Actually Bertram Forer did that experiment in 1948, except with pscyhological profile "tests" instead of horoscopes.
The phenomenon has since been known as the Forer Effect.
Psychologist B.R. Forer found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone. Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality.
You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.
Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with "5" meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an "excellent" assessment and "4" meaning the assessment was "good." The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2.
From personal experience, patches for MS Office require the user to have the CD available.
In the corporate environment, this usually isn't a problem (except for the different flavors of Office we have floating around: MS Office Professional, MS Office Premium, MS Office Academic version, OEM non-retail version, etc. make it a pain).
However, home users may have MS Word and MS Excel pre-installed on their systems from the store. But they don't have the Office CD itself.
How can they apply the necessary MS Office patches and service packs?
The US is going to institute a national health care program for Iraq, a nationalized educational system for iraq, govt controlled water and power monopolies for Iraq, anonymous surfing for the Iranians.
How come these things are not good enough for US
Here's why you'll start seeing more crazy-sounding initiatives like this "lan tax":
Didn't Vice President Gore support a telecommunications tax? And didn't several states want to tax internet commerce during the dot-com boom of the late 1990s?
This is kinda like giving a total stranger $100K and expecting him to spend it in ways that help you while not giving him any expectations on how to spend it
So taking less money from taxpayers is the same as giving it to strangers? Funny -- I thought paying taxes was more like giving money to strangers.
many of our brave soldiers sacrificing their lives in Iraq will receive PAY CUTS of around $200/month.
After the Wall Street Journal cited a story about the $200 pay cut, printed this clarification:
Not So Foolish
We heard from numerous servicemen, ex-servicemen and relatives of servicemen who took issue with the articles we cited in our item yesterday on pay and benefits for the troops on duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Capt. Jamie Flanders of the Air Force writes:
Neither the Pentagon nor Congress has any plans of removing the family-separation allowance or the hostile fire/imminent danger pay from all of our deployed troops.
I am currently deployed to Uzbekistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. As a captain (O-3) and a deployed member, I am entitled to the following benefits in addition to my regular pay:
* $3.50 per diem (to cover miscellaneous expenses, soap, snacks, etc). $3.50 per day for one 30-day month comes to $105. This is the least amount given to every deployed military member and may be increased based on the cost of living in the deployed area.
* Hostile fire/imminent danger pay. Currently set at $150 a month for members deployed in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Pentagon is reviewing whether or not those areas that are no longer considered dangerous deserve this specific pay. This will not affect those members deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.
* Family separation allowance. Currently set at $250 per month. This pay is given to any military member who is away from his family for at least 30 days. Congress increased the amount to $250 from $150 a month after Sept. 2001 and reviews it each fiscal year to determine whether to should drop it back to $150.
* Tax-free status. Given to every military member deployed to a combat/imminent danger zone. And this amount is not prorated. If I deploy on June 30, my pay for the entire month of June is tax free. If I go home on July 1, all of July is tax-free as well. This is given to the military member by not withholding FICA from his monthly paycheck--and that month is not considered part of total taxable income on the W-2. As a captain with 10 years of total military service, my monthly pay increased approximately by $600.
So for my deployment to Uzbekistan, I receive additional benefits totaling $1,105 a month. In the worst-case scenario, the Pentagon is considering for my area to remove hostile fire pay and reduce family separation back to $150. Based on that, my total benefits would drop to $855.
Many readers also pointed out that in addition to the $6,000 death benefit for families of servicemen killed in action, the Department of Veterans Affairs also offers low-cost Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, which pays even if a soldier or veteran dies while not on duty.
Note the "tax free status," which is like giving money to a rich stranger.
In Arthur C. Clarke's 1990 novel Ghost from the Grand Banks, the Y2K bug was solved by releasing a worm that fixed the problem in systems it had infected.
