Some other words do fit the pattern. Antagonists don't antagon, they antagonize. Capitalists don't capital, they capitalize. But, communists could either commune or communize, with somewhat different meaning.
In continental Europe it seems to be moving towards some kind of hybrid, with Americanisms more common than they used to be. I assume this is because all the kids who learn English as a 2nd language are influenced by the internet and U.S.-produced television/movies/games.
It's actually a pretty common form of home insurance. The two main choices are: 1) actual value, in which you get reimbursed in cash for the estimated value of the stolen/destroyed contents; and 2) replacement value, in which you get reimbursed for the cost of replacing those items with rough equivalents. People often get #2 because they're worried that with #1 they won't get enough cash to replace their lost stuff, since they would only be able to do so if they found an equally depreciated used item for sale on Craigslist/eBay/etc. Whereas #2 will let you go buy replacements immediately. The tradeoff is that you do have to go buy them soonish: the insurance company doesn't want to write you an open-ended check to replace these things with rough equivalents sometime in the distant future.
Devices transmitting in the regulated bands (as opposed to unregulated space like the Wifi spectrum) have to meet & be tested for certain noninterference properties, which is only valid if they're used unmodified. A provider could get a device+addon combination certified, however.
Ah it looks like you're right, at least in terms of any serious sanctions. They do have the authority to impose fines, but the fine amounts look so small I assume Google just doesn't care. In fact, from what I can find, Google currently holds the record for a CNIL fine: in 2011 they were fined 100,000 Euros over wifi data that was recorded by Google Street View cars. They didn't bother to send any response to the inquiry that time, either.
Google has a large legal team, so I assume not responding is deliberate, rather than because they forgot or just couldn't think of what to respond with.
True, but there is some hardware and software infrastructure to accelerate that particular kind of 2d, namely GPUs and OpenGL.:)
As for whether we need access to it on the web, so far I haven't seen much in the way of a compelling case. Maybe in the future there will be more browser-based graphics-heavy games that need it. Or something like Google Earth could run in the browser, but it's interesting that even Google, one of the most pro-web companies, isn't running Google Earth on WebGL.
I don't think the submitter is asking about the optical-stereo kind of 3d (like what you get with "3d movies" and "3d glasses"), but rather just geometric projections of 3d scenes onto a 2d viewing plane, like you get in Leonardo da Vinci paintings or Quake.
There are competing infrastructure proposals for how to get 3D onto the web, each of which has buy-in from some but not all of the major vendors. As a result, 3d hasn't taken off on the web because there's no widely supported standard.
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe in the U.S. the economics work out so that there's no incentive to fake the flower part and have your bees drink sugar water. Sort of the opposite, actually. Bees for crop pollination are enough in demand that some beekeepers actually make more money taking them around to pollinate crops than they do from selling the honey!
College tuition rates are outpacing inflation precisely because of the huge cuts in public funding of education.
In 1985, for example, the state of California funded the University of California system with $3.25 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars). It had about 110,000 students at the time, so that funding amounted to about $30,000 per student. Fast-forward to today, and the UC system receives about $3.00 billion in state funding, but is required to educate around 180,000 students. That adds up to state funding of about $17,000 per student. Where do you think the remaining $13,000 per student comes from? Well, the UC system has partly offset the difference by becoming more efficient: it now spends about 25% less, in real terms, to educate each student than it did in 1985, through changes such as larger average class sizes. But the remaining amount comes from tuition hikes.
If we fully funded universities, I'd agree, but in general taxpayers are stingy and don't, so universities need to find other sources of revenue. Patents are one reasonable source, certainly better than many of the alternatives (like being dependent on corporate donations). They at least tie university funding to production of value for third parties.
For example, Stanford's CCRMA computer-music research center is largely funded from patent-licensing deals with synthesizer companies like Yamaha. An alternate arrangement could be for the taxpayers to fund CCRMA directly, and not have them patent anything. But obviously that didn't happen, and probably won't. So long as it doesn't, I don't see any reason the private sector shouldn't pay to license their inventions when they benefit from them.
