Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: zack1234 on May 05, 2017, 04:46:22 PM
-
Well done China on its new passenger plane :aok
I dont know about the French engines its using though?
-
Post a picture of the plane.
-
Well done China on its new passenger plane :aok
I dont know about the French engines its using though?
Amazing what you can do with stolen tech.
-
Post a picture of the plane.
Ok
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/06/world/asia/06chinaplane-4/06chinaplane-4-superJumbo.jpg)
-
It looks a little bit like an Airbus.
-
It looks a little bit like an Airbus.
The Chinese Bus.
-
Ok
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/06/world/asia/06chinaplane-4/06chinaplane-4-superJumbo.jpg)
Where's the sight for the rear-firing cannon?
-
Amazing what you can do with stolen tech.
Stolen?
-
Stolen?
Boeing and Airbus also use stolen engines. :old:
-
Stolen?
Yes. China in general, and its aerospace industry in particular (though it has competition for the title), is notorious for corporate espionage/intellectual property theft.
I wouldn't be caught dead on any airplane crewed by their pilots nor designed and built by their industry. The horror stories I could tell...
There's a reason their "indigenous" ERJ/EBJ program (Harbin) was terminated
--and it had nothing to do with the jet itself.
-
Yes. China in general, and its aerospace industry in particular (though it has competition for the title), is notorious for corporate espionage.
I wouldn't be caught dead on any airplane crewed by their pilots nor designed and built by their industry. The horror stories I could tell...
There's a reason their "indigenous" ERJ/EBJ program (Harbin) was terminated
--and it had nothing to do with the jet.
Lol. No the engines are bought from France (soon built in China). Legally. They also intend to offer P&W engines.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cfm-to-build-leap-x-engine-in-china-after-c919-deal-336431/
The engines is a project between GE and Safran Aircraft Engines in France (formerly SNECMA). Both of them know how to build aircraft engines so I see no reason to believe that it's a bad engine. It will also be offered on both A320-series and B-737.
-
Yes. China in general, and its aerospace industry in particular (though it has competition for the title), is notorious for corporate espionage/intellectual property theft.
I wouldn't be caught dead on any airplane crewed by their pilots nor designed and built by their industry. The horror stories I could tell...
There's a reason their "indigenous" ERJ/EBJ program (Harbin) was terminated
--and it had nothing to do with the jet itself.
We make big macs in the UK. :old:
-
We make big macs in the UK. :old:
:old: Espionage! :noid
-
China has a well-documented history of corporate espionage.
So did the Soviet Union, such as with the Concordski as one example.
-
Slogan contest:
For example:
"If it's not Boeing, I'm not going"
This C919 is from COMAC.
Take your best shots
-
I don't think the modern Chinese culture particularly cares very much about originality or innovation. If they encounter something good they just scrobble it and see nothing wrong in it. I was once told its even considered a compliment.
-
:)
What do they know about fireworks any way :old:
-
What do they know about fireworks any way :old:
And cooking :old:
Once I was trying to buy a copy of "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan & Ritchie. Couldn't afford it, it was over £45 in the English bookshops. I had a Chinese friend and when she was visiting her parents she bought me a copy, slightly smaller with a Chinese preface, exactly the same text, perfect quality and glossy paperback binding: £2.
-
I don't think the modern Chinese culture particularly cares very much about originality or innovation. If they encounter something good they just scrobble it and see nothing wrong in it. I was once told its even considered a compliment.
That's a lot of it. But monkey-see-monkey-do only works so long in a cockpit. Building an integrated, computerized, large passenger plane or supersonic fighter? Shudder.
It may be a compliment, I don't know. I tend to think it is more like laziness coupled with competitive ruthlessness.
-
I tend to think it is more like laziness coupled with competitive ruthlessness.
I think it's more like stealing.
-
I think it's more like stealing.
Pretty much. Lol
-
I think it's more like stealing.
Ideas and designs are the easiest thing to steal and a year later those same people have forgotten where 'their' idea originated. Welcome to my world :old:
-
China has a well-documented history of corporate espionage.
So did the Soviet Union, such as with the Concordski as one example.
