The second part is a nominative absolute not a clause, so no, the comma is correct. That said, the construction is unusual enough that I've never been taught it in any English class, and I had to look it up just to figure out what it was called.
Perhaps the most famous example of this construction appears in the U.S. Bill of Rights (2nd amendment).
According to Merriam Webster, yes, you can. That has been common English usage for at least as long as I've been alive.
3: to go about or down usually by grasping or holding with the hands <climb down the ladder>
Oxford English Dictionary agrees (#2), and uses the same example. So does Random House. And so on. So maybe you can't climb down something, but I hope your house never catches on fire, or else you're in serious trouble.
Computers suck at even the most basic grammar checking. I once decided to try a bunch of online grammar checkers to see if they would be useful at providing a sanity check for my novels. I concluded that they report so many bogus mistakes that it simply wasn't practical to use their output at all. To test them, I fed them a block of content, some with intentional errors that the grammar checker should have caught, others with deliberately (or accidentally) tricky bits that should not have produced any errors.
Upon seeing that, Joseph resolved to stop. Several grammar checkers thought "seeing that" was used idiomatically, and suggested replacing it with because. Upon because, Joseph resolved to stop. Yes. Much better.... Oh, and some others suggested that "Upon" is archaic.
“Time to impact: seventy-six hours, fifteen minutes, twelve seconds,” the computer intoned. Oddly, several checkers suggested that "twelve seconds" was a fraction and should be hyphenated. Ugh.
It's simple, really. There must be some mistake. Several spell checkers suggested "their". Others said that "must be" is passive voice. Uh, no, not every use of "to be" is passive construction.
This isn’t your class anymore. Some checkers reported an agreement problem with "class". Huh?
The room was dark, its plant-covered landscape shimmering green in the light of their headlamps. At least one checker suggested replacing "in the light of" with "considering". Eek!
Joseph climbed up first. Several spell checkers suggested that "climbed up" is redundant. Apparently, their editors have never climbed down something.
One checker even called "chided" archaic, but did not comment on the highly offensive swear word that I placed elsewhere in the sentence.
And so on. Heck, my phone doesn't even know the difference between "its" and "it's" and tries to auto-correct me into looking like I failed first grade English. And these folks expect me to believe that computers can feasibly help students learn to write better papers? Give me a break. Maybe in thirty to fifty years (*) we'll get there, but....
* Which many grammar checkers would probably suggest changing to "thirty-two fifty".
And worse, you're playing into the hands of the real terrorists. While everyone is distracted by the fake bomb, the bad guys can probably walk through with a real one. The bigger the distraction, the less likely anyone is to notice.
Writing the law correctly and unambiguously would just be too much of a bother for the congresscritters.
Why would they want to do that? They're mostly lawyers, and if the law were written correctly and unambiguously, people wouldn't need their services anymore, now would they?
The Progressive vision of 'rule by the intelligent' has produced massive public debt, unbalanced population structures, high unemployment, failing economies and an oligarchy that owns the political system in every country that it has been tried in.
Wait, where do you live where rule by the intelligent has actually been tried? From where I'm standing, it looks like your average high school student knows more about science and technology than half of Congress, and it looks like most of them don't even have enough intelligence to learn about these subjects before legislating on them. Intelligent, indeed.
I'm pretty sure we live on a planet that is largely ruled by the lawyers. This is why we have complex bodies of law designed to be utterly impenetrable for the average person. Lawyers create laws designed so that everyone will have need of their services in the future. The result is that the laws are written not by people who actually understand anything about the real world, but rather by people who mostly only understand the law.
I see no reason why a hard drive can't just putt putt around at a slow speed and ramp up that speed if the IO queue starts filling faster than it can be emptied.
I thought I had read that WD's green drive did exactly that.
Of course, you might have a display lying around, but it needs to support DisplayPort, so you might need to add an adapter...
