Wasn't the "communist party" supposed to be the ultimate union for workers? Oh wait, China is walking away from communism as part of it's economic modernization...
Whoops, I forgot that "communist" actually means "dictatorship" and "communist party" means "ruling-class" in modern usage... Maybe the workers should unite in solidarity...
And decided to walk rather than borrow some euros for a data center they don't need yet...
Apple will place the first tranche of its €13 billion Irish tax bill in an escrow account next month following the signing of a legal agreement between the Government and the US tech giant. ...
So at the 100 PFLOPS stated in the article, this thing ties with the worlds top supercomputer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500#Top_10_ranking)?
That's pretty nuts.
Actually, this is 100 P-DL-FLOPS (DL=deep learning meaning 8-bit with shared exponent). Although the second generation (and presumably third gen) TPU can also do 16-bit floating point (and maybe FP32) for training, the quoted (i.e., not-to-be-exceed) number is the deep learning flops for inference/recall...
In contrast, a typical supercomputer generally describes their performance for IEEE 64-bit double precision floating point (FP64)
No doubt the later generations of TPUs will support some reasonable level of performance of 16bit (and maybe 32-bit) FP, but not likely at the peak rate for 8-bits.
I also doubt they would even bother to support FP64 on a deep learning chip since FP64 is mostly used for discrete time dynamical simulations and other forms of finite element analysis where you want to limit error accumulation due to precision issues.
Solar is quite useful in cold climates. Particularly solar heating. Great for keeping snow off the roof and the path to your door clear.
Of course passive solar is great for keeping the snow off the roof and the path to your door clear, but for things that require electricity, there are of course issues...
Yes that snow eventually melts, but your electric baseboard heater might need to run off batteries (or the grid), whilst you are waiting for a break in the sky...
Sadly, multi-level marketing and lead trafficking is an un-stopable business endeavor...
Even for semi-legit organizations, say if you donate money to some non-profit. Non-profits often outsource fundraising. If you decide to donate to one non-profit, the fund raising company might actually sell the fact that you donated up the food chain to another larger organization so they can attempt to solicit money from you. This information is a called a "lead" and there are whole businesses built upon selling lead information. The money they make from selling the leads can help to subsidize their business (in addition to the money they skim of the donations). However, once again, you are the product in this scenario, they are selling information about you to who knows who. If you donate to non profits, at a minimum you should look at their donor privacy policy, but realize they often sub-contract their work.
As a more industrial example, basically google adwords is a gigantic lead generating framework which companies dump big money into...
When you look at things from the perspective of business, these low-level scammers are simply generating leads for the high-level scammers...
PO number and invoice number, please, boss. And I've checked the system and there are no outstanding invoices from [companyname].
If you read the article, you'll see that one of their techniques is to watch your inbox for a legitimate invoice, then change the payment information on that invoice to their bank.
So, yes, there will be a PO number and an invoice number.
Who sends a check these days or makes payments to a payee account number that isn't on their on-line payments list?
One would think there be a reasonable process for vetting new account numbers for existing payees to their on-line payment list. It used to take an act of god to add/edit a new payee account in most accounts payable departments of medium sized companies (because of people using this path to embezzle money from companies), but I suppose many companies these days don't even have accounts payable departments and have some poorly trained person to do this job on the side because they don't understand the consequences of not having "internal controls".
The value proposition of 'C' was that you could efficiently program near the metal.
Instruction sets and micro-architectures co-evolved with 'C' along those dimensions of efficiency. All those extra operators idioms like "+=" and "++" were inherited from its predecessor B** (well actually, adapted from "=+" because of the lexical ambiguity) to match accumulator style instructions common in contemporary instruction sets and to reduce compiler complexity (using these kind of idioms, even a memory/perf constrained compiler with limited optimization capabilities could get close to metal performance). As compiler technology advanced and people wanted to write higher level code, C (and C++) continued to have these operator features as boat anchor legacy.
STL and templates basically were an idea to bring generic programming concepts to C. Initially implemented by the c-front pre-processor, initial implementations were forced to live with the limitation of available primitive linker and debugger capabilities which were created for C and other languages w/o these new capabilities. The early problems with templates stems mostly from practical implementations having legacy linkers and debuggers as boat anchors.
