English, from its very beginning, has borrowed elements from other languages.
One class of such elements is the 'idiom', 'proverb' or 'wise saying'. A good example would be a quote from... Caesar I think... who said as he crossed a river and really committed himself to a battle: "ALEA IACTA EST", which transfers to English quite neatly as "The die is cast".
Equivalent sayings in English for some foreign idioms are not always equivalent literally. There's sometime a more popular way of expressing something which appeared first (cf. "founder effect" of biology but not quite the same) or have some other neat associations which don't exist in the other language (such as a pun). However, there are some perfectly equivalent idioms.
This is the first in a series of entertaining (for me), but serious and practical translations of some idioms. The main theme for this series is Expressing Concern.
Format:
[idiom]
"[a decent existing equivalent idiom, or, taking a shot at one]".
"[less appropriate graphic translation]".
[literal but well-tuned and fleshed-out translation] Essentially, "[functionally substitutable explanation]"
杀鸡给猴看
"Public crucifixion".
"Crucifying a cat to warn the Christians".
Killing a chicken for the monkeys to see. Essentially, "creating an example of".
指鹿为马
"The emperor's new clothes suit his taste".
Pointing at a deer and calling it a horse (knowingly). [There's a historical story behind this.] Essentially, "s/he's bullshitting and s/he knows we know it and have no choice but to take this shit".
无风不起浪
"There's no smoke without fire". (perfectly equivalent)
Without wind there's no wave generation. Essentially, "rumours are sometimes true".
托裤子放屁 (... 多此一举)
" Bringing a gun to a sword-fight (... is nice but not necessary)".
"Foreplay (... in a whorehouse is nice but not necessary)."
Taking pants off to pass wind (... is one unnecessary step). This is self-explanatory.
说曹操 (... 曹操就到)
"Speak of the devil (... here he is)." (perfectly equivalent)
Speak of 曹操, (曹操 arrives). Essentially, "what a surprise (... seeing as how we were just talking about it)".
螳螂捕蝉 (... 黄雀在后)
"Rabbit-hunting (... in sniper territory)"
A praying mantis hunts a cicada (... while there's a yellow finch right behind it) . Essentially, "hunting while being unaware of being hunted".
瓜田李下
"Practising magic in a dairy".
Looking for lost shoes in a melon patch, looking for a lost kite in a plum orchard. Essentially, "being forced to be in a suspicious position while allegedly pursuing something else".
To Be Continued
October 19, 2012
October 09, 2012
Trademe auction #2: 2.5 kg sprouting potatoes
Other than the fact that they're sprouting, the potatoes are your usual edible multi-purpose supermarket potato. There are around 25 potatoes in the sack. Pick up would be from Auckland CBD, and it would be the wisest choice.
Since they are not at all green, they are quite edible, though the texture would probably approach that of yams. For what purpose would you buy a 2.5 kg sack of sprouting potatoes?
Here's some calculations. Assuming each of the 25 potatoes produces one potato plant and each plant produces 1 kg of potatoes (dependent on your soil conditions, with compost being the ideal soil), the yield after a year is 25kg. At 0.5 kg of potatoes per meal, that's enough for someone to have potatoes for dinner once a week for a whole year.
This operation can even be carried out on a patio. $2 10L buckets and compost are readily available and after drilling drainage holes in a bucket, one potato plant would grow quite happily. Tomatoes can even be grafted directly onto the potato to save even more floor area.
Personally from my past experience, I think for families with kids, it's more fun to dig for potatoes out of the soil, kind of like searching for pirate treasure, and have baked jacket potatoes afterwards. A small 1 x 10 metre stretch of lawn can easily be converted to garden space, and as mentioned before, tomatoes grafted on top.
Among my most treasured memories are of baking potatoes I dug up myself and self-caught brown and rainbow trout by wrapping them in tinfoil and burying them in the hot ashes of a bonfire. The trout was caught from the river just a couple hundred metres away, and the potatoes were growing wild as weeds in the surrounding field. The firewood was dead radiata pine used in the windbreaks on the edge of the field. Tinfoil and matches were more or less the only consumables that weren't supplied by the land. Make the most of our fair New Zealand, contribute to our economy and reduce foreign debt, by planting your backyard with productive crops like these potatoes!
Since they are not at all green, they are quite edible, though the texture would probably approach that of yams. For what purpose would you buy a 2.5 kg sack of sprouting potatoes?
