Skip

Modernist Cuisine
February 25, 2011 10:38 AM   Subscribe

Microsoft’s Former CTO Takes On Modernist Cuisine.

A Q&A at the eGullet cooking forum including an 8 page preview of the book
Behind the scenes at the Modernist Cuisine cooking lab
A few counter-intuitive nuggets of wisdom from the book, including how to cook fish perfectly and the quickest way to make stock
The Modernist Cuisine blog

Previously
posted by AceRock (62 comments total) 27 users marked this as a favorite

 
Patent troll desperately seeks to be known for some other reason.
posted by leotrotsky at 10:50 AM on February 25, 2011 [8 favorites]


Patents are for bringing products to market. Patent trolls are people who file lawsuits over patents they never intent on using themselves. Eccentric hobbies doesn't excuse trolling behavior.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:57 AM on February 25, 2011


I too find Intellectual Ventures (previously) a little questionable - still a very interesting article though.
posted by Artw at 11:01 AM on February 25, 2011


Patent trolls are people who file lawsuits over patents they never intent on using themselves.

Or one step further, they blithely sit back and watch another person develop a technology, and only when that person has achieved success, do they come out from under the bridge waving the patent that they just now call attention to.
posted by StickyCarpet at 11:02 AM on February 25, 2011


I don't have a problem with patent firms, even ones that buy patent portfolios as long as they're actually bringing new technology to market, and not just suing people who developed the same idea independently, which to me is a patent troll.
posted by empath at 11:04 AM on February 25, 2011


How about talking about the content of the post rather than GRARing your views on Myhrvold and Intellectual Ventures?
posted by proj at 11:07 AM on February 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


I don't care whether he is a patent troll or not, I just want some of those fries.
posted by caddis at 11:08 AM on February 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


Several years back, he was featured in the New York Times Magazine, cooking section. The recipe he selected was: Chop a lot of onions; Put them in a crock pot; add some butter and a dash of Balsamic vinegar; Cook on low for a long time. It's a great recipe, those caramelized onions are excellent.
posted by StickyCarpet at 11:16 AM on February 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


I'd actually be pretty eager to buy a version of this book that only included the information that a person without a vacuum chamber, hydraulic press, laser array and home atomic pile could take advantage of. Otherwise, this sounds a little more like "Home Cooking For Supervillains" than a useful informational artefact.
posted by mhoye at 11:20 AM on February 25, 2011 [13 favorites]


How about talking about the content of the post...

Sure. We're all deathly fat, income disparities are growing and our energy sources are rapidly depleting. And this asshole is developing ways to make food taste better through expensive equipment and more energy?

I hope HE gets turned into french fries with with that ultrasonic, nuclear whatever-the-fuck it is. And fed to poor people.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:22 AM on February 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


I hope HE gets turned into french fries with with that ultrasonic, nuclear whatever-the-fuck it is. And fed to poor people.

We could call them Mayor Curley fries.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:23 AM on February 25, 2011 [29 favorites]


We could call them Mayor Curley fries.

And that will be his legacy. The animatronic bastard child of a politician and a fast food, who will rise up from his bed of futuristic machines to ultimately destroy us all.
posted by mhoye at 11:26 AM on February 25, 2011


I look forward to hearing about all of the earth shattering work you're doing to combat obesity, inequality, and resource dependence, MC. Christ, gimme a break. I hope you have the same response in every thread that's not about solving those problems.
posted by proj at 11:26 AM on February 25, 2011 [5 favorites]


We could call them Mayor Curley fries.

I already signed a deal with Arby's unfortunately, so you can't. Look for them in August. The collectors' cups are pretty sweet, actually. Me, my wife, my kid and the cat.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:27 AM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]




I'd actually be pretty eager to buy a version of this book that only included the information that a person without a vacuum chamber, hydraulic press, laser array and home atomic pile could take advantage of. Otherwise, this sounds a little more like "Home Cooking For Supervillains" than a useful informational artefact.


I didn't get that impression. Scan the QA link. There was some interesting stuff in there about how heat diffuses, how oil cooks things, and so on.

A lot of those topics are things I've been learning a lot about in the last year as I try to get better at cooking, and understanding them has helped a lot.