The truth is that efficiently implementing the programming idioms of the day is important for any language to remain relevant. Because of legacy, retro-fitting new idioms into older frameworks is sometimes painful, but it the easy way to allow you to incrementally use new features whilst still using old code bases.
** I believe Thompson put those extra operators into 'B' with Ritchie's approval, so maybe it was Kernighan who complained about too many operators and got rid of B's comparison assignment operators (e.g., '=' and '=>=') in 'C'
Do DTCs break time symmetry because of their local (in time) -based oscillations that are not atomic, but rather sub-atomic?
*Crystals* break local symmetries. It has nothing to do with atomic vs sub-atomic. Normally the laws of physics don't respect a specific orientation, or phase, but in a crystal, for some reason a system can be in a state that prefers a particular set of orientations or phases, that is what we call a crystal.
Why do we have a constant velocity along the time axis in this universe (under non-relativistic conditions)?
If you want to be pedantic, dt/dt (the change in the rate of time over the change in the rate of time) is always constant. "We" only assume that other observers see our time the same as "we" do. It turns out not to be the case (even in non-relativistic conditions), everyone's view of time is different because there is no preferred reference frame to measure it.
Maybe we oscillate between Big Bangs and Big Crunches over the billions off years... Oh yeah, there is no time before the Big Bang, which started the clock. Bah! I'll stick to crystals.
We clearly do not have enough understanding of physics to decide this question, but if you believe in the so called lambda-CDM model of the universe, by definition physics can't describe a time "before" the big bang. If, however, I had to hazard a guess, I'd say lambda-CDM model isn't going to last very long. There are already significant discrepancies and ongoing observation surveys that are looking for dark matter and dark energy signatures are likely to find interesting data that will require new updated models... Stay tuned...
Eventually, the carpenter is going to come back, and he will either: 1. See that his work has been done and go away, saying nothing. 2. Complain, likely resulting in a written warning to the professor.
Is it worth the risk? Or did you forget that he already asked for help?
OR 3. See that his work was done, spend his time to undo the work, and submit a formal complaint through union channels that unauthorized work was done, causing management to discipline you, and force you to wait 1 month to have the work done by authorized labor using work-to-rule levels of efficiency and have your manager's department be billed for both the undo work and the re-do work.
As you might have surmised, #3 has happened to me... If I only had to live with a warning, it might have been still worth a warning, but having to wait an extra month and see your work be undone, and re-done poorly, certainly tips the scale the other way (which was of course the point of the whole exercise).
The difference between an oscillator and a time crystal, is that an oscillator generally has a resonant spatial structure (usually a spatial crystal or atomic band-gaps) that captures energy (near a resonate frequency or harmonic) and converts it to work near a preferred oscillation frequency. Since the oscillation is actually physical transition with inefficiencies mean that there is a limited 'Q' factor
A time crystal on the other hand is an emergent temporal sub-harmonic structure. Since a time crystal does not require a spatial structure to convert energy into work there is the potentiality for them to have a much better 'Q' factors.
The interesting thing about time crystals is that locally they break time-symmetry like spatial crystals break local spatial symmetry.
Spatial crystals break local spatial symmetry so spatial interactions (translational or rotational) between particles and stable spatial crystals can change momentum of the particles in stable ways because of conservation of momentum (which is basically of how typical electronic oscillators work) being an emergent property of spatial symmetry (Noether's theorem)
Time crystals break local temporal symmetry so temporal interactions between particles and stable time crystals can directly change the energy of the particles in stable ways because of conservation of energy being an emergent property of temporal symmetry.
Not really. He was hired in 1902 as a normal patent examiner, third class (that's what "expert" means in their lingo). On probation too. He's got a permanent position two years later, and was promoted to become a second class expert in 1906, some months after receiving approval of his PhD thesis.
You are right in that he was already a well known physicist by that time though.
AFAIK, after Einstein graduated from Swiss Federal Polytechnic, he couldn't get a good recommendations for job in academia (e.g., lecturer, assistant, etc) to continue his graduate studies because he was a wise-ass to his professors (esp Heinrich Friedrich Weber) so he needed to actually work to finance his graduate studies.
