Pressure cookers have actually made a comeback among foodies. The difference from grandma's pressure cooking style is that times for anything but pot roast are *extremely* short. For example if you're cooking broccoli it's done after two minutes at pressure. Grandma would have kept the broccoli in the pressure cooker for five minutes and removed it as a pale gelatinous goo.
A pressure cooker is a good acquisition when you're setting up a kitchen because even though you might use it only a couple of times a month, if you don't lock down the lid what you have is just a nice, heavy pot. Slow cooked is still the way to go for chili, but if you don't have eight hours you can get passable results in well under an hour with a pressure cooker.
* Lentil Curry Stew
* Vietnamese chicken curry stew
* Green Chili
* Red (or "Chocolate Chipotle Imperial Stout") Chili
* Beef and truffle beef stew
* Jerk Chicken/Beef/Pork
I've found or posted a lot of these recipes in the Google+ "Crockpot Obsession" group.
Not sure why you're getting slammed by mods. This is truth. If big oil disappeared, you'd be up a creek. If big pharma went away, you might die. If the industrials went away, our infrastructure would rot.
If FaceBook disappeared? The world would actually be a better place. Tesla isn't perfect; I like electric cars but I hate some of the big brother that's coming along for the ride. Same deal though, we could live without them and somebody else will eventually pick up their patents and make electrics that are more affordable.
That's beside your point though. Your thesis is valid--buy value when it's priced properly. Futuristic vision and trends aren't value. Stuff people need is value, but it's overpriced now due to Fed manipulation.
Amazon doesn't make profit in any country. But hey, would you prefer they sent the money from the UK immediately to Seattle? If the USA and EU were in a single trade bloc then they could certainly do that and cut Luxembourg out of the equation, but it wouldn't make any difference to the UK's tax take.
Amazon doesn't make profit in any country.
That may be true at the moment, because they're plowing most of it back into capital expenditure, but in the long run, it would be expected to not carry on like that. And that's also why Amazon were the first to declare that they're doing this; it doesn't cost them much right now.
But hey, would you prefer they sent the money from the UK immediately to Seattle? If the USA and EU were in a single trade bloc then they could certainly do that and cut Luxembourg out of the equation, but it wouldn't make any difference to the UK's tax take.
If they were making profits it certainly could.
Luxembourg is a tax haven, very low tax rates. But if they were declared in the UK, then there's a bigger tax take there. The UK would also probably claim tax on profits that wasn't paid in other countries like the USA that was due to economic activity in the UK.
I believe the metaphor you're looking for is "re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic".
Yeah, force the Germans to pay reparations. What could possibly go wrong?
I wouldn't call it a metaphor, nor would I say that Asimov's point is that you can't codify morality. His point is more subtle: a code of morality, even a simple one, doesn't necessarily imply what we think it does. It's a very rabbinical kind of point.
I nominated "dingleberry".
This is the same kind of thing that was said in the US. The space program had more "spin-off" benefits than I can list. Computers, solar cells, etc. were all advanced by contributions from space research. If it hadn't been for computers in particular, I don't know what kind of work I would have had. It probably wouldn't have been such a good ride for me, and I was never directly employed by NASA. Yes. There are still poor people in the USA... carrying pocket computers.
Spin, sure, but it's a waay bigger minority than I expected. I'd even say even shockingly large.
The genius of Asimov's three laws is that he started by laying out rules that on the face of it rule out the old "robot run amok" stories. He then would write, if not a "run amok" story, one where the implications aren't what you'd expect. I think the implications of an AI that surpasses natural human intelligence are beyond human intelligence to predict, even if we attempt to build strict rules into that AI.
One thing I do believe is that such a development would fundamentally alter human society, provided that the AI was comparably versatile to human intelligence. It's no big deal if an AI is smarter than people at chess; if it's smarter than people at everyday things, plus engineering, business, art and literature, then people will have to reassess the value of human life. Or maybe ask the AI what would give their lives meaning.
Dear moderators: "Troll" is not a synonym for "I disagree with this".
That said, I disagree with this.
We've known since the investigation of 9/11 that suicide bombers are not necessarily dead-enders except in the literal sense. Economic powerlessness might play a role in the political phenomenon of extremist violence, but it is not a necessary element of the profile of a professional extremist. These people often come from privileged backgrounds and display average to above average job aptitude.
Mohammed Atta's life story makes interesting reading. He was born to privileged parents; at the insistence of his emotionally distant father he wasn't allowed to socialize with other kids his age, and had a lifelong difficulty with relating to his peers. At university he did OK but below the high expectations of his parents. He went to graduate school in urban planning where his thesis was on how impersonal modern high rise buildings ruined the historic old neighborhoods of the Muslim world.
That much is factual; as to why he became an extremist while countless others like him did not, we can only speculate. I imagine that once he decided modernity was the source of his personal dissatisfactions Al Qaeda would be attractive to him. Al Qaeda training provided structure which made interacting with his new "peers" easier than ever before. And martyrdom promised relief from the dissatisfactions of a life spent conscious of his own mediocrity. Altogether he was a miserable and twisted man -- but not economically miserable.
> Yes, they do. It's called free trade and is generally seen as very desirable, as it reduces paperwork and leads to countries competing to be better places to do business than their neighbours.
With all due respect, if you actually believe any of that, as pertains to THIS topic, you're a fucking idiot.
This isn't any idea of free trade, nor have they been reducing the paperwork- on the contrary they've been filling a whole bunch of extra paperwork.
What they've been doing is performing most or all of the work in (say) the UK and then filling the tax in Luxembourg as if all the profit was magically done there; and this is purely and simply a tax fiddle.
By running two or more different companies in different countries you can "sell" things across the borders at artificial (fake) prices so that, no profit is made in the UK, and all of it is in Luxembourg or Ireland, on paper. There's no free market for those trades, it's all between two companies, controlled by the same people.
If they actually did everything in Luxembourg, that might well be fair enough, but that's NOT at all what's been going on.
This isn't some free trade utopia, it's essentially fraud, they're saying they made no profit in a country, when they really did. It's not totally dissimilar to the types of things that Enron got up to.