If literally every piece of of the infrastructure resides in the US, then sure, the EU has no jurisdiction. But if they are operating servers or networking infrastructure in the EU, they are still subject to EU laws.
No. Start with a premise that people have the right to do business with each other, consensually as long as neither force nor fraud is involved.
That is an ideological argument not an economic one. Also, it is still the equivalent of starting with the conclusion and massaging everything else with the goal of arriving there, just like the GP said.
Well, but it is a trust fund, not an investment fund. I.e. a large percentage of the investment revenues will actually go towards funding the museum and other activities. So they do all that, and STILL grow. That is not bad at all.
It would be hard to argue that AMD has a monopoly, so therefore you are right - it is unlikely they'd be forced.
However, if NVIDIA really needs that tech, they can just start violating the patent. AMD sues. NVIDIA countersues AMD for violation of NVIDIA patents (it is almost guaranteed that MAD violates some of NVIDIA's patents). In the end, they either fight it out in court, or reach a settlement. Either way, the resolution of the conflict is that somebody determines the difference in value between the patent violations, and that difference gets paid. So either NVIDIA pays the difference to AMD, or vice versa. And afterwards, both parties have licenses of each other's patent portfolios. Kinda like what just happened between NVIDIA and Intel.
The only downside of this approach is that it might end up costing NVIDIA a pretty penny, but if they really think they need to use x86-64, this is one way to do so.
Because Intel just doesn't take drivers seriously. Unlike, say, audio or networking hardware, the drivers for GPUs implement a lot of the actual API (OpenGL or Direct 3D). Drivers are a crucial component in the GPU system design, and Intel just never got that.
That is one of the (several) reasons why NVIDIA won't open source their drivers. They actually do have significant trade secrets in that domain.
Yeah, but search is hard, both algorithmically, and in terms of infrastructure (you have to index damn near everything before it becomes useful). With social networking, not only is the software relatively trivial, but you also rely on a hipness factor, which makes it more risky. All it takes is a small group of teens moving to a different site because then their parents don't see what messages they exchange. Before you blink, that can expand into a whole generation moving to a different site, just like the migration from myspace to facebook.
An how exactly is that relevant to developing for iOS? The fact is that Apple's business model requires people to develop for iOS. And right now, the only way to do that is using a mac.
Not true, depending on the materials your final product requires. The Objet technology used in the article can't do metal etc, but it can do a wide range of plastics (including blends of different plastics) at a quality comparable to traditional plastics manufacturing processes. The resin-based process eliminates air enclosures and structural problems that plague other technologies like FDM (basically what the reprap project does).
Disclaimer: I am using a lower-end Objet on a regular basis, but I am not affiliated with these guys.
Moore's law never was about performance. He predicted the doubling of transistors per unit area over a give time period. In the past a side effect has been that the smaller transistors could also be clocked faster. That is no longer the case, but the original Moore's law still holds.
> Those could be stripped tomorrow with a simple act of Congress.
The US could default on its whole debt by a simple act of Congress, as far as I can tell (though the 14th amendment is vague enough that I might be telling wrong).
Maybe, although I foresee massive class action suits by everybody from major corporations to pensioners holding US bonds.
Heck, it could effectively default on it by administrative action: just print money until the debt is inflated away.
See, a lot of people think that, but it really isn't true. A lot of the US bonds are actually inflation-linked (i.e payments are compensated for inflation).
Well, I am also a lecturer, but I've never understood that attitude. If a student feels they can learn the material more efficiently in another way, then let them try and deal with the consequences. They are young, but they are also adults and should be expected to take responsibility for their own education. If somebody truly learns better from the book than from the lectures, why would I make them sit through the lectures? University isn't some kind of endurance test, it is about getting an education.
Now, if they decide to come to my class, I do expect them to not cause disruptions. If the cellphone goes off more than once during the term, I'll ask them to leave the room; same if they cause disruptions with laptops or just by talking - typically they'll get one warning and that is it. In my 10 years at university I've had one case of somebody refusing to leave. That got solved when I started dialing the number of campus security.
I am baffled as to the mental model people have of academic research. This was a grad student working in a research lab dedicated to software and chip security. You honestly think he didn't have access to a logic analyzer if he needed one?
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man.
Except that simply not true. Democracy is is not about reaching some imaginary "best" decision (WTF is "best" anyways? By what metric?). Instead, democracy is based on the assumption that, if everybody can vote for their own interests, then a balance will be reached between the different personal interests present in a society.
That is why it is important to separate political decisions (decisions about preferences and tradeoffs between preferences) from decisions that are technical. The technical decisions should be made by domain experts. The political decisions should be made by democratically elected representatives, who are accountable to the public.
