Kapitano

There are some stories which, after you've read them you think "I'm glad I read that". And there are others where you think, "I want to know what happens next, dammit!" This was both. So, um...it was good and I want another one!

This kind of thing always gets turned into a debate on free speech. With one side saying the right to free speech is absolute and everyone should be allowed to say anything to anyone, the other side saying there should be restrictions on "extremists" but never defining what is and isn't extreme, and a few "moderates" trying to draw an arbitrary line in the sand that applies in all cases. All of which is rather odd, for two reasons. (1) None of the three positions outlined above are coherent. Is a false rape allegation an expression of free speech? What about a campaign of intimidation, or anti-semitic propaganda? Of course not. Anyone who says free speech is absolute just hasn't thought about it. As for trying to draw a clear line between those who deserve the right to speak and those who don't...how many time do you have to try it before realising it won't work? You need guidelines to interpret and modify on a case by case basis, but abstract absolute rules applied to concrete complex reality always result in gibberish. You still say you want to place people like Phelps beyond the pale? Terms like "terrorist", "extremist" and even "whackjob" don't describe a type of person which can be objectively defined. If a terrorist is someone who uses violence and fear to effect political change, then all wars, including the "war on terror" are acts of terrorism. An extremist is just someone a lot further along one cline or another relative to you - which defines you, wherever you are, as a moderate. (2) The Phelps family are being investigated for tax evasion and crooked property dealings, not spreading hate. As far as this case is concerned, hatemongering and free speech don't enter into the picture, and introducing them just muddies the waters.

So that's what you've been doing this last week. I was wondering what was going on since you last posted - well now we know what you've been googling!

I don't know about anyone else here, but when my only reaction to a story is "Pretty good, I liked it, I'd be happy to read more if you feel like writing more of the same"...that doesn't seem like it's worth posting as a comment. It is a positive reaction, just not an extremely positive one. And I think most good stories provoke just that kind of response from the reader. It's not "meh", not at all, but if I type it and send it, it feels like I'm essentially writing "Good, but in a meh sort of way". You see what I'm getting at here?

This may not be one of my bright days, but where do I go to read the stories? I can't see them listed on the site.

Thanks. I'm going through an emotional time at the moment - not an unusually tough time, just one when everything's a little bit wrong, and the light at the end of the tunnel is a little too distant. I wrote "Because" on a half-hour impulse to put some words around what I'm feeling. Like I say, it's only a half true story.

Reread what I've written and click Send. Watch as the window vanishes and an hourglass turns for two or three seconds as the message speeds to you, full of good news and wry observations. Stuff about my co-workers, the boss, his boss, the computers, the locals. All cheerful and colourful stuff, and all true in it's way. Why can't I write what I really want to say? The words aren't difficult - "I miss you like crazy and I cry every time I get one of your emails". If you don't send me an email on a particular day, I might cry too. "I love you, I miss you, I don't want to be here, I want to be home with you, I want you to hold me". Why can't I just write that? Because...because it would upset you. Because you'd write back to say you miss me too and if I really hate this job why don't I just leave and come back home. And if you said it I might actually do it though we both know we can't afford it. Because I took this job so we could pay off all our debts and live properly and not be constantly borrowing money off each other and our friends who don't have any money either and need to borrow money off us instead. And because once I started to tell the truth, I might not be able to stop. When I got on the plane, I wasn't just doing it for our future. I was doing it because I wanted time away from you. We'd been living in two rooms together for God knows how long and I needed some time alone. I just didn't want you to be there every time I looked around. I met a man last night. I don't know his name and he didn't speak much English but it was a nice little one night stand. There's been several. Would it be better if I said I was thinking of you when I was with him? But I wasn't. I was with him so I could forget about you, and this place, and these people, for a while. I thought about you after he'd gone though. Couldn't help myself. But I can't tell you any of that either. I wonder what you haven't been telling me. It won't be long now. We'll be together soon. You do believe me don't you?

You're making Cammy Clammy.

Nicely told miniature stories that read like pivotal moments in much larger stories. I especially liked the second one, which had a science-fiction feel to it. You can paste your stories into the forum, of course.

