Well, I used to have somewhat an intercourse with a female, but not inserting anything inside or whatsoever, just using my tongue, that was like a long time. then, March 20th of 2014, I had a blowjob with someone and I swallowed a bit of semen. Now, April 21, 2014, I have a bad cough, along with a congestion. Can HIV be spread from mating with two people who I think are uninfected. Both of them never had sexual experiences with anyone. Please answer. Please and Thank you.
Showing posts with label Think. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Think. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
hide caption"The egg is a lens through which to view the entire craft of cooking," says food writer Michael Ruhlman.
Just in time for Easter, food writer Michael Ruhlman has a new cookbook that will likely change the way you think about the egg. At the very least, you may learn how to spruce up your scrambled egg technique.
Egg: A Culinary Exploration of the World's Most Versatile Ingredient is a guide to perfecting the most familiar of egg dishes — from poached to hard boiled — but also mastering béarnaise sauce and meringues.
According to Rulhman, who won a James Beard Foundation Award in 2012, the (hen) egg towers above the other foods in your kitchen because of its versatility. (Check out this amazing egg flow chart, a poster version of which comes folded inside the book.)
He writes:
"In the kitchen, the egg is neither ingredient nor finished dish, but rather a singularity with 1,000 ends. Scrambled eggs and angel food cake and ice cream and aioli and popovers and gougeres and macaroons and a gin fizz aren't separate entities. They're all part of the egg continuum. They are all one thing. The egg is a lens through which to view the entire craft of cooking. By working our way through the egg, we become powerful cooks. "
Its role in the potato, onion and cheese frittata is as unifier to other ingredients. "The egg combines them, makes them whole," he says.
In another dish featured in the book, the seafood roulade, the egg white is a binder, which gives the dish a smooth texture.
But often, Ruhlman argues, we don't treat our eggs very well. Take scrambled eggs. "It's one of the most overcooked dishes in America," he says. "We kill our eggs with heat."
Instead, we need, in most instances, to give the egg gentle heat. "When you cook them very slowly over very gentle heat, the curds form. And as you sit, the rest of the egg sort of warms but doesn't fully cook and becomes a sauce for the curds. So it should be a creamy and delicious and delicate preparation."
Why do we overdo it?
"We overdo it because of lack of knowledge, and some people are afraid of their eggs," says Ruhlman. "I've never gotten sick from an egg — that I know of."
He adds: "We're taught in many ways to fear our food. It does a great disservice to the people who want to cook their own food."
And as for the most basic task of cracking an egg, Ruhlman says he learned from André Soltner, the famed French chef of Lutèce.
"He just tapped it gently on a flat surface, and he gently just pulled the egg apart," says Ruhlman. "I love the gentleness of the way he handled an egg, and I always think about that when I crack an egg."
And what about the short-order cook thing of whacking an egg on the pot and throwing it in? "Not the best way, but sometimes it's what's called for."
Recipe: Michael Ruhlman's Potato, Onion, and Cheese Frittata from Egg: A Culinary Exploration of the World's Most Versatile Ingredient
hide captionPotato, Onion, and Cheese Frittata
Serves 4
1 small potato, peeled and cut into small dice (about 1 cup/225 grams)
2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
Salt
1/2 onion, cut into small dice (about 1/2 cup/100 grams)
6 eggs, thoroughly blended
1/2 cup/60 grams shredded cheddar cheese
Freshly ground black pepper
2 avocados, peeled, pitted, and diced (optional)
Preheat the broiler.
In a medium nonstick fry pan, combine the potatoes and olive oil over medium-high heat and stir or toss them in the pan to coat the potatoes with oil. Add a three-finger pinch of salt, just to coat the surface. When the potatoes are lightly browned, add the onions, salt to coat the onions, and continue to cook until the onions are tender, stirring or tossing the potato and onion.
Place the eggs in a medium bowl and add the cheese, along with ½ teaspoon salt and several grinds of pepper, and stir to combine and disperse the cheese. Pour the egg mixture over the potatoes and onions and reduce the heat to medium, swirling the pan so that the eggs even out. Cook until the edges are set, a couple of minutes depending on the heat level, checking to make sure that the eggs aren't sticking. Place the pan underneath the broiler until the eggs are just set, a minute or two depending on your broiler. When the top is set, invert the frittata onto a cutting board, cover with the diced avocado, if using, and cut into wedges. Serve.
