On 9/21/2014 4:15 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:> On 2014-09-21, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote: >> On 9/21/2014 6:25 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: >>> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >>>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>>>> want to *have to* share it. >>>>> >>>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>>>> aren't obligated to share with me. >>>> >>>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, >>> >>> No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. What the >>> GPL does is place requirements on _how_ you share it should you decide >>> to do so. >> >> The problem in this statement is the implications of the word "share". >> In a colloquial sense, we think of sharing as something COOPERATIVE >> that you do. In this context, "buying into the FOSS idea". >> >> Your statement is more technical: read "share" as "distribute it to >> anyone for any purpose" (e.g., SELLING something is "sharing" in your >> statement) > > Yes. That seemed to be the meaning of "share" that I was replying to > (at least that's how I understood it).I think that's the problem. E.g., if I said "Microsoft is sharing Windows" folks would look at me wondering what the f*** I was talking about? They wouldn't consider "share" to be "sell". Similarly, if I said "I am sharing cookies with my neighbors", they wouldn't wonder how much I was SELLING them for. Replace share with "distribute" would probably be less ambiguous to more folks.>>> Only if you decide to share the modified program. If you just want to >>> modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine. >> >> Conversely, "Not sharing" is NOT selling, distributing, etc. "Keeping >> it entirely to yourself". > > Exactly. >
Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards?
Started by ●September 17, 2014
Reply by ●September 22, 20142014-09-22
Reply by ●September 22, 20142014-09-22
On 9/21/2014 3:24 PM, langwadt@fonz.dk wrote:> Den søndag den 21. september 2014 04.17.30 UTC+2 skrev rickman: >> On 9/20/2014 7:33 PM, langwadt@fonz.dk wrote: >> >>> Den s�ndag den 21. september 2014 01.09.04 UTC+2 skrev rickman: >> >>>> On 9/20/2014 6:46 PM, Don Y wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 9/20/2014 2:54 PM, Dombo wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>> Op 20-Sep-14 22:41, Don Y schreef: >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> On 9/20/2014 1:34 PM, rickman wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> My understanding is exactly the opposite. You can use it any way you >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> wish on >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> your own. But if you share your work with others you just have to >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> share the >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> source code as well. I don't see any restriction on who or how you >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> share any >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> of this. :S >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> It *requires* you to share it! >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers? >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Competitors?? >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> want to >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> *have to* share it. >> >>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> If you want to take but not give then GPL is not for you. You are not >> >>>> >> >>>>>> alone in >> >>>> >> >>>>>> avoiding the GPL; the conditions stated in the GPL are often not >> >>>> >> >>>>>> acceptable in >> >>>> >> >>>>>> a (traditional) commercial setting and are either worked around or >> >>>> >> >>>>>> avoided >> >>>> >> >>>>>> altogether by choosing a product which has a licensing scheme that is >> >>>> >> >>>>>> more >> >>>> >> >>>>>> compatible with commercial requirements. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> It's not just "take but not give". E.g., I plan on offering all of my >> >>>> >> >>>>> sources >> >>>> >> >>>>> to "anyone who wants them, to do with EXACTLY as they please" -- with the >> >>>> >> >>>>> sole requirement that they acknowledge me as the original copyright holder >> >>>> >> >>>>> and indemnify me from damages, etc. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> However, if *they* don't want to share what THEY add; or, don't want to >> >>>> >> >>>>> assume responsibility for redistributing *my* sources (or even disclosing >> >>>> >> >>>>> *which* sources they used!), then they shouldn't be REQUIRED to do so! >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> If you code is covered by the GPL by being part of some existing GPL >> >>>> >> >>>> code, how can you be sharing it without also sharing the original GPL >> >>>> >> >>>> code. Is this an issue of defining *when* code must be covered by the GPL? