Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Idle Science

Ex-Microsoft CTO Writes $625 Cookbook 176

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the one-helluva-ramen-packet dept.
carusoj writes "Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft's first CTO, made his mark in the tech world. Now he's cemented his place in the world of cooking and food science with the publication of a groundbreaking six-volume, 2,438-page cookbook. Some of the techniques in Myhrvold's Modernist Cuisine are intimidating, to put it mildly, calling for such daunting ingredients as liquid nitrogen and equipment such as centrifuges and rotor-stator homogenizers. But Myhrvold and his co-authors insist that the majority of recipes can be made in a conventional home kitchen — with a few recommended, inexpensive extras such as a digital gram scale and water bath for sous vide cooking." Dear Bosses: When you see the centrifuge on my March expense report, please note that this is a legitmate business expense. If you're still curious, we ran a story a couple years ago on Nathan's Kitchen Lab.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ex-Microsoft CTO Writes $625 Cookbook

Comments Filter:
  • Every European kitchen I've cooked in had a gram scale (they're less the 10€ for an inexpensive model and 30€ for a decent one.) I don't understand how I got by living in the US without one ... I'm never giving it up now. Especially with baking, it's really not optional.
    • And doesn't everyone have LN2?
      Though I'm partial to the CO2 ice cream I saw a while back (still trying to replicate that one at home).
      -nB

      • by hrieke (126185)

        And doesn't everyone have LN2?
        Though I'm partial to the CO2 ice cream I saw a while back (still trying to replicate that one at home).
        -nB

        Hell yes. Don't you?

    • For whatever reason, American cooking and recipes tend to use imperial volumetric measures(cups, half cups, teaspoons, etc.) rather than weights for most ingredients.

      The imperial vs. metric thing is unsurprising enough; but I don't know why volume rather than weight is the typical criterion. Scales are certainly available, but you can traverse entire shelves of US recipes without be called to use one. Sometimes, ingredients that are commonly packaged by weight will be called for by weight; but generally
      • For general cooking, measurements don't need to be so exact you have to measure it to the gram.

        • by xaxa (988988)

          For general cooking, measurements don't need to be so exact you have to measure it to the gram.

          For some ingredients, like flour, the density can vary significantly. If you're measuring using a normal spoon the heaping varies a lot too.

          I don't really know what difference it makes, I don't bake very often (once a month, maybe) and my earliest memory of "helping mummy" to cook was weighing the ingredients.

          • For general cooking, measurements don't need to be so exact you have to measure it to the gram.

            For some ingredients, like flour, the density can vary significantly. If you're measuring using a normal spoon the heaping varies a lot too.

            And when measuring small amounts, like would typically be measured with a spoon, that difference in density isn't enough to make a significant difference in the final product.

            I don't really know what difference it makes, I don't bake very often (once a month, maybe) an

        • by slim (1652)

          ... but it's better to have more sensitivity than you need.

          If you're measuring 200g of flour, say, you'd be happy with anywhere from 190 to 210 -- it's not a worry that the scale gives you more precision than you need.

          The nicest thing about digital scales is that they usually have a "tare" button, so you can plonk your mixing bowl on top, tare, add an ingredient, tare, add the next ingredient, and so on.

      • by FooAtWFU (699187)

        Also, through the wonders of technology, most digital scales have a button that switch between ounces and grams.

        What will they think of next?

      • by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @11:52AM (#35430644) Homepage Journal
        There's no mystery here. That's just how it's always been done, and for very good reason: To measure a volume, all you need is a cup with a line drawn on it. Meaduring weight or mass with the same precision requires a scale. Since humans generally prepare food at SATP, these are pretty reliable metrics.
        • by Sax Maniac (88550) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @12:15PM (#35431048) Homepage Journal

          Digital scales are quite handy for cooking. I use them more and more often, the more I cook. First, it's really great for things like flour or other loose/granular things where the volume varies wildly, and you want a consistent result. All you have to do is weigh out a few cups of flour, and compare it against the box weight, to see how inaccurate volume can be at times. Cakes and breads dramatically improve with a scale.

          Once you figure out the weight of something, you can reuse it, since we tend to the same make recipes a lot. I annotate my most-used recipes with weight. Using a scale also saves dirty measuring cups and spoons, since you can tare the scale, add the new ingredient, and repeat indefinitely.

