Society is becoming increasingly uninhabitable because some people can't seem to get it through their heads that a society is not just a question of whom you allow in but whom you do not allow in. All these assholes are getting flagged by the intelligence agencies and no one does anything because they don't want to appear racist.
The Orlando shooter was born in the United States.
The guy in Orlando was reported to the FBI directly by people twice for being a dangerous psychopath. And response? Nada.
On the other hand, you've just made a veiled threat of violence ("Its going to be hilarious when people have finally had enough and it snaps"), so I suppose it's time to report you to the FBI and demand a response. No reason for your individual liberty to outweigh the risk of another McVeigh.
Any child will see that "any way" refers to any kind of "way", and "way" is a noun. It's not "anychild", is it?
anyway adv. 1. In any way or manner whatever: Get the job done anyway you can. 2. In any case; at least: I don't know if it was lost or stolen; anyway, it's gone. 3. Nevertheless; regardless: It was raining but they played the game anyway. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright 2015 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Anyway, adverb. I can keep linking to this until your eyes bleed, and you still haven't shown that it's wrong.
You may want to consult an actual English teacher for this one. It's obvious that you don't understand English grammar, sentence structure, or how to read a dictionary.
You've studiously avoided dealing with that definition and example, but until Houghton Mifflin Harcourt declares that you're correct and retracts it, I have no reason to consider myself wrong.
The former does not prove that the latter is wrong. Merely that there are multiple forms. Odd that you'll only selectively accept definitions from the same source.
Multiple dictionaries and thousands of examples written by professional writers in popular media are indeed right because there are thousand of them. English is a language principally established by convention, not by proscriptive rules. The examples are not only relevant, they are the quintessential measure of whether a use is accepted or not.
You claim that there is no adverb there -- so diagram that sentence. What does "anyway" (or "any way") do in the sentence? If it is not an adverb, then what is it?
Also, your own example disproves your point. "Anyway they can" is not the same as saying "by any method [that] they can" because you've expressly changed the grammar, adding the preposition "by" and changing the form to an object with the adjective "any" and the noun "way" to create a prepositional adverb. Even though the two are "like" each other, you cannot simply drop the object of the prepositional phrase back in the original sentence and have it be correct - it is not "Cisco Seen As Trying To Slow Down Arista Any Method They Can With Patent Lawsuits." It would be "Cisco Seen As Trying To 'Slow Down Arista By Any Method [That] They Can With Patent Lawsuits."
"Any method, "any subterfuge," and "any law" are objects, not adverbs. You cannot properly drop any of those into the sentence without adding an omitted preposition. The issue is neither merely in my mind nor obfuscation. You simply don't know what you're doing.
The dictionary example is precisely on point: anyway adv. 1. In any way or manner whatever: Get the job done anyway you can.
The word can be properly written as "anyway," and you're simply going to have to learn to live with that fact.
Which raises the original question. Is the measure two well known dictionaries and a basic knowledge of grammar (hint: anyway is an adverb modifying the verb -- answering the question how) versus one anonymous coward misapplying their grammar (treating "any way" as as a the object of an omitted prepositional phrase -- "by using any way that they can").
I pointed to about 9000 examples in popular media. Whether you've taken note of those uses is not relevant.
So why didn't they use "anyway" in the first definition?
They did. As I suggested, click the link for "anywise," which the first You'd do well do follow your own advice and read the full definition.
It's interesting that the only replies to all this are anonymous cowards with a troll moderation fetish, an odd interest in 0-rated posts, and a dead certainty that they're right despite multiple dictionaries indicating otherwise. Slashdot at its finest.
I'm sorry, was there a point to this? Because my comment had very little to do with whether the people won or lost and far more to do with "obvious troll is obvious."
You're free to set me up as philosopher-king; otherwise you're prying my ability to vote from my cold dead hand, whether you think I'm a genius or an idiot.
The best part of Brexit so far today is watching statist fuckfaces like yourself make shitty, spiteful comments and shake your tiny fists in rage. The people won, the elites lost. That doesn't happen very often and deserves celebrating.
A bunch of fifth graders voting that the supermarket should only be able to sell candy and ice cream? Real great referendum you have there. Voters are morons, Brexit proved it.
Wow, it took you less than a day to change from "the people won" to "voters are idiots."
Trolls are supposed to be less obvious. I think we've identified the true moron.
Ah, democracy at it's best. Dozens, hundreds, thousands, or millions vote, but so few votes matter.