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> If I deliver my sources to exactly ONE entity and then decide never to >> >>>> >> >>>>> offer them to any other entities, the first entity can LEGALLY keep them >> >>>> >> >>>>> "hidden" with no other obligations to me or any of his customers, etc. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> This is how traditional licenses work -- you are free to do what you want >> >>>> >> >>>>> (and ONLY what you want!) with things that you "own". >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Good luck on that one. You "own" *NOTHING*. Try telling the government >> >>>> >> >>>> that you "own" your house and you don't want to pay the taxes on it >> >>>> >> >>>> since it is yours and not theirs. Or try adding a second story without >> >>>> >> >>>> a permit, or ... >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> You still "own" the code you have written even though it is covered by >> >>>> >> >>>> GPL. You just are required to provide sources if you give it to anyone >> >>>> >> >>>> else. As with *many* things there are limits to what you can do with >> >>>> >> >>>> the things you own. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> I have no desire to "educate" potential commercial (or private) concerns >> >>>> >> >>>>> as to how they can "live within" the GPL. I'll just avoid it entirely and >> >>>> >> >>>>> be none the worse for wear! (because there are unencumbered alternatives) >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> My goal is to see my code *used*. As it doesn't run on a generic PC, >> >>>> >> >>>>> "being used" means having people invest in creating hardware designs AND >> >>>> >> >>>>> BUILDING THOSE DESIGNS. A big incentive for doing that is if they feel >> >>>> >> >>>>> they >> >>>> >> >>>>> can PROFIT from that (moreso than a 10% markup on a "board + components") >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> Who wants to invest thousands of dollars in a design, marketing, support, >> >>>> >> >>>>> enhancements, etc. if you are competing with SparkFun? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I do. I am looking for a project I can design and produce to the >> >>>> >> >>>> "hobby" market with some potential for the professional market. My >> >>>> >> >>>> stumbling block is the software that is required for most projects these >> >>>> >> >>>> days. I've looked at the rPi and can't find an example of a decent >> >>>> >> >>>> driver as one example. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> a driver for what? >> >> >> >> Specifically a set of ADCs on the SPI bus. Someone was looking to >> >> simultaneously sample six ADCs for some signal processing and couldn't >> >> find anything for the rPI. Seems the SPI drivers are not very fast for >> >> whatever reason and regardless of speed can't be controlled by any sort >> >> of a hardware timer for stability. Unless I have missed something in >> >> the Broadcom manual it will require external hardware to establish the >> >> timing, then the SPI interface needs to be sped up to get adequate >> >> throughput. >> > > afaict the spi can run at upto 125MHz, though I doubt the IOs will do that > it can be setup for DMAThat is the serial bit rate and does not determine the data throughput. I checked the manual and DMA is supported for the SPI bus, but it is not clear just what sorts of SPI devices would be usefully supported with it. They talk about DMA working with the SPI port, but again, it is not so clear on how it might be used in a real app. SPI is a standard with no standard and every device is used differently.> I haven't seen many (any) spi that was really suited for synchronous transfers > if anything you would have to hack it up using timers to generate clk and ce > and run the spi as slave.If you mean run the rPi port as slave, ain't happenin'. It is master only. This would be very doable if the rPi would let you use a timer to control the DMA, then do the transfer one sample at a time on each timer tick... what? It *does* have something like this? Well, *something*... I can't tell how to make it all work, but the bits are there. The DMA with SPI is a bit odd. What is important is to trip off the actual SPI transfer on a regular time period. Even using DMA, a timer would only schedule the bus request and some time would elapse waiting to make the memory access to the SPI port. Hmmm... I've been reading the peripherals document for a couple of days now and just realized there are two different types of SPI ports... go figure.> the rPI has an I2S interface that is much more suited, there is a driver for for running stereo audio I don't know if the HW will support more slots to do more ADCsIf you only want to use a single CODEC. I2S is specialized for audio but it only supports two channels max.>> Are you using Google Groups? All the quotes are double spaced. >> > > yep..Yes, it just gets worse and worse. Ever consider going with Thunderbird and eternal.september? It's all free and relatively easy. -- Rick
