I am not affected in the sense that I am still mobile and able to find new and unfamiliar places. I have my old Thomas Bros maps in the trunk. Haven't used them in many years but hey, they are backups.:-)
If this case succeeds, it will cause serious problems, because people quit and go work for competitors all the time
And when they do, they know things like business plans, financials, etc. So this will essentially mean it's impossible to go work for a competitor. Not good.
Working for a competitor is not a problem, you still have an advantage. General public knowledge, improved general skills, etc will still make you a better job candidate. There is no cause for hysteria, this has been worked out in the legal system for decades now. Just do not mention information that the company hides from public view. Anything learned from public sources is OK to use, but cite those public sources to cover your ass. You being a better programmer for a lower power embedded environment is fine, being familiar with the chips and components involved, having studied public materials on low power and embedded is fine, just stay away from things like proprietary undisclosed power management algorithms. Again, citing a book or article in a source code comment is a good cover your ass move.
The Justice Dept does not enforce copyrights or patents. If someone violates your patent, that is your problem, not the government's. You can sue, but you can't go to the police.
Wild a**ed speculation: Jawbone is bankrupt, DOJ involvement is somehow due to government management of the corporation's former assets. Potential damages from this suit being a financial "asset".
The Justice Dept does not enforce copyrights or patents. If someone violates your patent, that is your problem, not the government's. You can sue, but you can't go to the police.
True, but the legal issues are still beyond a mere contract dispute due to the federal statutes regarding IP. The original question was about a "federal crime vs contract dispute".
One of the sheriffs in Illinois is arguing that if the state legalizes pot all the police dogs will have to be put down.
BS. Detection dogs and patrol dogs are separate training programs. Detection dogs have not been trained to attack.
Not BS. The Sheriff's argument was that they cannot retrain the dogs to remove pot from the list of things they will hit on (which is true). It's absurd to say they have to euthanize the dogs, but the dogs WOULD have to be removed from service, because the dog can't tell you what it found, only that it found something that it's trained to search for. Every drug dealer would just keep a small quantity of pot for a dog to smell, no probable cause for a search.
You misunderstand, I apologize for not being clear. The BS is that they have to be euthanized. My point is that detection dogs pose no more of a threat to the public than civilian dogs, that detection dogs have *not* been trained and conditioned to intimidate, threaten and bite people. Euthanizing dogs is something that the military had historically done to patrol dogs due to such training and/or actual combat experience. I believe the modern trend is for the military to attempt to re-train the dogs to be less aggressive and more tolerant, to (re)familiarize them with the civilian world, etc (some were fostered as pups to families). I think police have historically leaned towards the latter, to retire their patrol dogs with the handler/family that they have lived with for years. Living with a family while on active duty may better socialize the police dogs compared to the military dogs which may spend too much time in kennels. In any case, detection dogs, police or military, were never trained to attack so there is no increased risk to civilian retirement.
I'm not surprised - I can easily smell electronic devices. I'm surprised only one in fifty dogs can
It depends on the source of the dogs. At one end we have pound rescues, on the other end we have organizations that have bred their own highly trainable working dogs for nearly a hundred years, ex Seeing Eye guide dogs. I've raised supermarket mutts and pups from the Seeing Eye (they are fostered with families until 14 months of age when they begin guide dog training). I've had some great dogs from the former but the latter were truly exceptional and consistent in terms of intelligence, trainability, temperament, attentiveness to handler/trainer, etc. One in fifty sounds like something from the pound rescue end of the spectrum.
To be clear I am not being critical of pound rescue dogs. But there is a difference between a great family dog and a great working dog, two very different sets of requirements.
I agree with "an insane amount of computational power" but I think of it more in terms of a highly specialized application. For most users diminishing returns as you add cores will likely make the more powerful/expensive CPU not worth it. And for things that could benefit from highly parallel computation a GPU may have a better cost/benefit. Perhaps a virtual machine host would be an appropriate specialized application? Just speculating.