Well at least America hasn't bugged corporates like google and facebook, or conducted mass internet surveillance and let the NSA spy on companies like... umm.. Airbus.
...or spy on your allies national leaders.
:devil
-
That, too -- the pervasive intrusion and mass spying -- is horrendous and should not be tolerated.
-
Slogan contest:
For example:
"If it's not Boeing, I'm not going"
This C919 is from COMAC.
Take your best shots
If I don't have my Prozac, I ain't flying COMAC.
-
That's a lot of it. But monkey-see-monkey-do only works so long in a cockpit. Building an integrated, computerized, large passenger plane or supersonic fighter? Shudder.
It may be a compliment, I don't know. I tend to think it is more like laziness coupled with competitive ruthlessness.
LOL - this from a guy who flies an airplane made in South America.
-
Both Japan and S. Korea started in the same fashion as China and eventually they had gathered enough experience and know how to develop the stuff by themselves. That is about to happen for China as well.
-
Both Japan and S. Korea started in the same fashion as China and eventually they had gathered enough experience and know how to develop the stuff by themselves. That is about to happen for China as well.
German industry did basically start the same way, just 100 years earlier. They bough the machines, they hired the foreign (=British) personnel, they commited industry spionage abroad. They copied (badly, at first), they learned & improved. And started to export cheap stuff....
It's always the same cycle. :)
The label was originally introduced in Britain by the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 to mark foreign produce more obviously, as foreign manufactures had been falsely marking inferior goods with the marks of renowned British manufacturing companies and importing them into the United Kingdom. Most of these were found to be originating from Germany, whose government had introduced a protectionist policy to legally prohibit the import of goods in order to build up domestic industry (Merchandise Marks Act - Oxford University Press).
-
LOL - this from a guy who flies an airplane made in South America.
And your point is...?
-
I see no real problem with it. Aeronautical design is a very well researched area, especially in the transport area. There are very few new ideas, mostly just incorporation of old technology into a new design, or vice versa.
Saying they "stole" anything would be like saying any aircraft with an elliptical wing stole from Supermarine. Or that P&W stole from Heinkel with their axial compressor turbojets.
And those bastards at SAAB stole from the Wright Brothers by using a canard wing.
Nobody owns physics.
-
I see no real problem with it. Aeronautical design is a very well researched area, especially in the transport area. There are very few new ideas, mostly just incorporation of old technology into a new design, or vice versa.
Saying they "stole" anything would be like saying any aircraft with an elliptical wing stole from Supermarine. Or that P&W stole from Heinkel with their axial compressor turbojets.
And those bastards at SAAB stole from the Wright Brothers by using a canard wing.
Nobody owns physics.
We're not talking about physics.
-
We're not talking about physics.
No, we're talking about "intelectual property" as far as component design, and perhaps material or electrical engineering.
My point being that ownership of an idea, concept, or design is a rather tenuous at best, at least as far as non-person entities are concerned. You can't own the angle of the turbine blades, or the layout of the hydrolic lines, or whatever the hell the specific issue is much more than you can own the canard wing.
But beyond that, I'm completely happy to see one multimillion dollar company stealing from another. Past the companies competing and stealing from each other, and doing anything they can to get the drop on each other, I don't benefit in the slightest one way or the other. Hell I'm a chef. If we get more Asian tourists on the west coast flying in on Chinese jets using "stolen property", more power to them. I might get another raise if business picks up.
Past that, it's interesting to read about.
-
You can't own the angle of the turbine blades, or the layout of the hydrolic lines, or whatever the hell the specific issue is much more than you can own the canard wing.
Those are trade secrets or designs. It doesn't preclude someone from developing the same thing on his own, but if he breaks into your company and steals your designs, that is theft. The penalty for doing that is the same as if he broke into your company and stole computers or tools.
