andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2008-08-25 09:48 am
andrewducker) wrote2008-08-25 09:48 am
Entry tags:
Delicious LiveJournal Links for 8-25-2008
-
Which sums up my feelings on Heath Ledger and the Oscars
-
You will never see a more geeky hive of canon and continuity
-
Which is actually more in-depth and backstory-filled than I was expecting
-
A developer talks to Pirates and outlines the reasons why they don't buy games.
-
Best article I've seen on a recent experiment
Re: TMI! TMI!
Srsly this is an abolminable misuse of the verb "mitigate" - as I've always understood it, it was never meant to take the thing to be protected or helped as a direct object! You mitigate *for* possible calamities or outcomes; you make a plea in mitigation to ask a ned not to be sent to jail if you're a a lawyer (this is practically the only context in which I've seen it used); you do mitigate damage. but suely you can't mitigate (insert "threats") beavers without a for in there!!!
ps badger acts go way way back - the reason i know is we used to use it as a research question for out law first years! (The course convener added to the notes for tutors. "I wish i was a beaver." I have always remembered this thereafter..)
Re: TMI! TMI!
I think the problem is saying "Mitigating possible negative impacts on" is a bit of a mouthful for people who'd rather be out getting muddy than stuck in an IEEM lecture hall talking about.. oh god I'm boring myself. Let's pretend this never happened.
Are there exciting laws for Beavers, too?