Inside Baseball

That's an interesting expression. When I first heard it I didn't care for it; because it is obscure to someone not knowledgeable about the American cultural idiom, as well as the internal politics of organizations.

...But, for someone who IS familiar with those things, it's a very useful and apt expression.

Wikipedia defines it as : "a colloquial term in American English referring to "behind-the-scenes" conversations or dialog that the average member of the public would have no way of being privy to."

The expression comes from Bill James, the "inventor" of sabermetrics (or more accurately SABR, for the Society for American Baseball Research); a system for objectively analyzing the performance of baseball players and teams using statistical techniques.

"Outside baseball" are those statistical measures that everyone can see, and which are based solely on objective reality. Inside baseball is those things that go on behind the scenes, and that no-one can see or measure who isn't "inside".

Sabermetrics has come to dominate the management of the sport of baseball, as well as minds of it's fans (especially those into fantasy leagues and sports betting); and the results are clear. Teams (and individuals) with a good grasp of the metrics outperform those that manage by the gut, by at least 20%; even when normalized for all other known factors.

Over the past 30 years it has become very clear that the principles of sabermetrics apply to a lot more than just baseball; they are a method of complex systems interaction analysis.

It just so happens that what I do is complex systems interaction analysis. I'm a systems and security consultant, but whether I'm working on physical security, information security, IT systems, or most anything else I do; my job is all about understanding complex systems, and how to architect, design, build, manage, maintain, and sometimes destroy them.

There's a problem with systems though... , the more inside baseball that goes on; the less one can analyze and predict the actions of systems based on measurable objective factors. Inside baseball breaks the system, unless you can account for it; and even if you have knowledge of the non-objective factors it can be incredibly difficult to compensate for them, because they are just that: not objective.

So, let's talk inside baseball... and let's talk about what it is I do, and have been doing for the past two years for the job I currently hold.

My official title is Sr. Architect. My function is as chief architect for one of the 4 major and 4 minor lines of business, for one of the largest banks in the world.

Each line of business has a chief architect, I am one of those 8 chief architects. There is no architecture position above ours, each LOB is it's own "kingdom" as it were. We do also have an enterprise architecture group however, which helps to set standards and develop technologies that bridge across all the lines of business. We work closely in concert with this group to ensure that the needs of each LOB are represented and met in these polices, which we co-author, evaluate, and approve.

As chief architect, I am responsible for designing, building, and implementing all of the systems, technologies, policies, and processes that go into the technological and information operations for my line of business.

Even more fun, the LOB I happen to be the chief architect for, is not a revenue generating LOB; it's one of the two "headquarters" lines of business as it were. One of the HQ LOBs does corporate operations like payroll, accounting, HR etc..., and the other, the one I'm chief architect for, manages all of the information management and business services infrastructure for the entire bank. So if theres a system that other lines of business depend on, like enterprise information mansgement, storage, data warehouse, security etc... or an enterprise wide system for anything like that... yeah, that's what I'm chief architect for.

As of our next re-org (which should be shortly. It's in final planning stages right now), I report to a group director; who is basically a senior vice president level. The group director reports to one of the CIOs (there are four), who report to the COO, and then of course to the CEO. The last re-org last year added one more layer to that, but when I started the reporting chain looked like this as well. Anyway, there are three guys between me and the CEO (or five guys in my chain, including me and the CEO).

I'm not trying to brag, I'm trying to paint a picture of the organization (the "inside baseball" stuff) so that you can understand what's going on.

Now, so far that all seems relatively complex, but clear. It isn't.

In theory there ar eclear lines of command, responsiblity, and priority; and clear lines of incentive. In reality, everything below the CIO level is "matrixed", meaning that everyone works on multiple teams which may have different goals and priorities. You may work for one guy, but do all of your work for another guy who doesnt evaluate your or effect your compensation, and can't order you to do anything.

The system seems almost deliberately designed to AVOID explicit responsibility or accountability; as well as to prevent innovation or dynamism... in fact I honestly believe it was. The "matrix" structure is designed to ensure that no-one ever gets blamed for anything because there's always fingers to point etc... etc...

So, I've got a very important high level position. I report directly to a sr. vice president level manager, and I have absolute yes or no authority over hundreds of millions of dollars worth of architecture, only overridable by one of the CIOs or the COO.

I don't own projects however. Each project is initiated and owned by the business group that sponsored it, and is paying for it. THey sign off on all work, pay all invoices etc... It's their money, they have to sign to spend it, and they have to sign off on the goods and services they receive.

Now, I need to ensure that all the projects we perform meet enterprise, line of business, and datacenter standards; and are aligned with enterprise and LOB architectural policies and direction. As part of this responsibility, I review all projects for the line of business above the $15,000 level, or all projects that have an architectural or enterprise impact of medium or higher.

This review can sometimes be very in depth and comprehensive and take weeks, or it can be done in a few minutes over the phone. Every project is different. I see projects ranging from upgrading the RAM and OS on a few blades, to the implementation of hundreds of clustered servers costing millions of dollars.

Often, the business cases and requirements I receive are unclear, and I work with our partners (that's what we call the business stakeholders) to clarify and document their business need. Very frequently there is a clearly understood bsuniess need, but not a clearly nuderstood technological need; and I work with the aplication owners to help architect, design, and implement appropriate solutions to these business needs.

On the toher side of things, the partner bust sign off on the designs we create for them; and they must approve the status of the proejct and the actions to occur in the enxt steps at each point in the process.

In this process I work with project do-ordinators and engineers from the various departments (software architecture, software engineering, database management, hardware engineering, hardware integration, capacity planning, network engineering, datacenter management, security, disaster recovery and business continuance). Each project will have either the business owner, or a co-ordinator representing the business owners (may be a co-ordinator, may be a project manager, may be an engineer or manager depending on the needs, and size of the project), and a dedicated co-ordinator from the line of business itself; to help manage and represent these groups administratively. My role as architect is to make sure all the needs technical, procedural, and policy needs are met.

Confused yet? Well I've only covered 1/3 of my job (the other two thirds have to do with developing technologies and systems; and developing policies and procedures); but it's the third thats relevant to our discussion today.

It really is all somewhat unnecessarily complicated. As with the matrix organizations, this structure is something of a jobs and job security program for a lot of the people involved. In many circumstances we could cut the number of people who "handle" a project in half (or in some cases much more).

Anyway, the point of all this is that I have both a strategic responsibility, and the organizational authority to ensure that all projects meet architectural standards and are designed and built appropriately. The partners have the money, and the signature authority over it at each stage.

Now, most of the time this whole thing (miraculously enough) works; slowly, but smoothly and appropriately. If the partner doesnt know what they need, we can steer them in the right direction, and help them build the appropriate solutoion. If they DO know what they need, we can work it into the architecture or make changes necessary to work it in... or even sometimes change the policies and processes to accomodate the partner when it's appropriate.

Most of the time.

I've got a "problem customer" as it were. I've mentioned him before, and the problem is the same basic issue we've had all along, but it has accelerated and expanded in scope.

Basicallly the issue is this: 18 months ago, he settled on a particular architecture and a particular type of machine; and signed support and procurement contracts outside of our normal enterprise agreements to meet the needs of this architecture and infrastructure.

Ok... not great, and he did it against recommendation; but it's something we can accommodate.

One thing we did specifically warn him about though, was that the platform he selected had a very specific limitation. It has a very limited maximum I/O throughput. This limit is just high enough that in a "normal" configuration it isn't an issue, but we warned him that if either his systems were to become more heavily loaded, or if he tried to expand the functionality on those systems that he would run into issues.

Well, for the past several months he has been trying to do more with these boxes than they were designed to do; and we HAVE been running into these issues, as he was warned about. Not only that, but he keeps adding more and more demands of hardware that has reached it's maximum limit.

We have been telling him since march that the boxes he's building can't support the load and functionality he wants to put on them. We have four hardware projects that were started back then, and in all four cases he asked for more interface cards than could actually fit in the boxes, never mind have the bandwidth for. In each case we informed him of this and scaled back his requests to a more reasonable level.

So far, he has taken each of these projects to just before the build stage, then requested last minute changes, asking for MORE than even the original configuration we rejected. In fact, he's done it to each of these four projects at least twice.

He's jsutifying this by saying that because he's logically partitioning the boxes, he doesn't have to provision more hardware (which can be true to an extent, but not to the extent that he wants here); and that because he isn't concerned about performance or availability, only in cramming as much stuff onto as few systems as possible, that he is will to accept this tradeoff and build the system as he's asking for.

Only we won't do that. What he's asking for is to split each system 8 ways, when they should only be split in two. It's POSSIBLE to split 8 ways, but it's jsut a bad idea. He's also tyring to fit four different functions on two systems which will mirror each other; saying that because the machines are partitioned this is sufficient. This is simply not acceptable; because we need to maintain a physical separation of at least two of these functions for disaster recovery and bsuiness continuation purposes.