There are a lot of conventions we adhere to like ritual in cooking, and some of them are helpful, and others, not so much. Understanding why things work is a big part of learning to do them better.


I thought that a lot of the information was really cool, and would totally read the book.

...and in the last thread, a couple people already helpfully debunked some of the "I can't afford the gadgets" business. There's a lot you can do at home, if you're willing to get creative.



Sure. We're all deathly fat, income disparities are growing and our energy sources are rapidly depleting. And this asshole is developing ways to make food taste better through expensive equipment and more energy?

I hope HE gets turned into french fries with with that ultrasonic, nuclear whatever-the-fuck it is. And fed to poor people.



Get back into the protein-gruel line! That soylent green won't eat itself!
posted by Stagger Lee at 11:31 AM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


People were cooking most of their food before they had even evolved into actual Humans. Softer food means no need for the Simian Ridge on the forehead, which is required to have powerful jaws like chimps.

That made room for bigger brains, leading directly to the invention of the internet and Metafilter.

Considering that the best predictor of the future is the past, I'd guess he's on the right track for advancing immersive multimedia communications, over the course of millions of years.
posted by StickyCarpet at 11:31 AM on February 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


Doing basic research in food preparation is still important, I think, and might have repercussions beyond this book.
posted by empath at 11:31 AM on February 25, 2011


Meta
posted by Artw at 11:32 AM on February 25, 2011


The collectors' cups are pretty sweet, actually. Me, my wife, my kid and the cat.

These are going to look so AWESOME with my "Malor And Mutant" salt and pepper shakers
posted by briank at 11:32 AM on February 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


I look forward to hearing about all of the earth shattering work you're doing to combat obesity, inequality, and resource dependence, MC.

Isn't it enough to just not further them a little bit with my rich guy hobbies? That's all I'm asking the patent troll to do, really.

I'm not going to comment any further to avoid gumming up the thread.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:33 AM on February 25, 2011


I want to buy a copy of his book just to piss off all those who want this to be a repeat of the last post.

Although much of this stuff will never filter down to the average home cook, you can never tell (I remember when home computers were unrealistic yet here I am posting on the Internet from a smartphone in a grocery store). Sous vide is available at home ( if a bit pricey for the Williams-Sonoma version) as are techniques like using transglutaminase to fuse together pieces of meat. This stuff is fascinating regardless of it's practicality.
posted by TedW at 11:39 AM on February 25, 2011


Freakonomics did a two-part podcast about this recently. There are some implications for helping to feed people that the research from this lab are beginning to turn over, including 3-D food printers that could be fueled by wasted foods; considering that some 40% of food produced is wasted that could really help out.
posted by norm at 11:42 AM on February 25, 2011




Although much of this stuff will never filter down to the average home cook, you can never tell..."


See, I started by saying that, but the more I read about it, the less sure I am.
Tricks and methods get passed down, and just because the big glamorous ones (like using liquid nitrogen in the kitchen) get all the attention, some of the methods and knowledge are important.

Anything that adds to the cooking world's collective knowledge will filter down the people at home. I just can't comment on whether this book does that. It sounds like it could.

And the "cooking is for the rich" thing is a load of crap. I didn't know what fats to reuse until I started researching, or what vegetable scraps to save for broth, and so on and so on and so on.
posted by Stagger Lee at 11:45 AM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


I don't have a problem with patent firms, even ones that buy patent portfolios as long as they're actually bringing new technology to market, and not just suing people who developed the same idea independently, which to me is a patent troll.
The thing is, companies that actually make things rarely sue over their patent portfolios. Why? Because in the vast majority of cases they'll be infringing some other patent owned by someone else in the process of making their thing. The end result is usually just a cross licensing deal (like with Intel and AMD)
posted by delmoi at 11:47 AM on February 25, 2011


And this asshole is developing ways to make food taste better through expensive equipment and more energy?

That's a really shallow, annoying, an ill-informed characterization.

