It's pancakes. In a can. It's made $15 million.
att.cnnmoney.mlogic.mobi
att.cnnmoney.mlogic.mobi
Refrigerator Stable Baking Batter
In various embodiments of the present invention, a bakable batter mixed using cold process conditions and provided in a pressurized can, can be used to bake a variety of food products. In various embodiments of the present invention, a bakable batter mixed under inert atmosphere conditions and...
http://www.google.com/patents/download/11_760_647_REFRIGERAT...
I think they've shown their work.
This is the very purpose of patents. To speed up innovation by forcing people to share their research in exchange for a limited monopoly. I find it both hilarious and scary that you find something special in this patent application.
Here's a (better) link to the original article:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/23/smallbusiness/batter_blaster...
But indeed, you can highlight and everything just fine in Opera.
I 100% believe this product adds value to people's lives, but I'm also pretty confident that that's because people are terrified to learn how to cook.
Also, it is impossible to overstate the importance of not making people think. Making pancake batter requires either remembering the recipe, or (gasp!) looking it up. With this product, all you have to know is that when you push the nozzle, shitty pancakes come out. Magic!
My mornings are usually rushed, it takes less effort, and makes less of a mess. It's pretty easy to make bad food decisions in our society, and pancakes in a can are one of them, however, every once in a while it's OK. Also, they don't taste amazing, but they taste solidly average, which is fine by me for a quick breakfast.
I don't see why people are getting so worked up about it. If there's anything people should be worked up about it's fast food breakfasts, that stuff makes these pancakes look like gourmet health food.
.
It frustrates me when people insult others ideas because the idea is successful but it isn't something they would use. If the earth's population was 1, then it would be okay. Until that day, please have an open mind.
Its existence also dramatically increases the likelihood that I'll have to eat a pancake from a can at some point in the future.
I can toss one of these cans in a lunch cooler, and the next morning breakfast is nice and quick with a skillet. No need to have mixing bowls and whatever else. One can usually lasts me and my wife several trips.
3 eggs
6 dl milk
3 dl wheat flour
1 table spoon sugar
1 tea spoon salt
1/2 dl cooking oil (I use olive oil)
100 g butter
If you cook electric, start warming the frying pans. I normally fry on 7 (out of 10). Mix the eggs. Add half the milk. Add the flour. Whisk together until smooth. Add the sugar, salt and remainder of the milk. Add the oil. Mix until the batter is smooth.
About now the pans should be warm. Put a tea spoon of butter in each pan, spread it out in the pan. Add about a cup of batter (or so) to each pan. When the batter is congealed on the top of the pancake, use a long thin spatula to turn the pancake over. It should be yellow/golden brown on the fried side. Wait a minute. The pancake is done. Repeat from beginning of paragraph until out of batter.
Serve with sweats or savoury as you prefer. Blueberries, ice cream, sugar and butter, strawberry jam, are my favourite toppings.
All in all you can do this, with a bit of practice, from a standing start in 20 minutes. And the pancakes are superior to anything you will buy in a pack or a box. Promise.
Notes:
1) can easily be scaled to fit, 1 egg = 2 dl milk = 1 dl flour
2) dl = decilitre 1/10 litre (about a small coffee cup)
All sounds a bit yuck to me.
I get the powder stuff. You can buy it from Tesco. Comes in a bottle, which is about 1/4 full of powder. You can store in the cupboard for ages. When you want pancakes you just open the bottle, fill it up with fresh milk, shake for ages then start cooking. Really tasty as well.
I wonder if there's a specific reason you can't get real cheese in the US.
s/cheese/food/1) "it is pancakes" isn't a sentence (ambiguous in the extreme).
2) The words "[it is] pancakes" are incompatible because "are" is the plural equivalent of "is".
3) "in a can" is not a sentence (lack of a subject & verb).
4) "it's made" is "it is made" not the "it has made" it should be. (It's as "it has" is not an official contraction due to its obvious ambiguity.)
The unmurdered headline would be,−
It's pancakes in a can, and it has made $15 million.
To CNN: Remember, it's my language you're abusing. Maybe you should care too? As a "big news agency" you should at least care enough to force your writers to learn basic English grammar!
I'm upvoting your comment anyway because the concept of a subgrammar never occurred to me before and it's kind of neat. I'd be surprised if it weren't a well-known phenomenon among linguists though.
> It's pancakes in a can, and it has made $15 million.
How does this address #2: The words "[it is] pancakes" are incompatible because "are" is the plural equivalent of "is".
Not true. "It is pancakes in a can" is entirely grammatically correct, because "pancakes in a can" is a singular noun -- an idiomatic one, to be sure, but "pancakes in a can" is taken to mean "a can containing pancakes", which is obviously singular.
Further, English has subject-verb agreement not subject-object agreement or verb-object agreement, hence "it is pancakes" is completely fine. Sure there maybe be some semantic anomalies, what with the singularity of the subject, the plurality of the object, and the copula which provides some sense of equivalence between them, but that's entirely a semantic issue and not a grammatical one.
Further further, setting off non-sentences by periods is common practice. You may not like it, but everyone else accepts it. You're just an idiot.
Further further further, "it's" is completely acceptable English, and isn't an official contraction only because there ARE no official contractions -- unlike French, with its (wholly impotent) French Academy, there is no authority on English, and thus no such thing as official English. The best we can do (as if we should care) is to reference the great authors of English literature (whoever they may be) and if you go by them, then you're most certainly wrong.
Further further further further, it's not your language, it's everyones, and I think the headline is fine; and they're not abusing it, they're using it in a completely standard fashion.
</actual linguist>
No, it is not. It's their language too. There is no central authority which hands down the rules of the English language, only common agreement and a shared understanding. If a collection of words and punctuation has clearly expressed an idea, then it has served its purpose.
Rules of grammar are useful, but getting too pedantic and authoritarian about them can do nothing but suck the joy out of your life.
The headline as it stands is trying to add some extra texture. "It's pancakes." - ie just pancakes, nothing fancy, nothing luxurious (though we have pancakes as a treat) they're just pancakes. I also find this to be a hint to a template of a salesmans patter. "In a can." - this evokes a staccato presentation on a TV shopping channel IMO and emphasises that all they did differently with their basic pancake batter was stick it in a can (even if that's not strictly true). "It's made $15 million." - the short sentence echoes the others and adds a little incredulity.