For the benefit of anyone else doing this in Japan, these are the documents I had to submit. It will be different depending on circumstance, in particular I think the author may also be born outside the UK which may require other/more documents.
Anyway I had to submit:
Certified copy of my birth certificate, order from the UK general register office.
Original (not photocopy) of Japanese family register and translation.
Certificate of acceptance of notification of birth, original and translation.
Original Marriage certificate and translation.
Colour photocopy of every page of my childs Japanese passport.
Copy photocopy of the passport of an American or British citizen who confirms that child is mine.
The process is pretty unclear, and in general you seem to have to just keep submitting documents until they are satisfied.
If you don't have a legal father then you can't claim British citizenship through your father. That's all pretty straightforward. (Although there's a fun case where you can claim citizenship by double descent because your ancestor wasn't able to claim citizenship because of sexist historical laws).
Weirdly this never came up for me (and I'm in a similar situation). I suspect what documents are ask for varies a lot by who is assessing the application.
That’s interesting, no requirement for parental birth certificates?
I was asked to provide (I am British, wife is Hungarian, living in Hungary) both parents’ birth certificates and all four grandparents’ birth certificates.
My wife is not in touch with her father, so we had to submit a cover letter explaining the situation, which was accepted (although I don’t really see why it was relevant anyway, my son’s Britishness is derived from my Britishness, her nationality and the nationality of her parents is essentially irrelevant).
We also didn’t have to copy the passport of anyone else, but we did have to have a family friend do the confirmation online (family friend is a lawyer in the UK, so was on the list of approved jobs for this).
In my case, as a British citizen married to a European living outside the UK, I had way fewer requests/demands for documentation.
All I needed to do was submit my own details, and a copy of both the marriage certificate and birth certificate for the child.
The assumption was made that as a married couple the child had me as the father, and as I'm British then so were they.
No references at all to grandparents, or even the mother's details, in the online wizard I filled out. Quite a quick process, which reminds me I probably need to renew their UK passport since it has expired a couple of years back.
> although I don’t really see why it was relevant anyway, my son’s Britishness is derived from my Britishness, her nationality and the nationality of her parents is essentially irrelevant
This is essentially happened to me, the "75% of the initial doc requests turned out to be irrelevant" was referring to this sort of thing.
Don't know in this case, but some other countries ask for it to deduce your travel history (any current passport itself goes to them, with color copies of every page of old passports). Qatar wanted it because I shared name with somebody born 40 years before me.
I just looked it up. I was dating a Qatari and didn't even dare to explore naturalization. The process is insane. As a man, you can't get citizenship through marriage (only women get that). So, as a guy I would have to live there for 25 continuous years with little time outside the country. Add on that they require you to be rich, Muslim and speak Gulf Arabic at native level. Also, you have to give up your birth citizenship (not always possible) and they can revoke your citizenship on a whim.
Another reason is that the UK forbids the child to have different names on their japanese passport and their UK passport, which is often (almost always?) the case
The SD Card was developed by two Japanese companies (Panasonic and Toshiba) and Sandisk.
VHS is another Japanese standard, adopted by multiple manufacturers.
Then there's the MSX standard...
Japanese industry is no doubt somewhat different and may have its issues. But I don't think it's as simple a picture as you paint... some external factor is often required to force large companies to cooperate. Those factors may be more common outside Japan, but I don't see that the fundamental issues are very different.
>The SD Card was developed by two Japanese companies (Panasonic and Toshiba) and Sandisk.
Yes, but that is after Toshiba threw away NAND flash technology saying Intel invented it (yes, really...) and Sandisk went and picked up free real estate. Not to mention Panasonic and Toshiba basically got roped into marketing what was Euro-American tech: MMC, SD card's predecessor, was invented by Sandisk and Siemens.
Sony meanwhile never got on board until the bitter end with MemoryStick.
>VHS is another Japanese standard, adopted by multiple manufacturers.
VHS is actually an exception and exemplifies what happens IF (and that's a big if) Japanese companies can be convinced to work together on something bigger than anything they could individually achieve.
There are other examples like Nintendo and the wider Japanese video game industry sharing and protecting patents for each other, or Nissin (Cup Noodle!) giving away their trade secret to kickstart the instant noodle market and improve food supply in the immediate post-war era.
Sadly, these things don't happen that often.
>Then there's the MSX standard...
That's actually a Microsoft invention which was co-marketed with ASCII Corp.
