I wonder if Japan's success with electronics on the International market was partially due to the dual-frequency and wide range of input voltage. While the ~240V of Europe was not necessarily in Japan, I would expect that handling the differences between 50Hz and 60Hz with the same appliances for their home market would be helpful when designing for Europe or North America. They'd only have to newly engineer handling the higher voltage.
I'm curious as to penalties based on availability of sample hardware itself or lack thereof. It's one thing to buy one's competitor's product in a retail setting, take it apart, and copy it. Still can be illegal, but it's not the same as taking a design that one should have had no access-to to begin with and producing it because the design was outright stolen from corporate records rather than simply bought on the free market.
I suppose the nature and timeline of the negotiations between the employee that left Google and Uber will matter. If Uber was courting the employee before he left Google then it may be difficult to claim that they did not know that the employee was stealing Google's proprietary data, especially given how quickly the Uber developments occurred.
It's generally not considered illegal to reimplement concepts that one has learned elsewhere assuming that any reasonable and legal duration of non-compete has passed, but it's another matter to just copy the implemented work-for-hire from the original company into the new company.
Copyrights do protect printed circuit board patterns and the operating code that runs on the computers built on those circuit boards.
It sounds like Uber has implemented PCBs and code that is directly taken from Google. Not even a two-team approach like Compaq did when they reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS, but actually taking Google's layouts and fabricating them and running Google's code on them.
One still has to write the programs to handle all aspects of autonomous operation, and those programs are based on subroutines that people have written. I would not be surprised if the documents stolen describe those subroutines in excruciating detail.
Using a "company store" model to essentially indebt drivers who need cars but can't afford cars and probably shouldn't be buying cars that expensive in the first place.
The judge's ruling might well put the onus on Uber to prove that it's not using stolen data, which could mean going literally back to the drawing board with an entirely new set of staff that have never worked with the data taken from Google.
Except that Japan is also ~120V 60Hz, and worse, since the Australians drive on the same side of the road as the Japanese, they're probably already accustomed to trade with Japan...
Plus if they're in-negotiations and it looks like the contract will be signed, they'd probably speculatively allocate production for the project, both of the batteries and of other system components. If that ~month manufacturing time under-contract can be reduced then that gives more time for on-site installation and troubleshooting prior to going live. And if the contract falls through those batteries and other components would probably find uses elsewhere anyway.
First you start by establishing conditions that are entirely known and are as close to within-your-control as possible. You confirm that you get the expected results this way. After that, then you pursue something that is known to an extent but is not entirely known. The Indian satellite in this case works, its orbit prior to its failure was reasonably well known and I assume that those who do orbital mechanics for a living would be able to extrapolate a reasonable position assuming that nothing unknown has influenced it.
These tests don't necessarily tell you that your system is working properly, but they do tell you that the system has some degree of expected function. For a next test you'd have to place something into orbit without telling the team where it is but that something is there, and ask them to find it. If that succeeds then you can start testing with things put into orbit that the team is expected to look for but where they have no specific knowledge, so that they get used to looking and scrutinizing their dataf without any advance notice.
The default should be to assume that a forum or any other entity on the Internet has no nerd-creds.
An online mechanics' tools retailer once e-mailed my password to me right as I created an account with them. I was pissed. When I confronted them with this they wouldn't even acknowledge that this was a bad practice, even pointing out that the e-mail was sent plain-text over unencrypted SMTP.
It's far too easy for anyone to set up a site on the Internet and to do so without understanding the underlying security implications.
I'd be real leery of this, Google has demonstrated a history of abandoning and closing-down projects that people have come to depend upon. If this really does appeal then the developer and the users need to keep in mind that the floor could be yanked out from under them at any time with very little in the way of notice.
I was using an automobile forum that was apparently part of a much, much larger automobile forums company. The company got hacked and apparently their password database was compromised, so as a reaction they now required their users to have twelve character complex passwords, changed monthly. Because they, not the users, screwed up.
