In the Catholic church, you confess your sins to the priest, he gives you penance (usually prayers to say), and then you are absolved.
There should be something similar IRL. If you've done something you feel guilty for (something that you can't just undo), you go to some authorized absolver, they assign you a suitable penance that's commensurate with your misdeed, and once you have completed your penance you are officially absolved and don't have to feel guilty for it any more.
However, unlike church penance, you get to decide which things you think you need to do penance for, rather than having it imposed on you.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Things They Should Invent: unrespectively
Respectively is a useful word. Toronto and Quebec City are the capitals of Ontario and Quebec, respectively.
But you can't always get things to come out in the respective order. Sometimes when you're talking verbally and unscriptedly, things come out in a less organized order. Sometimes when you're constructing a complex sentence, it would be less unwieldly (more wieldly? wieldlier?) to put things in a different order.
So Toronto and Quebec City are the capitals of Quebec and Ontario, unrespectively. (This sentence doesn't demonstrate the need, but I forget the context where I first realized the need.)
Alternative coinage: disrespectively
But you can't always get things to come out in the respective order. Sometimes when you're talking verbally and unscriptedly, things come out in a less organized order. Sometimes when you're constructing a complex sentence, it would be less unwieldly (more wieldly? wieldlier?) to put things in a different order.
So Toronto and Quebec City are the capitals of Quebec and Ontario, unrespectively. (This sentence doesn't demonstrate the need, but I forget the context where I first realized the need.)
Alternative coinage: disrespectively
This is awesome (like 47,013 hot dogs)
Language Log discusses British attempts at American accents.
In the comments, a number of people (who I assume are British speakers of non-rhotic dialects) discuss how you know where to pronounce the rhotic R in American dialects. It takes several comments before they establish that you pronounce the R where a letter R is written. Then they briefly hypothesize on WHY American dialects would do such a thing.
That completely blew my mind! I'm familiar with the concept of non-rhotic R and I've been exposed to a reasonable variety of British accents, but I never consciously realized that their pronunciation of R does not directly correlate with the presence of a written R! In my dialect, R is one of the few reliable letters that is always and consistently pronounced as written. (Unless, of course, you can think of some exceptions that I'm blind to, although R is one of the phonemes I had speech therapy for so I am more aware of it than I am of the average phoneme.)
In the comments, a number of people (who I assume are British speakers of non-rhotic dialects) discuss how you know where to pronounce the rhotic R in American dialects. It takes several comments before they establish that you pronounce the R where a letter R is written. Then they briefly hypothesize on WHY American dialects would do such a thing.
That completely blew my mind! I'm familiar with the concept of non-rhotic R and I've been exposed to a reasonable variety of British accents, but I never consciously realized that their pronunciation of R does not directly correlate with the presence of a written R! In my dialect, R is one of the few reliable letters that is always and consistently pronounced as written. (Unless, of course, you can think of some exceptions that I'm blind to, although R is one of the phonemes I had speech therapy for so I am more aware of it than I am of the average phoneme.)
Monday, July 21, 2008
The mother who drew a swastika on her child
There was a story a couple weeks ago about a woman who drew a swastika on her 7ish-year-old child's arm and then sent the child off to school that way.
I just wanted to point out one little thing about this story. I don't know if it's meaningful given the larger context, but it is a weird thing: she drew on her child! That's WEIRD! Parents don't usually draw on their children. It doesn't make much difference here because of the net weirdness of the story already, but in any other context people would be going "You DREW on your CHILD? WTF?"
I just wanted to point out one little thing about this story. I don't know if it's meaningful given the larger context, but it is a weird thing: she drew on her child! That's WEIRD! Parents don't usually draw on their children. It doesn't make much difference here because of the net weirdness of the story already, but in any other context people would be going "You DREW on your CHILD? WTF?"
The internet is a thing of beauty
Wikipedia has an article on inherently funny words. This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy. And contains a warning thingy that this page may contain original research or unverified claims.
I am SO GLAD that I was born at a time where I get to enjoy the internet!
I am SO GLAD that I was born at a time where I get to enjoy the internet!
The problem with the mosquito tone
So this place in BC is playing this really high-pitched noise to keep Kids Today from loitering around. Apparently only people under 25 are supposed to be able to hear this noise because you lose the top part of your hearing range as you age.