Here's some calculations. Assuming each of the 25 potatoes produces one potato plant and each plant produces 1 kg of potatoes (dependent on your soil conditions, with compost being the ideal soil), the yield after a year is 25kg. At 0.5 kg of potatoes per meal, that's enough for someone to have potatoes for dinner once a week for a whole year.
This operation can even be carried out on a patio. $2 10L buckets and compost are readily available and after drilling drainage holes in a bucket, one potato plant would grow quite happily. Tomatoes can even be grafted directly onto the potato to save even more floor area.
Personally from my past experience, I think for families with kids, it's more fun to dig for potatoes out of the soil, kind of like searching for pirate treasure, and have baked jacket potatoes afterwards. A small 1 x 10 metre stretch of lawn can easily be converted to garden space, and as mentioned before, tomatoes grafted on top.
Among my most treasured memories are of baking potatoes I dug up myself and self-caught brown and rainbow trout by wrapping them in tinfoil and burying them in the hot ashes of a bonfire. The trout was caught from the river just a couple hundred metres away, and the potatoes were growing wild as weeds in the surrounding field. The firewood was dead radiata pine used in the windbreaks on the edge of the field. Tinfoil and matches were more or less the only consumables that weren't supplied by the land. Make the most of our fair New Zealand, contribute to our economy and reduce foreign debt, by planting your backyard with productive crops like these potatoes!
Trademe auction #1: (Live) Daphnia carinata
Fresh, live food is widely regarded as being more nutritionally complete
than synthetic feed. There's also pride in growing your own food to
feed yourself and all your pets, and peace of mind in knowing what goes
in it.
The auction is for a species of freshwater zooplankton native to New Zealand and many other places. Give it standard aquarium or pond water conditions, add a source of nutrients to support the growth of suspended microorganisms, and then you can support yourself (or your fish/axolotls/utricularia) with a perpetually-renewing source of food.
In truth all you need is one LIVE female individual to guarantee yourself a colony, however having an auction for just one daphnia seems a little unconventional. I'll stick with convention to keep conventional people happy; this auction is for between 20 and 100 daphnia (population will more than triple within a week). More can be added (up to 100 small ones per litre by courier) but will result in quicker asphyxiation during transit.
I once had a colony of Ceriodaphnia or Moina spp. which grew to an ideal size for small fish (~1mm max, c.f. ~4mm D. carinata). If you know of anyone culturing them or in a local water body I'd be glad to know.
Currently I'm co-culturing a cyclopoid copepod and a Physid snail with a pretty shell that does a great job keeping the sedentary algae down. The cyclops is around Moina size or smaller so is good for smaller egg-layer fry once they get past the infusoria stage. I can add a pair of cyclops or Physid snails to the daphnia bottle.
Original source was PNBHS biology department, before then a stock trough in the Manawatu region most likely. My NCEA Level 3 Biology internal some years back was a report on the response of these to different wavelengths of light.
To allow for the inter-semester break the next auction will be on the 9th of July. Good luck to those who have exams.
Just an aside, baby WCMMs do indeed look like neon tetras. It's quite entertaining to watch them stalk infusoria dots.
The auction is for a species of freshwater zooplankton native to New Zealand and many other places. Give it standard aquarium or pond water conditions, add a source of nutrients to support the growth of suspended microorganisms, and then you can support yourself (or your fish/axolotls/utricularia) with a perpetually-renewing source of food.
In truth all you need is one LIVE female individual to guarantee yourself a colony, however having an auction for just one daphnia seems a little unconventional. I'll stick with convention to keep conventional people happy; this auction is for between 20 and 100 daphnia (population will more than triple within a week). More can be added (up to 100 small ones per litre by courier) but will result in quicker asphyxiation during transit.
I once had a colony of Ceriodaphnia or Moina spp. which grew to an ideal size for small fish (~1mm max, c.f. ~4mm D. carinata). If you know of anyone culturing them or in a local water body I'd be glad to know.
Currently I'm co-culturing a cyclopoid copepod and a Physid snail with a pretty shell that does a great job keeping the sedentary algae down. The cyclops is around Moina size or smaller so is good for smaller egg-layer fry once they get past the infusoria stage. I can add a pair of cyclops or Physid snails to the daphnia bottle.
Original source was PNBHS biology department, before then a stock trough in the Manawatu region most likely. My NCEA Level 3 Biology internal some years back was a report on the response of these to different wavelengths of light.