While there was indeed no valid case, that didn't keep Edwin Mellen Press from suing the American magazine Linga Franca in New York state court over a 1993 article where they called it a "vanity press". The case was eventually dismissed in 1998 after a series of appeals.
Is "Mitnick Security Consulting" just the name for Kevin Mitnick as freelancer? Or is it more like a regular security company with a bunch of paid employees, with Kevin Mitnick as the brand figurehead / spokesman / PR guy?
Patent trolls are just a particularly visible example of exploiting low-quality patents. The main difference between patent trolls as "non-practicing entities" and practicing entities is that the mutually-assured destruction pacts don't apply to them, because they don't themselves build things which they could be counter-sued over in a retaliatory patent suit. But MAD hardly fixes the problem in the rest of the sector: all it does is turn it into a cartel-like system, where IBM and Intel don't sue each other because of MAD, but Intel is perfectly happy to sue startups that try to enter their sector and compete with them. That kind of anti-competitive, turf-defending patent usage is actually considerably worse than patent trolls imo.
If the patents are high-quality, on the other hand, representing actual non-trivial inventions, then I don't see much of a difference between practicing and non-practicing entities. For example, university research labs sometimes invent some significant things which they then license to a third party to commercialize, which is perfectly fine (and an intended use of the patent system).
It's not illegal, but some companies prohibit disclosing it in their employment contracts, sort of a form of NDA. I believe the proposed law would nullify those clauses in employment contracts.
Legally, no. But as a matter of public policy, it sometimes is considered a form of duress, and that's one of the main arguments cited in favor of laws limiting what an employment contract can require. For example, California public policy refuses to recognize most noncompete clauses. And in the other political direction, "right to work states" like Texas, as a matter of their public policy, prohibit employee contracts from requiring employees to join a union. So nobody seems to really believe that anything is okay as long as it's negotiated in an employment contract.
Well, drawing some lines is inevitable. You can discriminate when hiring an employee based on whether they seem interested in and enthusiastic about technology, but you can't discriminate based on their race.
I think this is on a slightly different use of the term "microfinance", though there's overlap. The books you link are about microcredit specifically, a hyped-up approach to poverty reduction based on very small loans spread throughout a community, which Grameen Bank made famous. But the kind of microfinance this article talks about is more about regular banking: accounts and transactions, usually via a mobile phone. It's become popular in Africa because of the lack of traditional financial networks, and the increasing ubiquity of mobile phones as the main link into modern systems.
True, though it can to the extent that there are recurring patterns and you find the right ones.
On the other hand, there's also a circularity problem. Say you find, from analyzing 20 years of correlations, that certain events tend to happen some period after certain news reports. This might impact whether that relationship continues to hold in the future. That's already quite common for financial events: if you can reliably predict that when News Report Type X happens (for a possibly complex "X"), then Stock Move Y will happen, you can profit from it, but only until it becomes known by enough people, after which the arbitrage opportunity will close.
BTW, I wonder how the average EU CITIZEN thinks of all this? Fascinating that I'm not seeing the typical Slashdot posturing and whining against government overreach
One thing that makes me better disposed to this case is that it wasn't a regulation pulled out of thin air by random government bureaucrats, but rather one drawn up by electrical engineers, from an independent standards body not controlled by the EU, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). The US even has substantial representation on the body, so it's not just European engineers drawing it up. The EU just chose to implement their recommendation as mandatory, whereas in some other countries IEC recommendations may be treated as only advisory.
The French government wouldn't have been relevant if Google just dropped the complaining newspapers from Google News. But they didn't want to exit the French market for news aggregation.
Slashdot Mirror
Some other words do fit the pattern. Antagonists don't antagon, they antagonize. Capitalists don't capital, they capitalize. But, communists could either commune or communize, with somewhat different meaning.
