Slashdot Mirror
Virginia Tech "Corpse Plant" To Bloom On August 4th
Radical Rad writes "Virginia Tech has a second Amorphophallus titanum, or 'corpse plant,' ready to bloom and emit its intensely powerful stench. The plant only blooms once every 4 to 20 years and lasts only 2-3 days. Its stench attracts carrion beetles and flesh flies to pollinate it. See
this link for photos of the bloom." Instant road-trip excuse.
the flower in question is also in bloom at the Atlanta Botanical Gardens - http://www.atlantabotanicalgarden.org/events_and_e xhibits/events/stinkyflower.htm
http://www.segment.org/~8up
This corpse flower at UCDavis is blooming in 2-3 days as well. Amazing timing.
A rose is a rose is rose, but nothing says geek love like Amorphophallus titanum...
--
Evan "her lab is on campus; she's home today because they ran out of liquid helium for the EPR machine"
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Do we really need an article for every corpse flower that blooms anywhere in the world?
Next month Virginia Tech is going to release a new avant-garde perfume backed by a secret formula...
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
There are many pages and pictures at Fairchild Tropical Garden. There is even an animated gif
It's a huge flower.
"really looked"? ... "REALLY LOOKED"?!
Like "boldly gone"?
Look, dammit! It's ...to go boldly..., ...have gone boldly..., ...looked really cool... Is that too much to ask?
DAMN YOU and your infinitive splitting... I should have never watched Star Trek. Now I will forever be unable to forget what my English teachers tried to teach me -- them and their antiquated grammar rules and all.
You could've hired me.
Upon reading that title I immediately visualized a large ribbon-cutting celebration for the unveiling of a new cadaver factory, with an assembly line capable of pumping out an endless stream of high-tech corpses for all to enjoy.
One of the several Titan arum plants that are at UW-Madison is also blooming this week (called "Little Stinker"). The link has daily updates on this specific plant and also some general information on the species.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/titanarum2004/index.html
I visited this afternoon and wrote it up, along with a half dozen photos, on my blog. As of 3:30pm, it had only just started to bloom. I plan to return tomorrow, by which time it ought to be in its full...er...glory, and take some more photos. You know where to find them.
-Waldo Jaquith
"The titan arum is in the same plant family as familiar house plants such as Dieffenbachia, Philodendrons, and Anthuriums."
I wonder if this would be a good gift for my mother in law...
Lisa: A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.
Bart: Not if you call them stench-blossoms.
Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
Anyone else consider sending one of these beasts to an ex-girlfriend or two with a simple note expressing your regret not getting them flowers more often.
Split infinitives are fairly hotly debated (as such topics go) amongst the elite grammarians. I remember reading a few years ago that the usage that has been condemned for more than 200 years is now becoming acceptable. While I couldn't find that article specifically, the following excerpt covers the gist of it.
From The American Heritage Book of English Usage, 1996:
The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin. The thinking is that because the Latin infinitive is a single word, the English infinitive should be treated as if it were a single unit. But English is not Latin, and people split infinitives all the time without giving it a thought. Should we condemn compound infinitives, such as I want to go and have a look, simply because the infinitive have has no to next to it?
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Yes, I know the "English isn't Latin" debate around split infinitives, but I also know that English is about the most irregular language out there, and extremely difficult for non-native speakers to learn well (Hmm, should I have written "...to welly learn?"), because of this. So, when I see a novel construction that adds nothing to what is being communicated, I question it's value.
Often such constructions help make longer sentences shorter, but also more ambiguous or harder to parse -- we don't realize it because they become idiomatic. "That's not something I'll put up with" is, admitedly, less awkward than "That's something up with which I shall not put." Even better: "That's something I won't accept." Best: "That's unacceptable." But, is the syntactic relaxation of permitting dangling participles worth the potential ambiguous constructions that now become possible (not that I can think of any out of hand)?
I know language evolves, but I am more comfortable with the introduction of new nouns and verbs than I am with changes in structure.
Just don't bring up constructions like "intensive purposes", "reason being", and "quote... unqote". (These should be "intents and purposes", "the reason is", and "quote... endquote".) Yes, we speak that way, often to save time and get our point across faster before we are cut off ("before the cutting of our response is in the offing", perhaps?), but the written word persists longer than the relevance of the quill used to draw it across parchment. It deserves a somewhat better presentation than that accorded to dying vocalizations.
You could've hired me.