To allow for the inter-semester break the next auction will be on the 9th of July. Good luck to those who have exams.
Just an aside, baby WCMMs do indeed look like neon tetras. It's quite entertaining to watch them stalk infusoria dots.
October 08, 2012
The Colour Blue
Are you blue? Or are
you red?
Physicists have over the past four hundred years or so
formulated a very convincing basis for our visual perception of colour being
around the 400-700 nm wavelength range of electromagnetic waves. What most folks call “blue” is typically around
a 450-495 nm range, and what most folks call “red” is around the 620-740 nm
range. Note that the colour “blue” in
ordinary parlance is a convenient blanket statement for the purposes of
communicating with other people a vague range of perceived concepts. It is not, and I repeat not, a reflection of
one unique absolutely special single wavelength number for “blue”. Again I repeat, in ordinary parlance it is a blanket
statement for the purposes of communicating a range of perceived concepts.
What’s your favourite musical note?
Vibrations in the air (then in the ear) are audible in
typically the 12 Hz to 20 kHz range. Music
theory nowadays labels the pitch of sounds with common names based on the first
seven letters of the Roman alphabet. The
“A” above middle C is particularly special.
1955 marks the official date that 440 Hz was adopted as the official international
standard for this particular “A”. However,
the common folks’ idea of this note is of a range around 440 Hz, and for the
more tone-deaf folks, it’s quite a large range.
About this “A”, or the particular number 440, there’s nothing absolutely
special about it. Musical notes are
again, convenient blanket statements for the purposes of communicating with other
people a range of perceived concepts.
Are you a religious person believing in a “single thing”?
For the purposes of this discussion, I will define the scope
of monotheistic religion to be a belief in a “single thing” which gives wise
advice and asks that religious followers follow a set of rules. This “single thing”, and here’s another
contentious area to be contented, is typically accepted to be an omnipotent
omniscient benevolent single thing. Say
if it were not an omnipotent omniscient benevolent single thing, it would be
pretty chaotic for some folks, same as trying to divide by zero. However, as all you calculus-loving maths and
engineering folks know, dividing by zero without actually dividing by zero is a
pretty damn useful thing to do for real-life calculations to solve some very
special problems. But for now, let’s get
back to the “single” status and “thing” status of this “single thing”. To understand this simply, I ask you a
question about your existence that you should be able to answer quite easily:
Are you a “single thing”?
Let’s cut to the chase.
“Single thing” is a convenient blanket statement for the purposes of
communicating with other people a range of perceived concepts. Physically, “you” consist of cells, the cells
consist of molecules, the molecules consist of atoms (and so on and so forth),
and these various components form a whole system by their interaction with each
other and their surroundings.
Interactions between components known as cells in your brain are the basis
of your conscious experience and your conscious and unconscious processing of the
incoming sensory data from transducers which convert electromagnetic waves,
mechanical waves, thermal gradients, the binding of molecules to cell receptors
into electrical and chemical stimuli, and this processing of these stimuli is
responsible for your perception of colour, sound, pressure, temperature, taste,
smell of your surroundings. “You” are an
emergent behaviour of a system, existing due to the interactions between your components. To say that you are a single stand-alone
thing is merely a convenient blanket statement for the purposes of
communicating with other people a vague range of perceived concepts. Physically you consist of more than one component,
whose interactions with each other and the surroundings typically (there are
exceptions) gives rise to a system which perceives itself as one individual “you”.
Then similarly, you might call the interacting behaviour of the
components of your physical surroundings and yourself a “single thing” (system)
which you name “the world”.
Some people go one step further and assume (due to a variety
of reasons) that there are also non-physical components acting as another “single
thing” (system) which can not only perceive all the interactions going on between
the physical components of our physical world (omniscience), but can also
control the interactions between physical components and control the existence
of physical components (omnipotence). In
addition, it happens to have the best interests of “the people” at its heart
(benevolence). It gives wise advice due
to its omniscience and benevolence, and has a set of rules to follow as part of
this wise advice. If you follow it, it
will omnipotently apply its benevolence and on rare cases it will guarantee “your”
continued eternal existence.
About the continued eternal existence, I think that also sounds a bit too good to be true in many ways. The only way I see it working out is with guaranteeing the continued eternal existence of some components of the system I perceive as “me” such as my values, my personality, my genes, by passing them on to others. The physical components in their current configuration certainly will not exist unchanging. But then that begs the question:
Are you the same person you were one moment ago? If not, what aspects of you are continuous?
