Here's the interesting thing: I am an excellent baker, and I do know the basic skills of cooking.
My poiint, though, is twofold. One is what you discussed here -- yes, nearly everyone can become a competent cook if they are willing to put in the time and energy. I am not so willing, because I dislike cooking. I love baking, hate cooking.
However, you can't discount talent. One of the reasons that I hate to cook is because I don't have the talent of being able to know how flavors and textures work together.
Like most other activities, you can learn rules about that sort fo thing -- that's why it's possible to become competent. However, no amount of book learning will teach you the talent or instinct to rise above the rules.
Therefore, I will never be able to produce a meal that is as good as what a decent restaurant can produce. I can certainly cook healthy meals that are edible, but that's a whole different thing.
At a restaurant, I personally am not paying for atmosphere. A couple of my favorite restaurants of all time have the ambiance of truck stops. I am paying for expertise.
"rather denying it to their collective selves"
The denial is purely for legal purposes. Nobody is expected to actually believe it.
What is "catering", legally speaking? If I cook a meal for my sick friend, is that catering?
"There is nothing made at any restaurant, anywhere, that you cannot make for yourself at home"
You are forgetting skill. There is no way that I am capable of cooking a restaurant-quality meal at home. I just don't have the skilllset or talent required.
That's what a restaurant gives me that I can't get at home: excellently prepared food.
"completely greek catholic on the issue"
What does this mean?
"make money off her celebrity"
Maybe, but her celebrity is pretty narrow. I'd never heard of her before this story, and neither had my friends.
"He has the right to be honest."
Of course he does. But that doesn't change the fact that increasingly being unnecessarily forthcoming will expose you to harm. The smarter move is to be very careful about what you reveal to anybody.
"you're saying we shouldn't bother at all?"
Depends on who you mean by "we". Concerned parents can install their own controls. But should the law require ISPs to do this? No.
In my area, any license plate cover at all is illegal, even if it is 100% transparent and does not obstruct the visibility of the plate.
And that law is enforced.
"When has a bar or any place serving alcohol ever been held responsible for selling legal alcohol to someone that went on to drive while drunk?"
Very frequently, in my state. If someone is busted for drunk driving, the driver is asked where they got their last drink. Whoever that was (whether a bar, a party, friend's house, whatever) is on the hook too.
If a bar or restaurant is named too frequently, it loses its liquor license in addition to whatever other penalties were levied.
Are you the sort of loner who never leaves your house? You're probably plotting a terrorist act of some sort.
Yes, this. Things people often don't understand about the IRS: they are the most powerful law enforcement agency in the nation. They are the only law enforcement agency to have their own seperate court system. Many of the rights you have with law enforcement agencies don't apply with the IRS.
"The public's vocal desire for privacy doesn't match up with their actions."
You are equating two very, very different things here. This is like saying that because people are fine with donating money, they should also be fine with someone stealing their money.
That caught my eye as well. "Telnet interface" and "secure" are two things that don't go together at all. Telnet has been a security risk for years, and the generally accepted practice is to disable it entirely.
"Why would the news service ask the guy they quoted where/how he got a copy of the story?"
The more burning question is why did the guy answer the question?
You're so angry with the government that you're eager to punish your friends and neighbors because of it, huh?
"Does anyone actually have a problem with this?"
Tons of people have a problem with autoplay video, yes.
"I think the point was to keep the public image of the company politically neutral."
If that's the point, it completely failed. "Politically neutral" would mean that they would sell him the bricks regardless of what type of speech he was going to engage in with them.
By refusing to sell them to him, they have staked out a political stance. Therefore, they have publicly declared that they are not politically neutral.
"Should people be allowed to promote or defend that?"
As awful as it is, yes, people should be allowed to promote or defend it. Expressing your opinion should never be against the law, no matter how objectionable that opinion is.
Re: Re: Re: Catering is regulated
So then the AC's concern about this being complicated is without merit. The online service itself is not cooking anything for anybody, therefore they aren't catering, and whether or not the cook offering their services is catering depends on their circumstances.
Sounds like the existence of this service changes nothing in this area.