TFA states her product is patented, in which case it really is about counterfeiting.
She has a patent on a specific aspect of her product, not on the basic concept of an elastic sheet tightener (which have been available for many decades). TFA does NOT claim that her patent is being infringed, nor are her competitors using her brand name. This is just good old-fashioned competition, and she doesn't like it.
Chinese knock-offs, both legal and illegal, are widely acknowledged as being a reality.
Yet the article doesn't give a single example of that. The main focus is on legitimate competition, that is somehow illegitimate because they are "Chinese".
Counterfeits are a huge problem everywhere and it'll only get worse.
RTFA. Other than the headline, it is not about counterfeits. It is just about over priced products being out competed by lower priced products, and the people that are unable to compete are complaining about it.
Many Americans want their stuff cheap and this is a reflection of that.
There is nothing wrong with that. The woman in the summary is selling an overpriced product, and then trying to hide behind a patent. Similar products have been on the market for decades, and my family used them when I was a kid in the 1970s. So I have no idea why she deserved a patent. If someone else is able to make a comparable product, and sell it for less, then that is a good thing. TFA's implication is that a white person has a right to make $700k/year, while the Chinese don't deserve to make a living because they are yellow skinned sub-humans.
You'd have to be a moron to not know the end result
Being a moron should not make you a criminal. If we are going to lock up people that use heroin, then shouldn't we also lock up fat people that eat too much sugar? Or get high blood pressure from putting too much salt on their food? People do a lot of stupid things, even if they should know better. These are personal or medical problems, not law enforcement issues.
I wonder how you react when it's a poor black man getting walk instead of a Job Creator, Peace Be Upon Them?
The solution to injustice is justice, not more injustice for other groups. Perp walks and other extra-judicial punishments, are wrong, and should be universally condemned, regardless of the ethnicity of the victims.
At one point in its history, the FDA routinely jailed CEOs for violations by their firms.
Absolute hogwash. The FDA has never had the authority to jail anyone.
Employers only provide those services because they are forced to
In Maoist China, each factory ran their own school for the children of their employees. So if you changed jobs, your children had to transfer to a different school. It is obvious that having employers provide education is stupid, but it should be just as obvious that having employers provide medical insurance is just as stupid. Employers have little individual control over costs, and are impotent to fix the systemic inefficiencies in our healthcare system. By pushing these costs onto companies, we make American industry less competitive, leading to trade deficits and job loses. Medical insurance should be the responsibility of either the individual or the government. Your employer should have no involvement in your medical care.
if a few more CEOs were perp walked by OCI, compliance might go a whole lot easier.
Indeed. Perp walking is a wonderful deterrent, because it destroys lives and careers, while requiring no legally admissible evidence or due process, much less an actual conviction in a court of law. One of the wonderful things about America is that we can destroy people with extra-judicial punishment at the sole discretion of police and prosecutors, while still considering ourselves superior to other countries because, at least on paper, there is a presumption of innocence.
I always hated that that quote ignores the unknown knowns. (Things we know, but don't know we know)
It also ignores the known unknowns (Things we think we know, but actually don't). Don Rumsfeld famously used this quote, and he "knew" that Iraq had WMDs. He also "knew" that Iraqis would greet us as liberators, throw flowers at our feet, and would be grateful as we spread peace and prosperity across their land. Those things were not in doubt.
It is censorship the moment they decide to what you should or shouldn't be shown.
If that is your definition of "censorship", then everything is censored. Every newspaper has to decide what to publish and what to not publish. Every news broadcast must do the same. Even Google has to "censor" search results to decide what to list on the page.
the real issue at hand, which is CENSORSHIP, not "porn".
Oh horse pucky. A private company changing their defaults is not "CENSORSHIP". You can still access content. The NY Times does not publish bestiality and bondage on their front page. Does that also count as censorship?
These are PARENTING issues, not GOVERNMENT censorship issues.
