I have been perpetually confused with what defines a house style as a Colonial. It has always seemed like the go to descriptor for any house that didn’t cleanly fit into any other category. I couldn’t find the common bond between one colonial and any other colonial.
What I didn’t know was that, unlike say the Cape, the Colonial style is a general style encompassing many well-defined styles and a few nebulous ones. Let’s learn!
First the basics: The American Colonial is defined by simpleness and symmetry. The original Colonials developed, as the name suggests, from construction styles of American colonists from the 1600′s *1. Some of the subtypes are attributed to the cultural heritage of the residents: Dutch, Spanish, French, German Colonials for example. The regional preferences of these cultural groups result in greater frequency of certain subtypes by region. Today we’ll look at the following Colonial types:
Garrison, Saltbox, Georgian, (Federal), Dutch, German, Spanish, and French.
This one’s easy. Bump out the second floor a foot and you’re go. Mom D informed me that legend says this style was developed to allow Colonial’s to defend their homes by aiming their guns at the front door through that one foot gap. Bob Villa supports this legend, but suggests that perhaps the real origin is more likely roots in Elizabethan townhouses*.
Take your standard colonial and drop the back roof down closer to the ground. Wikipedia suggests that this was done either to a) evade some taxes by having the rear roof of the house at 1 story or b) affordably accommodate a growing family with a cheap lean-to addition in the back.
Whoa there, now we’re getting fancy. Georgian styles added some flare. The decorative crown on the door? The faux flat columns on either side of the door? Exciting! Throw in some symmetric chimneys and we are good. Sometimes these might have added ornamentation like dental molding around the eaves. All these examples of flare were methods of pragmatically displaying wealth and prosperity *2. This style developed after 1700. *3
Federal houses are Georgian Colonials on steroids. Grandiose and formal. Their doorways are even more intense, they frequently have half circle windows or fanlights above their doors, with occasional pillars. Sometimes, Federal extends away from the pitched roof style home with some massive flat roof types. Other times they have their Pediment (the triangle part of the home) as the front of the building.
Fun fact: Some websites put the Federal style into the Colonial Revival type of houses. Other websites seem to put the Federal building as its own style. If any brilliant architectural historians are out there to set this one straight, please comment.
Let’s stop briefly to hit up roof styles. Check it out, some of these will be important to understand before we continue:
And thus concludes our intermission. Back to Colonials.
GAMBREL THAT ROOOOF! The Dutch Colonial is extremely distinctive. You take a standard colonial, increase the pitch of the roof and then barn-ify it with a couple dormers. In fact these are often referred to as barn style homes. Sometimes the entryway has a pretty arch, other times there’s a porch on the one side. These Colonials are easy to identify. These style homes were more commonly constructed in the early 1900′s, so we’re definitely within the colonial revival era. NOTE: my drawing is not very good.
Standard colonial made out of stone. Bam. German Colonial.
This house subtype is extremely hard to define. There are examples on the internet of basic colonials with ceramic tile roofs, to grand spanish villas rife with arches and stucco walls. There are a lot of these in California. I am not going to attempt a drawing as the style is too vague to capture in MSPaint.
Also tricky to define, French Colonial architecture in America can describe any number of different styles. One common theme that I have noticed are unusual roofs. First there’s the bonnet roof. Think McDonalds in the 90′s.
Sometimes the roof on these extends far out over the house with pillars coming down all the way around.
Then there’s the steep roof French Colonial. It has a hip roof, but this one is much steeper.
From my own observations, these houses tend to have multiple house sections all with those steep roofs. Arched dormers and center chimneys are not uncommon.
So there we have it! A quick walk down the path of Colonial architecture. It would seem that my initial impression of Colonials as a ‘catch-all’ isn’t entirely bogus because there are a lot of different looks to this genre, but hopefully this post provides a bit of clarity to this generous style. Thanks for reading!
