The paper claims to be applicable to real systems, which means that it is just mental masturbation until it addresses the limitations of real hardware.
Their technique reportedly lets you recover a 15V p-p signal with a 5V p-p ADC, but you lose most of your measurement bandwidth. Their example used pi*e oversampling on top of the usual Nyquist-Shannon factor of two. In practice, unless you are dealing with a signal that has a tiny bandwidth but huge dynamic range, I think you would do better to scale your input signal down and use a more standard ADC.
(I will also echo the criticism that they did this all with only a simulation, not with actual hardware, which tends to have irritating nonlinearities that break schemes similar to these. I also don't see how it would help with something like a camera, where the input signal is seldom usefully band-limited in a horizontal direction. You would have to go from something like a 73 megapixel sensor to a 1 megapixel sensor to use their technique in two dimensions, which does not seem likely to happen in real cameras. Video cameras could capture footage at 256 frames per second instead of 30, which also does not seem likely to be accepted well.)
They compare T. rex to humans so that we know what to expect when Dr. Clonem von Krazee extracts DNA from Cretaceous amber, and a transporter accident creates a horrible half-human, half-T.-rex, half-mosquito abomination.
Alternatively, because it's more engaging (or click-baity, if you like) to compare their computed top speed for a T. rex to a human rather than to something like the speeding limit in a mall parking lot. Which is more interesting, "humans could outrun T. rex" or "unlike you in a car, T. rex would struggle to break the speed limit... in a parking lot"?
Due process and Privileges and Immunities are in the 14th amendment, and that is how "freedom to contract" (to the extent it is still recognized by courts) is protected by courts. It's not considered a question of slavery.
If your employer wants you to sign a contract saying that, politely explain that you think it is important that you be able to create things -- that do not compete with what you do for your employer, and do not take away from the time you are supposed to be working for them -- that you retain ownership of. If they disagree, walk. Maybe I have been lucky to have unusually reasonable employers, but this has never been a sticking point for me, and employers have been willing to modify the contract to only cover subjects related to my work for them.
Like the AC said, you do not remember correctly. Even contracts of adhesion (where one party is sufficiently powerful enough to say "take these terms or leave them", usually as a standard form contract) are generally enforceable, although ambiguous terms are construed against the interests of the drafter/profferor, and very rarely an individual clause will be held unenforceable for reasons of public policy.
Supreme Court precedent says that your employer cannot (by default) claim work that you do outside the scope of your employment with them. Even if it is related to work that your employer does, depending heavily on the specific facts, you may be the actual author for copyright purposes. If it is not related to work that your employer does, not done on their time or with their equipment, and not done with a desire to help them, then it is not within the scope of your employment.
I don't know whether you can effectively contract away your future copyrights, but I do know that when I raised the issue of open source development (not related to my employers' lines of work), employers have been willing to revise that clause in the contracts I signed when I started working for them. If your employer isn't willing to do that, I would take that as a sign that they are not a reasonable employer.
Companies can handle that without using non-compete clauses.
As an example, companies I have worked for consider employee and customer lists to be proprietary information. Engineering and management staff sign NDAs that explicitly cover employee and customer contact information. I have known senior management to call managers who left when the senior manager suspected the separated manager of soliciting employees who were still at the first company (to come work for at a separated manager's new place) and "read them the riot act". Current employees were free to initiate negotiations, and some did, which annoyed the senior management but was not considered actionable.
Any ancestors we had with 4-color vision were probably before we became mammals. Most mammals have 2-color vision; only some primates (including humans) have 3-color vision, due to duplication and later mutation of one of the genes that support 2-color vision.
While we can't say for sure why mammals went down to 2-color vision, the standard explanation is that nocturnal animals do not need the extra color channel, and may be helped if they lose it (e.g. by having more space for rod cells). This explanation is supported by studies of modern mammals, and how one of the two common mammalian cone cells are absent or non-functional in strongly nocturnal mammals. If mammals did not have such a long small-nocturnal-animal phase, we would probably have retained more capacity for color vision.
Genus names are capitalized, species names are not. "Homo sapiens", not "Homo Sapiens".
For extra pedantry, use the initial letter for the genus after introducing it, except that would be ambiguous. "On our time travels, we saw Homo sapiens, H. habilis, Hadrosaurus foulkii, and Homo neandertalensis. H. neandertalensis was particularly interesting."
Which law, either statute or case, says that how the president uses a communication channel gives people a right to either read it in near real time without switching to their browser's incognito mode, or to respond on the same website such that their response is prominently linked to the original statement?
In the context of the First Amendment, such a meeting is called a limited public forum, and is subject to some restrictions by the government that organized it. http://www.firstamendmentcente... goes into more depth about what is and isn't allowed.