Not to downplay the damage done by farmers and ranchers - but they're not the only villains.
They are the #1 and #2 villains, and much of the illegal logging is done to clear the land for the ranchers and farmers. The loggers working for the ranchers and farmers, harvesting a small number of commercially viable trees and burning the rest to clear and/or fertilize the land. For loggers actually focused on logging itself and not ranch/farm prep there are some sustainability practices. Minimum diameters, land on rotation (sometimes the period measuring decades), etc.
Much of the illegal logging is at the "entrepreneurial" and "small" scale. "Large" commercial scale logging leans more towards the regulated and sustainable, they often service export markets that demand proper paperwork and sustainability.
There are lots of problems with logging but they aren't the main threat, again making a distinction between logging for loggings sake and ranch/farm prep.
Do a little research on illegal logging in the rainforest - it's a major problem, with loggers coming in, "strip mining" the most valuable (economically and ecologically) old-growth trees first, and moving on before the authorities are informed.
Not to downplay the damage done by farmers and ranchers - but they're not the only villains.
And an example from the farming side:
"The report claims that between 2005 and 2010, almost 353,000 hectares of peat swamp forests were cleared – a third of Malaysia's total – largely for palm oil production." https://www.theguardian.com/en...
Do a little research on illegal logging in the rainforest - it's a major problem, with loggers coming in, "strip mining" the most valuable (economically and ecologically) old-growth trees first, and moving on before the authorities are informed. Not to downplay the damage done by farmers and ranchers - but they're not the only villains.
"In the Amazon, around 17% of the forest has been lost in the last 50 years, mostly due to forest conversion for cattle ranching." https://www.worldwildlife.org/...
Don't forget the environmental impact of the batteries that will be needed to store power for when the sun isn't shining, or the wind not blowing (or blowing too hard), or time shifting its use (ex charging the car at night when rates are lower).
History suggests that those 1960s era nuclear plants were not so safe
Actually US coal has released more radiation into the environment than US nuclear.
And back then there was no plan for dealing with waste, it was something we (as in people living in 2020) were supposed to have solved with magic new technology.
Its not magic when the scientists understand the process but the engineers have not yet built the machines. By the way, we've built reactors that do consume old nuclear waste as fuel.
Perhaps there is a reason why nuclear turned out to be expensive.
The decades of lawsuits from "environmental" groups, the interference of politicians catering to the "environmentalists"? Some of the environmentalist leaders now admit that this hindrance of nuclear was a mistake, that nuclear is part of the non-fossil fuels solution we need to address global warming.
Did you miss the part where nuclear reached 100 GW of installed capacity in 1970s and where solar reached the same in the 2010s? Nuclear had a forty year headstart - and forty more years of subsidies of course. "Why not subsidize nuclear power so we can develop the technology until it is cheaper than coal?" Well, what the hell were they doing those forty years? Apparently they should have already reached that point by now. Oh, but they didn't. Are you going to give them forty more years?
They were fighting nuisance lawsuits that stopped/slowed construction.
Research was defunded by politicians wanting to get the votes of "environmentalists".
Various environmentalist leaders now recognize they were wrong in impeding nuclear.
And there is a second benefit you and many others fail to consider. Modern reactor designs do more than produce electricity. They also clean up nuclear waste by consuming some of that old waste as fuel. The benefits of this cleanup need to be part of the calculation.
It was published in error. It was published 13 March 2018 but it was supposed to be published on 1 April 2018. It was supposed to be held for a couple of more weeks.
Not so, at least if the removal is at build time. There was at least one story in which the rules were modified. A mining robot, if I remember correctly, in an environment in which it wouldn't have been able to function with the standard laws.
IIRC it was done under government supervision and orders and required a redesign of the positronic brain. I don't think a 3-laws spec'd brain was modified, non-3-laws brains were secretly deployed.