I have owned the House of Rock for nearly nine years. Over those nine years I have mowed the lawn many many times. As this is not a chore I enjoy, I try to strategically plan the mowing to be as efficient as possible.
My basic strategy centers around the basic principle that if I reduce the number of turns, I can improve my efficiency. As a corollary, we assume that fewer degrees of turning are also more efficient. Two 90′s are a little better than one 180. Finally, this obviously only applies to those of us whose yards are not large enough or open enough to accommodate Concentric Spiral Mowing as this would clearly be the most efficient use of mowage.
Let’s assume you have a perfect 10m x 10m yard. For simplicity sake, let’s also assume you have a 1m wide mower. What’s the most efficient mowing pattern?
The Long Haul
Making ten 10m passes is an obvious option. But this requires a total of nine 180° turns. I greatly dislike 180° turns.
Another good option: walking the perimeter to make consecutively smaller rectangles. The frustration here is that when you get to the middle, you’re making near constant 90° turns. This method has the same total number of degrees turned, but with 90′s instead of 180s. Eighteen 90′s needed.
One slight annoyance with both of the previous tactics is that turning a 90° at the edge of a yard results in a lost corner of tall grass. The Zamboni pattern is a clever one that removes the lost corners. If we were to label the columns of our 10×10 matrix as 1 through 10, the zamboni pattern runs column 1, then zips over to column 5. Back to 2, then to 6. You have overlapped the ends, which is lost time, but it makes some bit of sense for more rectangular yards. You still end up with eighteen 90° turns.
This weekend I discovered a new strategy by accident.
The big assumption in the content above is level topography. When a hill is in play things get funky. It’s much harder to do a perimeter cut on a hill. 1/4 of the time is spent pushing the mower uphill. BAD MOVE.
This weekend I realized that if you move to The Long Haul perpendicular to the hill slope, things work out very very nicely. Yes, you’re taking 180° turns, but you never have to push uphill.
This revelation pleases me.
1 in 135,145,920
Those are the odds of winning the mega lottery jackpot tonight. The jackpot is roughly $376,900,000 right now*. I wanted to know how many games of roulette you’d have to win before you’d have the same odds as winning the lottery. My next obvious question: if you won every time would you have more or less money than if you’d won the lottery?
*$376M is the cash return. The payment over time is the more popularly advertised value of $600M
A few assumptions:
1. This is a no limit roulette table
2. You bet all your winnings on the next winning color every time (no green!)
3. Luck is very much your lady tonight
Playing either red or black on a roulette wheel will return a 48.6% win rate.
So 0.486^x = 1/135,145,920 should tell us how many spins!
what’s the result? twenty six spins!
Actually not exactly twenty six spins, that’d be amazingly coincidental.
26 spins is 1/140,429,063
Close enough for MikeDiDonato.com!
Let’s see which option has a better return on investment:
A lottery ticket costs $2.00.
Each roulette win gives you 2:1 odds.
26 wins in a row would return $67,108,864
Sounds like you should head to the convenience store instead of the casino tonight.
But then again… how many more spins would surpass the $376M?
Twenty nine spins (total $536,870,912)- although one more correct call would put you over a billion… it is worth it? Just one more spin? What do ya say?
Happy Halloween everybody!
This year I had been planning to dress up as Clippy, the
helpful persistant Microsoft Paper Clip, but the halloween party I was invited to ended up getting canceled. Such a shame, as I had been looking forward to walking up to people and trying to help them with various tasks that they weren’t doing.
“Hi. It looks like you might be trying to dip your chip into your beer. Would you like some help?”
“Oh, hello there. It looks like you’re trying to write a text to an exgirlfriend. Would you like help?”
Anyway, I didn’t end up dressing up and instead I just gave candy away at home – but why not use this as an opportunity for a one on one battle between two different candy bars.
SNICKERS VS TWIX CAGE MATCH
I bought two boxes of the largest candy bars I could find in two varieties: Snickers and Twix
When the kids came to the door, I offered them a choice of one or the other. What happened?!? First, let’s run basic stats on the candy bars.
