On 8/17/2015 3:18 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per SeaNymph:
Haven't you ever driven behind someone talking on the phone who
cannot drive a constant speed?

Or even stay in the lane?

That too. Those people scare me and I try to stay away from them.

On 8/17/2015 7:05 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote:

[attrs elided]

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing
behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I
want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly flinch and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

ya got me right in the heart! ack!

It takes a fair bit of effort (IMO) to "go somewhere". E.g., a trip to
the library (2.5 miles ea way) is 20 minutes -- not counting the time
spent there. (the closest *large* Ace is across from the library).
It is distressing to "waste" that time and not come home with
something crossed of The List.

There aren't that many "20 minutes" in a typical day! If I've got to drive
clear across town (45 minutes) to the oriental grocer, you can bet I'll
come back with a month's worth of whatever!

Worse, yet, to have to go back *tomorrow* for some silly little item
that was forgotten on today's trip!

[A friend claims "Plumbing takes three trips" (TmReg); I've learned that
she is basically correct. There's always one little fitting that
you discover you need *after* you've come back from your FIRST trip.
And, something else that you think of -- or manage to BREAK -- after
your SECOND trip! As a result, I have a very conscious goal of
trying to do plumbing jobs in *two* trips -- not yet ambitious enough
to hope for *one*]


My current project is building some floating shelves in my bathroom
using tension rods, and one store will have 2 parts of what I need,
another store will have 3 parts. I threw up my hands and put everything
back because I needed the essential tension poles in the right length
before I could even start. The shelves I needed were out of stock, too.

Today, after searching the Home Depot website I finally found the
tension rods AND the right wire shelves that I need. The hardware to
put it together is at another store (Lowes). Home depot had a package
of C clamps that were the right size and color, but the package also had
a bunch of other screws and wall board anchors that I didn't need for a
whopping $28. I'm not paying that for C clamps. I may run up to Ace
Hardware and see if I can buy the clamps there. If not, I'll go back to
Lowes and get the plastic C clamps they have which will work fine and
they're like $7 for a bunch of them.

I've been back and forth to Lowes several times JUST looking, but that
part has been fun working out what I need and then going on a scavenger
hunt finding the parts.

--
Maggie

On 8/17/2015 7:07 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/17/2015 12:54 AM, Muggles wrote:


I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at
the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others
who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group
of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or
even play a radio while they drive.


The problem arises when people from the second category think they are
in the first.

yes!

--
Maggie

On 8/17/2015 3:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

I dislike shopping generally, and look at almost all of it as a mission.
Get it, get what I want and get out. I have better things to do. Of
course, I dislike watching television as well, unless it's football g

On 8/17/2015 3:35 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ashton Crusher:
From 1985 to 2010 there are roughly 1000 times more cell phones. If
in your morning commute in 1985 you were endangered on your 20 mile
commute by 5 people with car phones, by 2010 you would be endangered
by 5000 people with them. The roads should be awash in blood.

Maybe it's analogous to cigarette smoking.

The official anti-tobacco spiel is all about cancer and other negative
health effects... but I have to think that 90% of the people who got
onboard with banning cigarette smoking in the workplace just wanted
relief from the stink. I certainly did.... could care less if somebody
chooses to addict them selves and ruin their health... I just wanted the
stink to go away.

With cell phones: Ok, the official talk is all about safety and that may
or may not be all well and good... but I for one can get behind the idea
of a ban just so I don't have to cope with people yakking on the phone
while they wander back-and-forth over the line and back up traffic by
cruising the hammer lane.

While I dislike driving around people talking on cell phones, I hate
going hiking and have to listen to someone on the phone. Or you want a
quick bite to eat, but the person in front of you can't put the damn
phone down long enough to order.

On 8/17/2015 7:17 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 2:48 PM, Muggles wrote:

Interesting observations, there.

All my kids are cell phone + text savvy and mostly communicate via text,
so if I want to stay in touch, I text them.

Do you do it the *instant* your phone chirps at you? While driving?
Or, do you assume it can wait a minute/hour and reply later -- when
it is more convenient/safe? If it's a text AND the sort of thing
that you can *immediately* formulate an answer (i.e., doesn't require
conferring with your SO or "thinking about it"), then is it really
*that* urgent?

I wait until I'm not driving any more to respond IF I remember that I
actually got a text msg while driving. Sometimes, I don't hear the DING
when I get the msg, too.

We're frequently out front chatting with neighbors. Their kids are
now out of the house (permanently?). While talking, invariably
"his" (or "hers") phone will chirp. They'll ignore it as they are
engaged in a conversation. After *two* rings, it will stop. Then
hers (or his) will chirp. Again, two rings later, that stops.
THEN, the land line in the house starts to ring.

We all *know* its one of the kids -- impatient, needing instant
gratification. Their question ("what are you guys having for supper?"
or something equally earth-shattering) just DEMANDS an immediate
reply. Or, so *they* would think!

[I wonder what they would do if mom & dad were in the sack and
didn't reply for an hour or so?? "Where WERE you guys?? I've been
calling and calling..." "We were working on another CHILD..."]

OMG! Mom and dad were what? ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!

--
Maggie

On 8/17/2015 7:17 PM, krw wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:39:11 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Click on your link
and there is a listing for "distracted driving":

You have to realize what you just intimated.

Bear in mind, it's the PARADOX that we're trying to resolve.

If distracted driving statistics were reliable (they're not), then the
paradox is EVEN WORSE!

Remember, the accidents don't seem to exist in the reliable statistics.
The accidents only exist in the highly unreliable statistics, and they
don't show up in the reliable ones - so - you and I both know what that
means.

Even so, if, as you and I assume, cellphone use causes accidents, then we
should be able to *see* those accidents in the aggregate statistics.

But we don't.

The fact that it's virtually impossible to determine whether a cellphone
was the primary (or even secondary) cause of an accident isn't really
part of the equation - because the accident count is going down (not up).