Basically it doesn't matter if he ways he doesn't need any of that; we simply will not build or support systems that don't meet at least minimum standards.

We have told him that either he has three options:

1. Increase the capacity of the hardware he purchases (buy a bigger box that can handle everything he wants)

2. Buy more boxes, and split the load across them (somethign that is very easy to do)

3. Simply do less with the boxes

Each time I tell him this, he comes back with a design that does just as much with just as little; only rearranging the configuration a bit. Each time I send him back with the same message "these are our options".

He simply will not take the reality of the situation as an answer. He wants me to bend spacetime to fit more stuff onto a medium sized box than can possibly fit. Even if it did, and there were no performance issues, it would be completely against policies, and not aligned with architectural direction.

If I let him do this, not only would I be derelict in my duties as chief architect; but he would be very unhappy, because soon after installation, his boxes would fail spectacularly.

I delivered my final notice to him yesterday. He can do one of the three things I mentioned or I'm simply going to downcheck the projects. Not only that, but I'm not the only one who's told him this. Hardware engineering, hardware integration, and the datacenter guys have all told him the same thing... but he keeps re-arranging the colors on his visio diagrams as if that would make use suddenly see the light ad change our minds.

So, today, he's going to try and go to the CIO and get him to override us; which he very well may do. Generally speaking the CIOs allow the business owners to do so, because it's their money and if they want to be idiots, it's their responsibility.

If they go ahead and proceed with the override, then I'll write it up as not aligned with enterprise architecture or policy, and recommend against implementing it; as will the other teams I mentioned. This triggers a lot of unpleasant things should they go forward.

At that point he's going to have to go outside of normal purchasing channels, conduct the negotiations himself before forwarding them to contracts, get the vendor to build and install it (because our guys won't touch anything I don't approve), pay the datacenter to host it in racks and give it power and cooling, and then pay for a separate support contract from the vendor for the systems.

All in all, it's going to cost him about double to go ahead and do this. Choosing one of the options I presented him would cost 25% to 35% more.; and it will be less reliable, and less maintainable as a result.

Today, I on the other hand am going to short circuit him.

I'm having lunch with the vendor rep; a man I have an important relationship with (I get a lot of insider info, and free steaks from system vendors, because my yes or no means millions of dollars a year to their companies) . At that lunch I'm going to tell the him that if he sells my business partner (lord I hate calling them that) the boxes, services, and support, against our architectural and policy recommendations; that he can forget about selling any other boxes to anyone in our line of business for the next year.

And that my friends, is inside baseball.

Didn't finish any blog posts today

I've got I think 8 posts on the back burner waiting for me to finish them (maybe more... I've been lazy lately); but I didn't manage to finish any today, because I was writing my application for this:

Who Wants to Write for Toolmonger? We’re on the prowl for bloggers who have a passion for tools and all things Toolmonger. If you’ve got what it takes to join the Toolmonger team, drop us a line at jobs (at) toolmonger.com with the subject line “Toolmonger Writer Search.” In the body give us your name, your three favorite tools, and two original, unpublished posts of around 50 to 200 words in the Toolmonger style. A few notes: We’ll delete all emails with attachments, so include all your text in the email body itself. Not the world’s best writer? If you’re the world’s best tool finder, we might be able to help. Our biggest requirements are that you’re interested and that you’re committed. Good luck!

SO of course it being me, my submission started out at 400 words; even though I was trying to write it short. I ended up mercilessly slashing it down to 200, and sending them a few linked samples for good measure.

Honestly, I'd really love to do this. I love tools, I love woodworking, metalworking, and gunsmithing... and I love toolmonger (it's my favorite linky blog - as opposed to writing/essay/rant oriented blogs).

Besides, they NEED someone to write some longer material. Basic howtos, hacks and substitutions, longer reviews etc... instead of doing quite so much linking. I'd also appreciate reading something from the perspective of someone who isn't a complete beginner, but who isn't a professional contractor either (as both the Toolmonger guys are)

I have no idea what the gig pays, or if it pays anything at all for that matter; or what exactly they are looking for. Let's see if I get the gig before I start thinking about that.

On Earth?

Thank you for providing me with this webfodder, anonymous user from Middletown Delaware.

You sir (or madam) are an idiot. The gram is a measure of mass, which on earth is generally equivalent to weight. A gram of cocaine weighs a gram.

Oh and if I needed any further proof, you are running Internet Explorer 6, on WindowsME, at 800 x 600 and 16bit color.

If your computer is capable of running WinME (though gods knows why you would), it's capable of running at the very least, 1024x768 at 24 bit (and most likely more). In fact any computer built after 1996 should be able to do so; except a few of the ultralight (and ultra expensive) laptops with 10-12" screens (that use 800x600 because you can't really SEE text at 1024x768 on a 10" screen).

So, why is it at 800x600? Because that's the default screen resolution for most video drivers that display at xVGA and above (640x480 used to be the default, but they changed it around the time WinME came out).

I can't tell you the number of computers over the years that I have showed up at to fix something; only to find they were set at 800x600 (or 640x480), and 16 colors, with HIDEOUS eyestraining flicker caused by the monitor being set to 60hz (the default refresh rate).

I change the screen to 1024x768 at 24bit and 75hz and the users look at me like I'm some kind of mysterious god; who upgraded their computer through my magic typing fingers... Simply ecause they never learned, and no-one ever bothered to teach them, that you could CHANGE that setting.

For several years Microsoft was wondering why common user reports said the screen looked awful, when they had spent so much time and effort on pretty themes, and the users screens were getting bigger, and more capable.

Well, it turns out that literally millions of users , whose installs from the manufacturer had failed and been reinstalled, or whose OEMs hadnt set the drivers properly, were running at 800x600 and 16 bit. When the uesers were all on 14" viewable and even 17" viewable crts, this was at least livable; but as the 15" and 17" LVD panels became popular (which have a larger viewable area and higher native resolution), users screens looked like overcrowded jigsaw puzzles.

For WINXP they included an automatic detection feature that checks to see if your resolution and color depth are set to "the optimum level for your hardware".

Now, just from looking at the log entry, I can tell that the computer hasn't been updated at all since about 2001.

Javascript 1.3 was released in 1997, and it's follow-on 1.5 was released in 1999. Internet explorer 6; which was as far as Windows ME would have gone on its initial update; was released in 2001.

Now, the OEM build of the computer would have updated once the first time they connected to the internet after turning the computer on; but automatic updates were never a part of WinME (the automatic update service came in for WIN2K and XP). If it had been updated after that, it would be running I.E. 6.x other than 0; and it would be running a more recent version of Javascript.

Actually, I'm amazed the thing has survived six years on the internet in it's unpatched condition. It must be so loaded up with spyware and crap by now... He'll it's probably completely compromised and spreading infection at a ridiculous rate.

Normally I only see such stupidity in offices populated with middle aged women and no IT staff, at libraries, sometimes at grandmas houses (usually they have a nice grandchild who gets irritated when trying to IM their friends from grandmas computer and fixes it)... and very occasionally in industrial environment like warehouses, airports etc...; because those are the only environments where people will put up with it.

Why those groups?

Well, in libraries, people expect the computers to suck; and they don't have a stake in how good or bad they look.

In the industrial environment it's almost invariably because the computer is used by near completely computer illiterate people, who have been shown how to use one single application that hasn't changed in a decade... and they wouldn't know how to deal with it if it did.

In the offices, middle aged women without computer experience are generally afraid of making a fuss, or looking stupid by complaining. As a result, they will put up with an inordinate amount of stupidity to "go along to get along".

...This seems to only be true of middle aged women by the way. Men, for the most part, are more willing to disturb other people to get things fixed. Younger women generally aren't as worried about other people thinking they are dumb for asking to have things fixed; or as worried about disturbing others. Older women generally can't use the systems at all unless their physical limitations (usually poor vision and arthritis) are compensated for, which means no 800x600 at 16bit (low contrast and jaggy, blurry edges make things difficult to read and select).

Basically though, what it comes down to is that the technically incompetent and/or technophobic are disturbed greatly by changes in the environment they either fear or do not understand; and will do anything they can to memorize things so they can get it to work, and NEVER under any circumstances change ANYTHING (which would destroy the mental map they worked so hard to create).

Which reminds me, I really need to do a post on engineering, design, and the "Fair Ellen" problem...

It's important to note, I haven't said the users are stupid; I've said they are putting up with stupidity when they shouldn't be. The users aren't stupid, (well, they may be, but they may be geniuses as well) this has nothing to do with their intelligence; and everything to do with their experiences, and reactions and adaptations to those experiences, which are the crux of the "fair Ellen" problem.

Anyway, somehow, I don't think this person is any of those things. I'm going to go with druggie idiot here.

Gunthing.com temporarily down

To all the readers of theothersideofkim.com, gunthing.com, mrsdutoit.com, and nationofriflemen.com since I know you'll likely be checking in here; there has been a temporary outage at our hosting provider.