I stopped bothering going to them. I am not going to put up with those kinds of password requirements to talk about skidplates and tires. They are not a bank, I have no financial connection with them, arguably even the password itself is not that important on that site, it's very unlikely that anyone is going to care to impersonate me as there simply is no benefit to doing so.
We've done much the same thing. Unfortunately a large part of our collection is on VHS and Laserdisc, which don't really lend themselves to digital storage. We generally have a two-format rule, the new version needs to be two formats better than the old version in order to justify replacing it, but we're starting to soften on that with the Laserdiscs. It was easy to find DVDs to replace tapes, but there are a lot of titles on LD that can't be found on Blu-Ray and on the modern projector the analog Laserdiscs look pretty awful.
Sometimes I wonder if their staggered-release model is to attempt to span revenue over time. It's generally easier to budget when revenue comes in as a stream rather than in chunks.
I don't necessarily agree with it mind you, especially when it's been proven that the viewing audience is only willing to wait so long for the next thing that's already out.
Pirated content is free from restrictions governing its availability. It's availability is not limited to a single television season for a few weeks or months, or for a slate of a hundred films for a few months before being changed-out and no longer being available. The viewer is free to watch any content that they can find any time they want to.
We have over 2000 movies and TV seasons in our physical media collection spanning five formats. There are no restrictions preventing us from watching whatever we want from this set. If streaming is going to work, this is how it will have to work, like someone's personal movie collection, with everything possible available all of the time, ad infinitum.Forever.
You're ignoring the middle-ground, which includes those in cities that lack a medallion system, where there can be as many cabs as the market will bear. In these environments, taxi regulation is reactionary to bad things that have happened in the past, like sexual assault, robbery, severe injury in traffic collisions, and a lack of insurance to fully cover injuries sustained by passengers.
Taxi and sedan companies have laws that regulate them because of incidents that happened in the past. Following those regulations costs money. If a company ignores those regulations then they can charge less, but that means that the conditions now exist that may let those previous kinds of incidents return. That's where I have a problem with Uber and its ilk, they're a taxi or sedan service attempting to masquerade as an until-now unclassified "ride sharing" entity so they can violate the laws governing passenger safety.
Could it be that the population in general are simply whores with no more morals, just as long as the price is right ?
There was a doubt?
My case-study is Walmart. Back in the nineties they had made a concerted effort to push American Made, they were advertising how they supported local jobs and local industry and were trying to buy as much locally-produced merchandise as possible. As a consequence they were a third-rate retailer struggling behind all of the major anchors at the malls, behind K-Mart, and behind Target.
At some point Walmart decided to abandon this approach and focus solely on price. And it worked. They went from being just another minor player to being the largest retail corporation in the world in a matter of a decade by pandering to the lowest common denominator, even when they decontented their products, borderline-bankrupted their suppliers through strong-arm tactics, and forced their employees to essentially rely on government assistance in order to support themselves. And they're more popular than ever.
So yes, the population in-general are simply whores with no morals as long as the price is right.
Something I learned a little while ago, is that the people who take an interest in the topic are often the ones that influence its rules.
Passenger livery companies take an interest in moving people around for fares. Arguably they probably know the most about the topic. They are able to provide a degree of expertise, albeit heavily slanted in their own direction, which they are able to use to influence laws.
If you want to counter that, show up at the public-comment meetings. Surprisingly when a lot of people show up at public-comment meetings, those holding the meetings generally end up considering what those people have to say provided that it's well thought and intelligent.
In some places it seems to be dependent on the cab company too. Some companies operate where they lease cabs to the drivers and then provide them access to the dispatch system (which they are free to choose not to use) and the cab company does all of the maintenance on the cab. The driver's only further obligation is to fuel the cab and to return it with a full tank.
Around here companies using this model became pretty obvious when those companies started using Priuses and Insights as cabs. Even though the cab company charged more for those models, most drivers opted for them since distances can be rather large, so the driver would keep more of the fare if the fuel costs went down.