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Because I don't want to go around all day with something stuck in my
ear.


You can take it out.

--
Maggie

On 8/17/2015 6:07 PM, Muggles wrote:

We all *know* its one of the kids -- impatient, needing instant
gratification. Their question ("what are you guys having for supper?"
or something equally earth-shattering) just DEMANDS an immediate
reply. Or, so *they* would think!

[I wonder what they would do if mom & dad were in the sack and
didn't reply for an hour or so?? "Where WERE you guys?? I've been
calling and calling..." "We were working on another CHILD..."]

OMG! Mom and dad were what? ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!

Did they think *they* were "immaculately conceived"?? :

I think you need over-the-top discussions like this to get them
to think about how silly their expectations appear. Any other
sort of "well, what if we were {out shopping, at a movie, etc.}"
excuse doesn't focus attention on the irrational nature of
their expectation. (i.e., they would expect you to be able
to take the call -- or at least TEXT a reply: "We're in the
movie theater; we'll call when we get out. Stop ****ing off
all the other patrons with all your calls!")

"Now, what was *SO* important? And, *if* we were in the sack,
should we have been interrupted for *THAT*???!"

On 8/17/2015 5:07 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/17/2015 12:54 AM, Muggles wrote:

I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at
the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others
who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group
of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or
even play a radio while they drive.

The problem arises when people from the second category think they are in the
first.

The problem is that MOST folks are in the second category!

It's easy to walk and chew gum at the same time. But, nowadays, folks
try to do things that have much higher degrees of cognitive loading;
require more *thought* to perform correctly.

Baking is largely a mindless task. Except when it isn't! :
I almost always premeasure all of my ingredients so I don't
have that sort of "problem" to sort out WHILE I am in the
middle of mixing them (where there may be some time constraints
in order to ensure everything comes out properly).

There are few opportunities to "do over" if you screw up.
"Did I put 4 cups of flour in there or 5? Hmmm... how can I
tell now that it's all mixed together??"

[You know that if you end up with one too many or few the results
will make the effort worthless!]

Likewise, baking cookies is a pipelined operation: prepare one
cookie sheet of cookies, place in oven (lower rack), set timer.
In the ~4 minutes available, prepare *second* sheet of cookies
so that it can go into the oven when the timer expires -- replacing
the sheet on the lower rack which then moves up to the upper
rack (for the second half of the bake cycle). Reset the timer
and prepare third sheet.

When this second timer expires, remove first sheet from upper rack,
move second sheet from lower to upper, insert third sheet onto lower
and reset timer. Now, move the cookies off the first sheet onto
cooling racks *and* prepare fourth sheet before timer expires.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

If you are slow getting the "next" sheet ready, you can't hit "pause".
The previous sheet needs to finish its bake cycle (and the one before
that needs to be withdrawn). If you put a partial sheet in the oven,
then you end up extending your time in the kitchen by "another cycle".
If you leave a sheet (or two) in the oven a bit too long (while you
rush to finish up the "next" sheet), then you risk ruining the cookies.

All of these actions are incredibly "mindless". Yet, consume 100%
of your attention while performing them!

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:08:04 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/17/2015 7:17 PM, krw wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:39:11 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Click on your link
and there is a listing for "distracted driving":

You have to realize what you just intimated.

Bear in mind, it's the PARADOX that we're trying to resolve.

If distracted driving statistics were reliable (they're not), then the
paradox is EVEN WORSE!

Remember, the accidents don't seem to exist in the reliable statistics.
The accidents only exist in the highly unreliable statistics, and they
don't show up in the reliable ones - so - you and I both know what that
means.

Even so, if, as you and I assume, cellphone use causes accidents, then we
should be able to *see* those accidents in the aggregate statistics.

But we don't.

The fact that it's virtually impossible to determine whether a cellphone
was the primary (or even secondary) cause of an accident isn't really
part of the equation - because the accident count is going down (not up).

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Because I don't want to go around all day with something stuck in my
ear.


You can take it out.

Now I have yet another thing to fumble on the rare occasion that the
phone rings. No thanks.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:28:35 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

There are plenty of
stories of accidents and fatalities where cell phone usage was
involved.

But, if they are actually happening in any meaningful way, then
the accident rate would be going up.

That it's not, is the paradox.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:03:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

According to NBC new tonight they are. We are on track to be higher
than 2009, a 14% increase. Could be the highest number of fatalities in
years. They said 55% were speed related, 25% cell phone related.

One of you is using the wrong statistics. Me thinks you are FOS.

You're talking fatalities, which is even further removed from accidents
than injuries.

Why do you persist in muddling what is so very simple.

You and I believe that cellphone use is distracting enough to cause
accidents, yet, those accidents aren't happening.

What part of that is full of ****?
(Do you have *better* accident statistics?)

If so, show them.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:07:36 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

"Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."

You fundamentally don't understand zeros.

It's like the old joke of aiming nuclear weapons.

If the number of accidents were truly going up, no amount of estimation errors
would hide that fact.

It's clear, that the accident rate did not track the cellphone ownership
rate, and that is a fact that no amount of apologies on your part can
erase.

I think you're looking to prove your point that the astoundingly huge
skyrocketing rate that must be expected by your assumptions is,
somehow, magically, hidden inside of "estimation" errors.

You're grasping at straws.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:08:23 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

From 1985 to 2010 there are roughly 1000 times more cell phones. If
in your morning commute in 1985 you were endangered on your 20 mile
commute by 5 people with car phones, by 2010 you would be endangered
by 5000 people with them. The roads should be awash in blood.

That's the conundrum!

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:35:41 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I understand the concept that CEG has not once stated the
word "rate". At least if he has, I haven't seen it.