Perhaps it's time for a better voting system, you know, like one that actually gives everyone more than just a "say"? Maybe one that gives everyone some actual influence?
It's not a democracy, it's a corporation that offered shares to the public on its own terms, and the public bought them.
Those shares were offered with full disclosure that there were multiple classes of shares with different voting powers. Anyone who bought Facebook shares thinking that they could outvote Zuckerberg, prior to him selling a sufficient number of control-voting shares third parties to lose his majority voting power, was simply fooling themselves.
How about just simply shipping them with an OS that complies with the FCC rules and let it be the user's responsibility not to put software on it that doesn't comply with the FCC rules?
We tried that. Too many open source users can't be arsed to comply with the FCC rules, or expose every option possible and damn the rules (not their responsibility, as you suggest), so that now open source as a whole will pay the price.
Now you've lost open source access to Wi-Fi radios. Police your community or you can bet that software defined radios will go the same way.
Do you see that big word MAJORITY in there? That means there are parts of the kernel that Microsoft is keeping closed source to themselves.
Or not. It apparently means that there are subsequent developments that don't appear in 10.3. It also says nothing about whether those developments, or any others, were not upstreamed but are still available under a BSD license.
When you assume you make an ass out of you. Me, I chose to use my brain.
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt... and not coming from Microsoft.
Their version of FreeBSD has some subtle tweaks that makes it optimized for Azure, and also some tweaks that "de-optimize" it for Xen/KVM and other virtualization schemes.
This process is expensive and there are better ways to do it. CO2 can be used for enhanced oil recovery [wikipedia.org] which can sequester carbon while also helping improve yield. Since it has positive economic value, it is much more likely to actually happen.
That is an extraction technology, not a storage technology. You will never be able to store an amount of CO2 in the oil formation comparable to the CO2 potential of the oil (when burned) that was extracted. Sure, you can potentially use this to finish an oil field, but you'll run out of oil fields to finish well before you run out of CO2 from even only that 'finished' oil. I'm sure there's also concerns that it's geologically temporary storage -- unless the engineering of the abandonment process is quite good, the pressure of the settling formation is going to eventually drive out a good portion of the injected CO2. The problem is mentioned, very briefly, as "leakage" in the third paragraph of TGA.
The point of this technology is that the injected CO2 becomes converted to far less mobile rock, seemingly surprisingly quickly. That would make it a better storage option than post-carbon-capture storage in oil fields, deep sandstone formations, and other such storage as fluid (or gas) schemes.
Frankly, it probably does not matter. I think we'll likely have moved away from power generation using carbon fuels (fixed facilities where carbon dioxide might be capturable) before capture and storage have commercially scalable solutions. The trick is going to be capturing or offsetting diffuse carbon sources like non-electric transportation fuel use.
To be clear, I don't support Trump, and there is no conceivable way I'll vote for him. His policies (for example, the trillions in debt his tax plan would incur even over Hillary's) are are idiotic, and I find his demagoguery to be repugnant, and a poor fit for the office. Equally repugnant, though, is when someone spews out a hackneyed "racist!" label because, y'know, reasons.
I completely agree. I will now spew out a "jingoistic plutocrat" label because, y'know, reasons.
This law means the proprietor of a business has a duty of care to people visiting a physical location he owns and controls.
The standard is not a statute. The standard comes from English (and then American) common law. A key aspect of the common law is that it evolves and adapts, frequently making use of analogies to prior circumstances to determine whether there are, for example, duties of care in new circumstances.
If you think that the word "premesis" in a half page summary of a common law concept going to be enough to completely shield this business from liability (i.e., a jury will not be permitted to decide whether there is a special relationship and duty to warn), then you either failed the first year of law school or never attempted to attend.
If they had specific knowledge that crimes had been committed, and who committed them, then they may have been aiding the criminal activity. If someone had suggested to them that something like that might have been going on, but gave no specifics whatsoever, then not so much.
DUTY OF CARE OF PROPRIETOR OF BUSINESS The proprietor of a business establishment owes a duty of care to customers when they come upon the business premises at the proprietor's express or implied invitation. This duty of care requires the proprietor to exercise reasonable care to discover whether accidental, negligent or intentionally harmful acts of third persons are occurring or are likely to occur on the business premises. If a proprietor knows, or should know that such acts are occurring or are likely to occur, the proprietor has the further duty to either give the customer a warning adequate to enable the visitor to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect the visitor against such harm.