Tutoring and private teaching wasn't enough to pay the bills (especially with his illegitimate child with Mileva on the way) so his friend Marcel Grossmann used his contacts to get him a job as a patent examiner while Einstein continued to work on his graduate studies...
In 3D the number most likely jumps to infinity. This is like the how many colours does it take to colour a map so that no adjacent countries have the same colour. 1D is trivally 2, 2D is four but the proof sucks, 3D is clearly infinity.
Although it might be tempting to "analogize" the problem the 4 color map problem, in fact the problems are not at all similar and have a different answer.
Even, the wikipedia entry on this problem has an answer to this particular generalization to 3D...
The problem can easily be extended to higher dimensions. In particular, finding the chromatic number of space usually refers to the 3-dimensional version. As with the version on the plane, the answer is not known, but has been shown to be at least 6 and at most 15.
This is a pointer to paper the illustrates the upper bound for R^3 in case you are interested.
It's a sad world we live in when merely making contact with someone is considered an arrestable offence. Or, let's be frank, making contact with someone while being the wrong sex: no one would be calling for the arrest of a woman who did such a thing.
He should be - and has been - fired for abus poting his position with Facebook. But arresting him for phoning someone or knocking on their door would be simply mad. What the heck kind of police state would do something like that?
Who said it was an arrestable offense? The person allegedly misused their access to personal data to tap potential dates/hookups. While that may not be an arrestable offense, it most certainly is a career limiting offense and the person should have been escorted to the door. As it appears they were.
It may not be an arrest-able offence, but it seems to me that texting that you are a "professional stalker" pretty much precludes you from being "spongeworthy"... If this degree of non-self-awareness is evident, you have to wonder about the mental fitness of this type of person.
Additionally, one might also conclude that Facebook might have some kind of a duty to warn future potential employers about the actions of this particular "security analyst"... Given all the contemporary issues Facebook is facing, you might think that they don't want to be additionally known as the company that enabled a future Amit Singhal, or Larry Nassar by withholding such information...
It may not be an arrest-able defense, but people have been smeared in the media for less...
Since the U.S. changed from "first to invent" to "first to file" system, it doesn't matter if someone else came up with the idea. The first party to file a patent for it will be awarded with a patent.
Prior art is (and always has been) relevant to getting a patent invalidated. First to file vs first to invent is the thing that changed and basically means prior art isn't prior art if it isn't published.
GDPR is a euro thing. The US constitution (and US free speech laws) are not really relevant. The EU and the UK have different standards for free speech and privacy than the US.
GDPR doesn't prohibit courts from issuing subpoenas ordering registrars to identify domain owners.
There is no court subpoena if you can't identify a defendant.
IANAL, but I believe there is a way to do this.
You can write a subpoena for an unknown person (e.g, a John Doe with partial information (like a domain name) and submit it to the court.
If approved by the court, you can take the subpoena to the registrar for that domain name and as part of the discovery process attempt to compel the registrar to release the name.
If the registrar doesn't turn over the information associated with the domain name, they are in violation of a court order. I believe the court can find the registrar in contempt of court.
How the hell did they get themselves into a situation where they had spectrum but had to use it by a specific date? Nobody else seemed to have that problem.
Sprint got a bunch of spectrum licences with their purchase of NexTel. NexTel got the spectrum for business services, but Sprint wanted to deploy it for consumer cellular. At the time 4G LTM standard wasn't ready, and 4G WiMax was ready with Intel pushing it heavily...
The problem for Sprint was that although they technically had the lead in 4G, various things conspired for them and they couldn't really reach critical mass in deploying WiMax before LTM got a foothold. Since everyone else was using LTM, they lost the battle for network deployment $$...
CDMA was a superior (and much newer) standard to GSM, but that is a moot point as everyone is moving to voice-over-LTE. Of all the carriers, Sprint is the one lagging behind in this transition. The company itself doesn't appear to be well managed, seemingly having never recovered from that disastrous Nextel merger.
Nextel isn't what killed Sprint. Early and heavy investment in 4G Wi-max technology set them back a whole generation of technology when the rest of the industry went 4G-LTE. They scrambled the whole technology generation trying to transition to 4G-LTE after having wasted most of their money on WiMax.