Just to be clear, I've used the words "accident rate" many times,
but, to be just as clear, I don't think it matters whether we
use rate or number of accidents, because, as someone already said,
if the accidents were really being caused by any appreciable
percentage of cellphone owners, then the roads would be awash
in blood.

That they're not, is the conundrum.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:35:41 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

" Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."

Yet here he is, doing exactly that, making year to year comparisons
and refusing to even acknowledge this striking disclaimer.

You have a logic problem if you really believe that your entire premise
is that the answer is hidden inside of "estimation error".

I thank you for looking for a solution out of the conundrum, but, you're
not going to find it in accident rate estimation error.

You apparently have no concept of the powers of ten (hint: It's an extra zero or two
or three on the numbers, which no estimation error in the world is going
to hide).,

That your entire premise hinges on the estimation error being so large
as to greatly sway the numbers means you're simply grasping at straws.

I too am looking for *where* the conundrum is solved, but, it's not going
to be in the "estimation errors" of the US figures on year to year accident
rates.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:44:20 -0500, Muggles wrote:

I think some phones allow voice texting, but I think it'd be more
trouble than it's worth.

Sure, you can easily text with voice to speech through bluetooth.
It works both ways (voice readout, and voice recognition).

It's not even fancy nowadays.
All smartphones do it, as far as I know.

Certainly it works through my Motorola Roadster speakerphone and
my android cellphone.

On 08/17/2015 02:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 2:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Nobody can multitask, it's just sequential flipping back and forth.
Women may just need to do more flipping than guys do.

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly flinch and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

When I needed shoes for my daughter's wedding I ended up trying up
everything that might vaguely go with my dress in the quest for
something that didn't hurt. I took the winners off as soon as I could
sit down at the reception. Some men's tennies are OK, but they suck for
formal wear.

I have two modes: the hunter-killer mode for when I need a specific thing or
things (a black straight skirt to wear to the goodam presentation), and the
browse mode when I'm in a store where I never know what I'll find --
99-Cents-Only, for instance. Costco is a combo -- I have a list, but I have to
go up/down each aisle to find stuff and I generally find stuff that I should
have put on the list.

I think most men treat shopping as a chore-to-be-avoided. Getting me *into*
a store requires a significant effort (as does getting me out of the HOUSE!).
OTOH, once there, I will scour my brain for every item on the "to be found"
list and check to see if THIS store happens to have any of THOSE things;
I've made the investment *getting* here, lets' make it yield some results!

OTOH, get into an old-fashioned hardware store (i.e., *not* "Ace") and
I can spend hours looking at odd little things wondering what use I
could find for them! :

Our only REAL hardware store closed several months ago. One of the
things of which I'm most proud is that Mrs. Berg offered me a job there
45 years ago when I was buying a lot of weird stuff to build a tape
recorder. Couldn't take it, but it made me really feel good. Still does.

[Men also seem to have an unnatural fondness for flashlights! And, give
a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! : ]

Damn Harbor Freight stopped giving them out even if you didn't buy
anything. Those are nifty little flashlights.

That being said, I hate shopping anywhere but 99-Cents-Only and Costco and I
despise shopping for clothes.

I've got clothes down to a science: buy lots of the *same* pants, shirts,
socks, etc. Then, buying is just a check-off task (no "looking" or
"deciding" required). And, can even be delegated to others: "Pick up
three of these, for me -- at store".

Yard sales. People buy way too many clothes, so I might as well buy
used t-shirts for a quarter and levi's for $2. This means that *I* buy
way too many clothes.

It also cuts down on that time in the morning when you have to "decide"
what to wear, "today".

T-shirt, shorts/pants. I'm good.

I always (since I started driving at 16, anyway) regarded time in the car as
'nobody can get at me' time. I still do. If I want to use the phone I'll turn
it on. If *I* want to use the phone...

--
Cheers,
Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:52:57 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

Mythbusters on the Science Channel just aired a test of hands free
vs. hands on cell phone
use while driving. All but one test subject failed their simulator test
either by crashing or getting lost.
Thirty people took the test. The show aired 9:30 CDT on August 16.

If this is true, then why aren't accident rates going up?

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:36:27 -0400, micky wrote:

Radio just said that traffic deaths were up 14% this year and injuries
1/3

Let's stick with accidents, since injuries and deaths have a whole
host of additional factors that actually have nothing to do with
cellphone ownership (and some that do), but none of which are relevant
to the original accident.

You're just clouding what is a simple issue that is a paradox.

Unless you're saying that cellphone use causes these fatalities and
injuries WITHOUT causing an accident first?

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:19:01 -0700, Ameri-Clean wrote:

Have you considered that cell usage and texting might be causing
FEWER accidents? My reasons:
1. Talking or texting keeps the driver awake--less likely
to fall asleep and have a collision.
2. Knowing that talking or texting is a distraction,
drivers consciously pay more attention to the road.
3. The increased alertness resulting from texting could
last for minutes, or even hours after the texting has stopped.

Of course there will be a few accidents caused by the driver
momentarily not looking at the road but, overall, the rate
may be lower among texters. A meaningful statistic would show
the rate of accidents per 1,000 who text often or sometimes
vs. per 1,000 who never text.

You have supplied a possible fifth solution to the conundrum!

I have noted already that a car with a cellphone might actually
be a *safer* car than one without, simply because of the lack of
need for reading road signs in the rain, or for making u-turns
in unfamiliar territory, or for avoiding traffic backups, etc.

Certainly a cellphone equipped car is much safer *after* the accident,
because help can be on its way even before you step out of the vehicle.

So, maybe the conundrum is solved by the assumption that cellphones
both cause and prevent accidents in *exactly equal numbers*.

That would be a fifth solution to the conundrum.