Other companies appear to employ drivers directly, and either relied on retired police Chevy Caprices or Ford Crown Victorias until those were exhausted and then switched to minivans by and large, or else used literally whatever cheap four-door cars the company could get, presumably from the trade-in auctions. The latter kind seem to have the lowest fares by mile, but I suspect they make it up in the traffic-delay charge being higher.
Of course there's a right way. I would even argue that if you randomly selected a whole lot of Americans and implanted them with electric shockers that would go off if they tried to disclose their actual political party affiliations and locked them in a room together, if they had to compare and contrast actual ideas and not just labels, probably about 80% would be statistically similar to each other and would agree so long as they don't know what the political affiliations of the others are. That leaves a noisy 10% at one end and at the other end to spew forth all of the wharrgarbl that has ruined most political discourse.
Most people are not in favor of no safety-net at all. Most people are not in favor of no regulation at all. The degree of social safety net and the degree of regulation should be what's argued over, but because these (R) and (D) labels are given such undue importance people end up arguing things that they don't even personally agree with just because it's their team's position, like it were some kind of sport.
I don't know if pets vs cows really applies perfectly here.
Near as I understand it, any system could fall into this including complex systems that handle the creation and destruction of individual nodes or virtual nodes, not just the end individual nodes themselves. The crux of the argument isn't about the scale of the system, it's about the willingness of the maintainer to replace a system instead of spending inordinate amounts of resources maintaining something for sentimental reasons. If sentimentality is getting in the way of a good business decision then the subject in question is a pet, regardless if it's a specific server, or a cluster of servers, or an entire set of network infrastructure, or even a slew of end-user devices. If the maintainer and the organization is willing to continually revisit the cost-effectiveness of the system and then willing to rip-out and replace the system when it is not cost-effective to maintain, that's when it's cattle/livestock/cows, whatever animal-husbandry euphemism you want to use.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if Japan's success with electronics on the International market was partially due to the dual-frequency and wide range of input voltage. While the ~240V of Europe was not necessarily in Japan, I would expect that handling the differences between 50Hz and 60Hz with the same appliances for their home market would be helpful when designing for Europe or North America. They'd only have to newly engineer handling the higher voltage.
PCBs would be copyright rather than patent.
I'm curious as to penalties based on availability of sample hardware itself or lack thereof. It's one thing to buy one's competitor's product in a retail setting, take it apart, and copy it. Still can be illegal, but it's not the same as taking a design that one should have had no access-to to begin with and producing it because the design was outright stolen from corporate records rather than simply bought on the free market.
I suppose the nature and timeline of the negotiations between the employee that left Google and Uber will matter. If Uber was courting the employee before he left Google then it may be difficult to claim that they did not know that the employee was stealing Google's proprietary data, especially given how quickly the Uber developments occurred.
It's generally not considered illegal to reimplement concepts that one has learned elsewhere assuming that any reasonable and legal duration of non-compete has passed, but it's another matter to just copy the implemented work-for-hire from the original company into the new company.
Copyrights do protect printed circuit board patterns and the operating code that runs on the computers built on those circuit boards.
It sounds like Uber has implemented PCBs and code that is directly taken from Google. Not even a two-team approach like Compaq did when they reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS, but actually taking Google's layouts and fabricating them and running Google's code on them.
If by, "Windows 10 users," you mean users that saw the free upgrade for Windows 10 and took steps to block it, then yep.
One still has to write the programs to handle all aspects of autonomous operation, and those programs are based on subroutines that people have written. I would not be surprised if the documents stolen describe those subroutines in excruciating detail.
I was under the impression that anything created is automatically copyrighted.
Using a "company store" model to essentially indebt drivers who need cars but can't afford cars and probably shouldn't be buying cars that expensive in the first place.
The judge's ruling might well put the onus on Uber to prove that it's not using stolen data, which could mean going literally back to the drawing board with an entirely new set of staff that have never worked with the data taken from Google.
Except that Japan is also ~120V 60Hz, and worse, since the Australians drive on the same side of the road as the Japanese, they're probably already accustomed to trade with Japan...
