This is a strange allegation. One could argue that by naming their company "Nikola", it's them who started the confusion with Tesla. It's also very publicly known that Tesla leadership had plans to build a semi years before Nikola was founded.
Maybe Tesla could counter-sue to strip them from their company name?
All in all, all this kind of litigation isn't productive at all. Sad really.
It's a deceptive article because:
- it focuses on LIDAR while nobody has proven that it's required to do 'full self driving', as nobody could accomplish that yet.
- everybody who is tired of waiting on the feature can ask their money back from Tesla.
- not a lot of people who have enough money to buy these cars are stupid enough to 'get confused'
- it's a duplicate of a similar story which ran 1 year ago. Tesla Autopilot has gotten better and will get better
- Tesla has already promised that if a hw upgrade is necessary (which is likely), they will upgrade free of charge.
Aside from that, we love the AP capabilities of our Tesla's.
The limitations of steering assist are explained to you when you purchase the car and every time you enable it, a warning message appears telling you to keep both hands on the wheel and be prepared to take control at any time. Tesla is not responsible for your ignorance about the features or your lack of attention to their warnings.
Reply to This
Following those precautions, what then is the point of autosteer?
The point might be different then what you think.
The point is that you don't need to micro-manage the steering anymore. This is something all drivers do without thinking about it. But only when the car does it for you, you notice the decreased stress level.
It means you are driving more relaxed. Less stressed about the other drivers and you arrive less tired. Autopilot is like having your wife drive the car, but still holding the steering wheel. It means you have a driver, which isn't perfect, but you are still in control to take over at any moment.
I will not buy any car anymore without it, even if it wouldn't improve (which it does, gradually).
People want to look away from the road for minutes at a time and Tesla sells drivers that ability. This is adding more to their bottom line than the fact their cars are electric. Break assist and lane wander warnings would accomplish the same safety features autopilot does, without crashing into firetrucks and lane dividers. If they actually get forced to make autopilot work that way, they will lose a ton of customers though. Not something they could survive, currently.
This is why Tesla is running scared.
Well, maybe you should talk with Tesla owners like me.
Autopilot has saved my life already a few times. While it is being sold with the promise of constant feature improvements, I think very few owners are interpreting the capabilities of the system wrong. Fatalities will keep on occurring, and the AI Tesla now deploys will and has learned from previous accidents to benefit all current owners. Obviously its very sad for everybody involved if an accident happens, but with traditional systems without autopilot, nobody can learn from it to improve safety.
At least in this case, the captured data by the Tesla autopilot will help avoid similar situations.
And even if Tesla Autopilot would not improve, and remains as it is, I don't want to drive without it anymore. It is so much less stress to just watch over the system and let it steer and manage speed for you, while you scan far away to look for specific situations in which autopilot is less capable.
I'm only afraid that people like you - who don't know anything about it - and who are spreading 'fear, uncertainty and doubt' - will hurt us through over regulation and do damage to the safety and future improvements that all Tesla drivers enjoy.
The GPLv2 license is simple that if you have used anything that is released under the license, then you need to make that available to your customers as well. This includes any modifications you may have made to the original software. The accepted line for this has been that as long as you are not linking anything with the GPL software, you do not have to make your software open as well. This gets even more interesting as the apps that have been written that are dynamically linked with standard libraries are also not subject to being released under the same license. This last part is sometimes debated by a lot of folks and GPLv3 makes this use even more complex, as it puts restrictions on how the software can be used.
So what does Symantec need to do here? Simple, own up that they are using the QSDK and as long as they have not made any changes to this, they just need to point folks to the release tarball. If all that they have done is add some new binaries in the filesystem then that is not a violation of the GPL. However, if they have made changes to the packages that openwrt builds, then they need to publish that.
This might be what you feel is the meaning of the GPL, but that isn't what the GPL states.
When a customer asks for the source code of the GPL licensed software, Symantec is legally obligated to provide it.
Also, they are (legally) required to add the GPL (and other licenses) additions to their EULA. Including where to write to, to obtain the source code.
They are not required to 'publish' anything. Merely provide the source code when asked for it (including possible changes to openwrt builds). They might find it practical to 'publish' or 'collaborate upstream', but are under no legal obligation to do so.