On 08/17/2015 06:52 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 5:07 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/17/2015 12:54 AM, Muggles wrote:

baking cookies
When this second timer expires, remove first sheet from upper rack,
move second sheet from lower to upper, insert third sheet onto lower
and reset timer. Now, move the cookies off the first sheet onto
cooling racks *and* prepare fourth sheet before timer expires.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

If you are slow getting the "next" sheet ready, you can't hit "pause".
The previous sheet needs to finish its bake cycle (and the one before
that needs to be withdrawn). If you put a partial sheet in the oven,
then you end up extending your time in the kitchen by "another cycle".
If you leave a sheet (or two) in the oven a bit too long (while you
rush to finish up the "next" sheet), then you risk ruining the cookies.

All of these actions are incredibly "mindless". Yet, consume 100%
of your attention while performing them!

I used to make fudge for Xmas. I could keep 3 pots going until I ran
out of ingredients and god help anybody who got in my way while I was
doing it. I had one dry measuring cup, one wet one, a knife for the
butter and a tablespoon for the cocoa. You use the cap to measure
vanilla, everybody knows that!

--
Cheers, Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

On 08/17/2015 08:04 PM, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:52:57 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

Mythbusters on the Science Channel just aired a test of hands free
vs. hands on cell phone use while driving. All but one test
subject failed their simulator test either by crashing or getting
lost. Thirty people took the test. The show aired 9:30 CDT on
August 16.

I saw it. I trust them. I think they take too much pride in their
actual considerable skills and are having too much fun to fudge their
projects.

If this is true, then why aren't accident rates going up?

Perhaps the smarter non-users are getting better at avoiding the
assholes on the phone -- a survival characteristic.

I've used my phone twice while driving. Both times I could actually
FEEL my peripheral vision as well as my attention to driving shutting
down. Both times my response was "I'm on my way, see you in a few
minutes." I don't use my phone for anything but messages like that and
really don't understand how people can be constantly chattering.

--
Cheers, Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

On 8/17/2015 8:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 6:07 PM, Muggles wrote:

We all *know* its one of the kids -- impatient, needing instant
gratification. Their question ("what are you guys having for supper?"
or something equally earth-shattering) just DEMANDS an immediate
reply. Or, so *they* would think!

[I wonder what they would do if mom & dad were in the sack and
didn't reply for an hour or so?? "Where WERE you guys?? I've been
calling and calling..." "We were working on another CHILD..."]

OMG! Mom and dad were what? ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!

Did they think *they* were "immaculately conceived"?? :

I think you need over-the-top discussions like this to get them
to think about how silly their expectations appear. Any other
sort of "well, what if we were {out shopping, at a movie, etc.}"
excuse doesn't focus attention on the irrational nature of
their expectation. (i.e., they would expect you to be able
to take the call -- or at least TEXT a reply: "We're in the
movie theater; we'll call when we get out. Stop ****ing off
all the other patrons with all your calls!")

"Now, what was *SO* important? And, *if* we were in the sack,
should we have been interrupted for *THAT*???!"


That reminds me of a funny story, but I probably shouldn't tell it here! lol

--
Maggie

On 8/17/2015 8:12 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 06:52 PM, Don Y wrote:

baking cookies

All of these actions are incredibly "mindless". Yet, consume 100%
of your attention while performing them!

I used to make fudge for Xmas. I could keep 3 pots going until I ran out of
ingredients and god help anybody who got in my way while I was doing it. I had
one dry measuring cup, one wet one, a knife for the butter and a tablespoon for
the cocoa. You use the cap to measure vanilla, everybody knows that!

I bake often: biscotti every 2 weeks, 12 cheesecakes/year (one tonight),
3 or 4 coffee cakes; and ~15 doz cookies every 3 months. The holidays
see a dramatic increase: several hundred dozens of cookies, homemade
ice cream, etc.

On each "occasion", my attention is effectively 100% tied up until the
job is over. E.g., tonight's cheesecake will be 2 hours at the stove;
followed by another 3 hours to finish up, tomorrow. A small screwup and
all that time invested is for naught...

On 8/17/2015 8:37 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 8:40 PM, Don Y wrote:

"Now, what was *SO* important? And, *if* we were in the sack,
should we have been interrupted for *THAT*???!"

That reminds me of a funny story, but I probably shouldn't tell it here! lol

Aww, where's the fun in *that*?! ;-)

On 8/17/2015 6:03 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 7:05 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote:

[attrs elided]

[A friend claims "Plumbing takes three trips" (TmReg); I've learned that
she is basically correct. There's always one little fitting that
you discover you need *after* you've come back from your FIRST trip.
And, something else that you think of -- or manage to BREAK -- after
your SECOND trip! As a result, I have a very conscious goal of
trying to do plumbing jobs in *two* trips -- not yet ambitious enough
to hope for *one*]

My current project is building some floating shelves in my bathroom
using tension rods, and one store will have 2 parts of what I need,
another store will have 3 parts. I threw up my hands and put everything
back because I needed the essential tension poles in the right length
before I could even start. The shelves I needed were out of stock, too.

Home Depot, Ace and Lowe's are each on our weekly "shopping circuit"
(whether we actually *visit* any of them is optional). I plan far
ahead for projects so I can see what components are available at
each supplier *before* I need to actually make the purchase. When the
time comes, I just add the items needed from each place to the
weekly shopping list.

This allows the cost of the "research" to be hidden behind the cost
of other visits to purchase items needed for "earlier" projects.

This *has* worked well. Until I recently went looking for two
cast 3/4" C-F-C tee's: they *were* at the local Ace. Until I
actually needed to purchase them!

Then, I discovered that they were relatively rare. And, the
plumbing supply outlets wanted $35-$40/ea! (about 3 times what
they should have cost). So, I had all the other parts ready
but was now struggling to find these two remaining (essential)
parts.