Reply by ●September 22, 20142014-09-22
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:09:30 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:>Google wants a beachhead IN your house.Sure, but they could have done it cheaper and better by purchasing an existing home monitoring or security company. Knowing the temperature of your house or whether it's on fire using a thermometer and smoke alarm does not produce very useful or sellable demographics.>Monitoring *your* searches (if >you think they don't know who YOU are, you're misguided!), reading your email >(in addition to GMail, google also silently provides mail services for >many "traditional" ISPs), isn't enough. They need to *watch* you to see >what ELSE they can SELL YOU (ahem... of course I mean "do to improve your >quality of life").Welcome to the 21st century, where privacy is the common medium of exchange: You want free searches and email? Say goodbye to privacy. You want a common payment system? Say goodbye to privacy. You want law and order? Say goodbye to privacy. You want to be safe from evil people like me? Say goodbye to privacy? You want useful data about your customers? Say goodbye to privacy? You want to be nosey and look into what's going on behind celebrity and public officials lives? Say goodbye to their privacy. You want home energy monitoring? Say goodbye to privacy. You want government services? Say goodbye to privacy. You want to be protected from everything? Say goodbye to privacy. It really doesn't matter what services you want, it's going to cost you some privacy. For example, you can get lower auto insurance rates, but only if the insurance company knows where and how you are driving. If you want someone to unlock your car when you lock your keys in the ignition (for the 10th time), the telematics company will need to know everything about your driving. I stupidly gave Google my cell phone number as part of their two part login authentication scheme. I realized my mistake in about 10 minutes, when the first SMS spam message arrived. It took me another 10 minutes to figure out how to delete the phone number, but it was too late. I was getting SMS spam for about 2 weeks, when it slowly went away. Whew. I'm not too worried about Google leaking my personal info all over the place. It's their "trusted partners" that leak badly and abuse the data. I have a few tricks to help track the source of my email spam. Some comes via Google leaks, but most of it seems to be coming from my online purchases from smaller vendors.>Refrigerators will (soon) track (and, of course, report) your eating habits. >(I actually wonder if a timewill come when things like appliances will be >given away -- like toilet paper dispensers -- solely to allow "them" to >get a closer look at your behavior "behind closed doors")Deja Vu for me here. Once upon a time, in the early 1980's, I did some consulting for a company that was trying to put together the "wired kitchen". All the appliances were to talk to each other over a common fiber optic bus (for electrical isolation, not speed) and a mythical common protocol. The idea was to automate many of the non-cooking kitchen functions, such as inventory control, purchasing, recipe delivery, expiration monitoring, cost accounting, etc. It went as far as a mockup and some marketing research in a fairly affluent area. The customer consensus was unanimous. Nobody wanted it at any price. If Google wants to get a foothold into the kitchen, it's going to take more than offering environmental monitoring and calorie counting (i.e. monitoring your eating habits).>Do you not think google's "payment" system (name escapes me) and Apple's >new "Wallet" won't be diverting copies/summaries of your transactions >to marketing folks for other companies? Political parties? etc.It's really a granularity problem. As long as no personally identifiable information is included, I don't care. If they report the spending habits of everyone in the Ben Lomond area, I don't care. If they disclose the spending habits of everyone within 2 hours of where I live, I'll be rather irate. The dividing line between demographic reports, and personally identifiable reports tends to be a moving target, but as long as it's not too personal, I don't care.>"43% of the rhubarb sold in this country is eaten by Republicans; the >rest is thrown out" (sorry, it's an old joke that "fit" here)<http://www.tylervigen.com> 83.2% of all statistics are wrong.