Separately, the White House announced plans to spend $3,000 on 'Game-Changing' Solutions to Childhood Obesity.
3,000 bucks sounds amiss. So, quoth the linked press release:
Incentives: We discussed government limitations on the size of the prize ($3,000 – a purse we’ve awarded in public service announcement contests as well). Design questions focused on the degree to which other stakeholders might supplement the prize with privately raised funds; develop new markets for educational games, including schools, parents, and after-school programs; and recognize finalists at the White House or other venues. What incentives would you recommend we deploy to maximize high quality participation?
(Bold italics mine)
Ah, they mean to give each "winner" kid $3,000 as an incentive/prize for being fit.
I feel like an ass now. Honestly, I did *not* intend to come across as snarky or sarcastic or touchy at all. I really understood the bit in dictionary.com as similar of what you explained to me but opposite as to which is the newer form, and the whole point (change in usage and the logic behind "try and") is new information to me which I appreciate. I'll read both again to sort it out.
When I said "my opinion stays valid" and "I will not go gentle [into that good night]", it was about the infinitive being somehow better, partly joking, and surely not an attempt to raise an argument about what form was first. I do have a silly tendency to parse natural languages as expressions. But yes, it's easy to read it that way, given that sarcasm and touchiness do abound here in/.
All in all, apologies if my clumsy writing upset you. I wanted to convey that really learned something from you, even if I'm not sure what it is:)
Can we please stop using "try and" when we mean "try to"? Many say it's non-standard in written speech, but it's worse - it means something entirely different.
"Try and" is in fact the older expression, and is closer to the core meaning of "try". Here's the earliest usage --
They try and express their love to God by their thankfulness to him. -- J. Sergeant, 1686
"Try" taking an infinitive only goes back to a 1697 poem of Dryden's (though there's a cognate usage of "trial" that goes back to 1683).
Age isn't the main indicator of which is better, of course...
Yes - I have this silly tendency to think that if it "parses" better it must be better. To me, the preposition + infinitive means try(action) while the conjunction + simple form means try();action, where the action is the implied object (argument) of try(). But then again, natural languages don't always make sense. My native tongue is Spanish, which is a shining example with its double negation.
The point is that once upon a time "try" didn't mean "attempt"; that's a secondary meaning that it was gaining in the late 17th century. The original meaning, which it still has, is "test, prove, experiment", as in "Try before you buy", or "I shall try this infrared camera technology and, I hope, thereby determine the tastiest slices of beef".
Thanks for the info. Fun thing, I have been schooled and I my opinion (about what we should be using now) stays valid;)
In that sense "try and" makes considerably more sense than "try to": the implication of "try and determine" is that two intents are behind the one action, i.e. "I will conduct an experiment" and also "I shall (I hope!) determine". It's not actually being used as a modal verb, in other words.
Correct, if you assume the "hopefully" clause in the middle is implicit.
The short answer is: you're fighting the losing side of a 300-year-old battle,
*sigh* And yet, I will not go gentle;)
and isn't it fun what you can find when you actually take the time to look in a dictionary?
Hmm... good old m-w.com says nothing beyond "to make an attempt at — often used with an infinitive <try to fix the car>". Then I went to dictionary.com and found:
Usage note:
10. "Try" followed by and instead of to has been in standard use since the 17th century: The Justice Department has decided to try and regulate jury-selection practices. The construction occurs only with the base form "try", not with "tries" or "tried" or "trying". Although some believe that "try and" is less formal than "try to", both patterns occur in all types of speech and writing.
... which somehow contradicts your information. Funny things, these human languages.
Can we please stop using "try and" when we mean "try to"? Many say it's non-standard in written speech, but it's worse - it means something entirely different. If you "try and determine" (conjunction), you succeed at it and the "try" part is rather redundant. If you "try to determine" (preposition), "to determine" becomes the object of "try".
You can start modding this down now, or making fun if you haven't the points.
I had the same thought about the inconvenience for self-defense ("someone's out there - now let me put on the damn wristwatch...").
Then I figured it must be really good for law enforcement, where you already wear a lot of paraphernalia for the whole day. When I first read about the idea some years ago, the problem addressed was cops getting shot with their own guns.
Nope, but now I get the idea; it's basically the same as black powder: carbon/sugar/starch plus oxidizer. Pray tell, what happens exactly with the metal oxide? Will the mixture ignite on contact?
