Controller and processor: is there a risk of confusion?

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Blume
Keyword(s):  
1955 ◽  
Vol 75 ◽  
pp. 117-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. E. Wycherley
Keyword(s):  

In Pollux, VIII. 20 (ed. Bethe, Leipzig, 1900–37) in the section on σκεύη δικαστικά—κιγκλίς, δρύφακτος κτλ.—we read περισχοινίσαντας (περισκηνήσαντας A) δέ τι τῆς ἀγορᾶς μέρος ἔδει φέρειν εἰς τὸν περιορισθέντα τόπον Ἀθηναίων τὸν βουλόμενον ὄστρακον ἐγγεγραμμένον τοὔνομα τοῦ μέλλοντος ἐξοστρακίƷεσθαι. Dindorf described περισκηνήσαντας, ‘quod hactenus vulgatum est’, as ‘ineptissimum’, and it has been given short shrift. Bearing in mind that good authorities speak of a more solid and substantial barrier than a σχοῖνος on occasions of ostracism, he suggested that περισχοινίƷειν could mean simply ‘circumsepire, cingere, circumdare septo, vel cancellis’. But surely the σχοῖνος element of the word is inescapable; περισχοινίƷειν means ‘;place a rope around’; and if he used this word Pollux is in conflict with other writers, notably Philochorus, and is probably wrong. Carcopino, who quotes περισχοινίσαντας without question, thinks that Pollux has simply made a mistake, misled by recollection of the σχοινίον μεμιλτωμένον with which stragglers were shepherded into the assembly. But there would be little risk of confusion with the red rope; the error is due rather to recollection of the roped enclosures mentioned below.


1980 ◽  
Vol 100 ◽  
pp. 182-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Anderson

Lucian's Timon accuses Zeus of negligence: even his statue at Olympia has not punished the temple-robbers who despoiled it, although it had a δεκάπηχυν κεραυνὸν ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ(Tim. 4). But according to Lucian’s contemporary Pausanias (v 11.1), the Zeus at Olympia possessed no such weapon; it held a Nike in the right hand, a sceptre in the left. A. M. Harmon (LCL Lucian ii 331) notes that since Pausanias’ testimony is confirmed by numismatic evidence, Lucian must be wrong and ‘the error is odd in so good an observer’. In fact Lucian could be rather careless over such details; but in this case we can hope to account for his mistake. While he must have seen the Zeus at Olympia at some stage, the statue was also an obvious subject for rhetorical ecphrasis and literary elaboration: one thinks of Dio Chrysostom’s Olympicus (Or. xii); and Lucian may well have been as bookish in his approach to works of art as he was in so many ‘cultural’ subjects. In this case the error would easily have arisen if he had read, misread, or misrecollected an accusative of σκηπτός (‘thunderbolt’) for σκῆπτρον (‘sceptre’) in a previous written source; he would then only have had to supply a synonym κεραυνός for the wrong object. The fact that the thunderbolt is in the wrong hand would then have followed easily from the initial error: one does not hurl thunderbolts with the left hand! The obvious risk of confusion between σκηπτόν and σκῆπτρονσκῆπτρον is illustrated by the problem at Plutarch, de Alex. fort.ii (Mor. 338b), where Clearchus becomes tyrant of Heraclea, takes to carrying a σκῆπτρον and calls his son Κεραυνός. The Teubner editor rightly adopts Valckenaer’s σκηπτόν for MSS σκῆπτρον: a tyrant sufficiently uninhibited to call his son Thunder would also be uninhibited enough to carry a replica of a bolt.


2009 ◽  
Vol 361 (19) ◽  
pp. 1913-1914
Author(s):  
Daniel S. Budnitz ◽  
Linda L. Lewis ◽  
Nadine Shehab ◽  
Debra Birnkrant

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 4609
Author(s):  
Ryo Sasaki ◽  
Kayoko Yamamoto

In tourist areas, it is necessary to prepare a method that supports tourists’ activities by providing information concerning disaster support facilities during normal times, in addition to sightseeing spots and tourism-related facilities, because there is a risk of confusion during disasters, as tourists are not aware of the locations of disaster support facilities. The present study aims to develop a navigation system that supports the activities of users during both normal times and disasters by integrating augmented reality (AR) and web geographic information systems (Web-GISs), as well as by using pictograms. The system can not only effectively provide users with information concerning sightseeing spots and tourism-related facilities but also information concerning disaster support facilities. The system was operated over a period of 6 weeks in Chofu City, Tokyo Metropolis, Japan. Based on the results of a questionnaire survey for 60 users, the system was highly evaluated for its originality in terms of displays and functions using pictograms, navigation using AR, and obtaining information during disasters. Additionally, based on the results of access log analysis, the system was continuously utilized by users during the operation period. Therefore, by continuously operating the system, it can be expected that users will further utilize each function of the system.


1993 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda A O'Brien ◽  
Jeane Ann Grisso ◽  
Greg Maislin ◽  
Grace Y Chiu ◽  
Lois Evans

Author(s):  
Divya C. Chandra ◽  
Michelle Yeh ◽  
Colleen Donovan

Many electronic displays of aeronautical charting information currently use different symbols for common display elements, creating the risk of confusion and misinterpretation. The SAE International Aerospace Behavior and Technology (G-10) Aeronautical Charting Committee, an industry group of subject matter experts, is developing an updated recommendations document that would provide guidance on what symbols to use on these displays. This paper describes a study conducted to evaluate some of the symbology proposed by the committee. Instrument-rated pilots were asked to identify proposed electronic symbols, and to rate their confidence in their response. The goal of this task was to determine whether pilots could correctly identify the proposed symbols, even though they may not be familiar with some of the specific symbols. Most of the symbols were well recognized, but a few were problematic.


2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Wendelin ◽  
Sabine Löffler ◽  
Elisabeth Thierrichter ◽  
Astrid Sonnleitner ◽  
Wolfgang Schwinger

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen Jaspers ◽  
Lian Malai Madsen

AbstractThe idea that there exist separate, enumerable languages has in the last decades been widely criticised, and it has led scholars to propose various new terms and concepts such as ‘polylingualism’, ‘metrolingualism’, and ‘translanguaging’, among others. As these terms are attracting considerable acclaim within the academy, this paper argues it is time to reflect on their occurrence, provenance and pertinence for future research and theorisation. We devote particular attention to the risk of confusion if newly proposed terms interchangeably serve descriptive, ontological, pedagogical and political purposes; to the continuing relevance of language separation outside as well as inside the academy; and to the purported transformative and critical potential of fluid language practices in education and beyond. We suggest a close consideration of each of these concerns is central to a sociolinguistics of rather than for particular linguistic practices.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document