I very much doubt that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account will be held to be either a traditional or limited public forum for the purposes of First Amendment analysis. It meets the usual criteria for a nonpublic forum, and any "public" uses of it align closely with Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) as described at https://canons.sog.unc.edu/lim....
You have the right to write angry responses to the Twit In Chief. You have the right to jeer when he speaks. You do not have the right to force anybody else to read your responses or listen to your jeers. You have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, but bitching and moaning on his personal Twitter feed is not the constitutionally approved mechanism for that.
You may not think it changes your point, but that is because your point is pretty vapid. To the extent that it isn't vapid, it is based on incorrect beliefs and faulty premises. Do you blame minimum-wage workers for struggling to break even? By your logic, if they chose to scale down their hours at the minimum wage it would reduce the supply of cheap labor and thereby increase the market-clearing wage.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit have no right, First Amendment or otherwise, for the general public to be forcibly exposed to their responses to Trump's blather.
They can even set up a public mirror of his tweets, and respond there, if they want. Call it @realSmallHands or something, although that's probably taken.
Deleting data from a government system does not necessarily break any laws. Only government records, as defined by the relevant laws, have to be preserved and archived.
For example, the Presidential Records Act defines presidential records as certain kinds of things that the president (or his staff) create or receive "in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President".
When Trump uses Twitter to point out that CNN, the NYT and the WaPo are spouting fake news, it probably doesn't come close to counting under that law. In fact, little (of anything) on his Twitter account would qualify.
What else do you think the back button should do? If the media dinosaurs think that's a problem, maybe they should work harder and/or smarter to convince people that links on their pages are worth clicking. When it's hard to tell what tries to be real news from paid content, clickbait ads, and malware, they shouldn't be surprised when people leave their site so quickly.
Google put basically zero effort into the web content that they index and provide a search interface to. Yet Google makes money from as revenues related to those searches. Does that mean web site authors should get a "break-the-law" pass when it comes to dealing with Google?
Slashdot Mirror
The paper claims to be applicable to real systems, which means that it is just mental masturbation until it addresses the limitations of real hardware.
Their technique reportedly lets you recover a 15V p-p signal with a 5V p-p ADC, but you lose most of your measurement bandwidth. Their example used pi*e oversampling on top of the usual Nyquist-Shannon factor of two. In practice, unless you are dealing with a signal that has a tiny bandwidth but huge dynamic range, I think you would do better to scale your input signal down and use a more standard ADC.
(I will also echo the criticism that they did this all with only a simulation, not with actual hardware, which tends to have irritating nonlinearities that break schemes similar to these. I also don't see how it would help with something like a camera, where the input signal is seldom usefully band-limited in a horizontal direction. You would have to go from something like a 73 megapixel sensor to a 1 megapixel sensor to use their technique in two dimensions, which does not seem likely to happen in real cameras. Video cameras could capture footage at 256 frames per second instead of 30, which also does not seem likely to be accepted well.)
40% income tax is high, and on top of that is VAT. You get taxed 40% on what you earn, and 18% or 25% on most of what you spend.
Yeah, the original headline said "Apple Flies Top Privacy Executives Into Australia To Lobby Against Encryption", omitting both "proposed" and "laws".
Welcome to Slashdot.
They compare T. rex to humans so that we know what to expect when Dr. Clonem von Krazee extracts DNA from Cretaceous amber, and a transporter accident creates a horrible half-human, half-T.-rex, half-mosquito abomination.
Alternatively, because it's more engaging (or click-baity, if you like) to compare their computed top speed for a T. rex to a human rather than to something like the speeding limit in a mall parking lot. Which is more interesting, "humans could outrun T. rex" or "unlike you in a car, T. rex would struggle to break the speed limit... in a parking lot"?
Make Pangaea great again! T-Rex for president!
(Yes, I know Pangaea broke up before the tyrannosaurs came along.)
Due process and Privileges and Immunities are in the 14th amendment, and that is how "freedom to contract" (to the extent it is still recognized by courts) is protected by courts. It's not considered a question of slavery.
If your employer wants you to sign a contract saying that, politely explain that you think it is important that you be able to create things -- that do not compete with what you do for your employer, and do not take away from the time you are supposed to be working for them -- that you retain ownership of. If they disagree, walk. Maybe I have been lucky to have unusually reasonable employers, but this has never been a sticking point for me, and employers have been willing to modify the contract to only cover subjects related to my work for them.
Like the AC said, you do not remember correctly. Even contracts of adhesion (where one party is sufficiently powerful enough to say "take these terms or leave them", usually as a standard form contract) are generally enforceable, although ambiguous terms are construed against the interests of the drafter/profferor, and very rarely an individual clause will be held unenforceable for reasons of public policy.