Recipe: Michael Ruhlman's Seafood Roulade with Scallops and Crab
hide captionSeafood Roulade with Scallops and Crab
Makes 8 (3-ounce) portions
1 tablespoon butter
1 leek, white part only, finely chopped
1 pound/450 grams peeled, deveined shrimp
2 egg whites
1 teaspoon salt
1 cup/240 milliliters heavy cream
4 ounces/120 grams scallops, cut into chunks if large or whole if small
4 ounces/120 grams lump crabmeat
2 tablespoons minced fresh chives
Heat the butter in a small sauté pan over medium heat. Add the leek and sauté until tender but not brown. Transfer to a bowl, cover, and refrigerate until chilled.
Puree the shrimp with the egg whites and salt in a food processor. With the machine running, slowly add half of the cream through the feed tube. The mixture should be stiff enough to shape. Continue adding the rest of the cream with the machine running.
Transfer the shrimp mousseline to a mixing bowl and add the chilled leeks, scallops, crab, and chives, gently folding to distribute everything evenly.
Wet your counter slightly and lay out a sheet of plastic wrap (use Glad wrap if you're concerned about cooking in plastic), at least 2 feet/60 centimeters long. Spoon the seafood mixture along the center of the plastic wrap. Fold the plastic wrap over the mousseline and roll it into a tube about 2½ inches/6 centimeters in diameter. Twist each end of the plastic wrap to form a tight roulade as you roll it on the counter. If it gets out of shape on you, unroll it onto a new sheet of plastic and start again.
Bring a large pot of water to 180°F/82°C. Drop the roulade into the water and weigh it down with an appropriately sized plate to keep it submerged. Cook the roulade, maintaining a water temperature of between 170° and 185°F/77° and 85°C, until an instant-read thermometer reads between 140° and 150°F/60° and 65°C when inserted into the center of the roulade, 45 to 50 minutes.
While the roulade is cooking, fill a large bowl with half ice and half water. When the roulade is done, submerge it in the ice bath until thoroughly chilled, 15 minutes or so. Remove the plastic wrap and serve (see the headnote for suggestions).
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Photo Illustration: WIRED
Word that IAC reportedly spent $500 million to buy another 10 percent stake in Tinder, the popular dating app, was met by most of the tech world with a healthy dose of skepticism. After all, could a site that’s just 20 months old with no revenue model to speak of really be worth $5 billion?
The answer, of course, was no. Shortly after Bloomberg reported the story Friday, Sam Yagan, CEO of IAC’s Match Group, which includes IAC’s online dating companies, told Forbes that while he could confirm a deal was made, “this valuation is nowhere near the truth.” Tinder, for its part, has declined to comment.
To be sure, $5 billion is an insane number. According to the market research company IBISWorld, the entire online dating industry is just $2 billion. In order to be worth more than the entire industry and then some, Tinder would have to do a whole lot more than give its dating app away for free. But the suggestion that Tinder isn’t worth anything because it has no revenue model, is just as far off base. Tinder, with its 10 million active daily users, is fundamentally changing the way that a massive number of people behave, and as a result, it’s probably worth a whole lot more than you think.
Full disclosure: I met my boyfriend on Tinder. But while you might think that colors my view of the situation, it also gives me unique insight into where Tinder succeeds and other dating sites fail. It starts with effort. Tinder requires next to none. Sign up with your Facebook account, look through other users’ photos, swipe right if you think someone’s cute, and left if you don’t. If you both swipe right, congratulations! You can start chatting. If you don’t, no harm. The other party never got notified that you expressed interest, anyway. In other words, Tinder eliminates the fear of rejection.
“Tinder’s really doing something that has been the Holy Grail for online dating: it becomes fun,” says Mark Brooks, a consultant to the Internet dating industry.
Other sites like OKCupid and Match.com have never been able to hack the rejection problem. They haven’t simplified the process much, either, still prompting users to fill out those long and antiquated dating surveys. The process is a drag. Rejection is disappointing. And the fact that you’re doing it anyway only plays into the lonely stereotype that the online dating industry has had such a tough time shrugging off.
