So that accounts for all Long Islanders that I know of, except for Donn. And I hate to say it, but if he is on a canal in Amityville, it is very likely that he's got his hands full with a total mess. My brother (same location)had 5.5 feet of water in the house (ground floor/only floor - a ranch)and it is a total loss. He spent the week this week dragging out furniture over runined floors and prying drawers on dressers/nighttables/cabinets open with a crow bar because the wood structures had swelled and tightened, keeping the contents hostage. When he got to the the contents - everything absolutely ruined. Papers, pictures, a 20 year collection of video tapes of family events. Every piece of furniture, every appliance, most all clothing except for things on the highest closet shelves. He has insurance and FEMA may help, but anyone who has ever gone through an emergency that called for insurance knows that it just won't cover everything. For instance, his outdoor hot tub is neither a household "content" or "structure" (thousands to replace) and all the landscaping around the property too. He is VERY lucky that our Mom still lives in the too big for her family home. He's moved back in there with wife, dog and busniess (he works from home) they all get along well, which is good, becasue he is saying he will probably have to rebuild entirely and that will take some time.

There may be similar cleaning issues with the Advantium. The way a speed oven keeps warm, at least the Advantium, is with microwaves. That's only good for a short time, like half an hour. Okay for holding something that was finished too soon, but not good for keeping warm for stragglers without petrifying. The Miele, from what I've read, also has a broiler, which the Advantium does not. The Advantium has the halogens, which I believe the Miele does not. Depending on which models you're looking at, one may have more useable interior space. The Advantium is really excellent as a microwave alone, though setting it would be easier with a digital pad. If you want to start right away, touch Express for as many 30 second increments as you choose, or touch it once and turn the wheel to adjust. The wheel can turn really fast for longer times, and can set to an exact number of seconds. You can also start with Express, adjust the seconds, pause, then put your stuff in and start, if you want a very precise time. There are other ways to do this, but for 16 seconds and other short times, I find this easiest. I find the menus less useful, except for sensor things like popcorn and frozen vegetables (the sensor is great). Best luck with all the decisions!

The OP said, to put it another way: "they could do the job in a smaller kitchen," those folks with huge kitchens. This may be the core focus the OP was interested in, when he asked if they "really use" their large kitchen. Too great a distance and you've got a space that is hard to work in. Too many steps. Ancillary question 1: About eco footprint: The more high-quality your refrigeration capacity is, the longer your produce keeps; organics spoil sooner in cheap fridges. The more refrigeration capacity you have at home, the less strain you put on the refrigerated distribution retail system. Ancillary question 2: "Huge kitchen --> wealthy homeowner --> eat out, or eat "delivered food" Disgusting. Oh, please. Please, people, let's remember that the wealthiest don't go exposing themselves to restaurant situations as a general rule. Food prepared by strangers presents risks, unknowable, un-evaluat-able. Also, crowd situations present risks, social interaction risks of all kinds, and the wealthier one is deemed to be, the bigger these social risks become. Whether one eats out or not has little to do with one's wealth. --- OTOH, people who just LIKE to go to restaurants or have food delivered certainly are limited by their available cash or credit. People who like to spend are not savers and are not wealthy. They may have enough to spend, today, but this is temporary affluence, equivalent psychologically to a day laborer blowing it all the same night. So a "desire and means to eat out often, or get expensive take-out" can be said to have a ($, in cash or credit) Limiting Factor. This $ limiting factor is not correlated to the number of steps between the sink, fridge and cooktop. And also not correlated to the quality of the appliances. ----

The thing is, people are people and a person's gender should NEVER be used to judge them by. You say the young women you see are far too bold - OK we were having a discussion on women so I said that the timid mouse image that was being painted is not my experience so the statement of too bold applied to women only because we were talking about women. There was no statement about men at all, so don't infer it. I never said or even implied that the behavior is any different than young college men or that it is more acceptable in men. In fact, I said both young men and women were too bold. Since the innuendo is getting me in trouble, the statement is probably going to get me hung but what the hell. I was specifically talking about the all too popular trend of asking any guy you like for d#ck pics, and reciprocating with topless photos. I get a few drunk pics of some guys junk several times a year. Believe me, I think they are too bold also. I never said that bias doesn't exist. I am just referring to the evidence that all biases seem to be lessening, thus studies centered around younger adults may be more relevant. There is still plenty of every bias to go around. You guys are really looking for a fight, that quite frankly, I don't want to be in. So you win. Risk aversion/acceptance varies widely within the genders and I suspect that women may be, on average, more risk averse than men. - Let me explain in greater detail. EVERYONE has different risk appetite. Older people are more risk averse than younger, poor people are less risk averse than the upper middle class, different races have different risk tolerance, different geographic areas have different risk tolerance, and all of those are gross generalizations. The reason why risk doesn't matter between men and women isn't that they don't have different risk tolerance, it is that everyone has different risk tolerance. So the first thing you learn in finance is establishing acceptable risk. There is no right answer. As long as the desired rewards match the risk, you are right. As investors both men and women learn about the market (become sophisticated), we usually see risk seekers temper their desire to make it big in the market, and we see risk avoiders start to focus more on the rewards, realizing that complete risk aversion may not achieve their goals. In the end, the two sides, whether they be race, gender, or just personality, get reasonably close together. So what I am saying is there really is no issue for gender to effect. Once you have a risk appetite that you are comfortable with, you control for it. Controlling for it simply means selecting the investments that will most likely get you to your goal at your stated risk and realizing that not every investment needs to be at your risk appetite.