I'm used to such numbers being inside the passenger compartment, under the rug - rather concealed places like that.
If the police would want to check on it (never heard they do), I'd have a hard time finding it. It'd require me to read the car manual to check on the location of it.
In case of the challenge/response, the car knows what response to expect on the challenge it sent out. So the car and the key basically do the same calculation.
The lost key situation is very simple: reprogram not only the key, but also the car. The car can be reprogrammed after gaining entry with a physical key - this may be a traditional key, or a smart key, or whatever. Just a second key, that the owner receives with his car and which can only be used for gaining access for reprogramming purposes.
Now what if you lose that reprogramming key as well? Then the car owner will have to pay for a new window in his car, as the dealer will have to use brute force to access the reprogramming hub.
Now theft becomes a bit of an issue (thief steals reprogramming equipment, gains access to the car, reprograms it to match the thief's key), however this again can be mitigated by having the car lock up for some time (a few hours should be enough to deter thieves) upon reprogramming without reprogramming key.
The only issue may be that all the existing keys to the car (many people will have more than one key) have to be replaced.
This is an interesting ruling because, currently in the US, playing a radio station over speakers in a business is copyright infringement. This is very close to the meatspace equivalent of embedding a copyrighted work
No, in fact it's nothing like that whatsoever. If the EU had ruled that it was legal to display youtube videos in a public place for the purposes of entertainment, then it would be similar. It isn't. There is no parallel here.
A web site on the Internet is quite arguably the cyberspace equivalent to a public place.
The display of a YouTube video on a screen in your shop, streaming from YouTube, is quite arguably the same as embedding it in your web site.
A lot will depend on the copyright license of the material in question. You're certainly allowed to play music in your store if you get explicit permission from the copyright owner of this music to use their material in your shop. Maybe they even come and play live in your shop. If you put a video out on the Internet, and explicitly add "only link, do not embed this video in any other site", and someone does embed it after all, you may still be able to claim copyright infringement as it's explicitly stated you don't want this.
Now such a comment shows you have a serious problem - one with not thinking through the problem, and showing a thorough lack of understanding of even the basics of the concept of copyright. Note that every video, every work out there is copyrighted. Also your home videos. The whole notion of those anti-copying groups that say "don't share copyrighted material" is stupid - whether you can share copyrighted material with third parties depends on whether the copyright owner has given permission or not. Simply uploading to YouTube may very well arguably include an implicit permission to share, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
There is a general agreement that linking to material is OK, however this is much more than just linking - this is embedding. Linking is easier: it basically tells "look, over there you can find this or that, you may go have a look". Nothing from the original content is visible in your web site, clearly no copyright infringement.
Embedding a video goes a lot further than that. It is getting quite close to renting a video and showing it to all your friends and all other people that ask. Whether that is legal, generally depends on the copyright license of the rights holder.
If no restrictions on this, you could take all the content of your local newspaper's site, embed it in your web site (using frames or so, so you're not actually copying the news articles to your own web site), and you got your own news web site. I'm pulling it a bit more to an extreme, but it's basically the same: it's embedding. However now you must see the issues this may have.
As I understand it, YouTube has an option to indicate whether you allow your video to be embedded in another web site. If you allow this, there's no issue of course.
A complicating factor in this case will certainly be the fact that the uploader of the video is not the copyright holder of the original material... and that when I see videos from YouTube broadcast as part of a TV show, it very often says (C) YouTube - also something that I have bad feelings about, whether it is true or not.
One hope is that the patents look good to the prospective employer on a resume, but I don't want them to take the existing IP for granted as part of the deal.
If it is not part of the deal then leave it off your resume.
Leaving them off may not be such a good idea if those patents are your personal selling point - showing your capabilities, and why they should hire you and not someone else.
Also later if you get the job, those patents will probably get in the way. I expect those patents to be right in the main field of expertise of the applicant - which is probably exactly the expertise the prospective employer wants to hire him for. It is going to be hard to use your expertise, when a key part of that expertise can not be used as you have patented it yourself.
So somehow I think the patents should be at least part of the interview process (show of expertise/experience if nothing else), and if the content of those patents is indeed related to the job at hand they will have to be licensed by the hiring company as well in one way or another - preferably in a way to prevent lock-in and conflict of interest from both sides. I've no idea how that could be done specifically, but I'm sure a way can be found.