The government is not doing this. Sky is a private company. If you don't like it, you can use a different ISP, or you can just disable it. Of course, you may then need to explain to your wife why you disabled the porn filter, but that is a MARITAL issue, not a GOVERNMENT censorship issue.
I'm going to bet on a whole lot of sociopaths got together. It's still unlikely any of them will see jail time so looks like it panned out!
It did not "pan out". Theranos never IPOed, they were never acquired. There was no exit. There was no operating profit. Nearly everyone involved lost money.
One of the big reasons why is all the criminals are locked up.
No it isn't: 1. The fall in crime started well before the prison ramp up. 2. Some states ramped up incarceration far more than others, yet had no greater decrease in crime. 3. Other countries around the world, which did not increase incarceration, also saw dramatic declines in crime. 4. In both America and in other countries, the fall in crime started about 12-15 years after they banned leaded gasoline.
What went wrong is they got caught. That's what "went wrong".
It is almost certainly more complicated than that. There is no way that a fraud like this could actually work in the long run, and any sensible investor would know that. What is more likely is that Elizabeth really thought her tech would work, hyped it to get capital, thus inflating expectations. Then she had too much pride to back down when the tech failed, so she started fudging a little, to buy time to fix the problems. But she couldn't fix the problems, so she then had a choice to either admit failure, and admit to the initial fudging, or... dig deeper. Just like Bernie Madoff, she grabbed a shovel.
It's that they believe that by applying the magical fairy-dust of a "free market" that nobody will be able to scam
In a Libertarian Utopia, this sort of scam would have been less likely because nobody would have assumed that the FDA and other taxpayer funded agencies were doing their job and looking out for the public interest, when they actually weren't.
Yes and I'm sure the cost to make automatic windshield wipers and adaptive headlights is very low as well, yet they only make their way into a $60K+ car.
The features you see in high end cars today will be in mid-range cars in a few years, and will be standard in low end cars in a decade. Of course the first self-driving cars will be expensive, just like Teslas with Autopilot are expensive today. But there is nothing inherently expensive about the technology, and there is no reason why it shouldn't migrate into low end cars.
Now cost out the robotic brake and steering systems.
That is a hydraulic actuator and a servo motor. Maybe about $100 each. Any car with ACS (tens of millions) already has an automated brake. Any car with lane control software already has automated steering.
You have a fallback of looking over your shoulder.
Say what you will about oldschool tech but a normal mirror is never going randomly cut out on you.
Except for the blind spots. Rearview cameras are way better than rearview mirrors at avoiding accidents, which is why they will mandatory starting in 2018. Sideview cameras will likely have similar advantages. There may be an occasional accident caused by electronic failure or whatever, but that will likely be swamped by the accidents avoided by the better view.
How many years will it take for the automated car to be affordable for the common person?
The marginal cost is very low. It is mostly software, which has a marginal cost of zero. Then there are a few sensors. Hi-res cameras cost less than $5 each (which is why they are in $20 cell phones). Radar units used in adaptive cruise control are less than $1000, and dropping in price. If your car already has ACC (as many do) then the additional cost for full self-driving is minimal. It is likely that you will save more on insurance than the extra cost for hardware.
I think some public openness in the training data set so that different teams of researchers can try out different machine learning algorithms is a very good idea. All you need to do is remove identity information and keep the diagnosis tags for the training.
It is not that simple. Even if identifying information is stripped out, it can be reconstructed by correlating with other databases. Retina scans can be used to diagnose some very sensitive conditions, including sexually transmitted disease. Specific researchers should be able to access the data, with appropriate safeguards and ethical oversight, but there is no way that this data should be public.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA states her product is patented, in which case it really is about counterfeiting.
She has a patent on a specific aspect of her product, not on the basic concept of an elastic sheet tightener (which have been available for many decades). TFA does NOT claim that her patent is being infringed, nor are her competitors using her brand name. This is just good old-fashioned competition, and she doesn't like it.