Was he? I love how the article says "High-Paying" but does not give you a fucking number. Is $27.54 high paying? or is it $50 an hour like most Software Devs make 3 years out of school.
Although Software Devs can make $50/hour 3 years out of school, this advice is targeted at the Joe-average and Mary-mediocre folks that borrow money to get a degree. Then 4-5 years later they maybe finish their degree (or not), some Joe-averages find that they can't find a decent job in their field of study and end up working at Starbucks.
The flaw in their logic was simply getting a degree would guarantee a "high-paying" job. The question they *should* have been asking is what good would that degree be *specifically* for them. The "theoretical" question if borrowing money to get a degree was a good idea for some other Sara-smarty person who might have been destined for a $100/hour regardless of whether-or-not she got a degree is not an interesting data point for them.
The cautionary tale involves say Mary-mediocre actually got some Dev job, and maybe she is a bit below the average Dev (unlike Lake Wobegon's Devs who are all above average) . There is also the question of what happens after 10 years of Mary-mediocre working for Sara-smarty, Mary-mediocre's low-end Software Dev's job was offshored and/or she had to train Johnny-junior before she got layed off. Now she needs to find a job at Starbucks to pay the bills working for Joe-average the store's assistant manager (who is still paying off his school loans)...
A career is (hopefully) longer than 10 years, remember, if you graduate university at 22, you are only 32 after 10 years... Although 32 might seem young enough to start in another career, it's really painful...
Although university can be a great choice for education, it's really only valuable if you can make use of it (especially if you have to borrow money), so it's prudent to take stock in your own situation and not blindly follow the crowd (or your parents) and examine your own options and make choices that maximizes your personal chance for long term success, not short term bragging rights...
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't the "communist party" supposed to be the ultimate union for workers?
Oh wait, China is walking away from communism as part of it's economic modernization...
Whoops, I forgot that "communist" actually means "dictatorship" and "communist party" means "ruling-class" in modern usage... Maybe the workers should unite in solidarity...
And decided to walk rather than borrow some euros for a data center they don't need yet...
Apple will place the first tranche of its €13 billion Irish tax bill in an escrow account next month following the signing of a legal agreement between the Government and the US tech giant.
...
So at the 100 PFLOPS stated in the article, this thing ties with the worlds top supercomputer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500#Top_10_ranking)?
That's pretty nuts.
Actually, this is 100 P- DL -FLOPS (DL=deep learning meaning 8-bit with shared exponent). Although the second generation (and presumably third gen) TPU can also do 16-bit floating point (and maybe FP32) for training, the quoted (i.e., not-to-be-exceed) number is the deep learning flops for inference/recall...
In contrast, a typical supercomputer generally describes their performance for IEEE 64-bit double precision floating point (FP64)
No doubt the later generations of TPUs will support some reasonable level of performance of 16bit (and maybe 32-bit) FP, but not likely at the peak rate for 8-bits.
I also doubt they would even bother to support FP64 on a deep learning chip since FP64 is mostly used for discrete time dynamical simulations and other forms of finite element analysis where you want to limit error accumulation due to precision issues.
Solar is quite useful in cold climates. Particularly solar heating. Great for keeping snow off the roof and the path to your door clear.
Of course passive solar is great for keeping the snow off the roof and the path to your door clear, but for things that require electricity, there are of course issues...
Yes that snow eventually melts, but your electric baseboard heater might need to run off batteries (or the grid), whilst you are waiting for a break in the sky...
I can run Linux programs on my Linux machine. I've been able to do that for decades.
Linux based machines that hide the underlying functionality are simply stupid.
One question will be if this feature survives a Google transition from Linux to Fuschia/Zircon...
Sadly, multi-level marketing and lead trafficking is an un-stopable business endeavor...
Even for semi-legit organizations, say if you donate money to some non-profit. Non-profits often outsource fundraising. If you decide to donate to one non-profit, the fund raising company might actually sell the fact that you donated up the food chain to another larger organization so they can attempt to solicit money from you. This information is a called a "lead" and there are whole businesses built upon selling lead information. The money they make from selling the leads can help to subsidize their business (in addition to the money they skim of the donations). However, once again, you are the product in this scenario, they are selling information about you to who knows who. If you donate to non profits, at a minimum you should look at their donor privacy policy, but realize they often sub-contract their work.