>I wonder if there will soon be a time when dealing in CASH will put you >on a "watch list"? :(That would be about 20 years ago and the government war on cash, er... drugs. My late step mother was one of those who just couldn't figure out how to operate a checkbook or credit card. Whenever possible, she had someone else do such things for her, or she would use cash. One day, I get a phone call announcing that she had been detained at the LAX airport for something unspecified. It turns out that she was flying to Canada to visit her sister and paid cash for the airplane ticket. To the authorities, that made her a drug smuggler, courier, or something. The problem was that she had enough cash on her for the return trip, and for about 2 weeks of modest tourism in Canada. They wanted to confiscate all the money as the proceeds from a drug deal. It took the personal visits to the airport from several attorneys and calls from very influential officials to get her and her money released. So much for paying cash.>Remember: >"Any time you are getting something for free, YOU are the product being sold!"Yep. Even more scary is that the sum total of everything I own, all the money I have saved, and all the negotiable paper I have, is really nothing more than a few coulombs of charge in memory, or a few pico gauss of magnetic domains on a hard disk, stored in many faceless server farms, somewhere. It's a very fragile existence that we've come to, especially if we only exist in the cloud. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Reply by ●September 22, 20142014-09-22
On 9/21/2014 9:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:09:30 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote: > >> Google wants a beachhead IN your house. > > Sure, but they could have done it cheaper and better by purchasing an > existing home monitoring or security company. Knowing the temperature > of your house or whether it's on fire using a thermometer and smoke > alarm does not produce very useful or sellable demographics.Home monitoring (services) are passe. Boring. Nest's thermostat *looks* cool! And, tells Google that the folks who are willing to shell out $300 for a thermostat are probably a bit more upscale than the folks who will settle for a $19.95 thermostat (that effectively does the same thing but with less potential energy savings)> It really doesn't matter what services you want, it's going to cost > you some privacy.I disagree. This is true *if* you rely on someone else to provide that service (on-going). OTOH, if the devices/mechanisms you use to get that service are entirely under your control, then nothing "leaks". Do I really need to be connected to the internet to get a weather forecast? Can I get "good enough" data from a roof mounted "weather station"? Is knowing that the current RH *here* is X% "good enough" to determine how my heating/cooling patterns should be changed? Would it be much better if I got an "official" forecast from the NWS for the AIRPORT?? Do I really need Google to monitor my comings and goings to determine when the house will be unoccupied (and HVAC settings changed accordingly)? Can't I put that intelligence *in* the house and not share it with anyone -- and still get that "service"/functionality? Do I need the phone company (or Google phone) to screen my incoming calls -- by providing THEM with the criteria that are important to me? Why can't I get that same service here, without disclosing any of my criteria to others?> For example, you can get lower auto insurance > rates, but only if the insurance company knows where and how you are > driving. If you want someone to unlock your car when you lock your > keys in the ignition (for the 10th time), the telematics company will > need to know everything about your driving. > > I stupidly gave Google my cell phone number as part of their two part > login authentication scheme. I realized my mistake in about 10 > minutes, when the first SMS spam message arrived. It took me another > 10 minutes to figure out how to delete the phone number, but it was > too late. I was getting SMS spam for about 2 weeks, when it slowly > went away. Whew.We just don't give out phone numbers. Folks always have a seemingly valid reason for needing some information ("If we can WATCH you while you are viewing our TV, then you won't need an Ir remote to control the TV -- you can just wave your arms!" "Gee, great! Do you mind if I unplug this network cable...?"). But, there are usually alternatives that aren't as intrusive/insistent.> I'm not too worried about Google leaking my personal info all over the > place. It's their "trusted partners" that leak badly and abuse the > data. I have a few tricks to help track the source of my email spam. > Some comes via Google leaks, but most of it seems to be coming from my > online purchases from smaller vendors.It's not just leaking but *having*. Why do they "need" those things? (Answer: to sell them to others and make more money) Charge me for my searches. I'll make FEWER of them (and you'll have less information about me! Ooops!)