I've spent a lot more time on YouTube in the recent months, and thus have heard a lot more talking than usual (I've been plowing through vlog videos, not music videos, ergo the extensive words flowing toward my ears). In doing so, I've come to realize there was one particular word that I had seen a lot but never known really what it meant or how to use it. The word, you ask? "Albeit." Now, if you've read the word, you have probably read it to yourself with the proper pronunciation. However, whenever I read "albeit" to myself, it would be spoken in my head as if it were, "ALL-BAIT."
So yeah, I've always pronounced albeit as "all-bate" (my fail-phoenetic spelling isn't critical). Therefore, when I heard one vlogger say something sounding like, "All bee it," on more than one occasion, used similarly to what I read as, "ALL BAYT" (yeah there's gonna be a different phoenetic spelling every time I say it), I thought, "HM, that's probably the same word... WOW CATIE, you're foolish."
So I did what any child of the interwebulous generation would do, and Dictionary.com-ed it, realizing that I already had a general sense of the definition of "albeit" and thus I shall be able to read it and understand it as it is being used.
However, I also realized that, when reading it, even from now on, I will probably still read it pronouncing it in my head as, "Awl-Baet."
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Apparent Automotive Incompetence: Another Rant (Yes, I Need To Stop Being an Angsty Teen. I'm Sorry)
It really disgusts me how much of a bad reputation teenage drivers have. Yes, we are the least experienced, but we are the most aware. Driving schools force gruesome images down students' throats and make them fear getting into accidents. Most teens could probably name someone who has been in an accident, and are ever reminded of how easy it is to get in an accident and how scary it is, but we have just been taught that it's really easy to not be in an accident if you follow the rules and pay attention. In spite of being newer, the knowledge is fresh in our minds, and the standards are going up--at least, they have in Massachusetts.
Meanwhile, the adult drivers who glance at us with tired dislike are often better drivers, but they also are likely to have acquired bad habits in their years of experience and may drive slightly more assertively (aggressively) as a norm. A friend of mine was in an accident in which the other driver, an adult, crossed the yellow line, and he got pinned with the surcharge on his car insurance (the appeal is coming up) because those recording the accident assumed it was his fault due to his age. What bull is that?
Today I was pulling out of a parking space, looking out my side mirror and over my shoulder non-stop. One black SUV drove by the back of my little green four-door while I was backing up, and I saw another, smaller car pulling into the parking lot. From the path of the car it seemed indubitable that this car, I shall name him Herbert, was not going to hit me. I pulled out with a sharper curve, so that I would end up perpendicular to the row of cars, in my 'lane,' if you will, and completely out of Herbert's way. When 75% out of my spot, Herbert honked at me, and I glanced back to see nothing wrong, except Herbert continuing on his path by me, with his driver giving me a brief glare. I realize that I am a teenager and thus stereotypically appear incompetent when it comes to driving, but there was no chance that I was going to hit Herbert unless I really wanted to, though I don't particularly fancy automotive accidents and repair costs.
ALSO, the law was just passed in Massachusetts to make it so that anyone under the age of 18 cannot so much as hold a cell phone while driving. Undoubtedly there will be a few idiots who do it anyway, but I won't speak for the outliers. It's the majority, who follow the law, and will thus be less distracted than the adults who are allowed to use cell phones for phone calls while driving. No one is permitted to text anymore, but adults, those drivers who are 18 or older, can make phone calls. One hand one the phone, dialing, putting it up to an ear, the other hand on the wheel, eyes flitting downward to ensure that the right contact is selected.
How can anyone maintain the stereotype that all teens are automotively incompetent when the laws regarding our driving habits are more strict? Most teens do not want to break the law, and they follow it. I've heard of under-eighteen drivers having someone else answer their phone, and responding to texts. We're not as incompetent as we're made out to be. Please be aware, but not any more wary of us than other drivers. Every driver has the potential to be distracted, careless, or idiotic.
Meanwhile, the adult drivers who glance at us with tired dislike are often better drivers, but they also are likely to have acquired bad habits in their years of experience and may drive slightly more assertively (aggressively) as a norm. A friend of mine was in an accident in which the other driver, an adult, crossed the yellow line, and he got pinned with the surcharge on his car insurance (the appeal is coming up) because those recording the accident assumed it was his fault due to his age. What bull is that?
