Gordon Ramsay’s Scotch Pancakes with Caramelized Bananas

Last time I made pancakes, the instructions were too complicated and I got my dick caught in the ceiling fan. I'll stick with IHOP.

Fun fact: Pancakes are the most profitable food category in the world, costing pennies and being sold for a few dollars, providing 90% to 99%+ gross profit margins depending upon the establishment. Coffee and tea are a close second.

See, this is one reason why I disagreed when you said you should be loyal to the companies you hold. I'm simply not in the market for some of the companies I own. I don't drink soda and avoid processed foods, but I still have Coke and Kraft. I fully support those companies making obscene profits selling sugar water and fancy-pants pancake flour. I don't have any alcohol or tobacco holdings, but I'd jump on them given a bargain price, regardless of whether I smoke or drink.

I get my tea loose-leaf from China. But apparently I'm getting screwed on the coffee.

If you're buying coffee beans you should be fine; it only holds true for brewed coffee and tea at restaurants, cafes, diners, airports, gas stations, etc.

Ah, you're talking about retail-markup with the pancakes too. My bad.

My solution to save money and sperm count: avoid pancakes altogether.

Joshua, with all your food pictures, have you ever thought of buying a DSLR ? With a wide aperture lens and/or a proper external flash, you'll see professional quality pictures in no time without washed out colors and white reflections caused by in-camera flash. It really makes all the difference.

Joshua, with all your food pictures, have you ever thought of buying a DSLR ? With a wide aperture lens and/or a proper external flash, you'll see a *MASSIVE* difference in picture quality in no time without washed out colors and white reflections caused by in-camera flash. It's really worth it.

... I wasn't sure what a DSLR was so I just searched for it. I have one of those cameras - the outside of the camera says Nikon D40 and it has this extra huge lens on it - sitting in a storage box. At least I think that is what it is - it's identical to this one.

I never get it out because it's so complicated there is a learning curve but now I am going to have to because the quality difference looks huge. We needed it for something a few years ago and so I bought it and then never used it again.

If I get time, I'll start practicing. Since switching to the Samsung Galaxy Note Android or whatever it is I have the color washouts are so frustrating (not to mention the camera app crashes all the time!).

This could be the perfect solution! If the picture quality improves a couple of months from now, everyone has you to thank 😀

It may seem that the learning curve in photography is rough, but truth is photography is ridiculously easy compared to investing or music. Compared to the 10+ years needed to master either of these subjects, photography can be mastered with 3 years. Why? Because there isn't a lot of theory, and photography is one of the rare skills that practice is continuous. In fact, just looking around you as you walk, trying to notice details (you should be good in this :P) improves your skills. After a year or two, you'll already start to develop the "photographer's eye" as I call it, and you'll start to instinctively know what makes a good picture and what doesn't. The theory doesn't matter as much as composition and light. There's a reason it's called photography (greek for drawing with light), because it's ALL about light, trust me.
And well, I find photography incredibly useful as a skill, because not only you get to take great pictures, but you also become more aware of your surroundings.

TL;DR : The actual learning curve of photography is much smaller and it's a really useful skill to have in life.

P.S. Sorry for posting the previous comment twice, I didn't realize the cache was updating and all that.

Thanks for the link; I'll look into that.

One way you can make sure your comments go through immediately and get replicated on the site is to verify your email address by registering with www.joshuakennon.com and then using that same email address in your Disqus profile. When it is verified, the server gives you a lot more lee-way and assumes you are legitimate so your stuff will show up almost instantly (less than five seconds).

I'm now reading the comments this gentlemen makes on the stock market, and securities in general, and it is almost painful to me. He gets so much right on frugality, the need to live below one's means, the importance of lifecycle cost instead of immediate expenditure ... but then he ... just ... so much folly.

I was alive, and watching closely, during the 1990's peak. The only companies that lost 99.9% of their value were things like dot-coms that had no business model and traded at 100x to 500x earnings (if there were any at all, in some cases consisting solely of the interest income that was generated by the money raised from investors!).

Companies that make up exceptions, like Eastman Kodak, which failed due to technological shifts (a common story - horse and buggy manufacturers were driven out of business by cars) would still have provided good overall returns when part of a decently diverse portfolio - after 20+ years, the loss would be a rounding error - but even then it wouldn't be a total loss. Not only did you have years of dividend income from it, Eastman Kodak spun-off its chemical division, Eastman Chemical, which is now a standalone business. As of this morning, the chemical business has an $11 billion market capitalization and is paying $1.20 per share in dividends on $2.93 per share in earnings.

So you'd have all your years of Kodak dividends, plus your chemical shares, which are, themselves, producing income, none of which shows up on a stock chart of Kodak. If you had even one or two comparable starting cost positions in a boring, cash generating giant like Procter & Gamble or Johnson & Johnson over that same time period, you would have still compounded at 8%+ per annum, even with the total loss of the other half of the portfolio on starting value!

People's basic math skills ... just ... I can't. Not this afternoon. I can't. This is going to make do another case study to illustrate the math. I know myself ...

I totally agree. However, he is wise enough to pick a mutual fund now knowing that he can't invest in stocks. Knowing your strengths and weaknesses is always a plus.

Good for him. That's an important realization that should save him a lot of heartache in the future.

I had to take 45 minutes off and do a case study of Eastman Kodak because of this link, though. I just published it on the front page of the blog.

You're going to turn me into an Omnomnomnivore and just when I was trying to eat better and get back into shape too...

http://www.threadless.com/imgs/products/3890/636x460design_01.jpg