Ships have a full speed and a flank speed so if you take full as 100% they can give 110% effort.  Flank speed is a there is a torpedo coming get out of the way even if the engines blow speed.

Hah, nonsense.

If 100% represents maximum sustainable capacity (which is all you can give in the *long run*) then you *can* give 110% for short periods of time. (But you risk burn out if you do it for extended periods of time).

And here’s the reference to put all the pedants to shame: http://kottke.org/11/05/how-giving-110-is-actually-possible 

(The full reference is by Economist Stephen Shmanske and his paper in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports titled “Dynamic Effort, Sustainability, Myopia, and 110% Effort”)

“I’m going to work twice as hard” means more and has less syllables too.

That’s the Spinal Tap equivelant for ships – “Why not make 10 louder”… “errhhh..these amps go up to 11!”

Totally agree, but the one that gets me is “The proof is in the pudding”. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! The correct saying is “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”. This became corrupted some years back, and we now have a meaningless saying repeated ad infinitum on the television to the point where it has replaced the original. The correct version makes good sense – until you taste it you’ll never know if it’s any good. Let’s please try and use ”The proof of the pudding is in the eating” at every opportunity until the brainless usurper is banished into history. Rant over.

I’m all for giving 75% – let’s keep things believable.

I’m of the mind that to measure effort you’ve got to look at a long-term trend – therefore this is an average (mean). Effort is also a personal measure. For me to run a mile would take a lot of effort, but cycling 40 miles is a relatively standard task – the effort employed is not equal to others.

Assuming effort is a measurable variable (as above)  any individual would also have a standard deviation to the effort employed.

Empirically, it seems clear that some individuals put in a broadly consistent level of effort (low standard deviation) and some (in a work context) spend half the day messing around on Facebook and MSE.com (high standard deviation).

Therefore for someone who puts in broadly consistent effort with a standard deviation of, say 5%, 110% effort might be quite special (2 standard deviations from the mean).

However for the lazy, 110% effort might actually be only to put a modicum of effort in due to the drag their periods of ineffectiveness has on the mean.

This is one of many things that drive me up the wall.

Mine is “I could care less”.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  If you could care less, then you care at least a little bit.  What you mean is you couldn’t care less.

I’m 110% behind you on this Martin!

But even if the proof is in the eating of the pudding, the proof is still in the pudding (you just don’t get the proof until you eat it).

I agree, so much of our language has become “lost in translation”, through laziness as much as anything. We should always try to say what we mean as well as mean what we say. How much more than a 100% can one give?

Saw you giving 110% on Daybreak earlier Martin – great effort

I propose to ban the use of the word ‘like’ which all kids seem to use with far too much frequency these days e.g.  I went to the cinema like to see Harry Potter like and it was amazing like……arghhhhhhh

ouch. lol

I totaly agree 110% I blame the x factor and simon bloody Trowel. but what really get my goat is AT THE END OF THE DAY IT WILL BE BLAH BLAH BLHA . The only thing at the end of the day will be 12 a flipping clock 

Watching The Apprentice I can see that these people literally put 110% (their words, not mine) into things that get them attention. Since they put about 0.01% effort into other areas such as humility, sense of humour, consideration for other human beings; it might just be possible!

Disagree. You can easily give 110%. If you give 110% of your previous level, I see no problem with describing that as 110%.

Will it offend you if I ‘like’ like this? 

It’s a metaphor. It’s idiomatic. Get over it!

The thing that makes my blood boil is the weather presenters telling us we’ll have a “bit” of rain, you can’t get a bit of liquid – IT’S A DROP!!!!

‘fewer’ syllables

* fewer syllables
(fewer for quantitative and less for qualitative)

I propose an absolute ban on misplaced apostrophes!

It also suggests we can never be good enough if we cannot give the impossible 110 % as wel as encouraging inaccuracy, a lack of truthfulness and a penchant for boasting

It also suggests you’re not good enough if you can’t produce the impossible as well as encouraging innacuracy, a lack of truthfulness and a penchant for boasting.

I’m like, I totally agree with you.

Has anyone else noticed that the BBC iPlayer volume goes up to 11?

“If 100% represents maximum sustainable capacity”

It doesn’t.  100% is merely the expression of a ratio – 100:100, which can be simplified to 1:1.  It is absolutely possible to offer higher ratios such as 2:1, which could be expended to read: 200%.  Per cent translates as ” for every hundred”.  Before people complain about the treatment of “our” language they should take the trouble to understand where it came from.

Brava!  This,too, has been a bone of contention of mine.  As has….

SURREAL.
Darlings, surreal isn’t taking part in a TV show .Unless of course, you are wearing cottage cheese jeans, in which case, I shall be the judge!!

‘New and improved!’ on grocery products annoys me. They are either new or improved. Not both!

This one really grates on me, I can often be heard screaming ‘fewer’ at the telly. Sat instead of sitting also drives me up the wall.

“lumps of cloud”
“Am I bad?”
but what really irritates is all the news anchors who “erm” and “urgh” all over the place! This happens most on the BBC. Have they never heard of pausing? They seem to feel the need to fill every void.

My recent favourite linguistics abhorrence has to be the
amount people are “Turning Round”

So she turned round to me and said…..but then I turned round to her and said….

Surely it’s easier to start a conversation facing each other?! haha

‘Let’s say “100%” is the maximum amount of effort that can be consistently sustained’. 

Why would you assume this?
What athlete can consistently sustain 100% of their effort? You either take effort to mean their performance (which would deteriorate) or their desire to produce such a performance (which has an absolute maximum that could not be exceeded, any thought of holding some back would signify less than 100%).   

Another odd assumption!
Full clearly isn’t 100% for the ship if they have some in reserve.

Even 101% means you are making an effort beyond your actual capacity.

“The proof is in the pudding”. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! The correct saying is “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”

“The proof is in the pudding”. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! The correct saying is “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”

Totally agree, drives me nuts also!!

Agree with this 100%, what is worse people who should know better use it for example a teacher at my sons school on awarding a prize, said ‘Thomas always gives 110%’ makes me very cross.

English language and so is permissible, we already have a nation
blighted by numeracy issues. To perpetuate a misunderstanding of
percentages to millions of youngsters simply isn’t good.

I keep hearing ’I would of’ instead of ‘I would have’ all the time, drives me 110% nuts!