Today, after searching the Home Depot website I finally found the
tension rods AND the right wire shelves that I need. The hardware to
put it together is at another store (Lowes). Home depot had a package
of C clamps that were the right size and color, but the package also had

frown I can't see how you'd be using a C clamp for anything other than
*assembly* (i.e., not part of the finished product)

a bunch of other screws and wall board anchors that I didn't need for a
whopping $28. I'm not paying that for C clamps. I may run up to Ace
Hardware and see if I can buy the clamps there. If not, I'll go back to
Lowes and get the plastic C clamps they have which will work fine and
they're like $7 for a bunch of them.

I've been back and forth to Lowes several times JUST looking, but that
part has been fun working out what I need and then going on a scavenger
hunt finding the parts.

frown I guess different mind-sets. I find all that "looking" to
be frustrating. Hence the reason I try to "hide" it amongst other
activities.

ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:52:57 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

Mythbusters on the Science Channel just aired a
test of hands
free vs. hands on cell phone
use while driving. All but one test subject failed
their simulator
test either by crashing or getting lost.
Thirty people took the test. The show aired 9:30 CDT on
August 16.

If this is true, then why aren't accident rates going up?

They are, you just don't want to believe it and are trolling
just to argue. Most crossposters are
No matter what anyone posts as proof, you will deny the
facts.
A report out today, but again, you'll argue that the data is
wrong

Here

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...deaths-in-2015

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tra...d=ansmsnnews11

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde...e_rise_on.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos...re-on-the-rise

http://wavy.com/2015/08/17/dmv-repor...e-in-virginia/

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/cnbc/57750102/

You probably won't see this because you don't read alt home
repair and I snipped the crossposting

On 08/17/2015 09:10 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 8:12 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 06:52 PM, Don Y wrote:

baking cookies

All of these actions are incredibly "mindless". Yet, consume 100%
of your attention while performing them!

I used to make fudge for Xmas. I could keep 3 pots going until I ran out of
ingredients and god help anybody who got in my way while I was doing it. I had
one dry measuring cup, one wet one, a knife for the butter and a tablespoon for
the cocoa. You use the cap to measure vanilla, everybody knows that!

I bake often: biscotti every 2 weeks, 12 cheesecakes/year (one tonight),
3 or 4 coffee cakes; and ~15 doz cookies every 3 months. The holidays
see a dramatic increase: several hundred dozens of cookies, homemade
ice cream, etc.

On each "occasion", my attention is effectively 100% tied up until the
job is over. E.g., tonight's cheesecake will be 2 hours at the stove;
followed by another 3 hours to finish up, tomorrow. A small screwup and
all that time invested is for naught...

You'll make an excellent wife, but I'd rather have one who was good at
cleaning :-) I used to cook regularly, but now I just assemble food.
Exceptions, of course:

Grate 1 potato. Press down into pan and fry in butter for 10 minutes or
less. Flip and fry on other side for 5 minutes. Salt and eat. Adjust
time depending on whatever it depends on.

Boil corned beef and cabbage for 5 hours. (Live-in consultant likes
5-hour cabbage.)

Jalapeno jelly. It hasn't jelled so far, so I use cornstarch and make
jalapeno pudding. Next batch will be perfect.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ======
His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiosity.

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 18 Aug 2015 03:06:00 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:36:27 -0400, micky wrote:

Radio just said that traffic deaths were up 14% this year and injuries
1/3

Let's stick with accidents,

No let's not, since you don't have good data on accidents.

since injuries and deaths have a whole
host of additional factors that actually have nothing to do with
cellphone ownership

No more so than accidents.

(and some that do), but none of which are relevant
to the original accident.

Deaths may have factors like that but injuries don't. And your
objection doesn't apply to deaths either, because the same people lying
dead on the highway or dead at the hospital within a day or two, 99% of
the time would still be alive were it not for the accident.

You're just clouding what is a simple issue that is a paradox.

You're just clouding an issue to make it seem like there's a paradox.

Unless you're saying that cellphone use causes these fatalities and
injuries WITHOUT causing an accident first?

Deaths and injuries are directly though not necessarilly linearly
proportional to accidents.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:29:37 -0700, Don Y wrote:
I've been back and forth to Lowes several times
JUST looking, but that part has been fun working
out what I need and then going on a scavenger
hunt finding the parts.


frown I guess different mind-sets. I find all that
"looking" to be frustrating. Hence the reason I try to
"hide" it amongst other activities.

I would have been happier if I didn't have to do all that looking for
parts, but I just fire it's part of my time to relax. I like the
details of it all. Kind of like I enjoy meticulously pruning a
rough plant to begin training out for a bonsai. It's almost art to
me.

--
Maggie

On 18/08/2015 01:17, krw wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:39:11 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:


Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

They are too stupid or too mean to buy the necessary kit or more likely
learn to use it since many car radios come with bluetooth these days.

Because I don't want to go around all day with something stuck in my
ear.

There are two sorts of bluetooth device the earpiece ones you see in
supermarkets and on the move as pedestrians and the ones built into the
car where typically the car also provides an aerial boost as well.

When bluetoothed the phone mutes the in car stereo and the call is
routed through the entertainment system - there is nothing in your ear
at all. There are a couple of minor problems. A slight echo on the line
as far as the caller is concerned and some extra roadnoise.

Simulations show that talking on a mobile phone even hands free
significantly lengthens reaction time to situations developing on the
road - particularly if it is a complex question requiring thought before
answering. Holding a phone up to your ear is worse and looking down to
text whilst trying to drive a car or truck is suicidal. Although
annoyingly they mostly tend to kill other people.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 8/17/2015 9:57 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

You'll make an excellent wife, but I'd rather have one who was good at cleaning

grin I've received several marriage proposals, over the years, from
women tasting my baked goods. This is often met with dismay by SWMBO!

OTOH, I don't "do cleaning"! : I don't eat the sweets, either! SWMBO,
as primary beneficiary, grumbles that I always leave the counters a mess
after one of my late night bake-a-thons. My retort: I could STOP baking...
That usually ends the discussion -- WITHOUT me having to pick up a cloth!

