20 Mar 2004 | Joel said...

A metal device capable of transporting large numbers of people

20 Mar 2004 | f5 said...

Boat, with wings like bird. Flies in air, not water.

20 Mar 2004 | Michel Christensen said...

A vehicle flying like a bird.

20 Mar 2004 | Justin Blanton said...

Mechanical bird capable of transporting humans through the air.

20 Mar 2004 | RS said...

A mechanical bird that carries people long distances very quickly.

20 Mar 2004 | Aaron said...

Sailboat of the sky—rigid sails parallel to deck. Whee!

20 Mar 2004 | James Wheare said...

A tin can with wings and wheels. Takes you places.

20 Mar 2004 | dusoft said...

Big metal can that flies like a bird transporting people.

21 Mar 2004 | Paperhead said...

*builds a paper aeroplane.

21 Mar 2004 | Kenneth said...

Smmmeeeeee!

21 Mar 2004 | bob said...

Flying Transport Vehicle
Special wings, high speeds push it up.

21 Mar 2004 | Jay Allen said...

A flying winged boat which transports people with maximum discomfort.

21 Mar 2004 | Matthew Oliphant said...

Loud airship transporting people and cargo faster than seven-league boots.

So, is this for freelance or full time?

:P

21 Mar 2004 | aliotsy said...

Flying stovepipe with wings. No, I cannot fathom how it works, either.

21 Mar 2004 | Clarified Butter said...

Frankly, why create imaginary problems when there are enough real ones?

21 Mar 2004 | Warren said...

Lift = .5*c*a*r*v^2

c = lift coefficient
r = density of surrounding fluid
a = wing area
v = velocity.

You said max. 10 words, but nothing about equations or mathematical symbols.

21 Mar 2004 | Ian said...

Flying vehicle without flapping your arms or jumping.

21 Mar 2004 | Jevon said...

A way to move in the same mannar as birds.

21 Mar 2004 | Derek K. Miller said...

A flying vehicle.

(People have dreamed of such things for millennia, probably forever. It wouldn't take much to explain it, compared to your microwave oven example, for instance.)

21 Mar 2004 | Taylor said...

Flying machine. No smoking. Fat people pay double.

21 Mar 2004 | Allen said...

Flying transport vehicle. 1/1000 chance of dying. Inconceivably heavy.

21 Mar 2004 | Emmanuel said...

In witch language? ;-)

21 Mar 2004 | Brian Andersen said...

Imagine a huge bird. Imagine it taking you whereever you want.

21 Mar 2004 | jharr said...

This exercise Is nearly impossible given the dramatic differences between the era of the modern airplane and the 1770's. The explanations above take so much for granted. The listener would have no understanding of so much of the technology that makes flight possible, today or 100 years ago. Most importantly the power needed to get the machine off the ground. Without that how would the listener ever be able to comprehend what you're describing?

21 Mar 2004 | Bryan said...

This exercise Is nearly impossible given the dramatic differences between the era of the modern airplane and the 1770's. The explanations above take so much for granted. The listener would have no understanding of so much of the technology that makes flight possible, today or 100 years ago. Most importantly the power needed to get the machine off the ground. Without that how would the listener ever be able to comprehend what you're describing?

I believe that's the point of the excercise. To make you think.

21 Mar 2004 | testpilot said...

one word: boobies.

21 Mar 2004 | ~bc said...

A powered kite large enough to carry people long distances.

I'd be afraid all the bird references would lead them to think planes flapped their wings. I really like Paperhead's "show-me" style. This would explain the gliding factor. You could utilize that and add "big enough to carry people, and self-powered."

Perhaps "A giant mechanical gliding bird which makes its own wind." or "A man-made, fixed-wing gliding bird which makes its own wind." Neither convey the transport utility... could they imagine that themselves? Is size important?

Of course, at that time, there weren't many self-powered things (outside of giant factory equipment) nor any form of vehicle propulsion that wasn't living-being powered (animals, rowing). There were fireworks, if anyone had seen them, that might help explain thrust propulsion. Wind mills might help describe propeller power, in reverse.

21 Mar 2004 | cmcmahon said...

Think of a hawk gliding in the air, wings fixed.

21 Mar 2004 | Graham said...

This is a meaningless exercise.

As if 10 words is some magical "Simplicty Quotient".

Not everything can or should be explained in 10 words.

Here's an "exercise" for you people:

"Explain Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in 10 words or fewer" (yes Jason, correct usage is "fewer", not "less")

21 Mar 2004 | JF said...

Not everything can or should be explained in 10 words.

True, but what's the harm in trying? I find it fascinating to see how people deal with such tight constraints. Some people explain what something does, others explain how it works, others explain the benefit to the audience, etc. What I like about the 10 word limit is that it helps people focus on what they think is most important when trying to explain a topic.

21 Mar 2004 | Matthew Oliphant said...

"Explain Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in 10 words or fewer"

- It is not about you. It is about me.

And while I still say this is more about brevity than clarity ;) I don't find it at all meaningless.

But I guess meaning is probably relative.

21 Mar 2004 | Martin said...

It's actually aeroplane.

Can you Yanks get anything right?