They are working on the problem now, and will likely be up within the hour; however if they are not it's because they are going to have to restore from backups, and the sites will be down until tomorrow morning. In this even there may be some short term data loss as well.

UPDATE: We're good to go

A brief history of Saturday Night Live

I was originally just going to leave the quick hit comment below; but honestly, let's take a look at the history of SNL for a minute here.

First, to stave off the comments, the seasons 75-78/79 were unquestionably the best. No-one could ever beat Chase, Murray (who replaced Chase), Akroyd, Belushi, Radner, and Curtin (Newman and Morris.. eh, kinda tokens honestly). The writing, headed by Michael O'Donoghue was the best the show would ever see... minus a few of the obviously more pharmaceutically inspired pieces of course.

From 79/80-85/86... those years are best left unremembered; the only bright spot being Eddy Murphy.

Let me also say a special Fuck You to Jean Doumanian (and Fred Silverman for being the cause of those years general suckitude.

Doumanian was a "talent scout" who somehow got stuck in as producer after basically everyone quit when Fred Silverman wouldn't let Lorne Michaels recast the show and find some good writers. She wouldn't let Harry Shearer be the head writer (he left and co-wrote Spinal Tap the next year), and refused to hire Eddie Murphy (she later changed her mind) , Dana Carvey, Jim Carrey and Paul Reubens (pee Wee Herman); giving us instead Joe Piscopo, Charles Rocket, and Gilbert Godfried.

Fred Silverman was the VP of programming for NBC, who fired almost everybody who hadn't quit already, and who gave the show to Doumanian. He HATED SNL because they were constantly making fun of him for picking bad shows, and making bad decisions, generally running NBC into the ground (which was true by the way).

At the end of the 80/81 season they fired Doumanian and brought on Dick Ebersol, who'd actually created SNL in '74; and who was responsible for hiring Lorne Michaels in the first place

...Well, he tried. He fired all the cast and writers from 80/81 except Murphy and Piscopo; and he tried to hire John Candy and Catherine O'Hara (who would have been amazing). Basically from 81/82 to 83/84, it became the Eddie Murphy and Joe Picopo show... and anything starring Murphy was pretty god, but the rest of the show... frankly sucked; and Murphy left at the end of the 83/84 season.

The 83/84 season marks the time when I actually started watching SNL live on an occasional basis by the way; but I've seen most of what came before as re-runs on cable, and on video.

For 84/85, Ebersol fired half the cast and all the writers, and brought on Christopher Guest and Harry Shearer as both writers and performers (they wer efresh off the cult success of Spinal Tap). THey also brought in two name comedians, Billy Crystal and Martin Short; who were brought on to replace Murphy and Piscopo. Again,SNL became a two man show. Crystal and Short were brilliant, everything else sucked, except the occasional weird stuff they let Shearer and Guest do.

For 85/86, half the cast and crew quit again, and NBC fired the rest. They were going to just cancel the show, but decided to try and get Lorne Michaels to come back again and build the show he wanted. They gave him an almost free hand (in theory), and he used it.

The first thing he did was bring back AL Franken, Tom Davis and Jim Downey (all part of the original writing team from the 75-80 period) as writers and executive producers. Then he hired Randy Quaid, Joan Cusack, Nora Dunn, Dennis Miller, Anthony Michael Hall, Robert Downey Jr., Damon Wayans and Jon Lovitz.

Yeah, you know all of those names for a reason.

But remember I said above 79/80 to 85/86 were the bad years? Well, 85/86 SUCKED. Quaid was drunk the entire time, Hall and Downey did cereal bowls full of coke (at 17 and 19 years old by the way), and nobody had a clue what Wayans was doing, including Wayans.

The only ones they brought back for 86/87 were Lovtiz, Miller, and Dunn; and that's where things get interesting again.

In one fell swoop, Michaels hired Dana Carvey, Phil Hartman, Jan Hooks, Victoria Jackson, and Kevin Nealon.

Yeah, you probably know all those names as well; at least you should... OK, except maybe Jan Hooks who never really stood out.. and Victoria Jackson always irritated me.

Anyway, clearly, this was the best cast they'd had since 78/79; and would kick off a great run that lasted until about '93/94, and a bit of '95. Nealon and Hartman started off this great period, and they closed it down.

I bet the only sketches you can remember from '79 til '86 involve Eddy Murphy, or Billy crystal right?

I dunno about y'all, but I remember a hell of a lot of the sketches from '86 to '95.

And then in '88, they hired Mike Meyers; with six years of unmitigated funny to follow.

It was '88/89 that made SNL a "do not miss this show" event again. Everybody was watching SNL then, and people were still talking about sketches the next week at work and school.

Unfortunately, for 90/91, things started down hill, and haven't ever recovered.

Lovitz and Dunn had left/been fired (a bit of both) at the end of 89/90; and there were some grumblings from the '86 revival players. Then Miller left at the end of '91 for his own show (which bombed unfortunately, but he's done OK since then).

There were some real standouts from 91/92 to 94/95... but generally speaking the best of 86-91 weren't matched (excepting continuing great performances from Hartman, Carvey, and Meyers of course), with three very notable exceptions, Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, and Chris Rock (all hired in '90 or '91).

Unfortunately in '92/93, Carvey and Chris Rock both left, then Meyers, Hartman, Farley, Sandler all left in 94 or 95... and that's pretty much all she wrote.

Since '95 there have really only been two cast members worth watching, Will Ferrel and Darrel Hammond... and maybe a little credit to Jimmy Fallon (not much - he can be very funny, but on SNL, he wasn't), Amy Poehler (again, she CAN be very funny but wasn't on SNL), and Cheri Oteri.

Tina Fey is a great, and very funny WRITER (which is what she was hired for in '97. She was head writer from '99 to 2006... not exactly a great legacy ); but she sucked as a performer on SNL. She's apparently doing a lot better with 30 Rock(along with Rachel Dratch, who I always found irritating); but I've never seen the show.

Norm McDonald can be great, but he sucked on SNL; plus he was drunk basically the entire time. Comedians who are coked up all the time can be really hilarious... RIchard Pryor, Robin Williams, hell, the entire first 5 years of SNL... comedians who are drunk enough that their timing is screwed up and they forget their jokes, but not so drunk that they fall down a lot... not funny.

Oh and a side note on that last comment: Dean Martin almost never drank on stage. It was an act. You couldn't possibly drink as much as he seemed to and still make it through those performances. He said so many times in interviews before he died.

Now as to those "standouts"... well, they aren't exactly Bill Murray and Chevy Chase...

Will Ferrel... man, sometimes he's hilarious; much of the time he's just irritating. He's honestly a very good actor in his own right, outside of his comedic capability; but he doesn't seem to be able to figure out what's gonna work (Old School), and what isn't (A Night at the Roxbury).

Darrel Hammond is a gifted impressionist (better than Rich Little in his best years), but otherwise, he's not very funny. Oh and he currently holds the dubious distinction of being the longest running SNL cast member (12 years), and having had the most appearances on the show.

Now think about it... of all the cast members, what era are the memorable ones, what era are the duds?

Other than Ferrel is anyone from the last 12 years going to be remembered? Probably not. In fact they're probably going to cancel the show next season. They cut the budget nearly in half for 2007 and are cutting it again next year.

You remember the great from 86 to 94 though: Carvey, Hartman, Meyers, Miller, Sandler, Rock, Farley. All of them tremendously successful, and destined to be remembered.

'80 through '85... Do you remember anyone but Murphy, Crystal, and Short? Hell, Crystal and Short don't really count because they were already stars when they showed up on SNL.

... Okay, we all remember Joe Piscopo; but not in a good way.

The original cast though... other than Lorraine Newman and Garret Morris (who were quite honestly the token hot chick and the token black man) they all went on to be MAJOR stars; in fact most of them still are.

Honestly, at this point I don't think the show can or should be saved. The magic is gone, and after 12 years of nothing but crap, they aren't going to get it back.

Just checking in on SNL...

Watched it for the first time in years, just to make sure...

Yeah, it still sucks.

.. has since the 1990-95 meltdown when Miller, Rock, Sandler, Farley, Meyers, Carvey, and Hartman all left.

Temporal Relativity

Man, I remember when I was a kid, and my mom would say something like "Ok now you have to wait an hour"; and I'd go wait for what what I was absolutely without a doubt sure was TWO whole hours, only to see that maybe three minutes had passed

As you get older, well... Y'ever wake up one Monday at 6:30 or so, and go about your business; and then all of a sudden it's Friday at 6:04pm... and you're pretty sure a busy week happened in between but you can't distinctly remember any particular moment of it?

What about thinking "Well, there goes another batch of bills for the first", and then all of a sudden it's the 28th, and you're pretty sure you're missing some days there.

Lately, I've been thinking "Man my birthday was really was great this year, I really love April... what was that a few weeks ago... MY GOD IT'S AUGUST".

I still get a little jarred by the fact that the nineties were over 7 and 2/3 years ago, and began 17 and 2/3 years ago.