I read the eGullet thread and looked at the sample pages and immediately learned something, including the analysis of how one can make quicker and more flavorful stock by decreasing the size of the ingredients you use. I make stock every week and this is the first time I've seen this insight explained and guess what? It's a more economical, less expensive, less energy-intensive approach that doesn't require any equipment more expensive than a pot, a knife, and a strainer.
posted by donovan at 11:53 AM on February 25, 2011 [10 favorites]


French fries and English chips are not the same thing. One is thin, crispy, bright yellow and over-salted. The other is fatter, less hung up about crispiness, a much deeper gold (even russet, perhaps), and served sprinkled with malt vinegar and just the right amount of salt. And of course, the single most important factor is the variety of potato (it must be King Edward).

Doubters are welcome to try my chips; tastings are on Friday evenings by appointment.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 11:54 AM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


How to cook fish perfectly? Drop a stick of butter into the pan. I swear to god this is true.
posted by creasy boy at 12:00 PM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


also see this recent WSJ article:

My 30-Course Dinner at Nathan's: The Most Exciting Meal of a Food Writer's Life
posted by Bwithh at 12:02 PM on February 25, 2011


Stupid rich-people tricks, now with duck fat and vacu-formed "goodnesses". Clever food becomes overwrought plate of beans even as it melts in your mouth.
posted by doctor_negative at 12:06 PM on February 25, 2011


Those french fries do not all have square ends and are therefore, IMO, not perfect.
posted by Kabanos at 12:08 PM on February 25, 2011


We're all deathly fat, income disparities are growing and our energy sources are rapidly depleting. And this asshole is developing ways to make food taste better through expensive equipment and more energy?

In the rest of the article, it explains that Intellectual Ventures is mostly focused on making discoveries in healthcare (mostly, malaria) and energy production (from nuclear waste). I'm ok with him playing around with french fries on the side.
posted by the jam at 12:11 PM on February 25, 2011


Rich people are terrible.

But what about all the people he employs in his kitchen, doing what they love to do and getting paid for it.

Nah, fuck 'em, they work for a rich guy.
posted by Ad hominem at 12:15 PM on February 25, 2011


I think it's super-cool that someone is trying to provide easy, comprehensive resources that take some of the trial & error out of cooking. However, I kind of hate that he's trying to turn food into perfection; the purpose of cooking (for me) isn't to create a perfect meal every time, it's to explore what I can make and the satisfaction of making something well. Adding vacuum chambers and million-dollar equipment to the process is cool in theory, but it turns food into a soulless end product.

Ultimately, I'm kind of torn. As a scientist, I love that we're exploring the possibilities of what we can do with food. Being mindful of sustainability, I think it's a bit silly that we're chasing artificially-created perfection. I don't know, I guess that rich guys will always do rich guy stuff to food, and rich guy stuff has exponentially increased its capabilities in recent history. C'est la vie.

Also, this?

Then there’s the Salter Sink, which is supposed to lessen the impact of hurricanes by funneling warm water from the ocean’s surface into the colder water below.

That (and the mosquito-killer) seem great on paper (think of the lives we'll save!) before someone plugs it into a system (oh shit, everything in the ocean is dead). Neat ideas, but man does it seem short-sighted.
posted by Turkey Glue at 12:21 PM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Bwithh: "also see this recent WSJ article:

My 30-Course Dinner at Nathan's: The Most Exciting Meal of a Food Writer's Life
"

That's a lot of hot dogs.
posted by mkb at 12:25 PM on February 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Pffft. Amateurs. None of these books have a recipe for dark chocolate late-night snack.
posted by clvrmnky at 12:38 PM on February 25, 2011


For those too lazy to click links, how to make stock in one hour instead of eight:
Pulse the ingredients (typically, carrot, onion and celery) in a food processor until very finely diced; remove vegetables, add boneless chicken pieces and puree. Chop chicken wings into tiny pieces. Brown all the chicken, then add vegetables and cover with water. Simmer for an hour. The stock will attain the same flavor it would have taken 8 hours with large chunks.

Why this works: "Fick's first law of diffusivity" is at work. This principal indicates that flavor molecules have a shorter distance to travel if the pieces of food are smaller, and thus will be extracted more quickly.
How to cook fish perfectly:
In an oven-proof pan, lay a piece of fish on a bed of onions, fennel or another aromatic. Pour wine to nearly cover the fish, leaving only the skin uncovered. Place the pan under a hot top-heated broiler and cook until the skin is crisp; the exact timing will vary widely depending on the thickness of the fish and other factors. Remove from broiler, insert a digital thermometer and wait until the fish reaches the desired temperature (somewhere between 120 and 130 degrees is often optimal). If the fish does not reach temperature, heat the pan gently on the stove top until it does. The fish will be tender, with crispy skin.