There's a sample of the noise here. Can you hear it? How old are you?
Now even if this is a reasonable and justifiable means to keep Kids Today from loitering around, there's still a couple of major problems:
1. I'm 27, I can hear it, and it HURTS! It isn't just unpleasant, it's painful, like fingernails a blackboard. My whole body tenses up, my blood pressure skyrockets, and I get a tinge of nausea. You could torture me with this noise. The oldest person I've tested it on who could hear it was 31 at the time, and it hurt for him too. So if we can hear it and it HURTS us, how many other people outside the target demographic would be adversely affected as well? Not just being able to hear it, but it being painful. I listened to it for just a couple of seconds about 10 minutes ago (to make sure I can still hear it because I last tested it a year ago), and I still haven't gone back to neutral - I'm still a bit tense and feeling the remnants of that tinge of nausea. I'm not sure whether it's equally painful for younger people - I'd imagine if it hurts kids like it hurts me some parents would have complained by now - but what if it's more unpleasant for adults than for the kids who are the target? I've got half a dozen respectable adults with important jobs and disposable income and yuppie tendencies and all kinds of traits that you want in your downtown area, all of whom are going "OMG it HURTS!"
2. How do you know the only people who will hear it are loiterers? What if there are homes in the area? Apartments above the bars? People who are at work and trying to do their job? Parents who can't hear it with kids who can hear it in tow? What if animals can hear it? Does it hurt them? (I haven't been able to get anyone to test it on pets, probably because I keep introducing the subject with "OMG this hurts me! Does it hurt you? Now test it on your pet!") I don't think keeping loiterers away is worth subjecting area residents and nightclub employees who are trying to close up and the people working the Tim Horton's next door and local taxi drivers and other people who are in the area for perfectly legitimate reasons to all the hurtiness.
There's a sample of the noise here. Can you hear it? How old are you?
Now even if this is a reasonable and justifiable means to keep Kids Today from loitering around, there's still a couple of major problems:
1. I'm 27, I can hear it, and it HURTS! It isn't just unpleasant, it's painful, like fingernails a blackboard. My whole body tenses up, my blood pressure skyrockets, and I get a tinge of nausea. You could torture me with this noise. The oldest person I've tested it on who could hear it was 31 at the time, and it hurt for him too. So if we can hear it and it HURTS us, how many other people outside the target demographic would be adversely affected as well? Not just being able to hear it, but it being painful. I listened to it for just a couple of seconds about 10 minutes ago (to make sure I can still hear it because I last tested it a year ago), and I still haven't gone back to neutral - I'm still a bit tense and feeling the remnants of that tinge of nausea. I'm not sure whether it's equally painful for younger people - I'd imagine if it hurts kids like it hurts me some parents would have complained by now - but what if it's more unpleasant for adults than for the kids who are the target? I've got half a dozen respectable adults with important jobs and disposable income and yuppie tendencies and all kinds of traits that you want in your downtown area, all of whom are going "OMG it HURTS!"
2. How do you know the only people who will hear it are loiterers? What if there are homes in the area? Apartments above the bars? People who are at work and trying to do their job? Parents who can't hear it with kids who can hear it in tow? What if animals can hear it? Does it hurt them? (I haven't been able to get anyone to test it on pets, probably because I keep introducing the subject with "OMG this hurts me! Does it hurt you? Now test it on your pet!") I don't think keeping loiterers away is worth subjecting area residents and nightclub employees who are trying to close up and the people working the Tim Horton's next door and local taxi drivers and other people who are in the area for perfectly legitimate reasons to all the hurtiness.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
If you want to get people out of cars, target well-dressed women
The key to getting people out of cars and into transit or on foot or onto bicycle lies in making the alternate modes of transportation easy and comfortable and workable for a person wearing a skirt and heels and carrying nothing but a handbag.
On a busy, mixed-use urban street, where all the storefronts open up right onto the sidewalk and most people walk from place to place within the neighbourhood, you wouldn't look twice at a woman in skirt and heels walking down the street. She's unremarkable and going about everyday life with no problems whatsoever. However in one of those "power centres" where you have a bunch of big box stores each surrounded by their own giant parking lot and no sidewalks to speak of, if you saw a woman in a skirt and heels walking in between stores you'd think she's planned poorly or is doing something foolish or something, perhaps briefly wondering if she's having car trouble or needs some help.
