Wednesday, July 27, 2011

You have to be careful with eggs...

...because they are, without a doubt, the most annoying food on the planet.

I'm not sure when it happened. Maybe 8 or 9 years ago. But when did eggs stop being easy to peal after hard- or soft-cooking?

Seriously. It's the most annoying thing in the world. You cook your egg, you cool it. You crack the top and bottom and then roll the egg to loosen the shell. Then, as you start peeling, the white meat of the delicious interior starts pulling off in chunks and strips, leaving you with quite a percentage less egg than you were expecting.

Take today, for example. I made a simple breakfast of two soft-cooked eggs and toast with butter. I placed the eggs out for 20 minutes to warm up a little. I then put them in a pot and covered them with cold water by an inch. Placing the pot on a burner at high, I brought the whole thing to a boil, then dropped it to a simmer for 3 minutes.

After the time was up, I poured off the hot water and doused the eggs in cold water. When they were ready to handle (about 30 seconds) I took them out and started peeling.

And lost about 20% of the white as it came off with the shell.

I tried to peel just the shell, and also by gripping the membrane between the shell and the white. But, no matter how I tried, the membrane remained stuck to the albumen and pulled bits and chunks out that I would have rather eaten.

And this travesty has been going on for years now. I love hard-cooked eggs as a snack or for breakfast. But I'm frustrated as hell with the loss of good egg meat. Seriously, about 50% of the eggs I cook turn out this way. I've tried all kinds of techniques: eggs in cold water brought to a boil then left to return to room temperature, or brought to a boil and then doused in cold water and ice, or left to boil for up to five minutes. I used fresh (less than a week old) eggs as well as older eggs (where the membrane pulls away from the albumen. Nothing seems to affect my egg experience.

What am I doing wrong? Any suggestions?

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Yeah, I wasn't really interested in playing the game...

For my birthday last week, one of the presents my wife gave me was a copy of Left4Dead2 for the PC. I had been asking about it for a while, ever since a movie maker told me how he had used the game engine for the effects on his film and planned to release the maps for gamers.

After a week of work and swim team-related distractions, I finally sat down today to install the game and begin enjoying some zombie-killing goodness.

Boy, was I surprised.

I installed the game from disk. Well, more exactly, I inserted the disk and it installed the Steam game engine. It then installed Left4Dead2 from disk. But it will not let me play the game until it downloads some updates.

About 2 hours worth of updates.

What the HELL? I can't even play the game while it downloads? I can't do ANYTHING with the game until it finishes downloading.


I have a high speed broadband internet connection. But the game is going to block me from playing while it pulls down updates I didn't even ask for. And pausing the update process so I could, I don't know, PLAY THE VERSION I INSTALLED, is not allowed. I can't play the existing version until it finishes update.


Valve, seriously, this is ridiculous. Why should I HAVE to download your updates to play the game? Why can't I play the version I have installed? Sure, I can see requiring updates in order to play online. That way everybody's playing the same version and there's no chance of version mismatches causing problems in game play.

But if I want to play locally, why should i have to download an update? And, at that, how about ASKING ME FIRST? Or giving me some warning that you're going to tie up my network by pulling down GIGABYTES of updates? As the person who owns the hardware and the network pipe don't you think I deserve at least SOME input on this process?

Really, you've pissed me off with such a poorly thought out process...

Friday, July 15, 2011


–noun; from alternat(iv)e + vacation

1. the act of visiting someone whom you normally avoid due to their excessive drama:  
 Last year we went to Disney World, but this year I enjoyed an altercation with my mother where she complained the whole time about how I don't visit her enough.
2. the time spent with someone who causes you grief, anxiety or excessive agitation when you could have been spending that time relaxing, drinking or something more pleasurable, like having your gums scraped:
The altercation with my sister went as expected after I suggested she behaved like white trash and she took it the wrong way.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

What is justice (or, can you just "know" someone is guilty)?

Yeah, I'll admit it. I was distracted by the Casey Anthony trial to some degree. Today the verdict came in, and she was found not guilty on the counts of murder and child abuse. And, of course, there was a huge response from people about how there was no "justice for Caylee".

But, let me ask this: is it "justice" to convict someone when there's no direct evidence linking them to the crime?

Yeah, I know, a lot of people "just know" that Casey did it. And, honestly, I'm not disagreeing that she's the most likely the person to have caused the little girl's death, whether intentionally or not.

But you're not going to get justice by taking such a person and declaring them guilty in the absence of any direct evidence.

I'm not going to go into the details about searches for chloroform or smells in trunks or any of that. It's not relevant to my point about justice. If there is no direct evidence linking the accused to the death then you just can't find them guilty. No matter how much you "just know" they're guilty, that's not enough to convict someone.

So whether she did it or not, she's "not guilty" based on the evidence presented.

And a court that works in such a manner ensures justice for everyone.