Re: food, glorious food, was: Asphalt animosity

Hactar

unread,

May 17, 2013, 12:41:50 PM5/17/13

to

In article <kn438b$6ku$2...@dont-email.me>, John Mc. <jo...@tdcogre.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/2013 1:20 PM, danny burstein wrote:
> > In
> <694eb31a-01ab-4052...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
> Mary <mrfea...@aol.com> writes:
> >
> >> Agreed - we have a local smallish chain that's more upscale and their
> >> service is always excellent and I don't expect to see them add self-
> >> checkout lines.
> >
> >> And I just love them - Kowalski's.
> >
> > Ah, so he went from serving aboard subs to serving subs...
> >
> Sounds like a voyage to the bottom of a pun thread.

That's a possibility. A substantial one, even.

--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al

S. Checker

unread,

May 17, 2013, 2:08:52 PM5/17/13

to

In alt.fan.cecil-adams Hactar <ebenZ...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In article <kn438b$6ku$2...@dont-email.me>, John Mc. <jo...@tdcogre.com> wrote:
>> On 5/16/2013 1:20 PM, danny burstein wrote:
>> > In
>> <694eb31a-01ab-4052...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
>> Mary <mrfea...@aol.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Agreed - we have a local smallish chain that's more upscale and their
>> >> service is always excellent and I don't expect to see them add self-
>> >> checkout lines.
>> >
>> >> And I just love them - Kowalski's.
>> >
>> > Ah, so he went from serving aboard subs to serving subs...
>> >
>> Sounds like a voyage to the bottom of a pun thread.
>
> That's a possibility. A substantial one, even.

Of course if he turns out to make the best ones in the area you really
could say he is sub standard.
--
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible
and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge.
-- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

danny burstein

unread,

May 17, 2013, 3:37:45 PM5/17/13

to

[snippeth]

>>> >> Agreed - we have a local smallish chain that's more upscale and their
>>> >> service is always excellent and I don't expect to see them add self-
>>> >> checkout lines.
>>> >
>>> >> And I just love them - Kowalski's.
>>> >
>>> > Ah, so he went from serving aboard subs to serving subs...
>>> >
>>> Sounds like a voyage to the bottom of a pun thread.
>>
>> That's a possibility. A substantial one, even.

>Of course if he turns out to make the best ones in the area you really
>could say he is sub standard.

I think we should take a close View of this, and Sea what we find.

- to those who haven't picked up on the thread, Kowalski
was one of the crew members on the Seaview submarine,
commanded by Lord Nelson, in the tv series
"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea".

(not sure if he was in the movie).

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

John Mc.

unread,

May 17, 2013, 4:47:16 PM5/17/13

to

danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> [snippeth]
>
>>>>>> Agreed - we have a local smallish chain that's more upscale and their
>>>>>> service is always excellent and I don't expect to see them add self-
>>>>>> checkout lines.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And I just love them - Kowalski's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, so he went from serving aboard subs to serving subs...
>>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a voyage to the bottom of a pun thread.
>>>
>>> That's a possibility. A substantial one, even.
>
>> Of course if he turns out to make the best ones in the area you really
>> could say he is sub standard.
>
> I think we should take a close View of this, and Sea what we find.
>
> - to those who haven't picked up on the thread, Kowalski
> was one of the crew members on the Seaview submarine,
> commanded by Lord Nelson, in the tv series
> "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea".
>
> (not sure if he was in the movie).

If you crane your neck you can see where we're Hedison.

John Mc.

unread,

May 21, 2013, 8:46:32 PM5/21/13

to

So humans have this assumption that an object won't change size, color,
shape, etc. just because you can't see it or its color for a short
time. (Or is that cultural?) What do you call this, and when does it
develop?

Captain Infinity

unread,

May 21, 2013, 9:38:34 PM5/21/13

to

Once Upon A Time,

Hactar wrote:

>So humans have this assumption that an object won't change size, color,
>shape, etc. just because you can't see it or its color for a short
>time. (Or is that cultural?) What do you call this, and when does it
>develop?

It developed shortly after Cro-Magnons learned that just because they
couldn't see the tiger outside the cave opening it didn't mean they were safe
to take a walk to the outhouse.

I believe it was originally called "tra-la-laAAAAAAAAGH!"

**
Captain Infinity

Howard Hail

unread,

May 21, 2013, 9:43:58 PM5/21/13

to

ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote in news:84ht6a-...@pc.home:

> So humans have this assumption that an object won't change size, color,
> shape, etc. just because you can't see it or its color for a short
> time. (Or is that cultural?) What do you call this, and when does it
> develop?

Object permanence is probably what you're describing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence

The old idea is that it fully emerged by age 2, and I think long ago it was
supposed to be limited to humans, but there's newer research saying it's
younger and lots of animals do it.

The Wikipedia article says dogs, cats, monkeys and some birds have it. I
seem to remember reading somewhere that monitor lizards may have it too,
although I could be mixing it up with the ability to count.

Greg Goss

unread,

May 21, 2013, 9:47:59 PM5/21/13

to

ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:

>So humans have this assumption that an object won't change size, color,
>shape, etc. just because you can't see it or its color for a short
>time. (Or is that cultural?) What do you call this, and when does it
>develop?