This has nothing to do with aiding the criminal activity. This has very little to do with whether they had specific knowledge of crimes. This has to do with whether they invested reasonable effort into determining whether a risk was likely to be present, and warned their customers of the risk. If someone suggest that something like that might have been going on, then for various values of might (with a threshold between more likely than not and lottery odds), they very well could be liable.
The conclusion is rather simple: when talking about Aduino, the first thing from Banzi's, or anyone else involved in development of the project, should be "hey, it all started with the thesis of this Colombian guy, Hernando Barragan". That's all it'd take to be fair to Hernando.
I'm sorry. You apparently missed the part where Hernando Barragan quotes from the Arduino credits page:
Arduino was initially developed at the Interaction Design Institute Ivrea, in northern Italy. It derives from Wiring, a platform built by Hernando Barragan as his master's thesis at Interaction-Ivrea. Hernando was advised by Massimo and Casey Reas. Wiring and, in turn, Arduino build on previous work by both Massimo and Casey -- Massimo's Programma2003 electronics prototyping platform and the Processing platform by Casey and Ben Fry. Early versions of both Wiring and Arduino also relied upon Pascal Stang's avrlib libraries.
That meets your criterion for what it takes to be fair to him, does it not?
The FDA was involved in both, you tool. Try reading the linked articles for a change. The nanotainers were the subject of the October 2015 FDA findings and the Edison device test results the March 2016 FDA findings. The latter, specifically concerning the quality control and operating of Edison machines, caused Theranos to invalidate all Edison machine-generated test results in 2015-2016. Now Theranos is being sued over those invalidated results.
The "fucking interview" conducted in October 2015 is incapable of addressing the FDA reports released in March 2016. They are two different situations. Deal with it.
Can you explain how you link is relevant? Exact quote and how it constitutes a rebuttal? Yet again - you are saying that Theranos never claimed certain things. An half hour interview published after the WSJ article does nothing to show that they didn't claim something before the article.
You can gleefully ignore the nanotainer "pause," the Edison device quality control issues, and the fact that their only commercial partners -- who have an actual financial interest in what Theranos can and cannot do -- are fleeing for the hills. But you're essentially alone in that stance. The FDA does not agree, Medicare does not agree, and Walgreens does not agree. They have no chance for an IPO at this point, and the valuation that will be applied during their next funding tranche, assuming that they aren't driven into bankruptcy first, is going to be a small, small fraction of that applied last year. Because, again, nobody was valuing Theranos at $9B due to their ability to lose money by performing the same tests as LabCorp at below-cost rates.
Slashdot Mirror
The Orlando shooter was born in the United States.
The response was they investigated him twice. However, you have to prove that he is a dangerous psychopath before you can anything more. You can't simply throw a person in jail -- or exile a U.S. citizen from the country (however you propose to do that) -- because they watched bad videos and/or their coworkers say they're tied to multiple terrorist groups that, incidentally, totally hate each other.
On the other hand, you've just made a veiled threat of violence ("Its going to be hilarious when people have finally had enough and it snaps"), so I suppose it's time to report you to the FBI and demand a response. No reason for your individual liberty to outweigh the risk of another McVeigh.
anyway
adv.
1. In any way or manner whatever: Get the job done anyway you can.
2. In any case; at least: I don't know if it was lost or stolen; anyway, it's gone.
3. Nevertheless; regardless: It was raining but they played the game anyway.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright 2015 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Anyway, adverb. I can keep linking to this until your eyes bleed, and you still haven't shown that it's wrong.
You may want to consult an actual English teacher for this one. It's obvious that you don't understand English grammar, sentence structure, or how to read a dictionary.
It's a adverb, you turd.
anyway
adv.
1. In any way or manner whatever: Get the job done anyway you can.
2. In any case; at least: I don't know if it was lost or stolen; anyway, it's gone.
3. Nevertheless; regardless: It was raining but they played the game anyway.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2015 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
You've studiously avoided dealing with that definition and example, but until Houghton Mifflin Harcourt declares that you're correct and retracts it, I have no reason to consider myself wrong.
"in any way" is preposition, adjective, noun.
"anyway" is also an adverb, just as they say.
The former does not prove that the latter is wrong. Merely that there are multiple forms. Odd that you'll only selectively accept definitions from the same source.
Multiple dictionaries and thousands of examples written by professional writers in popular media are indeed right because there are thousand of them. English is a language principally established by convention, not by proscriptive rules. The examples are not only relevant, they are the quintessential measure of whether a use is accepted or not.
