×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

2005 IgNobel Prize Awards

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the neuticals-is-a-great-word dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 88

karvind writes "This week Nobel prizes in Chemistry, Physics and Medicine were announced. Keeping up with the tradition, the 15th Annual Ig Nobel Prize Ceremony was held at Sander's Theater at Harvard University. Winners include: Will Humans Swim Faster or Slower in Syrup? (Chemistry), Electrically monitoring the activity of a brain cell in a locust while that locust was watching selected highlights from the movie "Star Wars" (Peace), The Significance of Mr. Richard Buckley's Exploding Trousers (Agricultural History) and many more. Interestingly Roy Glauber, who for ten years has humbly swept paper airplanes on the stage at the Ig Nobel Prize Ceremony, won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics. Archived video of the live webcast is also available for those who couldn't attend the ceremony."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

88 comments

Don't Forget Literature! (4, Funny)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743770)

My favorite is that the Nigerian Scammers won for Literature...

"...for creating and then using e-mail to distribute a bold series of short stories, thus introducing millions of readers to a cast of rich characters -- General Sani Abacha, Mrs. Mariam Sanni Abacha, Barrister Jon A Mbeki Esq., and others -- each of whom requires just a small amount of expense money so as to obtain access to the great wealth to which they are entitled and which they would like to share with the kind person who assists them."

LOVE IT!

- Greg

Re:Don't Forget Literature! (2, Interesting)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743799)

Honestly, the creativity that scammers show is pretty amazing to see. Some of the stories/methods that they dream up in order to manipulate people into their scams are actually pretty amazing.

If they weren't such bastards, I'd admire them ;)

Re:Don't Forget Literature! (5, Informative)

truckaxle (883149) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743923)

It is amazing that they are successful enough to warrant the amount of energy they spend in ah... marketing.

I actual know a guy who was suckered in for over $180,000 including a good portion of his 401k. This fellow had the balls to have his story written up and printed in the local newspaper. His employment at the time was a personal finance consultant - hard to believe but true.

He made 2 trips to France and the scammers just kept on milking him for money. First it was the very expensive solvent to remove the marks from the money. Then he actually got to see the big trunks of cash with NBS printed on the $100 dollar bills. From that point on - greed, centered in the old brain, took over and he paid for things like 15k for custom fees, 12k for bail, or 10k bribes, on and on until a he was wrung dry.

Re:Don't Forget Literature! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743999)

His employment at the time was a personal finance consultant - hard to believe but true.

No, that's quite easy to believe. I switched on the telly the other day to see a reality programme about somebody who had previously been on Big Brother (UK) called Jade, talking about setting up some business or other. Bear in mind that she is famous for being stupid. Thinking that Saddam Hussein was a boxer, Sherlock Holmes was famous for inventing the toilet and similar stuff. [wikipedia.org] She makes Jessica Simpson look like a quantum physicist.

Anyway, she was sat down talking to a financial consultant. They had already agreed that she had a budget of £30,000. She said that she was spending £12,000 on rent and legal fees. The consultant then proceeded to ask her three times if £12,000 was going to be enough to pay for all the rest of the things she needed. She explained three times that it was £18,000 left over from the £30,000, and even after that, I'm still not sure he got it.

After seeing that little encounter with a supposedly reputable financial consultant, nothing you can say would surprise me. After all, if Jade from Big Brother is correcting you on what you are supposed to do for a living and basic mathematics, you really should just off yourself immediately.

Re:Don't Forget Literature! (1)

RespekMyAthorati (798091) | more than 8 years ago | (#13746899)

About two months ago, an auditor from the Canadian department of Revenue and Taxation got caught the same way, saying that he had never heard of the Nigerian scam. He even billed all his overseas calls to the government, and wasn't fired.

Re:Don't Forget Literature! (2, Interesting)

MikeCapone (693319) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744361)

I really liked the "swimming through sugar syrup vs water" experiment. I'd have been a volunteer swimmer for that one. The penguin poo velocity one was neat too. I didn't know about the phenomenon before reading about it there, so the awards are educational. I wonder if it's in that March of the Penguins movie...