Just leaving it out of the interview may come to haunt you later. Hired for the job, then you want to implement something for the company that needs your patented technology, and suddenly you have to ask more from the company (a patent license) just to do your job. That's bound to give problems at best, and in worse case dismissal.
There's nothing requiring you to go to registered doctors or official hospitals.
When getting sick, why don't you fly over to Africa (the plane tickets cost you about as much as a night in hospital in the US), and ask some witch doctor to treat you (his fees for a full treatment may be less than what your regular doctor will charge you for a consult)? Maybe it's because you hope to get a proper treatment at your registered doctor, who you know has finished a rigorous training, and that the hospitals you're treated are maintained to high standards?
There are good reasons for the licensing and registration systems that are in place for not only medical personnel, but also commercial transport services such as taxis. There may be room for improvement on the existing systems, but abolishing is certainly not going to be an improvement.
Not knowing the intricacies of UK rules, what you mention still means that not just anyone who happens to own a car may start offering rides for pay.
The key is "Licensed Hire Vehicles" - they're licensed, so there must be some requirements for those that do not apply for normal private cars. Probably extra driving course and insurance, that kind of things. And as soon as they're licensed, they're legal to drive people around.
The problem of most Uber drivers is that they are not licensed to carry paid passengers.
The problem if the randomness of the third party is that you don't know who it is - for many random third parties it indeed won't matter, but not for all random third parties. You never know where the image ends up.
Never seen pinyin in great use: too many homophones for that to work well. There are much better methods than pinyin.
However those methods only work well with a keyboard, while handwriting works better on small screens like mobile phones. Looking around me on the MTR I see most people use handwriting, some use other methods (such as "nine stroke" which basically uses the numerical phone keyboard for character input, advantage is that the soft keys on the screen are of reasonable size).
Handwriting input is routine for input of Chinese characters on mobile phones, and has been for many years already. The character recognition part works quite well there, and is certainly a lot harder than for the very limited Western alphabet. So unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be anything innovative about it.
As long as you can be sure that this third party doesn't know you, you're fine.
But how can we be sure of that? Maybe this unknown third party uploads it with your name or other identifying information to some image site, Google finds and indexes it, and suddenly people that know you and that for fun search your name in Google, can find it. Same accounts for your future prospective employer, who receives lots of application letters, likes your resume, and a few Google queries later has your private parts in all their glory on his screen. As a result you never get a chance to even come for an interview. Not too far-fetched a scenario.
So that's how an unknown third party seeing them may hurt you.
If you happen to be a celebrity (if only as captain of your local school's football club) it's even more daunting.
In turn, helicopter parenting is made so much easier thanks to mobile phones. After all, now there's the option to call your kids every 10 mins, no matter where they are.
Banknotes are pretty anonymous, if someone steals a banknote from me, that sucks as I lose some money, however if he shows it to someone else there's no additional harm to me.
Now compare that to digital nude photos, especially the ones with the person's face in it.
However "should not" and "not doing" are two different things - especially for exactly kids that age. It's the age of self-discovery, of rebellion, doing things they know they shouldn't do, without yet realising the consequences.
In my time (I was that age in the late 1980s), taking nude pics of oneself and sending it to school friends was just not an option. That's probably the only reason it didn't happen back then, or any time before the early 2000s - the time web cams became ubiquitous, and instant digital shots could be made from the privacy of one's bedroom, with little to no chance of parents finding out. Nowadays of course web cams have been replaced by mobile phones, making it even easier.
It is more reasonable to understand that there are always kids that actually do this, trying to stop them is futile. Instead teaching general computer security as part of modern day computer lessons would be the way to go. One major part should be to have all people understand that if you can see a picture, you can save that picture, period. No matter what the app proclaims. It may be hard, you may not be able to pull it off yourself, but it can be done, and as a result those pics and other data may end up where you don't want them to.
That way the pool of potential candidates is pretty small. Especially as in this case they're talking about internships, which is typically for young people.
Unfortunately last time I browsed without adblocker there are still those flashy animated gifs in use. Very distracting, very irritating, making it hard to read the text you want. That's why flashblock is not enough for me.