          • by nabsltd (1313397)

            Using a scale also saves dirty measuring cups and spoons, since you can tare the scale, add the new ingredient, and repeat indefinitely.

            Although there are many reasons to use a scale when cooking (and I use one often), saving dirty dishes isn't one of them.

            I find that most of the recipes I use that require precision measurement also require that you add the ingredients in such a way that you can't just "dump" into a bowl. And, when I'm baking, most of the time I'm adding ingredients to the bowl of the stand mixer while it is running, which is inconvenient to weigh.

          • I believe you—I'm just saying that the reasons for using the alternatives are painfully obvious.
          • by jfengel (409917)

            Which is why one of my treasured possessions is a set of cups with 2/3 and 3/4 measures. These are surprisingly common amounts in recipes, and not only can I measure them in one operation, it keeps my 1/4, 1/3, and 1/2 cups clean.

            Not that I'm averse to measuring sugar and flour with the same cup, for convenience, but other things do make them genuinely dirty.

            For years, only Tupperware made such cups. Now, Oxo does as well, and I've also seen some very expensive metal ones.

          • First, it's really great for things like flour or other loose/granular things where the volume varies wildly, and you want a consistent result.

            The problem is, except for flour, the weight/volume doesn't vary wildly for virtually all loose/granular things. (Not unless you're particularly inept at scoop-and-sweep.) For those few things other than flour (like brown sugar for example) the weight/volume not only doesn't vary wildly, it doesn't really make that big a difference for virtually all recipies they'r

        • by blair1q (305137)

          Actually, not that many people are working at SATP all the time. But that's nothing to do with measurements (there are few gaseous ingredients in food) and more to do with outcomes (there are often gaseous components and pressure-temperature dependent reactions in cooked items).

          • Cleverness notwithstanding, most people don't measure ingredients inside of ovens.
            • by blair1q (305137)

              Hmm. I mangled it a bit there. It's more like SATP doesn't affect measurements; it affects outcomes. So whether you're using volume or mass doesn't matter when measuring, since the volume or mass of the ingredients will change by the same percentage if you're not at SATP.

              • You're a little off there. Mass doesn't change, no matter what gravity you measure under: although weight does, if you change the altitude you're at. The gram scales described here are dependent on the earth's gravitational field, since they aren't calibrated against a reference weight. As long as we're at or near SATP (which humans need to be, in order to breathe and mix ingredients), volume is a very reliable count of the amount of substance in question.

                Anyway, this all started out as a joke about micr
                • by xaxa (988988)

                  Why Slashdot posters continue to be staunchly oblivious to this, and to similar simple facts, eludes me.

                  Us Europeans are oblivious to it since we've probably never been in a kitchen without a scale (whether analogue or digital). If there isn't a scale there certainly won't be measuring cups (i.e. lack of a scale suggests the owner doesn't really cook). Owning a scale is far from being geeky, not owning one (or only owning measuring cups) would be seen as weird.

                  They're on every list of essential equipment [jamieoliver.com] (that guide's for people who claimed to only eat take-away food on the TV program).

      • by ProppaT (557551) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @11:56AM (#35430730) Homepage

        Traditional cooking is more of an art than a science. It's a lot easier to eyeball volume than it is weight. I rarely cook from recipes, but when I do I rarely ever use measuring devices. I know what a cup of liquid or a teaspoon or tablespoon of this or that looks like. A pinch or a dash is a perfectly fine measurement for cooking. In other words, it just makes sense.

        This new style of chemical cooking is exactly that, chemistry, and things need to be very precise to get the wanted result. You need a scale to properly measure the ingredients to make gels, bubbles, etc. correctly.

        As a side note, baking is less cooking and more of a science. Sometimes you will see bakers using scales and you need the right proportions of leavening, salt, etc. to gain the desired effect. It's very easy to make flat bread if things aren't done correctly.

        • by fbjon (692006)
          Yep, hence the baker's percentage: all the ingredients of the recipe specified as a percentage of the flour weight, including water.

        • more of a science
          I would say it's actually more of a bioscience in many cases.
      • by xaxa (988988)

        This is not an Imperial/English/metric thing.

        My English grandmother used to use an analogue scale (since replaced with a digital one) with Imperial measurements for baking. Assuming she knows how, I expect the digital scale is set to lb/oz.