This is the make or break for getting people out of their cars. There are dozens of different factors involved, but essentially it comes down to whether a person would do the desired activity or mode of transportation in a skirt and heels, carrying nothing but a handbag. If they will, it will get people out of their cars. If they feel the need to carry a backpack or put on their New Balance or wear a wicking shirt, it isn't going to get people out of their cars. If they look strange and out of place in a skirt and heels, it isn't going to get people out of their cars.
In Amsterdam, it's perfectly normal to see women riding bicycles in whatever it is they happen to be wearing, a purse on their shoulder and their shopping in the bicycle basket. In Toronto, you'd be laughed off the street (and fined for not wearing a helmet). The key to getting more people in Toronto to bike lies in the difference that makes Torontonians wear special clothes to bike while people in Amsterdam wear whatever they happen to be wearing.
Margaret Wente once wrote a column where she took the TTC to work for a week. One thing she mentioned was that she had to wear sensible shoes and carry a backpack to do this. I found this incredibly bizarre, because I take the TTC to work every day and have no problems with wearing heels and carrying just my purse. But the key to getting more 416ers out of their cars and onto the TTC lies in the difference that makes Margaret Wente wear sensible shoes and carry a backpack while I don't hesitate to wear heels and carry just my purse.
There was a trend a few years back where everyone should try to walk over 10,000 steps (equal to about five miles) every day as a general public health thing. There was all kinds of advice (walk to the next bus stop! park at the far end of the parking lot! go for a nice lovely 30 minute walk after dinner!) I was recently given a pedometer, so I wore it a couple of days, and found that I consistently exceeded 10,000 just from normal life. Now I'm not huge on walking as a philosophy or principle. If you asked me if I want to go for a walk, my answer would be "Of course not!" but apparently I do five miles a day without even noticing (and I don't even have a dog!). So the key to getting people to walk more for health purposes lies in the difference between me walking five miles without noticing and other people having to make a specific effort and alter their lives to get their 10,000 steps in.
Conversely, the plastic bag ban people keep lobbying for could also end up being one of these make or break factors. The fact that stores provide bags every time your shop there makes it possible for you to do your shopping as one of many stops as you go about life carrying nothing but your purse. Grab your purse, leave the office, walk into the supermarket, do your shopping, walk home carrying your shopping with your purse over your shoulder. Effortless. But if you had to bring bags with you every time you shop, either carrying them around all day when you plan to shop after work or stopping in at home to pick up the bags then going back out to the store, you'd be more likely to take the car.
There are a lot of factors at play here, not all of which planners and policy-makers can address. One is the weather. I doubt people would bike as much in Amsterdam (regardless of what they're wearing) if their winters were like ours, or if their summers were as humid as our for that matter.
Related to weather, there's also the psychological aspect of being indoors. I'm sure the reason I managed to walk five miles without noticing is because a lot of it was indoors (around the office, around the mall). If you were at the West Edmonton Mall, I'm sure you'd walk to the other side rather than leaving the mall, getting into your car, and driving to the other side (unless you have real problems walking). But (the internet tells me) the West Edmonton Mall is 48 blocks. You wouldn't walk 48 blocks outdoors in the city, you'd go "OMG, 48 blocks! Too far!" and drive or take the bus or subway. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has walked all the way from the Eaton Centre to Union Station completely by accident from getting lost in the PATH, even though if someone said "It's only three subway stations, let's walk," I'd totally reply with "THREE WHOLE SUBWAY STATIONS! I'm not walking that far!"
There's also the critical mass issue. If you're the only person walking down the street, you feel out of place and vulnerable no matter what you're wearing. (Because a bad guy can grab and abduct a pedestrian, but that's hard to do to someone in a car.) But if the street is crowded, your walking is unexceptional. There's also the convenience issue. If the parking lots are hard to get to, people are less likely to drive. But if you have to walk across an parking lot with no provisions for pedestrians just to get to the store, you're more likely to drive. There are all kinds of factors.
But the crux of the matter is this: when planning a way to get people out of their cars, think to yourself "Will people do this while wearing a skirt and heels and carrying nothing but a purse? Will they look out of place? Will they be uncomfortable or vulnerable? Would it be impractical?" Then solve whatever problems come up, eliminate any real or psychological barriers to doing the activity in question in skirt, heels, and a handbag, and you will be successful at getting people out of their cars.
