About Hank

I am H.M. Talbot, chief driveller, intrepid journalist and poet laureate of fantasticdrivel.com. You can call me Hank. I am a pseudonym.

whatever floats your boat

Posted on 22 May, 2013 by Hank

drawings from Abraham Lincoln’s patent

It was 164 years ago today that Abraham Lincoln was awarded a patent for an improved method of buoying vessels over shoals. Kind of like water wings for a riverboat.

After reporting to Washington for his two year term in Congress (beginning March 1847), Lincoln retained Zenas C. Robbins, patent attorney. Robbins most probably had drawings done by Robert Washington Fenwick, his apprentice artist. Robbins processed the application, which became patent No. 6,469 on 22 May 1849. However, it was never produced for practical use. There are doubts as to whether it would have actually worked: It “likely would not have been practical,” stated Paul Johnston, curator of maritime history at the National Museum of American History, “because you need a lot of force to get the buoyant chambers even two feet down into the water. My gut feeling is that it might have been made to work, but Lincoln’s considerable talents lay elsewhere.” |from Wikipedia

To paraphrase Mr. Johnston, “Abraham Lincoln was probably better at other stuff (preserving the Union through a devastating Civil War, abolishing slavery, changing the course of human history, etc.) than he was at inventing improved methods for buoying vessels over shoals.” Truth.

Nevertheless, Lincoln is the only President in U.S. history to have been awarded a patent. How about that.

patent no. 6469 | photo: treasuresthouhast (David and Jessie)

wiki.answers.wtf?

Posted on 20 May, 2013 by Hank

I am currently working on a video for a sculpture I’m selling. You can see my art-for-sale videos on my YouTube channel, YouTube.com/MichaelHanna. Sometime in the next few days I hope to post a video for a bronze recast of a “J. Moigniez” golden eagle sculpture. Whilst searching for pricing on similar pieces, I came across a Moigniez appraisal question on wiki.answers.com.

if you ask a stupid question…

(note my deft use of the “complete-the-idiom” technique)

The thing is, it wasn’t a stupid question. At least, the question I asked wasn’t stupid. The question that was answered…well, that’s a different story.

random ass answer to Jules Moigniez appraisal query

SPOILER ALERT! Harry Potter fans who are behind on their reading, beware: this answer contains information about Potter Progeny.

In case that image didn’t load, here’s the transcript:

What is the average appraisal price for Jules Moigniez racehorse sculpture?

Relevant answers:

Average price for average price of a airplane?

Harry Potter had three children by the names of Lily Potter, Albus Severus Potter, and James Potter, with the mother being Ginny Weasley.

Hmm. If this is the most “relevant” answer, I’d be interested to see some of the irrelevant ones. I can suggest two possible explanations, although I don’t have time to do any follow-up. At least not right now.

the law of averages of averages

The “Law of Averages” isn’t technically “on the books” anywhere. So maybe it’s more like “common law.” I don’t remember it from Law School. But then, I failed out after one year. So maybe that’s a 2L thing.

To paraphrase the Law of Averages: things tend to even out over time.

But this answer is to a question about the average of an average. Like the derivative of a derivative. That would be a second derivative. So maybe this is a second average. Of the “price of a airplane.” Sic.

I’d like to propose the “Law of Averages of Averages,” which would go something like this:

AVERAGE( AVERAGE( X ) ) = HARRY POTTER

Where X is pretty much anything. In our case, the “price of a airplane.” Sic.

infinite monkey theorem

According to a common variation of the famous “infinite monkey theorem,” the entire collected works of William Shakespeare could be reproduced with sufficient quantities of monkeys, typewriters, and time. For an in-depth look at the theorem, including simian simulations, check out Zoo World 3.04.

dactylographic [i.e. “typewriting”] chimp, ready to answer your toughest questions

I’m not sure how many monkeys it would take to reproduce the works of J.K. Rowling. Nor do I know how many monkeys are employed by wiki.answers.com. There is a decidedly random element to this answer, though. Dactylographic [i.e. “typewriting”] monkeys could be behind it all.

a good answer?

This particular question-and-answer exchange was pretty worthless to me in my Moigniez search, but that might not be the best way to evaluate its worth. After all, as a wiser person than me once said:

A good answer raises more questions than it answers.

Judging by that metric, I’d say this answer is pretty damn good.