Snickers: 3.29oz (93.3g)
Package Dimensions: 150mm x 32mm x 27mm
Approx Density: 717kg/m^3
Twix: 1.79oz (50.7g)
Package Dimensions: 120mm x 45mm x 20mm
Approx Density: 469kg/m^3
Notes: At 150mm in length the snickers is much more of a king sized bar than the twix. The packaging also seems more densely packed because they don’t need to split the candy bar into two different bars like Twix.
With the significant size and density advantage of the Snickers coupled with the far superior branding strategy, I submit that more snickers will be taken by Halloween trick or treaters.
Snickers taken: 23
WHOA! I was WAY OFF. Against all odds, the Twix were chosen with the same frequency as the Snickers! What a shocker! While the tally is a statistical dead heat, I think Twix pulled off a BIG win here. Volume of chocolate is a major factor and that Twix defeated Snicker’s size advantage is very telling. My highly unscientific experiment suggests that Twix is the preferred candy bar.
A few potential areas of error in my study:
1. The boxes came in different sizes. I had 24 snickers and 36 twix. As the snickers began to dwindle down there was the potential that a kid might have been socially pressured not to take the last remaining Snickers. However, countering this suggestion, when goaded to take the last one, a tiny superhero retorted “No way, I want a Twix”
2. I’m fairly certain that a vampire grabbed two Snickers while I was distracted by a princess that was struggling up the stairs. My data might be flawed.
3. One parent took a candy bar. Who does that?!? Parents, the candy is for the kids!
4. As everyone knows, a sample size less than 30 is pretty weaksauce. T-Statistics are sooooo amateur.
The downside to this week’s vacation was unquestionably a car accident. While at dinner in Wellfleet, Ma (at an excellent place called Winslow’s Tavern – I strongly recommend it), a car knocked off my drivers side mirror while I was parked and then left the scene of the crime.
Since I happen to be deep within a spell of justice books, let’s take this hit-and-run as an opportunity to analyze why situations such as these are so frustrating.
The immediate reaction to something like this is anger. Anger at the perpetrator, anger at myself for not pulling more tightly into my parallel parking spot and even anger at my waitress for not getting me the bill sooner so that I could have avoided the hit altogether.
But that’s rash emotive response. Let’s try and look at it more analytically. The perpetrator was reported by witnesses as being a woman driving a silver honda. Let’s call her Ronda. Why does Ronda’s action trigger my anger response?
The obvious answer is that because Ronda drove away I am now responsible to pay for my car… actually, not even my car. It really comes down to me paying an insurance deductible.
But the injustice is deeper than a $500 deductible. I’m emotionally frustrated more by this than I would be a $500 brake job. I feel as if I have been violated. It isn’t the money as much as Ronda not taking ownership of the damage she inflicted that truly furrows my brow.
Still, is my anger justified?
Immanuel Kant’s theory of justice centers to a fair extent around the motive of an act. It is Kant’s belief that when something happens, anything really, we should act out of duty. Not self righteousness but duty. Kant argues that any act of good nature is only truly just if its done out of duty without any tie to personal benefit. That time you gave an elderly woman your seat to better favor your social standings to your date? Yeah, you get no moral credit for that action. Kant says motive is the top dog. By Kant’s reasoning, Ronda should have left her contact information for me out of pure duty – nothing more. Not out of empathy or apology, simply out of duty towards society. But she didn’t.
Why didn’t she?
This first step to understanding my emotions involves trying to dig into Ronda’s motive. My reaction would be dramatically different if Ronda was rushing to a hospital to get her pregnant daughter medical attention. But in fact, we know this was not the case because when I left the restaurant I inadvertently saw Ronda in her silver honda inspecting her car as it was pulled over before she drove off.
Oh the fury! This was a fully intentional hit and run! Kant would be reeling!