On a busy, mixed-use urban street, where all the storefronts open up right onto the sidewalk and most people walk from place to place within the neighbourhood, you wouldn't look twice at a woman in skirt and heels walking down the street. She's unremarkable and going about everyday life with no problems whatsoever. However in one of those "power centres" where you have a bunch of big box stores each surrounded by their own giant parking lot and no sidewalks to speak of, if you saw a woman in a skirt and heels walking in between stores you'd think she's planned poorly or is doing something foolish or something, perhaps briefly wondering if she's having car trouble or needs some help.
This is the make or break for getting people out of their cars. There are dozens of different factors involved, but essentially it comes down to whether a person would do the desired activity or mode of transportation in a skirt and heels, carrying nothing but a handbag. If they will, it will get people out of their cars. If they feel the need to carry a backpack or put on their New Balance or wear a wicking shirt, it isn't going to get people out of their cars. If they look strange and out of place in a skirt and heels, it isn't going to get people out of their cars.
In Amsterdam, it's perfectly normal to see women riding bicycles in whatever it is they happen to be wearing, a purse on their shoulder and their shopping in the bicycle basket. In Toronto, you'd be laughed off the street (and fined for not wearing a helmet). The key to getting more people in Toronto to bike lies in the difference that makes Torontonians wear special clothes to bike while people in Amsterdam wear whatever they happen to be wearing.
Margaret Wente once wrote a column where she took the TTC to work for a week. One thing she mentioned was that she had to wear sensible shoes and carry a backpack to do this. I found this incredibly bizarre, because I take the TTC to work every day and have no problems with wearing heels and carrying just my purse. But the key to getting more 416ers out of their cars and onto the TTC lies in the difference that makes Margaret Wente wear sensible shoes and carry a backpack while I don't hesitate to wear heels and carry just my purse.
There was a trend a few years back where everyone should try to walk over 10,000 steps (equal to about five miles) every day as a general public health thing. There was all kinds of advice (walk to the next bus stop! park at the far end of the parking lot! go for a nice lovely 30 minute walk after dinner!) I was recently given a pedometer, so I wore it a couple of days, and found that I consistently exceeded 10,000 just from normal life. Now I'm not huge on walking as a philosophy or principle. If you asked me if I want to go for a walk, my answer would be "Of course not!" but apparently I do five miles a day without even noticing (and I don't even have a dog!). So the key to getting people to walk more for health purposes lies in the difference between me walking five miles without noticing and other people having to make a specific effort and alter their lives to get their 10,000 steps in.
Conversely, the plastic bag ban people keep lobbying for could also end up being one of these make or break factors. The fact that stores provide bags every time your shop there makes it possible for you to do your shopping as one of many stops as you go about life carrying nothing but your purse. Grab your purse, leave the office, walk into the supermarket, do your shopping, walk home carrying your shopping with your purse over your shoulder. Effortless. But if you had to bring bags with you every time you shop, either carrying them around all day when you plan to shop after work or stopping in at home to pick up the bags then going back out to the store, you'd be more likely to take the car.
There are a lot of factors at play here, not all of which planners and policy-makers can address. One is the weather. I doubt people would bike as much in Amsterdam (regardless of what they're wearing) if their winters were like ours, or if their summers were as humid as our for that matter.
Related to weather, there's also the psychological aspect of being indoors. I'm sure the reason I managed to walk five miles without noticing is because a lot of it was indoors (around the office, around the mall). If you were at the West Edmonton Mall, I'm sure you'd walk to the other side rather than leaving the mall, getting into your car, and driving to the other side (unless you have real problems walking). But (the internet tells me) the West Edmonton Mall is 48 blocks. You wouldn't walk 48 blocks outdoors in the city, you'd go "OMG, 48 blocks! Too far!" and drive or take the bus or subway. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has walked all the way from the Eaton Centre to Union Station completely by accident from getting lost in the PATH, even though if someone said "It's only three subway stations, let's walk," I'd totally reply with "THREE WHOLE SUBWAY STATIONS! I'm not walking that far!"