As a more industrial example, basically google adwords is a gigantic lead generating framework which companies dump big money into...
When you look at things from the perspective of business, these low-level scammers are simply generating leads for the high-level scammers...
con is of course short for confidence...
There will always people trying to gain your confidence...
Yeah, no.
PO number and invoice number, please, boss. And I've checked the system and there are no outstanding invoices from [companyname].
If you read the article, you'll see that one of their techniques is to watch your inbox for a legitimate invoice, then change the payment information on that invoice to their bank.
So, yes, there will be a PO number and an invoice number.
Who sends a check these days or makes payments to a payee account number that isn't on their on-line payments list?
One would think there be a reasonable process for vetting new account numbers for existing payees to their on-line payment list. It used to take an act of god to add/edit a new payee account in most accounts payable departments of medium sized companies (because of people using this path to embezzle money from companies), but I suppose many companies these days don't even have accounts payable departments and have some poorly trained person to do this job on the side because they don't understand the consequences of not having "internal controls".
They are running a little late...
The value proposition of 'C' was that you could efficiently program near the metal.
Instruction sets and micro-architectures co-evolved with 'C' along those dimensions of efficiency. All those extra operators idioms like "+=" and "++" were inherited from its predecessor B** (well actually, adapted from "=+" because of the lexical ambiguity) to match accumulator style instructions common in contemporary instruction sets and to reduce compiler complexity (using these kind of idioms, even a memory/perf constrained compiler with limited optimization capabilities could get close to metal performance). As compiler technology advanced and people wanted to write higher level code, C (and C++) continued to have these operator features as boat anchor legacy.
STL and templates basically were an idea to bring generic programming concepts to C. Initially implemented by the c-front pre-processor, initial implementations were forced to live with the limitation of available primitive linker and debugger capabilities which were created for C and other languages w/o these new capabilities. The early problems with templates stems mostly from practical implementations having legacy linkers and debuggers as boat anchors.
The truth is that efficiently implementing the programming idioms of the day is important for any language to remain relevant. Because of legacy, retro-fitting new idioms into older frameworks is sometimes painful, but it the easy way to allow you to incrementally use new features whilst still using old code bases.
** I believe Thompson put those extra operators into 'B' with Ritchie's approval, so maybe it was Kernighan who complained about too many operators and got rid of B's comparison assignment operators (e.g., '=' and '=>=') in 'C'
Do DTCs break time symmetry because of their local (in time) -based oscillations that are not atomic, but rather sub-atomic?
*Crystals* break local symmetries. It has nothing to do with atomic vs sub-atomic. Normally the laws of physics don't respect a specific orientation, or phase, but in a crystal, for some reason a system can be in a state that prefers a particular set of orientations or phases, that is what we call a crystal.
Why do we have a constant velocity along the time axis in this universe (under non-relativistic conditions)?
If you want to be pedantic, dt/dt (the change in the rate of time over the change in the rate of time) is always constant. "We" only assume that other observers see our time the same as "we" do. It turns out not to be the case (even in non-relativistic conditions), everyone's view of time is different because there is no preferred reference frame to measure it.
Maybe we oscillate between Big Bangs and Big Crunches over the billions off years... Oh yeah, there is no time before the Big Bang, which started the clock. Bah! I'll stick to crystals.
We clearly do not have enough understanding of physics to decide this question, but if you believe in the so called lambda-CDM model of the universe, by definition physics can't describe a time "before" the big bang. If, however, I had to hazard a guess, I'd say lambda-CDM model isn't going to last very long. There are already significant discrepancies and ongoing observation surveys that are looking for dark matter and dark energy signatures are likely to find interesting data that will require new updated models... Stay tuned...
Eventually, the carpenter is going to come back, and he will either:
1. See that his work has been done and go away, saying nothing.
2. Complain, likely resulting in a written warning to the professor.
Is it worth the risk? Or did you forget that he already asked for help?