No, it doesn't. The Mac Mini comes with an HDMI port and an HDMI to DVI adapter. There are only three situations where you would need an adapter: you own a dual-link DVI monitor, you own two monitors, or you own an ancient VGA-only monitor.
No, no, you misunderstand. I'm not talking about taking anything closed source. I'm talking about most open source software teams of any significant size having patent license requirements on all contributions, and that this patent license is incompatible with most of those requirements because it is not broad enough to cover every downstream user who is using the open source software as open source, covering those downstream users only if they are using it either exclusively with open source or exclusively for "internal use".
This is not to say that Google doesn't have the right to do this, mind you, but I think it's worth pointing out that no code contributed with this license would ever be accepted by the Apache Foundation, PostGreSQL, Mozilla, or pretty much any other organization that uses an MPL-like or Apache-like license, because the limited patent grant is fundamentally incompatible with the terms of their licenses. And it would be rejected by almost any organization whose software is distributed by a BSD-like license purely on principle.
A lot of plugins are only built for 32-bit browsers. It is a lot more work to get 32-bit plugins working in a 64-bit browser than in a 32-bit browser. Plus, there is no real advantage to using a 64-bit browser unless you want it to use more than 2gb of memory, and I thought one of the common complaints was that Firefox uses too much memory?
Except that if you're running a 64-bit OS, odds are most or all of the 64-bit library code is already loaded into RAM, but when you launch the first 32-bit app, the operating system has to page in an entire 32-bit library stack.
So by being 32-bit-only in an increasingly 64-bit world, Firefox is, in fact, using too much memory.
In this case the "what they are looking for" is information about the suspect's phone and the "where" is in Verizon's records. They instead peeked at other people's communications, by eavesdropping in the neighborhood. So they didn't stick to either the WHAT or the WHERE.
The "where" isn't in Verizon's records. Towers don't normally triangulate the location of users. However, with an appropriate court order, the instantaneous signal strength data from multiple towers can be used to locate the user. This gets you (at best) accuracy to within a few hundred feet (in dense urban areas) to a few thousand feet (in rural areas), which is still probably not precise enough to be all that useful. You pretty much need a tower fairly close to triangulate more accurately, hence these tools. However, if you need any real accuracy, you really need GPS.
The more interesting bit in my mind is the fact that it does not apply to closed-source software that links against open-source software unless that closed-source software qualifies as "internal use only". As far as I'm concerned, if the licensing terms of the open source software allows you to link against it in a closed-source app, you should be able to do so without worrying about whether there might be any patents embodied in that open-source software.
Absent that assurance, no piece of open source software under any license other than the GPL (and other no-closed-source-linking) licenses can safely take advantage of any of these patents without creating patent risk for downstream users. Ethically, that makes this pledge worthless for anything other than GPLed software.
Say that a foreign government decides they want to tap a cable. The easiest way is to cut the cable a few hundred miles away so that nobody will notice while they're severing and reconnecting fibers. Sure, they could blame somebody dragging an anchor across it, but that starts to look suspicious if you do it too many times. But if you can create what looks like a botched terrorist act, then you can later come and sever the cable, and everybody will assume that the successful cut was also a terrorist act. Even better if Egypt can host a mock show trial.
2. Something to hide.
Say you're the Syrian government and you don't want the world to have proof that you are beginning to gas the dissidents. What better way to cut off communication than to sever the right undersea cables?
Of course, I could be wrong—it could really be a terrorist organization—but I really can't think of any plausible aims that could be achieved by doing something like this, which is why it seems more likely that it was done by some random government's black ops team, either for nefarious purposes or to distract attention away from something else nefarious.
It's actually backwards from that. The FCC and the FAA have the legal right to set limits on what happens on aircraft, using authority granted by Congress. The FAA authorizes the pilot and crew to relax those rules when it is useful to do so, but never to tighten them.