There's also the critical mass issue. If you're the only person walking down the street, you feel out of place and vulnerable no matter what you're wearing. (Because a bad guy can grab and abduct a pedestrian, but that's hard to do to someone in a car.) But if the street is crowded, your walking is unexceptional. There's also the convenience issue. If the parking lots are hard to get to, people are less likely to drive. But if you have to walk across an parking lot with no provisions for pedestrians just to get to the store, you're more likely to drive. There are all kinds of factors.
But the crux of the matter is this: when planning a way to get people out of their cars, think to yourself "Will people do this while wearing a skirt and heels and carrying nothing but a purse? Will they look out of place? Will they be uncomfortable or vulnerable? Would it be impractical?" Then solve whatever problems come up, eliminate any real or psychological barriers to doing the activity in question in skirt, heels, and a handbag, and you will be successful at getting people out of their cars.
Why is the subway called the subway?
The world's first subway (i.e. underground rapid transit) was in London. But they don't call it a subway at all in London. The call it the Underground or the Tube. (Someone once told me that the word "subway" in England refers to underground walking tunnels, but I don't feel confident enough in that factoid to present it as an unqualified declarative statement.)
So how did the subway get to be called the subway in North America? They speak English in London, what made them decide to NOT use the English word coined for the first-ever one and instead coin their own word?
I've already looked in the OED and it was unhelpful.
So how did the subway get to be called the subway in North America? They speak English in London, what made them decide to NOT use the English word coined for the first-ever one and instead coin their own word?
I've already looked in the OED and it was unhelpful.
Wherein Porter is either a victim of its own success, or successfully self-policing (depending on how much they want my business)
I like Porter in theory. They seem convenient and I like their philosophy on paper. I don't travel much, but I always figured I'd use them if I ever go to Montreal (although I do have a soft spot for VIA 1) or NYC or anywhere else they fly. (Yeah, I know, OMG island airport, but frankly I live too far north to make myself care.)
But after reading this article in the Star, I don't dare ever fly with them.
Yeah, no, I don't belong there.
But after reading this article in the Star, I don't dare ever fly with them.
"Moreover, that NY-Toronto run is a bit of a clique."
[...]
Linda Buckley, vice-president of public relations for Tiffany's, agrees. "It's a fashion airline," she says. "Every woman on my flight had the right haircut, the right jeans, the right rock."
Yeah, no, I don't belong there.
How to volumize your ponytail without looking like a polygamist
This is for people with flat straight hair. I have no idea what happens with other hair types.
1. Make a regular high, tight ponytail at the crown of your head, using a plain regular ouchless elastic. You can use any other kind of elastic too if you want, but it won't work with a scrunchie.
2. Slide the elastic about a centimetre down the ponytail.
3. Keeping the elastic in the same place in relation to your hair, push it back so it's against your scalp. This should make your hair poof up ever so slightly around the scalp. If it isn't poofy enough for your tastes, pull the elastic back further and repeat.
4. Pin the elastic to your scalp hair with a bobby pin. To do this, insert the pin from the back, around the elastic, so the elastic is in the U of the pin and the arms of the pin are in your scalp hair. If it won't hold, insert two pins diagonally at right angles to each other to form an X and they should hold each other.
Now your hair should be in a sleek ponytail, but not perfectly flat against your scalp. If the scalp hair underneath your ponytail is too poofy, just pull the corresponding ponytail hair through the elastic some more.
If these instructions are unclear, ask me questions and I'll edit them. I know it would do better with pictures, but my only camera is a phone and my hair and my bobby pins are the same colour, so all I can do is big black blobs.
1. Make a regular high, tight ponytail at the crown of your head, using a plain regular ouchless elastic. You can use any other kind of elastic too if you want, but it won't work with a scrunchie.
2. Slide the elastic about a centimetre down the ponytail.
3. Keeping the elastic in the same place in relation to your hair, push it back so it's against your scalp. This should make your hair poof up ever so slightly around the scalp. If it isn't poofy enough for your tastes, pull the elastic back further and repeat.
4. Pin the elastic to your scalp hair with a bobby pin. To do this, insert the pin from the back, around the elastic, so the elastic is in the U of the pin and the arms of the pin are in your scalp hair. If it won't hold, insert two pins diagonally at right angles to each other to form an X and they should hold each other.
Now your hair should be in a sleek ponytail, but not perfectly flat against your scalp. If the scalp hair underneath your ponytail is too poofy, just pull the corresponding ponytail hair through the elastic some more.