As you may have heard, you are what you eat. The atoms which constitute the system known
as “you” at one particular instance are often not the same atoms at another
particular instance. Today’s vegetarian
salad could have been yesteryear’s T-rex coprolite. Over time, if the interactions between components
constituting the self-aware system “you” that you consider yourself do not
depend on the internal detail of the components, consider yourself continuous. If you value most dearly only such things as can
be passed on to other people, and people continue to exist eternally, you may
then consider not yourself, but your will eternal.
Do you strive for an eternal will?
By Andi Liu (1992-) of Palmerston North, New Zealand. 2012-10-08
August 03, 2012
Rambling review #2: Greenpeace sanctioned terrorists
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/08/cop-that-greenpeace/?fb_ref=.UBuVXgKVG_A.like&fb_source=home_multiline
LOLOLOL. What a good example they set. I wonder how this will affect public donations to NGOs.
Poor Greenpeace. Attracting the wrong sort of crowd, giving them a bad name. Oh wait, isn't this what they set out to do; polarising public opinion, raising awareness of issues?
It is a clear statement by Greenpeace that they support the terrorist actions of those two bad eggs; paying for their bail can be interpreted as this: a criminal action sanctioned by a criminal organisation. Organised crime funded by donations from well-meaning but wooly members of the public due to their urge to make a difference in the world.
Optimists and supporters could say that the bail money is more than those criminals could shell out individually. A Greenpeace reparation payment could be interpreted as a gesture of apology for the damages their mis-guided extremist members caused. This reparation payment is an opportunity for Greenpeace to show how apologetic they are for their mis-guided members.
What tips the balance in favour of a poor interpretation of Greenpeace is the route the money took. It went through their bad egg members, through the court system, and to the victims, allowing the bad eggs to get out of jail free. If it was to truly show that they agree that what their bad eggs did was wrong, the money should have instead went directly to the victims, leaving their bad eggs isolated in jail. With those unrepentant bad eggs out of jail due to the Greenpeace bail out, not only are they free to contaminate other people, they also show that Greenpeace sanctions their terrorist actions. Shame on Greenpeace.
Anyway, that's how I read the situation.
LOLOLOL. What a good example they set. I wonder how this will affect public donations to NGOs.
Poor Greenpeace. Attracting the wrong sort of crowd, giving them a bad name. Oh wait, isn't this what they set out to do; polarising public opinion, raising awareness of issues?
It is a clear statement by Greenpeace that they support the terrorist actions of those two bad eggs; paying for their bail can be interpreted as this: a criminal action sanctioned by a criminal organisation. Organised crime funded by donations from well-meaning but wooly members of the public due to their urge to make a difference in the world.
Optimists and supporters could say that the bail money is more than those criminals could shell out individually. A Greenpeace reparation payment could be interpreted as a gesture of apology for the damages their mis-guided extremist members caused. This reparation payment is an opportunity for Greenpeace to show how apologetic they are for their mis-guided members.
What tips the balance in favour of a poor interpretation of Greenpeace is the route the money took. It went through their bad egg members, through the court system, and to the victims, allowing the bad eggs to get out of jail free. If it was to truly show that they agree that what their bad eggs did was wrong, the money should have instead went directly to the victims, leaving their bad eggs isolated in jail. With those unrepentant bad eggs out of jail due to the Greenpeace bail out, not only are they free to contaminate other people, they also show that Greenpeace sanctions their terrorist actions. Shame on Greenpeace.
Anyway, that's how I read the situation.
July 23, 2012
Rambling review #1: Subdivision of productive rural land
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/news/release.asp?Ne_ID=320
Though the idea about how residential areas should be built on less productive areas first I've heard about before and agree with, those bulletpoints in the article are noisy blanks.
The main point they raised was that there is no legislation stopping productive land being put to residential use. If it was explicitly suggested: "Should the government be allowed to stop subdivision of highly productive rural land for the sake of our future economy?", I wonder what the public reaction would be.
Given all the street protesting and trespassing being done this year concerning new legislation changes in New Zealand, would you think we will see a lot of public demonstrations?