Plus if they're in-negotiations and it looks like the contract will be signed, they'd probably speculatively allocate production for the project, both of the batteries and of other system components. If that ~month manufacturing time under-contract can be reduced then that gives more time for on-site installation and troubleshooting prior to going live. And if the contract falls through those batteries and other components would probably find uses elsewhere anyway.
That's how the development process works.
First you start by establishing conditions that are entirely known and are as close to within-your-control as possible. You confirm that you get the expected results this way. After that, then you pursue something that is known to an extent but is not entirely known. The Indian satellite in this case works, its orbit prior to its failure was reasonably well known and I assume that those who do orbital mechanics for a living would be able to extrapolate a reasonable position assuming that nothing unknown has influenced it.
These tests don't necessarily tell you that your system is working properly, but they do tell you that the system has some degree of expected function. For a next test you'd have to place something into orbit without telling the team where it is but that something is there, and ask them to find it. If that succeeds then you can start testing with things put into orbit that the team is expected to look for but where they have no specific knowledge, so that they get used to looking and scrutinizing their dataf without any advance notice.
I'll be impressed if we manage to screw up Low Earth Orbit of the Moon.
The default should be to assume that a forum or any other entity on the Internet has no nerd-creds.
An online mechanics' tools retailer once e-mailed my password to me right as I created an account with them. I was pissed. When I confronted them with this they wouldn't even acknowledge that this was a bad practice, even pointing out that the e-mail was sent plain-text over unencrypted SMTP.
It's far too easy for anyone to set up a site on the Internet and to do so without understanding the underlying security implications.
I'd be real leery of this, Google has demonstrated a history of abandoning and closing-down projects that people have come to depend upon. If this really does appeal then the developer and the users need to keep in mind that the floor could be yanked out from under them at any time with very little in the way of notice.
I saw the exact opposite in the right situation.
I was using an automobile forum that was apparently part of a much, much larger automobile forums company. The company got hacked and apparently their password database was compromised, so as a reaction they now required their users to have twelve character complex passwords, changed monthly. Because they, not the users, screwed up.
I stopped bothering going to them. I am not going to put up with those kinds of password requirements to talk about skidplates and tires. They are not a bank, I have no financial connection with them, arguably even the password itself is not that important on that site, it's very unlikely that anyone is going to care to impersonate me as there simply is no benefit to doing so.
We've done much the same thing. Unfortunately a large part of our collection is on VHS and Laserdisc, which don't really lend themselves to digital storage. We generally have a two-format rule, the new version needs to be two formats better than the old version in order to justify replacing it, but we're starting to soften on that with the Laserdiscs. It was easy to find DVDs to replace tapes, but there are a lot of titles on LD that can't be found on Blu-Ray and on the modern projector the analog Laserdiscs look pretty awful.
Sometimes I wonder if their staggered-release model is to attempt to span revenue over time. It's generally easier to budget when revenue comes in as a stream rather than in chunks.
I don't necessarily agree with it mind you, especially when it's been proven that the viewing audience is only willing to wait so long for the next thing that's already out.
I think you're drilling-down too far.
Pirated content is free from restrictions governing its availability. It's availability is not limited to a single television season for a few weeks or months, or for a slate of a hundred films for a few months before being changed-out and no longer being available. The viewer is free to watch any content that they can find any time they want to.
We have over 2000 movies and TV seasons in our physical media collection spanning five formats. There are no restrictions preventing us from watching whatever we want from this set. If streaming is going to work, this is how it will have to work, like someone's personal movie collection, with everything possible available all of the time, ad infinitum. Forever.
You're ignoring the middle-ground, which includes those in cities that lack a medallion system, where there can be as many cabs as the market will bear. In these environments, taxi regulation is reactionary to bad things that have happened in the past, like sexual assault, robbery, severe injury in traffic collisions, and a lack of insurance to fully cover injuries sustained by passengers.