For example, IIRC, you cannot use commercial video gear on an aircraft, but you can if you have the pilot's permission. Similarly, you cannot use cell phones on an aircraft, but at least as far as the FAA is concerned, you can use them if you have the pilot's permission. Many small airplane pilots carry cell phones as an emergency means of contacting the tower in the event of a radio failure, for example. In the case of commercial airlines, the airlines themselves generally have rules limiting what sorts of exceptions the pilots can make.
Of course, the FCC has a ban on cell phone use at altitude, but that has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the mess it makes of the spectrum having a bunch of phones shouting at towers twenty miles away and in line-of-sight to a dozen other towers, all of which are also twenty miles away. That might change at some point, but it hasn't happened yet.
A braced position might make you less likely to get head injuries, but I'd expect it to greatly increase the risk of neck injuries because of momentum driving you into the next seat. If you want ideal protection in a crash, airplane seats should all face the back of the plane, for precisely the same reason that child seats do.... And the closest approximation of that seems like it would involve getting down on your knees with your back to the back of the seat or bulkhead in front of you.
Your math is off. You're subtracting non-like percentages. It is not possible to know the rate for violent offenders without knowing what percentage of "all offenders" are violent.
Unless, of course, that detail is covered in the actual article.
Non-violent crime isn't just drug dealers. In fact, that is probably the least likely to be affected by differences in impulse suppression. One of the major functions of the ACC is to suppress impulses, particularly in situations where you have previously learned that acting on those impulses is harmful. But you don't become a drug dealer just because you stumble upon a drug dealer and suddenly getting the urge to do that. It is a conscious decision that involves planning, networking, etc.
The non-violent recidivism that this predicts are unplanned crimes—shoplifting, buying drugs, public drunkenness, etc.—the sorts of crimes that are caused by someone acting on impulse.
What this tells us is that certain people are unlikely to ever develop the ability to resist temptation, and that the only way to prevent them from going back to a life of crime is to ensure that those temptations are not part of their lives. There are many ways to accomplish this, with varying degrees of success. For example, if someone fails this test, it would be best for them to not try to go back to their lives prior to being in prison. They should try to make a clean start, and should be very, very selective about who they allow back into their new lives, to reduce the chances of falling into the same pattern of behavior that got them in trouble in the first place. That makes this a great diagnostic test for determining how closely to monitor someone on probation/parole, to what extent they will need additional support, what sort of terms the judge should set for probation/parole, etc.
The reason this is a stronger indicator for nonviolent crimes is that the sorts of people who commit violent crimes fall into three categories: the sociopaths, the people who commit crimes of passion, and people who commit violent crimes as an unplanned side effect of committing other crimes (e.g. people who initially planned to steal something from a store, but ended up shooting the store manager after he pointed a gun at them). Of these:
The sociopaths are likely to commit another violent crime, but we already have ways to test for that.
The people who commit a crime of passion are unlikely to be in a similarly extreme situation, so they are unlikely to commit another violent crime.
The people who commit a violent crime because they acted on impulse might commit another one, but that would be predicted by this same test.
Two things make this test a weaker indicator for violent recidivism: the relatively large size of that middle group and the law preventing someone from legally owning a handgun after committing a violent crime (which significantly reduces the violent recidivism of the third group, though not necessarily the nonviolent recidivism).
This is not to say that the people in the third group could not obtain a firearm if they wanted to do so, but assuming these people are generally trying to stay out of jail, they aren't likely to go out looking for illegal firearms, so they probably won't be armed the next time they decide to commit a crime on the spur of the moment, and if they are, then they're probably in the first bucket, not the third.
Embedded industrial and medical devices need to be controlled/monitored remotely, which means that they need open ports. There's no good reason for a camera to have any open ports by default. Thus, assuming they are using a reasonably robust and well-tested OS, the attack surface should be very, very small.