In the example of the NSF, the political decision is how much public funding should be made available to research. That decision is the one that should be under public scrutiny, and politicians should be accountable to the public for their stance on that issue. The technical decision is what research projects have enough merit to be funded. That decision is currently made by domain experts (the evaluation boards), which is as it should be.
Now compare this to the intelligence services. Politicians make decisions about funding as well as general directions of the agencies. Day to day operational details are handled by the domain experts. So far so good. The trouble is, that due to secrecy, the political decisions are in fact NOT under public scrutiny; there is no accountability, and that is what makes the process undemocratic.
That is a lot easier to do with capitol letters and punctuation in the proper place. Writing like that just makes you look either uneducated or stoned.
It's surprising because MS also wants people to use IE instead of Firefox.
Why would they care at this point? Except for Opera, nobody is making money off of browsers. The only reason why Microsoft wanted to dominate browsers the browser "market" at some point was because at that time it still seemed that control over the browser would also mean control over the web access portal (search engine, start pages etc). The world has changed significantly since then. First, because of all the antitrust rulings (esp. the European ones), they now have to make it easy to choose a different search engine etc. Second, the users have become much more savvy in their use of the web - you are not going to prevent people from heading straight to facebook or google just because your browser doesn't have a direct link to those pages.
So basically, IE contributes virtually nothing to the Microsoft's bottom line. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that they probably wouldn't mind getting rid of IE, except that they need a default browser for Windows, and they don't want to rely on third party software for that.
All they need to do is install software that will alert security personel if a USB mass storage device is registered. Physical appearance does not play into it.
Oh please. A cellphone-grade CMOS image sensor costs about $2 in bulk. Control electronics and optics are maybe another $8-10. Most modern cars already have a display that can be used to show the image in reverse mode. Transmission is over the existing CAN-bus.
Sure, while a feature like this is optional, the car companies will overcharge you by a factor of 100 or so, just because they can. Once the feature becomes mandatory, it just becomes part of the base price, which is under a lot of competitive pressure.
Slashdot Mirror
The European subsidiaries of twitter will be fined?
If literally every piece of of the infrastructure resides in the US, then sure, the EU has no jurisdiction. But if they are operating servers or networking infrastructure in the EU, they are still subject to EU laws.
No. Start with a premise that people have the right to do business with each other, consensually as long as neither force nor fraud is involved.
That is an ideological argument not an economic one. Also, it is still the equivalent of starting with the conclusion and massaging everything else with the goal of arriving there, just like the GP said.
Well, but it is a trust fund, not an investment fund. I.e. a large percentage of the investment revenues will actually go towards funding the museum and other activities. So they do all that, and STILL grow. That is not bad at all.
In that case, WebM definitely violates H.264 patents. I am bringing out the popcorn - this is going to be fun!
It would be hard to argue that AMD has a monopoly, so therefore you are right - it is unlikely they'd be forced.
However, if NVIDIA really needs that tech, they can just start violating the patent. AMD sues. NVIDIA countersues AMD for violation of NVIDIA patents (it is almost guaranteed that MAD violates some of NVIDIA's patents). In the end, they either fight it out in court, or reach a settlement. Either way, the resolution of the conflict is that somebody determines the difference in value between the patent violations, and that difference gets paid. So either NVIDIA pays the difference to AMD, or vice versa. And afterwards, both parties have licenses of each other's patent portfolios. Kinda like what just happened between NVIDIA and Intel.
The only downside of this approach is that it might end up costing NVIDIA a pretty penny, but if they really think they need to use x86-64, this is one way to do so.
Because Intel just doesn't take drivers seriously. Unlike, say, audio or networking hardware, the drivers for GPUs implement a lot of the actual API (OpenGL or Direct 3D). Drivers are a crucial component in the GPU system design, and Intel just never got that.
That is one of the (several) reasons why NVIDIA won't open source their drivers. They actually do have significant trade secrets in that domain.
Yeah, but search is hard, both algorithmically, and in terms of infrastructure (you have to index damn near everything before it becomes useful). With social networking, not only is the software relatively trivial, but you also rely on a hipness factor, which makes it more risky. All it takes is a small group of teens moving to a different site because then their parents don't see what messages they exchange. Before you blink, that can expand into a whole generation moving to a different site, just like the migration from myspace to facebook.
Right, because not agreeing to fund something is the same thing as banning it.
An how exactly is that relevant to developing for iOS? The fact is that Apple's business model requires people to develop for iOS. And right now, the only way to do that is using a mac.
Not true, depending on the materials your final product requires. The Objet technology used in the article can't do metal etc, but it can do a wide range of plastics (including blends of different plastics) at a quality comparable to traditional plastics manufacturing processes. The resin-based process eliminates air enclosures and structural problems that plague other technologies like FDM (basically what the reprap project does).
