cook books would publish this format, maybe more men would cook :)
  • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by i love pineapples ( 742841 ) on Friday September 10, 2004 @11:47PM (#10219090) Homepage
    I wasn't insulted by the comment, because like you I didn't see anything direct. Honestly, though, it does get a bit tiring hearing the "all women like to cook," "chicks are crazy," "girls are illogical," etc, etc stuff all the time. I'm the only girl doing IT stuff in a military lab, so I try not to let the generalizations get to me.. but damnit, I can't cook, I don't like jewelry, and yes, I do want to play Doom 3 during lunch, not shop for shoes!! ;)
  • by NotQuiteReal ( 608241 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @12:06AM (#10219151) Journal
    I start off with something I have, like, oh, say, some frozen scallops from Costco...

    Then I look up a recipe - hmmmm. don't have that. don't have that. don't have that... cook for 3 minutes, per side - or until done.

    Gee - I can do that (cook 3 minutes per side).

    Add my own butter, garlic, and other stuff I would add anyhow, since I have it

    Cook it up. Add some butter, grated cheese de jour, half-n-half... call it alfredo. Pour it over rice or pasta!

    viola! (that's french for "ta da") The wife loves it! Get laid.

    Oh, damn, I'm I rambling again?

  • Re:What is a cup? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lakeland ( 218447 ) <lakeland@acm.org> on Saturday September 11, 2004 @01:21AM (#10219366) Homepage
    Er, a cup is 250mL, of course. Using standard sizes is very common in professional recipies where you want results to be exactly reproducable.

    Odds are the person you got your banana recipe from is so used to professional recipes that it was more natural to say say 1C than to 1.5 medium bananas. Another possiblility is the recipe was particularly intolerant to variations; I've read recipes where the amount of emulsifier (egg yolk) is calculated to be just enough to bind and so adding even a tiny bit more of something will cause the whole thing to fail -- think about mayonnaise (though I can't imagine banana in such finely balanced recipe).

    As an example, say a recipe calls for six eggs. If you live somewhere with big eggs, you'll get a totally different cake to somebody with small eggs. But if you specify 420g of eggs then you'll get the same cake. Likewise, saying a cup of yolks would likewise enable much higher accuracy than saying *shrug* 18? egg yolks.

    Not only is it significantly more consistant, with decent electronic scales you'll likely find that it is faster to specify every single ingredient by mass than some by mass, some by volume and some by enumeration.

    Of course, if the recipe is tolerant of variations (i.e. just about anything except baking) then this is all a waste of time because anything will work and it is up to the cook to decide the proportions.
  • Re:yhbt hand (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 808140 ( 808140 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @01:42AM (#10219412)
    You know, I hope so. But a lot of people parrot this kind of stuff on here. I think the truth is -- and I'm being entirely serious here -- that with a lot of geeks, socializing doesn't come naturally, even with people of their own sex. And most geeks are very smart, capable people, and they're prideful, too, especially with regards to their intelligence. After all, when we were in HS, most of us weren't good at sports, weren't popular, but what we did have was intelligence. We turned the geek monicker around, reclaimed it for ourselves. It was meant to insult us but we wear the label with pride.

    Because we're so prideful, we spend a lot of time rationalizing away our shortcomings. We're not good at socializing with people, but we're smart -- it must be that our intellect intimidates them. Or, we belittle social mores as being cultural cruft, saying (in all earnestness) that all that small talk jibber jabber is useless, and that we're choosing not to do it because there's no point. We'd rather not admit that we have a very hard time doing it, and it makes us uncomfortable. We hide behind our intelligence.

    Back in HS, jocks taped our buns together and shoved us in lockers and generally tortured us, girls shunned us, and we were generally social outcasts. We are scarred, emotionally, by this treatment. It was cruel, there's no doubt about it. But when I was in college, I had a run in with a bully that tortured me in middle school -- he came up to me, having recognized me, and started making small talk. I didn't know what to do. But it turned out that he was a really nice guy, and it occured to me then that judging a person on actions taken at age 13 wasn't very fair of me; he'd grown a lot since then. He appologized for the way he'd acted. Turns out his home life hadn't been so great.

    Anyway, I'm getting off on a tangent here, but my point is, because girls and jocks and the like scare us, we pigeonhole them. We make them out to be 2 dimensional, steryotypical people. We don't bother getting to know them, now that we're out of school and everyone (believe it or not) is a lot more mature. We continue to hide behind our intelligence. We say things like, all those jocks are bagging groceries now, girls just can't think the way we do, etc, etc. And it's silly. It's trite. What it essentially is, is lack of self confidence.

    But learning to interact with people is like learning anything, including Linux, Math and Science -- it requires practice and you will be ridiculed for not knowing how to perform basic tasks, just like people on #debian will yell at you for not rtfming and making you feel like a dork for not knowing how to inline assembly into your shell scripts (ha ha), as if everyone can do it.

    Learning is tough. Girls, people, social stuff, well, it's scary, and I can appreciate that. But you have to face it, not hide behind silly generalizations and coy superiority. People may not be as smart as you are, when it comes to computers or math, but that's not all there is to intelligence. It's really an extremely worthwhile lesson. And sensitivity, which is hard for us too, and so we belittle it as something "unnecessary and stupid", will get you a long way.