I swear, I'm going to go to bed one day in June, 2015; and wake up in 2035 wondering where the last 20 years went.

Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 23 - Some like it hot

...And some think mild chemical burns are mighty tasty...

I would be one of the latter.

I've gone over this before of course, but today I wanted to share one of the sinus searing culinary joys of my life with you, my Asian hot chili wasabi sauce.

It's a simple little thing, so I wasn't going to bother making this a recipe for real men; but I think you'll like it anyway, so why not.

Ingredients:

4 tblsp water (room temp or slightly warm, not hot or cold)
4 tblsp soy sauce (natural brewed only)
4 tblsp vinegar based chili sauce (I use Franks RedHot)
2 tblsp pure wasabi powder blend (or 1/2tblsp pure wasabi, 1tblsp pure horseradish)
2 tblsp Chinese hot mustard powder (add 1/2 tblsp if you're using pure wasabi instead of blend)
1 tblsp vodka
1 tblsp crushed dried whole chili peppers, or fresh chili paste (choose a pepper to suit your heat)
1 tsp crushed garlic

Preparation:

Ok, this isn't hard, but you have to do it in the right way, with the right ingredients, in the right order, and for the right amount of time; or it's just not going to taste right.

The first step, is to get the right ingredients. You are looking for a good quality of pure wasabi blend, or pure wasabi powder. You're probably going to need to go to a specialty spice merchant, or a natural foods market for this. The wasabi you find at most Asian supermarkets generally isn't really wasabi, its horseradish and mustard with no actual wasabi in it at all.

Why? Because wasabi is EXPENSIVE. We bought 4oz of the BLENDED wasabi powder (which is a blend of pure wasabi, horseradish, and white mustard) at Penzeys a few months ago, and it was $14. Trust me though, it goes a LONG way, and the low quality cheaper substitutes are just not pleasant at all.

You don't need to get pure wasabi though; in fact if you did, you probably wouldn't like it very much (it's very bitter); and besides, it costs about $20 an ounce. The Penzeys blend works just fine; or you

Next you need to get yourself some chinese hot mustard. Normal white and yellow mustards (technically the same plant, but different preparation) are much milder than chinese hot mustard (which IS a different plant, or rather two; it's a blend of brown and black mustard varieties), because they have a far lower concentration of isothiocyanates, the volatile oils which give mustard it's pungency.

Again, the stuff you generally buy in jars at the Chinese market isn't what we're looking for. You want a natural pure hot mustard powder; which again, you can get at Penzeys, whole foods etc...

Both wasabi, and mustard are part of the same plant family; and are aromatic spices (well, wasabi is a risome, but mustard is a spice) that release flavorful aromatic compounds when moistened, including those isothiocyanates, which provides the pungency for both.

When wetted, the pungency of mustard and wasabi will increase for 10-15 minutes 'til it peaks sharply, then falls of slightly to a plateau for several hours, and slowly decreases over time. However, this process can be arrested at any point on the timeline, fixing the heat level and greatly slowing the degradation of flavor for as much as a year or more afterwards, with the addition of mild acids like strong citrus juices, or vinegar.

Additionally, any heat above 140 degrees Fahrenheit for any length of time greatly reduces the overall pungency; and adds a nutty toasted flavor and aroma (that's common to Indian and Thai cuisine).

This friends, is why the order and process is important here. You have to time it properly, and mix the ingredients in the proper order, or you're going to get a flavorless mess.

Ok, enough with the theory, lets do it.

First tings first, crush and mince your garlic and chilis; and mix them into the vinegar based hot sauce. Personally, I like thai hot peppers (also called thai bird peppers... or you can use the similar Chilitepin) here, but anything in the cayenne heat range or hotter is good. For hot sauce I prefer Franks RedHot, but any relatively thin vinegar based sauce is fine here (Texas Pete or Tabasco would also work). Add in your vodka at this stage as well.

Why vodka?

Chilis and garlic both contain alcohol soluble flavorful oils; and you wont get the full flavor out of them with just water or vinegar. It's not necessary to use vodka here of course, any neutral or pleasant tasting alcohol of about 60 proof or more is usable. I simply chose vodka because of its neutral flavor.

Now, add the soy sauce into the mix, and put it aside to let the flavors blend. Don't refrigerate it though; you want the mix to be room temperature. Oh and keep it handy, you're going to need it in about 15 minutes.

Next, take 4 tablespoons of water, and mix your powdered mustard and wasabi blends into a smooth, thin, paste. Depending on the particular blend you've got you may need to add more water. You aren't trying to make the doughlike paste you get in a cheap japanese place; you want the paste to be basically a thick liquid, and thoroughly wet.

Now, here's where you have a decision to make. How much sinus burn do you want? The clock starts running with the first wetting of the powder, with pungency increasing for between 10 and 15 minutes. You need to decide at what point you're going to arrest the progress. You don't really develop any flavor for the first 3-5 minutes, and after 10 minutes the flavor could be a bit harsh for some folks (hell... most folks).

So, what you want to do is taste every minute or so; then when the pungency seems a little bit less than you want, add in the chili mix, and stir quickly to combine.

If you want to moderate the mouth feel, add a little sweetness, and add more Thai or Caribbean flavor to the sauce without significantly reducing the overall spice level; add in 1-2 tablespoons of fresh coconut cream (it's like double thickness coconut milk), or condensed coconut milk; a teaspoon of fresh nutmeg or allspice (or both), and the juice from half a lime. Oh and for Thai specifically, add in a couple tablespoons of Sriracha.

If you want to add a more indian flavor to the sauce use yoghurt instead of coconut milk; and add a bit of turmeric, and a bit of cumin.

You need to let it sit for at least 10 minutes; but the sauce will be best if you let it sit for 2-6 hours before serving.

Once you are ready to serve, you can use the sauce as is; or you can mix it a bit for dipping or pouring. Basically, you can add more soy or chili sauce, more coconut milk, more yoghurt, more water, lemon, or lime juice to modify the texture and flavor to whatever best matches the dish you're serving it with.

Personally, I think it's the worlds best dipping sauce for little bites of Asian meat dishes... but be warned, this WILL clear your sinuses quite thoroughly.

Oh and one last teaser. If you REALLY want to blow your mind, slice up a sweet strawberry to under 1/4" thick and take a piece of extra dark, high solid chocolate of about the same size (like one of the small guitard or ghirardelli squares); then "glue" the strawberry slices to the chocolate pieces with a thin smear of the coconut milk modified sauce.

Trust me, it's incredible. Strange, but REALLY good.

And be sure to check out:

Recipes for REAL Women, Volume 22 - Full Fat, Full Dairy, All Killer, No Filler
Recipes for REAL Women, Volume 21 - Forget About the Dough Boy
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 20 - QDCBS (Quick and Dirty Chili Bean Stew)
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 19 - Chicken Salmonella
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 18 - I'll give YOU a good stuffing turkey (1)
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 17 - REAL Coffee
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 16 - DTG (Damn That's Good) dip
Recipes for REAL Women, Volume 15 - More Chocolate Than Cookie
Recipes for REAL Women, Volume 14 - Millions of Peaches
Recipes for REAL Women, Volume 13 - Mels 10,000 Calorie Butter Cookies
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 12 - Lard Ass Wings
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 11 - Bacon Double Macaroni and Cheese
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 10 - It's the meat stupid
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 9 - Labor Day Potatos
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 8 - It's a pork fat thing
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 7 - It may not be Kosher...
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 6 - Andouille Guiness Chili Recipes for REAL men, Volume 5 - Eazza the Ultimate Pizza
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 4 - Two Pound Meat Sauce
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 3 - Highbrow Hash
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 2 - MuscleCarbonara
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 1 - More Beef than Stew

That was the crappy year that was

I've played this game before, but Kim brought it up again, in reference to Army of Moms list.

The game goes like this. What were the top 10 singles of the year you graduated high school. What were the top albums. Of the top 100 singles and 200 albums (which is how Billboard lists them in charts) which ones do you actually LIKE; and, forgetting about the charts, which music in general did you actually like from that year.

Then, who died, broke up, or retired; and who got into music or formed as a group that year.

Finally, list the crappy news and events of that year; and any good ones to offset them.

Kims year was '71, and his chart list was pretty bad; but there was a lot of good music that came out in '7 (it jsut didn't chart well).

I'm '93 here; and it was pretty horrible. The top ten singles that year were:

1. I Will Always Love You, Whitney Houston
2. Whoomp! (There It Is), Tag Team
3. Can't Help Falling In Love, UB40
4. That's The Way Love Goes, Janet Jackson
5. Freak, Silk
6. Weak, SWV
7. If I Ever Fall In Love, Shai
8. Dreamlover, Mariah Carey
9. Rump Shaker, Wreckx-N-Effect
10. Informer, Snow

Of those, the only one I don't actively hate is the UB40 cover of "I can't help falling in love".. which I only mildly dislike.

