Keitt is a good tree. Produces pretty good fruit with good sweet if unspectacular flavor and minimal fiber. Fungus resistant and a pretty good producer, plus the tree isn't a very vigorous grower, though the growth habit is distinctively scraggly. If I could only pick 1 tree to plant from the list thus far it would probably be between that and Valencia Pride. The fruit can get quite big on this one. Osteen is an ok/mild mid-to-late season mango that is reasonably productive as well. Produces prettier fruit than Keitt (which is usually just green with minimal blush). The fruit get to be decent sized. I think Keitt tastes better though.

Posted by deeageaux The appliance engineer I talked when I visited the Capital Factory in Santa Fe Springs Ca. It is very surprising that someone of that level of education would say that. Engineers always seem to be into the specifics. There are so many differences between types of open and sealed burners, I can't imagine someone making such a broad generalization. At low and moderate heat there is almost no difference between open and sealed burners. If you have the burners wide open, you will get some additional flare on the sealed burners due to the burner cap but this varies widely depending on how they are engineered. It is true in most situations according to him unless the pan is extremely large and able to capture the heat shooting off the sides. I am amazed that he hasn't considered that the flames are adjustable. Maybe he doesn't cook so doesn't realize one of the first things you learn in cooking is to adjust the heat so the flame is under the pan. Open or sealed, the flame can be too big for the pan. This is one reason that CC has come up with the simmer/small pan burner as Wolf has. Other manufacturers vary the size of burners allowing the user to match pan to burner a little better. You might find some of the bigger open burners have a flame bigger in diameter than some sealed burners. I have seen people that do just turn the burner on high but that is user error and would apply on both open and sealed burners. Even the height of the grates can affect the efficiency of the burners. It helps to talk in generalities and what most types of pans people use. Not some extreme outlier. You need specifics. What does he mean by "extremely large" What do you mean by "extreme outlier"? I can use a ten inch frying pan on my sealed burner, on high heat and the flame is under the pan base which is 8 inches across. I actually consider the ten inch pan small. To make a statement as he did you would need to have some supporting data obtained from measuring heat loss or maybe measuring heat utilized. It would be a massive, expensive study and have to consider a lot of variables. If you read any threads about cookware, I would hate to guess what most people use. You would have to guess size, shape, material, weight, etc. All these factors then contribute to the efficiency of heat to food. Your idea of an outlier might be what I use everyday and vice versa.