OR 3. See that his work was done, spend his time to undo the work, and submit a formal complaint through union channels that unauthorized work was done, causing management to discipline you, and force you to wait 1 month to have the work done by authorized labor using work-to-rule levels of efficiency and have your manager's department be billed for both the undo work and the re-do work.
As you might have surmised, #3 has happened to me... If I only had to live with a warning, it might have been still worth a warning, but having to wait an extra month and see your work be undone, and re-done poorly, certainly tips the scale the other way (which was of course the point of the whole exercise).
The difference between an oscillator and a time crystal, is that an oscillator generally has a resonant spatial structure (usually a spatial crystal or atomic band-gaps) that captures energy (near a resonate frequency or harmonic) and converts it to work near a preferred oscillation frequency. Since the oscillation is actually physical transition with inefficiencies mean that there is a limited 'Q' factor
A time crystal on the other hand is an emergent temporal sub-harmonic structure. Since a time crystal does not require a spatial structure to convert energy into work there is the potentiality for them to have a much better 'Q' factors.
The interesting thing about time crystals is that locally they break time-symmetry like spatial crystals break local spatial symmetry.
Spatial crystals break local spatial symmetry so spatial interactions (translational or rotational) between particles and stable spatial crystals can change momentum of the particles in stable ways because of conservation of momentum (which is basically of how typical electronic oscillators work) being an emergent property of spatial symmetry (Noether's theorem)
Time crystals break local temporal symmetry so temporal interactions between particles and stable time crystals can directly change the energy of the particles in stable ways because of conservation of energy being an emergent property of temporal symmetry.
Apparently, slashdot posted a few submissions last year where
Harvard and University of Maryland managed to do this as well as Princeton.
I suppose Yale was destined to get around to this eventually, I suppose they just needed more time...
Not really. He was hired in 1902 as a normal patent examiner, third class (that's what "expert" means in their lingo). On probation too. He's got a permanent position two years later, and was promoted to become a second class expert in 1906, some months after receiving approval of his PhD thesis.
You are right in that he was already a well known physicist by that time though.
AFAIK, after Einstein graduated from Swiss Federal Polytechnic, he couldn't get a good recommendations for job in academia (e.g., lecturer, assistant, etc) to continue his graduate studies because he was a wise-ass to his professors (esp Heinrich Friedrich Weber) so he needed to actually work to finance his graduate studies.
Tutoring and private teaching wasn't enough to pay the bills (especially with his illegitimate child with Mileva on the way) so his friend Marcel Grossmann used his contacts to get him a job as a patent examiner while Einstein continued to work on his graduate studies...
In 3D the number most likely jumps to infinity. This is like the how many colours does it take to colour a map so that no adjacent countries have the same colour. 1D is trivally 2, 2D is four but the proof sucks, 3D is clearly infinity.
Although it might be tempting to "analogize" the problem the 4 color map problem, in fact the problems are not at all similar and have a different answer.
Even, the wikipedia entry on this problem has an answer to this particular generalization to 3D...
The problem can easily be extended to higher dimensions. In particular, finding the chromatic number of space usually refers to the 3-dimensional version. As with the version on the plane, the answer is not known, but has been shown to be at least 6 and at most 15.
This is a pointer to paper the illustrates the upper bound for R^3 in case you are interested.
It's a sad world we live in when merely making contact with someone is considered an arrestable offence. Or, let's be frank, making contact with someone while being the wrong sex: no one would be calling for the arrest of a woman who did such a thing.
He should be - and has been - fired for abus poting his position with Facebook. But arresting him for phoning someone or knocking on their door would be simply mad. What the heck kind of police state would do something like that?
Who said it was an arrestable offense? The person allegedly misused their access to personal data to tap potential dates/hookups. While that may not be an arrestable offense, it most certainly is a career limiting offense and the person should have been escorted to the door. As it appears they were.
It may not be an arrest-able offence, but it seems to me that texting that you are a "professional stalker" pretty much precludes you from being "spongeworthy"... If this degree of non-self-awareness is evident, you have to wonder about the mental fitness of this type of person.
Additionally, one might also conclude that Facebook might have some kind of a duty to warn future potential employers about the actions of this particular "security analyst"... Given all the contemporary issues Facebook is facing, you might think that they don't want to be additionally known as the company that enabled a future Amit Singhal, or Larry Nassar by withholding such information...