21 Mar 2004 | Bryan said...

Can you Yanks get anything right?

Yeah, we invented it.

21 Mar 2004 | said...

Enormous vessel; flies you from Europe to America in hours.

21 Mar 2004 | Colin D. Devroe said...

See, there's this thing called the mile high club...

22 Mar 2004 | Bill Brown said...

10 words is arbitrary. What if some future American were to come back in time and explain a "flazomatic" to us and they were only allowed 10 words? It's ludicrous. We'd press that person to tell us more and more.

A better exercise is to explain a complex idea (not an entity like airplane or microwave) in essentials using as few words as possible, like explain the essence of freedom. Adding a constraint like in under 10 words would be crazy.

22 Mar 2004 | Bryan Peters said...

it's my aeroplane: pleasure spiked with pain!

22 Mar 2004 | F.Baube said...

What birds can do, human ingenuity shall improve and enlargen.

22 Mar 2004 | David B said...

A self-propelled flying craft to transport people and freight

B.

22 Mar 2004 | Jeff said...

forget the flying thing you clod, the english are coming!

22 Mar 2004 | Thomas Chai said...

Here's my 10:-
Trust me, ride on it and you will find out.

22 Mar 2004 | Arne G said...

As short as I can:

Airplane:
A passenger craft that travels above the clouds (England to Pennsylvania in a day).

General Relativity:
A theory of a very precise shape relationship between gravity, matter, space and time (has yielded many extraordinary yet correct and even useful predictions).

22 Mar 2004 | Martin said...

Yeah, we invented it.

"We"?

The USA have the highest proportional levels of airline disasters in the world too.

22 Mar 2004 | Toby said...

1176: "A fhip of the fky, failing the etherf."

Martin -- Not to pick on you, but you inspired me to google some stats. Is it a matter that more American airlines are flying?

Check this out: From 1945 - 2002, America does lead the world in aviation accidents. But how many other countries had large-scale flight programs up in, say, the 1950s?

Also, 42% of all flights depart from someplace in North America, but they are only responsible for 17% of all accidents. 3% of all flights depart from Africa, yet they are also responsible for 17% of all accidents. Europe has 29% of all departures and 20% of all accidents. Seems to me that I'd rather fly in the US than Africa or Europe.

Worst 100 air accidents.

22 Mar 2004 | jharr said...

I believe that's the point of the excercise. To make you think.

Agreed, I'm thinking about the exercise as described. If the goal is clarity, 10 words won't cut it when describing this to someone with no historical context or knowledge of the necessary technology (which didn't exist in their time).

It was in the spirit of the exercise that I questioned this.

22 Mar 2004 | Helpar said...

Bill,

You seem to have forgotten that, according to directive 1.61803, no human is allowed to learn of the existence of the flazomatic or the Flazomatic Principles until at least the year 2176. Please desist from ment...

Am I saying this out loud? Damn telepat...

22 Mar 2004 | Arne G said...

“10 words won't cut it when describing this to someone with no historical context or knowledge…”

I naively thought the exercise to best describe a new concept to an impatient audience, rather than communicating a complete concept to a blank slate (I empathize with your frustration if you were shooting for the latter).

22 Mar 2004 | Arne G said...

I think I skipped a word or two in my previous post (words are not my friends).

22 Mar 2004 | Yvonne Adams said...

Fixed-winged carriage that flies passengers very fast.

22 Mar 2004 | Dan S said...

Enclosed, pressurized, fixed-wing, gas-powered flying machine. Surprisingly safe.

23 Mar 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Boat-like vessel that flies, transporting people far very fast.

23 Mar 2004 | Peter Drife said...

From Cincinnati to Orlando by way of Detroit.

23 Mar 2004 | Simon R said...

Carriage with rigid wings that soars in the sky

23 Mar 2004 | Sanat Gersappa said...

A flying machine.

23 Mar 2004 | Noah said...

A gaseous combustion propelled ridged flying machine for human transportation .

23 Mar 2004 | brian said...

Can you Yanks get anything right?
Yeah, we invented it.

----

Actually, the city of chard in somerset england claims to be the first in flight.

24 Mar 2004 | francois said...

Theory of relativity in words of four letters or fewer:
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html

And my personal favourite, computer programming explained in words of one syllable:
http://wws.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$50

While in part parlour tricks, exercises like these are still inspiring lessons in how to wield language effectively. Verbosity too often only serves to hide imprecision. When specifying interactive products, few skills are more valuable than clear writing.

24 Mar 2004 | HaddyFish said...

Lousy food, you arrive in Detroit, luggage arrives in Minsk.

24 Mar 2004 | Philip Parle said...

A magical flying machine that servers really bad food

25 Mar 2004 | Sam said...

An economic boost for the state of Washington

26 Mar 2004 | ewen said...

Flying metal tubular boat, smells of farts

31 Mar 2004 | simplicity said...

a device that allows people to fly through the sky

31 Mar 2004 | Stuart Curran said...

If an "iron horse" was used to describe the train how about an "iron unicorn"?

31 Mar 2004 | Stuart Curran said...

If an "iron horse" was used to describe the train how about an "iron unicorn"?

15 Apr 2004 | phatz said...

a flying vehicle