        I much prefer a digital scale: I put the mixing bowl on the scale and hit "tare". Not needing a weighing boat means one less thing to wash up.

        • That is why I find the difference so curious. I'd be totally unsurprised to find that Europeans were measuring their volumes in milliliters and Americans in cups. The fact that kitchen scales(metric or imperial) are comparatively rare in the US and comparatively common in Europe is what is less obvious...
        • I figure a digital scale would be more precise than trying to read the exact position of the dial on an analogue scale (for me, it's small packages rather than cooking ingredients; it's particularly important there since postal pricing increments at each weight level rather than being simply proportional.)

      • Imperial measurements are way more efficient at converting portion sizes, than say metric measuring.

        Try this next time you see a 100% metric recipe for 6 people (say 1gram). Convert it, in your head, for 8 people. Or one for 6 and covert it to 14. Most imperial measurements are divisible by 2,3,4, 6 or 8 quite easily. Which makes for measuring without the need for a calculator in the kitchen. Look, I'm a big fan of Metric in a lot of cases, but in the kitchen is a rare exception.

    • They're becoming much more popular in America, too. More recipes are being published with weights rather than volume measurements, too, although not nearly enough.

      I think many of the recipes in the book actually need a scale with more precision than one gram. Some of the ingredients used, such as xantham gum, can have radically different effects on a sauce at 1% concentration than at .5%. For 100g of sauce, you need a tenth of a gram precision.

      • by Artraze (600366) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @12:12PM (#35431002)

        Agreed. If you can't do a least one tenth of a gram, you'll be back to volumetric measures for salt, spices, additives, etc. And while volumetric measure for them is generally more reliable than, say, flour, accuracy for them can be more important (as you mention). I think that hundredth of a gram is ideal, particularly if you're experimenting with smaller batches. Incidentally, just last night I needed to weigh spices in the range of 0.5 - 4 g. (I personally use an old digital lab balance precise to 1mg, but that's only because it was free; measurements better than 10mg aren't really feasible or worthwhile in the kitchen.)

        I think the gram precision thing is more an issue of dynamic range... Most people are using their scales for weighing out flour, confectioners sugar, etc. These things are usually needed in the 500g range, and coupled with the weight of a measuring bowl, you need a scale that can handle 1kg or so. That means a gram scale needs a range of 0.1% and a hundredth gram scale would need 0.001%. That's expensive, and so most cooks would rather just buy something cheap for flour that does ~5g and stick with volumetric measure for spices. Of course, they could always get two scales, but that would be crazy ;).

        • by jfengel (409917)

          Especially since the relative measures of the small amounts are mostly subjective. A little more cinnamon, a little less nutmeg than called for... nobody really cares.

          The key exception to this is the baking powder, where you'll add grams of leavener to kilos of flour. For most home kitchens it still doesn't make too much difference, as the oven itself is sufficiently variable to overwhelm it.

          I definitely feel the fact that my cheap scale has 5g precision. I'd be happier with 1g, but it's more expensive.

      • by _0xd0ad (1974778)

        I think many of the recipes in the book actually need a scale with more precision than one gram. Some of the ingredients used, such as xantham gum, can have radically different effects on a sauce at 1% concentration than at .5%. For 100g of sauce, you need a tenth of a gram precision.

        The obvious answer to that (if you can't just make an industrial-sized batch) is to make a supply of stock diluted to a low enough concentration that the ingredient can be accurately measured. Then reduce the amount of water or oil or whatever it is you diluted the stock with.

    • Most things have a rather uniform density, so the volume:weight correlation should hold. The only thing I can think of that doesn't is flour, in which most recipes call for "sifted" flour.

      Just speculating, but I'm guessing that most American recipes were originally taught with being written down. My grandma, (and I imagine every one that cooked in the family before her) would "cook by touch". A 'cup' was a cupped hand, a tablespoon was a table spoon, a teaspoon was a tea spoon. Hell I've seen actual measure

      • by rgmoore (133276)

        Also, do you add liquids by weight too?

        I can't speak for the parent, but when I'm baking I certainly do. Home volume measures just aren't precise enough to get really controllable, reproducible results. Besides, if you're already weighing out your flour, it's easier to hit the tare button and weigh in some water than it is to get a measuring cup.