I hope the net is bio-degradeable and not a danger to marine life. I can't see many pirates disposing of it carefully afterwards.
jonathan delf | 24 Nov 2009 10:53 am
Currently the net is not bio-degradeable, although we are looking at alternatives that are. Ultimately we would hope this system would be used in emergencies only. It's a comprimise really, the hazard of a small net to marine life vs the hazard of an uncontrolled or sinking oil tanker which has become a victim of piracy.
Jonathan
This was actually my first thought. The remains from a single shot of this contraption may remain afloat for a long time and hurt several animals. Still, Jonathan makes a good point, assuming vessels are often sunk and not just held for ransom, Any facts on this?
Correct, sadly:(. That's more or less what I was thinking about when I wrote an earlier comment:
That said, it looks a lot like what they did about blood diamonds, including the same possibilities for laundering (as some AC noted above).
That's what we get from half-baked regulation, even when the direction's right. Now they'd need to clamp down on said black market, starting with hypocritic companies who do half-hearted or bogus checks on their suppliers. This is where we have a better chance than with drugs - at some point, the players are few and very visible.
Ideally these people should turn against these thugs who give them *nothing* in return for their minerals. In practice, they're not going to risk their lives (no matter how miserable they are) by uprising with machetes against their long guns. Any effective help from outside requires weakening the bad guys, and I can't think of anything besides honest, real monitoring of the market they thrive on. If we can't / won't actually crack down on complicit manufacturers, name-and-shame them and let the consumer with a conscience decide.
I honestly don't think there's ANY workable solution to the Congo problem.
Hmm... there's a huge poor populace and a few warlords with guns, and they bid: "join us for the benefits, or languish with your folks and maybe get shot to terrorize the rest". Young fellows with no other hopes for their future easily fall for this offer, and become part of the cycle of oppression and impoverishment.
At any rate, this would be economically unsustainable (AK's and RPGs are expensive) unless the militias/armies are funded by some highly productive, low-investment activity, and digging out expensive minerals to sell them raw suits the bill just fine. This isn't at all like the blanket embargo on Cuba, which hoped to bring down the whole economy so people would revolt (har har), but a more selective approach - people are in no way benefiting from mineral extraction, since the money ends up with the arms dealers, the minerals go to our gadgets, and the warlords get the guns.
The EICC and GeSI launched an effort in early 2009 to enhance transparency in the minerals supply chain and to better determine how these minerals flow from mines to final manufacturing. This workgroup has engaged companies from all levels of the tantalum mining and processing industry to drive toward a solution that promotes the responsible sourcing of tantalum.
It commissions a map that will overlay areas of conflict with areas rich in mineral resources in the DRC, so refiners will know which mines are likely to fund conflict. The bill also requires importers of potential conflict goods to certify whether or not their imports contain conflict minerals and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) will report to Congress and the public which companies are importing goods containing conflict minerals.
That said, it looks a lot like what they did about blood diamonds, including the same possibilities for laundering (as some AC noted above).
I'm wondering about complications with cheap / knock-off implants or a sloppy job by some hack, much like what happens with breast implants.
Also, you can watch the first few minutes of Johnny Mnemonic (I don't know if the scene is in Gibson's original), where his friend Jane has fits because of her el-cheapo reflex boosting implants.
Oh, oh, by "auto-update" I meant software updates. (Kids, that's what happens when you post without having had enough sleep).
My concern is that the software driving modems and routers is rarely updated, but they're standing between you and the wide, wild Internet. Sure they could check for new versions, but how do they prompt you for permission? (I think technically minded consumers would be a bit miffed if the manufacturer pushed patches behind your back)
Like an open website -- OMG everyone can access it.
This is more like an open website running on IIS 4.0 because it's what it's built into the server.
Only these devices do not auto-update - funny thing considering that their function requires being connected to the Internet. The only problem would be prompting for authorization.
(mostly posting this because my mouse slipped and I modded parent down - me sorry)
That said, I am still not too hopeful that reasoned argument is going to keep anyone from clinging to the beliefs that allow them to attribute their misfortunes to some evil cabal
Slashdot Mirror
Separately, the White House announced plans to spend $3,000 on 'Game-Changing' Solutions to Childhood Obesity.
3,000 bucks sounds amiss. So, quoth the linked press release:
(Bold italics mine)
Ah, they mean to give each "winner" kid $3,000 as an incentive/prize for being fit.