Of the whole top 100 for that yea, the only songs I actually LIKED were:

31. Mr. Wendal - Arrested Development
81. Rebirth of slick - Diggable Planets
94. Livin on the edge - Aerosmith

The Album charts is even worse:

1 - The Bodyguard soundtrack
2 - Breathless - Kenny G
3 - Unplugged - Eric Clapton
4 - janet. - Janet Jackson
5 - Some Gave All - Billy Ray Cyrus

The only one even worth thinking about is Clapton unplugged (which I actually still own)

Other albums I liked from that year (not including live, concert, and greatest hits):

Get a Grip - Aerosmith
Crazy Legs - Jeff Beck
Candlebox - Candlebox
Coverdale Page - Jimmy Page and David Coverdale
The Battle Rages On - Deep Purple
Pork Soda - Primus
Pablo Honey - Radiohead
Rancid - Rancid
Counterparts - Rush
Edge of thorns - Savatage
Chaos AD - Sepultura
Undertow - Tool
Bloody Kisses - Type O Negative

The album charts were so bad that year, that of the top 200 billboard albums that year, nearly 60 of them were actually released in 1992.

Dizzy Gillespie, Mick Ronson, Ray Gillen, and Frank Zappa all died. The Pixies and Metal church broke up, and dear god the backstreet boys were formed (now theres a crime against humanity right there); though we did also get The Crystal Method, The Hives, and Jurassic 5.

I like Kims list a lot better; 'cept I know who Lindisfarne are, but have never listened to them.

Now, onto the worst of all, the news.

I don't see how anything could be worse in '93 (or for that matter, be god enough to balance it off) than the first entry, but here goes:

Jan 20: Bill Clinton inaugurated as President
Feb 11: Janet Reno nominated as Attorney General
Feb 28: ATF raids Branch Davidian compound
Mar 11: Reno is confirmed as Attorney General
Mar 31: The first Spam is sent
Mar 31: Brandon Lee "accidentally" shot by Michael Massee while filming "the crow"
Apr 19: The FBI and ATF murder 85 people, burning 79 of them to death in their home
Jul 19: Clinton introduces "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Jul 27: Windows NT is released
Aug 6: Louis Freeh becomes director of the FBI
Sep 13: First Israeli PLO Clinton "peace" accords signed
Oct 3: Battle of Mogadishu (see "Blackhawk down")
Oct 31: IRS recognizes Scientology as a legitimate religion
Nov 11: Windows 3.11 is released
Nov 30: Clinton signs the Brady bill

They gave Toni Morrison the Nobel prize for literature, and Nelson Mandela the Nobel peace prize.

No-one who has yet proven to be both useful and famous was born that year. In addition to the notables in music listed above the following notable (to me anyway) folks died:

1. Audrey Hepburn
2. Andre the Giant
3. Ferrucio Lambroghini
4. Deke Slayton
5. Jimmy Doolittle
6. Vincent Price

Honestly... I'd say that 1993 has to be a top contender for worst ever year not actively involving a global plague, depression, or world war.

Geek Triumph

Problem: Windows sucks, crashes constantly, sucks resources horribly etc... etc....
Solution: Don't run windows

-- Problem: Work VPN and email clients are windows only, do not work in emulation modes
-- Solution: Run windows just for email and vpn

---- Problem: Policy only allows corp. controlled systems to connect to internal resources.
----- Corollary: Corp allows Linux and VMWare, but does not support either on laptops.
----- Solution: Install linux on company laptop, run windows in VMWare. Don't call support

------ Problem: VMWare doesnt want to run with current configuration
------ Solution: Corp does not prohibit VirtualBox, which will run properly


Result: Happy geek with Linux laptop, and Windows VPN and email in virtual machine

Keeping your time your own

A subject near and... well, not dear; but certainly of significant concern to me was recently raised in the "gun thing" forums: Overtime and On-Call time

Oooh boy... I have some stories...

There are some jobs; more and more these days it seems (though at least in my field not as much as in the mid to late 90s); where mandatory, uncompensated overtimes is just expected. This has been part of the computer culture since it's inception. It's just assumed that when deadlines approach, you will work "until it's done" no matter what it takes.

Now, I'm a workaholic by nature. Without outside restraint, that's exactly what I'll do.

Don't.

Not only that, but it's expected that you'll drop everything at a call from work and get on it; no matter where you are or what time it is.

Don't.

I say this from years of painful experience; unless you are in the military, or an emergency responder... or MAYBE if you're working at a startup and overwork now means the potential for never having to work again in a few years... you MUST keep your time your own.

If you don't respect your time, then your employers or clients will abuse it. They will require more and more of it until you are doing nothing but working, eating, and sleeping.

Believe me I know, I did it for years. I've worked months on end of 100+ hour weeks. I've worked 24 hour shifts more than once; more than a hundred times even. Hell, I worked a 78 hour shift once. I've done 16 hour shifts, got on an airplane for 8 hours and done another 16 hour shift, then got back on the plane for an 8 hour ride home... It "helped" to kill one marriage and an uncounted number of other relationships. It "helped" me gain a hundred pounds over the healthy and fit weight I'd kept for 10 years.

A few years back, I swore I would never do it again (along with a personal commitment to never have a commute of more than one hour each way ever again). Without leisure and personal time, your life gets more and more unpleasant; until there's no real point to it. You've stopped living, and you're just existing.

Sure you may be making good money, but what good is it if you don't have any free time to spend it? What good is it if you're dead at 40 from a heart attack?

This isn't to say that you shouldn't do overtime at all; just that you should properly manage it. Hell, overtime is a way of life for the trades, and most unionized jobs; but they make sure that they get paid for it, and the more there is, the more they get paid. This acts as a natural brake against employers abusing overtime.

So how much is too much? Well, that's a personal choice, but I draw the line at 60 work hours a week; and I really think that two consecutive days off is important.

Oh, I WILL work more than that; but you can damn well bet I'm gonna get PAID for it.

And then there's the sticky question of On-Call, and out of hours work.

The contract I've been on the last two years, is the first job I've had in years that didn't require at least some on-call and out of hours work (or overtime for that matter, which is not allowed by the company for exempt employees or equivalent contractors at all). Most of my contracts have been in environments where 24/7 on call was a way of life; and on-call can be worse than overtime, because it steels your most personal time: your sleep and your personal time with your wife or girlfriend, and your kids. If you're on-call you can't make any real plans without excess stress, because you know you could be interrupted at any time.

Worse, some employers seem to think that on-call "just goes with the job", and that they can reasonably expect you to be on call without any restrictions or compensation.

I don't think so scooter.

I'm pretty reasonable about overtime (to a point), but I charge quite a lot for on-call, and out of hours work. It's not because I'm greedy; it's because I respect my own time, and I expect my employers and clients to do so as well.

If on-call means I have to be grab and go ready 24/7 with immediate on-site response time in a local region, then I typically charge 50% of my full rate per on call hour; full rate for every hour of actual work time between 8am and 10pm; and 200% of my full rate during “emergency hours” between 10pm and 8am.

I also charge a minimum of two hours for any on-call that requires me to interrupt something I was doing for any length of time, or cancel it; and 4 hours for any on-call that requires me to go on-site.

If my on-call requires 24/7 grab and go with immediate out of region travel (I had to fly from Dublin, to Nashville, to Quatar in a 48 hour period on no notice once. The airfare alone - for clients I fly a minimum of business class or above - was well over $10k) then I charge full rate for every on call hour, including travel time; but I waive emergency rates unless my actual work hours (including travel hours) exceed 60 for a given work week or seven day period (whichever has more hours), at which point I go to full doubletime.

If immediate phone response is required then I’ll typically charge 25% per on-call hour, and the standard 100% for non emergency hours and 200% for emergency hours. Also, if on-site response is required when my on-call is supposed to only be by phone, I charge full emergency rate, no matter what time it is.

Only if my response time requires no on-site, and 2 hour phone response or greater will I waive a blanket hourly on-call rate and go to straight time; and I still charge 200% for every actual work hour.

Oh and any time that I was absolutely not supposed to have on-call time and I end up having to call in or go on site? Yeah, thats at full emergency rates. I don't allow clients or employers to screw up my plans without notice, unless they're paying handsomely for the privilege.

As to overtime charges, in my contracting work I don’t charge overtime rates up to 60 hours, but I do charge an out of hours premium of 150% for any scheduled work between 10pm and 8am; and for any unscheduled emergency out of hours work, or any work over 60 hours I charge 200%

Customers have to pay for the privilege of stealing my sleep, and my family time; or they will attempt to do so far too frequently; rather than provisioning proper staffing for their out of hours needs.

If I have a very good customer who I know won’t abuse the on-call provisions, I will soften my stance here; but I’ve had too many companies try and screw me to not take a hard line without a degree of trust there.

Now, I can get away with this, because I have a skill set that is in demand and difficult to replace; and my experience and abilities are commensurate to my rate. When you are just establishing yourself it can be difficult to maintain terms like that; but you need to make every possible effort to make it non-free for your employers or clients to abuse your time.