Chinese knock-offs, both legal and illegal, are widely acknowledged as being a reality.
Yet the article doesn't give a single example of that. The main focus is on legitimate competition, that is somehow illegitimate because they are "Chinese".
Counterfeits are a huge problem everywhere and it'll only get worse.
RTFA. Other than the headline, it is not about counterfeits. It is just about over priced products being out competed by lower priced products, and the people that are unable to compete are complaining about it.
Many Americans want their stuff cheap and this is a reflection of that.
There is nothing wrong with that. The woman in the summary is selling an overpriced product, and then trying to hide behind a patent. Similar products have been on the market for decades, and my family used them when I was a kid in the 1970s. So I have no idea why she deserved a patent. If someone else is able to make a comparable product, and sell it for less, then that is a good thing. TFA's implication is that a white person has a right to make $700k/year, while the Chinese don't deserve to make a living because they are yellow skinned sub-humans.
You'd have to be a moron to not know the end result
Being a moron should not make you a criminal. If we are going to lock up people that use heroin, then shouldn't we also lock up fat people that eat too much sugar? Or get high blood pressure from putting too much salt on their food? People do a lot of stupid things, even if they should know better. These are personal or medical problems, not law enforcement issues.
I wonder how you react when it's a poor black man getting walk instead of a Job Creator, Peace Be Upon Them?
The solution to injustice is justice, not more injustice for other groups. Perp walks and other extra-judicial punishments, are wrong, and should be universally condemned, regardless of the ethnicity of the victims.
At one point in its history, the FDA routinely jailed CEOs for violations by their firms.
Absolute hogwash. The FDA has never had the authority to jail anyone.
Employers only provide those services because they are forced to
In Maoist China, each factory ran their own school for the children of their employees. So if you changed jobs, your children had to transfer to a different school. It is obvious that having employers provide education is stupid, but it should be just as obvious that having employers provide medical insurance is just as stupid. Employers have little individual control over costs, and are impotent to fix the systemic inefficiencies in our healthcare system. By pushing these costs onto companies, we make American industry less competitive, leading to trade deficits and job loses. Medical insurance should be the responsibility of either the individual or the government. Your employer should have no involvement in your medical care.
if a few more CEOs were perp walked by OCI, compliance might go a whole lot easier.
Indeed. Perp walking is a wonderful deterrent, because it destroys lives and careers, while requiring no legally admissible evidence or due process, much less an actual conviction in a court of law. One of the wonderful things about America is that we can destroy people with extra-judicial punishment at the sole discretion of police and prosecutors, while still considering ourselves superior to other countries because, at least on paper, there is a presumption of innocence.
Did you know that you can buy the United States Constitution printed on toilet paper?
I always hated that that quote ignores the unknown knowns. (Things we know, but don't know we know)
It also ignores the known unknowns (Things we think we know, but actually don't). Don Rumsfeld famously used this quote, and he "knew" that Iraq had WMDs. He also "knew" that Iraqis would greet us as liberators, throw flowers at our feet, and would be grateful as we spread peace and prosperity across their land. Those things were not in doubt.
Mozilla sponsored a surfing contest in Hawaii. That isn't cheap.
It is censorship the moment they decide to what you should or shouldn't be shown.
If that is your definition of "censorship", then everything is censored. Every newspaper has to decide what to publish and what to not publish. Every news broadcast must do the same. Even Google has to "censor" search results to decide what to list on the page.
the real issue at hand, which is CENSORSHIP, not "porn".
Oh horse pucky. A private company changing their defaults is not "CENSORSHIP". You can still access content. The NY Times does not publish bestiality and bondage on their front page. Does that also count as censorship?
Because the only automated I've ever seen filter down to the average person's car ever in the history of cars is normal cruise control.
Perhaps because no other automated features have been around for more than five years. Lane control and ACC are both new technologies.
These are PARENTING issues, not GOVERNMENT censorship issues.
