semicolonoscopy

Aside

Reply

I find it ironic that, although I use too many semicolons when writing English, I quite often leave them out when writing code. Which is the greater sin? I suppose it depends on which social circles you run in.

The Strunk-and-White crowd would likely be more offended by my overuse of the semicolon. They might also object to the grammar in my “social circles” sentence. As the old saying goes:

Run in is better than run on, unless you are ending a sentence with run in; everyone knows you don’t end a sentence with a preposition.

I like very much that the old saying uses a semicolon. It puts the Strunky/Whitey folks in a tough spot.

As to my other bad habit (omitting semicolons from code), it usually means my code doesn’t work. I spend hours “debugging” (read: swearing at my computer) before I pinpoint the problem.

sounds like…

Posted on by
Reply

two recent discoveries

which led to two more recent discoveries

  1. 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)
  2. 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 →

pinups, prohibition, and the greatest discovery of the 1920s

Posted on by
Reply
Dita Von Teese

the scandalous Dita Von Teese
from pinups

pinup girls on Pinterest

let’s get low-brow

I actually have a very well-curated Pinterest board devoted to pinup girls. Not surprisingly, the title of the board is pinups. I know, it’s not very creative. But it’s all lowercase so that makes it cool. Currently the board has 331 pins, and I’ve #hashtagged most of them with the artist’s name; sometimes the title and year, as well.

Since my pins come through on the facebook news feed, I occasionally get “likes” or comments about a pin that catches someone’s eye. A couple of folks expressed some surprise at the scandalous pin of Dita Von Teese (at right). I believe the exact words used were something to the effect of “I didn’t see THAT coming.” A sentiment promptly seconded by another friend.

I’ll admit: the photo of Dita with riding crop is a bit risque. In the larger context of my pinups board, however, I think it’s not too far off the beaten path.

Continue reading →

worker’s comp for unsafe sex

Posted on by
Reply

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

Reply

“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.