        • I honestly think you are trying way too hard. My wife is an excellent baker. We have no scale. Well, we have the scale for seeing how many pounds the food has added to my own weight, but anyways...

          She uses cups, tablespoons and teaspoons, fractions of a teaspoon, as well as U.S. Standard pints and quarts. We have some British recipes that use "gills", which we convert, along with the required imperial conversions. I'd have to ask when I see her, but I am most positive that things get adjusted based on

          • by vijayiyer (728590)

            She probably doesn't bake by volume, but instead by feel (a.k.a. experience). Baking by volume just doesn't really work well, especially for things like bread. You're better off just adding flour till it feels right if you don't use a scale.

      • by xaxa (988988)

        Also, do you add liquids by weight too?

        1ml of water weighs 1g, very easy. I'll usually weigh water rather than measure volume, it usually means less washing up is produced.

        Old kitchens in England (e.g. in a preserved old house or castle) seem to include a balance, though it could be there for buying things rather than cooking things for all I know. Or it could be that in large quantities it becomes easier to weigh things than measure their volume.

      • Vegetables are the worst offenders in my opinion. Terms like "chop finely" or "chop roughly" are somewhat subjective, and changing the grain of your chop can have a *huge* impact on the volume of vegetables in a recipe. Especially stuff like broccoli or cauliflower, where florets occupy a large volume, but have a low density. I much, much prefer recipes that use weight rather than volume for measurement. I'm not too chuffed whether the weight is metric or imperial, my digital scale switches between the

        • by PCM2 (4486)

          Terms like "chop finely" or "chop roughly" are somewhat subjective, and changing the grain of your chop can have a *huge* impact on the volume of vegetables in a recipe. Especially stuff like broccoli or cauliflower, where florets occupy a large volume, but have a low density. I much, much prefer recipes that use weight rather than volume for measurement. I'm not too chuffed whether the weight is metric or imperial, my digital scale switches between them trivially.

          OK, but does your scale suggest that you chop finely or chop roughly? And how does it help you find the right grain for either chop?

          • 8 ounces of broccoli is always exactly the same amount of broccoli no matter how finely or roughly it's chopped. A cup of broccoli is a significantly different amount depending on on how finely or roughly it's chopped. It's rarely a problem in recipes if your "finely chopped" is slightly coarser than the recipe author's "finely chopped"; but it's a pretty significant problem if you're using half as much broccoli as the author intended. Hence if you use weights rather than volume you are less likely to scr

            • but it's a pretty significant problem if you're using half as much broccoli as the author intended

              From my experience, it's not.

              • by biovoid (785377)

                but it's a pretty significant problem if you're using half as much broccoli as the author intended

                From my experience, it's not.

                If you're doing a stirfry, then it won't be. If you're using it as a stuffing in, say cannelloni [foodnetwork.com], you're going to run out of stuffing.

            • by PCM2 (4486)

              A cup of broccoli is a significantly different amount depending on on how finely or roughly it's chopped.

              I seldom follow recipes so slavishly. If it calls for a cup of broccoli, I don't get out the measuring cup. I just eyeball it. The point is not to nail the directions just right, the point is to have the meal look and taste good, so I'll throw in as much broccoli and chop it as finely as suits my taste, based on the recommended amount. After all, maybe I just like broccoli more than the author does? And too little broccoli is seldom going to impact the flavor of a whole dish very much, unless you're pureein

      • Most things have a rather uniform density, so the volume:weight correlation should hold...

        For pure chemical foods this should hold (sucrose and other sugars, sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, etc.) pretty well, but organic materials (spices, flours, etc.) do have significant variation.

        In brewing, by the way, accurate measurements of many ingredients is very important. Accuracy seems to make a bigger difference when making beer and wine than most types of recipes. (But then brewing is microbiology, not cooking.)

  • by ewg (158266)

    Destined to be pirated around the globe, just like his former employer's software.

    • Re:Piracy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Locutus (9039) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @11:52AM (#35430642)
      first he has to sucker the world+dog into believing it's something they must have and no other cookbook is useful because the recipes are incompatible. Using exotic equipment is a good start at making it incompatible. It'll cost a few billion in marketing to get the drones to believe they must have it and nothing else will work.