I feel like an ass now. Honestly, I did *not* intend to come across as snarky or sarcastic or touchy at all. I really understood the bit in dictionary.com as similar of what you explained to me but opposite as to which is the newer form, and the whole point (change in usage and the logic behind "try and") is new information to me which I appreciate. I'll read both again to sort it out.
When I said "my opinion stays valid" and "I will not go gentle [into that good night]", it was about the infinitive being somehow better, partly joking, and surely not an attempt to raise an argument about what form was first. I do have a silly tendency to parse natural languages as expressions. But yes, it's easy to read it that way, given that sarcasm and touchiness do abound here in /.
All in all, apologies if my clumsy writing upset you. I wanted to convey that really learned something from you, even if I'm not sure what it is :)
Send both and charge big $$ for the tickets to the fight. There's your business model!
Can we please stop using "try and" when we mean "try to"? Many say it's non-standard in written speech, but it's worse - it means something entirely different.
"Try and" is in fact the older expression, and is closer to the core meaning of "try". Here's the earliest usage --
They try and express their love to God by their thankfulness to him. -- J. Sergeant, 1686
"Try" taking an infinitive only goes back to a 1697 poem of Dryden's (though there's a cognate usage of "trial" that goes back to 1683).
Age isn't the main indicator of which is better, of course...
Yes - I have this silly tendency to think that if it "parses" better it must be better. To me, the preposition + infinitive means try(action) while the conjunction + simple form means try();action, where the action is the implied object (argument) of try(). But then again, natural languages don't always make sense. My native tongue is Spanish, which is a shining example with its double negation.
The point is that once upon a time "try" didn't mean "attempt"; that's a secondary meaning that it was gaining in the late 17th century. The original meaning, which it still has, is "test, prove, experiment", as in "Try before you buy", or "I shall try this infrared camera technology and, I hope, thereby determine the tastiest slices of beef".
Thanks for the info. Fun thing, I have been schooled and I my opinion (about what we should be using now) stays valid ;)
In that sense "try and" makes considerably more sense than "try to": the implication of "try and determine" is that two intents are behind the one action, i.e. "I will conduct an experiment" and also "I shall (I hope!) determine". It's not actually being used as a modal verb, in other words.
Correct, if you assume the "hopefully" clause in the middle is implicit.
The short answer is: you're fighting the losing side of a 300-year-old battle,
*sigh* And yet, I will not go gentle ;)
and isn't it fun what you can find when you actually take the time to look in a dictionary?
Hmm... good old m-w.com says nothing beyond "to make an attempt at — often used with an infinitive <try to fix the car>". Then I went to dictionary.com and found:
Usage note:
10. "Try" followed by and instead of to has been in standard use since the 17th century: The Justice Department has decided to try and regulate jury-selection practices. The construction occurs only with the base form "try", not with "tries" or "tried" or "trying". Although some believe that "try and" is less formal than "try to", both patterns occur in all types of speech and writing.
... which somehow contradicts your information. Funny things, these human languages.
Thank Gawd I asked "please" and didn't say anything bad about anyone.
Anyway, you were supposed to mod it down or make fun, but thanks for playing ;)
to try and determine
Can we please stop using "try and" when we mean "try to"? Many say it's non-standard in written speech, but it's worse - it means something entirely different. If you "try and determine" (conjunction), you succeed at it and the "try" part is rather redundant. If you "try to determine" (preposition), "to determine" becomes the object of "try".
You can start modding this down now, or making fun if you haven't the points.
I had the same thought about the inconvenience for self-defense ("someone's out there - now let me put on the damn wristwatch...").
Then I figured it must be really good for law enforcement, where you already wear a lot of paraphernalia for the whole day. When I first read about the idea some years ago, the problem addressed was cops getting shot with their own guns.
I didn't get the joke, either. Pretty please, don't use Offtopic and Troll as substitutes for Dumb/Disagree.
You could put the baby beside a phone or camera
No damage to the baby, but that phone/camera is toast as soon as you turn your head :)
Online Services Let Virus Writers Check Their Work
Already done
Doh! You're right, only that the fuel would not be Al or Mg but sugar; I wonder if it works as well like that.
Hey, that was in a McGyver episode! - early seasons. He fashions a thermal lance with rust from a paint can and aluminium filings ;)
Nope, but now I get the idea; it's basically the same as black powder: carbon/sugar/starch plus oxidizer. Pray tell, what happens exactly with the metal oxide? Will the mixture ignite on contact?