I actually posted about it on TH earlier this morning:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/10/sciences_b est_f.php [treehugger.com]

Re:Don't Forget Literature! (1)

stevelinton (4044) | more than 8 years ago | (#13745586)

Presumably they'd have been delighted to attend, or even fund, the ceremony, if the organisers would just send them US$10000 to help
get their visas.

Neuteriety or Notoriety? (5, Funny)

fragmentate (908035) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743816)

"Neuticles -- artificial replacement testicles for dogs, which are available in three sizes, and three degrees of firmness."

Okay, the size thing I can understand... It's the degrees of firmness I'm having trouble with.


"for electrically monitoring the activity of a brain cell in a locust while that locust was watching selected highlights from the movie 'Star Wars.'"

If it was Episode I - III, that poor locust didn't have much left after this experiment.

Re:Neuteriety or Notoriety? (5, Informative)

RatBastard (949) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743850)

The reason they bother is that you can't enter neutured dogs in certain AKA dog shows. Neuticles need to look and feel real to fool the judges. I have friends that are dog show junkies and they hate the Neuticles guys with a passion.

Re:Neuteriety or Notoriety? (5, Funny)

jfengel (409917) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743881)

Do they hate them more than having to feel a dog's testicles for a living?

Re:Neuteriety or Notoriety? (4, Funny)

jd_esguerra (582336) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744075)

Do they hate them more than having to feel a dog's testicles for a living?

Yeah, their job is nuts.

Re:Neuteriety or Notoriety? (3, Funny)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744781)

"Yeah, their job is nuts."

My grumpy roommate had one of those jobs. He always came home all teste.

Re:Neuteriety or Notoriety? (1)

wildsurf (535389) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744768)

The reason they bother is that you can't enter neutered dogs in certain AKA dog shows.

Neuticles are just one step less silly than These. [bumpernuts.com] Can you imagine if they started requiring these at auto shows? (Compact-sized, SUV-sized, and, er, Hummer-sized?) Might be a problem on low-riders, though...

Re:Neuteriety or Notoriety? (2, Funny)

WetSpot (874382) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744635)

------>Well, I don't know about you...But, nothing will ruin my day quicker than an artificial nut that is just way too hard!

Re:Neuteriety or Notoriety? (3, Funny)

ameline (771895) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744797)

My dog has neuticles, and while he thinks they feel the same, he doesn't think they taste the same as the real thing. :-)

Re:Neuteriety or Notoriety? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13745945)

Ok the fucking idiot who modded this informative should have his own neuticles forces up his asshole

Re:Neuteriety or Notoriety? (1)

ameline (771895) | more than 8 years ago | (#13746134)

>> Ok the fucking idiot who modded this informative should have his own neuticles forces up his asshole

I agree, it's a severe case of bad moderation -- I was trying to be funny -- not informative, or insightful. With any luck the meta-moderation system will take care of it.

Re:Neuteriety or Notoriety? (1)

David Horn (772985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13745770)

Well, they do they that they're the dog's bollocks... ;-)

[Note - this joke will only make sense to UK readers. Americans, please mod it funny and continue]

Spin-off Neuticles (1)

No Such Agency (136681) | more than 8 years ago | (#13746408)

Well, an obvious spin-off of dog Neuticles is HUMAN Neuticles. People aren't usually "fixed" but many men lose a testicle to cancer or injury. And there are also female->male transsexuals to think of. So natural-feeling testicle prostheses should have lucrative medical, as well as veterinary, uses.

Neuticles inventor also honored (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743821)

Gregg Miller mortgaged his home and maxed out his credit cards to mass produce his invention -- prosthetic testicles for neutered dogs.

What started 10 years ago with an experiment on an unwitting Rottweiler named Max has turned into a thriving mail-order business. And on Thursday night Miller's efforts earned him a dubious yet strangely coveted honor: the Ig Nobel Prize for medicine.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/a rchive/2005/10/06/national/a165024D53.DTL&type=pri ntable [sfgate.com]

I'm shocked (4, Funny)

Frac (27516) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743824)

Steve Ballmer didn't get the Physics Prize for his paper on "Measuring Projectile Trajectory of Flying Chairs towards Resigning Employees"?