If it wasn't obvious by now, what seemingly "Japanese" international standards we do get are usually not Japanese at all having leadership or core involvement from the rest of the west.
eg: Blu-Ray involved Phillips and HD-DVD involved Warner Brothers, among others.
This actually goes to a sibling comment[1] I made here, which is that stagnant or failing Japanese companies are very likely to explode into success if unshackled from Japanese culture.
Japanese are amazing inventors and innovators, but Japanese are also horrible pioneers and trailblazers.
Essentially all medium to high-end ham radio brands are Japanese. Cheap Chinese radios only dominate at the low end, and often have emission issues. I doubt the Japanese manufacturers are interested in competing here...
Chinese radios do not dominate in Japan, I suspect almost nobody in Japan uses a non-domestic radio. Possibly the primary reason being that they generally have not passed the local emission certifications (which is annoyingly required for all ham radios).
I don't see the incompatible microphone thing as an issue unique to Japan. Pretty much every 1980s computer had weird propriety interfaces. I suspect it was competition that forced them to standardize. You can find similar issues more recently (Apple/Lightening port, Dell/IBM laptop chargers, docking stations etc.)
If you want to point to issue with ham radio in Japan, I'd go with the certification issue, which helps lock non-domestic players out of the market...
The number of negative comments here seems odd to me.
If you actually want practical and safe self driving cars widely deployed it seems obvious that instrumenting roads and making them a better platform for self-driving vehicles is an important part of this process.
To me this work seems like a part of the process of evolving roads from a Ad-Hoc and poorly documented system involving a lot of human guess work into a more robust and reliable platform for self-driving and human driven cars.
> If you actually want practical and safe self driving cars widely deployed
I can't speak for everyone in this thread but personally this sounds like a nightmare. If we're dreaming about possible future worlds that are better than what we have, I'd rather have less or no cars. Much cheaper to maintain, not hackable.
I agree with that. But almost every cool convenience-enhancing or safety-enhancing "connected" technology has been implemented in a way that makes it easier to track individuals.
If we take aviation as an inspiration, where there are lots of great safety-enhancing uses of radio (for navigation, approach, air traffic control, giving information to autopilots, collision avoidance...), we also end up with "every vehicle can be publicly tracked in real time".
No one seems to have managed to get a "don't facilitate mass surveillance" bullet point into the requirements lists for the majority of transportation innovations. And if you don't have that requirement and you build a system using radio signals, then by default you typically do facilitate mass surveillance.
> If you actually want practical and safe self driving cars widely deployed
I don't, though.
If we're going to propose a sci-fi future state of the world that will take a mind-boggling amount of investment, not to mention a giant leap of faith that we'll ever actually get there, I would prefer to reclaim all the space that's currently devoted to car infrastructure and be able to walk to everything.
> practical and safe
This isn't even enough; it would need to be cheap and universally accessible as well. I don't want to live in a society where we've agreed that cars are necessary despite a high and growing number of vehicle fatalities per year, and then provide miraculously-effective safety features [0] that only 1% (or 10% or whatever) of people can afford.
> The number of negative comments here seems odd to me.
Really ? Individual cars aren't sustainable, you can add more internet of shit in them it doesn't make anything better.
At the end of the day you're still moving 70kg of meat in a 2500kg cage of metal that cost my entire yearly net salary. All we're doing is making them more expensive, more failure prone, harder to repair, &c.
> To me this work seems like a part of the process of evolving roads from a Ad-Hoc and poorly documented system
This is a code monkey take, people in real life do not give a fuck about any of this. It's a road, just be sober, keep your eyes open and drive, it's really not that complex.
That's modern tech doing the only thing it knows, solutions looking for problems nobody has.
As the article and the linked PDF quickly mention, cybersecurity is a concern, a really big problem difficult to solve.
A cracked traffic or car signal, a spoofed radio signal, or more simply a malfunctioning sensor from both, is something to watch out for. Then, at what point could the data received be trusted without a real trusted source like a visual of what is really happening?
Collapsing a city or causing an accident could be as simple as tricking vehicles into thinking they have another vehicle in front of them by receiving false data with the codes of legitimate vehicles or traffic signals for example.
IMHO vehicles should not react to data from third parties/external, but to a own -and mandatory redundant- sensoring data within the vehicle.