If these instructions are unclear, ask me questions and I'll edit them. I know it would do better with pictures, but my only camera is a phone and my hair and my bobby pins are the same colour, so all I can do is big black blobs.
Things I am currently wondering
1. Why don't we cough or sneeze in our sleep?
2. Do men who change their facial hair frequently always have the same facial hair in dreams as they do IRL? Or can it be anything? Is it possible to have a dream where you have facial hair that you've never had IRL? I suppose the same could hold for head hair for people who change their hairstyles frequently, but I find head hair rarely comes into play in dreams, whereas facial hair would come into play any time you're eating or kissing or having sex.
2. Do men who change their facial hair frequently always have the same facial hair in dreams as they do IRL? Or can it be anything? Is it possible to have a dream where you have facial hair that you've never had IRL? I suppose the same could hold for head hair for people who change their hairstyles frequently, but I find head hair rarely comes into play in dreams, whereas facial hair would come into play any time you're eating or kissing or having sex.
Colm Wilkinson
My Les Mis soundtrack has Colm Wilkinson playing Jean Valjean. My Phantom soundtrack has Colm Wilkinson playing the Phantom. He, of course, acquits himself admirably in both roles to say the least.
But now that I have both soundtracks on my ipod, it gets weird when they come up close to each other on the soundtrack. It's incredibly bizarre to hear the same person promsing Fantine on her deathbed that he'll take care of Cosette one minute, and threatening to kill Raoul the next minute.
But now that I have both soundtracks on my ipod, it gets weird when they come up close to each other on the soundtrack. It's incredibly bizarre to hear the same person promsing Fantine on her deathbed that he'll take care of Cosette one minute, and threatening to kill Raoul the next minute.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
For your amusement, my bathroom neuroses
1. If the person in the stall next to me is peeing way more than I am (i.e. she's making a waterfall and I'm making a trickle) I feel guilty for taking up a stall when other people obviously need it way more than me.
2. Once upon a time, I saw someone on the internet mention that they hate it when long-haired women toss their hair around. Ever since then, I try to avoid fixing my hair (a very hair-tossing undertaking) when someone short-haired is in the bathroom. Or, if a short-haired woman walks in while I'm in the middle of doing my hair, I try to do it in a way that doesn't draw attention to the length.
3. If there are other people in the bathroom, none of whom are wearing makeup, I don't fix my makeup then because I feel weird taking up counter space for something the other people don't need to do because they feel secure enough in their skin. Even though there is enough room in the bathroom and non-makeup people do tend to say "Good on you for making an effort" rather than "I don't understand how anyone can waste their time smearing a bunch of goop on their face."
4. If I'm just sitting in a stall to decompress or whatever and someone else comes in and I'm not ready to leave the stall, I loudly open a maxi-pad. However, I also loudly open maxi-pads when I am in fact menstruating and sitting in a stall a long time to deal with heavy menstruation, so you'll never know which one it is on any given day.
2. Once upon a time, I saw someone on the internet mention that they hate it when long-haired women toss their hair around. Ever since then, I try to avoid fixing my hair (a very hair-tossing undertaking) when someone short-haired is in the bathroom. Or, if a short-haired woman walks in while I'm in the middle of doing my hair, I try to do it in a way that doesn't draw attention to the length.
3. If there are other people in the bathroom, none of whom are wearing makeup, I don't fix my makeup then because I feel weird taking up counter space for something the other people don't need to do because they feel secure enough in their skin. Even though there is enough room in the bathroom and non-makeup people do tend to say "Good on you for making an effort" rather than "I don't understand how anyone can waste their time smearing a bunch of goop on their face."
4. If I'm just sitting in a stall to decompress or whatever and someone else comes in and I'm not ready to leave the stall, I loudly open a maxi-pad. However, I also loudly open maxi-pads when I am in fact menstruating and sitting in a stall a long time to deal with heavy menstruation, so you'll never know which one it is on any given day.
Still not taking it for granted
Yesterday I was at work, telling a co-worker "Yeah, so I've finished my part of Big Scary Technical Text 1 and I'll be happy to discuss any quality or terminology or consistency issues in as much excruciating detail as necessary, and I expect to finish my part of Big Scary Technical Text 2 in draft by the end of today and read it over and finalize it on Monday." Then I realized, dude, I'm actually doing this! I'm translating these Big Scary Technical Texts! And competently! I'm working on a team of people and they're trusting my judgement and I actually have developed the necessary judgement and I'm like competently and authoritatively giving people ETAs and when a discrepency or an unclear meaning comes up I do the research and find a solution! I'm translating like a grownup and they're paying me accordingly! This is awesome!