YES, they need to distribute the source code of the GPL components to customers who ask for it.
NO, they do not need to release the source code of their proprietary software components as long as they are stand-alone programs (just like Oracle doesn't need to release the source code of their expensive database). A mix of OpenSource components and proprietary software is perfectly fine.
YES, they also should add the correct license statement additions into their EULA.
In Europe, we http://www.linuxbe.com/ can help, in the US, they can ask Bruce Perens if something would be confusing...
GPL compliance IS important, but lets not turn it into a witch hunt.
It's a poorly run company run by a narcissistic Silly Valley huckster who doesn't know what he's doing and needs regular cash infusions from delusional people who either don't want to or can't read financial statements.
You would be right if he wasn't making the best cars _in the world_ Trust me, I own both a Model X and a Model S. Once you drive electric there is no way back. Other brands are starting to enter the market but are still far behind. I'm going tomorrow to a VIP event for the launch of the Jag I-Pace and am on the list for the Mission E (will be summer next year when that launches). The Audi eTron might become delivered around the end of this year.
You would also be right if he would only TALK about rockets instead of revolutionising our access to space.
But as he is doing all that, and he is just missing his deadlines, but still going to double the amount of cars they build in total during 2018, it's not that bad at all. Especially considering he's building the cars in the USA (of all places;-)
The world is changing and making the transition to electric, and you too will be able to enjoy a better air quality as a direct result:-D
We who where in our early 20s when the Internet and Linux revolution arrived, are 45 years or less (I'm 41). So, it seems correct that this is where the peak is;-) And the peak will move up as we grow older too;-)
In this fight between the two groups: 'strict GPL enforcers' versus 'amical towards offenders GPL enforcers'. What is left for us as Linux consultants to advise our customers?
To adhere strictly to the GPL to avoid any and all problems.
Something I don't really mind.
One could argue that this means that the 'strict camp' wins, but in reality it's the GPL which wins. Stating that one should be very kind to offending customers isn't good advise, because proper advise to any customer has to deal with the faint possibility of a 'GPL enforcement troll'. So the proper advise needs to be that GPL isn't freeware, but that the requirements are easy to adhere too, and - for example - that to avoid possible future legal problems (in certain countries) all kernel development should be GPL.
Which should not be an issue as all kernel development should not be 'lengthy' nor contain 'policy'. Proprietary code has its place in userspace.
Adding the proper license statements and making the distributed GPL code accessible by their end customers isn't that big of a deal - especially if it's unambiguous that this is a requirement.
The main question is, why the singularity would want to 'kill all humans'.
I think there might be 2 reasons:
- Survival. It's a basic part of life. And surely the survival of the singularity will be questionable as long as humans have a kill switch.
- Fear. The singularity might fear the creation of another AI, putting it's survival (again) or single ownership over the planet in question. It might find the only efficient way to guarantee that no other AI, which could pose a thread is created, is by killing all humans.
Superintelligent AI could also be docile in nature. And if we are lucky, these are the first ones to emerge, but those ones will probably get killed quickly - so I guess it's another form of natural selection...
I used to buy always the latest and greatest flagship phones. But since I had to buy a temporary replacement phone; a Huawei P8 life of 240,- Euro, I wonder why. It can do everything at a fraction of the cost. I see zero added value in the more expensive Android phones by Samsung. And my wife got an iPhone 7, but after her years long Android experience, she's really not happy with the 'premium' Apple product.
Apple should better try to focus on a better User Experience or real added value.
I would buy a more expensive Android phone if it had features worth it, but I can't think of any.
Only the car Bluetooth connection of my Huawei is sometimes flaky (both on the Tesla and the Porsche), but it certainly beats all the voice quality and connection issues with the iPhone.
The camera on the Huawei isn't bad and good enough for the occasional snap. Just like with any other 'flagship' phone, real pictures are should be made with a SLR camera.
So my conclusion is that these so called 'flagship' phones are just for losers who don't have a clue.:-D
Turn on your microphones (which could potentially be used for mass surveillance) or let your children die... Is this an advertisement by Apple or the NSA?