Supreme Court precedent says that your employer cannot (by default) claim work that you do outside the scope of your employment with them. Even if it is related to work that your employer does, depending heavily on the specific facts, you may be the actual author for copyright purposes. If it is not related to work that your employer does, not done on their time or with their equipment, and not done with a desire to help them, then it is not within the scope of your employment.
I don't know whether you can effectively contract away your future copyrights, but I do know that when I raised the issue of open source development (not related to my employers' lines of work), employers have been willing to revise that clause in the contracts I signed when I started working for them. If your employer isn't willing to do that, I would take that as a sign that they are not a reasonable employer.
Companies can handle that without using non-compete clauses.
As an example, companies I have worked for consider employee and customer lists to be proprietary information. Engineering and management staff sign NDAs that explicitly cover employee and customer contact information. I have known senior management to call managers who left when the senior manager suspected the separated manager of soliciting employees who were still at the first company (to come work for at a separated manager's new place) and "read them the riot act". Current employees were free to initiate negotiations, and some did, which annoyed the senior management but was not considered actionable.
Do they have a GoFundMe page for their next picture-taking trip?
Any ancestors we had with 4-color vision were probably before we became mammals. Most mammals have 2-color vision; only some primates (including humans) have 3-color vision, due to duplication and later mutation of one of the genes that support 2-color vision.
While we can't say for sure why mammals went down to 2-color vision, the standard explanation is that nocturnal animals do not need the extra color channel, and may be helped if they lose it (e.g. by having more space for rod cells). This explanation is supported by studies of modern mammals, and how one of the two common mammalian cone cells are absent or non-functional in strongly nocturnal mammals. If mammals did not have such a long small-nocturnal-animal phase, we would probably have retained more capacity for color vision.
Genus names are capitalized, species names are not. "Homo sapiens", not "Homo Sapiens".
For extra pedantry, use the initial letter for the genus after introducing it, except that would be ambiguous. "On our time travels, we saw Homo sapiens, H. habilis, Hadrosaurus foulkii, and Homo neandertalensis. H. neandertalensis was particularly interesting."
Which law, either statute or case, says that how the president uses a communication channel gives people a right to either read it in near real time without switching to their browser's incognito mode, or to respond on the same website such that their response is prominently linked to the original statement?
(Hint: There isn't any such law.)
In the context of the First Amendment, such a meeting is called a limited public forum, and is subject to some restrictions by the government that organized it. http://www.firstamendmentcente... goes into more depth about what is and isn't allowed.
I very much doubt that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account will be held to be either a traditional or limited public forum for the purposes of First Amendment analysis. It meets the usual criteria for a nonpublic forum, and any "public" uses of it align closely with Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) as described at https://canons.sog.unc.edu/lim....
Eppur, si muove.
And you have the right to show how badly you lost the argument by calling names instead of citing anything to support your claims.
You have the right to write angry responses to the Twit In Chief. You have the right to jeer when he speaks. You do not have the right to force anybody else to read your responses or listen to your jeers. You have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, but bitching and moaning on his personal Twitter feed is not the constitutionally approved mechanism for that.
You may not think it changes your point, but that is because your point is pretty vapid. To the extent that it isn't vapid, it is based on incorrect beliefs and faulty premises. Do you blame minimum-wage workers for struggling to break even? By your logic, if they chose to scale down their hours at the minimum wage it would reduce the supply of cheap labor and thereby increase the market-clearing wage.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit have no right, First Amendment or otherwise, for the general public to be forcibly exposed to their responses to Trump's blather.
They can even set up a public mirror of his tweets, and respond there, if they want. Call it @realSmallHands or something, although that's probably taken.
Deleting data from a government system does not necessarily break any laws. Only government records, as defined by the relevant laws, have to be preserved and archived.
For example, the Presidential Records Act defines presidential records as certain kinds of things that the president (or his staff) create or receive "in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President".
When Trump uses Twitter to point out that CNN, the NYT and the WaPo are spouting fake news, it probably doesn't come close to counting under that law. In fact, little (of anything) on his Twitter account would qualify.
What else do you think the back button should do? If the media dinosaurs think that's a problem, maybe they should work harder and/or smarter to convince people that links on their pages are worth clicking. When it's hard to tell what tries to be real news from paid content, clickbait ads, and malware, they shouldn't be surprised when people leave their site so quickly.
Google put basically zero effort into the web content that they index and provide a search interface to. Yet Google makes money from as revenues related to those searches. Does that mean web site authors should get a "break-the-law" pass when it comes to dealing with Google?