The problem is not that you can't get any lenses in a consumer-affordable price range, but rather that many of the EF lenses are dramatically much more expensive for a given angle on a full-frame sensor than an EF-S lens that would produce that same view angle on a crop body.
For example, I frequently find myself using my 10-22mm EF-Szoom lens. Canon's EF equivalent, after compensating for the 1.6x crop, is the 16-35. The 10-22 EF-S costs about $720. The 16-35 costs a jaw-dropping $1450.
The makers of the camera's want to produce the cheapest camera for the highest amount of profit possible.
I wonder if this exploit is the reason why Canon didn't release a Wi-Fi/GPS-capable EF-S camera body last week (70D, rumored) like just about everybody expected (and like a sizable percentage of Canon DSLR users are holding out for).
It just seems bizarre that such largely consumer-centric features are unavailable except in their pro DSLRs, which won't work with any of their consumer-priced lenses. Only a company with Canon's decades of experience can create a product line so completely upside-down for so many years without getting completely laughed out of the market.
The cost for web cams and 100' USB cables is like 20$.... Home security looks like a cash cow at first glance, what am I missing besides lawyer stuff?
Besides the fact that you'll need special hardware to extend USB past 5 meters (about 16 feet), and the fact that the extenders alone will eat that $20?
Slashdot Mirror
Every version from 10.5 (on Intel) onward is UNIX '03 certified.
The second part is a nominative absolute not a clause, so no, the comma is correct. That said, the construction is unusual enough that I've never been taught it in any English class, and I had to look it up just to figure out what it was called.
Perhaps the most famous example of this construction appears in the U.S. Bill of Rights (2nd amendment).
According to Merriam Webster, yes, you can. That has been common English usage for at least as long as I've been alive.
Oxford English Dictionary agrees (#2), and uses the same example. So does Random House. And so on. So maybe you can't climb down something, but I hope your house never catches on fire, or else you're in serious trouble.
Computers suck at even the most basic grammar checking. I once decided to try a bunch of online grammar checkers to see if they would be useful at providing a sanity check for my novels. I concluded that they report so many bogus mistakes that it simply wasn't practical to use their output at all. To test them, I fed them a block of content, some with intentional errors that the grammar checker should have caught, others with deliberately (or accidentally) tricky bits that should not have produced any errors.
And so on. Heck, my phone doesn't even know the difference between "its" and "it's" and tries to auto-correct me into looking like I failed first grade English. And these folks expect me to believe that computers can feasibly help students learn to write better papers? Give me a break. Maybe in thirty to fifty years (*) we'll get there, but....
* Which many grammar checkers would probably suggest changing to "thirty-two fifty".
And worse, you're playing into the hands of the real terrorists. While everyone is distracted by the fake bomb, the bad guys can probably walk through with a real one. The bigger the distraction, the less likely anyone is to notice.
Why would they want to do that? They're mostly lawyers, and if the law were written correctly and unambiguously, people wouldn't need their services anymore, now would they?
Wait, where do you live where rule by the intelligent has actually been tried? From where I'm standing, it looks like your average high school student knows more about science and technology than half of Congress, and it looks like most of them don't even have enough intelligence to learn about these subjects before legislating on them. Intelligent, indeed.
I'm pretty sure we live on a planet that is largely ruled by the lawyers. This is why we have complex bodies of law designed to be utterly impenetrable for the average person. Lawyers create laws designed so that everyone will have need of their services in the future. The result is that the laws are written not by people who actually understand anything about the real world, but rather by people who mostly only understand the law.
I thought I had read that WD's green drive did exactly that.
No, it doesn't. The Mac Mini comes with an HDMI port and an HDMI to DVI adapter. There are only three situations where you would need an adapter: you own a dual-link DVI monitor, you own two monitors, or you own an ancient VGA-only monitor.
No disagreement here. They did something they should not have done, and a judge spanked them.