In continental Europe it seems to be moving towards some kind of hybrid, with Americanisms more common than they used to be. I assume this is because all the kids who learn English as a 2nd language are influenced by the internet and U.S.-produced television/movies/games.
It's actually a pretty common form of home insurance. The two main choices are: 1) actual value, in which you get reimbursed in cash for the estimated value of the stolen/destroyed contents; and 2) replacement value, in which you get reimbursed for the cost of replacing those items with rough equivalents. People often get #2 because they're worried that with #1 they won't get enough cash to replace their lost stuff, since they would only be able to do so if they found an equally depreciated used item for sale on Craigslist/eBay/etc. Whereas #2 will let you go buy replacements immediately. The tradeoff is that you do have to go buy them soonish: the insurance company doesn't want to write you an open-ended check to replace these things with rough equivalents sometime in the distant future.
Devices transmitting in the regulated bands (as opposed to unregulated space like the Wifi spectrum) have to meet & be tested for certain noninterference properties, which is only valid if they're used unmodified. A provider could get a device+addon combination certified, however.
Ah it looks like you're right, at least in terms of any serious sanctions. They do have the authority to impose fines, but the fine amounts look so small I assume Google just doesn't care. In fact, from what I can find, Google currently holds the record for a CNIL fine: in 2011 they were fined 100,000 Euros over wifi data that was recorded by Google Street View cars. They didn't bother to send any response to the inquiry that time, either.
Google has a large legal team, so I assume not responding is deliberate, rather than because they forgot or just couldn't think of what to respond with.
True, but there is some hardware and software infrastructure to accelerate that particular kind of 2d, namely GPUs and OpenGL. :)
As for whether we need access to it on the web, so far I haven't seen much in the way of a compelling case. Maybe in the future there will be more browser-based graphics-heavy games that need it. Or something like Google Earth could run in the browser, but it's interesting that even Google, one of the most pro-web companies, isn't running Google Earth on WebGL.
I don't think the submitter is asking about the optical-stereo kind of 3d (like what you get with "3d movies" and "3d glasses"), but rather just geometric projections of 3d scenes onto a 2d viewing plane, like you get in Leonardo da Vinci paintings or Quake.
There are competing infrastructure proposals for how to get 3D onto the web, each of which has buy-in from some but not all of the major vendors. As a result, 3d hasn't taken off on the web because there's no widely supported standard.
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe in the U.S. the economics work out so that there's no incentive to fake the flower part and have your bees drink sugar water. Sort of the opposite, actually. Bees for crop pollination are enough in demand that some beekeepers actually make more money taking them around to pollinate crops than they do from selling the honey!
College tuition rates are outpacing inflation precisely because of the huge cuts in public funding of education.
In 1985, for example, the state of California funded the University of California system with $3.25 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars). It had about 110,000 students at the time, so that funding amounted to about $30,000 per student. Fast-forward to today, and the UC system receives about $3.00 billion in state funding, but is required to educate around 180,000 students. That adds up to state funding of about $17,000 per student. Where do you think the remaining $13,000 per student comes from? Well, the UC system has partly offset the difference by becoming more efficient: it now spends about 25% less, in real terms, to educate each student than it did in 1985, through changes such as larger average class sizes. But the remaining amount comes from tuition hikes.
As an aficionado of old computers, I feel this strip really speaks to me...
It does actually have one on my system, though it points you to the texinfo page (of course) for additional details.
If we fully funded universities, I'd agree, but in general taxpayers are stingy and don't, so universities need to find other sources of revenue. Patents are one reasonable source, certainly better than many of the alternatives (like being dependent on corporate donations). They at least tie university funding to production of value for third parties.