The problem is that Facebook et.al. are trying too hard, and the advertisers think that's the way to go. It's not.
It used to be much simpler. Tech ads go on Slashdot, motorcycle boot ads go on a motorcycling enthusiast site, hand bags go on a fashion accessories site. The mere fact that I'm reading Slashdot means I'm interested in tech. If I'd be reading a motorbike site, I'd likely be interested in motorbikes and related stuff. When visiting a baby site, guess what, good chance I'm expecting one or just got one, and would be interested in baby beds, baby clothes, baby toys and crap like that. What's so hard about that?
And then there are the rare moments that I'm actively looking at ads - those moments are typically when I'm searching Google in order to buy something, or to book a hotel somewhere, or something like that. As long as Google is smart and bases the ads on the keywords that I enter there and then, they often tend to be relevant to what I'm interested in. As a matter of fact I've used Google AdWords quite some time ago, and it did get me quite some business, it was money well spent. Nowadays in a different business the clicks are just too expensive to be worth it... (I have to offer USD 1.3-1.5 per click, even on what I thought are rather specific and uncommon search words).
I don't think there is really a need for advertisers to know my age, whether I'm married, or my current gender. My search terms, and the sites that I visit, should give plenty of clues about that. I know a few sites out there that actually have relevant ads (and where the ads are not blocked by the adblocker!) as they sell their ads themselves. Of course for most small sites that's not practical, so they buy wholesale from an ad network, and get crap. Luckily that's also the crap that's adblocked easiest.
An autogyro (that's a helicopter where the rotor is not powered, instead using a prop or jet or so for forward propulsion) would get really close. Especially if you add an engine to spin up the rotors for extra lift at take-off, and even (near) vertical landing is feasible. Forward speeds of such vehicles are low for an aircraft, so a more regular car body shape could be aerodynamic enough.
Of course, however, like the average multi purpose tools, you need to carry around only one instead of two. That's a great advantage in itself. So even though it doesn't drive as easily as a car and it doesn't fly as well as an aeroplane, it still beats having to lug an aircraft around on a trailer behind your car.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd call that good riddance.
Didn't those cars have license plates attached to them for easy identification?
I'm used to such numbers being inside the passenger compartment, under the rug - rather concealed places like that.
If the police would want to check on it (never heard they do), I'd have a hard time finding it. It'd require me to read the car manual to check on the location of it.
In case of the challenge/response, the car knows what response to expect on the challenge it sent out. So the car and the key basically do the same calculation.
The lost key situation is very simple: reprogram not only the key, but also the car. The car can be reprogrammed after gaining entry with a physical key - this may be a traditional key, or a smart key, or whatever. Just a second key, that the owner receives with his car and which can only be used for gaining access for reprogramming purposes.
Now what if you lose that reprogramming key as well? Then the car owner will have to pay for a new window in his car, as the dealer will have to use brute force to access the reprogramming hub.
Now theft becomes a bit of an issue (thief steals reprogramming equipment, gains access to the car, reprograms it to match the thief's key), however this again can be mitigated by having the car lock up for some time (a few hours should be enough to deter thieves) upon reprogramming without reprogramming key.
The only issue may be that all the existing keys to the car (many people will have more than one key) have to be replaced.
This is an interesting ruling because, currently in the US, playing a radio station over speakers in a business is copyright infringement. This is very close to the meatspace equivalent of embedding a copyrighted work
No, in fact it's nothing like that whatsoever. If the EU had ruled that it was legal to display youtube videos in a public place for the purposes of entertainment, then it would be similar. It isn't. There is no parallel here.
A web site on the Internet is quite arguably the cyberspace equivalent to a public place.
The display of a YouTube video on a screen in your shop, streaming from YouTube, is quite arguably the same as embedding it in your web site.
A lot will depend on the copyright license of the material in question. You're certainly allowed to play music in your store if you get explicit permission from the copyright owner of this music to use their material in your shop. Maybe they even come and play live in your shop. If you put a video out on the Internet, and explicitly add "only link, do not embed this video in any other site", and someone does embed it after all, you may still be able to claim copyright infringement as it's explicitly stated you don't want this.