Today I was pulling out of a parking space, looking out my side mirror and over my shoulder non-stop. One black SUV drove by the back of my little green four-door while I was backing up, and I saw another, smaller car pulling into the parking lot. From the path of the car it seemed indubitable that this car, I shall name him Herbert, was not going to hit me. I pulled out with a sharper curve, so that I would end up perpendicular to the row of cars, in my 'lane,' if you will, and completely out of Herbert's way. When 75% out of my spot, Herbert honked at me, and I glanced back to see nothing wrong, except Herbert continuing on his path by me, with his driver giving me a brief glare. I realize that I am a teenager and thus stereotypically appear incompetent when it comes to driving, but there was no chance that I was going to hit Herbert unless I really wanted to, though I don't particularly fancy automotive accidents and repair costs.
ALSO, the law was just passed in Massachusetts to make it so that anyone under the age of 18 cannot so much as hold a cell phone while driving. Undoubtedly there will be a few idiots who do it anyway, but I won't speak for the outliers. It's the majority, who follow the law, and will thus be less distracted than the adults who are allowed to use cell phones for phone calls while driving. No one is permitted to text anymore, but adults, those drivers who are 18 or older, can make phone calls. One hand one the phone, dialing, putting it up to an ear, the other hand on the wheel, eyes flitting downward to ensure that the right contact is selected.
How can anyone maintain the stereotype that all teens are automotively incompetent when the laws regarding our driving habits are more strict? Most teens do not want to break the law, and they follow it. I've heard of under-eighteen drivers having someone else answer their phone, and responding to texts. We're not as incompetent as we're made out to be. Please be aware, but not any more wary of us than other drivers. Every driver has the potential to be distracted, careless, or idiotic.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Political Drama: A Rant
I'm sorry, but basically the main reason why I was looking forward to leaving high school was that I would get to leave the petty drama behind. However, I had not paid much attention to our political system and such, so I was sorely mistaken that I could avoid drama queens and misplaced blame.
Today while listening to NPR, I heard one politician assert that raising the deficit ceiling is the President's responsibility, that it's "his problem." (This politician shall remain nameless for the purpose of this post)
I'm sorry, but-- his problem? That very phrasing might as well have come out of the mouth of a sophomore girl in a particularly bitchy mood (pardon the swear usage, it was the only way to concisely and accurately convey the sentiment, sans this lengthy disclaimer). I though we would have learned this lesson a long time ago-- the one about not placing blame and just stepping up and getting the job done-- haven't we?
With that kind of talk, it's as if everyone spilled a little nail polish on the floor of the Oval Office, and we're saying, "Hey, it's Obama's house, he's gotta clean it up." No. I hate to pull the "This nation was founded on the principals of blah, blah, and blah," but I'm doing it.
This country was created because we didn't want one person to decide everything. Yes, figuring out how to solve our budget issues is one thing, not everything, but still, we have fifty separate but united states with representatives specifically for the purpose of working together to come to consensuses about issues important to everyone. I'm pretty sure having money as a nation is important to everyone.
We all learned in high school English classes that by pinning all the brainstorming responsibilities on one person and relying on them to do the work often results in something you don't believe (At least, I'm enough of a nerd to say to myself, "I do not agree with this interpretation" mid-presentation). By senior year we figure out how to at least start to discuss differing ideas with our peers and produce a mutually acceptable concept or at least agree that both viewpoints are valid. Good to know that adults have thrown that all away, I'm really looking forward to the "real world."
Also-- sports. If the defense on a football team (yeah America, say it with me-- football, but not our fake football) says that it's all up to the forwards to win the game, then the team will loose every time. I can guarantee it (unless you're playing a REALLY bad team, or your forwards are REALLY good). However, I'm thinking that Obama isn't quite superhuman, so he can't be expected to take care of everything. It's most certainly not his problem. It's all of ours. It's our country, and we all have to live in it, unless we want to live somewhere where health care makes sense (~cough~ CANADA ~cough~) oops, did that just happen? Yeah it did, I said it.
Personally I think our time, our teenagers time, and our politicians time is better spent not naming names, and it's better spent working together and really trying to figure out what will make our country function, and not just delay the bitter aftertaste.
No one likes a tattle-tale.
Today while listening to NPR, I heard one politician assert that raising the deficit ceiling is the President's responsibility, that it's "his problem." (This politician shall remain nameless for the purpose of this post)
I'm sorry, but-- his problem? That very phrasing might as well have come out of the mouth of a sophomore girl in a particularly bitchy mood (pardon the swear usage, it was the only way to concisely and accurately convey the sentiment, sans this lengthy disclaimer). I though we would have learned this lesson a long time ago-- the one about not placing blame and just stepping up and getting the job done-- haven't we?
With that kind of talk, it's as if everyone spilled a little nail polish on the floor of the Oval Office, and we're saying, "Hey, it's Obama's house, he's gotta clean it up." No. I hate to pull the "This nation was founded on the principals of blah, blah, and blah," but I'm doing it.