Now, it is very important to note, that comp time isn't sufficient to make your employers stop abusing your time. Comp-time looks free to your employers (believe me); unless you get two hours of comp time for every hour of overtime or out of hours time. It has to be two hours to hurt enough. When you've got straight comp time, as far as they're concerned it's just shifting the money around; it doesn't matter to them that they are screwing you over in the process.

It doesn't take very much financial penalty for employers to think twice about wasting your time, and that's what's really important. If it's critical they'll gladly pay whatever it takes (or at least they should; if they don't, then they are stupid and you should find a better job), but if it isn't critical they shouldn't be bothering you.

I've had clients or employers say "That's ridiculous. We would never hire someone under those terms". Some employers seem to think that you should be HAPPY to give the company all your time whenever they need it, and if you don't you're not a "team player".

Fine, then guarantee me in writing that I will never have to do any overtime or on-call work; and that there will be no penalty or stigma against me for refusing any such work if it comes up.

"But, we can't guarantee that. If theres deadlines or emergencies, of course you may be needed".

Good. That tells me all I need to know about your company; and I'm glad I wont be working there.

I don't work for you for fun. I don't work for you for my own personal satisfaction. I don't enjoy giving you my time. My time would be much better spent doing stuff for ME and for my family, why would you expect me to joyfully take my time away from them?

I may love my job and take great personal satisfaction from it; but if you didn't pay me, I wouldn't be doing it. Why would you think I would work MORE if you didn't pay me more? It's called work, not play, for a reason.

What it comes down to is this. Your time is valuable. You only get so much of it, and it all happens on a very strict schedule. If you miss it because you're working, you cant get it back.

You know what compulsory work without compensation is called? Slavery.

If your employers don't have to pay for your time in order to use it and abuse it, believe me, they'll think nothing of making you a slave. Make them pay, and they'll respect your time, and you will stay free.

Old Home Night

So, I'm browsing around the web, as is my wont; and I found out two kinda interesting things.

One, a girl I went to high school with is apparently a slightly famous actress.

Natalie Ramsey... I don't really remember too much about her. She was cute, a little dumb but did well in school, and her younger brother Derek was a bit... odd...

Anyway, she's now one of the stars of an apparently successful teen soap opera type TV show that I've never heard of: Beyond the Break

I've only ever seen one thing she's been in; she had a minor role in "Pleasantville" (an excellent movie)... If I remember right she was the "nice girl gone bad" character, but I haven't seen it in years. I have it on the tivo so I'll have to watch it again to check.

She apparently has a fansite too. Other than the tan and either a boob job or a lot of padding; she looks pretty much the same.

So then I look up my home towns page on Wikipedia to see what's been updated since the last time I checked; and I find out Money magazine has rated Milton the seventh best place in America to live in.

Kinda cool really. Other than being in Massachusetts and directly bordering Boston (and all that implies), I can tell you it really was a great place to grow up.

Recipes for REAL Women, Volume 22 - Full Fat, Full Dairy, All Killer, No Filler

It's about a hundred and a zillion degrees out these days, and naturally ones thoughts turn to chilling down.

Ones thoughts turn to... I scream, you scream... You know the rest.

Ice cream is probably the dessert treat Americans most identify with. Sure it's mom, the flag, and apple pie; but that apple pie has a big'ol scoop of vanilla goodness on top (apple pie and cream is for the Irish - who put cream on every dessert god bless'em -, apple pie and cheese is for the English, and midwesterners).

I mean really, is there any situation in your life that cannot be made better with Ice Cream? I know... you've all seen 9-1/2 weeks... but I digress.

Real ice cream for the home market is loosely marketed in two basic styles, Plain Style Ice Cream (or Philadelphia Style), and Custard Style Ice Cream; which are differentiated by the techniques used in preparation of their cream base, and in their protein content (custard style has a fair amount of egg protein in it, in a custard base).

Along with style, are are a few loose grades, defined by their butterfat content (how much cream), and their overrun (how much air is whipped into them). The more fat, the better, the less air the better. Air adds volume, but alters the texture (in good and bad ways), and melting characteristics (all bad).

"Low fat" and "light ice cream? Ice Milk? Frozen Yogurt?

No.

No, no, no...

I actually LIKE frozen yogurt; but it's not ice cream.

Any Ice Cream like substances with less than 10% milkfat, less than 9% milk solid, and more than 50% overrun, are not by law allowed to be called ice cream (nor should they be). They are a "frozen dairy dessert" or something similar.

Between 10% and 12% milkfat, 9 to 11% milk solids, and 40% to 50% over run; you have your run of the mill ice cream. This is the same supermarket stuff they've been selling since home refrigeration became all the rage.

13% milkfat or above, and 12% milk solids or above, with less than 30% overrun, and you've got "premium" ice cream. Fat and milk solid contents can vary greatly across various recipes and styles. Given this, the primary difference between premium and "super premium" is the overrun. Super premiums typically only have between 5% and 15% overrun.

...Well that, and the cost (and the taste of course). A typical grocery store gallon of ice cream costs under $5 (on sale), but super premium ice cream can cost $3 a pint or more (8 pints to the gallon); 4-5 times as much.

Of course as I showed in this example, ice cream is generally sold by volume not by weight; and the discount store ice cream is up to 50% air by volume, whereas the super premium may be only 5% air. A gallon of super premium ice cream may cost 4 times as much as the discount brand; but it may also have twice as much actual "stuff" in it.

Then of course there's the actual "stuff" involved:

Discount store ice cream is generally made with milk byproducts, whey, added reconstituted milkfat and milk solids, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil , emulsifiers, stabilizers, high fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors, and food dyes.

Super premium ice cream is generally made with cream, milk, eggs (maybe), vanilla, salt, sugar, natural fruit or flavorings, and maybe carrageenan (a seaweed extract that acts as an emulsifier, aids in texture, and helps prevent large ice crystal formation).

Guess which set of ingredients cost more? Guess which tastes better?

Ok, so we know what's in it, how do you make it?

Well, if you just tried to mix up an ice cream base, and freeze it like popsicles... well that's pretty much what you'd get. Not an ice cream bar or a fudgesicle either, but an actual block, of most likely crumbly ice. Because ice crystals push aside anything dissolved or suspended in water when they freeze (unless they freeze VERY quickly); just freezing the base will make the fats, solids, flavors etc... all separate out, and nobody wants to eat that (nobody sane anyway).

What you need then, is an ice cream maker.

There used to be a wide variety of different ice cream maker designs out there; from hand cranked salt and ice buckets, to large self freezing rotating drum machines. No matter what the detail design though, they all work on the same principle: Freeze the cream base quickly to avoid the excessive formation of crystals; while smoothly the base smoothly to further retard crystallization, add air, and refine the texture.

The old ice bucket churns do it pretty much the same way as modern home machines. Pour the cream base into a container surrounded by a chilling agent (in this case ice and salt mixed together, which gets down to about 19 degrees Fahrenheit), then churn the mixture with paddles (called a dasher), either by rotating them with a crank, or rotating the cream bucket around a fixed dasher.

Of course this is the modern electric age; so the hand crank has been replaced by electric motors; and ice and salt have mostly gone by the wayside. Oh, you can still buy the old fashioned machines if you want, or even electrified versions that still use the ice and salt, but do the churning for you; but the new machines have much cleaner methods... though surprisingly, generally not as fast (the ice and salt does a pretty good job of cooling things down quickly).

There are machines that include their own refrigeration mechanism, but they are bulky, expensive, slow, and have a relatively small capacity. Most modern home ice cream makers have chosen to use a cold sleeve that you put in your freezer for several hours before making your ice cream, to replace the ice and salt; but they still either churn the cream base with a rotating paddle, or rotate the freezing sleeve full of yummy yummy cream base around a fixed paddle.

For example, we have this 2 quart Cuisinart:

and as you can see in this picture, it does the latter, taking about 30 minutes to do the job:

Typical home machine prices vary from around $40 to over $300, but you can pick up a decent machine in the $60 to $120 range (yes I know, still a broad range), depending primarily on capacity, features, and brand name. Theres even an ice cream maker attachment for the god of kitchen small appliances, the KitchenAid Stand Mixer (actually, it's a damn good deal if you've got a KitchenAid... and we do - and so should you- but we got our Cuisinart on a very deep discount).

So, for all of you who are itching for premium ice cream without the premium (and rising) price, grab your ice cream makers and chill your sleeves. No ice cream you can buy, is better than what you've made at home with fresh ingredients, no fillers, and as much pure sugar and cream as you can stand.

So, pretty much all actual ice cream (as opposed to a sorbet or gelato which are a bit different) starts out with a basic vanilla. From there, you can add as many flavors, add ins, and combinations as you can fit in the bowl (welll... not quite, but we'll get into the limitations later).

