People presumably are smarter than cats, and as we become more familiar with the Web and its torrent of information, maybe we'll do a better job learning what is useful and what isn't.
An interesting article, but this last point is a bit moot. It's only valid if we are exposing ourselves to both useful and useless information in order to be able to sift the former out of the latter. This is unlikely, since most people don't really "surf" anymore (going from hotlink to hotlink just to see where it takes them). The modern webuser has a select set of pet interests and sites to which he keeps going back.
Interesting article, tsuwm. Thoughts flitting through: 1. He makes cats out to be fairly stoopid, yet then asserts they are capable of finding "a causal link between the pointer and the shimmering light", and of coming "to a wrong conclusion". 2. Hydra, although you are correct about people not surfing link to link much anymore, I find myself doing a lot of sifting! When I am looking for information, I have my "pet" sites to check, but if those prove unhelpful, I'm reduced to Googling and sifting. 3. Screw opioids; I'm sticking with chocolate.... ;0)
One of our cats loves playing with the laser and the other flat ignores it. The one who loves it has made the connection between the pointer and the light. How the person Mr. Gomes has managed to determine how the cat has decided that the "the pointer is the container that holds the prey" I wouldn't know. Must be he's a cat psychic. Personally I think our one cat is willing to suspend disbelief and the other isn't.
In a related story, I can always tell the difference between useful* information and useless* information; if I remember it it's useless.
*Why do we retain the double letter in the suffix -less but not in the suffix ful(l)?
*Why do we retain the double letter in the suffix -less but not in the suffix ful(l)? Maybe so we don't get confused on which word it is. So we can tell the difference between, say, pickles and pickless. (There have to be better examples out there, but I can't think of any now.) To avoid having to wonder if the speaker/writer has made up a word: "Feckles? What are feckles?"
I agree that certainly is a good reason for keeping the second S in -less, but why do we drop the second L in -ful?
The question is up there with why we need the two words, less and fewer for one end of the count/measure inequality but the one more works just fine for the other end?
The question is up there with why we need the two words, less and fewer for one end of the count/measure inequality but the one more works just fine for the other end?
speaking of which, I just now read the following, "The Wild and Avalanche have 84 points, though the Wild technically are in the lead because they have played one fewer game than has Colorado."
is this hypercorrection? it just looks wrong to me.
It's correct if you choose to believe the "rule." Of course you could always recast with the uncontroversial more, as in "because the Avalanche has played one more game than has the Wild."
If you want to complain about something in the original you might pule and micturate about the missing each in "The Wild and Avalanche each have 84 points."
Isn't that the name found on almost every Danish tombstone?
Danish fred 'peace' (and free and friend), German Fride 'peace' (and Friedhof 'cemetery'), and the Fred in Frederic (literally 'peace-king') are all related to one another (link).
You could always call him Nuncle. Ohh, I don't think I know him that well.
But actually, fred, I was inviting you to answer the question if you cared to. (About why we don't write wonderfull, etc.)
Edit--speaking of confusion (we were, weren't we?): I sure am glad I didn't try to answer tsuwm's question--I thought 'Wild and Avalanche' was the name of one team.
An accident—no pun intended—of linguistic history. Probably no greater reason than that's where it stuck when the wheel stopped turning. (If it's any consolation, the distinction is there in Old English: wundorful vs full.)
>I thought 'Wild and Avalanche' was the name of one team.
yes indeed:
Switching to Sport, tonight at the Vomitorium, the Wild and Avalanche buried The Good and The Bad by the score of 11 to 1; it was Ugly. In other results, Rock, Paper, Scissors trimmed Beards and Philosophers by a whisker, 43 to 42; and Cloak and Dagger polished off Stones and Bones, 17-nil; forensics at 11.
Interestingly enough, a vomitorium (< vomitorius 'emetic' link) was not a place Romans went to purge after binging, but the entrances to the theaters or amphitheaters, which led to the places where the people sat, so-called because they appeared to disgorge people eager to watch the games. Not sure what they are called today, but they exist in large modern stadia.
(sports Я us) Awwright, dag nab it, did you have to tell the whole world my one fault? How the heck do I know what or even how team names are decided? 'Sides, I also thought there was a good possibility that it wasn't even a real team: just some example of grammar you wanted to use.
(sports Я us) Awwright, dag nab it, did you have to tell the whole world my one fault? How the heck do I know what or even how team names are decided? 'Sides, I also thought there was a good possibility that it wasn't even a real team: just some example of grammar you wanted to use.
jill--not a sports fan--wednesday
That's nothing - I have no idea even what sport they are ranting about!
stifle, Pook. it's all just a joke -- no actual Sporting Events were involved. except for the aforementioned Wild and Avalanche, which are U.S. ice-hockey teams. the Colorado Avalanche and the Minnesota Wild. link
# noun: joint between the femur and tibia in a quadruped; corresponds to the human knee # verb: smother or suppress (Example: "Stifle your curiosity") # verb: be asphyxiated; die from lack of oxygen # verb: impair the respiration of or obstruct the air passage of # verb: conceal or hide
The Pook holds his hand over his face and passes out...