>> Refrigerators will (soon) track (and, of course, report) your eating habits. >> (I actually wonder if a timewill come when things like appliances will be >> given away -- like toilet paper dispensers -- solely to allow "them" to >> get a closer look at your behavior "behind closed doors") > > Deja Vu for me here. Once upon a time, in the early 1980's, I did > some consulting for a company that was trying to put together the > "wired kitchen". All the appliances were to talk to each other over a > common fiber optic bus (for electrical isolation, not speed) and a > mythical common protocol. The idea was to automate many of the > non-cooking kitchen functions, such as inventory control, purchasing, > recipe delivery, expiration monitoring, cost accounting, etc. It went > as far as a mockup and some marketing research in a fairly affluent > area. The customer consensus was unanimous. Nobody wanted it at any > price. If Google wants to get a foothold into the kitchen, it's going > to take more than offering environmental monitoring and calorie > counting (i.e. monitoring your eating habits).I think attitudes are changing. Folks used to think automation was "never going to happen". I figure in another generation it will be nearly universal (in mid-upscale homes). Today's youth are enamored with their phones. And, damn near anything related (connected) to them!>> Do you not think google's "payment" system (name escapes me) and Apple's >> new "Wallet" won't be diverting copies/summaries of your transactions >> to marketing folks for other companies? Political parties? etc. > > It's really a granularity problem. As long as no personally > identifiable information is included, I don't care. If they report > the spending habits of everyone in the Ben Lomond area, I don't care. > If they disclose the spending habits of everyone within 2 hours of > where I live, I'll be rather irate. The dividing line between > demographic reports, and personally identifiable reports tends to be a > moving target, but as long as it's not too personal, I don't care.You can always extrapolate data even from a single sample. E.g., "big numbers" tells Google's customers that folks who buy orange juice also tend to like to read People magazine. You show up at the checkout with a half of OJ and are delivered a coupon for an issue of People. Sure, it may be a bad bet (this time). But, playing the big numbers, they realize they can sell more copies of the magazine by targeting folks with half's of OJ in their hands. People who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer. People who buy matches are more likely to smoke. etc.>> I wonder if there will soon be a time when dealing in CASH will put you >> on a "watch list"? :( > > That would be about 20 years ago and the government war on cash, er...Yup. I used to pay my tuition in cash. (mid 70's a few $K per semester) Folks were very unhappy GIVING me the cash (bank) and ACCEPTING it! "Is there something WRONG with this money??"> drugs. My late step mother was one of those who just couldn't figure > out how to operate a checkbook or credit card. Whenever possible, she > had someone else do such things for her, or she would use cash. One > day, I get a phone call announcing that she had been detained at the > LAX airport for something unspecified. It turns out that she was > flying to Canada to visit her sister and paid cash for the airplane > ticket. To the authorities, that made her a drug smuggler, courier, > or something. The problem was that she had enough cash on her for the > return trip, and for about 2 weeks of modest tourism in Canada. They > wanted to confiscate all the money as the proceeds from a drug deal. > It took the personal visits to the airport from several attorneys and > calls from very influential officials to get her and her money > released. So much for paying cash.Used to be $10K sent a red flag to the feds. I think it may now be as little as $3K (I'd have to check with a neighbor in that business)
Reply by ●September 22, 20142014-09-22
On 21/09/14 21:06, Don Y wrote:> On 9/21/2014 4:09 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 21/09/14 08:25, Don Y wrote: >> >>> Obviously, the free software "market" has decided that the GPL >>> isn't the solution! If people disliked the fact that PostgreSQL >>> isn't under the GPL and *avoided* it -- in favor of MySQL (which >>> is GPL'd, IIRC), then the PostgreSQL folks would either decide to >>> embrace the GPL *or* live with the market that NOT embracing it >>> leaves them! >> >> Don, your arguments are all over the place, and you are mixing in >> all sorts of issues from different places. It is extremely >> difficult to discuss things with you when you are incapable of >> sticking to the point. The discussion was about the /Linux >> kernel/, and whether the fact that it is under the GPL makes it >> somehow "evil" and restrictive, and that no sane developer would >> use it because of the GPL. > > No, David, the discussion WAS about "Intel Atoms". Browse back > upthread to see how it "was unable to stick to the point". (I.e., > *I* didn't inject Linux into the discussion. I didn't inquire as to > why Linux wasn't an option for me. Etc.) >The discussion certainly was originally about an Atom board you were having trouble with. I suggested it might be more efficient for you to use Linux to figure out your problems, especially since using BSD apparently meant lots of kernel re-builds. You then basically told us how you couldn't use Linux because of the evil GPL, how it is not technically different from the BSD kernel, VxWorks, Windows, or QNX, and how everybody picks their OS for purely non-technical reasons.> Also, see my (roughly concurrent) reply to Rick re: how discussions > get off topic and the remedies I will use to "keep us all happier" in > the future. > >> A database server like PostgreSQL and MySQL is completely >> different. Most people don't modify or adapt them - they use them >> as-is, and almost nobody cares about the licenses other than that >> they are free to use. MySQL is many times more popular than >> PostgreSQL because it has a reputation for being faster and easier >> to use than PostgreSQL (which is seen as more advanced but more >> complex), and has become more well-known. It's a difference in >> technical features and market familiarity - the license doesn't >> come into it. (Please don't digress into how PostgreSQL is actually >> faster or easier than MySQL - I already know, and it is irrelevant >> here.) >> >> The only people who really care if these are under the BSD or the >> GPL are EnterpriseDB and Oracle, and they both do perfectly well >> with the licenses they use and commercial and open source models >> they use. >> >> There is plenty of place in the world for the BSD and the GPL >> licenses, as well as many others. You can see this from the vast >> amount of software available under both these licenses - the >> "market" has decided that the choice of license depends on the type >> of software and the preferences of the author. > > And that is ****EXACTLY**** what I said: "Obviously, the free > software 'market' has decided that the GPL isn't the solution!" would > it have been better if I had emphasized "THE solution"?It might have been a little better if you had emphasised that you thought "the market has decided that the GPL isn't the /only/ solution" - the way you wrote it makes a clear implication that you felt the "market" had moved away from the GPL. (And I am not the only one who read it that way.) But I think we can close this point, since everyone agrees on the completely obvious fact that different people pick different licenses for different reasons - it only looked like a point of contention because you had used rather an odd phrasing that made it appear you thought something different.> Or, added a > second paragraph (and risk even more complains about lack of > brevity): Obviously, the free software 'market' has decided that the > BSD license isn't the solution! If people disliked the fact that > MySQL isn't under the BSD license and *avoided* it -- in favor of > PostgreSQL (which is BSD licensed, IIRC), then the MySQL folks would > either decide to embrace the BSD license *or* live with the market > that NOT embracing it leaves them! Please don't read your own bias > into what I write! > > And then *complain* when I spend more bytes pointing this out.
Reply by ●September 22, 20142014-09-22
On 21/09/14 10:47, Don Y wrote:> On 9/21/2014 12:35 AM, rickman wrote: >> On 9/21/2014 2:40 AM, Don Y wrote: >>>> ....snip... >>> >>> (sigh) Done for tonight. Another cheesecake to put in the oven. Then, >>> one *final* one next week. Thank God! :-/ >> >> I've spent enough time with you I feel I should get a slice..... :p > > <grin> SWMBO would be annoyed -- for her "artist's reception" next week. > And, it doesn't travel well (though the one I made two days ago leaves for > Denver on Monday -- LONG drive!). Next week's just has to go across the > street, here... (neighbor's daughter's wedding) > > (sigh) Let this cool for a few hours then move it into the 'frig'. I can > slice it and package it tomorrow. > > Then I won't have to look at any more of this disgusting stuff until > after the > holidays!Try this recipe for variety: 3 dl. cream 3 eggs, split 2.5 dl sugar 200g cream cheese (Philidelphia, or something like that) 12 digestive biscuits Crush 6 biscuits and put in the bottom of a buttered cake pan. Whip the egg whites stiff in a mixer, then slowly add the sugar. Move the egg white and sugar mix into a large bowl. Whip the cream, and put it into the same bowl. Mix the egg yolks and the cream cheese until smooth, and add to the bowl. Carefully mix everything together - don't stir hard or you will lose the air. Pour the mix on top of the biscuits. Crush the other 6 biscuits and spread them carefully on the top of the cake. Put it in the freezer overnight. Then you get a fantastic ice-cream cheesecake, and no cooking involved :-)