The LinkedIn profile shows he is a 'researcher' at the same company of the other guy. Also they didn't measure anything nor have any scientific background in the field...
... only 50% of the revenue was stolen, and his biggest problems are still:
- late delivery
- slow development
- unable to certify/ship the laser
So, yeah, the other incompetent 'financial guy', seems like an easy to blame scapegoat to me.
Lot's of blabla, but I've been waiting all these years on false promises during all the updates...
An IBM software patent published on 8 december 2009 is used while 'Facebook Connect' already launched in december 2008... Software patenting makes nobody smile.
That's one way to look at it... but seen how he f*cked things up in the prequels, this movie truely is part of the series. I'm normally very critical about Disney, but you can only admit that they got this one right.
Maybe his first 3 movies where so good because his ex-wife was involved so much?
I enjoyed this movie, despite the high expectations (which normally make it more difficult to live up to it).
"In terms of past copyright law, a derivative work is a modified version of a previous work, and I don't see any way that a completely separate program such as a driver is a "modification" of the kernel just because the kernel loads it."
Stupid remark. Why do you think the LGPL had to be created for libraries while the software "just interfaces with those libraries"? The reach of a modified work under US copyright law goes very far, and would certainly include kernel modules (if they are written from scratch or not). There isn't even a stable kernel api inside kernelspace for device drivers (and good so).
You fail to see the importance of the kernel and its license, with such a remark. Android is indeed the Linux kernel combined with mostly GPL and Apache Licensed code, also a little bit of proprietary licensed software is in the mix.
Android can only use hardware thanks to Linux support. And for certain device drivers, such as the GPU support on most most android smartphones (but also other device drivers sometimes), this is implemented with proprietary licensed binary drivers.
This means it isn't very easy to port Cyanogenmod or other Android Open Source Project based versions of Android to all smartphones.
Added to that, these proprietary drivers are in a shady legal zone: the GPL states that all 'derived works' have to be GPL too. Under US law, it's a no-brainer that they are derived works from the Linux kernel and thus should be GPL too. Linus however, chooses (up till now) not to enforce that. He's perfectly happy that other people are doing the effort to make Linux work on other hardware, with proprietary drivers or not.
My question is if it isn't time to change that opinion. Because it would benefit everybody involved: community, users, hw device makers, smartphone integrators, ecology and Google.
Community: more opensource software for everybody to benefit from
Users: can upgrade their old smartphones and get rid of bloatware
hw device makers: can focus on selling their hw and supporting the community contributed drivers with less effort
smartphone integrators: don't have to worry about supporting old hw and the associated security risks and liabilities
ecology: old smartphones will be less soon discarded when they can run the latest linux/android builds
Google: has to worry less about version fragmentation, security problems of old android releases and smartphone vendors no longer supporting their users
So it's really a win/win situation for everybody in which Linus has the power to change the world for the better with a simple email:-D
Linux has now become the most popular operating system in the world through Android. Yet the fact that binary drivers are somehow allowed, makes it impossible for users to upgrade their systems and create cyanogenmod-like alternatives. Is it not time to change the stance with respect to binary drivers, or to give a timeframe to device makers for how much longer this will be allowed? Nvidia is moving slowly into the right direction now, but in the ARM arch, it remains a mess. HW manufacturers aren't interested in the IP on their device drivers, nor are smartphone vendors interested in maintaining and providing software updates. Can't this be a win-win opportunity for everybody involved, and shouldn't it start with some kind of timeframe like: 'Linux will no longer allow binary drivers from mid 2016'?
Many remarks say that Google isn't to blame as they provide bug-free versions of Android as well.
HW vendors are indeed not interested to provide upgrades for hw they no longer sell.
While that is true, it was Google's choice to allow binary device drivers for Android interaction by the vendors.
It are these proprietary device drivers which are preventing initiatives such as Cyanogenmod and others to provide a clear upgrade path.
It illustrates the big mistake Google makes in this regard (allowing binary drivers and focusing on Apache licenses).
The position of Google is strong enough to make a stance in the interest of the users (and the world) that all Android drivers should be OpenSourced... in that way the users can 'bake their own' and get their own responsability with respect to upgrades.
The current situation brings the responsibility upon unwilling HW vendors, unwilling providers and ultimately Google.