Yes I did. (and I realize I should have highlighted the part about the additional CBI fee to avoid confusion. My mistake)
However, the sheriff's office and CBI is doing the same thing as they were before, but actually providing less service (by only accepting applications 2 days a week instead of 5).
Although the cost increase isn't a big deal, there is no justifiable reason for it. The county's cost to process applications did not go up.
My point isn't to gripe about the county sheriff's office in this forum, but simply to point out that the behavior noted in the parent post is not limited to phone companies and corporations.
$1 for a "phone number portability" fee, or $14 increase to do CCW: organizations -- whether private or public -- will do anything to nickle-and-dime us.
We're talking about private corporations trying to make more profit after all.
"Although federal law requires that such fees be 'just and reasonable', it does not require reporting of their actual expenses."
That pretty much sounds like giving the cell phone corporations carte blanche.
Private corporations are not the only entities guilty of trying to exploit vague language about "just and reasonable" fees. Government agencies do it, too.
When Colorado passed a state-wide standard for issuing carrying-of-concealed-weapons (CCW) permits earlier this year, the bill clearly stated that
AN APPLICANT SHALL ALSO SUBMIT TO THE SHERIFF A PERMIT
FEE NOT TO EXCEED ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR PROCESSING THE PERMIT APPLICATION. THE SHERIFF SHALL SET THE AMOUNT OF THE PERMIT FEE AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (5) OF THIS SECTION. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT AN AMOUNT SPECIFIED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU, PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-72-306, C.R.S., FOR PROCESSING THE APPLICANT'S FINGERPRINTS THROUGH THE BUREAU AND THROUGH THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY THE AMOUNT FOR PROCESSING FINGERPRINTS IN THE FORM OF A MONEY ORDER OR A CASHIER'S CHECK MADE PAYABLE TO THE BUREAU. NEITHER THE PERMIT FEE NOR THE FINGERPRINT PROCESSING FEE SHALL BE REFUNDABLE IN THE EVENT THE SHERIFF DENIES THE APPLICANT'S PERMIT APPLICATION OR SUSPENDS OR REVOKES THE PERMIT SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUANCE.
CRS 18-12-205(2)(b) (emphasis added).
I got my permit a month before the bill was signed into law, and it cost me $138.
Two
separate fees must be submitted with the application:
$100
made payable to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office in the form of: U.S. currency, money order, credit card (MasterCard or VISA only) or a cashier's/certified check.
$52.50
made payable to CBI in the form of: business check, money order or cashier's/certified check.
(emphasis in original. FYI, "CBI" is Colorado Bureau of Investigation).
Senator Chuck Schumer blasted the Bush administration for not taking the steps to equip passenger planes with weapons deterrent systems. Money to equip planes with devices that could stop someone from using a missile against it, nah let's play with robots. This being said just when the FBI busts a European businessman for trying to purchase a SAM (surface to air missile) that he allegedly was going to resell to terrorists.
According to Schumer "The threat facing commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles here in the United States is no longer theoretical"
Terrorist Missiles Versus Airliners
by James Dunnigan
August 13, 2003
An Indian arms dealer was caught trying to illegally import a Russian SA-18 Igla shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile to an FBI agent posing as an Islamic terrorist. Terrorists trying to take down airliners with portable missiles has been a threat for a long time. Actually, over the last thirty years, it's been a reality. Some 29 commercial aircraft have been shot down by such missiles. However, the downed aircraft have been small, and most of these tragedies have taken place in Africa. The wars in Africa are the worst on the planet, so violent that most journalists avoid them. For three decades, this has kept the use of portable missiles against civilian aircraft off the front page.