Well, probably. We can’t discount other motives. Perhaps she can’t pay for such an accident because she needs to feed her family. This motive would certainly lesson the accident’s sting.
BUT, if Ronda burned me intentionally, we totally have a right to be angry. There’s two levels of anger. Anger at the lack of restorative justice, and anger at the lack of retributive justice.
That $500? That’s restorative injustice. I was wronged in such a way that I can not seek reparation for the damages. If Ronda had left a note, I would have been financially compensated. This is the blander of the two injustices.
The insult lies in retributive justice. This is a lot like the old adage “an eye for an eye.” The punishment should equate with the crime. Rhonda should be punished for the unfairness that was imposed upon me. Ronda’s action violated my freedoms by forcing me to visit a police station twice, miss some time at work getting my car to a shop and, of course, there’s the dollars spent fixing the vehicle. And yet there is no retribution. Ronda got off free.
I think these compensatory arguments provide a nice summary of the distaste for such a situation. That said, I’m no expert. If any of you folks have a better understanding of the philosophy or psychology (Theresa?), I encourage you to add to the conversation.
I have been sucked into the glory of Zynga games.
Zynga is a gaming company that focuses on simple social media games. My favorites include the hits:
Words with Friends
Scramble with Friends
Hanging with Friends
Words with Friends? Scrabble.
Scramble with friends? Boggle.
Hanging with Friends? Hangman.
Let’s talk about Hanging with Friends (HwF) for a minute. It’s a simple simple game. You have a certain number of guesses to guess a word. Zynga does strategy right by reducing the number of guesses for the longer words (because there are obviously more letters per word that are correct). For each word you guess incorrectly, you lose a balloon. Once you lose five balloons, you lose.
When it’s your turn to make a word, you’re given 12 random letters from which you can craft the word your opponent must guess. But… are they random letters? If I knew the letter distribution, I’d have a better ability to guess my opponents words.
So I recorded 12 letters per game for 100 games. 1,200 letters.
The first obvious conclusion: There are always four vowels.
So how were the four hundred vowels split in my sampling?
Not an even distribution but this is certainly not surprising. In fact, my original hypothesis was that the letter distribution of HwF would match the letter distribution in Words with Friends (WwF).
Words with Friend’s vowel distribution (per 108 letters):
Conveniently, the math works out so that there are a total of 40 vowels in a game of words with friends, and there are 400 in my HwF sampling. How close are these numbers when normalized? Pretty close.
Letter: My sampling vs. WwF Letter distribution
A: 65 vs 90
E: 134 vs 130
I: 81 vs 80
O: 71 vs 80
U: 49 vs 40
Does the same hold true for the consonants? (WwF numbers are normalized)
B: 23 vs 27
C: 29 vs 27
D: 61 vs 67
G: 57 vs 40
H: 53 vs 53
J: 10 vs 13
K: 9 vs 13
L: 69 vs 53
M: 29 vs 27
N: 61 vs 67
P: 21 vs 27
Q: 11 vs 13
R: 57 vs 80
S: 77 vs 67
T: 92 vs 93
V: 33 vs 27
W: 23 vs 27
X: 11 vs 13
Y: 30 vs 27
Z: 15 vs 13
Fascinating. It’s pretty close (with exceptions like G, R, and S). I’ll leave it up to the statisticians amongst you to calculate the significance and confidence interval of my sample per the target.
What does this tell us? Well, if I’m correct in my assumption you’d never see more instances of a letter than could appear in a scramble game. You’d never see two Z’s or two Q’s show up in your letter selection.
For my sampling, this is accurate
This chart shows the number of times a letter has appeared multiple times in a single game. For example there are 2 instances in my sampling where three S’s showed up in the word building box. Never have I seen two K’s or two J’s appear.
Below each letter, are the total number of that letter in the WwF game. It matches fairly well, though in my HwF games I’ve never seen more than 3 of any one letter. This might be a limitation, or just chance. Keep an eye out in your games. If you ever find an instance with multiple Z’s or J’s let me know!! I’d love to hear it. OR, if you ever get four of the same letter (including vowels) – I’d be interested.