Reply by ●September 22, 20142014-09-22
On 9/22/2014 1:02 AM, David Brown wrote:>> Then I won't have to look at any more of this disgusting stuff until >> after the holidays! > > Try this recipe for variety: > > 3 dl. cream > 3 eggs, split > 2.5 dl sugar > 200g cream cheese (Philidelphia, or something like that) > 12 digestive biscuitsApparently, the two aspects of my cheesecake that appeal to people are (I don't eat the stuff): - it is very light (only 1 pound of cream cheese in a 9x13 pan) - the fact that it uses *pineapple* for it's "fruit flavor" (instead of cherries, strawberries, etc.) Thanks for the offer but I really don't want anything *else* to make that folks might enjoy. The appeal of cookies is I can bake (almost exactly) 100 dozen in the time I spend at the stove for *one* cheesecake! Cheesecake yields 24 *tiny* pieces... 18 modest pieces... or *6* "That's-the-size-you-should-cut-for-me" pieces. I'd obviously prefer to spend that same amount of time "satisfying" 100 people (a dozen cookies each?) than 6-24! By getting these baked *now* (instead of during the holiday season when every day "counts" towards a deadline), I can spend less time during that period (I spend the last quarter of each year updating equipment, etc. Doing this WHILE also baking is taxing)
Reply by ●September 22, 20142014-09-22
On 22/09/14 05:25, Jeff Liebermann wrote:> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:09:30 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote: > >> Google wants a beachhead IN your house. > > Sure, but they could have done it cheaper and better by purchasing an > existing home monitoring or security company. Knowing the temperature > of your house or whether it's on fire using a thermometer and smoke > alarm does not produce very useful or sellable demographics.There's an argument that Google can sell the aggregate information to the electricity companies so they can forecast demand. That's a plausible argument, gGiven the money involved, the margins on power station efficiency, the possibility of power cuts during peak loads. But I don't know whether the argument is true. There is probably money to be made in knowing when it is worth pumping an advert into your home.> I'm not too worried about Google leaking my personal info all over the > place. It's their "trusted partners" that leak badly and abuse the > data. I have a few tricks to help track the source of my email spam. > Some comes via Google leaks, but most of it seems to be coming from my > online purchases from smaller vendors.Agreed. Having an email address of myname+retailername@gmail.com is a useful trick.
Reply by ●September 22, 20142014-09-22
On 9/22/2014 4:02 AM, David Brown wrote:> > Try this recipe for variety:Let me try to translate the ingredients...> 3 dl. cream - 1-1/4 cups > 3 eggs, split - 3 eggs.... separated? No yolks? > 2.5 dl sugar - 1 cup > 200g cream cheese (Philidelphia, or something like that) - 8 oz > 12 digestive biscuits ??? This one doesn't sound good but wikipedia says they are cookies. We would probably use graham crackers but I don't think they will taste the same. Animal crackers are a more likely substitute.-- Rick
Reply by ●September 22, 20142014-09-22
On 22/09/14 11:25, rickman wrote:> On 9/22/2014 4:02 AM, David Brown wrote: >> >> Try this recipe for variety: > > Let me try to translate the ingredients... > >> 3 dl. cream - 1-1/4 cupsDespite being Scottish, I've never been good at imperial measures. Inches are all right, but how can one possibly use a "cup" as a unit of measure? I've got cups of all different sizes - and no doubt an American "cup" is twice that of a British cup...>> 3 eggs, split - 3 eggs.... separated? No yolks?The yolks get used later, mixed with the cheese. You can't whip eggs with the yolk in it.>> 2.5 dl sugar - 1 cup >> 200g cream cheese (Philidelphia, or something like that) - 8 oz >> 12 digestive biscuits ??? This one doesn't sound good but wikipedia >> says they are cookies. We would probably use graham crackers but I >> don't think they will taste the same. Animal crackers are a more >> likely substitute. >Digestive biscuits are a traditional type of biscuit (or "cookie" in American) that we've had in the UK for a few hundred years or so. They are fairly rough wholewheat, and crumble easily. But you can use anything you like that will give a biscuit crumb top and bottom to the cheesecake. Note that the eggs don't get cooked - if you live in a country where you have a risk of salmonella in eggs, then don't let very small kids (under two years) eat it.