Then in the shower this morning I realized, hey, this is MY shower in MY bathroom! And the whole apartment is mine! I can take however long I want in this shower and no one will care! The peaches that I bought will all be there when I get out of the shower (except for one that decided to spontaneously turn moldy, but I didn't know that then)! I slept 11 hours last night and no one interrupted me or cared or even knew! This is all my space and I can do whatever I want with it! This is awesome!
It's been five years, and every one in a while it's still exciting to me.
Then in the shower this morning I realized, hey, this is MY shower in MY bathroom! And the whole apartment is mine! I can take however long I want in this shower and no one will care! The peaches that I bought will all be there when I get out of the shower (except for one that decided to spontaneously turn moldy, but I didn't know that then)! I slept 11 hours last night and no one interrupted me or cared or even knew! This is all my space and I can do whatever I want with it! This is awesome!
It's been five years, and every one in a while it's still exciting to me.
Test my Sitemeter please
If you're reading this through a feed, I'd really appreciate it if you could click through to the main blog for a second.
Now go to the very very bottom of the main page (just press the End button on your keyboard) and click on the little rainbow box at the very bottom.
1. Do you see site statistics?
Then, on the left, underneath "recent visitors", click on "By Details".
2. Is the most recent visit you?
Please post the answers in the comments. Anonymous posts are welcome if you don't want other visitors with too much time on their hands to associate your IP address with your usual username. You don't have to tell me what your real ISP is and what Sitemeter thinks your ISP is. Just is it correct or not.
Thank you! Real content later today, I promise (unless like I get hit by a bus or my internet service goes kerflooey or something).
Edited to add: Don't worry, the sitemeter isn't normally viewable by everyone. I just opened it up to test it. Thank you to the people who've given feedback already, but I'm still looking for more feedback - especially if the sitemeter ISN'T seeing you.
Now go to the very very bottom of the main page (just press the End button on your keyboard) and click on the little rainbow box at the very bottom.
1. Do you see site statistics?
Then, on the left, underneath "recent visitors", click on "By Details".
2. Is the most recent visit you?
Please post the answers in the comments. Anonymous posts are welcome if you don't want other visitors with too much time on their hands to associate your IP address with your usual username. You don't have to tell me what your real ISP is and what Sitemeter thinks your ISP is. Just is it correct or not.
Thank you! Real content later today, I promise (unless like I get hit by a bus or my internet service goes kerflooey or something).
Edited to add: Don't worry, the sitemeter isn't normally viewable by everyone. I just opened it up to test it. Thank you to the people who've given feedback already, but I'm still looking for more feedback - especially if the sitemeter ISN'T seeing you.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Are official languages inclusionary or exclusionary in other countries?
Language Log has been writing about how there are some people in the US who want to make English the official language of the country (currently it has no official languages).
This has been grating on me, and for the longest time I wasn't able to articulate why. After all, I earn my living through our official languages. I have more academic and professional knowledge of official languages policy than most people, and it's always struck me as completely benign and not especially worth worrying about. So if Canada's official languages policy seems so utterly harmless to me, why does this proposed US official languages policy give me a gut reaction of "OMG that is SO WRONG!!!!"? (Yes, I know, American policy is not my business at all, but my gut reactions aren't very good at sticking to their own jurisdiction.)
But reading Language Log's latest entry on this issue, I realized what the difference is. Official languages policy as I'm accustomed to it is a tool of inclusion. It's there so people can live in English or in French. It's in no way stopping people from doing other languages as well. Our legislation is just making sure that I can read the instructions on my cough syrup in English and do my taxes in English and get helped in English when I frantically call 1-800-O-CANADA because my wallet was stolen and I need to know how to replace all my ID. But you can still serve your deli customers in Polish, you can still provide TTC information in Tagalog, and you can still label your food products in Mandarin as long as the English and French are on there somewhere too. It's setting out a minimum standard that anyone is welcome to exceed.
But this proposed American policy would be (at least if some of the loudest people had their way) a tool of exclusion. Rather than making sure people would be able to live in English, it would be trying to prevent people from using other languages. It would be setting out a ceiling and preventing anyone from exceeding that standard.
