I learned about the eyeball theory when I was in jr. high and of course had to test it. The answer is yes, I can sneeze with my eyes open ... and my eyeballs never left their sockets.
It's also in Project Gutenburg, at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1329 . And on my bookshelves. I tried reading it once. I couldn't get past the first few pages.
They say a pita is a sandwich under this definition. How does that work? A pita only has one exterior piece, and the filling goes into the pocket. And would a McDLT from the 1980s, served as two open-faced sandwiches that you put together yourself ("keep the hot side hot and the cool side cool"), mean that McDonald's wasn't actually selling a sandwich?
I agree. The parts with the most damage were the garage, where the wide open door meant the winds could really push it over, and the dormer of the roof of the house, which again is easy for the winds to catch.
My point is that, as I learned from Language Log, personal experience can be misleading. There could be geographical variation in use, and it may be that a term which was more common in architecture is no longer used, perhaps as reaction to its uptake in other domains. In researching this more, it appears that many architects use "to architect" as a shibboleth, to distinguish in- and out- group members. See http://www.archdaily.com/451372/for-architects-only-how-kanye-exposed-architecture-s-bias/ for a deeper discussion of this.
That link also observes that architect Doug Patt has a YouTube series and book from MIT press titled "How To Architect", that "to architect" is well recognized as a verb in many dictionaries, and Harvard architecture theorist K. Michael Hays said "There are only certain things that can be done at this moment. Not just anything can be architected at this moment, right? There are limits." So there's a couple of modern architects who use it as a verb.
If I relax it a bit, and not look specifically for phrases said by architects but about architects, then Life magazine, 17 May 1948 has a piece on Bernard Maybeck. "He architects not only buildings but everything from landscapes to kitchen utensils, including people. For years he architected all his wife's clothes, solemnly making blueprints of skirts, blouses and gowns, and turning her at least into Berkeley's most imaginatively dressed woman. He even architected his own pants, which for years became one of San Francisco's most noted sartorial institutions."
Now, Life magazine could have been doing wordplay there, but dictionaries list "architect" as a verb because many people use it as a verb - including those like Twain who can distinguish between a verb and a noun. For example, FDR at a press conference in 1943 said "Well, of course, actually, when Congress makes an appropriation for a given public project, unless it has been all engineered and architected, and the specifications drawn beforehand, necessarily it's just like any private individual building a building.", or Thomas Jefferson Gregory in 1913 writing "There was no ornamentation without or within and little variety of form anywhere, and while every man was his own architect and builder he architected and built like his neighbor."
(I quite like the parallelism of noun and verb forms in that last quote.)
"Architect" has also long been used for things other than buildings. Quoting a lecture from 1915, "The architect was none other than Otto von Bismarck, who by his policy of iron and blood did what German liberalism had failed to do." More recently (1978), "The principal architect of the Constitution was John Adams." There's also "Candido Mariano da Silva Rondon ... architect of Brazil's current policy toward indigenous peoples" and "Deng Xiaoping was the chief architect of Chinese economic reform".
If someone in business claims to have "architected" something, then I'm pretty sure it was more in line with organizational or policy schemes like Bismark, etc. than physical forms like Le Corbusier. After all, there's over 100 years of people using "architect" that way.
Also, in the 1960s the computer industry started to use "architecture" a lot, and it hasn't left. Indeed, it seems like that industry is the source to 95% of the "architected" references I found on Google Books. I like Tracy Kidder's observation, in "House", which pointed out a class distinction. Builders and designers are more working class or blue collar, while an architect is more likely to have the education and breeding similar to the home owner. Some architects exploit that, to argue that they will be on the home owners side. I think the computer industry expropriated this division. Programmers do the manual labor of coding and perhaps designing smaller parts of the software, while software architects - often perceived as a higher class, more white-collar position - plan the large-scale organization and work more directly with the customer.
For what it's worth, spell checker's don't like my field of research, "cheminformatics". ;)
That's certainly an hypothesis. The question is, do you have any evidence to back it? One of the things that Language Log taught me is that these sorts of questions can often be researched, without needing to depend only on one's personal experience.