(here’s a rotated version for pinterest…)

SPOILER ALERT! Harry Potter fans who are behind on their reading, beware: this answer contains information about Potter Progeny.

sounds like…

Posted on 5 February, 2013 by Hank

two recent discoveries

which led to two more recent discoveries

If you say “apple pie” over and over and over again really fast, it sounds like you’re saying “papaya” (over and over again really fast)
If you say “papaya” over and over and over again really fast, it sounds like you’re saying “pineapple” (over and over again really fast)

See the diagrams below:

Continue reading →

worker’s comp for unsafe sex

Posted on 21 December, 2012 by Hank

Injuries from sex, playing cards are compensable says Australian court.

On Dec. 13, 2012, the Full Bench of the Federal Court ruled in favor of a former government employee who was injured while having sex on a business trip. The incident took place in 2007 in the town of Nowra, New South Wales (Australia). The woman was hospitalized and treated for injuries sustained while having sex with a male friend in her motel room. She subsequently filed a claim for worker’s compensation.

From the Associated Press article by Rod McGuirk:

During the sex, a glass light fitting was torn from its mount above the bed and landed on her face, injuring her nose and mouth. She later suffered depression and was unable to continue working for the government.

Her claim for worker’s compensation for her physical and psychological injuries was initially approved by government insurer Comcare, then rejected after further investigation.

An administrative tribunal agreed with Comcare that her injuries were not suffered in the course of her employment, saying the government had not induced or encouraged the woman’s sexual conduct. The tribunal also found the sex was “not an ordinary incident of an overnight stay” such as showering, sleeping and eating.

I must pause to interject a few linguistic observations:

During the sex, …	You don’t see “the sex” all that often. Usually it’s just “sex.” I would probably start that sentence off with “During sex.” Leave it to the Associated Press to squeeze in an unnecessary article…
…a glass light fitting was torn from its mount …	I’m not sure whether there’s another way to phrase this, but when describing sexual accidents, use of the word “mount” is…well…I guess it ups the t-factor.
…in the course of her employment …	Sounds like “intercourse of her employment.” I guess that’s the debate here: was this intercourse of her employment? or just intercourse?
The tribunal also found the sex was “not an ordinary incident of an overnight stay” …	Ah, here’s where the definite article “the” comes into play. The tribunal didn’t find that sex, per se, is “not an ordinary incident of an overnight stay,” only that this particular sex, THE sex in question, was not “ordinary.” So we’ve learned that this was not ordinary sex, and that it involved a glass fitting being “torn from its mount.” I wonder if they had diagrams for the jury, because I’m having a hard time visualizing this.
… such as showering, sleeping and eating.	Euphemistically, she was “sleeping with” her male friend. I hope her attorney pointed that out in the appeal.

OK, back to the story. The tribunal ruled against the woman.

On appeal, however, the Federal Court overturned the tribunal’s findings that the sex had to be condoned by the government if she were to qualify for compensation. Judge John Nicholas explained in his decision:

“If the applicant had been injured while playing a game of cards in her motel room, she would be entitled to compensation even though it could not be said that her employer induced her to engage in such activity.”

closing thoughts

I think everyone is missing the point here. There was a lot of back-and-forth about whether or not the government approved of the woman having sex on a business trip.

How much has been spent on this legal battle? If the government had, instead, spent its time and resources educating its employees on safe sex, this might not have ever happened.

Because, if nothing else, this sex was definitely not safe.

c + e

Aside

“Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

This age-old question has been at the center of more than a few academic feuds over the years. Its polarizing effect has left a sharp and bitter divide in the world of Higher Rhetoric, much like Einstein and Bohr split the 20th-century physics community.

Last I heard, there was no consensus. Did the first chicken lay the first egg? Or did the first egg hatch the first chicken?

It’s really a question of cause and effect. Cause precedes effect, so we might say that the first chicken was the CAUSE of the first egg (the EFFECT of the first hen a-laying). Similarly, we might say that the first egg was the CAUSE of the first chicken (the EFFECT of the first egg a-hatching).

One day, while diagramming the chicken-and-egg question (something I do from time to time), I made an astonishing discovery. I had used the variables “C” and “E” to represent “CAUSE” and “EFFECT” (respectively). Since “cause” begins with a “C” and “effect” begins with an “E”, this seemed a logical choice.

But wait…what is another word that begins with “C”? CHICKEN. And another word that begins with “E”? EGG.

Coincidence? I think not.

If C = CAUSE and C = CHICKEN, then CHICKEN = CAUSE.

If E = EFFECT and E = EGG, then EGG = EFFECT.

Since cause, by definition, precedes effect, we can safely say that the chicken preceded the egg.

Q.E.D.

fantastic drivel

things you didn't care you didn't know

Author Archives: Hank