/ck/ - Food & Cooking

wat

>>5014382
48.7 minutes

>>5014382
why do people troll here?

i mean. its usually alot more funny than elsewhere. but why /ck/

anyway. you can't "burn" water

just let it bubble for a bit then kill the heat and let it cool.

or you know just drink the boiling water.

One time I spend all day slaving over a pot of water soup that you have to stir constantly, when my phone rang the this bullshit telemarketer kept going on and on about how I needed to extend my car warranty; by the time I got back to the stove it was ruined.

>>5014391
I still never believe that this movie has a 7.1 on IMDB. Y'know what though? It totally deserves it.

>>5014394
>trolling

I just don't want to waste my time and water.

>>5014382

>Want to make ramen
>Set water to boil on slow ass coil electric stove
>Wander off to *chan for ten minutes until water starts to bubble
>Three hours later feel hungry again and go to make ramen
>Pot is dully glowing in the darkness
>Water is crusted and calcified all over the stovetop
>An accusing white sediment formed in the superheated pot
>Fear the metal exploding and piercing my heart as I slap the stove off and run

>>5014394
>"you can't burn water"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-burning-water.html

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/can-we-really-set-fire-water/

>>5016159
dont try this at home

>>5014394
Dude, this isn't even trolling. This is just good natured bullshitting on a slow board. It's like that post that one anon made about a year ago about trying to put a ham sandwich in a sodastream machine to "get more carbon in [his] diet"

>>5014406
First time I saw it I was like wtf. 10 years later it's one of my favorite movies.

>>5014406
>>5016207
I loved it form the first moment I saw it in the cinema.

I mean, it only has the barest amount in common with the novel, if anything it's a complete parody of the novel. But it's still brilliant satire.

Would you like to know more?

>>5016217

>>5016217
>But it's still brilliant satire.
yet highly misunderstood.

>>5016217
It can't really be a parody of the novel. The writer didn't -read- the novel. He specifically said he didn't, and then went on to parody a completely different idea.

>>5016339
He must have had a vague idea.. an understanding of what the novel entailed.

>>5016339
He read enough to understand the premise and to satirize it.

>>5016341
>>5016343
He specifically noted that he didn't even get through the first page before deciding he hated it and just writing his own story.

>>5016400
He said he read the first few chapters then got bored and depressed.

He obviously read enough to understand the tone and overall theme of the book.

I'm sure you can find something about it on Wikipedia.

>>5016339
Did you read it? I have. After I saw the movie. The background is the same. The characters are more or less the same. However, the stories differ and where the novel is 100% serious, the movie is 100% satire.

>>5016425
*But the satire is not that much about the novel.*

>>5016437
Yes it is. It is totally satirizing the novel. What don't you understand?

The setting in the novel and movie revolves around militarism, jingoism, right wing statism, etc. The novel is dead serious while the movie satirizes it while showing the similarities between the so-called heroes and the bugs.

What don't you understand?

>>5016450
Indeed, but there are fields outside the novel where this satire is also very relevant, which makes the movie even more powerful. Don't you see?

>>5016463
>but there are fields outside the novel where this satire is also very relevant, which makes the movie even more powerful.
Are you just finding out about the meaning and significance of art and literature right now?

And are you really trying to suggest the director/writer only read half of the first page and still managed to coincidentally satirize the novel? His satire just happened to cover themes that were dominant in the book? Pure coincidence?

>>5016476
To me, the satire of the novel is just an excuse and is nothing but secondary. I allow you to dissagree, though.

>And are you really trying to suggest the director/writer only read half of the first page and still managed to coincidentally satirize the novel? His satire just happened to cover themes that were dominant in the book? Pure coincidence?
Hey, I already posted this: >>5016425

>>5016450
You haven't read the novel have you?

>>5016450
>right wing statism
You mean 'imperialism', right?

>this thread

Nuke it

Step 1: Wait until water is boiling
Step 2: Add Candies (at least 1337) while it is boiling
Step 3: Burn the water
Step 4: Stop and put in bottles.

>tfw you forget the water on the stove and you come back to a pan that has calcified minerals fused to the bottom

>>5016172
I remember some dude carbonated chikky noodz soup and drank it

>>5018261
The guy from /k/ right? Miss him.

>>5018284
Oh yeah, he had a gun in the pics. forgot about that until now. He seemed bretty gud

You can't burn water

>>5014394