No, no, you misunderstand. I'm not talking about taking anything closed source. I'm talking about most open source software teams of any significant size having patent license requirements on all contributions, and that this patent license is incompatible with most of those requirements because it is not broad enough to cover every downstream user who is using the open source software as open source, covering those downstream users only if they are using it either exclusively with open source or exclusively for "internal use".
This is not to say that Google doesn't have the right to do this, mind you, but I think it's worth pointing out that no code contributed with this license would ever be accepted by the Apache Foundation, PostGreSQL, Mozilla, or pretty much any other organization that uses an MPL-like or Apache-like license, because the limited patent grant is fundamentally incompatible with the terms of their licenses. And it would be rejected by almost any organization whose software is distributed by a BSD-like license purely on principle.
Except that if you're running a 64-bit OS, odds are most or all of the 64-bit library code is already loaded into RAM, but when you launch the first 32-bit app, the operating system has to page in an entire 32-bit library stack.
So by being 32-bit-only in an increasingly 64-bit world, Firefox is, in fact, using too much memory.
The "where" isn't in Verizon's records. Towers don't normally triangulate the location of users. However, with an appropriate court order, the instantaneous signal strength data from multiple towers can be used to locate the user. This gets you (at best) accuracy to within a few hundred feet (in dense urban areas) to a few thousand feet (in rural areas), which is still probably not precise enough to be all that useful. You pretty much need a tower fairly close to triangulate more accurately, hence these tools. However, if you need any real accuracy, you really need GPS.
The more interesting bit in my mind is the fact that it does not apply to closed-source software that links against open-source software unless that closed-source software qualifies as "internal use only". As far as I'm concerned, if the licensing terms of the open source software allows you to link against it in a closed-source app, you should be able to do so without worrying about whether there might be any patents embodied in that open-source software.
Absent that assurance, no piece of open source software under any license other than the GPL (and other no-closed-source-linking) licenses can safely take advantage of any of these patents without creating patent risk for downstream users. Ethically, that makes this pledge worthless for anything other than GPLed software.
Try again, Google.
I can see two likely possibilities:
1. Plausible deniability.
Say that a foreign government decides they want to tap a cable. The easiest way is to cut the cable a few hundred miles away so that nobody will notice while they're severing and reconnecting fibers. Sure, they could blame somebody dragging an anchor across it, but that starts to look suspicious if you do it too many times. But if you can create what looks like a botched terrorist act, then you can later come and sever the cable, and everybody will assume that the successful cut was also a terrorist act. Even better if Egypt can host a mock show trial.
2. Something to hide.
Say you're the Syrian government and you don't want the world to have proof that you are beginning to gas the dissidents. What better way to cut off communication than to sever the right undersea cables?
Of course, I could be wrong—it could really be a terrorist organization—but I really can't think of any plausible aims that could be achieved by doing something like this, which is why it seems more likely that it was done by some random government's black ops team, either for nefarious purposes or to distract attention away from something else nefarious.
It's actually backwards from that. The FCC and the FAA have the legal right to set limits on what happens on aircraft, using authority granted by Congress. The FAA authorizes the pilot and crew to relax those rules when it is useful to do so, but never to tighten them.
For example, IIRC, you cannot use commercial video gear on an aircraft, but you can if you have the pilot's permission. Similarly, you cannot use cell phones on an aircraft, but at least as far as the FAA is concerned, you can use them if you have the pilot's permission. Many small airplane pilots carry cell phones as an emergency means of contacting the tower in the event of a radio failure, for example. In the case of commercial airlines, the airlines themselves generally have rules limiting what sorts of exceptions the pilots can make.
Of course, the FCC has a ban on cell phone use at altitude, but that has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the mess it makes of the spectrum having a bunch of phones shouting at towers twenty miles away and in line-of-sight to a dozen other towers, all of which are also twenty miles away. That might change at some point, but it hasn't happened yet.