Taxi and sedan companies have laws that regulate them because of incidents that happened in the past. Following those regulations costs money. If a company ignores those regulations then they can charge less, but that means that the conditions now exist that may let those previous kinds of incidents return. That's where I have a problem with Uber and its ilk, they're a taxi or sedan service attempting to masquerade as an until-now unclassified "ride sharing" entity so they can violate the laws governing passenger safety.
Could it be that the population in general are simply whores with no more morals, just as long as the price is right ?
There was a doubt?
My case-study is Walmart. Back in the nineties they had made a concerted effort to push American Made, they were advertising how they supported local jobs and local industry and were trying to buy as much locally-produced merchandise as possible. As a consequence they were a third-rate retailer struggling behind all of the major anchors at the malls, behind K-Mart, and behind Target.
At some point Walmart decided to abandon this approach and focus solely on price. And it worked. They went from being just another minor player to being the largest retail corporation in the world in a matter of a decade by pandering to the lowest common denominator, even when they decontented their products, borderline-bankrupted their suppliers through strong-arm tactics, and forced their employees to essentially rely on government assistance in order to support themselves. And they're more popular than ever.
So yes, the population in-general are simply whores with no morals as long as the price is right.
Something I learned a little while ago, is that the people who take an interest in the topic are often the ones that influence its rules.
Passenger livery companies take an interest in moving people around for fares. Arguably they probably know the most about the topic. They are able to provide a degree of expertise, albeit heavily slanted in their own direction, which they are able to use to influence laws.
If you want to counter that, show up at the public-comment meetings. Surprisingly when a lot of people show up at public-comment meetings, those holding the meetings generally end up considering what those people have to say provided that it's well thought and intelligent.
In some places it seems to be dependent on the cab company too. Some companies operate where they lease cabs to the drivers and then provide them access to the dispatch system (which they are free to choose not to use) and the cab company does all of the maintenance on the cab. The driver's only further obligation is to fuel the cab and to return it with a full tank.
Around here companies using this model became pretty obvious when those companies started using Priuses and Insights as cabs. Even though the cab company charged more for those models, most drivers opted for them since distances can be rather large, so the driver would keep more of the fare if the fuel costs went down.
Other companies appear to employ drivers directly, and either relied on retired police Chevy Caprices or Ford Crown Victorias until those were exhausted and then switched to minivans by and large, or else used literally whatever cheap four-door cars the company could get, presumably from the trade-in auctions. The latter kind seem to have the lowest fares by mile, but I suspect they make it up in the traffic-delay charge being higher.
I suggest that you make your center position "SYNERGY" and define that as the free square.
Of course there's a right way. I would even argue that if you randomly selected a whole lot of Americans and implanted them with electric shockers that would go off if they tried to disclose their actual political party affiliations and locked them in a room together, if they had to compare and contrast actual ideas and not just labels, probably about 80% would be statistically similar to each other and would agree so long as they don't know what the political affiliations of the others are. That leaves a noisy 10% at one end and at the other end to spew forth all of the wharrgarbl that has ruined most political discourse.
Most people are not in favor of no safety-net at all. Most people are not in favor of no regulation at all. The degree of social safety net and the degree of regulation should be what's argued over, but because these (R) and (D) labels are given such undue importance people end up arguing things that they don't even personally agree with just because it's their team's position, like it were some kind of sport.
I don't know if pets vs cows really applies perfectly here.
Near as I understand it, any system could fall into this including complex systems that handle the creation and destruction of individual nodes or virtual nodes, not just the end individual nodes themselves. The crux of the argument isn't about the scale of the system, it's about the willingness of the maintainer to replace a system instead of spending inordinate amounts of resources maintaining something for sentimental reasons. If sentimentality is getting in the way of a good business decision then the subject in question is a pet, regardless if it's a specific server, or a cluster of servers, or an entire set of network infrastructure, or even a slew of end-user devices. If the maintainer and the organization is willing to continually revisit the cost-effectiveness of the system and then willing to rip-out and replace the system when it is not cost-effective to maintain, that's when it's cattle/livestock/cows, whatever animal-husbandry euphemism you want to use.