I agree that very few of them beat the averages ... how could they? They have offices to run, computers, phones, postage and staff ... and buy and sell a lot of stocks, and though their fees are low, many of them pretty well turn over their whole portfolio annually. Those that do that ... have a lot of capital gain to report to you (you hope!) annually ... of which the income tax people want their, in that case, ongoing, share. And they have that management expense fee (often higher than the income tax cost) that reduces their effective rate - and they get their guaranteed rate, whether they produce or not! Also - when it comes time to sell those units, you'd better have kept records of not just your original cost ... but also of all of those declared payouts that were reivested, in order to calculate your capital gain. Many mutual funds keep track of your average cost per unit ... that works O.K. ... until they get bought out/merged, etc. and usually the new system just starts from when they took over. Have you checked Morningstar, the agency that rates them? What about learning how money works and buying individual stocks yourself? I bought shares in one of Canada's half dozen or so nationwide banks over 40 years ago for about $4.20 per share, that was paying about a dime or a bit more as annual dividend. A year ago May each of those shares was "worth" (i.e. "could be sold for") $107.00 ... but they were heavily involved with the U.S. stinky problem mortgage situation, so their price slipped down through the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s into the 50s ... and have recovered a bit to low 60s. Some here recently said that, of course, I sold ... no, I hadn't. Partly, at the time of the high price, didn't have any idea that it would slide so far ... plus, it went from 4.5 doubles in 41 years to about 4 doubles in those years ... which, apart from the increased income via dividends over those 40 years, is a pretty good rate of growth. But if I were about to buy more bank shares, it'd be a different one, as this is not their first goof in recent years. Recently dividend rate grew from $2.80 to $3.08 to $3.48, which earlier in Canada were tax-advantaged, and recently that advantage increased substantially: so that a person with solely that kind of income went from tax-free $28,000. - 30,000. tax-free, to $46,345. tax-free, an increase of over 60% in one year. Further ... I've subscribed to what I consider Canada's best personal money management magazine for quite a number of years, that carries no ads, is pretty well all text - and the writers respond to subscribers' questions. Local subscribers meet regularly in about 40 places across Canada and I've met with about 20 others monthly here for about 8 years or so: many perspectives and I've learned a lot, there. Cost? Gas to get there, wear and tear on the car - plus, time ... a couple of hours a month, and another at the coffee house after, with a few of the guys and gals. If I'd put that $4.20 into the average even equity-based mutual fund 41 years ago, would the size of that asset have doubled that well? Rather doubtful, I think. A couple of mine have - several haven't. But I don't want to dump 'em this year, due to forced sale of a major holding - Canada's largest telco going private (damn it!). And that's with the income reinvested - and my shares paid me dividends quarterly, with frequent increases, for 41 years. However - the big proviso - the average growth rate has not been that good. I've avoided some taxes as I went along, but that piper will have to be paid, one of these days. Whether while I'm alive ... or for my executor to take care of, before dispersal of my estate to my kids and charities. Had I put that $4.20 into a bank account, GIC, bond, etc. where the number of dollars of principal has been guaranteed, would I have developed any such result? No way! Apart altogether from the tax advantages in the equity-based game (whether of the mutual fund or individual investment variety)! Did I say earlier ... that I prefer to run my own show? Further ... though it was 60 years ago, I grew up on a farm, and farmers are used to irregular income, with loss of some potential income when a cow dies, or reduced yields due to drought or flood (but the price of diesel fuel, fertilizer had to be paid, regardless). And seasonal income, for many. How many town folks could handle getting paid once or twice a year? Plus, they manipulate not only capital, but labour - to repair the tractor, or trade it on a bigger one? Which would require getting bigger tillage equipment, as well. Put a new roof on the barn, this year ... or build it larger? Farmers were much more used to uncertainty than city folks. Or, rather, than city folks used to be. Now, with pensions shrinking and disappearing like fog in the morning sun ... and, in many areas, the values of one's equity in one's owned home (well, "partly-owned", considering the mortgage), and with employment being uncertain, with full-time work scarcer, there have been major changes in the economic picture for city folks, as well. Back up and look at the far horizon ... occasionally, at least. Good wishes for increasingly more effective use of not only your income, but of your assets, as well. ole joyful

Beuhl - I love your drawing and suggestions. Thanks so much! The idea to have a bookcase near the dining room for school stuff is ingenious. :o) It wouldn't hold everything we use, but it would hold the basic components of our curriculum, and the rest of the less-used stuff could still go in the pantry. It's also helpful to see the traffic flow and work zones lined out because that's the way I really want to use my kitchen. I think sometimes my ability to think through this stuff is stifled because I've been living with such an awful kitchen for so long. (I really need to post a pic! It will make you laugh!) :oD Rhome - I think your idea makes the most sense from a logistical standpoint, but one thing I feel like I just have to have in the kitchen is that wide opening. I will be able to make lunch and work on laundry while still keeping an eye on the kids doing their schoolwork. I know from experience that when they know I'm not watching, they tend to wander. ;o) As an aside, we actually finished our basement in preparation for our first year of homeschooling, complete with art area, floor-to-ceiling bookshelves, a comfy sectional for reading, wall-mounted flat screen TV for watching school videos, computers and desks, play area for the little guys, etc., but after that first year, I just couldn't stand it anymore! Every time I'd have to run upstairs to switch a load of laundry or start on a meal or something, chaos would ensue. It has worked so much better for us to be on the main floor together. I'm *really* looking forward to having our spaces more integrated. Thanks for all the input, everyone. I'm feeling a lot more optimistic about all of this now. I just hope these changes aren't going to cost us an arm an a leg and that they're actually feasible! :o)