Let's say you, as a chef, spent one year writing a book of your recipes (and it was a lot of work to get the right prose, anecdotes, stories about the recipe and how you developed it, what other foods each recipe is good with, etc.), and your wife worked over that time taking artistic pictures of your prepared dishes for illustrations in the book. She experimented with different shots, lighting, colors, etc. Then, 2 weeks before you send the book to your publisher, you see a book on the market that is an exact copy of yours -- your recipes, your writing, your wife's photographs. Your publisher isn't interested in buying your book from you anymore. You find out that some guy broke into your study, stole an electronic copy of all your writing and wife's pictures, and published it as his own. He made $1 million, and is famous as a great chef who came up with amazing award-winning recipes. He gets his own fancy restaurant. His restaurant, that serves all these dishes and is promoted based on the popularity of the book, is the talk of the town and hugely popular.
You complain, but he says, "Well, you can't own writing or ingredients or the graphical appearance of food. I'm happy to see chefs steal from each other and compete -- it helps the consumer."
(His reasoning would in reality not help him in court, by the way. If you could prove he did steal it from you, you would likely win monetary damages, and the guy might do prison time for theft.)
-
Those are trade secrets or designs. It doesn't preclude someone from developing the same thing on his own, but if he breaks into your company and steals your designs, that is theft.
Unfortunately ideas and design solutions seem to have a special place in the human psychie which differs from the material. The number of inventors who have lived out their last days pennyless and alone, while the second (usually more business-inclinated) person has 'stolen' it are ridiculoursly numerous. History is replete with examples of this. Can readily replace individuals with companies.
This does / has extended to every nation and culture. There's a need but no solution. Some dude devises and presents a solution and bang - 'YES! We have the solution! And who's this annoying, unuseful, irrelevant person asking for money?'.
Regarding aviation. There's a hanger in the RAF Hendon museum. In there you'll find the design inspiration / template for the French Mirage, The SR-71 Blackbird and all the essential design elements you can see in every MiG from the 50s right up to the MiG-29. And plenty of others. I'm talking about real planes, devised, built, paid for and flight tested.
-
German industry did basically start the same way, just 100 years earlier. They bough the machines, they hired the foreign (=British) personnel, they commited industry spionage abroad. They copied (badly, at first), they learned & improved. And started to export cheap stuff....
It's always the same cycle. :)
and to think that we have a me-262 in game and no meteor!!!
as zack would say "it is an outrage!!"£
-
See Rule #14
-
this reminded me how the Russians bought the mig 15s engine from brits !which gave them a solid starting point afterwards they just keep building on it basically most of their engine technology lol
-
See Rule #14
-
Tried to PM you, Busher. No hard feelings on my end. Since my reply got taken out it could appear otherwise. :salute
-
and to think that we have a me-262 in game and no meteor!!!
as zack would say "it is an outrage!!"£
It is an Outrage!
HTC has not forgiven us for inventing the USA :old:
-
Those are trade secrets or designs. It doesn't preclude someone from developing the same thing on his own, but if he breaks into your company and steals your designs, that is theft. The penalty for doing that is the same as if he broke into your company and stole computers or tools.
Let's say you, as a chef, spent one year writing a book of your recipes (and it was a lot of work to get the right prose, anecdotes, stories about the recipe and how you developed it, what other foods each recipe is good with, etc.), and your wife worked over that time taking artistic pictures of your prepared dishes for illustrations in the book. She experimented with different shots, lighting, colors, etc. Then, 2 weeks before you send the book to your publisher, you see a book on the market that is an exact copy of yours -- your recipes, your writing, your wife's photographs. Your publisher isn't interested in buying your book from you anymore. You find out that some guy broke into your study, stole an electronic copy of all your writing and wife's pictures, and published it as his own. He made $1 million, and is famous as a great chef who came up with amazing award-winning recipes. He gets his own fancy restaurant. His restaurant, that serves all these dishes and is promoted based on the popularity of the book, is the talk of the town and hugely popular.
You complain, but he says, "Well, you can't own writing or ingredients or the graphical appearance of food. I'm happy to see chefs steal from each other and compete -- it helps the consumer."
(His reasoning would in reality not help him in court, by the way. If you could prove he did steal it from you, you would likely win monetary damages, and the guy might do prison time for theft.)
I see personal creation and ownership as being different than corporate ownership.
I'd much rather see the individual engineers and designers own their inventions and innovations. Corporate ownership has some very negative aspects to it.