But even nowadays there are problems with this as owners of cars with automatic proximity braking systems could explain. There is also another problem, when the vehicle is connected to a network to receive an OTA or to modify any type of engineering parameter, it already has its own vector of attack, homologous to when one use the remote key to open and start the car, and the signal is captured and cracked by a third party; We didn't saw manufacturers solving this across all this years.
The article concludes like if the problem were political, a sabotage, but without explaining why the cybersecurity is a real problem.
I'm European, so I'm not sure what lobbies are involved there, for sure they exist, but if we ignore it and look at it from a technical point of view, IMHO the cybersecurity problem should be solved -which I'm not sure can be solved- before moving the money.
We don’t even instrument all the train tracks, a small portion of the network relies on the conductors. I think it’s unlikely that the people commenting today will live to see a sizable portion of the road network instrumented for self driving.
> If you actually want practical and safe self driving cars widely deployed
That's a big if ;)
Not to be a luddite, but we are many that don't enjoy our cities being designed around car usage. That they take up all space that could have been used for nicer things.
Thing is, those who like cars and driving don't want autonomous cars; those who only see cars as a way to transport humans and goods should stop pretending they want cars and simply use Uber or Rent-a-Van. Self-driving cars are a solution to a non-existent problem.
Depends on your location. As the global population relocates to cities the cost-benefit maths work out in favour of not owning. New residential developments in Europe are planned and built without enough space to park at least one vehicle per apartment. Insurance, parking, and extra "emissions" charges (that EVs have to pay too), are all killing car ownership. There are places in London where you will not get a parking permit for your vehicle unless you meet certain criteria. The US was built for life where cars are an essential part of daily routine, Europe wasn't.
I wonder to what extent companies consider the reputational damage these kinds of enforcement actions cause. I recently came across this when googling for information on a small Biotech startup:
Oh wow, they sued someone who used his last name as a domain name because they feel like their trademark should allow them to prohibit him from using his family name ... And obviously they registered their trademark after he started using his name.
Prince Rogers Nelson's given name was a registered trademark of Warner Music. It took that whole stunt with him changing his name to Love Symbol #2 to get them to relent.
i didn't know that prince was the same as prince rogers nelson (only vaguely remembered the name prince as a musician from dances at high school), so googled his name:
UDRP is meant to address obvious, intentional, malicious domain squatting, where someone registers a domain with your trademark and then extorts you for it.
I believe it serves that purpose reasonably well.
There are three criteria that ALL have to be met (1. identical or confusingly similar to your trademark, 2. registrant doesn't have a legitimate reason, 3. registered/used in bad faith). In cases where these are met, it's pretty clear that the owner should be losing the domain.
I think it would make sense to add a rule that someone who issues a spurious UDRP request should be required to pay the domain holder some default amount of compensation for the hassle, but overall, I think this is a process that makes the Internet better, not worse.
What would have happened if Scipio refused to provide his marriage papers? Would he have lost the domain? How could he know beforehand?
If I was in his position, I would definitely feel the implicit threat of "if you're not willing to provide all the info we're requesting, you lose your domain".
> 2. registrant doesn't have a legitimate reason, 3. registered/used in bad faith
I've read arbitration cases where "The Expert" says (simplifying): "the site is being used for illegal activities, so there's no legitimate use", when no actual court or official institution has declared that the site's content is illegal*. So, you're at the whims of some "Expert's" opinion of what's legitimate, even if it may eventually contradict the actual justice system of your country.
I have very little trust on the competence and fairness of UDRP arbitration.
* And it's not a case where the things are evidently illegal, it's very debatable if they are.
He was even willing to sell it for €5,000. If they had just paid that relatively small sum instead of getting all triggered that someone might ask money they would have had the domain. Hilarious. Good on this Christian fella for winning. What a bunch of idiots.
This does bring up a question though; I've had arp242.net for a long time, and obviously that's not my actual name. Can some company register "arp242" as a trademark and hijack my domain?
I think they generally give a lot of weight to someone who registered the domain well ahead of the said company registering their mark. Though you might run into trouble if you started using the domain in bad-faith against that company (ex. impersonating them).
In your example, you had that domain well in advance, it's your self-identified pseudonym that predates said mark, and it's actively being used to host your personal website. That seems like a pretty strong defense.
For the record, common law generally doesn't have a solid concept of actual/legal/"real" name, if you're known by a name then it's your name.