You claim that there is no adverb there -- so diagram that sentence. What does "anyway" (or "any way") do in the sentence? If it is not an adverb, then what is it?
Also, your own example disproves your point. "Anyway they can" is not the same as saying "by any method [that] they can" because you've expressly changed the grammar, adding the preposition "by" and changing the form to an object with the adjective "any" and the noun "way" to create a prepositional adverb. Even though the two are "like" each other, you cannot simply drop the object of the prepositional phrase back in the original sentence and have it be correct - it is not "Cisco Seen As Trying To Slow Down Arista Any Method They Can With Patent Lawsuits." It would be "Cisco Seen As Trying To 'Slow Down Arista By Any Method [That] They Can With Patent Lawsuits."
"Any method, "any subterfuge," and "any law" are objects, not adverbs. You cannot properly drop any of those into the sentence without adding an omitted preposition. The issue is neither merely in my mind nor obfuscation. You simply don't know what you're doing.
The dictionary example is precisely on point:
anyway
adv.
1. In any way or manner whatever: Get the job done anyway you can.
The word can be properly written as "anyway," and you're simply going to have to learn to live with that fact.
Which raises the original question. Is the measure two well known dictionaries and a basic knowledge of grammar (hint: anyway is an adverb modifying the verb -- answering the question how) versus one anonymous coward misapplying their grammar (treating "any way" as as a the object of an omitted prepositional phrase -- "by using any way that they can").
I pointed to about 9000 examples in popular media. Whether you've taken note of those uses is not relevant.
They did. As I suggested, click the link for "anywise," which the first You'd do well do follow your own advice and read the full definition.
It's interesting that the only replies to all this are anonymous cowards with a troll moderation fetish, an odd interest in 0-rated posts, and a dead certainty that they're right despite multiple dictionaries indicating otherwise. Slashdot at its finest.
Conflicting authority. Grammerly.com can go to the same hell reserved for reformers attempting to eradicate "ain't" and the split infinitive.
You're ignoring the Merriam Webster definition's link to "anywise" in the full definition.
More explicitly:
anyway
adv.
1. In any way or manner whatever: Get the job done anyway you can.
2. In any case; at least: I don't know if it was lost or stolen; anyway, it's gone.
3. Nevertheless; regardless: It was raining but they played the game anyway.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Popular media examples.
You can also substitute the adverb "however" for the adverb "anyway" to verify that, yes, the adverb "anyway" is grammatically appropriate.
Merriam Webster or anonymous coward... whom should I trust?
I'm sorry, was there a point to this? Because my comment had very little to do with whether the people won or lost and far more to do with "obvious troll is obvious."
You're free to set me up as philosopher-king; otherwise you're prying my ability to vote from my cold dead hand, whether you think I'm a genius or an idiot.
Wow, it took you less than a day to change from "the people won" to "voters are idiots."
Trolls are supposed to be less obvious. I think we've identified the true moron.
It's not a democracy, it's a corporation that offered shares to the public on its own terms, and the public bought them.
Those shares were offered with full disclosure that there were multiple classes of shares with different voting powers. Anyone who bought Facebook shares thinking that they could outvote Zuckerberg, prior to him selling a sufficient number of control-voting shares third parties to lose his majority voting power, was simply fooling themselves.
Hard to acknowledge a bug posted only yesterday on an obscure blog, and published what looks like about 3 hours ago on a news site, when TFA states:
Telegram hasn't even publicly acknowledged the vulnerability after the two researchers found no way of notifying the company about the issue.
Hey researchers, I've found a flaw in your notification process.... you couldn't find this page or this FAQ.
We tried that. Too many open source users can't be arsed to comply with the FCC rules, or expose every option possible and damn the rules (not their responsibility, as you suggest), so that now open source as a whole will pay the price.
Now you've lost open source access to Wi-Fi radios. Police your community or you can bet that software defined radios will go the same way.
Or not. It apparently means that there are subsequent developments that don't appear in 10.3. It also says nothing about whether those developments, or any others, were not upstreamed but are still available under a BSD license.
When you assume you make an ass out of you. Me, I chose to use my brain.
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt... and not coming from Microsoft.
I demand proof, not FUD.