Larger airliners, like the Airbus's, and 757s, 767s and 747s, have not been brought down because these missiles were not designed to take on aircraft with such large and powerful engines. While these missiles were originally intended for use against jet fighters operating over the battlefield, the reality turned out to be different. The most likely targets encountered were helicopters, or propeller driven transports. These aircraft proved to be just the sort of thing twenty pound missiles with 2-3 pound warheads could destroy. Against jet fighters with powerful engines, the missiles caused some damage to the tailpipe, but usually failed to bring down the jet. This was first noted during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, where the Egyptians fired hundreds of SA-7s at Israeli A-4 light bombers. Most of the A-4s, with their 11,187 pounds of thrust engines, survived the encounter. Larger jets, like the F-4 and it's 17,000 pound thrust engines, were even more difficult to bring down. Smaller commercial jets, like the 737 or DC-9 (each using two 14,000 pounds of thrust engines) have proved vulnerable. But a 757 has much larger engines with 43,000 pounds of thrust, and the 747 is 63,000. Moreover, the rear end of jet engines are built to take a lot of punishment from all that hot exhaust spewing out. Put a bird into the front of the engine and you can do some real damage. But these missiles home in on heat, and all of that is at the rear end of the engine.
If terrorists target helicopters and smaller turboprop commuter airliners, or business jets, they are likely to take down aircraft better than half the time a missile is used. This takes into account poorly trained missile operators and defective missiles. And a lot of the missile operators will be poorly trained, and, like November, 2002 incident in Mombassa, using missiles built over two decades ago. They won't be using any of the Stingers the U.S. gave out in Afghanistan during the 1980s. The custom battery packs in those missiles gave out in the 1990s. It's a lot easier to get Russian missiles, and fresh batteries for them.
Another option for terrorists is to use anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) against larger airliners. An ATGM is more accurate and hitting a 747, taking off, in an engine or the main fuel tank between the wings, there is a
"Demonstrations included one robot that crawled up walls and across ceilings,
Funny to be reading that while I'm watching, "The Wrong Trousers" right now. (Think of the scene where the evil penguin is forcing Wallace to steal the diamond by walking across the ceiling).
Funny, ArsTechnica has a story today about how computer users are becoming self-sufficient in some respects.
The NYT is running a
short piece on the growing phenomenon of people who, solely out of necessity and not out of any real love of computers, have been forced to become tech-heads.
As consumer electronics proliferate and consumers grow increasingly disenchanted with technical support operations (which routinely charge for calls), many people are discovering that whether they want to or not, they are developing more than a little technical proficiency. Some, like Mr. Marcuse, become virtual experts. But many of these accidental techies learn only as much as they absolutely must...
Phyllis LaBaw, 45, associate athletic director at the University of South Florida in Tampa, is seldom away from her computer. As a result, she has grown self-reliant over the years without having attended a single computer-related class, she said. "You start spending time, and you're going to get to the point that eventually you're going to learn how to fix what you've botched up."
Still, for all the time they invest, most self-taught technicians would rather be doing something else.
I saw a piece on an urban school in chicago or something that was a complete disaster. The school had rowdy kids, poor attendance, and poor grades, and horrible test scores. A new principal there instituted a mandatory meditation period of fifteen minutes for all students.
If this is true, where's the ACLU? This could be construed as "a moment of silence" which we all know is code-speak for prayer in school.
Did the thought ever cross your feeble little mind that perhaps some people love the
country and its ideals but hate the leaders and their methods? Suddenly if you point out the problems you're un-patriotic, if you call for people to look at the problems in the system you're a commie, and if (God forbid!) you'd actually like to do something about the problems you see in the country you love, you should just shut up and leave.
"We recognized, once again, that we can't love our country and hate our government."
-President Bill Clinton December 30, 1995
Re:What about my AIBO?
on
AI Going Nowhere?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It can pick me out in a crowd, and it can show a number of emotions, such as surprise, anger, and boredom.... yawn.
WHY can't the editors realize that there are people who don't want these spoilers, even seemingly minor ones like this?
It's extremely inconsiderate. Presumably they don't want people to stop reading their site, right?
"You want a spoiler? Here's a spoiler. You will die alone."