The variations are pretty nearly endless, but it all begins with this:

Basic Vanilla Ice Cream

Ingredients:

3 cups half-and-half (or 1 1/2 cups whole milk, 1 1/2 cups cream)
1 cup white sugar (finer sugars will dissolve easier - use vanilla sugar if you've got it)
1 1/2 cups heavy cream
1 1/2 tbsp vanilla extract
1 vanilla bean, pulped and scraped (optional - only if scalding cream)
1 large pinch salt (about a half teaspoon)

Preparation:

When the ingredients go into the ice cream maker, they should be as cold as you can conveniently make them without actually freezing. You can do this by mixing cold, straight out of the fridge and it makes great, quick, and surprisingly cheap ice cream.

If you have the time and ernergy though, there's a more flavorful way.

For extra flavor and better texture (but much longer preparation time) you can scald the cream base (all the milk and cream) before cooling it down. This will change the structure of the milk proteins and give a better mouth feel, as well as intensifying the flavor of the cream base.

Oh, and if you're really ambitious you can stew a vanilla bean (or beans if you are so inclined; but one will provide a LOT of flavor, and they are rather expensive) in the cream while you're scalding it. It's not necessary, but it has a truly wonderful additional aroma and flavor over the extract.

If you're going to do the scalding; you want to be very careful to not overdo it. If you don't know how to scald cream, just mix the thing cold. If you DO however; you'll want to mix the sugar in while the cream base is still hot (it dissolves better), then cool the base down quickly in an ice bath, and add the vanilla extract when cold (only use real vanilla, and don't add alcohol based extracts to hot dairy base; it can cause problems with the proteins); then strain the mixture through a fine sieve to remove the largest bits of vanilla, and any coagulated milk proteins.

From there, follow your ice cream makers instructions on churning.

Basic Vanilla Custard Ice Cream

Ingredients:

2 1/2 cups half-and-half (or 1 1/4 cup whole milk, 1 1/4 cups cream)
1 cup white sugar (finer sugars will dissolve easier - use vanilla sugar if you've got it)
8 egg yolks
1 1/2 cups heavy cream
1 1/2 tbsp vanilla extract
2 vanilla beans, pulped and scraped (optional)
1 large pinch salt (about a half teaspoon)

Preparation:

This is the OTHER basic variation on ice cream; the custard style, or French style. It's ingredients are very similar to those of a plain (Philadelphia style) ice cream, but instead of a cream base, you use a custard cream (creme anglaise) base. This results in a smother, richer texture; but it's also heavier, more sensitive to temperature variations and mix-in varieties, and requires a bit more prep work.

For this recipe, scalding the cream is absolutely necessary; because scalded cream is the basis of the custard.

First, beat your egg yolks (you can also use 5-6 whole eggs instead of 8 yolks if you want a lighter, stiffer ice cream). Then beat the sugar and vanilla into them, and set aside. You want the eggs to be at room temperature or a bit warmer.

Next, carefully scald your cream; preferably with your vanilla beans in it. You want to scrape the beans down and add the pulp to the mix, then stew the husks in the cream until just before scalding (pull them out, scraping them down into the pot again before you reach the scald stage, or you can extract unwanted bitter flavors from the husk)

Take the cream off the heat, and allow it to begin to cool, and then CAREFULLY temper the cream and egg mixture together. Once tempered, return the mixture to low heat, and cook until the custard will coat the back of a spoon.

Once the custard reaches this stage, immediately take it off the heat, strain it to remove any coagulated milk proteins, large vanilla bits, and egg colease. Then cool the custard base as quickly as possible in an ice bath, until it is as cold as possible without actually freezing. It's important to do this quickly, because you don't want the custard to set up fully before the freezing process can begin.

From there, follow your ice cream makers instructions on churning. If you are going to add mix-ins you'll want to watch this one carefully, because the custard style ice creams can flash over from too loose to too stiff very quickly.

Cream Cheese Ice Cream

This is a recipe I adapted from another recipe in order to make an ice cream worthy of being layered into a special dessert (which I'll list in another recipe post).

It has a mild, creamy, rich, sweet, slightly sour (just like cheesecake should be) but "not-vanilla" flavor; that goes well with fruit, chocolate... well, pretty much everything.

The best thing though, is that it's quick and easy to make. All you really need is 5 minutes of prep time, and an ice cream maker at the ready.

Ingredients:

1 quart (4 cups) half-and-half, or 2 cups each milk and cream
16oz full-fat cream cheese, softened
1 1/2 cups white sugar
1/3 cup triple sec (or other liqueurs, aromatics, or flavorful liquors)
1 1/2 tbsp natural vanilla extract
1 pinch salt

Preparation:

Cream together the sugar and cream cheese until well combined and smooth. In this case, you don't want them to be cold, because the cream cheese needs to be very soft. If you want to, you can use whipped cream cheese here, but make sure you're measuring by weight, and not by volume. Also, wouldn't recommend using most flavored cream cheeses unless they are fresh craftmade styles, because the commercial flavored versions use additives that don't work well in ice cream.

From here, you can again mix cold; or you can scald the cream base beforehand. If you scald the cream base, mix the cream cheese and sugar in while the base is still warm enough to melt the cream cheese; then stir gently, but frequently, as you cool it down in the ice bath.

Once the mixture is chilled, add your flavorful liqueur. Triple sec (a sweet and sour orange liqueur) is traditional for cheesecakes, but others will do jsut fine. I'm particularly fond of Irish Cream, Butterscotch Schnapps, and Hazlenut Liqueurs like Frangelico. If you are going to use a sweet cream or nut liqueur like Frangelico though (anything without a fair bit of acidity), you'll want to add a couple tablespoons of lemon juice to the mix at this point.

It is important however, to not add too much alcohol, or alcohol that is too strong. You don't generally want to use anything much stronger than 80 proof, because it will retard gelling action and change the crystal formation in the ice cream as it freezes; and you don't want more than a shot or two per quart of ice cream. Absolutely, never add more or stronger alcohol to a custard based ice cream, or it WILL cause texture problems.

Again, once the chilled ingredients are mixed thoroughly; churn as per the manufacturers instructions for your ice cream maker.

Variations

As we said above, all ice cream starts with a vanilla base, and then things are added to it to make the various flavors.

Chocolate ice cream can be created by the simple addition of good-quality cocoa to the basic vanilla recipe; much as a chocolate cake is simply a white cake with chocolate added. There is no set amount of cocoa to use; just mix to taste.

The easiest variation is to add, subtract, or substitute the alcohol you use. Liqueurs are best for a variety of reasons: they are already sweet so they don't detract from the flavor, they are very concentrated and deliver a lot of flavor, and they generally don't react badly with dairy. This is especially true of cream-based liqueurs; Bailey's is absolutely heavenly.

Again, let me repeat my warning about not using too much, or too strong alcohol though. Much more than two shots per quart of 80 proof liquor, and you won't have ice cream; you'll have a half gelled, half ice, mess.

Also, don't judge how much alcohol you need by tasting the mixture before churning: freezing makes the alcohol taste much stronger. If you need to add more, add near the end of churning while you're adding mix-ins.

If you are sensitive to alcohol taste but still want the added flavors (or if you want to use a very high alcoholic content liquor), you can partially boil off the alcohol in a small sauce pan before chilling it and adding it to the mix. Let me note however, you don't want to boil off all the alcohol, because you don't just add alcohol for the flavor of the liquor; other flavorings are enhanced by being in solution with alcohol as well, especially vanilla.

Now all that said about the plusses and minuses of alcohol in ice cream, imagine doing a variant on the custard vanilla above, with maple syrup instead of sugar, bourbon, and candied pecans.... Oh my.

Ah yes, that brings us to mix-ins. Fruit, chopped nuts, chocolate, pretty much anything you want so long as it isn't too heavy t be suspended in the ice cream, or too liquid to freeze up; can be added 5-10 minutes before the ice cream is done (or a bit earlier for powdered ingredients that need to blend a bit more).

We've personally done all of the above, but the absolute best ice cream we've ever made was just plain vanilla ice cream with Bailey's Caramel liqueur, 4 tbsp Schokinag Drinking Chocolate, and 1 cup Guittard chocolate chips. It was wonderful and completely and utterly fattening.

We hope these basic recipes and ideas give you the inspiration to raid your grocery store's dairy aisle (or even better, if you can get unpasteurized whole milk and cream from a farmers market) and start making some premium ice cream of your own.

a note: unlike most of the recipes for REAL Women which are written almost entirely by Mel (Chris does some copy editing and writes little add on notes), this one was written by both Chris and Mel. Chris can't bake, and leaves most of the desserts to Mel, but this one is close to his heart... right under it actually, in his stomach.