Hmm. One _could_ make solid fuel with rice flour and potassium chlorate or a similar oxidizer...
Wow, I knew McGyver posted under an alias on /. ;)
This was actually my first thought. The remains from a single shot of this contraption may remain afloat for a long time and hurt several animals. Still, Jonathan makes a good point, assuming vessels are often sunk and not just held for ransom, Any facts on this?
So this would be like, the cops desregarded his right to not shouting "there's no fire!" in a crowded theater?
I hope that was a sarcastic reference to Afghanistan.
That said, it looks a lot like what they did about blood diamonds, including the same possibilities for laundering (as some AC noted above).
That's what we get from half-baked regulation, even when the direction's right. Now they'd need to clamp down on said black market, starting with hypocritic companies who do half-hearted or bogus checks on their suppliers. This is where we have a better chance than with drugs - at some point, the players are few and very visible.
Ideally these people should turn against these thugs who give them *nothing* in return for their minerals. In practice, they're not going to risk their lives (no matter how miserable they are) by uprising with machetes against their long guns. Any effective help from outside requires weakening the bad guys, and I can't think of anything besides honest, real monitoring of the market they thrive on. If we can't / won't actually crack down on complicit manufacturers, name-and-shame them and let the consumer with a conscience decide.
You can start laughing at my innocence now.
I honestly don't think there's ANY workable solution to the Congo problem.
Hmm... there's a huge poor populace and a few warlords with guns, and they bid: "join us for the benefits, or languish with your folks and maybe get shot to terrorize the rest". Young fellows with no other hopes for their future easily fall for this offer, and become part of the cycle of oppression and impoverishment.
At any rate, this would be economically unsustainable (AK's and RPGs are expensive) unless the militias/armies are funded by some highly productive, low-investment activity, and digging out expensive minerals to sell them raw suits the bill just fine. This isn't at all like the blanket embargo on Cuba, which hoped to bring down the whole economy so people would revolt (har har), but a more selective approach - people are in no way benefiting from mineral extraction, since the money ends up with the arms dealers, the minerals go to our gadgets, and the warlords get the guns.
It's not at all about banning coltan, tungsten or tin.
Quoth the corporate spinsters:
The EICC and GeSI launched an effort in early 2009 to enhance transparency in the minerals supply chain and to better determine how these minerals flow from mines to final manufacturing. This workgroup has engaged companies from all levels of the tantalum mining and processing industry to drive toward a solution that promotes the responsible sourcing of tantalum.
Quoth the congress guy:
It commissions a map that will overlay areas of conflict with areas rich in mineral resources in the DRC, so refiners will know which mines are likely to fund conflict. The bill also requires importers of potential conflict goods to certify whether or not their imports contain conflict minerals and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) will report to Congress and the public which companies are importing goods containing conflict minerals.
That said, it looks a lot like what they did about blood diamonds, including the same possibilities for laundering (as some AC noted above).
I'm wondering about complications with cheap / knock-off implants or a sloppy job by some hack, much like what happens with breast implants.
Also, you can watch the first few minutes of Johnny Mnemonic (I don't know if the scene is in Gibson's original), where his friend Jane has fits because of her el-cheapo reflex boosting implants.
Oh, oh, by "auto-update" I meant software updates. (Kids, that's what happens when you post without having had enough sleep).
My concern is that the software driving modems and routers is rarely updated, but they're standing between you and the wide, wild Internet. Sure they could check for new versions, but how do they prompt you for permission? (I think technically minded consumers would be a bit miffed if the manufacturer pushed patches behind your back)
Like an open website -- OMG everyone can access it.
This is more like an open website running on IIS 4.0 because it's what it's built into the server.
Only these devices do not auto-update - funny thing considering that their function requires being connected to the Internet. The only problem would be prompting for authorization.
Damn, where are my mod points when I really have a use for them?
Since GoodGearGuide.com.au is a bit bogged down, try Engadget: Fujitsu's splitting F-04B cellphone gets tested, found to contain no Energon cubes
(mostly posting this because my mouse slipped and I modded parent down - me sorry)
That said, I am still not too hopeful that reasoned argument is going to keep anyone from clinging to the beliefs that allow them to attribute their misfortunes to some evil cabal