For example, Stanford's CCRMA computer-music research center is largely funded from patent-licensing deals with synthesizer companies like Yamaha. An alternate arrangement could be for the taxpayers to fund CCRMA directly, and not have them patent anything. But obviously that didn't happen, and probably won't. So long as it doesn't, I don't see any reason the private sector shouldn't pay to license their inventions when they benefit from them.
While there was indeed no valid case, that didn't keep Edwin Mellen Press from suing the American magazine Linga Franca in New York state court over a 1993 article where they called it a "vanity press". The case was eventually dismissed in 1998 after a series of appeals.
Is "Mitnick Security Consulting" just the name for Kevin Mitnick as freelancer? Or is it more like a regular security company with a bunch of paid employees, with Kevin Mitnick as the brand figurehead / spokesman / PR guy?
Patent trolls are just a particularly visible example of exploiting low-quality patents. The main difference between patent trolls as "non-practicing entities" and practicing entities is that the mutually-assured destruction pacts don't apply to them, because they don't themselves build things which they could be counter-sued over in a retaliatory patent suit. But MAD hardly fixes the problem in the rest of the sector: all it does is turn it into a cartel-like system, where IBM and Intel don't sue each other because of MAD, but Intel is perfectly happy to sue startups that try to enter their sector and compete with them. That kind of anti-competitive, turf-defending patent usage is actually considerably worse than patent trolls imo.
If the patents are high-quality, on the other hand, representing actual non-trivial inventions, then I don't see much of a difference between practicing and non-practicing entities. For example, university research labs sometimes invent some significant things which they then license to a third party to commercialize, which is perfectly fine (and an intended use of the patent system).
It's not illegal, but some companies prohibit disclosing it in their employment contracts, sort of a form of NDA. I believe the proposed law would nullify those clauses in employment contracts.
Legally, no. But as a matter of public policy, it sometimes is considered a form of duress, and that's one of the main arguments cited in favor of laws limiting what an employment contract can require. For example, California public policy refuses to recognize most noncompete clauses. And in the other political direction, "right to work states" like Texas, as a matter of their public policy, prohibit employee contracts from requiring employees to join a union. So nobody seems to really believe that anything is okay as long as it's negotiated in an employment contract.
Well, drawing some lines is inevitable. You can discriminate when hiring an employee based on whether they seem interested in and enthusiastic about technology, but you can't discriminate based on their race.
I think this is on a slightly different use of the term "microfinance", though there's overlap. The books you link are about microcredit specifically, a hyped-up approach to poverty reduction based on very small loans spread throughout a community, which Grameen Bank made famous. But the kind of microfinance this article talks about is more about regular banking: accounts and transactions, usually via a mobile phone. It's become popular in Africa because of the lack of traditional financial networks, and the increasing ubiquity of mobile phones as the main link into modern systems.
True, though it can to the extent that there are recurring patterns and you find the right ones.
On the other hand, there's also a circularity problem. Say you find, from analyzing 20 years of correlations, that certain events tend to happen some period after certain news reports. This might impact whether that relationship continues to hold in the future. That's already quite common for financial events: if you can reliably predict that when News Report Type X happens (for a possibly complex "X"), then Stock Move Y will happen, you can profit from it, but only until it becomes known by enough people, after which the arbitrage opportunity will close.
I kind of like that style of signature. Like if instead of signing "Barack Obama" on bills, he signed "The Current President of the United States".
BTW, I wonder how the average EU CITIZEN thinks of all this? Fascinating that I'm not seeing the typical Slashdot posturing and whining against government overreach
One thing that makes me better disposed to this case is that it wasn't a regulation pulled out of thin air by random government bureaucrats, but rather one drawn up by electrical engineers, from an independent standards body not controlled by the EU, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). The US even has substantial representation on the body, so it's not just European engineers drawing it up. The EU just chose to implement their recommendation as mandatory, whereas in some other countries IEC recommendations may be treated as only advisory.
The French government wouldn't have been relevant if Google just dropped the complaining newspapers from Google News. But they didn't want to exit the French market for news aggregation.