There likely is no risk, the country is probably using the same sort of bitcoin payment processors that various merchants do. When using these services the recipient never sees or touches a bitcoin, they only receive fiat. When someone indicates that they want to pay with bitcoin the payment processor is given a dollar amount, they do a real time conversion to bitcoin and provide a payment address and a coin amount, when that coin amount shows up at the address the recipient is notified and the recipient's account is credited for the exact dollar amount they original specified. The taxpayer was never exposed to any bitcoin volatility risk. The taxpayer merely paid a payment processor's fee, just like when they accept a credit card and pay a fee.
Well the other thing to say is that the three laws were inherently intertwined into the design of the "positronic" brains. There was no way to remove a law without damaging a robot to the point of inoperability. The laws were not just "code". Asimov did some handwaving there.
In short, with our technology we can not implement the three laws in a way that makes them integral to operations. They could be removed, altered, etc. Basically people would "lawbreak" their robots, ai's, etc.
And Apple is sort of doing the same thing by requiring developers to user the current SDKs/libs and have native support for the iPhone X, rather than letting the X run in compatibility mode and use an iPhone 8 screen layout.
Apple never liked demo/shareware software much because it could be buggy and make their hardware look bad.
Apple's current app review process would still keep out the buggy and otherwise seriously flawed.
That said, the Apple and Google app stores are already much like shareware with respect to quality. Mostly amateurish software that is not well written nor well designed. Now I don't want to seem too harsh with that statement, many of these apps are from beginners so the fact they started a project and got it working and published it deserves much praise - these beginners are demonstrating much potential talent, yet it is still only potential talent and most apps are generally mediocre.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm wondering if the feds are involved due to bankruptcy, ie they are now managing the company's assets, the potential lawsuit award being an "asset"?
Apple Maps is Down, 'All Users' Affected
I am not affected in the sense that I am still mobile and able to find new and unfamiliar places. I have my old Thomas Bros maps in the trunk. Haven't used them in many years but hey, they are backups. :-)
If this case succeeds, it will cause serious problems, because people quit and go work for competitors all the time And when they do, they know things like business plans, financials, etc. So this will essentially mean it's impossible to go work for a competitor. Not good.
Working for a competitor is not a problem, you still have an advantage. General public knowledge, improved general skills, etc will still make you a better job candidate. There is no cause for hysteria, this has been worked out in the legal system for decades now. Just do not mention information that the company hides from public view. Anything learned from public sources is OK to use, but cite those public sources to cover your ass. You being a better programmer for a lower power embedded environment is fine, being familiar with the chips and components involved, having studied public materials on low power and embedded is fine, just stay away from things like proprietary undisclosed power management algorithms. Again, citing a book or article in a source code comment is a good cover your ass move.
The Justice Dept does not enforce copyrights or patents. If someone violates your patent, that is your problem, not the government's. You can sue, but you can't go to the police.
Wild a**ed speculation: Jawbone is bankrupt, DOJ involvement is somehow due to government management of the corporation's former assets. Potential damages from this suit being a financial "asset".
The Justice Dept does not enforce copyrights or patents. If someone violates your patent, that is your problem, not the government's. You can sue, but you can't go to the police.
True, but the legal issues are still beyond a mere contract dispute due to the federal statutes regarding IP. The original question was about a "federal crime vs contract dispute".
Not sure why this is illegal. it seems like it should be a contract dispute, not a federal crime.
I would expect it is because trade secrets are a form of federally recognized and protected intellectual property, as are copyrights and patents.
One of the sheriffs in Illinois is arguing that if the state legalizes pot all the police dogs will have to be put down.
BS. Detection dogs and patrol dogs are separate training programs. Detection dogs have not been trained to attack.
Not BS. The Sheriff's argument was that they cannot retrain the dogs to remove pot from the list of things they will hit on (which is true). It's absurd to say they have to euthanize the dogs, but the dogs WOULD have to be removed from service, because the dog can't tell you what it found, only that it found something that it's trained to search for. Every drug dealer would just keep a small quantity of pot for a dog to smell, no probable cause for a search.