This has been a fun experiment.
After something like 6 weeks of construction, you can bet that we were ready to bake.
First things first, fires can be annoying. It’s easy to start a fire with paper and kindling, but keeping it roaring is not a task at which I am particularly adept. For this reason, we purchased a product called “envirologs.” These are essentially logs made out of compacted paper that burn really well. They lite up immediately and will burn for about 2-3 hours. Hopefully as my fire skills improve I’ll be able to cheapen out my fuel source.
At times, the fire was so fierce flames would billow out of the arch.
And obviously, since I’m kinda geeky, I had borrowed a thermal camera from work for oven analysis.
Please note: these temperatures are Celsius. Wait, celsius? Heck yeah it’s Celsius! 600°C is over 1,100°F. Awesome!!
But… there was a problem. The inside of the dome was definitely reaching impressive temperatures but the firebrick cooking surface wasn’t that hot at all. The theory here was that with the fresh air streaming into the oven along the base of the arch was keeping the cooking surface coolish.
Shaun L. to the rescue.
Shaun looked for tips online and found the key suggestion: As the log falls into embers, spread those embers across the base of the oven. Let the embers pre-heat the brick. Then brush those aside and get to cookin.
With this new strategy in place, it was time to cook some pizza.
Those last two shots are pretty interesting. Basically, the top of the pizza is cooking beautifully from the radiant heat off the dome. But the bottom wasn’t hot enough, and wasn’t crisping up the way that I wanted. On the first day of cooking, the best we did was cook a pizza in 5 minutes. Yeah… that’s pretty fast, but not as fast as the experts. And the result was weak – literally weak. The pizza when held would droop dramatically. It didn’t have the crispiness to support its weight.
BUT! One helpful solution was clear: Sweep out a more direct line of ash and stick the pizza deeper into the oven. We did this on Wednesday night with much better results: 3 minute pizzas with improved crispy. Awesome!
I’m going to continue to adjust my cooking techniques an a quest for the ultimate pizza. Still, I’m quite pleased with the quality of the food coming out of my oven.
A big thanks to everyone who helped build it, especially Jen, Shaun, Brian, and Kev. Huge help those four. Here’s to pizza!!
As I’d mentioned in one of my turning 30 posts a few weeks back, one of my goals for the year is to master the comma. I struggle with this punctuation more than I’d care to admit. In an effort to spread the learning of the comma let’s take a look at some history and the infamous serial comma.
History! etymonline.com says that the word comma is derived from Latin where it means “short phrase” or “clause in a sentence.”
This University of Wisconsin site talks a little bit about the trends and rules that have developed for the comma after its initial adoption into written word which Wikipedia puts at around the 3rd century BC.
the long-term trend has been toward greater regularization in developing and applying the rules as well as toward a reduction in the comma’s frequency of use. Still the comma remains the most frequently used punctuation mark—and undoubtedly the most frequently misused.
Which brings me to the serial comma (often called the Oxford or Harvard comma). The serial comma is a comma that is used in lists. As an example: Some letters of the alphabet are A, B, C, and D. See that comma after the C? That’s the serial comma. Some people love it, other people hate it. Neither the New York Times nor the Economist use it… but MLA standards and Oxford both use it. Well… kind of. Oxford’s public affairs guide issued a statement recently that recommended leaving out the famed Oxford comma, but the official Oxford Manual of Style still recommends its usage. So while the jury is still out, perhaps the general trend is that the serial comma is disappearing from usage.
As a final point, I’d like to make reference to JK Elemenopee’s excellent find: The Shatner Comma. Apparently amidst all of the Oxford comma confusion writer Everett Maroon twitted the following: “Professor friend o mine is against losing the Oxford comma, but wishes his students would lose the Shatner comma. You, know, what, he means.”