-
this reminded me how the Russians bought the mig 15s engine from brits !which gave them a solid starting point afterwards they just keep building on it basically most of their engine technology lol
I think after they'd bought the samples they didn't even pay the licensing fees.
-
I see personal creation and ownership as being different than corporate ownership.
I'd much rather see the individual engineers and designers own their inventions and innovations. Corporate ownership has some very negative aspects to it.
Those things aren't different. Corporations are just a bunch of people organized in a way to do and to own things together.
Let's say you want to start a restaurant. You don't have all the money yourself. One way to proceed is to borrow the money and use it to start your restaurant, which is then owned entirely by you (and probably not owned in part by your waiters, I'm guessing) -- unless you can't make a payment on your loan, in which case the bank then owns the whole thing.
However, some people can't borrow the money, or can't predict revenue well enough for a loan to be a safe way to go, or . . . they want people who contribute to starting the operation to take a share in it. So, they all pitch in some money, and they all get a share of it. Together, they benefit if it does well or lose their money if it fails. That's what a corporation is.
When a company owns something, it is all the people who have a piece of the company who own that thing.
In companies I'm involved in, all the employees have a share in the company. They -- individually -- benefit from the company doing well, building inventions, etc. And if there weren't any corporations, they would be completely out of luck gaining anything from that invention/innovation process.
Also, not all corporations are GE and Apple. Most corporations in the US are small, entrepreneurial enterprises. There were (as of 2015) 5.7 million companies in the US -- 98% of them having less than 100 employees, 90% of them less than 20 employees.
-
Tried to PM you, Busher. No hard feelings on my end. Since my reply got taken out it could appear otherwise. :salute
My apologies Sir. My poor attempt at a joke at your expense was totally out of line. I am also well aware that Embraer makes fine airplanes.
<S>
-
My apologies Sir. My poor attempt at a joke at your expense was totally out of line. I am also well aware that Embraer makes fine airplanes.
<S>
No worries, man. I know there was no malice intended. :salute
Sorry I was too dense to get the joke. :lol
-
Those things aren't different. Corporations are just a bunch of people organized in a way to do and to own things together.
Let's say you want to start a restaurant. You don't have all the money yourself. One way to proceed is to borrow the money and use it to start your restaurant, which is then owned entirely by you (and probably not owned in part by your waiters, I'm guessing) -- unless you can't make a payment on your loan, in which case the bank then owns the whole thing.
However, some people can't borrow the money, or can't predict revenue well enough for a loan to be a safe way to go, or . . . they want people who contribute to starting the operation to take a share in it. So, they all pitch in some money, and they all get a share of it. Together, they benefit if it does well or lose their money if it fails. That's what a corporation is.
When a company owns something, it is all the people who have a piece of the company who own that thing.
In companies I'm involved in, all the employees have a share in the company. They -- individually -- benefit from the company doing well, building inventions, etc. And if there weren't any corporations, they would be completely out of luck gaining anything from that invention/innovation process.
Also, not all corporations are GE and Apple. Most corporations in the US are small, entrepreneurial enterprises. There were (as of 2015) 5.7 million companies in the US -- 98% of them having less than 100 employees, 90% of them less than 20 employees.
Yes and the individuals comprising the company have no individual legal claim to anything the company creates save for any shares they hold. Big difference between an engineer at Boeing holding patent over a subsystem or component and Boeing holding patent, no matter how you try to spin it. The engineer or engineers involved certainly aren't making as much as they could be, and many that have no hand in the invention benefit far in excess of them.
And true, the problems tend to be muddied the closer you get to two lone individuals forming a company. But the reality is that nobody is arguing that mom and pop shops are part of the problem. And mom and pop shops are at best only tangentially related to the issue at hand, mostly in capacity of a human shield for large corporate when it comes to legislation.
-
a bit silly to to take this stance. reminds me of commie propaganda. first off, a Boeing employee holding a patent to a Boeing used product would be a made man. and if he was a share holder too, wowzers hed be in good. royalties from his patent, income for his labor, and profit share from the company. baller. bet he wears a boeing hat. :old:
point being said earlier, a corporation is a group of people kôrpəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: corporation; plural noun: corporations
a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
it is not a evil empire. economically they are threatening due to the large pool of resources and economies of scale, that lower the cost of production, lowering the profitable sale price, increasing sales quantity, and pressuring competition to lower prices that they may not be able to do, giving the corporation more control of the market. hence government control of markets to keep them fair. :bolt:
-
Yes and the individuals comprising the company have no individual legal claim to anything the company creates save for any shares they hold.