    The "girl" thing is especially difficult because unlike with jocks, for the most part, we can't just ignore them -- homosexuals exempted, of course, but I'm sure they get just as nervous talking to a cute guy as we do a cute girl -- because there's the sexual attraction and the need for love and attention from the opposite sex. Anyway, you get where I'm going with this, I'll stop talking now.
  • Re:Charts (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dargaud ( 518470 ) <[ten.duagradg] [ta] [2todhsals]> on Saturday September 11, 2004 @02:15AM (#10219484) Homepage
    [...] a chemist [...]
    I think that would be Hervé This, who publishes a monthly scientific cooking column in the French edition of Scientific American [pourlascience.com]. Pretty nice guy too.
    they found the exact ideal temperature and humidity to cook an egg
    That's 65C. The white cooks at 64 and the yolk at 66. You want to keep the yolk raw because that's where the taste is (like when you do a zabaione/sabayon and cook the white because it's gelatinous. But you need an advanced oven for that.
    this engineering book about cooking is just a cook book about cooking and not real science
    And what is science if not trial/error and explaining the results so you can do better next time ?!?

    PS: my recipe book [gdargaud.net] (warning, 6Mb and all in french)

  • Re:What is a cup? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pnot ( 96038 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @02:21AM (#10219504)
    Er, a cup is 250mL, of course.

    Unless you're in the US, of course, in which case it's 237ml (unless you're talking butter, in which case it's two sticks. I think. And a stick is a quarter of a pound, so a cup of butter would be 227g.) What a mess.
  • Re:Poor guy... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dschl ( 57168 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:28AM (#10220188) Homepage
    > Did you miss the point that the cookingguy was monitoring his own content statistics?

    Sure he was monitoring them, so that he can track when he is totally screwed because his bandwidth costs exceed his net income. Did you miss the point that he was on a 1GB plan (with presumably expensive bandwidth overage charges), and then switched to the highest bandwidth plan available from his hosting provider?

    >Can you do that with Coral, or is it 'proprietary info' that only belongs to them, once its on their net?

    Don't know, don't care - stats are nice, but I would suggest that avoiding a server meltdown is much nicer. Why ask me anyways? Based on your UID, you should be well aware of the existence of Google [google.com]. And as far as 'proprietary info', take off the tinfoil hat, will ya?

  • Re:It's a forgery (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Engineer Andy ( 761400 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @09:11AM (#10220297) Journal
    Correction. When a unit is named after a person, like the Newton (unit of force), the Kelvin, or the Gauss, the Volt, the Tesla, or the Farad.

    You are spot on re the 'degrees Kelvin' thing though.

    http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
  • Re:What is a cup? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hattig ( 47930 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @09:12AM (#10220301) Journal
    Yes, we weigh flour by weight.

    We get out our weighing scales that weren't built in 1835 and thus weigh without needing to use counterweights and dump the flour in until we have the correct weight - without having to worry about if the flour is packed tightly, or rather loose. What if you need 1.25 cups of flour? Do you keep a different sized 'cup' for every common part-cup?

    Measuring by volume just seems silly and horribly inaccurate or vague (not that it really matters when cooking although it can ruin bread). As my banana example showed. Also scales usually have a large bowl on top, so you can keep on measuring out different ingredients into it until it is full, or even better just stick your mixing bowl on top, press the tare button and never even have to transfer bowls and save on washing up!

    However we do still use tsp, tbsp, etc. Mainly because they are the best size for measuring small quantities of things like spices, etc.
  • Re:What is a cup? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 11, 2004 @09:22AM (#10220325)
    Flour can vary greatly in density due to several factors. For baking (bread, muffins, etc.) weighing is definitely the preferred method.
  • Re:Poor guy... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dschl ( 57168 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @09:31AM (#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.

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

    by Noksagt ( 69097 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @10:13AM (#10220475) Homepage
    Depends on which style manual you are using. I've useually used lower case kelvin (but cap-cased Celsius and Farenheit).

    I've never really seen angstrom capitalized. Starting it with the "latin capital A with ring above" (Å), as you use for the abbreviation, is definitely wrong.
  • That reminds me... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AmX ( 229879 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @10:31AM (#10220533)
    That reminds me of the fabulous Chef [dangermouse.net] programming language, where programs look like recipes.

    Here is the "Hello World Souffle" as an example:

    Hello World Souffle.

    This recipe prints the immortal words "Hello world!", in a basically brute force way. It also makes a lot of food for one person.

    Ingredients.
    72 g haricot beans
    101 eggs
    108 g lard
    111 cups oil
    32 zucchinis
    119 ml water
    114 g red salmon
    100 g dijon mustard
    33 potatoes

    Method.
    Put potatoes into the mixing bowl. Put dijon mustard into the mixing bowl. Put lard into the mixing bowl. Put red salmon into the mixing bowl. Put oil into the mixing bowl. Put water into the mixing bowl. Put zucchinis into the mixing bowl. Put oil into the mixing bowl. Put lard into the mixing bowl. Put lard into the mixing bowl. Put eggs into the mixing bowl. Put haricot beans into the mixing bowl. Liquefy contents of the mixing bowl. Pour contents of the mixing bowl into the baking dish.

    Serves 1.
  • tech cooking (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) * on Saturday September 11, 2004 @03:08PM (#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?

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Working...