The Straight Dope 01/10/2003

[email protected] Fri, 10 Jan 2003 07:34:35 -0500
Newsgroups gmane.culture.publications.straight-dope
Message-ID <LISTMANAGER-2907760-2789646-2003.01.10-07.34.38--gcps-straightdope-list#[email protected]>
____________________________________________
The Straight Dope -- By Cecil Adams
http://www.straightdope.com

You are subscribed as: [[email protected]]

To unsubscribe CLICK on the URL below this line:
mailto:[email protected]
If you can't "click" above, then send a blank email to:
[email protected]
____________________________________________
THE STRAIGHT DOPE 01/10/2003

Dear Cecil:

I have an Armchair University degree in English
linguistics, and I was thinking about the "l33t5p33k"
we see on the Net these days, as well as the
Princification of the language, the replacement of
"you" with "u" and "to" with "2," etc. Is this
just bad English, or is this the next step? Will
the English language in 100 years look like the
rantings of a 15-year-old hacker as we see it now,
and will numbers become letters (1 = I, 2 = to,
3 = E, 4 = for, 5 = S, etc)?--Montfort, via the
Straight Dope Message Board

~~~~~~
Looking for the perfect gift for that wedding, birthday, or
bar mitzvah? Straight Dope books are the very thing! See
http://www.straightdope.com/store.html
~~~~~~

Cecil replies:

Let's put this in perspective, Montfort. Your columnist
grew up in the 60s, which as everyone knows was the
coolest era in the history of existence. The collective
output of the leading lights of that time--your Stones,
your Zep, etc--obliterated everything that had gone
before. Sure, your Andy Williams types were still putting
out records, and I guess somebody must have bought them
(presumably the same people who are presently packing the
theaters in Branson, Missouri). But everybody with a clue
knew: Those guys were old. They were out of it.
They were lame.

That said, I fully expected the next generation to come
along with some even more radical pop-cultural contribution
that would leave us 60s burnouts in the dust. Didn't happen,
at least not right away. During the early 80s I was shocked
to overhear a couple 17-year-olds talking about going to a
Grateful Dead concert. I wanted to say: You twerps, your
parents went to Grateful Dead concerts. You're supposed to
think the Grateful Dead suck. There's something terribly
wrong with a world in which kids think their elders'
culture is hip.

Eventually, thank God, there was rap.

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030110.html


STAFF REPORT

Dear Straight Dope:

I have a question that neither of my high school science
teachers could answer for sure, including my physics
teacher, who scored 1590 on his SATs (he also found an
error on the test) and is a member of Mensa. If I were
to put liquid nitrogen in my microwave, what would happen?
Would it superheat and instantly explode or would it just
boil off like if it was in regular air? By the way, my
teacher suggested for me to try this experiment.
--Ryan Deckard, Indianapolis, Indiana

SDSTAFF Alphagene replies:

Here at work I am within three feet of both a microwave and
240 liters of liquid nitrogen. However, even if I leave my
job I'd like my boss to be a reference. And if he said
"everything was fine until he superheated liquid nitrogen
and destroyed the lab microwave," it may not reflect
positively on me.

For more, see: 
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnukingnitrogen.html


STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC - 06/12/1981

Dear Cecil: 

I recently saw a movie that featured a trial scene at the
end, and I noticed how heavily the court played on the
witnesses' belief in God, the Bible, etc., as they were
sworn in. I began to wonder: what if an atheist or an
agnostic were an important witness to a crime--how would
that person be sworn in? --Barbara T., Los Angeles 

Dear Barbara: 
When a witness refuses to swear to God, the court accepts an
"affirmation" instead. In a jury trial, the smart lawyer will
arrange for this ahead of time in the judge's chambers, so
the witness won't look unduly obstreperous or morally
deficient in open court. The judge may then instruct the
jury that the funny oath they are about to hear should be 
considered legally valid.  

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_145.html

____________________________________________
Here's how you can get your OWN FREE Subscription:
Send a blank mailto:[email protected]
____________________________________________
Copyright 1995 - 2002 Chicago Reader, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
You may forward this document by email ONLY if you
include the entire document INCLUDING the information
at the bottom of this publication
____________________________________________
Visit our good friends at Joke A Day http://www.jokeaday.com
They're kind enough to mail THE STRAIGHT DOPE for us.
Join the World's Largest Daily Humor List and receive daily
laughs in your email by sending mailto:[email protected]