The shareholders are the owners of the company. They have plenty of legal claims for all sorts of things (there is an enormous branch of law dealing with these things), and shareholders are the ultimate authority for a corporation.
Big difference between an engineer at Boeing holding patent over a subsystem or component and Boeing holding patent, no matter how you try to spin it. The engineer or engineers involved certainly aren't making as much as they could be, and many that have no hand in the invention benefit far in excess of them.
This is incorrect and/or misstating things on numerous levels.
First, when you are thinking of corporations, you keep thinking of Boeing, when in fact companies the size of Boeing are less than 1% of all companies. It's like drawing conclusions about how easy or hard it is to dunk a basketball for men overall using as your example Yao Ming, who is 7 ft, 6 in tall. So, first thing is that you've got ideas about corporations that don't fit 99% of corporations.
Second, I don't think you have an accurate idea of even that 1% like Boeing. An engineer at Boeing is making as much as he could -- otherwise, he can go elsewhere to make more. He is totally free to do that. That's because we have a free market and not indentured servitude. He can work somewhere else that pays him more, he can have his own company as a consultant (if he is good enough), he can invent something and (again, if it is valuable enough) go raise money and form his own company to capitalize on it.
Third, I don't think you have an accurate idea of how innovation works in various company settings or why. I've invented things and innovated at large companies (GM), 200-ish-person companies, and tiny 3-person companies (as a co-founder). As a co-founder, you get a much bigger piece of the pie, but you are also the one who has to get things funded, built, working in all respects, marketed, selling. You take lots of risk and might not have a steady salary and benefits (or any salary or benefits) as you are getting things started. When you work at an established place, they start paying you salary and benefits in the hope that you will do good things. But they don't pay you only after a year or so when they see how it's all working out. Also, for an established company, lots and lots of folks (before you) already invented things, built products, developed markets, got things selling, etc., and built a larger organization that you are plugging into. Regardless, if your job is to innovate, they are paying you to do that, and you are working there to do it as your choice for what works best for you -- otherwise, again, you are free to go out and do it yourself.
Nothing is muddied when you go from a company of 3 people to a company of 30,000 people. They are both collections of people working collectively. One just has 3 people in it and one 30,000 people in it. One might have a new thing that comprises 100% of the value of the company, and the other might have 3 million things that were developed over 100 years, and one person's innovation adds a miniscule percentage of total value. It all depends.
mostly in capacity of a human shield for large corporate when it comes to legislation.
If you do something illegal in a corporation, there is no shield for you.
The shield you talk about involves only the credits and liabilities of a corporation as a result of corporate actions.
For example: If you are the president of Kampherco and you ordered people in your company to murder someone or steal from someone, you and they and the company would suffer liability for it. If the company took out a loan and defaulted on it or sold a product and got sued because of that product (but you didn't do anything illegal), this is where you would suffer only through what you own of the company, and creditors of the company would not be able to come after your and your family's personal assets. This is just practical stuff.
-
I see personal creation and ownership as being different than corporate ownership.
I'd much rather see the individual engineers and designers own their inventions and innovations. Corporate ownership has some very negative aspects to it.
Someone has to foot the bill. That someone reaps the reward. The person working on it keeps their job and possibly moves up in the corporation.
They are one and the same. Personal creation and ownership and corporate.
The individual with a successful invention will soon be incorporated. At that time or before he/she may start work on another project and bring help aboard. You think he should lose his ownership?
-
Did they make a knockoff or did they do the actual Research, Development and Engineering to develop their own plane?
If you climb to 40,000 feet and a fracture develops in the fuselage there are going to be some very unhappy
passengers.
:salute
-
Yes, there are a lot of bad things that can happen. You really dont want a new airliner to like randomly catch fire and get grounded for weeks. That would be bad.