This country was created because we didn't want one person to decide everything. Yes, figuring out how to solve our budget issues is one thing, not everything, but still, we have fifty separate but united states with representatives specifically for the purpose of working together to come to consensuses about issues important to everyone. I'm pretty sure having money as a nation is important to everyone.
We all learned in high school English classes that by pinning all the brainstorming responsibilities on one person and relying on them to do the work often results in something you don't believe (At least, I'm enough of a nerd to say to myself, "I do not agree with this interpretation" mid-presentation). By senior year we figure out how to at least start to discuss differing ideas with our peers and produce a mutually acceptable concept or at least agree that both viewpoints are valid. Good to know that adults have thrown that all away, I'm really looking forward to the "real world."
Also-- sports. If the defense on a football team (yeah America, say it with me-- football, but not our fake football) says that it's all up to the forwards to win the game, then the team will loose every time. I can guarantee it (unless you're playing a REALLY bad team, or your forwards are REALLY good). However, I'm thinking that Obama isn't quite superhuman, so he can't be expected to take care of everything. It's most certainly not his problem. It's all of ours. It's our country, and we all have to live in it, unless we want to live somewhere where health care makes sense (~cough~ CANADA ~cough~) oops, did that just happen? Yeah it did, I said it.
Personally I think our time, our teenagers time, and our politicians time is better spent not naming names, and it's better spent working together and really trying to figure out what will make our country function, and not just delay the bitter aftertaste.
No one likes a tattle-tale.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Time to Spice it Up: A Harry Potter Nit-Picking Interlude
Okay, so this blog was started with the idea to promote my duct tape sales, but from now on I'll run off on tangents, starting right now, with a little rant about J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter.
Specifically, I find movies' usage of wands troubling. Each of the wands used in the movie seems to reflect the character by whom the wand is used. While that is fine and dandy for adding subliminal, visual characterization connotations for each witch and wizard, it breaks all the rules about wands laid down by the way magic work in the wizarding world. "The wand chooses the wizard," as Ollivander and Dumbledore always say, and thus the crafter of the wand cannot possibly carve the wand into a likeness of its future holder. Why would Ollivander carve a wand with vines and flowers on it, when the wand could choose a more aggressive, less nature-loving wielder?
My main problem with the wands is the wand of Lord Voldemort. It's off-white, and resembles a bone. However, Voldemort's wand, until he procures the Elder Wand, is the wand with a core the same as Harry's. Voldemort's wand with a twin core is the same one that he procured as the eleven-year-old Tom Riddle, a boy who was far from becoming the most evil wizard of all time. An eleven-year-old boy would not have been handed a bone wand to try out at the wand-maker's shop, unless it's a shop outside "The Evil Baby Orphanage" (John and Hank Green Nerdfighter Reference... if you don't get it, I encourage you to do the research via YouTube and Google. Look now, you can finish reading later).
The characterizing aspects of a wand are the core, the wood, and the length. Adding decor to it is nice to look at, and it probably does help those who have not read the books understand a bit more about the character, but it just doesn't make sense if you understand how wand dispension (I'm pretending it's a word.) works.
Buona Notte.
Specifically, I find movies' usage of wands troubling. Each of the wands used in the movie seems to reflect the character by whom the wand is used. While that is fine and dandy for adding subliminal, visual characterization connotations for each witch and wizard, it breaks all the rules about wands laid down by the way magic work in the wizarding world. "The wand chooses the wizard," as Ollivander and Dumbledore always say, and thus the crafter of the wand cannot possibly carve the wand into a likeness of its future holder. Why would Ollivander carve a wand with vines and flowers on it, when the wand could choose a more aggressive, less nature-loving wielder?
My main problem with the wands is the wand of Lord Voldemort. It's off-white, and resembles a bone. However, Voldemort's wand, until he procures the Elder Wand, is the wand with a core the same as Harry's. Voldemort's wand with a twin core is the same one that he procured as the eleven-year-old Tom Riddle, a boy who was far from becoming the most evil wizard of all time. An eleven-year-old boy would not have been handed a bone wand to try out at the wand-maker's shop, unless it's a shop outside "The Evil Baby Orphanage" (John and Hank Green Nerdfighter Reference... if you don't get it, I encourage you to do the research via YouTube and Google. Look now, you can finish reading later).
The characterizing aspects of a wand are the core, the wood, and the length. Adding decor to it is nice to look at, and it probably does help those who have not read the books understand a bit more about the character, but it just doesn't make sense if you understand how wand dispension (I'm pretending it's a word.) works.
Buona Notte.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)