It had to be a joke piece but I couldn't predict the joke ahead of time. And it's what you might call "Quietly well written" - written with a feel for language and atmosphere that doesn't announce itself with a fanfare, just keeps the reader (ie me) engaged. Oh, and now that the story's got me interested to see what else you've written...I click on your AD page it turns out you're actually Sinbad, who I've read before.

He doesn't need to wind the clock. Just needs to make two trips to see his friend, one after the other, and note the difference between the time on his friend's clock when he leaves, and the time when he returns. He can do the maths on his second journey home.

I never dreamt there wasn't. I imagine the friend's clock chimes, but I can't come up with a strictly logical solution. BTW, an "aggry" is a kind of Ghanaian glass bead. And I'm amazed that the AD spellchecker knows "Ghanaian", but not "Spellchecker".

It's not a grammar test. It's a general knowledge quiz. If you actually enjoy this kind of wordplay, go here.

Assuming you mean "inflexion" instead of "punctuation", and assuming you mean "and" instead of "an"... Both are possible, but with different meanings. If you're considering the yolk and the egg to be two different things yolked together (so to speak) in the same sentence, then "are" is correct. You can test it by putting "both" - or "all" for groups of more than two - after "are". "...are both white" is correct, "...is both white" is incorrect, because "both" can only be used with things considered as duos. If you consider that "yolk and egg" describes a single thing - the substances and structures inside an eggshell - then "The yolk and egg is white" is, strictly speaking, correct, but unusual. The form is occasionally used when describing longer lists of things, not just two. Also, often we use "is" to predicate adjectives of things that are singular, but habitually described as an aglomeration, for instance: * Barnes and Noble is closed * Bill and Ted is a movie franchise * The Long and the Short and the Tall is an old song Finally, if "The Yolk and Egg" is the name of a white painted pub, then "The Yolk and Egg is white" would be grammatically correct - and even true. Kapitano (who teaches English, and who's just had an egg for breakfast)

The third word (in the first paragraph) is "only". In the same way the "center of gravity" is the letter V.

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1997 digital edition) there's 35 words ending in -dous. "Excluding esoteric technical terms" is a weaseling proviso that could include or exclude any technical term. "Philtre", "Spandrel" and "Nybble" are all technical terms that could be called esoteric, or not, according to mood. If you admit "hazardous" do you also admit "biohazardous"? What about "unhazardous"? Besides, this isn't a puzzle at all. It's a recall test. Or a test of whether you've got a crossword dictionary to hand. Which I have. Incidentally, there's actually four words ending in -gry, but two are synonyms and one is highly obscure unless you're an archaeologist.

My maths has always been rubbish, but lets see. c1 is the circumference of the rope before extension, and thus the circumference of the earth. c2 is the circumference of the rope after extension. r1 is the radius of c1. r2 is the radius of c2. c1=40075km=40075000m c2=40075001m c=2*pi*r, therefore r=c/(2*pi) r1=c1/(2*pi) =40075000/(2*3.14) =40075000/6.28 =6381369.42 r2=c2/(2*pi) =40075001/(2*3.14) =40075001/6.28 =6381369.58 Oh bugger. This last stage is where I made a mistake in calculation earlier. Right method, wrong numbers. I told you my maths was rubbish. r2-r1=0.16 So the difference between the radius of the two circles is 0.16m, which is 16cm. My apologies. Again. But yeah, you got it right. PS. Speaking of H2G2, the above is explained here.

So cats are squishy, sociopathic, and uneducable. A bit like babies.Hamsters, mice, rats etc are actually very intelligent, clean and sociable creatures. This means(1) you need to get more than one, or they'll go insane from lonliness, and(2) you can happily keep them in your top pocket at work, where they poke their head out, all whisker-twitchy and bright-eyed, which will provoke either horrified screaming or shameless coo-cooing from your coworkers,I think having a hamster sitting in your shirt is a great way to attract middle-aged women and gay men - the only two groups worth being friends with.And as for dogs, if it's a choice between an evening with a mutt in front of the TV and a night with a 17 year old who's questioning his sexuality...can I have both?

You might say clocks don't tell the time - they create it. You've probably met this one before. A piece of rope is wrapped tightly around the earth's equator. It is 40075 km long. Ignore mountains, seas etc - assume the earth is a smooth sphere. The rope is then lengthened by one metre, and lifted from the surface by a constant amount all around. How far off the surface is the rope? A) 30 cm B) 300 cm C) .03 cm

Ah. Of course. How could I have missed that? Nice one.