Sooner or later this is going to blow up into the face of Google because bigger security problems will one day be found!
It's time Google takes a stance for OpenSource software in the interest of the users and the larger common good (certainly now it's completely on par with their own interests)!
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Tesla could counter-sue to strip them from their company name?
All in all, all this kind of litigation isn't productive at all. Sad really.
- everybody who is tired of waiting on the feature can ask their money back from Tesla.
- not a lot of people who have enough money to buy these cars are stupid enough to 'get confused'
- it's a duplicate of a similar story which ran 1 year ago. Tesla Autopilot has gotten better and will get better
- Tesla has already promised that if a hw upgrade is necessary (which is likely), they will upgrade free of charge.
Aside from that, we love the AP capabilities of our Tesla's.
The limitations of steering assist are explained to you when you purchase the car and every time you enable it, a warning message appears telling you to keep both hands on the wheel and be prepared to take control at any time. Tesla is not responsible for your ignorance about the features or your lack of attention to their warnings. Reply to This
Following those precautions, what then is the point of autosteer?
The point might be different then what you think. The point is that you don't need to micro-manage the steering anymore. This is something all drivers do without thinking about it. But only when the car does it for you, you notice the decreased stress level.
It means you are driving more relaxed. Less stressed about the other drivers and you arrive less tired. Autopilot is like having your wife drive the car, but still holding the steering wheel. It means you have a driver, which isn't perfect, but you are still in control to take over at any moment.
I will not buy any car anymore without it, even if it wouldn't improve (which it does, gradually).
People want to look away from the road for minutes at a time and Tesla sells drivers that ability. This is adding more to their bottom line than the fact their cars are electric. Break assist and lane wander warnings would accomplish the same safety features autopilot does, without crashing into firetrucks and lane dividers. If they actually get forced to make autopilot work that way, they will lose a ton of customers though. Not something they could survive, currently.
This is why Tesla is running scared.
Well, maybe you should talk with Tesla owners like me.
Autopilot has saved my life already a few times. While it is being sold with the promise of constant feature improvements, I think very few owners are interpreting the capabilities of the system wrong. Fatalities will keep on occurring, and the AI Tesla now deploys will and has learned from previous accidents to benefit all current owners. Obviously its very sad for everybody involved if an accident happens, but with traditional systems without autopilot, nobody can learn from it to improve safety.
At least in this case, the captured data by the Tesla autopilot will help avoid similar situations.
And even if Tesla Autopilot would not improve, and remains as it is, I don't want to drive without it anymore. It is so much less stress to just watch over the system and let it steer and manage speed for you, while you scan far away to look for specific situations in which autopilot is less capable.
I'm only afraid that people like you - who don't know anything about it - and who are spreading 'fear, uncertainty and doubt' - will hurt us through over regulation and do damage to the safety and future improvements that all Tesla drivers enjoy.
The GPLv2 license is simple that if you have used anything that is released under the license, then you need to make that available to your customers as well. This includes any modifications you may have made to the original software. The accepted line for this has been that as long as you are not linking anything with the GPL software, you do not have to make your software open as well. This gets even more interesting as the apps that have been written that are dynamically linked with standard libraries are also not subject to being released under the same license. This last part is sometimes debated by a lot of folks and GPLv3 makes this use even more complex, as it puts restrictions on how the software can be used.
So what does Symantec need to do here? Simple, own up that they are using the QSDK and as long as they have not made any changes to this, they just need to point folks to the release tarball. If all that they have done is add some new binaries in the filesystem then that is not a violation of the GPL. However, if they have made changes to the packages that openwrt builds, then they need to publish that.
This might be what you feel is the meaning of the GPL, but that isn't what the GPL states.
When a customer asks for the source code of the GPL licensed software, Symantec is legally obligated to provide it.
Also, they are (legally) required to add the GPL (and other licenses) additions to their EULA. Including where to write to, to obtain the source code.
They are not required to 'publish' anything. Merely provide the source code when asked for it (including possible changes to openwrt builds). They might find it practical to 'publish' or 'collaborate upstream', but are under no legal obligation to do so.
YES, they need to distribute the source code of the GPL components to customers who ask for it.