I'd think the level of social etiquette and experience found in the type of people who are thinking about subdividing their land is pretty high. I'd think they're the type of people who would submit their points of view in writing. The street walking and human roadcone activities of poor students from welfare backgrounds in response to the proposed reduction in the New Zealand student allowance (a free lunch weekly payment to poorer students in addition to the student loan living costs already available) I don't think you'd see. The trespassing into the top floor of the OGG building to make some statement about inequality ("Occupy") I don't think you'd see. The cheerful singing and marching of a couple of Maori people I don't think you'd see. The noisy standing-around of port staff following a pay negiotiation result they were unhappy with I don't think you'd see. Subdivision of productive rural land only affects the national economy and living standards in the future, only indirectly affecting people's lives now, so is not such a hot topic.
A lot of 'raising public awareness' is given to environmental sustainability and the future of the environment and ethical issues and special indigenous rights and genetically modified organisms and nuclear free here in New Zealand. There has been some 'raising of public awareness' about economic issues such as raising the retirement age, selling and buying of public assets, tax rates, but the preservation of productive rural land for productive rural uses is unheard of - perhaps because it doesn't affect many people directly. I think the article has a fair point to raise and would actually be quite happy to see public demonstrations supporting the article's point. Maybe I'd even be happy to see a television ad about it. If there's none, maybe I could make one.
Going off on an artistic tangent ... ... ...
Voiceover, fade in to wheat field and a couple of cows on a pasture.
Narration: "New Zealand, 200 years ago, year A.D. 1800. Our ancestors came here from their lands of overcrowding, tyrannical autocracy and feuding neighbours, to this land of freedom, peace and plenty. Most of us were farmers who put the land to good productive use."
Fade out.
Fade in to field and pasture again, and gradual replacement of photo with animation of same scene. Fast-forward animation of farm land being cleared, concrete foundations being poured and the rest of shopping mall construction process.
Narration: "A hundred years later, some of us had more money than others. Some of us could afford to put land to uses other than farming."
Quick cut to a guy putting on a golf course, quick cut to professional rugby players and pause. [Hit them right in the rugby! Ouch!] Fade out.
Fade in to field and pasture.
Narrator: "Now, 200 years later, New Zealand is about to be faced with something our ancestors never imagined. The productive land that they came here for is having houses with massive backyards plonked on it. So many that soon our remaining land can't produce enough food for our children. Soon we'll have to import food from other countries. They will want a lot of money in return because many of them are experiencing the same problem that we will soon face." Fade out.
Narrator: "This problem?"
White text appears on the black background ['Subdivision of productive rural land']. Narrator: "The problem is that our most productive land is being bought and subdivided into residential property." Pauses, and then continues narrating: "Currently, anyone rich enough to buy our land can do it. Anyone rich enough can subdivide and sell our nation's future food security. Anyone with enough money can do it to earn more money."
Fade out. Narrate: "Shall we make a new law so that they can't do that? Shall we make a law protecting our most productive land from being subdivided and sold? Shall we make a law so that there will always be enough land to grow the food to feed our children with?"
White text appears on black background. Narrator: "Support the new legistation protecting our most productive rural land."
Maybe someday I might make this video. Not until I've bought and subdivided my farmland though! TROLOLOLOLOL. Actually I don't plan to subdivide to zero. I plan to have land of an area larger than a lifestyle block, so that I can utilise the land quite efficiently and sustainably with a range of crops. There may be a small lawn, but running around on masses of grass can easily be done by future kids at a local park or sports field.
Hm, enough artistic ponder. Back to reviewing the article and making some final comments ... ... ...
I don't get the bullshit about topsoil wastage in the bulletpoints the author makes. I'd think that intensive farming ruins topsoil, not some sustainable grower of home veges that the typical lifestyle block owner is. That article's design is just a little bit fucked up, what was the author trying to get at? THOSE BULLETPOINTS? WHAT THE HECK WITH THOSE BULLETPOINTS? (Replace with 'flawed' if reproducing publicly [don't read that wrong]. Essentially 'flawed' means the same thing as 'fucked up' without the association of gross disfigurement.) That article is flawed and grossly disfigured. It should never be published in a respectable journal. People pay to avoid seeing certain things. Like that documentary I saw on the plane about how pepper berries are harvested, which I would my friends and dear lovers of pepper rather not see.
Though the idea about how residential areas should be built on less productive areas first I've heard about before and agree with, those bulletpoints in the article are noisy blanks.
The main point they raised was that there is no legislation stopping productive land being put to residential use. If it was explicitly suggested: "Should the government be allowed to stop subdivision of highly productive rural land for the sake of our future economy?", I wonder what the public reaction would be.