Now such a comment shows you have a serious problem - one with not thinking through the problem, and showing a thorough lack of understanding of even the basics of the concept of copyright. Note that every video, every work out there is copyrighted. Also your home videos. The whole notion of those anti-copying groups that say "don't share copyrighted material" is stupid - whether you can share copyrighted material with third parties depends on whether the copyright owner has given permission or not. Simply uploading to YouTube may very well arguably include an implicit permission to share, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
There is a general agreement that linking to material is OK, however this is much more than just linking - this is embedding. Linking is easier: it basically tells "look, over there you can find this or that, you may go have a look". Nothing from the original content is visible in your web site, clearly no copyright infringement.
Embedding a video goes a lot further than that. It is getting quite close to renting a video and showing it to all your friends and all other people that ask. Whether that is legal, generally depends on the copyright license of the rights holder.
If no restrictions on this, you could take all the content of your local newspaper's site, embed it in your web site (using frames or so, so you're not actually copying the news articles to your own web site), and you got your own news web site. I'm pulling it a bit more to an extreme, but it's basically the same: it's embedding. However now you must see the issues this may have.
As I understand it, YouTube has an option to indicate whether you allow your video to be embedded in another web site. If you allow this, there's no issue of course.
A complicating factor in this case will certainly be the fact that the uploader of the video is not the copyright holder of the original material... and that when I see videos from YouTube broadcast as part of a TV show, it very often says (C) YouTube - also something that I have bad feelings about, whether it is true or not.
If it is not part of the deal then leave it off your resume.
Leaving them off may not be such a good idea if those patents are your personal selling point - showing your capabilities, and why they should hire you and not someone else.
Also later if you get the job, those patents will probably get in the way. I expect those patents to be right in the main field of expertise of the applicant - which is probably exactly the expertise the prospective employer wants to hire him for. It is going to be hard to use your expertise, when a key part of that expertise can not be used as you have patented it yourself.
So somehow I think the patents should be at least part of the interview process (show of expertise/experience if nothing else), and if the content of those patents is indeed related to the job at hand they will have to be licensed by the hiring company as well in one way or another - preferably in a way to prevent lock-in and conflict of interest from both sides. I've no idea how that could be done specifically, but I'm sure a way can be found.
Just leaving it out of the interview may come to haunt you later. Hired for the job, then you want to implement something for the company that needs your patented technology, and suddenly you have to ask more from the company (a patent license) just to do your job. That's bound to give problems at best, and in worse case dismissal.
There's nothing requiring you to go to registered doctors or official hospitals.
When getting sick, why don't you fly over to Africa (the plane tickets cost you about as much as a night in hospital in the US), and ask some witch doctor to treat you (his fees for a full treatment may be less than what your regular doctor will charge you for a consult)? Maybe it's because you hope to get a proper treatment at your registered doctor, who you know has finished a rigorous training, and that the hospitals you're treated are maintained to high standards?
There are good reasons for the licensing and registration systems that are in place for not only medical personnel, but also commercial transport services such as taxis. There may be room for improvement on the existing systems, but abolishing is certainly not going to be an improvement.
Not knowing the intricacies of UK rules, what you mention still means that not just anyone who happens to own a car may start offering rides for pay.
The key is "Licensed Hire Vehicles" - they're licensed, so there must be some requirements for those that do not apply for normal private cars. Probably extra driving course and insurance, that kind of things. And as soon as they're licensed, they're legal to drive people around.
The problem of most Uber drivers is that they are not licensed to carry paid passengers.
The problem if the randomness of the third party is that you don't know who it is - for many random third parties it indeed won't matter, but not for all random third parties. You never know where the image ends up.
Stroke order is indeed essential for proper software recognition.
Never seen pinyin in great use: too many homophones for that to work well. There are much better methods than pinyin.
However those methods only work well with a keyboard, while handwriting works better on small screens like mobile phones. Looking around me on the MTR I see most people use handwriting, some use other methods (such as "nine stroke" which basically uses the numerical phone keyboard for character input, advantage is that the soft keys on the screen are of reasonable size).
Handwriting input is routine for input of Chinese characters on mobile phones, and has been for many years already. The character recognition part works quite well there, and is certainly a lot harder than for the very limited Western alphabet. So unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be anything innovative about it.
As long as you can be sure that this third party doesn't know you, you're fine.