Re:I'm shocked (1)

LordHatrus (763508) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744301)

No, his is the study of the most pounds of sweat excreted over a five minute period, yelling only the word, "Developers"... Physists speculate the sheer amounts of metabolized substances required to produce such a feat cannot be obtained using only euclidian geometry.

baby I'm lost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743827)

baby I'm lost
baby I'm lost
baby I'm a lost cause

SImple viscosity? (1)

postgrep (803732) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743833)

Will Humans Swim Faster or Slower in Syrup?

Isn't it pretty obvious that they will swim slower, since they have to displace more liquid to move?

nope (4, Insightful)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743863)

It's not pretty obvious because the swimmer's hands do not need to move as fast to "grip" the liquid. The question is, does that factor outweigh the poorer hydrodynamics from the increased density. That's why subs surface when they can to cruise faster

SPOILERS (4, Interesting)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743899)

They balance out. You swim at the same speed... at least according to the winner.

Re:nope (2)

rossdee (243626) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744121)

" That's why subs surface when they can to cruise faster"

Not modern subs. (Since the late 60s (at least in the US) subs have been designed primarily for underwater manouvers. The propellers work better the deeper they are (less cavitation)

During WWII and before, subs were powered by diesel engines on the suface and electric motors when submerged (which also charged the batteries) so for long range cruise they surfaced. Nuke powered boats don;t need to surface for air, and they have the same amount of power available at 1500 feet deep as they do when surfsced.

Re:nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13744387)

Actually, nukes are slower on the surface because they have less cooling available.

Re:nope (3, Informative)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744310)

That's why subs surface when they can to cruise faster.

No they don't. Old-style diesel subs would surface to cruise faster, but that was because they could cruise faster on diesel power than on electric, and they had to have fresh air for the diesel engines. (And they needed to save the battery power for when they really needed it.)

Nuclear subs can actually cruise faster at depth: They have power, and the propellers can push harder against the denser water.

Re:nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13744756)

How much denser is water at depth?

Re:nope (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 8 years ago | (#13748642)

Water pressure increases by about 15 pounds per square inch (one atmosphere) for every 33 feet you go down. I'm not exactly sure how much that translates to in density: that depends on the compressibility of water, but it should be safe enough to say you can push about that much harder against the water before it cavitates. (And cavitation is a submariner's worst enemy: it steals speed, and makes noise.)

Re:nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13757027)

The compressibility of water is neglegible at 0.46 GPa^-1. Cavitation on the other hand should allow for higher propeller speeds under increased pressure.

Re:nope (1)

ralewi1 (919193) | more than 8 years ago | (#13745370)

Most subs are quicker submerged, around twice as fast - the screw is less efficient at shallow depths due to cavitation. Subs surface to recharge batteries (if diesel-powered), snorkel, enter/leave port, perform damage control, etc, but not to go faster.

Re:SImple viscosity? (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743895)

The one time i would actually like a spoiler.....

Next research paper: Are people swimming in syrup more or less likely to lose their swimsuits ?

Ya all don't mind if i go to another site for volunteers i hope ;)

Re:SImple viscosity? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743918)

It's a question of Reynolds Number. For humans (slow swimmers) in syrup (high viscosity) the Reynolds Number is going to be very low. It will be, essentially, the same problem that bacteria are up against in water. And if they swam like we do, they'd go nowhere.
      In low Reynolds Number situations, trying to swim by (for example), bringing one's hands forward slowly, then swishing them back quickly, would get you a distance of exactly zero from where you started, after one ( or N, where N is an integer) cycle. You'd be shoved backwards during the bringing up of the hands the same amount you're pushed forwards during the fast swish.
      Bacteria get around this by breaking the time-reversal symmetry of their swimming -- they use things that rotate, like flagella, or things that have different phases along a "squirmy" motion, like cilia. Our motions simply wouldn't work at that scale.
      It's always struck me as kind of silly that this particular paper was called worthy of an IgNobel. The authors apparently wanted to make it a fun paper, and get some interest by making people think. Hopefully, people can look past the IgNobel award and see that it's an interesting, valid question.
      Now, where're the hot grits and Natalie Portman? Hopefully she wouldn't get very far in those.