You misunderstand, I apologize for not being clear. The BS is that they have to be euthanized. My point is that detection dogs pose no more of a threat to the public than civilian dogs, that detection dogs have *not* been trained and conditioned to intimidate, threaten and bite people. Euthanizing dogs is something that the military had historically done to patrol dogs due to such training and/or actual combat experience. I believe the modern trend is for the military to attempt to re-train the dogs to be less aggressive and more tolerant, to (re)familiarize them with the civilian world, etc (some were fostered as pups to families). I think police have historically leaned towards the latter, to retire their patrol dogs with the handler/family that they have lived with for years. Living with a family while on active duty may better socialize the police dogs compared to the military dogs which may spend too much time in kennels. In any case, detection dogs, police or military, were never trained to attack so there is no increased risk to civilian retirement.
One of the sheriffs in Illinois is arguing that if the state legalizes pot all the police dogs will have to be put down.
BS. Detection dogs and patrol dogs are separate training programs. Detection dogs have not been trained to attack.
I'm not surprised - I can easily smell electronic devices. I'm surprised only one in fifty dogs can
It depends on the source of the dogs. At one end we have pound rescues, on the other end we have organizations that have bred their own highly trainable working dogs for nearly a hundred years, ex Seeing Eye guide dogs. I've raised supermarket mutts and pups from the Seeing Eye (they are fostered with families until 14 months of age when they begin guide dog training). I've had some great dogs from the former but the latter were truly exceptional and consistent in terms of intelligence, trainability, temperament, attentiveness to handler/trainer, etc. One in fifty sounds like something from the pound rescue end of the spectrum.
To be clear I am not being critical of pound rescue dogs. But there is a difference between a great family dog and a great working dog, two very different sets of requirements.
I agree with "an insane amount of computational power" but I think of it more in terms of a highly specialized application. For most users diminishing returns as you add cores will likely make the more powerful/expensive CPU not worth it. And for things that could benefit from highly parallel computation a GPU may have a better cost/benefit. Perhaps a virtual machine host would be an appropriate specialized application? Just speculating.
We 'Forgot' To Mention 28-Core, 5GHz CPU Demo Was Overclocked
They probably also forgot to mention that it was a 32-core device with 4 faulty cores. ;-)
Not to downplay the damage done by farmers and ranchers - but they're not the only villains.
They are the #1 and #2 villains, and much of the illegal logging is done to clear the land for the ranchers and farmers. The loggers working for the ranchers and farmers, harvesting a small number of commercially viable trees and burning the rest to clear and/or fertilize the land. For loggers actually focused on logging itself and not ranch/farm prep there are some sustainability practices. Minimum diameters, land on rotation (sometimes the period measuring decades), etc.
Much of the illegal logging is at the "entrepreneurial" and "small" scale. "Large" commercial scale logging leans more towards the regulated and sustainable, they often service export markets that demand proper paperwork and sustainability.
There are lots of problems with logging but they aren't the main threat, again making a distinction between logging for loggings sake and ranch/farm prep.
Do a little research on illegal logging in the rainforest - it's a major problem, with loggers coming in, "strip mining" the most valuable (economically and ecologically) old-growth trees first, and moving on before the authorities are informed.
Not to downplay the damage done by farmers and ranchers - but they're not the only villains.
And an example from the farming side:
"The report claims that between 2005 and 2010, almost 353,000 hectares of peat swamp forests were cleared – a third of Malaysia's total – largely for palm oil production."
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
Do a little research on illegal logging in the rainforest - it's a major problem, with loggers coming in, "strip mining" the most valuable (economically and ecologically) old-growth trees first, and moving on before the authorities are informed. Not to downplay the damage done by farmers and ranchers - but they're not the only villains.
"In the Amazon, around 17% of the forest has been lost in the last 50 years, mostly due to forest conversion for cattle ranching."
https://www.worldwildlife.org/...
Maybe - there's an awful lot of illegal logging in rainforests though - and I really doubt those loggers replant.