A braced position might make you less likely to get head injuries, but I'd expect it to greatly increase the risk of neck injuries because of momentum driving you into the next seat. If you want ideal protection in a crash, airplane seats should all face the back of the plane, for precisely the same reason that child seats do.... And the closest approximation of that seems like it would involve getting down on your knees with your back to the back of the seat or bulkhead in front of you.
...so it kind of goes without saying that there would be a lot of methane.
Your math is off. You're subtracting non-like percentages. It is not possible to know the rate for violent offenders without knowing what percentage of "all offenders" are violent.
Unless, of course, that detail is covered in the actual article.
Non-violent crime isn't just drug dealers. In fact, that is probably the least likely to be affected by differences in impulse suppression. One of the major functions of the ACC is to suppress impulses, particularly in situations where you have previously learned that acting on those impulses is harmful. But you don't become a drug dealer just because you stumble upon a drug dealer and suddenly getting the urge to do that. It is a conscious decision that involves planning, networking, etc.
The non-violent recidivism that this predicts are unplanned crimes—shoplifting, buying drugs, public drunkenness, etc.—the sorts of crimes that are caused by someone acting on impulse.
What this tells us is that certain people are unlikely to ever develop the ability to resist temptation, and that the only way to prevent them from going back to a life of crime is to ensure that those temptations are not part of their lives. There are many ways to accomplish this, with varying degrees of success. For example, if someone fails this test, it would be best for them to not try to go back to their lives prior to being in prison. They should try to make a clean start, and should be very, very selective about who they allow back into their new lives, to reduce the chances of falling into the same pattern of behavior that got them in trouble in the first place. That makes this a great diagnostic test for determining how closely to monitor someone on probation/parole, to what extent they will need additional support, what sort of terms the judge should set for probation/parole, etc.
The reason this is a stronger indicator for nonviolent crimes is that the sorts of people who commit violent crimes fall into three categories: the sociopaths, the people who commit crimes of passion, and people who commit violent crimes as an unplanned side effect of committing other crimes (e.g. people who initially planned to steal something from a store, but ended up shooting the store manager after he pointed a gun at them). Of these:
Two things make this test a weaker indicator for violent recidivism: the relatively large size of that middle group and the law preventing someone from legally owning a handgun after committing a violent crime (which significantly reduces the violent recidivism of the third group, though not necessarily the nonviolent recidivism).
This is not to say that the people in the third group could not obtain a firearm if they wanted to do so, but assuming these people are generally trying to stay out of jail, they aren't likely to go out looking for illegal firearms, so they probably won't be armed the next time they decide to commit a crime on the spur of the moment, and if they are, then they're probably in the first bucket, not the third.
Embedded industrial and medical devices need to be controlled/monitored remotely, which means that they need open ports. There's no good reason for a camera to have any open ports by default. Thus, assuming they are using a reasonably robust and well-tested OS, the attack surface should be very, very small.
The problem is not that you can't get any lenses in a consumer-affordable price range, but rather that many of the EF lenses are dramatically much more expensive for a given angle on a full-frame sensor than an EF-S lens that would produce that same view angle on a crop body.
For example, I frequently find myself using my 10-22mm EF-Szoom lens. Canon's EF equivalent, after compensating for the 1.6x crop, is the 16-35. The 10-22 EF-S costs about $720. The 16-35 costs a jaw-dropping $1450.
I wonder if this exploit is the reason why Canon didn't release a Wi-Fi/GPS-capable EF-S camera body last week (70D, rumored) like just about everybody expected (and like a sizable percentage of Canon DSLR users are holding out for).
It just seems bizarre that such largely consumer-centric features are unavailable except in their pro DSLRs, which won't work with any of their consumer-priced lenses. Only a company with Canon's decades of experience can create a product line so completely upside-down for so many years without getting completely laughed out of the market.
Besides the fact that you'll need special hardware to extend USB past 5 meters (about 16 feet), and the fact that the extenders alone will eat that $20?