Conversations would be different if the uber car was at fault but not all accidents can be avoided.
There are accidents that nobody could avoid, there are accidents that I cannot avoid, and accidents that could be avoided.
Obviously self driving cars will initially have to be clever enough to only cause accidents very, very rarely, At some point when this is achieved, they will try to avoid avoidable accidents where someone else is at fault.
If lexmark win this then every car manufacturer will be able to create their own fuel and shut out generic petrol alternatives.
The first car maker trying that would go bankrupt within a very short time. If Ford were mad enough to build a car that I can only fill up at Ford gas stations, what sane person would buy that car?
I'm not clear on patent law in this case (certainly not the US laws), but I thought patent licenses cover manufacturing, not use.
It covers use as well. Imagine someone with a _real_ patent, and some company makes a million unlicensed products and sells them cheap. Then as a buyer you can't say "I'm just using the product, I didn't produce it, I should be allowed to use it".
Obviously when you pay a patented cartridge made by Lexmark you _have_ a license to use it. And if you sell that cartridge to me then I have a license to use it, and you don't have it anymore.
The catch is that it's starting to be "never buy anything" from anyone. There isn't a company on this planet that doesn't want this ability to control it's products after purchase, and they consistently get away with it.
It seems that I can get third party cartridges for my Brother laser printer quite easily. It seems that Brother doesn't try stopping others from making cartridges.
Excuse me? What have they patented exactly?
It doesn't really matter. They have patented _something_ and nobody claims that patent would be invalid. They then go on to claim that because they have some patent, nobody is allowed to refill their cartridges. And that's what should fail in court.
The exception would be if they have a patent on refilling cartridges, then they can deny you the right to refill cartridges _using their patented method_, but they still can't deny you the right to refill cartridges in any other way.
The difference now is that many hackers have developed tools for MITM attacks on https.
Yes and the same tools work with a self-signed cert or with HTTP. To make them work with HTTPS and a signed cert, you need to have a compromised CA signing cert. This is still currently mostly limited to nation-state adversaries.
Step one: Any browser that cares about security MUST stop regarding https with CA certificates as any more trustworthy that self-signed certificates or plain http.
Why? Plain HTTP can be compromised by anyone on a hop between you and your destination. HTTPS with a self-signed certificate can be compromised by anyone on a hop between you and your destination, but can be detected if you do certificate pinning or certificate transparency. HTTPS with a signed cert can only be compromised with cooperation from a CA. The set of people that can compromise signed HTTPS is significantly lower than the set that can compromise self-signed HTTPS.
2. Collective or other shared accommodation, often combined with studies.
It's pretty common to move accommodation for each year of a degree, so this can easily be 3-4, more if you do a PhD or similar (though people often find a place for the whole of their PhD). I can remember the second and third places I lived as a student (I stayed in the same place for two years of undergrad and then for the whole of my PhD), but the first was university-owned accommodation and I don't recall the exact address - I certainly don't remember post codes for all of them.
It depends on how you arrange the lights. In the UK, there's a delay in between one set of lights going red and the next going green. In a number of US cities that I've visited, one set turns green at precisely the same instant that the other turns red. This means that going through the lights as they turn red is potentially very dangerous, because you will still be crossing the intersection while cars from other directions go. Adding a small delay, larger than the grace period, would likely improve safety considerably.
The USA has 7.1 fatalities per billion km driven, whereas the UK has only 3.6. It's tempting to blame the drivers (and the difference in driving tests in the two countries lends some support to this), but the road designers have a lot to blame. The US statistics are likely even worse for in-city driving, because the totals are skewed by the fact that you can drive far further in the US without encountering another vehicle than in the UK.
We are trying to do to movies what we did to software with open source. Reduce its value so much that the people working in the industry struggle to survive
Huh? That's not what open source did at all. It shifted the value from copying software to creating software. People are still paid to write open source software, it's just that now most of them are paid by companies who want the features added (or the bugs fixed) directly, rather than by some middlemen that want to charge per copy.
Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.