Given all the street protesting and trespassing being done this year concerning new legislation changes in New Zealand, would you think we will see a lot of public demonstrations?
I'd think the level of social etiquette and experience found in the type of people who are thinking about subdividing their land is pretty high. I'd think they're the type of people who would submit their points of view in writing. The street walking and human roadcone activities of poor students from welfare backgrounds in response to the proposed reduction in the New Zealand student allowance (a free lunch weekly payment to poorer students in addition to the student loan living costs already available) I don't think you'd see. The trespassing into the top floor of the OGG building to make some statement about inequality ("Occupy") I don't think you'd see. The cheerful singing and marching of a couple of Maori people I don't think you'd see. The noisy standing-around of port staff following a pay negiotiation result they were unhappy with I don't think you'd see. Subdivision of productive rural land only affects the national economy and living standards in the future, only indirectly affecting people's lives now, so is not such a hot topic.
A lot of 'raising public awareness' is given to environmental sustainability and the future of the environment and ethical issues and special indigenous rights and genetically modified organisms and nuclear free here in New Zealand. There has been some 'raising of public awareness' about economic issues such as raising the retirement age, selling and buying of public assets, tax rates, but the preservation of productive rural land for productive rural uses is unheard of - perhaps because it doesn't affect many people directly. I think the article has a fair point to raise and would actually be quite happy to see public demonstrations supporting the article's point. Maybe I'd even be happy to see a television ad about it. If there's none, maybe I could make one.
Going off on an artistic tangent ... ... ...
Voiceover, fade in to wheat field and a couple of cows on a pasture.
Narration: "New Zealand, 200 years ago, year A.D. 1800. Our ancestors came here from their lands of overcrowding, tyrannical autocracy and feuding neighbours, to this land of freedom, peace and plenty. Most of us were farmers who put the land to good productive use."
Fade out.
Fade in to field and pasture again, and gradual replacement of photo with animation of same scene. Fast-forward animation of farm land being cleared, concrete foundations being poured and the rest of shopping mall construction process.
Narration: "A hundred years later, some of us had more money than others. Some of us could afford to put land to uses other than farming."
Quick cut to a guy putting on a golf course, quick cut to professional rugby players and pause. [Hit them right in the rugby! Ouch!] Fade out.
Fade in to field and pasture.
Narrator: "Now, 200 years later, New Zealand is about to be faced with something our ancestors never imagined. The productive land that they came here for is having houses with massive backyards plonked on it. So many that soon our remaining land can't produce enough food for our children. Soon we'll have to import food from other countries. They will want a lot of money in return because many of them are experiencing the same problem that we will soon face." Fade out.
Narrator: "This problem?"
White text appears on the black background ['Subdivision of productive rural land']. Narrator: "The problem is that our most productive land is being bought and subdivided into residential property." Pauses, and then continues narrating: "Currently, anyone rich enough to buy our land can do it. Anyone rich enough can subdivide and sell our nation's future food security. Anyone with enough money can do it to earn more money."
Fade out. Narrate: "Shall we make a new law so that they can't do that? Shall we make a law protecting our most productive land from being subdivided and sold? Shall we make a law so that there will always be enough land to grow the food to feed our children with?"
White text appears on black background. Narrator: "Support the new legistation protecting our most productive rural land."
Maybe someday I might make this video. Not until I've bought and subdivided my farmland though! TROLOLOLOLOL. Actually I don't plan to subdivide to zero. I plan to have land of an area larger than a lifestyle block, so that I can utilise the land quite efficiently and sustainably with a range of crops. There may be a small lawn, but running around on masses of grass can easily be done by future kids at a local park or sports field.
Hm, enough artistic ponder. Back to reviewing the article and making some final comments ... ... ...
I don't get the bullshit about topsoil wastage in the bulletpoints the author makes. I'd think that intensive farming ruins topsoil, not some sustainable grower of home veges that the typical lifestyle block owner is. That article's design is just a little bit fucked up, what was the author trying to get at? THOSE BULLETPOINTS? WHAT THE HECK WITH THOSE BULLETPOINTS? (Replace with 'flawed' if reproducing publicly [don't read that wrong]. Essentially 'flawed' means the same thing as 'fucked up' without the association of gross disfigurement.) That article is flawed and grossly disfigured. It should never be published in a respectable journal. People pay to avoid seeing certain things. Like that documentary I saw on the plane about how pepper berries are harvested, which I would my friends and dear lovers of pepper rather not see.