That is an extraction technology, not a storage technology. You will never be able to store an amount of CO2 in the oil formation comparable to the CO2 potential of the oil (when burned) that was extracted. Sure, you can potentially use this to finish an oil field, but you'll run out of oil fields to finish well before you run out of CO2 from even only that 'finished' oil. I'm sure there's also concerns that it's geologically temporary storage -- unless the engineering of the abandonment process is quite good, the pressure of the settling formation is going to eventually drive out a good portion of the injected CO2. The problem is mentioned, very briefly, as "leakage" in the third paragraph of TGA.
The point of this technology is that the injected CO2 becomes converted to far less mobile rock, seemingly surprisingly quickly. That would make it a better storage option than post-carbon-capture storage in oil fields, deep sandstone formations, and other such storage as fluid (or gas) schemes.
Frankly, it probably does not matter. I think we'll likely have moved away from power generation using carbon fuels (fixed facilities where carbon dioxide might be capturable) before capture and storage have commercially scalable solutions. The trick is going to be capturing or offsetting diffuse carbon sources like non-electric transportation fuel use.
NextPVR only works with content flagged as Copy Freely. It's not even remotely equivalent to WMC, which works with all Cablecard-delivered content.
I completely agree. I will now spew out a "jingoistic plutocrat" label because, y'know, reasons.
The standard is not a statute. The standard comes from English (and then American) common law. A key aspect of the common law is that it evolves and adapts, frequently making use of analogies to prior circumstances to determine whether there are, for example, duties of care in new circumstances.
If you think that the word "premesis" in a half page summary of a common law concept going to be enough to completely shield this business from liability (i.e., a jury will not be permitted to decide whether there is a special relationship and duty to warn), then you either failed the first year of law school or never attempted to attend.
No. That is not the standard. This is:
DUTY OF CARE OF PROPRIETOR OF BUSINESS
The proprietor of a business establishment owes a duty of care to customers when they come upon the business premises at the proprietor's express or implied invitation. This duty of care requires the proprietor to exercise reasonable care to discover whether accidental, negligent or intentionally harmful acts of third persons are occurring or are likely to occur on the business premises. If a proprietor knows, or should know that such acts are occurring or are likely to occur, the proprietor has the further duty to either give the customer a warning adequate to enable the visitor to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect the visitor against such harm.
This has nothing to do with aiding the criminal activity. This has very little to do with whether they had specific knowledge of crimes. This has to do with whether they invested reasonable effort into determining whether a risk was likely to be present, and warned their customers of the risk. If someone suggest that something like that might have been going on, then for various values of might (with a threshold between more likely than not and lottery odds), they very well could be liable.
I'm sorry. You apparently missed the part where Hernando Barragan quotes from the Arduino credits page:
Arduino was initially developed at the Interaction Design Institute Ivrea, in northern Italy. It derives from Wiring, a platform built by Hernando Barragan as his master's thesis at Interaction-Ivrea. Hernando was advised by Massimo and Casey Reas. Wiring and, in turn, Arduino build on previous work by both Massimo and Casey -- Massimo's Programma2003 electronics prototyping platform and the Processing platform by Casey and Ben Fry. Early versions of both Wiring and Arduino also relied upon Pascal Stang's avrlib libraries.
That meets your criterion for what it takes to be fair to him, does it not?
The FDA was involved in both, you tool. Try reading the linked articles for a change. The nanotainers were the subject of the October 2015 FDA findings and the Edison device test results the March 2016 FDA findings. The latter, specifically concerning the quality control and operating of Edison machines, caused Theranos to invalidate all Edison machine-generated test results in 2015-2016. Now Theranos is being sued over those invalidated results.
The "fucking interview" conducted in October 2015 is incapable of addressing the FDA reports released in March 2016. They are two different situations. Deal with it.
Can you explain how you link is relevant? Exact quote and how it constitutes a rebuttal? Yet again - you are saying that Theranos never claimed certain things. An half hour interview published after the WSJ article does nothing to show that they didn't claim something before the article.
You can gleefully ignore the nanotainer "pause," the Edison device quality control issues, and the fact that their only commercial partners -- who have an actual financial interest in what Theranos can and cannot do -- are fleeing for the hills. But you're essentially alone in that stance. The FDA does not agree, Medicare does not agree, and Walgreens does not agree. They have no chance for an IPO at this point, and the valuation that will be applied during their next funding tranche, assuming that they aren't driven into bankruptcy first, is going to be a small, small fraction of that applied last year. Because, again, nobody was valuing Theranos at $9B due to their ability to lose money by performing the same tests as LabCorp at below-cost rates.