Why this works: "Evaporative cooling" is at work here. The alcohol in the wine evaporates so rapidly that it cools the wine, keeping it from getting too hot and overcooking the fish. Meanwhile, the broiler crisps the skin to perfection.
posted by AceRock at 12:45 PM on February 25, 2011 [20 favorites]


What I'd really like to see is a study of how the word "modernism" spread into foodie culture and what the fuck people think it means there. It seems to me like an attempt to signify certain kinds of eating as In Good Taste based on factors completely external to the well-craftedness or deliciousness of the food. Indeed, this "modernism" seems based largely just on the food's visual aesthetic being in some vague way analogous to the kind of ahistorically "modern" art or architecture that are anointed as tastefully minimalist forms of aesthetic consumption in architecture and lifestyle magazines. Then you get words like "deconstruction" used as signifiers of the really high-end's "postmodernity," vouchsafing Adria-like food as a real luxury item. It's got more to do with the art market than with art, I think.
posted by RogerB at 12:59 PM on February 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


Would green bean casseroles from the 50's qualify as Brutalist cooking?
posted by benzenedream at 1:13 PM on February 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


Why would you want to cook stock more quickly? That's the whole joy of making stock, just like raising kids is a wilful benign neglect. Set everything in simmering water and forget about it until you remember to check it. (Chicken parts and veg, not kids, that'd be bad parenting.) It's not hard. The biggest problem facing the enthusiastic home cook isn't how to make stock more quickly (and in the process dirty the processor which takes forever to clean and makes the whole accelerated process more labour intense.)

Make iceberg salad as tasty and nutritious as spinach salad, or low carb pasta that doesn't taste like shit, or bacon that also supplies the RDA of 13 essential vitamins and minerals, these are discoveries that could make a difference to the world.
posted by Keith Talent at 1:13 PM on February 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Modernest sounds like market-speak for prepping people with disposable income to purchase a new litany of small kitchen appliances.
posted by wcfields at 1:17 PM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Keith Talent: "Why would you want to cook stock more quickly?"

Why? Because people are too damn busy to actually be at home to start the stock and then be home when it's done and ready to be put in the freezer for when you have time to make soup and actually eat it your entire family all in the same place at the same time.
posted by mkb at 1:23 PM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]






Modernest sounds like market-speak for prepping people with disposable income to purchase a new litany of small kitchen appliances.

Well if metafilter is any gauge, America should be ready for some kind of minimalist cooking movement, that focuses on bland, affordable, cruelty-free nutrient pastes.

I've got to move on this fast before the patent trolls get on it.
posted by Stagger Lee at 1:25 PM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Wouldn't "Brutalist cooking" just be raw food?

I see now that the latest blog entry describes (and partially reproduces, in illegibly small print) a forthcoming article in which Myhrvold promises to
explain why the cur­rent rev­o­lu­tion in cook­ing is appro­pri­ately called “Modernist,” as it is in many ways broadly sim­i­lar to Modernist rev­o­lu­tions in paint­ing, archi­tec­ture, lit­er­a­ture, and other arts.

The argu­ment is rather involved (that’s why it takes 6,000 words), but the gist of it can be explained rel­a­tively sim­ply. In the late 19th and early 20th cen­turies, most aspects of cul­ture and art were rocked by rev­o­lu­tions in which small groups of young artists joined avant-garde move­ments that were cre­at­ing new aes­thet­ics by break­ing the old rules. The French Impressionists were per­haps the most famous exam­ple. These painters rebelled against the real­is­tic style of paint­ing that was in vogue in their day. Their paint­ings were ini­tially ridiculed and mocked, but the works ulti­mately became some of the most widely loved art in the world. Similar rev­o­lu­tions occurred in almost every field of human cul­tural achievement—with the notable excep­tion of cooking.