I've seen it mentioned on a PBS or Learning Channel show once. They
showed infants watching an object pass through a "tunnel" (or
double-open paper bag or some other barrier. There's a particular age
where surprise is expressed when the wrong object comes out the other
end. Below that age, whatever comes out is equally interesting.

This sounds like they were measuring what you're asking about. If a
duck goes into the tunnel and a car comes out the other end, something
is wrong with the universe, only if you have learned that things DON'T
change when you're not looking.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

Message has been deleted

Gus

unread,

May 22, 2013, 12:50:01 AM5/22/13

to

"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:b02meb...@mid.individual.net...

> ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
>
>>So humans have this assumption that an object won't change size, color,
>>shape, etc. just because you can't see it or its color for a short
>>time. (Or is that cultural?) What do you call this, and when does it
>>develop?
>
> I've seen it mentioned on a PBS or Learning Channel show once. They
> showed infants watching an object pass through a "tunnel"

When cable was new in the 80s The Learning Channel was trying to fill
programming with shows that were actually educational. I remember seeing
tennis instruction (I think it was Vic Braden), and I came home once and
there was a program about babies. And they showed a woman giving birth...
The crowing, the baby coming out, the afterbirth, the whole shebang. And it
was 3 o'clock in the afternoon. You don't see that on The Learning Channel
these days.

Bob

unread,

May 22, 2013, 1:00:18 AM5/22/13

to

On May 21, 9:47 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> ebenZERO...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
> >So humans have this assumption that an object won't change size, color,
> >shape, etc. just because you can't see it or its color for a short
> >time. (Or is that cultural?) What do you call this, and when does it
> >develop?
>
> I've seen it mentioned on a PBS or Learning Channel show once. They
> showed infants watching an object pass through a "tunnel" (or
> double-open paper bag or some other barrier. There's a particular age
> where surprise is expressed when the wrong object comes out the other
> end.

I hope they showed them the magic trick afterward by removing the
tunnel, to avoid screwing them up for life.

rroger

unread,

May 22, 2013, 7:26:32 AM5/22/13

to

Huh?

Greg Goss

unread,

May 22, 2013, 10:34:44 AM5/22/13

to

Learning "object permanence" is a part of normal brain development.
By participating in this experiment, the baby learns that sometimes
you DO see a duck go behind something and a car emerges.

Bob is speculating that undermining the learning of object permanence
could impair that step of brain development. As a result, the person
might become an artist, a Vegas magician, or perhaps a religious
believer.

I'm skeptical that a couple of hours in a science experiment at 1 year
old would have any impact on brain development.

Stanley Daniel de Liver

unread,

May 22, 2013, 5:44:17 PM5/22/13

to

There's a "new" programme? series? on the BBC showing what real in-depth
actual childbirth experience as seen from v. viewpoints is like, almost up
to the point of actually sho... ah well no, not *that* far. Good lord.

>

--
It's a money /life balance.

Bob

unread,

May 22, 2013, 6:16:34 PM5/22/13

to

On May 22, 10:34 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

Even if it doesn't, it's a mean thing to do to a child. And I
wouldn't call it "brain development", I'd call it "learning". I admit
that a few observ'ns that came out funny would tend not to overcome
their general experience, but, especially at an early age, it would
tend to induce doubt unnecessarily, and distrust once the ruse was
discovered.

Bob in the Bronx

Tim Wright

unread,

May 22, 2013, 6:38:11 PM5/22/13

to

Jeff Foxworthy said that watching his daughter being born reminded him
of a wet St. Bernard trying to come in the cat door.

--
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell
the color nine.
Tim W

Gus

unread,

May 22, 2013, 8:22:16 PM5/22/13

to

"Bob" <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:19518a4d-f67f-435c...@o2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> Even if it doesn't, it's a mean thing to do to a child. And I
> wouldn't call it "brain development", I'd call it "learning". I admit
> that a few observ'ns that came out funny would tend not to overcome
> their general experience, but, especially at an early age, it would
> tend to induce doubt unnecessarily, and distrust once the ruse was
> discovered.
>
> Bob in the Bronx

How do you feel about telling children about Father Christmas?

Lesmond

unread,

May 22, 2013, 11:24:42 PM5/22/13

to

Any more than taking a kid to a magic show?

--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.

Nick Spalding

unread,

May 23, 2013, 3:21:13 AM5/23/13

to

Tim Wright wrote, in <ebudnfErMNBK1QDM...@supernews.com>
on Wed, 22 May 2013 17:38:11 -0500:

Good description. I was assistant midwife when my elder daughter was
born, at home, fifty years ago.
--
Nick Spalding

Bob

unread,

May 23, 2013, 2:43:33 PM5/23/13

to

On May 22, 8:22 pm, "Gus" <gus.over...@geemail.com> wrote:
> "Bob" <robg...@bestweb.net> wrote in message

I don't know, but I figured that would be the next Q.

Bob

unread,

May 23, 2013, 2:45:51 PM5/23/13

to

A magic show is wasted on them unless they already know enough to know
it's magic. Peek-a-boo has to stop being interesting before peek-a-
don't gets interesting.