But how can we be sure of that? Maybe this unknown third party uploads it with your name or other identifying information to some image site, Google finds and indexes it, and suddenly people that know you and that for fun search your name in Google, can find it. Same accounts for your future prospective employer, who receives lots of application letters, likes your resume, and a few Google queries later has your private parts in all their glory on his screen. As a result you never get a chance to even come for an interview. Not too far-fetched a scenario.
So that's how an unknown third party seeing them may hurt you.
If you happen to be a celebrity (if only as captain of your local school's football club) it's even more daunting.
In turn, helicopter parenting is made so much easier thanks to mobile phones. After all, now there's the option to call your kids every 10 mins, no matter where they are.
Banknotes are pretty anonymous, if someone steals a banknote from me, that sucks as I lose some money, however if he shows it to someone else there's no additional harm to me.
Now compare that to digital nude photos, especially the ones with the person's face in it.
Agreed with the "should not" part.
However "should not" and "not doing" are two different things - especially for exactly kids that age. It's the age of self-discovery, of rebellion, doing things they know they shouldn't do, without yet realising the consequences.
In my time (I was that age in the late 1980s), taking nude pics of oneself and sending it to school friends was just not an option. That's probably the only reason it didn't happen back then, or any time before the early 2000s - the time web cams became ubiquitous, and instant digital shots could be made from the privacy of one's bedroom, with little to no chance of parents finding out. Nowadays of course web cams have been replaced by mobile phones, making it even easier.
It is more reasonable to understand that there are always kids that actually do this, trying to stop them is futile. Instead teaching general computer security as part of modern day computer lessons would be the way to go. One major part should be to have all people understand that if you can see a picture, you can save that picture, period. No matter what the app proclaims. It may be hard, you may not be able to pull it off yourself, but it can be done, and as a result those pics and other data may end up where you don't want them to.
He's got the whole day to cover... just read GP.
That way the pool of potential candidates is pretty small. Especially as in this case they're talking about internships, which is typically for young people.
Close the windows and use the day for a Dr Who marathon or so.
Unfortunately last time I browsed without adblocker there are still those flashy animated gifs in use. Very distracting, very irritating, making it hard to read the text you want. That's why flashblock is not enough for me.
So true.
The problem is that Facebook et.al. are trying too hard, and the advertisers think that's the way to go. It's not.
It used to be much simpler. Tech ads go on Slashdot, motorcycle boot ads go on a motorcycling enthusiast site, hand bags go on a fashion accessories site. The mere fact that I'm reading Slashdot means I'm interested in tech. If I'd be reading a motorbike site, I'd likely be interested in motorbikes and related stuff. When visiting a baby site, guess what, good chance I'm expecting one or just got one, and would be interested in baby beds, baby clothes, baby toys and crap like that. What's so hard about that?
And then there are the rare moments that I'm actively looking at ads - those moments are typically when I'm searching Google in order to buy something, or to book a hotel somewhere, or something like that. As long as Google is smart and bases the ads on the keywords that I enter there and then, they often tend to be relevant to what I'm interested in. As a matter of fact I've used Google AdWords quite some time ago, and it did get me quite some business, it was money well spent. Nowadays in a different business the clicks are just too expensive to be worth it... (I have to offer USD 1.3-1.5 per click, even on what I thought are rather specific and uncommon search words).
I don't think there is really a need for advertisers to know my age, whether I'm married, or my current gender. My search terms, and the sites that I visit, should give plenty of clues about that. I know a few sites out there that actually have relevant ads (and where the ads are not blocked by the adblocker!) as they sell their ads themselves. Of course for most small sites that's not practical, so they buy wholesale from an ad network, and get crap. Luckily that's also the crap that's adblocked easiest.
An autogyro (that's a helicopter where the rotor is not powered, instead using a prop or jet or so for forward propulsion) would get really close. Especially if you add an engine to spin up the rotors for extra lift at take-off, and even (near) vertical landing is feasible. Forward speeds of such vehicles are low for an aircraft, so a more regular car body shape could be aerodynamic enough.
Do they fly (well) with only three engines?
Of course, however, like the average multi purpose tools, you need to carry around only one instead of two. That's a great advantage in itself. So even though it doesn't drive as easily as a car and it doesn't fly as well as an aeroplane, it still beats having to lug an aircraft around on a trailer behind your car.