Re:SImple viscosity? (1)

SteveAyre (209812) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743946)

But what you're pushing against is denser, so can grip against it. You don't waste energy as much energy moving the water, so you'd get a bigger push forwards instead. The question is whether it'd make up for the greater drag (due to viscosity) or not.

Re:SImple viscosity? (3, Interesting)

truckaxle (883149) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743966)

Since alcohol has a lower viscosity than water I wonder how fast a human swimmer could swim in vat of alcohol. Any takers? Now that I got thinking about this if you had an ideal fluid with no viscosity could you swim at all?

Actually this research should team up with the Australian and see how fast a swimmer could swim in a tub of congealed black tar [uq.edu.au]

Re:SImple viscosity? (2, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744489)

Now that I got thinking about this if you had an ideal fluid with no viscosity could you swim at all?
Think about this: can astronauts swim through the air in their spacecraft?

Re:SImple viscosity? (1)

tuxette (731067) | more than 8 years ago | (#13746238)

A more interesting (indirect) study on viscosity was the study on penguin poo [arrr.net], one of the Ig Nobel winners.

From the article: Our best estimate for the semi-liquid faeces of the penguin is a viscosity that lies between that of glycol (lower value, g=0.02 Pa s) and considerably below that of glycerine (upper value, g=1.5 Pa s: Landolt and Börnstein 1955). That of olive oil (g=0.08) seems a fair approximation.

Go and swim in that!

Tux: The Third Option (3, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743846)

> FLUID DYNAMICS: Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow of International University Bremen, Germany and the University of Oulu , Finland; and Jozsef Gal of Loránd Eötvös University, Hungary, for using basic principles of physics to calculate the pressure that builds up inside a penguin, as detailed in their report "Pressures Produced When Penguins Pooh -- Calculations on Avian Defaecation."

Now, with penguins, (cuddly such), "contented" means it has either just gotten laid, or it's stuffed on herring. Take it from me, I'm an expert on penguins, those are really the only two options.

- Linus Torvalds on the design of Tux [sjbaker.org]

No, Linus, apparently there was a third option.

And now I'll never say "Ooh, what a cuddly penguin, I bet he is just stuffed with herring" the same way again.

Re:Tux: The Third Option (1)

technoextreme (885694) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743867)

No, Linus, apparently there was a third option. And now I'll never say "Ooh, what a cuddly penguin, I bet he is just stuffed with herring" the same way again. Hehehehhe.... I was there. The person gave a speech that was being played on Windows Media Player. There was no sound.

Re:Tux: The Third Option (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13746221)

Dammit, I knew Tux was full of crap. BSD for life!

CanadianJustice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743849)

They also missed the prize for best legal decision:
Two months ago a Fine Canadian Justice has sentenced someone who stole 1,5 million dollars to:

here it comes

NO JAIL BUT INSTEAD GIVING LESSONS IN ETHICS IN HIGH SCHOOLS.

Sure....

Confirmation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743877)

Let's see if I have this right Roy Glauber won "a Noble Prize" and "swept" the Ig Nobel Prize Ceremony? So how many prizes was that total?

Re:Confirmation? (2, Funny)

The Meeper (782183) | more than 8 years ago | (#13745039)

He won a NOBEL prize. He literally swept [improbable.com] the IgNobels, though.

Re:Confirmation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13745380)

Yes, apparently the GP wrote their humorous play on words on a paper airplane and sailed it right over the heads at Slashdot but don't worry, CowboyNeal will sweep it with the next poll.

Full list for this year, plus past winners (4, Informative)

jangobongo (812593) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743891)

Full list [improb.com] for this year, plus past winners.

One of my favorites:

"ECONOMICS: Gauri Nanda of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for inventing an alarm clock that runs away and hides, repeatedly, thus ensuring that people DO get out of bed, and thus theoretically adding many productive hours to the workday."
previously covered at here [slashdot.org] at slashdot.