And be sure to check out:

Recipes for REAL Women, Volume 21 - Forget About the Dough Boy
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 20 - QDCBS (Quick and Dirty Chili Bean Stew)
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 19 - Chicken Salmonella
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 18 - I'll give YOU a good stuffing turkey (1)
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 17 - REAL Coffee
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 16 - DTG (Damn That's Good) dip
Recipes for REAL Women, Volume 15 - More Chocolate Than Cookie
Recipes for REAL Women, Volume 14 - Millions of Peaches
Recipes for REAL Women, Volume 13 - Mels 10,000 Calorie Butter Cookies
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 12 - Lard Ass Wings
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 11 - Bacon Double Macaroni and Cheese
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 10 - It's the meat stupid
Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 9 - Labor Day Potatos
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 8 - It's a pork fat thing
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 7 - It may not be Kosher...
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 6 - Andouille Guiness Chili
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 5 - Eazza the Ultimate Pizza
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 4 - Two Pound Meat Sauce
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 3 - Highbrow Hash
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 2 - MuscleCarbonara
Recipes for REAL men, Volume 1 - More Beef than Stew

Adequately Explained

SO, it's been ,aking the rounds on the far lefty luny blogs and forums for some time now that Bush and company are going to stage a terrorist attack and use it as justification to suspend the elections etc... etc...

This is generally followed by a litany of supposed "crimes and abuses" by the Bush administration, some of which are legitimate, some are blown out of proprtion and context, and some of which are jsut plain lunacy.

Then of course is the requisite rant about how the "right wing idiot sheeple will just swallow whatever lies they are told and give up all our essentials freedoms because they believe Bush is getting messages from god about the rapture" or some other such nonsense.

Bull. Utter and complete, unmitigated bull.

Believe me on this one, real conservatives and libertarians dislike the abridgment of our fundamental rights FAR MORE than those on the left do.

Leftists are almost always willing to accept a tyrant, or tyrannical abuses of power, if they believe it's all in a good cause. Libertarians and real conservatives are not.

Even if you LIKE what the president is doing with the power he has arrogated to himself (and in some cases I think real good is being done; though mostly it's just a stunning example of incompetents given too much power and authority), you don't want them to HAVE that power, because the next guy could be a deranged madwoman.

Oh and for those of you who harp constantly on the "unprecedented disrespect for the American people of the Bush administration", you obviously weren't paying attention from January 20th 1993 through January 20th 2001.

As an Air Force officer, I saw a lot of "interesting" data during the Clinton administration. Believe me, it was every bit as bad as you imagine Bush to be; they were just a lot better at sugarcoating it and/or hiding it. If you don't believe me talk to anyone who did any intel analysis during those years; they'll have a similar story to tell. The Clinton administration lived by the dictum: "Power Corrupts, Absolute Power is really kinda cool".

What is striking isn't how much this administration abuses the power of the executive office; Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Wilson, and both Roosevelts did FAR worse. What's striking is how utterly incompetent they have been at doing so.

Anti-Government Free Market Gunslinger

Caught this cute little quiz over at Tams place. There ware a couple of questions where I wasn't sure if I wanted one answer or another, so I just went with the snarkier choice of each, and came up with this:

My Conservative Identity:

You are a Free Marketeer, also known as a fiscal conservative. You believe in free-market capitalism, tax cuts, and protecting your hard-earned cash from pick-pocketing liberal socialists.

Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com

But I wanted to see what it would have been if I changed over the answers I was iffy on.. I changed just one answer and got this:

My Conservative Identity:

You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com

Hmmm.... Anti-Government Free Market Gunslinger... Yeah I can deal with that.

Kommanders New GodBox

So we just finished building Kommander a new computer, and man is it a hell of a box.

He bought the computer in 2002, and hasn't upgraded since 2003 so his box was getting long in the tooth. He couldn't play any of the newer games at more than the minimum settings... or at all in some cases. THe original system was a quite good for the time Alienware PC, but over the course of 5 years, standards change. Memory has gone from DDR to DDR2 (and jsut recently DDR3), graphics have changed from AGP to PCI express, hard drives have gone from IDE to Sata2, even power supplies have changed. Basically, a computer from 2002 can't be economically upgraded at this point, you jsut need to replace everything but the case.

So, he comes to me and says "I don't want to upgrade my computer for 5 years, what should I buy?"

Well now... We went for the most future proof combined with the most bang for the buck, and this is what we came up with.

1. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4 core 2.4ghz - retail with standard HSF)
2. Gigabyte GA-P35T-DQ6 Motherboard
3. 2x 1 gig 1200MHZ DDR3
4. EVGA GeForce 8800gts wit 320mg of GDDR3
5. Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500gb SATA2 drive with 16mb cache
6. Antec tripower 650 watt ultra quiet power supply
7. 4x Antec ultra quiet 80mm double ball bearing fans

Originally we ordered what I thought was a motherboard and RAM combo, so I never checked it to see if it was the correct RAM. Unfortunately, it was actually a CPU RAM combo, and we had ordered the wrong memory for the motherboard (ddr2 instead of ddr3, and they aren't compatible), but a quick trip to Frys and several hundred dollars later (DDR 3 IS FRIKKEN EXPENSIVE - but also insanely fast) and we are golden.

Even better, the proc is specced at 2.4ghz and 1066mhz FSB, but with this CPU and RAM, it runs just fine at 1333mhz fsb, and 2.7ghz without even adjusting voltage or raising the heat of the CPU... at all really. Oh and the MoBo utilities let you adjust your overclocking on the fly; including independent adjustment of all relevant speeds and voltages (pci clock, memory clock, memory latency, bus timing, and cpu clock, plus memory, pci, and cpu voltages)

The only things he kept from his original box were the case, the hard drive (to use as a download drive), and the DVD/CD burner . He also grabbed a new Logitech bluetooth wireless mosue and keyboard (that I thought I wouldnt like, but is actually very nice.)

The total cost, including the unexpectedly expensive replacement RAM was just over $1500; and a bargain at that price let me tell you. If you were starting from scratch, it would have been an extra $100 for the case (it's a prety nice case), and $50 for a decent quality DVD burner.

You can buy a similar system from Dell without all the overclocking goodness... for $3000. This, is why I only ever buy low end corporate or grandma computers from the mass market vendors folks.

GOD DAMN this is one fast box. I have never in my life seen a faster windows boot time. Seriously, you go from device config screen to responsive desktop in under 5 seconds.

We did a little testing based on what we had available at the moment (we hadn't hooked the system up to the net yet for patching etc...). I had to actually shoot the screen with my camera since we had no network yet (well, I could have played USB drive games, but I didn't feel like it).

Here's a pic (click for larger) of the box with 5, 250mb DiVX encoded AVIs playing, and the (rather huge) game F.E.A.R. installing off a DVD in the background (onto the same drive the movies were playing off of):

You can see that the average utilization is only 20% or so (actually that was a peak, it was down below 15% most of the time), and that three of the cores are taking all the system chores, while the fourth handles the video rendering. The pagefile usage is negligible for a 2 gig system at 364mb, and the memory loading is quite low, with 1.65 gigs available.

Only after opening 25, 250mg DiVX encoded AVIs (and still installing FEAR in the background by the way) did we manage to peg one core; and the average system load remained around 35-40%, with full responsiveness. The memory utilization was still quite low with 600mb of swap allocated and 1.4gb of RAM available. I could have done all my normal desktop tasks and never notice a performance hit.

We used one application (mplayer classic) for most of the videos, which opens multiple instances, and multiple plugin renderers; but the way it's threaded they all open as children of the first. This means that by default they'll all run on the same processor (you can tweak that, but we weren't going to mess with it).

I've had lots of folks ask me "why would I ever need four cores, or even two. ONe core is jsut fine for what I do", to which I tell them trust me, two cores IS better, even if you don't use applications that will thread across multiple cores, because of multi tasking. If you run a lot of different applications at once, the multiple cores make a HUGE difference.

Just for comparison, I have a single core 2.4 ghz machine with 2 gigs of ram instead of this quad core 2.4ghz with 2 gigs. You can see that this system is only using one core for rendering the video so you would think things would be roughly comparable, excepting the fact that my ram is just DDR, and allowing for processing overhead right?

Not even close... I can open TWO large divx videos before my CPU pegs, all my RAM gets allocates, and my system becomes marginally responsive; because of the constant context switching and thread scheduling and memory games etc...etc.. In a quad core system, the system management load is spread out over the other cpus, allowing the assigned core to spend all it's time on the rendering task. Yay for symmetric multiprocessing.

Now for a plain outrightreal world performance test relevant to gamers, we ran the F.E.A.R timedemo at 1024x768 (FEAR doesnt support 1280x1024 - the max natie of this monitor) with every graphical option maxed out, and every quality setting in the driver tweaked to maximum:

This is the fastest non-SLI F.E.A.R. timedemo I've ever seen. YOu'll see it never dropped below 60fps, and the average was 125. For comparison, my single core 2.4 with 2 gig ram and one of the best of the AGP generation of video cards - a radeon 9800 with 256megs - can't even run the demo at these settings.)

Lord, what this box would do with a real 64 bit OS, 4x 2 gig sticks, and a 6x 500gb raid array on it (which you can do on the MoBo, plus two other drives mirrored together for the OS) ;-)

I don't know why I'm so jealous, I work with multi-million dollar computers every day that are a hundred times faster than this one.... of course I can't install Oblivion on those ones.