Lauren Green serves as an anchor for FOX News Channel's (FNC) daytime news program "Fox News Live," where she provides daily news updates.
Prior to joining FNC in 1996, Green served as a weekend news anchor and correspondent at WBBM-TV (CBS) in Chicago. From 1988 to 1993, she was as a general assignment reporter at KSTP-TV (ABC) in St. Paul, Minnesota.
A graduate of Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism, Green was named Miss Minnesota in 1984 and was the third runner-up in the 1985 Miss America contest.
There was actually serious concerns within the KGB whether the so-called suitcase nuke the Russians built for demolitions work would even work correctly given its design and the instability of fissile materials.
This question leads to a set of interrelated topics. In the pages below I have collected a series of essays that treat different aspects of this question: the feasibility of terrorists building or acquiring nuclear devices; the claim that ex-Soviet suitcase nuclear bombs represent a real threat; the feasibility of suitcase nuclear bombs; and what is known about Osama bn Laden's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH "NUCULAR"? Today's Slate Explainer reminded me of this question, which I've thought about a bit in the past.
One common answer is that saying "nucular" is wrong because "nuclear" is spelled, well, "nuclear," and not "nucular."
But the standard rebuttal (mentioned in the Slate piece) is: How do you pronounce "iron"? I actually remember pronouncing it
"iron" as a kid (as in "irony" without the "y"), and being told that this is not the usual pronunciation -- "iern" is
probably the best way of representing how you're really supposed to pronounce it. If this phenomenon (called "metathesis") is
OK in "iern," why isn't it OK in "nucular"?
But this is just the tip of the objection -- the broader objection is that this is English we're talking about here.
English, the language of "women," of "colonel," of "laughter" and "slaughter," of "get" and "gem." As reader Brian Dulisse points out, "forte" can be pronounced "fortay," "fort," or "fortee." "This pronunciation is wrong because it doesn't match the spelling" isn't much of an argument in English.
It seems to me that the only sensible answer to "What is wrong with 'nucular'?" is "This is not the standard way that
high-class people say it," coupled with "This term is a shibboleth that high-class people, and those influenced by them, use
to sort those they'll call 'high-class' from those they'll call 'low-class.'" That's all the "wrong" there is here. Yes, I
know this sounds like a leftist cultural critic position; but sometimes, as here, the leftist cultural critics are right. One
day, "nucular" might be treated the same as "ah" for "I" or "crick" for "creek" -- a regional accent that's not wrong, but
just different. It might even become the "correct" pronunciation, with "nuclear" sounding archaic or affected. It won't flow
from a change to logic or morality, only a change of attitude by enough people in the influential classes, or by a change of
who counts as the influential class.
So what of it? Well, if you're teaching a child (or an adult) to speak, of course you should teach him to say "nuclear,"
simply as an instrumental matter -- sounding high-class is usually (not always, but usually) more profitable, especially
where the shibboleths are concerned. If you're making a purely esthetic judgment, well of course you're free to say
"'Nucular' sounds ugly to me," just like you can say "Picasso looks ugly to me" or "Broccoli tastes bad to me." And if you're
trying to infer a person's educational level from very limited data, you might use his pronunciation as something of a clue,
though be careful: As I understand it, quite a few educated Southerners use this term (consider Jimmy Carter and Bill
Clinton, both to my knowledge quite well-educated).
But before one says that "nucular" is "wrong," one should keep in mind just what a narrow and not terribly appealing
definition of "wrong" one is necessarily using.
UPDATE: Two readers e-mailed me to point out that few people pronounce "nucleus" as "nuculus," and that it's therefore wrong
to say "nucleus" but "nucular."
But this too runs into the fact that, well, English isn't logical: We say "linear" but "line" -- nothing wrong with
that, and I'm sure there are lots of other such examples. True, "linear" follows a common rule of English pronunciation --
but the important point is that there is no rule that in the "-ar" form the root must be pronounced the same as the root
without the "-ar." Interestingly, quite a few "-ar" words actually undergo a nucleus/nucular change in the spelling rather
than the pronunciation, probably under the influence of Latin, for instance "circle" to "circular" and "title" to "titular."