The rev­o­lu­tion in cook­ing that began in the mid-1980s is just such a move­ment. Ferran Adrià, Heston Blumenthal, and a num­ber of other chefs formed an avant-garde that refused to fol­low many of the old rules and in doing so, cre­ated food that chal­lenges us as pro­foundly as any other kind of art does.
Whatever the book does in cookery, this bluffly pseudointellectual ("the argument is rather involved"!), totally wrong version of 101-level intellectual/art history means Paul Graham and Stephen Wolfram will have to face a promising rival for the championship title in the category Rich Self-Published Ex-Programmer Blowhard.
posted by RogerB at 1:31 PM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


"The revolution in cooking that began in the mid-1980s is just such a movement. Ferran Adrià, Heston Blumenthal, and a number of other chefs formed an avant-garde that refused to follow many of the old rules and in doing so, created food that challenges us as profoundly as any other kind of art does."

I just don't know what to say, it's as if the Onion had a food section. FSM, the avarice makes me too tired to pick on egullet and their ilk right now.
posted by -t at 1:55 PM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Ain't seen any links on library.nu or torrent thepiratebay.org. Does a book really exists if modern internet libraries don't stock it?
posted by jeffburdges at 2:16 PM on February 25, 2011


I don't get the hate. I wouldn't pay retail, but I'm sure I'll pick it up at a garage sale two years from now when someone willing to pay retail needs shelf space for the latest trend.

I leaned a lot from molecular gastronomy books, even if I don't use the techniques every day. Still, I have things like calcium carbonate and alginate in the pantry, in case the urge strikes.

I cook every day...I'm always in the market for new ideas, new techniques, and ways to make some tasks more efficient or less work.
posted by dejah420 at 2:39 PM on February 25, 2011


What I'd really like to see is a study of how the word "modernism" spread into foodie culture and what the fuck people think it means there.

So, could Masaokis be considered a reaction to the modernist cooking movement. Could we see a new "Dada Cooking" movement arise from all this? I smell a PhD in Art History somewhere.
posted by formless at 2:46 PM on February 25, 2011


Brutalist cooking would involve huge raw chunks of root vegetables and rare beef on a slab of unfinished wood stacked to precariously overhang the edge.

There are no utensils.
posted by leotrotsky at 2:51 PM on February 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


make that unfinished concrete, obviously
posted by leotrotsky at 2:53 PM on February 25, 2011


Ballardian cooking would be roadkill served on a concrete block, lightly flash-cooked by a distant nuclear blast.
posted by Artw at 2:56 PM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


IMO, the McDonalds Big Mac was the epitome of Modernist Cuisine.
posted by empath at 2:58 PM on February 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Ammonia tinged pink slurry.
posted by Artw at 3:06 PM on February 25, 2011


No, that's a Jackson Pollock piece, I think.
posted by empath at 3:33 PM on February 25, 2011


What I'd really like to see is a study of how the word "modernism" spread into foodie culture and what the fuck people think it means there.

Whatever the book does in cookery, this bluffly pseudointellectual, totally wrong version of 101-level intellectual/art history means Paul Graham and Stephen Wolfram will have to face a promising rival for the championship title in the category Rich Self-Published Ex-Programmer Blowhard.


The books apparently contain more than 1 million words, most of which are meant to describe and explain things of practical use ("cookery"), and the 0.6% of them that get art history wrong are what you are deciding to judge the man and the project on?

I don't know much about Graham, but Wolfram Alpha and the excerpts from Modernist Cuisine that I've seen have already improved my life more than any art history professor you can think of. Probably.
posted by AceRock at 3:39 PM on February 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


and the 0.6% of them that get art history wrong are what you are deciding to judge the man and the project on?

Yes, and why not? A book of food-science tricks and tips is one thing; a self-proclaimed Artistic Revolution in Eating is quite another. Myhrvold's idiotic puffery about modernist aesthetics is a symptom of not just what-has-art-ever-done-for-me philistinism, but a megalomania entirely out of touch with cultural reality.
posted by RogerB at 4:17 PM on February 25, 2011


His cookbook sounded really interesting until I got to the $625 50 lb part. Hopefully he doesn't have blinders for a cheaper digital version.
posted by pashdown at 7:32 PM on February 25, 2011


I'm a tad surprised by the general reaction to this book. I would think that the science-geeks of metafilter would find this all very interesting, that a scientific approach to food and cooking would be exciting. Instead it's all 'cooking should be x, y or z' 'rich people suck' and 'something something patent troll.' Instead of any active engagement in the subject there is mere derisive dismissal.

