Not quite true. Amphibian larvae and some adult amphibians (axolotls) also have gills.
My grandmother sincerely believed that if a pregnant woman craved a food, and touched her face during that craving, the child would be born with birthmarks corresponding to where she touched her face.
There could probably be a whole thread about pregnancy beliefs.
Well yeah, you could be silly and do it with everyday household stuff, but all the cool kids used Kreskin’s Crystal. My ex-roommate had one. While it made no specific claims to being gen-you-wine Magick, it did little to discourage that notion. It was a real crystal, or maybe cheap glass, with a nifty yes/no base and a neato velvet carrying pouch.
Snopes gone done it.
Hah, regarding pregnancy advice…a friend of mine is pregnant. Her mother-in-law recently told her how stupid she was to avoid eating nuts, with the “I ate peanuts all through each of my three pregnancies, and it never did any harm”. One of her kids has a nut allergy. :dubious:
Don’t get me started on this.
I never “got” chemistry because they’d start off with those planet-like orbits and those columns of “valences” and then once we’d get into studying classes of compounds, there’d be all these exceptions. Like Lucy saying that 5 can go into 3 “if you push it”, they’d say a little extra pressure or momentum or lack of other good chemical coupling-opportunities would “push” mismatched-valence atoms together and, once they were hanging on to each other, they’d stick it out, due to inertia or laziness or I dunno, maybe their braces got locked?
I had, on my own years earlier, read about p shells and s shells and orbitals but didn’t get the concept of electrons as other than little marble-like things that had specific locations…
No one ever gave me an explanation of what those Lanthanides and Actinides were doing off at the bottom of the chart like a footnote. On my own I made my own periodic chart that stuck a deep valley between (I think it was) the II and the III column, and stuck the Actinides inline at the bottom of the valley where they’d appear in consecutive order, and likewise for the Lanthanides below them, and asked, “Is this wrong, or is this right and they don’t do it this way because it would make for a cumbersome wide chart, or what?” …and just got blank looks followed by pointing at the conventional chart like it was The Gospel.
I decided they were all making it up and that Chemistry wasn’t a real science and stopped paying attention. (Certainly nothing ever happened in the lab as it was supposed to. It seemed entirely random)
Saying that schoolkids shouldn’t be taught the traditional model of electron structure is silly. It’s a perfectly adequate model for most people to use - if it’s “lying to children” then so is teaching Newtonian physics.
Oh, and I’ve seen wallcharts of the periodic table that do show, with various gaps and dotted lines, where the lanthanides & atcinides fit in.
Tricky, yes, for the rare exceptions but this guy was arguing that mules make more mules. I thought it was the different numbers of chromosomes that caused the problem, though. See, I’ve learned something!
This is the way I felt about chemistry as well, and until I started in on my modern physics sequence, it seemed to be an arbitrary gibberish. Once I had some grasp on why the rules work as they do, I’m a lot more comfortable with chemistry. The other problem I had was the amount of historical legacy nomenclature and methodology in inorganic chemistry that makes it so convoluted to understand; I had a much easier time with organic chemistry simply because the naming scheme actually makes some kind of rational sense.
The “science” of chemistry could do with a hard reboot and an integration of relevent bits of atomic physics into the basic curriculum.
Nonsense. The Newtonian model is correct, as far as it goes, and the integration of General Relativity only requires expanding upon it. (Newtonian physics actually encompasses the concept of classical relativity, which explains the Doppler effect and so forth, and only lacks the notion that there is no absolute fixed reference which an “objective observer” can inhabit.) In everyday experience, Newton’s Laws hold true to the limits of measurement. By contrast, the “electrons orbiting the nucleus” is conceptually inaccurate and contributes regularly to misapprehensions by people who have to be re-educated when trying to learn anything about atomic physics or physical chemistry. It’s like telling someone that cars run on fairy dust and then trying to explain the workings of an internal combustion engine.
Don’t get me started on the whole “wave/particle duality” issue; if we’d approach concepts on their own terms, instead of trying to shoehorn them into an existing category, it would be much easier to learn.
Stranger
I will nominate “subliminal advertising” for my contribution.
Oh, I can see them just fine. “SEX” inscribed all over the place in advertisements. I suspect it works the same way as the dousing rods. Once you’re exposed to the notion that they are there, you can “find” them.
I now work as a FileMaker geek for a digital image studio. I see the original digital photography and the complex-layer Photoshop files.
Do they Photoshop the women to falsify a cuter appearance? Yes, yes, hell yes. Astonishing what they can do. The retouchers are very very good at it.
Do they airbrush subliminal words in, or deploy a layer that has words already in it? Nope.
Unless the models themselves have titillating words faintly inscribed upon their torsos at the time the photographs are taken, it just ain’t there.
Reminds me of a cute little story. In high school I was in a conference of some kind with my parents, my math teacher and a couple other school people.
My dad: “You know, my brother always said that calculus didn’t make any sense until you took physics.”
Math teacher: "Well, physics didn’t make any sense to me until I took calculus.
(You got what you paid for.)
I have a terrible time with O-Chem. It’s a lot tougher for me to remember the patterns. I’m OK with alkanes, alkenes and alkynes–and just that took some extensive studying–but anything beyond that is pretty frustrating for me. I can do inorganic chem like a hot knife through butter, though.
Actually, I have seen one or two instances where it has been done, very crudely, in the early eighties. The most ridiculous example was a cat-food ad showing a ginger cat with a very clear "SEX "in darker orange on its cheek. Not a “squinty” one, and not the kind of thing that would ever occur naturally. Plain as day, perfectly legible.
Of course, the explanation for this is that, occassionally, commercial artists are as credulous as anyone else. Especially in the eighties.
Funny on so many levels, though – it was hardly “subliminal,” it stood out like a sore thumb as unnatural markings for a cat. Ridiculous that someone in the industry swallowed Wilson Brian Key’s delusional conspiracy whole. (“Aha! This is why I’m not very successful – everyone else is using this subliminal stuff!”) And it was for cat food. Associating your product with sex (through the usual means or with tin-foil-hat technology) makes sense for tobacco, liquor, perfume, or even things that can be sort of abstractly sexy, like cars – but cat food? WTF?
Depends on who you’re having sex with.
One-way ticket to Hades? Free? I’ll take it!
Actually, that would explain quite a bit…
What? You never heard of a CAT HOUSE?
Actually, I recall an issue of High Times that had a ludicrously obvious skull at the bottom of a huge freaking bong pipe. Lead article in the issue? “Subliminal advertising” 
I once had a girlfriend who would crank up the thermostat all the way on a cold day then move it back when the room reached the desired temp. Same with preheating an oven, crank it up to 500 to make it heat up faster.
I am allergic to nuts – almonds, walnuts, etc. I am not, however, allergic to peanuts. No one ever believes me when I tell them that peanuts are not nuts – they’re legumes. So half the time I have people thinking I’m just “picky” because I won’t eat nuts, and half the time they’re thinking I’m suicidal because I like peanuts.
It is apparently very common for peanut allergies and nut allergies to be present for the same people, though. So the confusion is sort of understandable.
That confusion could easily be mine - it may well have been “I ate nuts throughout…”