Some other funny ones:

"PHYSICS: John Mainstone and the late Thomas Parnell of the University of Queensland, Australia, for patiently conducting an experiment that began in the year 1927 -- in which a glob of congealed black tar has been slowly, slowly dripping through a funnel, at a rate of approximately one drop every nine years."


and

"FLUID DYNAMICS: Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow of International University Bremen, Germany and the University of Oulu , Finland; and Jozsef Gal of Loránd Eötvös University, Hungary, for using basic principles of physics to calculate the pressure that builds up inside a penguin, as detailed in their report "Pressures Produced When Penguins Pooh -- Calculations on Avian Defaecation."

Re:Full list for this year, plus past winners (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 8 years ago | (#13748499)

"FLUID DYNAMICS: Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow of International University Bremen, Germany and the University of Oulu , Finland; and Jozsef Gal of Loránd Eötvös University, Hungary, for using basic principles of physics to calculate the pressure that builds up inside a penguin, as detailed in their report "Pressures Produced When Penguins Pooh -- Calculations on Avian Defaecation."

This can't be good PR for open source.
     

Quicktime streaming from Real's RBN network (1)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743914)

Here's the archived video, but it seems to be slashdotted...probably not a good thing if you're in the video broadcasting business...

http://play.rbn.com/?url=ignobel/ignobel/demand/ig 2005.mov&proto=rtsp [rbn.com]

Re:Quicktime streaming from Real's RBN network (1)

NtroP (649992) | more than 8 years ago | (#13746621)

This is what I hate about streaming video! Streaming video is great for LIVE performances. But if the performance is OVER then provide a fscking link to a real fscking movie file that I can download and watch! I'd love to see this, but it stutters and stops and is really pissing me off. If they provided a link to a downloadable movie I could just wait for the download to finish and play it AT MY LEISURE without having to be inconvenienced by their (or my) pathetic excuse for a connection. Seriously, if you ARE going to have stream-only content you'd better host it on akamai.com or another service provider like them. Otherwise, if you don't think you can handle the load provide a BITTORRENT!

Damn, where's my coffee?

DUDE!!!! (1)

Flower (31351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743956)

The grant money just came in and it's syurp night at Ricky's. We are so going! Remember, take lots of measurements.

Regret of Mr. Nobel. (4, Informative)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743980)

I find the (hi)story of the Nobel Prize [wikipedia.org] quite interesting :

Imagine, this guy was shocked to see people using his invention, dynamite, for violent purposes (naive as he was ;) ) : So after he dies, the capital he leaves behind is invested in giving out yearly prizes to people who shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.

I always wondered what motivations (his conscience , religion, a nagging wife telling him every night he was a dumb man for inventing dynamite) were behind this price.

Re:Regret of Mr. Nobel. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13744069)

I'd always heard it was that he didn't want to be remembered for inventing something destructive. (If that was his intent, he has succeeded quite well. I don't think your average person on the street could tell you who invented dynamite, though they will certainly have heard of the Nobel prize)

Re:Regret of Mr. Nobel. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13744152)

Alfred Nobel had a brother who was also in his line of work, but not associated with his research into dynamite. Upon the death of his brother, newspapers wrote scathing epitaphs, calling Alfred (whom they thought had died) a monster to society, whose inventions had resulted in the deaths of many more men than previously possible (partially due to the fact that he had sold dynamite to both sides in the Franco-Prussian War). He was so shocked and affected by these reports that he set forth in his will to reward those who had done good to society.

