I tawt I taw a Caspian sturgeon

A spammer asks, “Can you imagine a Silvester without Caviar?”

Well, no, I guess not. What’s a Silvester?

Posted in spam | 1 Comment

do they didn’t done it or don’t they?

There’s an old joke that “there are no guilty men in prison,” i.e. that practically all inmates claim to have been unjustly accused. I’ve also heard that in fact most convicts cheerfully admit to the charges. The latter seems more likely given that reporters find it worth mentioning that so-and-so (e.g. the late Tookie) “has always maintained his innocence”.

I recently found (but did not save the address of) a website listing the last words of convicts put to death in Texas. I read the most recent dozen or so. Almost half expressed remorse, and just one expressed a hope that the real criminal would someday be found.

Posted in law | Leave a comment

collect them all!

In a review of a biography of Lillian Hellman, The Economist used the phrase “at the height of the first cold war in 1952.”

I’m always the last to know. Is this usage widespread? When was the height of the second cold war?

Posted in history | Leave a comment

of bicycles and water-beds and cabbages and kings

Jerome K. Jerome – or his fictional counterpart “J.” – says in chapter 5 of Three Men on the Bummel:

  I do not regard the conveyance of useful information as my forte. This belief was not inborn with me; it has been driven home upon me by experience.
  . . . [six pages] . . .
  Therefore it is that I have come to restrain my passion for the giving of information; therefore it is that nothing in the nature of practical instruction will be found, if I can help it, within these pages.

Chapter 10 touches on the advertising of bicycles:

. . . one feels [looking at such posters] that, for perfect bodily rest combined with entire freedom from mental anxiety, slumber upon a water-bed cannot compare with bicycle-riding upon a hilly road. No fairy travelling on a summer could could take things more easily than does the bicycle girl, according to the poster. . . .

Water-bed? thought I. Everyone knows™ that Robert Heinlein (1907-88) conceived the water-bed as we know it when he spent some time in a hospital bed, and wrote it into Stranger in a Strange Land. So what did the word mean in 1900? I turn to the OED (something I do less often than you might imagine).

3. A water-tight mattress partly filled with water, designed to serve as a bed for an invalid.

. . . with quotations beginning in 1853.

We learn something every day. Not always something useful, but something.

Posted in general | 2 Comments

fifty-two choose five

So I was writing a little allegorical paragraph which invited the reader to imagine a poker game in which a dispute arises over whether a flush beats a straight or not. “(The one holding the straight,” I explained, “is a math nerd who assumes that the rank reflects the probability.)”

But it’s a lucky thing I stopped to make sure. There are 10×45 = 10240 possible straights, and only 4×13!/5!8! = 5148 possible flushes. Yet somehow I’ve believed for most of my life that a straight is more unlikely than a flush, and the ranking of flushes over straights a mere arbitrary anomaly. I wonder how the heck I got that idea.

(I’ve temporarily removed poker from the spam list so that you can respond to this without excessive awkwardness. If after clicking the button you find yourself looking at the FBI’s homepage, you’ve found another word on the list.)

Posted in mathematics | Leave a comment

first in a series of one

Choose your own joke!

Pillow is fixed, and I’m still

  • broke.
  • variable.
  • floating.

(He’s hiding under my bed.)

Posted in pets | Leave a comment

after this I’ll try to leave the TwoPercenters alone

In an otherwise generally sound call for separation of church and state, 2%Co had this to say about democracy in Dixie (1789-1865):

. . . These slaves didn’t always like their lot in life, but according to your logic, Mrs Gong, they should have just shut up and slaved away. Hey, rule by the majority, right? They even had a nifty way of making sure that the white folks stayed in the majority — they made black folk equal to only 3/5 of a person. What a great deal! . . .

I put my quixotic toe in:

I’m surprised to see this [common] misconception propagated by such enlightened people. . . . If the slavers had their way at the Convention of 1787, slaves would have been counted fully, not 3/5. It was the Northerners who wanted slaves counted for zero. . . .

After going around a couple of times, 2%Co apparently agree with this point (though to avoid conceding that I said something accurate they present it as their own), but insist that it supports their original statement — and threaten to delete any further posts from me. It appears that they have done so, so I’ll repeat my conclusion here (as best I can recall it):

Now I admit I’m not clever enough to see how these statements can both be accurate, viz that it was in the interest of the same faction to reduce the representation of slaves in the census and to increase it; or why, given that slaves had no vote, any nifty trick was needed to ensure they remained a minority. If you can resolve this seeming contradiction, I’ll be delighted at learning something new; if you can say “oops” and move on, I’ll be impressed with your integrity. Since you refuse to do either, I guess I’m left with the hope that another reader – if you have any – will help me out.

Posted in constitution, history | 8 Comments