For example, the word "architected" occurs in Tracy Kidder's 1985 non-fiction "House": 'Thinking of the Souweines' house, Bill says, "Single-family houses are mainly not architected. But they have been a means for architects to acquire reputations."' It's on p22 of my hardcover copy, and 'Bill' is the architect Bill Rawn, who won an award for his design, and was featured in a July 5, 2009 Boston Globe article. In other words, you say "actual architects say "designed"", yet I have counter-example on paper in my own personal library.
Or, from Spiro Kostof's 'The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession': "Even in the democratic environment of Classical Greece, some houses were larger and more elaborate than others, and thus would plausibly require the special care of an architect - or at least the distinction of having been "architected"." From Wendell Rossman's 1972 'The effective architect' come two examples: "Never is a good model a plan over which a structure is engineered, a facade architected to, or an interior..." and "Looking the situation over, I found the gate alright, built of 1 1/2" square solid bars with alternating architected ladder-type grillwork."
It seems then that actual architects *do* use the term "architected".
The word is also in Mark Twain's 1906 "The Refuge of the Derelicts": 'He had very decided opinions on most matters, and he had architected them himself.' I think it's fair to say that Twain knew the difference between a verb and a noun. A Google Book search easily finds other examples, like a Field&Stream article from 1975 which uses the line "The way, of course, is river floating, a ride back in time to a universe architected by nature."
Language Log also taught me that many people are fierce advocates for whatever grammar rules they were taught in school, even if there's no factual basis. (You need only read their many essays against the grammar "rules" of Strunk and White.) Thus, I'm happy to leave this as a untested hypothesis, and let you or someone else go through the work of trying to come up with evidence for it. Until then, I say only that it doesn't make as much sense as the two other explanations I pointed out earlier.
Some sources, like M-W, suggest it's portmanteau of irrespective and regardless. We tend to be less critical about those. For examples, Microsoft, another portmanteau (from "microcomputer software"), makes neither tiny soft things nor things that are a tiny bit soft, despite the "micro-" prefix meaning "small"; nor are cronuts crescent shaped even if the "cro" derives from term for "crescent." Still other sources point out that double negatives are and have been used to emphasize the negative sense - that ain't no lie! - and that people in the 1500s and 1600s used "un-...-less" for negatives, like unboundless, uncomfortless, undauntless, uneffectless, unhelpless, unmerciless, and so on, where today we would drop the "un-".
To complicate things, "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing, despite that "in-" can mean "not", so it's not possible to simply look at a word, break it down into components, and determine its meaning or validity.
That said, pretty much everyone agrees that "regardless" is better than "irregardless."
I used to read Language Log, which is a collection of linguist blogs. It made me happy to learn that a lot of spelling "rules" come from misapprehensions of how language is actually used, including many grammar rules in Strunk and White which weren't true when written, and weren't even followed by White. This link is well aligned with what I learned from LL, and nicely summarizes the points. If you want to read more about these sorts of topics, I enjoyed and recommend the "Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage" .. which has most of a column about "irregardless" :)
I worked for a Silicon Valley startups where we could pick our own titles. I chose to have no title ... and they accepted it! If that failed, I was going to use my name as the job title. After reading the Fast Company article, I see that I inverted the goal of a job title. If "the more that being yourself is part of your job description, the less reason you have to fake it even on the hardest days at the office", then perhaps my younger self was saying that I didn't want to be defined by my title.
The Helsingborg Crematorium information is a bit off. There aren't enough people dieing to provide 10% of the town with heat. (If people live for 60 years then it implies that 1 body can provide heat for a house of three for 2 years. A body has about 100,000 Calories, which is enough to run a 1500 W space heater for 3 days. The crematorium would need to accept 250x the local dead bodies to make up the difference. With a city population of 100K, that means it would be cremating all of the dead bodies in Scandinavia to provide enough heat.)