I'm far too deeply immersed in Canada's official languages culture and in multilingualism in general to even make a nominal attempt at comparing how worthwhile these two opposing approaches are. I'm too accustomed to what I'm familiar with to evaluate it objectively. All I'm saying here is this explains why the idea seemed so viscerally wrong to me - because they would be using official languages policy to do the exact opposite of what I'm used to it doing.
This makes me wonder what the situation is like in other countries. Are other countries' official languages policies inclusionary, setting a minimum standard? Or are they exclusionary, creating a ceiling that you can't exceed?
This has been grating on me, and for the longest time I wasn't able to articulate why. After all, I earn my living through our official languages. I have more academic and professional knowledge of official languages policy than most people, and it's always struck me as completely benign and not especially worth worrying about. So if Canada's official languages policy seems so utterly harmless to me, why does this proposed US official languages policy give me a gut reaction of "OMG that is SO WRONG!!!!"? (Yes, I know, American policy is not my business at all, but my gut reactions aren't very good at sticking to their own jurisdiction.)
But reading Language Log's latest entry on this issue, I realized what the difference is. Official languages policy as I'm accustomed to it is a tool of inclusion. It's there so people can live in English or in French. It's in no way stopping people from doing other languages as well. Our legislation is just making sure that I can read the instructions on my cough syrup in English and do my taxes in English and get helped in English when I frantically call 1-800-O-CANADA because my wallet was stolen and I need to know how to replace all my ID. But you can still serve your deli customers in Polish, you can still provide TTC information in Tagalog, and you can still label your food products in Mandarin as long as the English and French are on there somewhere too. It's setting out a minimum standard that anyone is welcome to exceed.
But this proposed American policy would be (at least if some of the loudest people had their way) a tool of exclusion. Rather than making sure people would be able to live in English, it would be trying to prevent people from using other languages. It would be setting out a ceiling and preventing anyone from exceeding that standard.
I'm far too deeply immersed in Canada's official languages culture and in multilingualism in general to even make a nominal attempt at comparing how worthwhile these two opposing approaches are. I'm too accustomed to what I'm familiar with to evaluate it objectively. All I'm saying here is this explains why the idea seemed so viscerally wrong to me - because they would be using official languages policy to do the exact opposite of what I'm used to it doing.
This makes me wonder what the situation is like in other countries. Are other countries' official languages policies inclusionary, setting a minimum standard? Or are they exclusionary, creating a ceiling that you can't exceed?
That old cliche where a small child provides perspective
Today is one of those days where I'm afflicted by a thousand small miseries. My immune system's been too busy battling my cold/cough/sore throat thing so zits and muscle aches and contact dermatitis have been running rampant. My work is boring, my headphones are dying, my hair isn't nearly as gorgeous as I want it to be, and it's that time of year where the apples I like are out of season but the peaches haven't started yet. I'm grumpy.
Then, on the subway, I see a woman with two small children, aged maybe 2 and 3. Whenever the slightest thing is wrong with one of these children, the mother has to take care of it the kids can't do it themselves. A shoe is uncomfortable, a sweater is getting too warm, a drink of water is needed, the teddy bear would be happier sitting on the other side of the stroller - every time the mother has to handle it.
I got off the subway thinking warm happy thoughts about my quiet apartment and perfectly-administered Ortho Tri-Cyclen.
Then, on the subway, I see a woman with two small children, aged maybe 2 and 3. Whenever the slightest thing is wrong with one of these children, the mother has to take care of it the kids can't do it themselves. A shoe is uncomfortable, a sweater is getting too warm, a drink of water is needed, the teddy bear would be happier sitting on the other side of the stroller - every time the mother has to handle it.
I got off the subway thinking warm happy thoughts about my quiet apartment and perfectly-administered Ortho Tri-Cyclen.
Free mashup bunny
In keeping with my habit of thinking of mashes that are thematically appropriate but musically incompatible:
Rockstar (Nickelback) vs. Rock 'n' Roll Lifestyle (Cake)
Rockstar (Nickelback) vs. Rock 'n' Roll Lifestyle (Cake)
I might possibly be the first person in human history with this problem
I got Icy Hot in my hair. As part of a bona fide attempt to use it as directed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)