She'll have a mess to clean tomorrow morning! As I made another
cheesecake just a week ago -- and biscotti a few days ago -- the
"cleaning" tends to be a frequent source of dismay... (and reward?)

[An amusing anecdote: I have an uncanny tendency to wear *black*
when baking (which noticeably shows the flour, etc. that ends
up on my clothing) and *white* when working on the cars (which
noticeably shows the dirt and grease).]

:-) I used to cook regularly, but now I just assemble food. Exceptions, of
course:

Cooking and baking are entirely different things, in my mind. I *cook*
in order to keep my body "operating". It's over in as short a time as
possible -- preparation *and* consumption. Let's get on with something
more *important*!

OTOH, I *bake* to share bits of pleasure with friends. It's satisfying to
see the expression of pleasant surprise when they taste something they've
probably never had, before. And, for folks getting a "repeat treat", to
see the excited anticipation as you hand a "familiar" plate/tray to them!

[The last cheesecake went to a friend's mother for her 95th bday. Packed
in dry ice for the 1000 mile drive! In addition to being something that
tastes good, it also demonstrates, to her, that her son has folks around him
that care enough about him that they would go to the trouble to bake
something for his *mom*! (my friend lost his wife, recently, so is
essentially "alone", here)]

Grate 1 potato. Press down into pan and fry in butter for 10 minutes or less.
Flip and fry on other side for 5 minutes. Salt and eat. Adjust time depending
on whatever it depends on.

Sounds similar to kugelis.

Boil corned beef and cabbage for 5 hours. (Live-in consultant likes 5-hour
cabbage.)

Jalapeno jelly. It hasn't jelled so far, so I use cornstarch and make jalapeno
pudding. Next batch will be perfect.

Not fond of corned beef. Nor (hot) peppers of any kind. Cabbage is OK with
galumpke.

It's been said that some folks eat to live while others live to eat.
I'm firmly in the first camp (get it over with as quickly as possible).
Even the meals that I truly *love* are just "brief experiences" :-/

On 8/17/2015 10:43 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:29:37 -0700, Don Y wrote:
I've been back and forth to Lowes several times JUST looking, but that
part has been fun working out what I need and then going on a scavenger
hunt finding the parts.

frown I guess different mind-sets. I find all that "looking" to be
frustrating. Hence the reason I try to "hide" it amongst other
activities.

I would have been happier if I didn't have to do all that looking for parts,
but I just fire it's part of my time to relax.

I'm a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to things that I see as
wasteful of my time. Life is far too short to waste it on
"unproductive" activities.

I see "free time" in much the same light as "extra money" (i.e.,
contradictions).

I like the details of it
all. Kind of like I enjoy meticulously pruning a rough plant to begin
training out for a bonsai. It's almost art to me.

But your actions are yielding *results*, in that case. Imagine you
spent that time trying to find a vendor who sold pruning shears! :

I need a small, plastic, rectangular box -- about 2.25" on each side,
2 or 3 inches tall. No larger, no smaller. The time I am spending
searching for it feels like a colossal waste! So, I arrange for
that time to be hidden amongst other activities -- i.e., check to see
if each of the stores I *will* visit in the normal course of events
happens to have it, instead of making a deliberate and specific
attempt to locate it (and failing).

On 08/17/2015 11:57 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:57 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

You'll make an excellent wife, but I'd rather have one who was good at cleaning

grin I've received several marriage proposals, over the years, from
women tasting my baked goods. This is often met with dismay by SWMBO!

OTOH, I don't "do cleaning"! : I don't eat the sweets, either! SWMBO,
as primary beneficiary, grumbles that I always leave the counters a mess
after one of my late night bake-a-thons. My retort: I could STOP baking...
That usually ends the discussion -- WITHOUT me having to pick up a cloth!

She'll have a mess to clean tomorrow morning! As I made another
cheesecake just a week ago -- and biscotti a few days ago -- the
"cleaning" tends to be a frequent source of dismay... (and reward?)

I love cheesecake, but not enough to actually make it. Trader Joe has a
very good one, quite reasonably priced.

[An amusing anecdote: I have an uncanny tendency to wear *black*
when baking (which noticeably shows the flour, etc. that ends
up on my clothing) and *white* when working on the cars (which
noticeably shows the dirt and grease).]

Masochism unless you or your wife loves doing laundry.

:-) I used to cook regularly, but now I just assemble food. Exceptions, of
course:

Cooking and baking are entirely different things, in my mind. I *cook*
in order to keep my body "operating". It's over in as short a time as
possible -- preparation *and* consumption. Let's get on with something
more *important*!

OTOH, I *bake* to share bits of pleasure with friends. It's satisfying to
see the expression of pleasant surprise when they taste something they've
probably never had, before. And, for folks getting a "repeat treat", to
see the excited anticipation as you hand a "familiar" plate/tray to them!

[The last cheesecake went to a friend's mother for her 95th bday. Packed
in dry ice for the 1000 mile drive! In addition to being something that
tastes good, it also demonstrates, to her, that her son has folks around him
that care enough about him that they would go to the trouble to bake
something for his *mom*! (my friend lost his wife, recently, so is
essentially "alone", here)]

Very nice. Mommies worry about their children no matter what age they are.

Grate 1 potato. Press down into pan and fry in butter for 10 minutes or less.
Flip and fry on other side for 5 minutes. Salt and eat. Adjust time depending
on whatever it depends on.

Sounds similar to kugelis.

Not at all (I looked it up). More like a big hash brown pancake. The
thinner you make it the crisper/browner it gets, but the inside should
still be moist. Potatoes only. Some might put ketchup on it...

Boil corned beef and cabbage for 5 hours. (Live-in consultant likes 5-hour
cabbage.)

Jalapeno jelly. It hasn't jelled so far, so I use cornstarch and make jalapeno
pudding. Next batch will be perfect.