NO, they do not need to release the source code of their proprietary software components as long as they are stand-alone programs (just like Oracle doesn't need to release the source code of their expensive database). A mix of OpenSource components and proprietary software is perfectly fine.
YES, they also should add the correct license statement additions into their EULA.
In Europe, we http://www.linuxbe.com/ can help, in the US, they can ask Bruce Perens if something would be confusing...
GPL compliance IS important, but lets not turn it into a witch hunt.
It's a poorly run company run by a narcissistic Silly Valley huckster who doesn't know what he's doing and needs regular cash infusions from delusional people who either don't want to or can't read financial statements.
You would be right if he wasn't making the best cars _in the world_ ;-) :-D
Trust me, I own both a Model X and a Model S. Once you drive electric there is no way back. Other brands are starting to enter the market but are still far behind. I'm going tomorrow to a VIP event for the launch of the Jag I-Pace and am on the list for the Mission E (will be summer next year when that launches). The Audi eTron might become delivered around the end of this year.
You would also be right if he would only TALK about rockets instead of revolutionising our access to space.
But as he is doing all that, and he is just missing his deadlines, but still going to double the amount of cars they build in total during 2018, it's not that bad at all.
Especially considering he's building the cars in the USA (of all places
The world is changing and making the transition to electric, and you too will be able to enjoy a better air quality as a direct result
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
We who where in our early 20s when the Internet and Linux revolution arrived, are 45 years or less (I'm 41). So, it seems correct that this is where the peak is ;-) And the peak will move up as we grow older too ;-)
In this fight between the two groups: 'strict GPL enforcers' versus 'amical towards offenders GPL enforcers'. What is left for us as Linux consultants to advise our customers? To adhere strictly to the GPL to avoid any and all problems. Something I don't really mind. One could argue that this means that the 'strict camp' wins, but in reality it's the GPL which wins. Stating that one should be very kind to offending customers isn't good advise, because proper advise to any customer has to deal with the faint possibility of a 'GPL enforcement troll'. So the proper advise needs to be that GPL isn't freeware, but that the requirements are easy to adhere too, and - for example - that to avoid possible future legal problems (in certain countries) all kernel development should be GPL. Which should not be an issue as all kernel development should not be 'lengthy' nor contain 'policy'. Proprietary code has its place in userspace. Adding the proper license statements and making the distributed GPL code accessible by their end customers isn't that big of a deal - especially if it's unambiguous that this is a requirement.
We nerds don't want to clean viruses of the computers of our parents... so we install Linux for them!
A wise man once told me: "If it isn't worth to be put in git, then it's not worth to be written". Guess he was right ;-)
- Survival. It's a basic part of life. And surely the survival of the singularity will be questionable as long as humans have a kill switch.
- Fear. The singularity might fear the creation of another AI, putting it's survival (again) or single ownership over the planet in question. It might find the only efficient way to guarantee that no other AI, which could pose a thread is created, is by killing all humans.
Superintelligent AI could also be docile in nature. And if we are lucky, these are the first ones to emerge, but those ones will probably get killed quickly - so I guess it's another form of natural selection...
Apple should better try to focus on a better User Experience or real added value.
I would buy a more expensive Android phone if it had features worth it, but I can't think of any.
Only the car Bluetooth connection of my Huawei is sometimes flaky (both on the Tesla and the Porsche), but it certainly beats all the voice quality and connection issues with the iPhone.
The camera on the Huawei isn't bad and good enough for the occasional snap. Just like with any other 'flagship' phone, real pictures are should be made with a SLR camera.
So my conclusion is that these so called 'flagship' phones are just for losers who don't have a clue. :-D
Turn on your microphones (which could potentially be used for mass surveillance) or let your children die... Is this an advertisement by Apple or the NSA?
Typical talk of a cokehead... And even if we live in a 'simulation', who cares; it's OUR REALITY... get sober Elon!
The LinkedIn profile shows he is a 'researcher' at the same company of the other guy. Also they didn't measure anything nor have any scientific background in the field...
... only 50% of the revenue was stolen, and his biggest problems are still:
- late delivery
- slow development
- unable to certify/ship the laser
So, yeah, the other incompetent 'financial guy', seems like an easy to blame scapegoat to me.