The government is not doing this. Sky is a private company. If you don't like it, you can use a different ISP, or you can just disable it. Of course, you may then need to explain to your wife why you disabled the porn filter, but that is a MARITAL issue, not a GOVERNMENT censorship issue.
I'm going to bet on a whole lot of sociopaths got together. It's still unlikely any of them will see jail time so looks like it panned out!
It did not "pan out". Theranos never IPOed, they were never acquired. There was no exit. There was no operating profit. Nearly everyone involved lost money.
One of the big reasons why is all the criminals are locked up.
No it isn't:
1. The fall in crime started well before the prison ramp up.
2. Some states ramped up incarceration far more than others, yet had no greater decrease in crime.
3. Other countries around the world, which did not increase incarceration, also saw dramatic declines in crime.
4. In both America and in other countries, the fall in crime started about 12-15 years after they banned leaded gasoline.
What went wrong is they got caught. That's what "went wrong".
It is almost certainly more complicated than that. There is no way that a fraud like this could actually work in the long run, and any sensible investor would know that. What is more likely is that Elizabeth really thought her tech would work, hyped it to get capital, thus inflating expectations. Then she had too much pride to back down when the tech failed, so she started fudging a little, to buy time to fix the problems. But she couldn't fix the problems, so she then had a choice to either admit failure, and admit to the initial fudging, or ... dig deeper. Just like Bernie Madoff, she grabbed a shovel.
It's that they believe that by applying the magical fairy-dust of a "free market" that nobody will be able to scam
In a Libertarian Utopia, this sort of scam would have been less likely because nobody would have assumed that the FDA and other taxpayer funded agencies were doing their job and looking out for the public interest, when they actually weren't.
Yes and I'm sure the cost to make automatic windshield wipers and adaptive headlights is very low as well, yet they only make their way into a $60K+ car.
The features you see in high end cars today will be in mid-range cars in a few years, and will be standard in low end cars in a decade. Of course the first self-driving cars will be expensive, just like Teslas with Autopilot are expensive today. But there is nothing inherently expensive about the technology, and there is no reason why it shouldn't migrate into low end cars.
Now cost out the robotic brake and steering systems.
That is a hydraulic actuator and a servo motor. Maybe about $100 each. Any car with ACS (tens of millions) already has an automated brake. Any car with lane control software already has automated steering.
Until your mirror bluescreens on you....
You have a fallback of looking over your shoulder.
Say what you will about oldschool tech but a normal mirror is never going randomly cut out on you.
Except for the blind spots. Rearview cameras are way better than rearview mirrors at avoiding accidents, which is why they will mandatory starting in 2018. Sideview cameras will likely have similar advantages. There may be an occasional accident caused by electronic failure or whatever, but that will likely be swamped by the accidents avoided by the better view.
How many years will it take for the automated car to be affordable for the common person?
The marginal cost is very low. It is mostly software, which has a marginal cost of zero. Then there are a few sensors. Hi-res cameras cost less than $5 each (which is why they are in $20 cell phones). Radar units used in adaptive cruise control are less than $1000, and dropping in price. If your car already has ACC (as many do) then the additional cost for full self-driving is minimal. It is likely that you will save more on insurance than the extra cost for hardware.
I think some public openness in the training data set so that different teams of researchers can try out different machine learning algorithms is a very good idea. All you need to do is remove identity information and keep the diagnosis tags for the training.
It is not that simple. Even if identifying information is stripped out, it can be reconstructed by correlating with other databases. Retina scans can be used to diagnose some very sensitive conditions, including sexually transmitted disease. Specific researchers should be able to access the data, with appropriate safeguards and ethical oversight, but there is no way that this data should be public.
I can see people just tossing a tarp over one of these robots, perhaps a tarp with a drawstring, and that is that.
... and then the nearest police patrol car is there 60 seconds later.
Here's an even better strategy: Go steal cars somewhere else.