Behold: The New Alphabet

In 221 B.C., the Chinese emperor Chin Shi Huang came to power and declared that the set of Chinese characters had become too large and complex. From there, he got his Prime Minister to simplify the set of characters to an official set, and then he had all the existing documents destroyed to make way for the new characters.

I like this way of thinking. So along that vein, I am declaring that our alphabet is too complex. Who has time to remember all 20-something letters of the alphabet? I believe it's time to simplify the alphabet.

Our current alphabet looks like this:

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

Clearly, we don't need the letter "C"; we could just use "k" or "s" instead. For example, "school" becomes "skool" (many people spell it this way already, facilitating the transition). "Church" would have to be spelled "tshurtsh". Similarly, we could remove the following letters and replace them with their counterparts:

c = k or s (or "tsh" for "ch")
f = ph
j = g
q = k or ku
w = uu
x = z or ks
y = i

Thus the new alphabet compares to the existing alphabet like this:

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
a b   d e   g h i   k l m n o p   r s t u v       z

And in its entirety looks like this:

a b d e g h i k l m n o p r s t u v z

And since we're redefining things, we can move all the vowels to the front of the alphabet (where they rightly belong). Also, we can move the commonly-used letters to the front of the alphabet (r, s, t, l, n). I can also put p, b and d together, because they look somewhat alike, and to round it out I can put g there too, since it is like a backwards p with a longer tail. The new alphabet will finally look like this:

a e i o u r s t l m n p b d g k h v z

This new alphabet is simpler, easier for kids to learn, and if people don't remember the whole thing they will at least get the more often used letters first. It even sounds good in song; just try to sing the Alphabet Song to this new alphabet. Sure, the song cuts off mid-way through, but it is still just as catchy.

Oh, and of course all previous records recorded using the existing alphabet must be destroyed. Now. Including this document --no, wait...

Google/Noodle/Wikipoodle

The word "Google" is becoming a popular term to refer to "searching the internet using the Google search engine".

Similarly, we can use the term "noodled" to refer to things we look up in our noodle (as mentioned in a recent Get Fuzzy comic).

But what do we do when we look up something on Wikipedia? There's no magical verb to describe that, is there? And we can't just use the word "wiki" since that describes wikis in general, and not specifically the online encyclopedia named Wikipedia. As a verb, "to wiki" already has a meaning, usually referring to reading or editing a wiki -- any wiki.

I came up with a solution to this problem. And so, I bring you the new verb wikipoodle.

Automotive Safety 101

So somebody finally wrote an article saying that "Heavier cars aren't safer". Unfortunately, the article goes on to claim that bigger cars are safer because they have larger crumple zones and thus offer more protection in a collision.

The focus on "surviving a collision" is an incorrect way to look at automotive safety to begin with. Can you imagine if planes were designed with the intention of surviving a crash landing instead of avoiding a crash landing altogether? This would make sense if pilots were given as little training as most drivers get today. Let me put it to you this way: If somebody were about to shoot you, would you rather a) move out of the way, or b) prepare for impact by wearing big/heavy clothes?

Here is how it should work:

Primary Focus: A vehicle should have the handling capabilities (steering, traction, braking, etc.) to avoid a collision.

Secondary Focus: In the even that a collision must occur, the vehicle should protect its occupants.

Unfortunately for us all, America has got automotive safety backwards. Their SUVs have become unmaneuverable tanks that are barely able to perform the most basic obstacle avoidance measures. These tanks are on our roads right now, trying desperately to avoid hitting us when we step into the street. Next time you're thinking of buying that Hummer (all fuel efficiency requirements aside), ask yourself how you plan to avoid a two-year-old who chases a ball out into the street from behind a parked car.

Automotive safety experts aren't stupid, they know that the safest way to survive a crash is not to get into one. However, the collective buying power of the American people can't be swayed by such logic. Humans believe very strongly that bigger is safer. Why? because they can see big-ness, whereas they can't see how well a car handles emergency steering situations or how well its brakes perform.

You may wonder why is it that we have crash protection standards but we don't have handling standards? Cars should have to be able to handle certain standardized situations (I'm not talking 0-60 acceleration tests) before being released to the public. And given the rate of increase in automotive technology, those standards should be raised every few years.

Case in point: I once saw a minivan try to run an obstacle avoidance situation at a driver's education course. When the driver hit the brakes to stop before the cone that was to represent a pedestrian stepping into the street, the back brakes of the van locked up and the whole vehicle spun around, literally smacking that pedestrian-cone into the air. Had that cone been a person, that person would likely be dead. Had that minivan been trying to avoid something bigger than itself, such as a train, the driver of the van would likely be dead. "Bigger is safer" indeed.

Traffic Reports

When I'm commuting and listening to radio broadcasts, I've noticed they don't even bother reporting on the traffic of the Don Valley Parkway, because it's always the same: Bad.

Therefore I am making a prediction: Tomorrow the traffic on the DVP will be slow.

If you find yourself driving on the DVP and the traffic is good (as if), then you misunderstood me; I said the traffic will be slow tomorrow, not today. For today's traffic, you could listen to the radio and get a traffic report.