« November 2008 | Main | January 2009 »
Alex Barnett’s observation that American English is more efficient than its British English cousin got me thinking about the language of my native Canada. I wonder to what extent Canadians use British spelling versus American ones? I remember Canada fairly well—I lived there until I was 12—I’m less clear on the nuances of spelling. I clearly remember using the French spellings of some words—centre, theatre, and metre, for example, I don’t remember having to remember to drop a “u” from words like “flavour” and “colour”, or changing “s” to “z” in words like “customise” and “galvanise” once I moved to the US. Were American spellings used for those words where I lived? Or were the British spellings used, and my exposure to American television, which we watched routinely via the rabbit ears, had acclimated me to the American variants?
True, false, or unproven?
Click here for the answers.
The California Supreme Court has given fresh meaning to "no good deed goes unpunished." It ruled last week that a woman who yanked a co-worker from a crashed car four years ago, and may have made her injuries worse, can be sued because what she did wasn't medical care.
I have no insight into whether the decision was legally correct, and I think the question of what the law should say falls to legislators, not to judges… but the current legal situation seems to me run counter to the public interest. Perhaps the state legislature will take this up and amend the law, ideally before the entire state goes bankrupt, shuts down, and sinks into the Pacific. (An additional provision banishing all personal injury attorney within the state to a deserted island in the South Pacific would be a welcome addition, but optional in my view, at least for now.)
Ann Althouse: “We spend $20 billion a year on drug and alcohol treatment programs -- without demanding much of any evidence that they work.” She’s referencing this NYT article, which does not paint a pretty picture.
Unfortunately, while I’m sympathetic to the thrust of the article—in general I think any expenditure of public funds—really, any collection of public funds—should be contingent on good evidence that the money will accomplish what policy makers propose it will. If some treatments work, and some don’t work, or work less well, I think we should be concentrating our money on what works. This seems like common sense. Unfortunately, I will be surprised if we see this change any time soon. Change would require a simultaneous shift in attitude toward greater accountability among three decentralized communities—voters, politicians, and drug counselors—who appear to have little incentive to change.
I’m always amazed at the things you find on the Internet. Consider, for example, this abstract from a scholarly paper I stumbled across while reading up on Antarctica, a place I hope to travel one day (hopefully soon.)
I am so very glad, by the way, that I chose a different profession than the authors of this article…
Abstract
Chinstrap and Adelie penguins generate considerable pressures to propel their faeces away from the edge of the nest. The pressures involved can be
approximated if the following parameters are known: (1) distance the faecal material travels before it hits the ground, (2) density and viscosity of the material, and (3) shape, aperture, and height above the ground of the orificium venti. With all of these parameters measured, we calculated that fully grown penguins generate pressures of around 10 kPa (77 mm Hg) to expel watery material and 60 kPa (450 mm Hg) to expel material of
higher viscosity similar to that of olive oil. The forces involved, lying well above those known for humans, are high, but do not lead to an energetically wasteful turbulent flow. Whether a bird chooses the direction into
which it decides to expel its faeces, and what role the wind plays in this, remain unknown.
And what a travesty it is that we don’t know. When will this subject get the serious attention it deserves? In the meanwhile, the next time someone asks you to estimate the colonic pressure of a Chinstrap penguin, you will know to ask, “Do you mean for expelling watery material, or for something more viscous?”
And yes, you may laugh now, but I’m betting that the next time you’re 15 feet upwind of a nesting penguin, this information will be of more than academic interest to you.
Recent Comments