My birth cert, bank accounts, passports etc. are issued in various jurisdictions with various names. I'm not an international man of mystery or tax cheat, but I'm known by various equally legitimate names. It is a bit of a bother when someone around they must all be identical, but there's no crime or deception.
That is perhaps true in some Common Law jurisdictions (US?), but not for much of the world, including some Common Law jurisdiction such as the UK and Ireland. The first name I use daily is different from what's on my passport and I've gotten into trouble with this in both the UK and Ireland.
I'm not sure on what we disagree. It is my understanding that what I said applies to the UK and Ireland, there are formal ways to register a name change, but it is not necessary and it is possible to "change" your name simply by having people refer to you using the new name.
As I mentioned, this will cause some difficulty with people and organisations who assume names are unique and immutable(c.f. [0]), but that's not a legal issue and is no different to someone not coping with any other unusual but allowable circumstance.
> there are formal ways to register a name change, but it is not necessary and it is possible to "change" your name simply by having people refer to you using the new name.
Try opening a bank account like that. I can guarantee you it's not going to work; they will want to see a passport and proof of address with exactly the same name. I've been rejected by banks just because the utility bill shortened my second middle name to just "P".
This seems true for pretty anything of substance: government, tax, banks, insurance, health care, things like that. I'm not a lawyer and don't know how it works according to the letter of the law, but de-facto, you will have a "legal name".
I'm sorry you had trouble from your bank, I know the requirements are annoying. I have indeed opened bank accounts including in the UK and Ireland in names other than my passport name. It's easier once you have some piece of paper with a new name on it to get another.
It sounds like they intended to use it as the primary e-mail domain for himself and family. They claimed that they had already switched to using it.
However, the total window of time here is small. They registered the domain in late November 2023 and this UDRP was filed in late February 2024. It also sounds like initial contact to try to acquire the domain occurred in early December 2023... so only a couple days after it was registered.
They can try through the UDRP, but your easy defense is to point that the date registered exceeds their TM by years. The UDRP would be highly likely to end in your favor should you dispute.
Remindes me of someone I met a long time ago that had the Zeppelin last name, and could not use on Facebook because and agreement between Facebook and the band Led Zeppelin blocked it.
Kinda wish the company got more than a slap on the wrist for such nonsense.
> While the Complainant may have 'sailed very close to the wind' in this case [...] the Complainant's conduct in this case does not appear to fall squarely into the realm of any of the above mentioned [Reverse Domain Name Highjacking] circumstances. Therefore, the Panel has decided not to make a finding of RDNH on this occasion. The Panel however cautions the Complainant to only invoke the [Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy] Policy in the future in circumstances under which the Complainant is able to identify the bases and adduce evidence in respect of all three UDRP Policy grounds.
So yeah, name-n-shame on their leadership such as *checks* CEO Pierre Chaumat and friends. [0]
In my experience, businesses which are the most vigorous about pursuing frivolous IP claims and lawsuits are usually dishonest entities which themselves trample and steal the IP of others.
I have twice found myself defending my IP rights when a business in one case, a government ministry in another, attempted to dispute my right to use the work that they had themselves stolen, wholesale.
The M-code from GPS (for military use) is almost certainly signed (as part of being encrypted), but unfortunately, while the latest L2C (civilian) has ECC, there is no signing.
I would suspect this is probably intentional, as it's difficult to imagine otherwise why this would be omitted in the latest standard.
The US probably wants the operational capability to spoof the civilian GPS; and signing would provide verifiable attributability.
Of course they could, but then you'd know it's the US doing it; with cryptographic evidence.
If there are covert operations going on somewhere in the world, where the US isn't publicly claiming to be (and I don't just mean DoD; but also CIA for example); this would be an irrefutable cryptographic trail.
Another case is unintended collateral damage; e.g. say a civilian airliner (with US citizens perhaps) goes down; the US can't have plausible deniability and suggest it was the enemy doing it.
Right but then it would be obviously them vs having the deniability to be like "well it got spoofed by someone who knows who might have interfered in your operation hmmm??"
Signed transmissions help with most spoofing, but it is still possible to replay (slightly out of date) signals received from the satellites, isn't it? Receivers with good internal clocks might be able to detect the delays, but they'd still be jammed.