I noticed this before (how could one miss it) in the last Modernist Cuisine thread, but this time it seems even more ardent. I'm not clear on why so many of you hate this project's guts so vicerally.

I wonder if in a world so driven by technology, particularly the world of the average mefite, there is this safe haven that is food. It's earth and animal, mom and apple pie, camp-stoves and iron skillets. The encroachment of scientists with their vacuums and powders somehow threaten this one sacred place in our science-loving hearts. This is an understandable position, though somewhat short-sighted. Food and technology have always been intertwined and always will be be. As our population grows and our resources dwindle we are going to depend more and more on technology in order to feed ourselves. Right now, in fact, technology has allowed us most, if not all of our basic foodstuffs through advances in agriculture, distribution and preservation.

Or perhaps there is some class issue being played out. The perception is that fine-dining is a perversion of simple, honest food. That the rich are using food as one more differentiation between themselves and the rest of us working class and in the process losing sight of what food is really about (see above.) This second position is barely a position at all, in my opinion. Food in fine dining restaurants is expensive for many reason beyond a chef's desire for exclusivity. Excellent food requires excellent ingredients, highly skilled labor and expensive equipment. In many places a basic professional hood system (with all it's permits and features) can cost more than 20,000 USD. That is to say: Stuff costs money. If you want the best of something it is going to be expensive.

Finally, perhaps many of you just hate the author for his business practices and, in kind, hate anything else he does. Which is also understandable, but unfair to the people who created the cuisine that Myhrvold is basically just collecting and reporting.

I made these recommendations in the last thread too, but if you are interested in this stuff, and have an open mind about food look for Ideas in Food and The Noma Cookbook.
posted by elwoodwiles at 11:00 PM on February 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


The thread is a bit old, but I wanted to point out that he did a talk on the book and its content a while ago at the Univeristy of Washington's CS department. You can find the video here.

The book itself seems like solid work, and beautiful to boot. I suspect that just the emphasis on the physics of heat transfer will provide some food for thought when cooking, and I'm glad to see people working on it. I do wish that it weren't coming from a Wolfram-esque megalomaniac who seems to believe that he would have discovered other people's work anyway, so there's no need to credit them for it. Take the attributions with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty sure the content is right. Unless he starts going on about how the laws of physics and life itself emerge from his complicated hamburger recipe.
posted by Schismatic at 3:26 AM on February 26, 2011


Cookbooks are things I'd expect to be digital soon. In spite of owning about 60 cookbooks (and I recently bought a new one), in real life, I google for recipes. Even stranger that a former Microsoft boss chooses paper.
That said, I may buy this book, when it gets cheaper. I might also buy a vacuum-packer.

On the quick-stock thing: it is a pleasure to put a lot of stuff in a pot and forget it. But on week-nights I often cut the elements into tiny pieces with an ordinary knife and cook them for 45- 60 minutes. I thought every housewife knew this method. No fancy tools or money involved here.

About money: knowing about food saves money. A lot of money. When I lived in New York, the most expensive city I have ever known, a subway-trip to Atlantic Avenue every Saturday for groceries and home cooking could easily balance the budget.
posted by mumimor at 12:21 PM on February 26, 2011


His cookbook sounded really interesting until I got to the $625 50 lb part. Hopefully he doesn't have blinders for a cheaper digital version.

I saw the above mentioned talk at UW, and I thought he mentioned the possibility of a cheaper ebook version. Maybe after those who really want it have the paper version, somewhat equivalent to the paperback versions of novels following hardcovers? 50 lbs of full color glossy photos can't be cheap to print.
posted by JiBB at 1:00 AM on February 27, 2011


This looks like basically Cooking for Engineers, and I'll be on the lookout for a cheaper version or maybe ebook.
posted by Harald74 at 10:50 PM on February 27, 2011


On further research, I was surprised to learn how ancient Fick's First Law of Diffusity is.
posted by Fupped Duck at 2:26 AM on February 28, 2011


« Older Oily and Dead   |   I worry what you just heard... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post