Semantics

At the end of the month, I'll be in the U.S. for a personal interview with a patent examiner from the USPTO. I haven't been to Washington DC in 21 years, and I've certainly never visited the patent office. I'm not sure how these interviews are supposed to go- I know that I need to convince the examiner that our claims as written are patentable over the prior art. So I think my arguments will progress thusly: backhand, instep stomp, body slam, followed by taunting inquiries like "Had enough yet?" and "Why do you fight like a girl?". I think the logic of this approach is unassailable, and our patent will most surely be granted.

While I'm in America, I guess I should go ahead and get some Krispy Kreme donuts. Or maybe bring some to the patent examiner. And yes AJ, if you are reading this, I'll bring you the customary 20 kilograms of Kodiak Wintergreen. Though I must say the drug sniffer dogs in the airports are starting to twitch when I walk by.

In the news this week, violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, which in itself is not extraordinary. What is interesting is this gem of a sentence from my beloved FoxNews:

A homicide attacker detonated an explosives-filled minivan as the American convoy approached, then militant gunmen fired on the troops inside the vehicles, who returned fire, the U.S. military said.

I'm well aware of the nefarious antics of homicide bombers, but I think this is the first time I've heard of homicide attackers. I'm sure this is an important distinction made by U.S. soldiers there:

Army guy 1: "Multiple targets approaching from the Southeast. "
Army guy 2: "I'll notify command. Are they homicide attackers? Do they look like they are going to engage?"
Army guy 1: "Yep. Let's lock and load. I'll... Wait a minute. Cancel that last. These guys are drunk, swerving all over the place in their pickup trucks, and spraying bullets in all directions. One of them has a mullet."
Army guy 2: "So?"
Army guy 1: "Nothing to worry about. They're involuntary manslaughter attackers."

And why is it always militant gunmen shooting at U.S. troops? Why not belligerent gunmen? In fact, why even modify 'gunmen'? If they are firing on U.S. troops, I think it is safe to say that they are both belligerent and militant. Well actually, if they are firing on U.S. soldiers, then they are, by definition, gunmen. So you could just say "...then partisans fired on the troops inside the vehicles..". Partisans is a good word, and one that that should be used more. No Mr. Google, I did not mean "Iraqi prisoners."

=====================================================================
Food news:

What this Wikipedia article fails to mention is that my wife makes the best chicken masala in the whole world. Too bad for me I just found this out last weekend. Too bad for my wife that I am now going to chain her to the kitchen stove.