This explains a lot

« previous post | next post »

In today's Get Fuzzy, Bucky explains why a "universal remote" is hard to operate in the earthly here-and-how:


  1. Stan said,

    June 12, 2010 @ 8:20 am

    A "3-in-1" remote control presumably refers to the divine and ineffable paradox of "programming".

  2. Sili said,

    June 12, 2010 @ 8:32 am

    A "3-in-1″ remote control presumably refers to the divine and ineffable paradox of "programming".

    I wonder if the correlation between being nine year old, being able to programme a vcr (or 21st century equivalent) and believing in Santa Claus and fairytales have any causation.

  3. Stan said,

    June 12, 2010 @ 8:48 am

    Sili: The capacity for magical thinking is an underrated endowment.

  4. MattF said,

    June 12, 2010 @ 10:26 am

    Stan: When I read your comment the first time, I saw "an undergarment endowment", which also make sense.

  5. Brian said,

    June 13, 2010 @ 1:59 am

    Why is Rob calling Bucky "Steve"?

    Also, how can the remote be "'remote' in the sense that it is unattainable" if it's right there in Bucky/Steve's hand? Can something be present and remote at the same time?

  6. Jon Weinberg said,

    June 13, 2010 @ 6:40 am


    1. See

    2. Apparently so. See

  7. Sili said,

    June 13, 2010 @ 7:52 am


    Bucky has read The Big Book of Steves and decided that all clever people are named Steve.

    As for how the remote can be remote right there in his hands, St(eve) Augustin has that covered: The substance of the remote is remote. What Steve is holding is just the accidents of the remote.

  8. Spell Me Jeff said,

    June 15, 2010 @ 9:35 am

    Has anyone else noticed a spate of young people who have no idea that "remote" is short for "remote control" and thus have no idea why a remote should be named such in the first place?

  9. maidhc said,

    June 16, 2010 @ 12:34 am

    Spell Me Jeff, how can you determine if a young person falls into this category?

    There are other similar examples.

    British people used to say "Is there anything on the wireless?". I don't know how many of them still do. I believe it's short for "wireless telegraph", but regular radio broadcasting isn't the least like a telegraph.

    In the US it wouldn't be unusual now to say "I won't go to a coffee place that doesn't have wireless". And I don't know what that is short for. I could guess "wireless local area network", but I don't know for sure.

    And how many people still remember to use the apostrophe in 'bus?

  10. Spell Me Jeff said,

    June 16, 2010 @ 9:19 am


    As one who teaches 200+ college students annually, I have ample access to survey samples of young people, and I like to take occasional polls on this and that.

    Wireless is an interesting example.

    Perhaps I slipped into fuddy-duddy mode.

RSS feed for comments on this post