Im one of those eccentric people who attended... (5, Informative)

technoextreme (885694) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743991)

Unfortnately, the video stream has been slashdotted but I can go into details about some of the parts of the Ignobel Awards. The night started with a pianist playing a song called Infinite Chopsticks. This was a song that must have involved 100 differnt versions of chopsticks in fifteen minutes (As the host said infinity doesn't last very long). Next was the general introduction of the guests. These people ranged from Miss Sweetie Poo (A girl who's sole purpose is to get people from babling on about their subjects) to people who have actually won Nobel Prizes. Then there was a general discussion and opera based on the concept of infinity (the ceremonies theme). The opera was about an ocd ruler of the land ofinfinity who needs to count everything in order to get married. There are also two moments of science where there are two demonstrations of science. The 24/7 lectures are a 24 second technical descussion of something and then a seven word summary that everyone can understand. Also, you can win a date with a Nobel Prize winner. It's a really nice way to attract people to the world of science by showing that we are not upstuck individuals. I can answer more questions if you guys have more questions about the ceremony. I believe the that it will be rebroadcast on NPR. The greatest quote of the evening has to be,"Well I can recite the number e to you but I've decided to tell you everything I know."- A Nobel Prize winner in relation to the concept of infinity. Ps. After reading this. I now know I have no life.

Re:Im one of those eccentric people who attended.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13744351)

You
          win
  the
            IgNobel
  prize
                      for
  the.best
    formatted

  slashdot
  post ever

.

--
Yogi.

Re:Im one of those eccentric people who attended.. (1)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744472)

Also, you can win a date with a Nobel Prize winner.

Wait, wait. Are you telling me that if I win a Nobel, I might get a date, too? Wow! I need to get back to designing that perpetual motion machine--feels like I've been working on that stupid thing forever.

Nope, not even with a Nobel. (1)

RoverDaddy (869116) | more than 8 years ago | (#13745294)

The 'winner' was an unbelievably enthusiastic co-ed - the 'contest' was just another bit of absurdity. So even Nobel laureates can't get a date. Although, maybe he did try to get her back to the lab to 'look at his slides'.

You, on the other hand, might be able to get a date about the time you get that machine finished.

Sanders Theatre (0, Flamebait)

majordomo (111692) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743994)

It's "Sanders Theatre": there's no apostrophe, and, alas, "theatre" should be (mis)spelled the pretentious British way—but would you expect anything less from Hahvahd?

Michael Hartl '96

Re:Sanders Theatre (1)

balloonhead (589759) | more than 8 years ago | (#13745107)

Pretentious because it's right?

I thought with England being the source of the language and all that whatever they did was the correct way. American English, like all languages, is an evolution of what it's based on.

Some US-isms are just mis-spellings of the correct word that became commonplace. So by your logic, spelling it as theater is the idiot's way.

Re:Sanders Theatre (1)

CaptainCarrot (84625) | more than 8 years ago | (#13745190)

English was rather different when the British and American varieties diverged from it is now in either place, and the "standard" American accent actually preserves as many (or more) features from that time than "BBC" English. Spelling in particular was not yet standardized.

In other words, neither is quintessentially correct, since both are "evolutions of what it's based on" if by "based on" you mean 17th Century Midlands -- which is itself based on earlier dialects.

"Theatre" is therefore incorrect because it's part of the name of an American building, in a place where standard orthography would have "theater". It's pretentious because it reflects exactly the attitude you do in your post.

Besides, that wasn't the parent's logic, it was yours.

Re:Sanders Theatre (1)

balloonhead (589759) | more than 8 years ago | (#13779996)

It came from the latin, via french. The spelling was in fact pretty standardised. Or should I say standardized?

There are lots of American 'theatres'. Pearl Harbor was originally harbour, and was changed.

There are lots of examples of such dumbing down - not explained adequately by a sudden branch by 17th century immigrants.

I see little difference between my 'pretentiousness' and your pomposity.

Re:Sanders Theatre (1)

CaptainCarrot (84625) | more than 8 years ago | (#13780064)

Consult the OED, and discover that many American spellings are in fact older. You'll be surprised to learn, for instance that the -our of "colour" and "neighbour" are relatively new; it was the British who changed it, not the Americans. This page [btinternet.com] addresses some of the issues, and although I can't agree with everything the writer advocates he has his facts correct. Unfortunately he doesn't go into -er vs. -re much except to express his preference for the former.