Disclaimer: I am using a lower-end Objet on a regular basis, but I am not affiliated with these guys.
Except that macs are central to Apple's product portfolio, as the one and only development platform for iOS. Without macs, no iApps. Without IApps,...
I'll start worrying about macs closing down when they put out a cloud-based or Windows-based app development platform.
Moore's law never was about performance. He predicted the doubling of transistors per unit area over a give time period. In the past a side effect has been that the smaller transistors could also be clocked faster. That is no longer the case, but the original Moore's law still holds.
> Those could be stripped tomorrow with a simple act of Congress.
The US could default on its whole debt by a simple act of Congress, as far as I can tell (though the 14th amendment is vague enough that I might be telling wrong).
Maybe, although I foresee massive class action suits by everybody from major corporations to pensioners holding US bonds.
Heck, it could effectively default on it by administrative action: just print money until the debt is inflated away.
See, a lot of people think that, but it really isn't true. A lot of the US bonds are actually inflation-linked (i.e payments are compensated for inflation).
Well, I am also a lecturer, but I've never understood that attitude. If a student feels they can learn the material more efficiently in another way, then let them try and deal with the consequences. They are young, but they are also adults and should be expected to take responsibility for their own education. If somebody truly learns better from the book than from the lectures, why would I make them sit through the lectures? University isn't some kind of endurance test, it is about getting an education.
Now, if they decide to come to my class, I do expect them to not cause disruptions. If the cellphone goes off more than once during the term, I'll ask them to leave the room; same if they cause disruptions with laptops or just by talking - typically they'll get one warning and that is it. In my 10 years at university I've had one case of somebody refusing to leave. That got solved when I started dialing the number of campus security.
And what moron tagged this "Sweden"?
I am baffled as to the mental model people have of academic research. This was a grad student working in a research lab dedicated to software and chip security. You honestly think he didn't have access to a logic analyzer if he needed one?
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man.
Except that simply not true. Democracy is is not about reaching some imaginary "best" decision (WTF is "best" anyways? By what metric?). Instead, democracy is based on the assumption that, if everybody can vote for their own interests, then a balance will be reached between the different personal interests present in a society.
That is why it is important to separate political decisions (decisions about preferences and tradeoffs between preferences) from decisions that are technical. The technical decisions should be made by domain experts. The political decisions should be made by democratically elected representatives, who are accountable to the public.
In the example of the NSF, the political decision is how much public funding should be made available to research. That decision is the one that should be under public scrutiny, and politicians should be accountable to the public for their stance on that issue. The technical decision is what research projects have enough merit to be funded. That decision is currently made by domain experts (the evaluation boards), which is as it should be.
Now compare this to the intelligence services. Politicians make decisions about funding as well as general directions of the agencies. Day to day operational details are handled by the domain experts. So far so good. The trouble is, that due to secrecy, the political decisions are in fact NOT under public scrutiny; there is no accountability, and that is what makes the process undemocratic.
Seems fair, since they also benefit more from the system than all other income classes - combined.
That is a lot easier to do with capitol letters and punctuation in the proper place. Writing like that just makes you look either uneducated or stoned.
The irony...
It's surprising because MS also wants people to use IE instead of Firefox.
Why would they care at this point? Except for Opera, nobody is making money off of browsers. The only reason why Microsoft wanted to dominate browsers the browser "market" at some point was because at that time it still seemed that control over the browser would also mean control over the web access portal (search engine, start pages etc). The world has changed significantly since then. First, because of all the antitrust rulings (esp. the European ones), they now have to make it easy to choose a different search engine etc. Second, the users have become much more savvy in their use of the web - you are not going to prevent people from heading straight to facebook or google just because your browser doesn't have a direct link to those pages.
So basically, IE contributes virtually nothing to the Microsoft's bottom line. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that they probably wouldn't mind getting rid of IE, except that they need a default browser for Windows, and they don't want to rely on third party software for that.
All they need to do is install software that will alert security personel if a USB mass storage device is registered. Physical appearance does not play into it.
Reminds me more of the machino line. And that worked like a charm, didn't it?
Given that this is highschool - level math, I'd say "reinventing" it primarily shows a shocking lack of education (for a doctor).
Oh please. A cellphone-grade CMOS image sensor costs about $2 in bulk. Control electronics and optics are maybe another $8-10. Most modern cars already have a display that can be used to show the image in reverse mode. Transmission is over the existing CAN-bus.
Sure, while a feature like this is optional, the car companies will overcharge you by a factor of 100 or so, just because they can. Once the feature becomes mandatory, it just becomes part of the base price, which is under a lot of competitive pressure.