Not fond of corned beef. Nor (hot) peppers of any kind. Cabbage is OK with
galumpke.

The pepper jelly is made with 4 bell peppers (whatever color is on sale)
and 4 jalapenos, which are much smaller. It's not really all that hot,
and you can change the ratio with impunity. Trader Joe's red pepper
jelly is hotter. Sesame crackers with cream cheese and jalapeno jelly
are really good.

It's been said that some folks eat to live while others live to eat.
I'm firmly in the first camp (get it over with as quickly as possible).
Even the meals that I truly *love* are just "brief experiences" :-/

We graze. It's been a long time since I cooked an actual 'meal'. I did
once make mu shu pork that Chinese friends found acceptable, though.

ObAutoRepair: I used to do it, but not any more.

--
Cheers, Bev
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners." --Ernst Jan Plugge

On 8/17/2015 8:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 02:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 2:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Nobody can multitask, it's just sequential flipping back and forth. Women may
just need to do more flipping than guys do.

In software engineering, multitasking is a commonly used mechanism
for making more robust, reliable, maintainable, etc. programs. Do
a bunch of little things AS IF that was *all* you had to do.

But, there is an implicit overhead in doing so -- because a
computer can really only *do* one thing at a time. So, you
have to "switch" between these different tasks. That means
remembering EVERYTHING about what you *were* doing on the first
task while you *recall* everything that you had previously *done*
on the second task. The time/effort that it takes to do this
is "overhead" (waste).

The same things apply to human brains. It takes effort to remember
where you are in a given task in enough ACCURATE detail that you will
be able to later return to that point -- while simultaneously recalling
the details of the *other* task that you are now going to resume.
All that effort "switching" is "waste".

And, opportunity to screw up!

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly flinch and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

When I needed shoes for my daughter's wedding I ended up trying up everything
that might vaguely go with my dress in the quest for something that didn't
hurt. I took the winners off as soon as I could sit down at the reception.
Some men's tennies are OK, but they suck for formal wear.

I wasn't specifically commenting on shoes -- though understand your
reference in light of the point at which I injected my comments.

Rather, women (sorry to generalize) tend to be content to look at lots
of *anything* and then leave with *nothing*. AND, not be distressed over
this fact! If I've made a trip out to buy/acquire something, I am
upset if I don't come home *with* it! "Wasted trip".

Furthermore, men will tend to keep that on their ToDo list as an
unfinished task. Women seem not to mind (arbitraily?) deciding that
they don't *need* it, afterall! ("I'll make do with what I have...")

[If the man could have rationalized a way of "making do", he would
have done so to get out of that *task*!]

[Of course, I am painting with a broad brush...]

OTOH, get into an old-fashioned hardware store (i.e., *not* "Ace") and
I can spend hours looking at odd little things wondering what use I
could find for them! :

Our only REAL hardware store closed several months ago. One of the things of
which I'm most proud is that Mrs. Berg offered me a job there 45 years ago when
I was buying a lot of weird stuff to build a tape recorder. Couldn't take it,
but it made me really feel good. Still does.

I haven't been in a "real" hardware store since I left New England.

[Men also seem to have an unnatural fondness for flashlights! And, give
a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! : ]

Damn Harbor Freight stopped giving them out even if you didn't buy anything.
Those are nifty little flashlights.

It was silly of them to offer them as free WITHOUT purchase. OTOH, much
of their stuff is of dubious quality. I was looking to buy a drywall
lift and looked at their offering: would I want to be standing under
a sheet of drywall supported by *this*??

frown

That being said, I hate shopping anywhere but 99-Cents-Only and Costco and I
despise shopping for clothes.

I've got clothes down to a science: buy lots of the *same* pants, shirts,
socks, etc. Then, buying is just a check-off task (no "looking" or
"deciding" required). And, can even be delegated to others: "Pick up
three of these, for me -- at store".

Yard sales. People buy way too many clothes, so I might as well buy used
t-shirts for a quarter and levi's for $2. This means that *I* buy way too many
clothes.

The idea of "previously worn" clothing gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Kind of like a *used* toothbrush... who cares how many times it's
been WASHED!!! frown

It also cuts down on that time in the morning when you have to "decide"
what to wear, "today".

T-shirt, shorts/pants. I'm good.

Jeans (several identical pair) and black or white T-shirt (see post elsewhere
how I invariably choose the wrong color to wear).

If it's a special occasion (party, funeral, etc.) I drag out black dress
slacks and a black shirt (the "Johnny Cash" look).

Once in a blue moon I'll get "to the nines" in a three-piece suit.
Usually, my friends find that disturbing...

On 18/08/15 08:54, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/08/2015 01:17, krw wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:39:11 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:


Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

They are too stupid or too mean to buy the necessary kit or more likely
learn to use it since many car radios come with bluetooth these days.

Because I don't want to go around all day with something stuck in my
ear.

There are two sorts of bluetooth device the earpiece ones you see in
supermarkets and on the move as pedestrians and the ones built into the
car where typically the car also provides an aerial boost as well.

When bluetoothed the phone mutes the in car stereo and the call is
routed through the entertainment system - there is nothing in your ear
at all. There are a couple of minor problems. A slight echo on the line
as far as the caller is concerned and some extra roadnoise.

Simulations show that talking on a mobile phone even hands free
significantly lengthens reaction time to situations developing on the
road - particularly if it is a complex question requiring thought before
answering. Holding a phone up to your ear is worse and looking down to
text whilst trying to drive a car or truck is suicidal. Although
annoyingly they mostly tend to kill other people.


Simulations also show that the dangers involved depend on how often you
talk on phones/radios while driving. People who do so regularly, such
as police, taxi drivers, etc., are able to split their attention better,
and "disconnect" from the phone if an emergency situation occurs.
People who rarely talk on phones, however, can have their reaction times
and attention reduced to the level of someone so drunk they have
difficulty getting their key in the ignition - and that's on a
hands-free phone. Using hands-free or hand-held telephones makes almost
no difference to the reaction times - the key issue is that your
attention is elsewhere.