      LoB
      • by gstoddart (321705)

        first he has to sucker the world+dog into believing it's something they must have and no other cookbook is useful because the recipes are incompatible. Using exotic equipment is a good start at making it incompatible.

        Not really. First off, he even says that most of the recipes can be done with standard kitchen equipment.

        A lot of the value of what's in that book is that it's a fairly exhaustive coverage of the actual science of cooking -- what's actually happening at the molecular level, why putting vegetab

    • The NYT review mentions that most of the recipes require exotic and expensive equipment.

      I think most of the people pirating this thing aren't going to get much use out of it, you can't pirate hardware.

  • by l2718 (514756) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @11:25AM (#35430136)
    It always takes time for technological advances to make their way from the workshop to the home. The first servo motors were expensive devices; today we take it for granted that a DVD player will automatically retract the platter. Same here: applying the scientific method to cooking starts as a high-end expensive hobby, but eventually the lessons learned and some of the technology will become household items.
  • Harold McGee for the basic science and this book for advanced stuff. Although, $625 is a bit steep.
    (and of course, watch Alton Brown on FoodTV)

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      Harold McGee for the basic science

      This, exactly this.

      For anybody who doesn't know what this is [wikipedia.org], it's pretty much an awesome text on the science and chemistry of food. Pretty much covers the gamut of the actual processes and reactions that happen when you cook.

      Brilliant book, and definitely something for every food geek. I also recommend Herve This [wikipedia.org] or looking into molecular gastronomy [wikipedia.org].

      I can't see a lot of people actually using liquid nitrogen for cooking, but it's definitely on the cutting edge of some rea

  • I read an article in a magazine [scientificamerican.com] about using centrifuges to "[concentrate] the flavor molecules in a powerfully aromatic liquid layer that is ideal for cooking." I also love Sub Zero ice cream.

    Despite the coolness and interesting factor, I doubt I will be going out and buying a centrifuge or a bottle of liquid nitrogen for my next meal.

  • by cashman73 (855518) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @11:33AM (#35430290) Journal
    What the article didn't tell us is that after the first rejection of the manuscript by the publisher, Myhrvold was overheard in his office screaming, "F*****g Wolfgang Puck is a f*****g pussy. I'm going to f*****g bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f*****g kill Food Network!" A few chairs were seen outside in the parking lot later that afternoon as well,. . .
  • Aside from being Microsoft CTO, from the article:

    Myhrvold's academic tech credentials are supreme. He's earned degrees in mathematics, geophysics, and space physics from UCLA, and PhDs in mathematical economics and theoretical physics from Princeton University. In his post-doctoral work at Cambridge University, Myhrvold worked on quantum theories of gravity with cosmologist Stephen Hawking.

    Myhrvold worked for two years as a stagier at Rover's, a top French restaurant in Seattle, and he trained at the E

  • He has conquered the technical world, he has conquered the cooking world, now he needs to buy a ring and conquer the physical world by becoming the ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPION!!!

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @11:52AM (#35430632)

    Iran: "We are not using these centrifuges to enrich uranium. We are just trying out some recipes in this cookbook."

    International Atomic Energy Agency Inspector: "Well, I do have to admit that the concentrated flavor molecules in this powerfully aromatic liquid layer is ideal for cooking."

  • So, he's writing college textbooks? Glad I'm not in food science...
  • 1) He writes an (admittedly large) expensive $625 cookbook.
    2) He gets free advertising on slahsdot.
    3) Profit ($$$)

    No need to question any steps here...

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      1) He writes an (admittedly large) expensive $625 cookbook.
      2) He gets free advertising on slahsdot.
      3) Profit ($$$)

      No need to question any steps here...

      Well, those who wouldn't ever ponder buying this book won't be swayed by the 'advertising' on Slashdot. And, I doubt it's likely to be a significant number of people.

      Those who might buy it are actively drooling over it. And, if you read his account of supply shortages [modernistcuisine.com] it sounds like a large number of people are already trying to get hold of it. And this wa

  • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @12:25PM (#35431210)
    Heston Blumenthal has been doing this for years. His restaurant (The Fat Duck) at Bray (West of London - hint, not cheap and a long, long wait) is world famous. Not so well known is that he also has a first class gastro-pub at Bray, and that the Little Chef first on the left on the Westbound A303 has a Blumenthal menu available - it fills up very early at weekends.
    • by slim (1652)

      ... and his Big Fat Duck Cookbook is £150 RRP.