It's not really a replay attack. GPS is unique in that it's purely time sensitive, so unlike traditional cryptography you're not trying to replay the signal a second time, you're trying to delay the signal. Replay protection won't work - what an attacker would do is jam the original signal first for some minutes to introduce uncertainty, then replay with a slight delay. Now with experience from traditional cryptography we could think this is avoidable - you just have to detect this new delay. But relativity says you can't. The shift is fully consistent with you having moved, unless you know your position independently it's completely impossible to know if the relative delay changed due to a position change or due to an attack. This attack is pretty difficult to pull off, but it has been done. You can't protect against it cryptographically, but if you have a better INS and onboard clock with less drift you can make it harder.
Why would you have to? You jam the target, not yourself, then you replay the signal louder (you could also be smarter in how you jam so your signal gets through)
I had a conversation with my wife yesterday explaining to her that "gas" (gasoline) wasn't a gas. (it can become one, but that's not where the name comes from)
Well, but in this case they're just homonyms, like how the word "bank" can refer to the edge of a river or a financial institution. The gas in your car is short for "gasoline"; you wouldn't call oxygen a type of gasoline, it's a gas.
Actually, "bank" isn't just homonyms; both senses derive from circa-Proto-Germanic benc/bank: a bench or other raised area (either a bank counter or the raised ground adjacent to a riverbed). (And yes, this etymology is also shared with "bench".)
Most of the other terms are global ones (hang up, save icon, etc), but gas pedal is pretty specific to the US as far as I know, so it’s much less likely to hang around like that.
Here in Australia it’s the accelerator, or accelerator pedal.
Estonian word is “gaasipedaal”, which pretty much means “gas pedal”. Gasoline is “bensiin”, no relation to that. The word for pedal comes from accelerator regulating gas-mixture valve (throttle) in carburettor. “Gas-mixture” here is air mixed with atomised fuel.
At least in german I saw EV cars described having a "strom pedal" (electricity/power pedal). More correct I guess, but also a bit odd. We will see, whether it will stick.
Likewise anything new. The idea that it allows more air in that then allows more fuel is true for carbureted based engines. But they don’t actually exist outside of lawnmowers/chainsaws anymore. Everything from the timing to fuel injection and air intake is computer controlled.
Fuel injected engines doesn't necessarily have electronically controlled throttle. And even when they do, injection amount isn't derived directly from pedal position. What's important is amount of air sucked into the cylinder, which is calculated from manifold air pressure or mass air flow sensor readings.
Really? My new-ish car (2019) just has the pedal connected to the throttle body with a cable. I’d assume that other changes to fuel injection would happen because it sensed more air coming in
They are confidentially incorrect, the best kind of incorrect, even cars with servo controlled throttle bodies (like mine) the pedal (largely) controls the position of the throttle plate. The ECU will then control the timing of the fuel injectors to achieve optimal combustion and cylinder pressures based on expected air intake.
The ECU will also take inputs directly from the pedal, but only because that provides instaneous information, rather then waiting for sensors in the intake manifold, and eventually the exhaust manifold, to catch up.
It always comes down to pedal controls air, air controls fuel.
Edit, I'm a dirty liar: It doesn't ALWAYS come down to pedal -> Air -> Fuel. On engines with turbochargers it's possible for the ECU to delay fuel injection reducing the amount of power in the cylinder and increasing the temperature/pressure of the exhaust. This causes more power to be generated by the turbine which then accelerates. This then results in the linked compressor accelerating increasing pressure in the intake manifold which means the engine can burn even more fuel generating more power.
All without the throttle plate changing position or the engine RPMs increasing.
This trick isn't used in any meaningful way in production cars to the best of my knowledge, it is used in race cars to keep the turbo spoiled up at its optimal point prior to the start of the race.
Also if your engine happens to be a turbojet instead of a reciprocating piston engine (all turbocharger, no cylinder), it's the only way you can control power.
WWVB also broadcasts on 60KHz and a number of other frequencies. WWV (time signal on different frequency) was started a few years before the one you mention. Though I’m not sure it’s really worth arguing about… not sure who was the first radio time signal.
Anyway I had to submit:
Certified copy of my birth certificate, order from the UK general register office.
Original (not photocopy) of Japanese family register and translation.
Certificate of acceptance of notification of birth, original and translation.
Original Marriage certificate and translation.
Colour photocopy of every page of my childs Japanese passport.
Copy photocopy of the passport of an American or British citizen who confirms that child is mine.
The process is pretty unclear, and in general you seem to have to just keep submitting documents until they are satisfied.