I did some research and found http://hd.se/angelholm/2007/02/22/krematoriet-ger-vaerme/ (good thing I can read Swedish!). It says that 200 of the 200,000 megawatt-hours in the municipal heating system comes from the crematorium, or 0.1%, and that most of the heat comes from the fuel for the furnaces and from the caskets, not from the bodies. The excess heat is a side-effect of cooling down the exhaust smokes in order to filter out pollutants.
It's interesting to compare that to the utility lines in NYC in the 1880s, like http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/File:Phoneline1903.jpg and http://www.nesec.org/images/haz_blizzard1888_2.jpg . In NYC there were dozens of different companies stringing up lines, and in competition so they weren't going to share poles. The result was visual mayhem, compared to those orderly Stockholm pictures. The city wanted the lines to be buried, but the companies didn't want to pay for the expense, and would get an injunction each time the city tried to pass an ordinance. It wasn't until the Blizzard of 1888 followed by the election of Mayor Grant and several gruesome deaths that the deadly eyesores finally came down.
The Panama Canal is not a sea-level canal. The boats are lifted up to Gatun Lake, then lowered down the other side. Also, there's a 20 cm difference between the mean sea level of the Atlantic and Pacific sides, the tides on the Atlantic vary by about 1 meter while on the Pacific side by about 6 meters, and the timing of the tides is different. De Lesseps's plan (the original French effort before the US one) was a sea-level canal. It would still have required a sea lock on the Pacific side to handle the tides.
As to how they surveyed it, they set up a geodetic network based on triangulation. There were several surveying teams (US and French) which went to the area to survey it, establishing triangles across the isthmus. Perhaps the greatest example of this kind of work in the 1800s is the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India, of which there are several books if the topic interests you.
My wife became allergic to red meat when she was a kid. I came across this tick association a few years ago, when it first started making the news. It made me feel better because I had never heard of a meat allergy before, and wondered if it might be something else giving a false correlation. (A friend, for example, got a reaction from eating tomatoes. Years later, after moving to Sweden from Canada/US, she discovered it was the pesticide that caused the problems and that tomatoes there don't have the same pesticide. Her boyfriend spent the next month making tomato-based dishes for her.) Now I know I only need to be careful to check the ingredients list before I buy something. (You might be surprised at how often beef is an ingredient in a chicken-based product.) She's also happy to have that mystery resolved.
The Pinks were also used as strikebreakers and anti-union thugs. Opposition to them was so strong that the Anti-Pinkerton Act was passed in 1893. "An individual employed by the Pinkerton Detective Agency, or similar organization, may not be employed by the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia." It's still on the books.
That link also observes that architect Doug Patt has a YouTube series and book from MIT press titled "How To Architect", that "to architect" is well recognized as a verb in many dictionaries, and Harvard architecture theorist K. Michael Hays said "There are only certain things that can be done at this moment. Not just anything can be architected at this moment, right? There are limits." So there's a couple of modern architects who use it as a verb.
If I relax it a bit, and not look specifically for phrases said by architects but about architects, then Life magazine, 17 May 1948 has a piece on Bernard Maybeck. "He architects not only buildings but everything from landscapes to kitchen utensils, including people. For years he architected all his wife's clothes, solemnly making blueprints of skirts, blouses and gowns, and turning her at least into Berkeley's most imaginatively dressed woman. He even architected his own pants, which for years became one of San Francisco's most noted sartorial institutions."
Now, Life magazine could have been doing wordplay there, but dictionaries list "architect" as a verb because many people use it as a verb - including those like Twain who can distinguish between a verb and a noun. For example, FDR at a press conference in 1943 said "Well, of course, actually, when Congress makes an appropriation for a given public project, unless it has been all engineered and architected, and the specifications drawn beforehand, necessarily it's just like any private individual building a building.", or Thomas Jefferson Gregory in 1913 writing "There was no ornamentation without or within and little variety of form anywhere, and while every man was his own architect and builder he architected and built like his neighbor."
(I quite like the parallelism of noun and verb forms in that last quote.)