MORE ON NUCULAR: The "nucular" post obviously struck a chord -- I've gotten about as much e-mail on it as I have on pretty
much anything else that I've blogged about. One suggestion was that
One reason that "Nucular" bothers me is that it leads me to believe that the speaker doesn't know what he's talking about . . . . I think that I assume that people who have learned about a subject have been exposed to, and are likely to adopt, the generally accepted terms and pronunciations associated with it; and that people who don't know what they're talking about imitate other people who don't know what they're talking about.
I can't say for sure that this is unsound, and of course people do often draw inferences about people's educational
achievements from their speech. But a couple of responses may help remind us to be skeptical of such inferences. Here's one
from Matt Bower:
Not only did Jimmy Carter pronounce it "nucular" -- I recently saw a tape of then-President Carter, in which he spoke the word -- he served on temporary duty with the Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Reactor Development and Naval Reactors Branch. He also assisted in developing the ("nucular") power plant for U.S.S. Seawolf, and was in training to become the engineering officer aboard Seawolf when he left the Navy. I suppose he's better qualified to decide the appropriate
pronunciation than are most of us.
And here's one from Louis Wainwright:
[This is] a hot topic for my wife and me. She pronounces it "correctly" and claims authority from both the OED and her English degree. I pronounce it "incorrectly" and claim authority from my diplomas in Nucular Engineering.
I surely wouldn't confuse this for a scientific study, but then again those who would use "nucular" as a proxy for ignorance don't have scientific evidence, either. (As I said, I wouldn't teach my child to say "nucular," but that's a separate question.)
"Star Wras": Origami Film
on
Star Wars Origami
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"A long time ago, in a galaxy far cheaper than this one..."
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Star Wras, an origami recreation of the Battle of Yavin.
Story
What if a Japanese film company had decided to remake Star Wars on a budget using the noble art of folded paper? Origami fighters, cardboard gun emplacements...This film is the result of such a question.
What does the starship registry prefix "NCC" mean?
The Starfleet starship registry prefix "NCC" doesn't officially mean anything other than it is the standard prefix for starships in service. There have been other prefixes, notably "NX," denoting a prototype, or experimental vessel. The two most famous ships with this prefix would be the U.S.S. Excelsior NX-2000 and the U.S.S. Defiant NX-74205. Once the U.S.S. Excelsior was rendered operational, the prefix changed to the standard NCC.
When Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was asked this question, he replied that there was no significance to the letters and numbers comprising the registry of the U.S.S. Enterprise. At the time Star Trek first aired, airplanes commonly had "NC" on them, and adding the extra "C" updated the look. Original series art director (and avid pilot) Matt Jefferies has commented that he chose the "1701" combination of numbers because it was legible from a distance and the numbers wouldn't be confused. Other numbers, like 3, 2 and 5, were not used for this very reason. Also, the extra "C" in "NCC" was a nod to the Russian abbreviation for the old Soviet Union, "CCCP." According to Jefferies, "If we do anything in space, we (Americans and Russians) have to do it together."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Bertram Forer did that experiment in 1948, except with pscyhological profile "tests" instead of horoscopes.
The phenomenon has since been known as the Forer Effect.
From personal experience, patches for MS Office require the user to have the CD available.
In the corporate environment, this usually isn't a problem (except for the different flavors of Office we have floating around: MS Office Professional, MS Office Premium, MS Office Academic version, OEM non-retail version, etc. make it a pain).
However, home users may have MS Word and MS Excel pre-installed on their systems from the store. But they don't have the Office CD itself.
How can they apply the necessary MS Office patches and service packs?
I suppose you also want martial law?
