You might be laughing at the scared zookeeper, but that just shows that you have no idea how bad a chimp would fuck you up. They break your thumbs first, then they go for the eyes and/or genitals. They are twice as strong as you and faster than a kung fu master. And they have no remorse. That guy was scared because he knows better.
The theory behind the tasting menu lies in the observation that after about 3 or 4 bites of something, you can't taste it properly anymore. If you've ever tried seasoning a soup and it wasn't right so you added something, but it still wasn't right so you added a bit more, and so on, for more than a few times, you'll discover that suddenly after about 3 or 4 times... you can't taste it anymore. All the subtlety is gone. Your senses are immune to all but the most drastic adjustments.
So, if this is the case then any more than a few bites and all the extra effort that you spent making something the absolute best possible flavour has gone to waste. If you serve portions that are larger, the nuance, the elegance, the speciality is gone.
Instead of wasting your effort and your guests' time, why not give them only these first few almost excruciatingly exquisite bites?
The upshot of this is that you can set up a flow, a poetry, almost a storyline of flavours as the meal progresses. A tasting menu is very similar to a DJ set. Any half decent DJ can create a set that flows, but the very best create a journey that his audience will never forget. The best chef's tasting menu should be the same.
Just to let you know, I've never created more than 9 courses for a menu, but I feel like I have at least a rudimentary idea of the concepts. Certainly in a broad sense anyway. I hope to be able to try 24 at Alinea or the French Laundry or 31 at El Bulli sometime. I'm sure that an experience like that would help my career greatly.
>> ^Drachen_Jager: Well here's some figures on the Iraq war anyhow. I can't find a number of Iraqi combatants killed so it's hard to create a percentage, but I think, given the numbers 90% is a pretty low guesstimate, it looks more like 95-98% if you exclude the official US count (which I think is pretty safe because they've been playing games with those numbers since the war started).
"the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000." - ORB survey
The Lancet survey (two years old I think) had the number around 600,000
The US government has the number a little over 100,000
OK, so that means that if there are 31,528 military casualties then the civilian casualties top out at 97.04% of total. But harder to say with any certainty.
The article lists 16,500 insurgent deaths, and maybe(?) 10,800 iraqi armed forces casualties. Add those to 4228 coalition deaths and we arrive at 31,528 military casualties.
I'm going to choose to use the figure of 92,414 for civilian deaths. This is quite arguable though, apparently.
This is a civilian casualties at 74.56% of total. It seems like you can pick just about any number you like for those figures and have some source that says you're right.
So anyway, yeah war sucks. But why fudge the numbers to make that point?
The moon is so fucking cool
Escaped chimp disarms zookeeper
The Mysterious Geographic Explorations of Jasper Morello
Neil deGrasse Tyson will Blow your Mind - TDS July 23rd 07
A visit to the French Laundry - Greatest Restaurant in USA
So, if this is the case then any more than a few bites and all the extra effort that you spent making something the absolute best possible flavour has gone to waste. If you serve portions that are larger, the nuance, the elegance, the speciality is gone.
Instead of wasting your effort and your guests' time, why not give them only these first few almost excruciatingly exquisite bites?
The upshot of this is that you can set up a flow, a poetry, almost a storyline of flavours as the meal progresses. A tasting menu is very similar to a DJ set. Any half decent DJ can create a set that flows, but the very best create a journey that his audience will never forget. The best chef's tasting menu should be the same.
Just to let you know, I've never created more than 9 courses for a menu, but I feel like I have at least a rudimentary idea of the concepts. Certainly in a broad sense anyway. I hope to be able to try 24 at Alinea or the French Laundry or 31 at El Bulli sometime. I'm sure that an experience like that would help my career greatly.
choggie
In reply to this comment by choggie:
yer all fucking wrong, happy to be able to be the one to tell ya'll.....
Anthony Bourdain interviews Chef Eric Ripert
The ultimate McDonalds breakfast/lunch sandwich
dag
In reply to this comment by dag:
You are hurting the Sift:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Absinthe-Myths#comment-466045
http://www.videosift.com/video/Absinthe-Myths#comment-465774
http://www.videosift.com/video/Atheist-Sues-US-Military#comment-464335
http://www.videosift.com/video/WATCH-FEMA-Local-COPS-VIOLATE-OUR-2nd-AMENDMENT-RIGHTS#comment-464021
http://www.videosift.com/video/Atheist-Sues-US-Military#comment-463089
http://www.videosift.com/video/TOP-10-OMGWTF-moments-from-video-games#comment-462501
http://www.videosift.com/video/BNF-Sorry-FOX-we-wont-let-you-trash-Michelle-Obama#comment-458157
http://www.videosift.com/video/Librarian-with-McCainBush-Sign-Arrested#comment-458155
http://www.videosift.com/video/Librarian-with-McCainBush-Sign-Arrested#comment-457002
http://www.videosift.com/video/Librarian-with-McCainBush-Sign-Arrested#comment-457001
RA DIOHEA_D / HOU SE OF_C ARDS (Radiohead - House of Cards)
Spore Trailer - E3 2008
Spore Trailer - E3 2008
Window Cleaner Accident - Denver 2005
Also, ant and zifnab voted on both. tsk tsk.
*discard
For What It's Worth
Well here's some figures on the Iraq war anyhow. I can't find a number of Iraqi combatants killed so it's hard to create a percentage, but I think, given the numbers 90% is a pretty low guesstimate, it looks more like 95-98% if you exclude the official US count (which I think is pretty safe because they've been playing games with those numbers since the war started).
"the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000." - ORB survey
The Lancet survey (two years old I think) had the number around 600,000
The US government has the number a little over 100,000
Do you have links for those figures? I was looking on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War and didn't see anything like 1,120,000 deaths.... oh actually... here at the top it says 1,033,000.
OK, so that means that if there are 31,528 military casualties then the civilian casualties top out at 97.04% of total. But harder to say with any certainty.
Still, why bother with made up numbers?
For What It's Worth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
Total military casualties: 9,720,453
Total civilian casualties: 8,869,248 = 44.86% of total
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Total military casualties: 25,193,700
Total civilian casualties: 41,815,400 = 62.40% of total (not including the holocaust)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war
Total military casualties: 1,463,277
Total civilian casualties: 2,331,000 = 61.43% of total
OK, so the Iraq war isn't over yet, and there seems to be quite a bit of controversy over the actual number of iraqi deaths, but upon a skimming of this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
The article lists 16,500 insurgent deaths, and maybe(?) 10,800 iraqi armed forces casualties. Add those to 4228 coalition deaths and we arrive at
31,528 military casualties.
I'm going to choose to use the figure of 92,414 for civilian deaths. This is quite arguable though, apparently.
This is a civilian casualties at 74.56% of total. It seems like you can pick just about any number you like for those figures and have some source that says you're right.
So anyway, yeah war sucks. But why fudge the numbers to make that point?