"Architect" has also long been used for things other than buildings. Quoting a lecture from 1915, "The architect was none other than Otto von Bismarck, who by his policy of iron and blood did what German liberalism had failed to do." More recently (1978), "The principal architect of the Constitution was John Adams." There's also "Candido Mariano da Silva Rondon ... architect of Brazil's current policy toward indigenous peoples" and "Deng Xiaoping was the chief architect of Chinese economic reform".
If someone in business claims to have "architected" something, then I'm pretty sure it was more in line with organizational or policy schemes like Bismark, etc. than physical forms like Le Corbusier. After all, there's over 100 years of people using "architect" that way.
Also, in the 1960s the computer industry started to use "architecture" a lot, and it hasn't left. Indeed, it seems like that industry is the source to 95% of the "architected" references I found on Google Books. I like Tracy Kidder's observation, in "House", which pointed out a class distinction. Builders and designers are more working class or blue collar, while an architect is more likely to have the education and breeding similar to the home owner. Some architects exploit that, to argue that they will be on the home owners side. I think the computer industry expropriated this division. Programmers do the manual labor of coding and perhaps designing smaller parts of the software, while software architects - often perceived as a higher class, more white-collar position - plan the large-scale organization and work more directly with the customer.
For what it's worth, spell checker's don't like my field of research, "cheminformatics". ;)
For example, the word "architected" occurs in Tracy Kidder's 1985 non-fiction "House": 'Thinking of the Souweines' house, Bill says, "Single-family houses are mainly not architected. But they have been a means for architects to acquire reputations."' It's on p22 of my hardcover copy, and 'Bill' is the architect Bill Rawn, who won an award for his design, and was featured in a July 5, 2009 Boston Globe article. In other words, you say "actual architects say "designed"", yet I have counter-example on paper in my own personal library.
Or, from Spiro Kostof's 'The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession': "Even in the democratic environment of Classical Greece, some houses were larger and more elaborate than others, and thus would plausibly require the special care of an architect - or at least the distinction of having been "architected"." From Wendell Rossman's 1972 'The effective architect' come two examples: "Never is a good model a plan over which a structure is engineered, a facade architected to, or an interior..." and "Looking the situation over, I found the gate alright, built of 1 1/2" square solid bars with alternating architected ladder-type grillwork."
It seems then that actual architects *do* use the term "architected".
The word is also in Mark Twain's 1906 "The Refuge of the Derelicts": 'He had very decided opinions on most matters, and he had architected them himself.' I think it's fair to say that Twain knew the difference between a verb and a noun. A Google Book search easily finds other examples, like a Field&Stream article from 1975 which uses the line "The way, of course, is river floating, a ride back in time to a universe architected by nature."
Language Log also taught me that many people are fierce advocates for whatever grammar rules they were taught in school, even if there's no factual basis. (You need only read their many essays against the grammar "rules" of Strunk and White.) Thus, I'm happy to leave this as a untested hypothesis, and let you or someone else go through the work of trying to come up with evidence for it. Until then, I say only that it doesn't make as much sense as the two other explanations I pointed out earlier.
To complicate things, "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing, despite that "in-" can mean "not", so it's not possible to simply look at a word, break it down into components, and determine its meaning or validity.
That said, pretty much everyone agrees that "regardless" is better than "irregardless."
I did some research and found http://hd.se/angelholm/2007/02/22/krematoriet-ger-vaerme/ (good thing I can read Swedish!). It says that 200 of the 200,000 megawatt-hours in the municipal heating system comes from the crematorium, or 0.1%, and that most of the heat comes from the fuel for the furnaces and from the caskets, not from the bodies. The excess heat is a side-effect of cooling down the exhaust smokes in order to filter out pollutants.
As to how they surveyed it, they set up a geodetic network based on triangulation. There were several surveying teams (US and French) which went to the area to survey it, establishing triangles across the isthmus. Perhaps the greatest example of this kind of work in the 1800s is the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India, of which there are several books if the topic interests you.