Here's why you'll start seeing more crazy-sounding initiatives like this "lan tax":
Didn't Vice President Gore support a telecommunications tax? And didn't several states want to tax internet commerce during the dot-com boom of the late 1990s?
This is kinda like giving a total stranger $100K and expecting him to spend it in ways that help you while not giving him any expectations on how to spend it
So taking less money from taxpayers is the same as giving it to strangers? Funny -- I thought paying taxes was more like giving money to strangers.
many of our brave soldiers sacrificing their lives in Iraq will receive PAY CUTS of around $200/month.
After the Wall Street Journal cited a story about the $200 pay cut, printed this clarification:
Many readers also pointed out that in addition to the $6,000 death benefit for families of servicemen killed in action, the Department of Veterans Affairs also offers low-cost Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, which pays even if a soldier or veteran dies while not on duty.
Note the "tax free status," which is like giving money to a rich stranger.
Don't be surprised if you find import
In Arthur C. Clarke's 1990 novel Ghost from the Grand Banks, the Y2K bug was solved by releasing a worm that fixed the problem in systems it had infected.
Just out of curiosity, did you happen to read the text of the bill you quoted?
Yes I did. (and I realize I should have highlighted the part about the additional CBI fee to avoid confusion. My mistake)
However, the sheriff's office and CBI is doing the same thing as they were before, but actually providing less service (by only accepting applications 2 days a week instead of 5).
Although the cost increase isn't a big deal, there is no justifiable reason for it. The county's cost to process applications did not go up.
My point isn't to gripe about the county sheriff's office in this forum, but simply to point out that the behavior noted in the parent post is not limited to phone companies and corporations.
$1 for a "phone number portability" fee, or $14 increase to do CCW: organizations -- whether private or public -- will do anything to nickle-and-dime us.
And don't even get me started on my home owners association...
Private corporations are not the only entities guilty of trying to exploit vague language about "just and reasonable" fees. Government agencies do it, too.
When Colorado passed a state-wide standard for issuing carrying-of-concealed-weapons (CCW) permits earlier this year, the bill clearly stated that
CRS 18-12-205(2)(b) (emphasis added).
I got my permit a month before the bill was signed into law, and it cost me $138.
The same sheriff's department is now charging $152.50:
(emphasis in original. FYI, "CBI" is Colorado Bureau of Investigation).
Not only did the fee increase, but they now only accept applications two days a week, instead of during any normal business hours, as was the case before.
from http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030813a .asp
Funny to be reading that while I'm watching, "The Wrong Trousers" right now. (Think of the scene where the evil penguin is forcing Wallace to steal the diamond by walking across the ceiling).
Some guy travelled around the world in a GPA, which is basically an amphibious World War II jeep. He named his vehicle "Half-Safe."
He wrote a book about it called "The Other Half of Half-Safe."
How long before companies decide that American robots are too expensive, and ship the jobs overseas to be done by robots in India and Taiwan?
If this is true, where's the ACLU? This could be construed as "a moment of silence" which we all know is code-speak for prayer in school.
On July 11,2003, Anonymous Coward wrote: "We recognized, once again, that we can't love our country and hate our government."
-President Bill Clinton
December 30, 1995
It can pick me out in a crowd, and it can show a number of emotions, such as surprise, anger, and boredom.... yawn.
My dog can do the same thing.
was Re: Why Digital?
People can't do anything by hand anymore.
I can think of at least one thing Slashdotters can , and have to, do by hand...
-Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog
"Star Wars Nerds"
It depends: what are you willing to do to get one?
There is a Lauren Green at Fox News Channel.
Cary Sublette, author of the Nuclear Weapons FAQ, has some info about "suitcase nukes" at http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/News/Terrori
note: The Nuclear Weapons FAQ can be downloaded as a zip file from here.
Eugene Volokh, September 19 2002 9:53 AM
WHAT'S WRONG WITH "NUCULAR"? Today's Slate Explainer reminded me of this question, which I've thought about a bit in the past.