As far as "theater" goes, it came into Middle English from Old French, and no, the spelling wasn't standardized at all, not then and not later at the point of divergence. At the time the American colonies were being settled, the i vs. j distinction wasn't not clear, and v/u/w was a matter of preference. (The Latin isn't relevant to this discussion, as it didn't end in either -re or -er in any declension I'm aware of.) The -re ending is phonetic in French, but not in either variety of English. But that's neither here nor there. I have no idea why you think we should hew to French spellings in this area alone, where most other French borrowings of that era have been more thoroughly Anglicized. (For example, "beef" from the Middle French "buef", modern French "boeuf", which is not pronounced "beef".)

If Pearl Harbor was originally Pearl Harbour it's because the British named it, they being the first Westerners to discover the place. Americans would naturally adopt the American spelling for it.

I'm not pompous, I'm pedantic. If I were pompous I'd use bigger words.

They collaborated... (1)

khenson (706671) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744054)

Studying various stress induced odors of flying testicles produced from the exploding trousers of nigerians swimming in congealed black penguin poo...

uhhhh.... and an alarm clock ran away.

Countries of concern (1)

wildzer0 (889523) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744138)

ACCEPTING: The winners were unable to attend the ceremony because they could not obtain United States visas to visit the United States. Dr. Meyer-Rochow sent an acceptance speech via videotape.

I guess Germany is now one of the "countries of concern"? Well, can't say I'm surprised.

Re:Countries of concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13744269)

Not necessarily. He/she could be teaching in Germany but not be German. As I recall Germany is on the Visa waiver list. There's also someone from Finland and Hungary mentioned, maybe that has something to do with it.

This whole visa thing in the US is getting annoying (I travel a lot, hear a lot of stories).

The Most Important Part of the Ceremony (3, Interesting)

Jazzer_Techie (800432) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744170)

I had the privilage of attending the awards last night for the first time. It was a ton of fun. My friends and I threw about a half ream of paper airplanes from the balcony and of course got some good laughs from the prizes that others have mentioned. But by far the most disturbing event of the night was the 2003 Biology Prize winner again showing his (first ever) documentation of of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck. http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm [www.nmr.nl]

If any one is in the Cambridge/Boston area this Saturday there is a free lecture at MIT during which the laureates will describe more about their research.

Note: This may well be the only time that "homosexual necrophilia" has been used in a non-troll /. post.

15th *1st* annual! (1)

strredwolf (532) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744221)

HEY! Someone mistyped that. It's the 15th 1st Annual Ig Nobel Price Awards. There may be a 2nd Annual later on in the year, but this is the 15th 1st annual!

Re:15th *1st* annual! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13744245)

but that won't be 15th...

"Timecube" not even nominated? (2, Interesting)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744337)


Surely "TIME CUBE" [timecube.com] deserves Ig-recognition....

"Recognition and application of this Cubic
simultaneous 4 day rotation of Earth,
will change all math, science and societies
from the begining of human existence.
You have to be evil to ignore this math."

mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13744438)

any mirrors of the webcast yet? the current one is slashdotted to buggery and back

I was there and it was awesome! (0)

RoverDaddy (869116) | more than 8 years ago | (#13744582)

In fact, I show up in the webcast, crossing in front of the stage at exactly 3:25, the last of a small group wearing nerdly flashing pendants. Well, not all that nerdly, the Major Domo saw us before the ceremony and asked for one. You might catch it blinking beneath his shirt from time to time.

Commence exhortations of envy. Outstanding gnashing of teeth and groveling may win you mod points. Or not.

Peace? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13745653)

Probably they have recognized some good work over the years. But their peace price is a joke. Bush & Blair were nominated a while back. Mahatma Gandhi (I am not a big fan or anything) never got a peace prize.

the exploding trousers (2)

xpatiate (111717) | more than 8 years ago | (#13753614)

The story behind Mr Buckley's exploding trousers is actually kind of a good one. Back in the 30s farmers in New Zealand needed a way to control ragwort, a weed that is toxic to livestock. Sodium chlorate seemed like a miraculous solution at first, but what they didn't know was that it is a strong oxidising agent and can become explosive when mixed with organic material. So spraying it hither and yon while wearing cotton trousers is not the best idea. There followed a nationwide epidemic of exploding trousers - on the clothes line, in front of the fire, even while being worn - before the connection was figured out.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...