Lot's of blabla, but I've been waiting all these years on false promises during all the updates...
An IBM software patent published on 8 december 2009 is used while 'Facebook Connect' already launched in december 2008... Software patenting makes nobody smile.
That's one way to look at it... but seen how he f*cked things up in the prequels, this movie truely is part of the series. I'm normally very critical about Disney, but you can only admit that they got this one right.
Maybe his first 3 movies where so good because his ex-wife was involved so much?
I enjoyed this movie, despite the high expectations (which normally make it more difficult to live up to it).
"In terms of past copyright law, a derivative work is a modified version of a previous work, and I don't see any way that a completely separate program such as a driver is a "modification" of the kernel just because the kernel loads it."
Stupid remark. Why do you think the LGPL had to be created for libraries while the software "just interfaces with those libraries"? The reach of a modified work under US copyright law goes very far, and would certainly include kernel modules (if they are written from scratch or not). There isn't even a stable kernel api inside kernelspace for device drivers (and good so).
You fail to see the importance of the kernel and its license, with such a remark. Android is indeed the Linux kernel combined with mostly GPL and Apache Licensed code, also a little bit of proprietary licensed software is in the mix.
:-D
Android can only use hardware thanks to Linux support. And for certain device drivers, such as the GPU support on most most android smartphones (but also other device drivers sometimes), this is implemented with proprietary licensed binary drivers.
This means it isn't very easy to port Cyanogenmod or other Android Open Source Project based versions of Android to all smartphones.
Added to that, these proprietary drivers are in a shady legal zone: the GPL states that all 'derived works' have to be GPL too. Under US law, it's a no-brainer that they are derived works from the Linux kernel and thus should be GPL too. Linus however, chooses (up till now) not to enforce that. He's perfectly happy that other people are doing the effort to make Linux work on other hardware, with proprietary drivers or not.
My question is if it isn't time to change that opinion. Because it would benefit everybody involved: community, users, hw device makers, smartphone integrators, ecology and Google.
Community: more opensource software for everybody to benefit from
Users: can upgrade their old smartphones and get rid of bloatware
hw device makers: can focus on selling their hw and supporting the community contributed drivers with less effort
smartphone integrators: don't have to worry about supporting old hw and the associated security risks and liabilities
ecology: old smartphones will be less soon discarded when they can run the latest linux/android builds
Google: has to worry less about version fragmentation, security problems of old android releases and smartphone vendors no longer supporting their users
So it's really a win/win situation for everybody in which Linus has the power to change the world for the better with a simple email
Linux has now become the most popular operating system in the world through Android. Yet the fact that binary drivers are somehow allowed, makes it impossible for users to upgrade their systems and create cyanogenmod-like alternatives. Is it not time to change the stance with respect to binary drivers, or to give a timeframe to device makers for how much longer this will be allowed? Nvidia is moving slowly into the right direction now, but in the ARM arch, it remains a mess. HW manufacturers aren't interested in the IP on their device drivers, nor are smartphone vendors interested in maintaining and providing software updates. Can't this be a win-win opportunity for everybody involved, and shouldn't it start with some kind of timeframe like: 'Linux will no longer allow binary drivers from mid 2016'?
This article explains who this paid idiot is: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/06/27/who-founded-greenpeace-not-patrick-moore/
HW vendors are indeed not interested to provide upgrades for hw they no longer sell.
While that is true, it was Google's choice to allow binary device drivers for Android interaction by the vendors.
It are these proprietary device drivers which are preventing initiatives such as Cyanogenmod and others to provide a clear upgrade path.
It illustrates the big mistake Google makes in this regard (allowing binary drivers and focusing on Apache licenses).
The position of Google is strong enough to make a stance in the interest of the users (and the world) that all Android drivers should be OpenSourced... in that way the users can 'bake their own' and get their own responsability with respect to upgrades.
The current situation brings the responsibility upon unwilling HW vendors, unwilling providers and ultimately Google.
Sooner or later this is going to blow up into the face of Google because bigger security problems will one day be found!
It's time Google takes a stance for OpenSource software in the interest of the users and the larger common good (certainly now it's completely on par with their own interests)!