It may not be an arrest-able defense, but people have been smeared in the media for less...
But it'll always be Burma to me.
Kudos, on a job... done.
Since the U.S. changed from "first to invent" to "first to file" system, it doesn't matter if someone else came up with the idea. The first party to file a patent for it will be awarded with a patent.
Prior art is (and always has been) relevant to getting a patent invalidated. First to file vs first to invent is the thing that changed and basically means prior art isn't prior art if it isn't published.
GDPR is a euro thing. The US constitution (and US free speech laws) are not really relevant. The EU and the UK have different standards for free speech and privacy than the US.
GDPR doesn't prohibit courts from issuing subpoenas ordering registrars to identify domain owners.
There is no court subpoena if you can't identify a defendant.
IANAL, but I believe there is a way to do this.
You can write a subpoena for an unknown person (e.g, a John Doe with partial information (like a domain name) and submit it to the court.
If approved by the court, you can take the subpoena to the registrar for that domain name and as part of the discovery process attempt to compel the registrar to release the name.
If the registrar doesn't turn over the information associated with the domain name, they are in violation of a court order. I believe the court can find the registrar in contempt of court.
How the hell did they get themselves into a situation where they had spectrum but had to use it by a specific date? Nobody else seemed to have that problem.
Sprint got a bunch of spectrum licences with their purchase of NexTel. NexTel got the spectrum for business services, but Sprint wanted to deploy it for consumer cellular. At the time 4G LTM standard wasn't ready, and 4G WiMax was ready with Intel pushing it heavily...
The problem for Sprint was that although they technically had the lead in 4G, various things conspired for them and they couldn't really reach critical mass in deploying WiMax before LTM got a foothold. Since everyone else was using LTM, they lost the battle for network deployment $$...
CDMA was a superior (and much newer) standard to GSM, but that is a moot point as everyone is moving to voice-over-LTE. Of all the carriers, Sprint is the one lagging behind in this transition. The company itself doesn't appear to be well managed, seemingly having never recovered from that disastrous Nextel merger.
Nextel isn't what killed Sprint. Early and heavy investment in 4G Wi-max technology set them back a whole generation of technology when the rest of the industry went 4G-LTE. They scrambled the whole technology generation trying to transition to 4G-LTE after having wasted most of their money on WiMax.
Was he? I love how the article says "High-Paying" but does not give you a fucking number. Is $27.54 high paying? or is it $50 an hour like most Software Devs make 3 years out of school.
Although Software Devs can make $50/hour 3 years out of school, this advice is targeted at the Joe-average and Mary-mediocre folks that borrow money to get a degree. Then 4-5 years later they maybe finish their degree (or not), some Joe-averages find that they can't find a decent job in their field of study and end up working at Starbucks.
The flaw in their logic was simply getting a degree would guarantee a "high-paying" job. The question they *should* have been asking is what good would that degree be *specifically* for them. The "theoretical" question if borrowing money to get a degree was a good idea for some other Sara-smarty person who might have been destined for a $100/hour regardless of whether-or-not she got a degree is not an interesting data point for them.
The cautionary tale involves say Mary-mediocre actually got some Dev job, and maybe she is a bit below the average Dev (unlike Lake Wobegon's Devs who are all above average) . There is also the question of what happens after 10 years of Mary-mediocre working for Sara-smarty, Mary-mediocre's low-end Software Dev's job was offshored and/or she had to train Johnny-junior before she got layed off. Now she needs to find a job at Starbucks to pay the bills working for Joe-average the store's assistant manager (who is still paying off his school loans)...
A career is (hopefully) longer than 10 years, remember, if you graduate university at 22, you are only 32 after 10 years... Although 32 might seem young enough to start in another career, it's really painful...
Although university can be a great choice for education, it's really only valuable if you can make use of it (especially if you have to borrow money), so it's prudent to take stock in your own situation and not blindly follow the crowd (or your parents) and examine your own options and make choices that maximizes your personal chance for long term success, not short term bragging rights...
Just don't let this technology fall into the hands of the Imorg... Pain and delight may ensue...