I think you may be confusing loggers with the farmers and ranchers who are converting rainforest to agricultural lands.
Don't forget the environmental impact of the batteries that will be needed to store power for when the sun isn't shining, or the wind not blowing (or blowing too hard), or time shifting its use (ex charging the car at night when rates are lower).
History suggests that those 1960s era nuclear plants were not so safe
Actually US coal has released more radiation into the environment than US nuclear.
And back then there was no plan for dealing with waste, it was something we (as in people living in 2020) were supposed to have solved with magic new technology.
Its not magic when the scientists understand the process but the engineers have not yet built the machines. By the way, we've built reactors that do consume old nuclear waste as fuel.
Perhaps there is a reason why nuclear turned out to be expensive.
The decades of lawsuits from "environmental" groups, the interference of politicians catering to the "environmentalists"? Some of the environmentalist leaders now admit that this hindrance of nuclear was a mistake, that nuclear is part of the non-fossil fuels solution we need to address global warming.
Did you miss the part where nuclear reached 100 GW of installed capacity in 1970s and where solar reached the same in the 2010s? Nuclear had a forty year headstart - and forty more years of subsidies of course. "Why not subsidize nuclear power so we can develop the technology until it is cheaper than coal?" Well, what the hell were they doing those forty years? Apparently they should have already reached that point by now. Oh, but they didn't. Are you going to give them forty more years?
They were fighting nuisance lawsuits that stopped/slowed construction.
Research was defunded by politicians wanting to get the votes of "environmentalists".
Various environmentalist leaders now recognize they were wrong in impeding nuclear.
And there is a second benefit you and many others fail to consider. Modern reactor designs do more than produce electricity. They also clean up nuclear waste by consuming some of that old waste as fuel. The benefits of this cleanup need to be part of the calculation.
It was published in error. It was published 13 March 2018 but it was supposed to be published on 1 April 2018. It was supposed to be held for a couple of more weeks.
Not so, at least if the removal is at build time. There was at least one story in which the rules were modified. A mining robot, if I remember correctly, in an environment in which it wouldn't have been able to function with the standard laws.
IIRC it was done under government supervision and orders and required a redesign of the positronic brain. I don't think a 3-laws spec'd brain was modified, non-3-laws brains were secretly deployed.
There likely is no risk, the country is probably using the same sort of bitcoin payment processors that various merchants do. When using these services the recipient never sees or touches a bitcoin, they only receive fiat. When someone indicates that they want to pay with bitcoin the payment processor is given a dollar amount, they do a real time conversion to bitcoin and provide a payment address and a coin amount, when that coin amount shows up at the address the recipient is notified and the recipient's account is credited for the exact dollar amount they original specified. The taxpayer was never exposed to any bitcoin volatility risk. The taxpayer merely paid a payment processor's fee, just like when they accept a credit card and pay a fee.
except a 4th Law
or a zero'th
Well the other thing to say is that the three laws were inherently intertwined into the design of the "positronic" brains. There was no way to remove a law without damaging a robot to the point of inoperability. The laws were not just "code". Asimov did some handwaving there.
In short, with our technology we can not implement the three laws in a way that makes them integral to operations. They could be removed, altered, etc. Basically people would "lawbreak" their robots, ai's, etc.
And Apple is sort of doing the same thing by requiring developers to user the current SDKs/libs and have native support for the iPhone X, rather than letting the X run in compatibility mode and use an iPhone 8 screen layout.
Apple never liked demo/shareware software much because it could be buggy and make their hardware look bad.
Apple's current app review process would still keep out the buggy and otherwise seriously flawed.
That said, the Apple and Google app stores are already much like shareware with respect to quality. Mostly amateurish software that is not well written nor well designed. Now I don't want to seem too harsh with that statement, many of these apps are from beginners so the fact they started a project and got it working and published it deserves much praise - these beginners are demonstrating much potential talent, yet it is still only potential talent and most apps are generally mediocre.