Of course there are plenty of other causes of distraction that can be
equally bad - having an argument with people in the car, turning round
to threaten unruly kids with having to walk home, driving with a
migraine, having food or drink in the car, etc., are all high-risk
activities. Even just having hot food or drink in the car is a
significant risk - the smell of a takeaway is distracting.

On 8/18/2015 12:38 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 11:57 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:57 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

OTOH, I don't "do cleaning"! : I don't eat the sweets, either! SWMBO,
as primary beneficiary, grumbles that I always leave the counters a mess
after one of my late night bake-a-thons. My retort: I could STOP baking...
That usually ends the discussion -- WITHOUT me having to pick up a cloth!

She'll have a mess to clean tomorrow morning! As I made another
cheesecake just a week ago -- and biscotti a few days ago -- the
"cleaning" tends to be a frequent source of dismay... (and reward?)

I love cheesecake, but not enough to actually make it. Trader Joe has a very
good one, quite reasonably priced.

I find it disgusting. I look at all that cream cheese and realize it's
all just *fat*! ick!

My cheesecake is very light and (relatively) low in calories. I think
it's about 4 pounds and just 5,000 calories. Not the "block of solid
cream cheese" that (e.g., New York style) is more commonly encountered.

I also use pineapple which seems to be different than most expectations.

[An amusing anecdote: I have an uncanny tendency to wear *black*
when baking (which noticeably shows the flour, etc. that ends
up on my clothing) and *white* when working on the cars (which
noticeably shows the dirt and grease).]

Masochism unless you or your wife loves doing laundry.

I do my own laundry. What is annoying is the realization that
I have made this STUPID mistake, yet again, shortly after I've
put on the new, clean shirt.

Sort of like remembering the surgical gloves *after* changing
the oil filter.

[The last cheesecake went to a friend's mother for her 95th bday. Packed
in dry ice for the 1000 mile drive! In addition to being something that
tastes good, it also demonstrates, to her, that her son has folks around him
that care enough about him that they would go to the trouble to bake
something for his *mom*! (my friend lost his wife, recently, so is
essentially "alone", here)]

Very nice. Mommies worry about their children no matter what age they are.

Exactly. My friend (and his now-deceased wife) is a great guy. The sort
you are *reluctant* to ask for a favor out of fear he'll do *too* much!

When his wife died (unexpectedly) it threw him for a loop. He had a
houseful of guests for ~two weeks -- just to avoid being alone, etc.
As *he* wasn't much of a host, under the circumstances, I would drop
off something freshly baked each day so his guests had something
"special" to nibble on. (It was a LONG two weeks! : )

Grate 1 potato. Press down into pan and fry in butter for 10 minutes or less.
Flip and fry on other side for 5 minutes. Salt and eat. Adjust time depending
on whatever it depends on.

Sounds similar to kugelis.

Not at all (I looked it up). More like a big hash brown pancake. The thinner
you make it the crisper/browner it gets, but the inside should still be moist.
Potatoes only. Some might put ketchup on it...

Kugelis is similar but spicier. Some folks make it in a baking dish
but we always made it in a "pancake" form. It's "an acquired taste" :

Boil corned beef and cabbage for 5 hours. (Live-in consultant likes 5-hour
cabbage.)

Jalapeno jelly. It hasn't jelled so far, so I use cornstarch and make jalapeno
pudding. Next batch will be perfect.

Not fond of corned beef. Nor (hot) peppers of any kind. Cabbage is OK with
galumpke.

The pepper jelly is made with 4 bell peppers (whatever color is on sale) and 4
jalapenos, which are much smaller. It's not really all that hot, and you can
change the ratio with impunity. Trader Joe's red pepper jelly is hotter.
Sesame crackers with cream cheese and jalapeno jelly are really good.

Again, not fond of cream cheese. My inlaws were big on "heat" in food.
FinL grew hot peppers -- to the exclusion of all else! He'd eat a
bowl of peppers sauteed in olive oil just before bed each evening
(then, wake up a few hours later looking for the Pepto Bismol...
and GENUINELY WONDERING why his stomach was upset!)

The friend I mentioned earlier has been dropping off various pickled
veggies lately for us to taste. While many are unusual (pickled
onions??), they tend to be tastey. Except the pickled peppers. X-(

It's been said that some folks eat to live while others live to eat.
I'm firmly in the first camp (get it over with as quickly as possible).
Even the meals that I truly *love* are just "brief experiences" :-/

We graze. It's been a long time since I cooked an actual 'meal'. I did once
make mu shu pork that Chinese friends found acceptable, though.

We make an oriental-ish meal every Sunday for lunch. Probably the one
meal that we look forward to each week. Otherwise, our tastes are
different enough that we're usually "compromising" to some extent.

ObAutoRepair: I used to do it, but not any more.

I try to do everything that I can -- which is usually a lot! I have
learned to distrust folks hired for most repairs. If you want it done
right, best to do it yourself.

I recall having some folks do a brake job on a car many years ago.
Some time later, I lost a front wheel bearing while driving. That,
of course, rendered the brakes largely ineffective. I leaned on
the "emergency/parking brake" -- only to find the pedal fall to the
floor!

Turns out, the folks who did the brake job forgot to install the
parking brake link that leverages the primary shoe against the secondary.
As a result, the brake cable was just "tugging on air"! Or,
no brakes! :

Wow, this off-topic thread has been going for 2 days and it is still on-topic!

Now that's a paradox!!!

On 8/17/2015 10:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 02:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 2:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Nobody can multitask, it's just sequential flipping back and forth.
Women may just need to do more flipping than guys do.


This is certainly what the science seems to indicate.