      But it's a fabulous object to have around your home; like a family bible or something.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      Heston Blumenthal has been doing this for years.

      And, if you read the article, he's got two people who worked with Blumenthal onstaff:

      As the scope of his writing project expanded, so did Myhrvold's team and his digs. His first hire was Chris Young, who holds degrees in biochemistry and math and opened the experimental kitchen at Chef Blumenthal's legendary Fat Duck restaurant in England. Young then recruited fellow Fat Duck alum Maxime Bilet.

      And, the guy himself has some pretty respectable credentials in the

    • If you'll read the about page [modernistcuisine.com], you'll note that Heston Blumenthal provided praise for the book.

  • by slim (1652)

    It seems like sous vide cooking is quite the fashionable thing. I recently bought the cheapest slow-cooker in the shop, and was disappointed to discover that it just outputs a constant low heat, rather than containing a thermostat. Investigating the possibility of hacking a thermostat into it, I found a few references to people building a home-made sous vide bath using a slow-cooker, a temperature probe, and a temperature controlled switch.

    Isn't it high time a consumer kitchen goods company made an affordab

    • There are a couple of solutions available. Sous Vide Supreme [sousvidesupreme.com] offers an all-in-one waterbath with a PID temperature controller, but no active circulation (relies on convection), for $400 or $300 depending on size. The Fresh Meals Magic [freshmealssolutions.com] is an immersible PID-controlled heater and air bubbler (to provide circulation) for $300 (up to 18 L capacity), or you can get a PID controller for $160 to use with an analog rice cooker or a slow cooker. The PID controller basically acts like a smart dimmer switch to control
      • by slim (1652)

        Hmm, I was speculating that you could make a mass-market unit of, say, 3 litres, for under $100. Essentially it would be a crockpot with an accurate thermostat in it -- not difficult or expensive to make.

        Maybe the obstacle to this is the risk of litigation if someone gets food poisoning due to misuse.

        • A simple thermostat wouldn't hold temperature constant enough for a lot of sous vide. One degree can radically alter some dishes, and some cooking is done at the lower end of safety ranges (like pasteurizing burgers at a 131F or braising short ribs at 135F for 24 hours). A simple thermostat would suffice for long-term braises at higher temperatures, but I'd want some additional temperature monitoring for safety's sake.
    • by SEWilco (27983)

      I recently bought the cheapest slow-cooker...

      Thermostat costs more. Did any of the others in the store have thermostats?

      • by slim (1652)

        Hard to tell without opening them up. I just assumed that a simple bimetallic strip thermostat, non-adjustable and set in the factory, would keep the slow cooker at temperature. But I found that if I wrapped it in a towel (because I was offended at how much heat was being leaked out of the sides) my food would come to a fairly vigourous simmer, which is when I got my screwdriver out.

  • by amw (636271) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @12:48PM (#35431608) Homepage
    ... does he use open sauce?
  • he hasnt done much interesting and creative since daparting MSFT. Makes a noisy splash with all his companies.
  • 100 years from now, this will be on the top shelf at some rare book store. I can just picture it. You know how when you go into those stores, there is usually a several volume set of *something*. I've never asked about it, because I'm not much of a collector and I figure they're expensive.

    Of course, now that I've jinxed it, way too many people will buy them and sock them away, figuring wrongly that nobody else would pay that much for this. So, 100 years from now your great grandchildren will walk into t

  • Why is this article tagged "idiocracy?" What he's doing isn't stupid. It's just different. You might say better. And $625 for a 6-volume set of books isn't terribly ridiculous, I wish some of my university textbooks were that cheap per book.

  • Isn't he the same guy who's underwriting a massive patent troll operation?

    Would seem a little hypocritical to now be writing a cookbook. After all, almost all recipes have some element from older recipes.

    Or was that Paul Allen?

  • Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft's first CTO, made his mark in the tech world.

    Really? I must've missed that.

  • Keep a defibrillator in your kitchen, just in case you get the Blue Screen of Death.
  • by rs79 (71822)

    More fucking foam.

  • This all sounds like good wholesome geeky fun, but the guy is co-founder of Intellectual Ventures [wikipedia.org], probably the most egregious and destructive patent troll in the world. Shun him! Shun him!

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.

Working...