Yes, the point is it works for any 24 hour period, not considering the periods before and after. The original question was: That is, "What occurs twenty two times each and every consecutive 24-hour period?" Your solution requires that the final passing be discounted from today's 24 hours and shunted over to become the first passing in tomorrow's 24-hour period, but once we get to tomorrow, the same passing event is shunted back into the previous day, so as not to count. It's slight of hand, like counting two Sundays to prove that there's eight days a week. In this case, we can see how the magician moves the cards, and the trick is exposed.

Intriguing. There's a story of a journalist asking Issac Asimov the difference between a happy and a sad story. Asimov replied, "It's a matter of where the story ends."

1. You're there. Tapping away on that computer in the bedroom, online to whoever in one chatroom or another. I don't remember when I stopped loving you. It could be last year, or the year after we met, or any time in between. I know I loved you once, but that seems like another world. Oh it's not a bad life here with you, and we're not unhappy. We both have good jobs, similar taste in music and food, and we like a lot of the same TV. We haven't argued for...actually I can't remember when we last had an argument. Why don't I leave? Why don't you? You must feel the same way, though we never talk about it. Why don't we just call it quits? Simple. I've got nowhere to go, no one else to go to, no reason to leave, and you're the same. We're friends, not even especially close. Nothing like the all consuming passion when we fell head over heels for each other that summer, however many years ago it was. Too long ago. But we're friends, and that's good, and we're happy. 2. You're gone. One day you were there, and the next there was a note on the kitchen table. All the laundry neatly done, the fridge fully stocked, housework done. And a note saying you still loved me but couldn't stand the way our relationship was going. That you were sorry, truly sorry, but felt like too much of a coward to tell me face to face, and you hoped someday I might forgive you. The first proper conversation we'd had in months. You'd found someone who was nothing like you but they made you feel funny and daring again, like you did when you met me. You met them in real life and it was still good - that time you were away on business, you were with him. I didn't even miss you. I miss you now, just a bit, as a friend. 3. You're back. Same computer, probably the same chatrooms. You were with him for nearly twelve months, until it went sour. We spoke on the phone, met up two or three times, went for a drink and you always told me how sorry you were, and I said it was okay - I understood. Then one night you knocked on my door. It had all gone wrong and you knew I had no reason to let you in but you had no one else to turn to so...please? Just until you could get things together. That was months ago. You've got no reason to leave, and I've got no reason to push you out. You have occasional flings on the net, we like the same food, the same music, and a lot of the same TV. We're not close, but we're happy.

The usual answer is that the minute hand crosses the hour hand. But it doesn't really stand up to analysis. The idea is that the first crossing at midnight (0000 hours) doesn't count because that crossing belongs to the previous day, and the final crossing (at the next 0000 hours) belongs to the next 24 hour period, which entails a contradiction if you say the event happens on each consecutive day.

The "bus" and "train" puzzles you give aren't strictly logic puzzles at all. If they test anything, it's how little attention you pay to details that look like they're not relavent, because they look like irrelevant detail in what looks like a logic puzzle. If you see what I mean. Real logic puzzles, like the one in my little story, test something completely different - whether you had the kind of education that taught you how to solve those kind of puzzles. IQ tests contain a lot of logic puzzles, plus a lot of supposedly general knowledge, some mathematics, and some parlour games involving anagrams. In other words, IQ tests test whether you've been playing these kind of games long enough to get skilled at them. Incidentally, my IQ is 164 for mathematics (which I'm useless at), 135 for general knowledge (which I don't have) and 79 - subnormal - for linguistic ability. The kind of puzzle I wrote above (which BTW I wrote first, building the story around it) is easy if you know the method - draw a grid of all the possible relationships, and blank them out as they're discounted by the information given. Whatever remains after that is the answer. PS. The "train" puzzle is based on the inference that a freight train transporting livestock would have no conductor. But we don't know that it is a freight train - we just know there's animals on board. So what looks like a purely deductive (therefore objective) test is based on an inductive (therefore questionable) premise. But then, people who love to give that kind of test don't know much about logic.