This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - BrerAnansi
Pages:  2
First up: non-words in general such as applaudatory & hissworthy...
To Eat Meat or Not to Eat Meat ... How About Both?
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
May 04, 2006
To eat meat or not to eat meat, that is the question. At least, that's what these guys are hoping, because they think they've got the answer … and it's yes on both counts.
It seems the fine folks at St. Louis-based Solae LLC will be serving up the next best thing from the too-good-to-be-true department: the hybrid burger.
But before you start drooling on yourself, lost entirely in lusty fantasies about previously impossible gut-busting combinations of your favorite foods, know this: the hybrid burger is — brace yourself — healthy.
As many health food connoisseurs will tell you, previous attempts at a healthy burger have frequently involved a meatless soy-based patty — which often leaves waistline-conscious eaters with a bad taste in their mouths … literally.
But Solae's patented invention SoleCina promises a carefully concocted combination of soy and real meat that tastes like the real thing — but with a fraction of the calories and fat, the Associated Press reports.
And it's been in the works for a decade.
"You would be hard-pressed to take a look at this product and have any idea it's anything other than what you're used to in a cutlet, a flank steak, that type of product," Jonathan McIntyre, Solae's vice president of research and development, said. "You get the chewiness and mouth-feel quality."
And while skeptics might turn their noses up at a burger stripped of the power to expand one's pants, McInyre hopes his hybrid will lead the health conscious will agree that nothing says burger like ... um ... "chewiness and mouth-feel quality."
Products using SoleCina are expected to be on the market by the end of the year.
« on: March 21, 2006, 03:34:03 PM »
I thought this article would make for a worthwhile, though long read. Many people on the AA boards base their objection to Affirmative Action on the idea that it is an insult to the idea of meritocracy and that it artificially forces Universities who would do otherwise, to fill their incoming classes based not on merit but murky "soft factors". This article posits that the opposite is true and that admissions have always been based on balancing quotas rather than even-handedness.
The social logic of Ivy League admissions.
I applied to college one evening, after dinner, in the fall of my senior year in high school. College applicants in Ontario, in those days, were given a single sheet of paper which listed all the universities in the province. It was my job to rank them in order of preference. Then I had to mail the sheet of paper to a central college-admissions office. The whole process probably took ten minutes. My school sent in my grades separately. I vaguely remember filling out a supplementary two-page form listing my interests and activities. There were no S.A.T. scores to worry about, because in Canada we didn't have to take the S.A.T.s. I don't know whether anyone wrote me a recommendation. I certainly never asked anyone to. Why would I? It wasn't as if I were applying to a private club.
I put the University of Toronto first on my list, the University of Western Ontario second, and Queen's University third. I was working off a set of brochures that I'd sent away for. My parents' contribution consisted of my father's agreeing to drive me one afternoon to the University of Toronto campus, where we visited the residential college I was most interested in. I walked around. My father poked his head into the admissions office, chatted with the admissions director, and—I imagine—either said a few short words about the talents of his son or (knowing my father) remarked on the loveliness of the delphiniums in the college flower beds. Then we had ice cream. I got in.
Am I a better or more successful person for having been accepted at the University of Toronto, as opposed to my second or third choice? It strikes me as a curious question. In Ontario, there wasn't a strict hierarchy of colleges. There were several good ones and several better ones and a number of programs—like computer science at the University of Waterloo—that were world-class. But since all colleges were part of the same public system and tuition everywhere was the same (about a thousand dollars a year, in those days), and a B average in high school pretty much guaranteed you a spot in college, there wasn't a sense that anything great was at stake in the choice of which college we attended. The issue was whether we attended college, and—most important—how seriously we took the experience once we got there. I thought everyone felt this way. You can imagine my confusion, then, when I first met someone who had gone to Harvard.
« on: February 09, 2006, 03:51:56 AM »
as well as quotas and preferences among other things. The long read is worth the illumination...
Both sides speak their piece...
Pages:  2