Tinder has made the difficult process of meeting a total stranger seamless, exciting, and perhaps most importantly, mainstream. It’s not uncool to scroll through Tinder with friends, and your non-single friends are all dying to “play” for you. It may be the first dating technology that people in relationships actually wish they needed.
It’s also important to remember that the app has a stellar user interface. It takes sophisticated technology to make something so simple. If IAC sees use cases for that technology in some of its other companies, that makes Tinder an even more precious asset.
So the fact that IAC would dedicate a sizable chunk of money to keep Tinder close, revenue or no revenue, is not all that surprising. Match.com, Brooks notes, has reached a point at which it can only really grow through acquisition or by targeting audiences that would never join dating sites to begin with. Tinder users, many of whom would scoff at “real” online dating, are one such audience.
“IAC’s not valuing Tinder based on what it’s worth. They’re valuing it based on what they’ll lose if they don’t own it,” says Brooks. “If Tinder can own mobile and own the younger demographic, then IAC is owning the future with Tinder. It’s an international phenomenon.”
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
I have a very unassuming, quick-thinking question. Don't ponder the answer; just blurt it out. Ready? (Um, that's not the question.)
Here we go: "Who are you?"
At first blush, it's such an innocuous query and our replies come by rote. We provide our name. But, in reality, that's not accurate, because my name is not WHO I am, it's WHAT I am called; it's a label.
Okay, take it down a level: Who is - in my case - Scott Marcus?
Well, I could reply, "a man," "father," or even "American." Those are all true - and actually more descriptive than responding with my name. They deliver more detail, but are still painfully vague. One person's "man" creates images of football players, while another's is an accountant, neither of which fit me. Piling on additional descriptors becomes the next step, "56 year old speaker, writer, father of two sons, married, lives in Eureka."
Certainly this constructs a more vibrant portrayal, but it is still soooooo scratching the surface. For example, should I move from my coastal community to the Arizona desert, would I then be a different person? Better yet, am I still the same person I was a few years ago, or do every 365 days establish a new being?
Circumstances change, but that alone does not mean we are no longer who we were; there is a consistency that remains our core. These modifiers therefore, no matter how many we use, are not answering the core issue. Something lacks.
So, why does this matter?
Words, the vehicle by which we think, create images, which we call "perceptions." Each of us develops reflex like responses to those perceptions. So, should I say "filthy rich man" or "homeless woman," we create immediately an image in our mind about who are each of those people. (I know you did when you read them, as did I.) The hitch is we do not see "individuals;" what we envision are our perceptions of that class of society. Should you be strolling through Old Towne and view someone you perceive to be, for example, a "homeless man," you create an entire story in your head, BEFORE even meeting him.
This process is not only in action when we see - and label - others. It is also very much in play in how we view ourselves. The words we tap to describe who we are to ourselves affect the images we see about us, portrayed externally to others via our resultant actions.
If I enquire of myself, "Who am I?" And the reply comes: "A clumsy, stupid, moron who cannot do anything right," I create powerful internal imagery, which in turn, generates an emotional state. Those emotions drive our actions. Logically, therefore, if the language is negative, so too will be its result.
More happily, if my answer is, "A fully-functioning, basically happy, honest, caring, contributing member of society whose doing the best he can to love others, make the world a better place, and take care of himself as well as he can;" those result feelings, and their actions, will be vastly different. (Saying each answer to yourself and notice how you feel.)
When greeted at a party, that answer might not be appropriate. However, we'll experience a far healthier and happier life when we can learn to answer our own internal questions in a more positive fashion.
Besides, who would I be if I steered you wrong?
Scott "Q" Marcus is a THINspirational speaker, Recovering Perfectionist, Syndicated Columnist, and the founder of ThisTimeIMeanIt.com, a site for people who are tired of making promises to themselves but are willing to do what it takes to actually makes changes. In addition, he conducts speeches, workshops, and presentations throughout the country on how to achieve goals, improve attitude, and enjoy the process. You can contact him for speaking, coaching or consulting, or you can sign up for his free ezine, "This Time I Mean It" at http://www.scottqmarcus.com/ or at his blog at http://www.thistimeimeanit.com/