One common answer is that saying "nucular" is wrong because "nuclear" is spelled, well, "nuclear," and not "nucular." But the standard rebuttal (mentioned in the Slate piece) is: How do you pronounce "iron"? I actually remember pronouncing it "iron" as a kid (as in "irony" without the "y"), and being told that this is not the usual pronunciation -- "iern" is probably the best way of representing how you're really supposed to pronounce it. If this phenomenon (called "metathesis") is OK in "iern," why isn't it OK in "nucular"?
But this is just the tip of the objection -- the broader objection is that this is English we're talking about here. English, the language of "women," of "colonel," of "laughter" and "slaughter," of "get" and "gem." As reader Brian Dulisse points out, "forte" can be pronounced "fortay," "fort," or "fortee." "This pronunciation is wrong because it doesn't match the spelling" isn't much of an argument in English.
It seems to me that the only sensible answer to "What is wrong with 'nucular'?" is "This is not the standard way that high-class people say it," coupled with "This term is a shibboleth that high-class people, and those influenced by them, use to sort those they'll call 'high-class' from those they'll call 'low-class.'" That's all the "wrong" there is here. Yes, I know this sounds like a leftist cultural critic position; but sometimes, as here, the leftist cultural critics are right. One day, "nucular" might be treated the same as "ah" for "I" or "crick" for "creek" -- a regional accent that's not wrong, but just different. It might even become the "correct" pronunciation, with "nuclear" sounding archaic or affected. It won't flow from a change to logic or morality, only a change of attitude by enough people in the influential classes, or by a change of who counts as the influential class.
So what of it? Well, if you're teaching a child (or an adult) to speak, of course you should teach him to say "nuclear," simply as an instrumental matter -- sounding high-class is usually (not always, but usually) more profitable, especially where the shibboleths are concerned. If you're making a purely esthetic judgment, well of course you're free to say "'Nucular' sounds ugly to me," just like you can say "Picasso looks ugly to me" or "Broccoli tastes bad to me." And if you're trying to infer a person's educational level from very limited data, you might use his pronunciation as something of a clue, though be careful: As I understand it, quite a few educated Southerners use this term (consider Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both to my knowledge quite well-educated).
But before one says that "nucular" is "wrong," one should keep in mind just what a narrow and not terribly appealing definition of "wrong" one is necessarily using.
UPDATE: Two readers e-mailed me to point out that few people pronounce "nucleus" as "nuculus," and that it's therefore wrong to say "nucleus" but "nucular."
But this too runs into the fact that, well, English isn't logical: We say "linear" but "line" -- nothing wrong with that, and I'm sure there are lots of other such examples. True, "linear" follows a common rule of English pronunciation -- but the important point is that there is no rule that in the "-ar" form the root must be pronounced the same as the root without the "-ar." Interestingly, quite a few "-ar" words actually undergo a nucleus/nucular change in the spelling rather than the pronunciation, probably under the influence of Latin, for instance "circle" to "circular" and "title" to "titular."
Eugene Volokh, September 20 2002. 12:19 PM
MORE ON NUCULAR: The "nucular" post obviously struck a chord -- I've gotten about as much e-mail on it as I have on pretty much anything else that I've blogged about. One suggestion was that
I can't say for sure that this is unsound, and of course people do often draw inferences about people's educational achievements from their speech. But a couple of responses may help remind us to be skeptical of such inferences. Here's one from Matt Bower:
And here's one from Louis Wainwright:
I surely wouldn't confuse this for a scientific study, but then again those who would use "nucular" as a proxy for ignorance don't have scientific evidence, either. (As I said, I wouldn't teach my child to say "nucular," but that's a separate question.)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Star Wras , an origami recreation of the Battle of Yavin.
Although commonly believed to stand for "Naval Construction Contract", NCC doesn't stand for anything at all, according to the StarTrek.com FAQ at http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=13
(there should not be a space in "1365")
How about