July 22, 2012
Rambling recollections #1: A useful weed after all.
Back in Palmerston North I lived for a period of around 5 years in a house with a fence bordering a stream, which seems artifically straight along some stretches as if they were artifically extended, and has a name which starts with a K. The sides of the stream were reinforced with earth walls which had grass which was regularly mown. Quite a few crickets lived in the grass. On the opposite bank some willow trees were recently planted, and on this side of the bank there were some shrubs and trees planted by house owners on the other side of the fence (illegally?) such as feijoas.
In the stream itself were growing somewhat useful plants: watercress, a now illegal pondweed (Egeria densa?), some unidentified peace-lily-flower-taro-leaved plant which might be edible but is certainly not native are a few that I can remember. There were plenty of eels, which were fished for by local kids. There also appear to be a lot of bumblebees and wasps around the area, and at one stage I had discovered a wasp (though I didn't stop to confirm that) nest in a hole in the side of a steep area of the bank right by the water. After being chased and stung, I reported it to the city council and they sent some pest controller to deal with it. There may also have been rabbits around there, but I can't remember. There were certainly hedgehogs there. That hole might have been originally dug by a rabbit.
Between the fence and the earth wall were plants habiting shaded moist areas such as mint or peppermint, wandering jew, and quite a few woodlice. Those frequently grew under the fence and were a perennial garden weed. Wandering Jew, I am almost certain, is an illegal invasive weed which also grows around the Turitea Stream area. I was quite amused at seeing submerged Wandering Jew sold at the local pet shop Wetpets as aquatic plants for a little while.
To the topic of this post now. There is a tree which grew right on the other side of the fence. Often new shrubs of it would appear further along due to self-seeding (is this the right word?) by birds who had consumed the berries. It grew suckers which spread under the fence and to the edge of the backyard lawn. The berries looked unfamiliar and possibly poisonous to me, and I noticed the ease at which it spread, and so I cut down the suckers on the inner side of the fence and the main tree on the outer side of the fence. It resprouted from the trunk, but before I could apply any glyphosate, we moved house.
That tree, it turns out, I recognised in a picture today. It's elder(berry?) and the berries are edible and have a reputation for health properties. The rest of the plant contains cyanide.
http://blog.healthpost.co.nz/2012/elderberry/
http://www.blackmoresnz.co.nz/learning-centre/article/the-tradition-of-elderberry-for-cold-and-flu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auricularia_auricula-judae
In the stream itself were growing somewhat useful plants: watercress, a now illegal pondweed (Egeria densa?), some unidentified peace-lily-flower-taro-leaved plant which might be edible but is certainly not native are a few that I can remember. There were plenty of eels, which were fished for by local kids. There also appear to be a lot of bumblebees and wasps around the area, and at one stage I had discovered a wasp (though I didn't stop to confirm that) nest in a hole in the side of a steep area of the bank right by the water. After being chased and stung, I reported it to the city council and they sent some pest controller to deal with it. There may also have been rabbits around there, but I can't remember. There were certainly hedgehogs there. That hole might have been originally dug by a rabbit.
Between the fence and the earth wall were plants habiting shaded moist areas such as mint or peppermint, wandering jew, and quite a few woodlice. Those frequently grew under the fence and were a perennial garden weed. Wandering Jew, I am almost certain, is an illegal invasive weed which also grows around the Turitea Stream area. I was quite amused at seeing submerged Wandering Jew sold at the local pet shop Wetpets as aquatic plants for a little while.
To the topic of this post now. There is a tree which grew right on the other side of the fence. Often new shrubs of it would appear further along due to self-seeding (is this the right word?) by birds who had consumed the berries. It grew suckers which spread under the fence and to the edge of the backyard lawn. The berries looked unfamiliar and possibly poisonous to me, and I noticed the ease at which it spread, and so I cut down the suckers on the inner side of the fence and the main tree on the outer side of the fence. It resprouted from the trunk, but before I could apply any glyphosate, we moved house.
That tree, it turns out, I recognised in a picture today. It's elder(berry?) and the berries are edible and have a reputation for health properties. The rest of the plant contains cyanide.
http://blog.healthpost.co.nz/2012/elderberry/
http://www.blackmoresnz.co.nz/learning-centre/article/the-tradition-of-elderberry-for-cold-and-flu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auricularia_auricula-judae
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)