What makes you think it was some sort of joke? They used colloquial slang. They used it while they were still in Britain. In context, it means to "party hard". They weren't being cheeky with anybody, they were just using their normal language. It's the DHS that figured that the homonym must mean something actually destructive, just because the term doesn't have any other meaning in the USA.
Got any real-world non-contrived examples, or is this just a hypothetical exercise designed for no other purpose than to second guess decisions over something that has no bearing in reality?
I didn't say it justified it. I swear, the superficial level of reading comprehension here....
Possibly not, but your previous post does seem to suggest that it excuses it somehow.
Let's just go over it point by point....
One of the key differences between Jobs and Gates is that Gates retired.
What difference should this make if this were not some sort of attempt at excusing his uncharitable nature?
Granted, he started his philanthropy before he stepped down from Microsoft, but that was because he saw a day coming when he wasn't going to be running Microsoft and turned his attention to something else. Jobs was too driven by his focus on Apple to think about philanthropy.
I bolded the key words in these statements, above. In the context of what you wrote, this heavily reads like you are trying to justify Jobs' less-than-charitable nature... or, as I mentioned above, at the very least excuse it.
If he had lived to a point where he was ready to move on from Apple, he probably would have turned to "putting a dent in the universe" in some other way, with the same intensity.
And your concluding paragraph pretty much clinches your thesis. This hypothesis has absolutely no basis in reality, and based on how he treated other people anyways, there's plenty of reason to suggest that it is false. To conclude that he was simply just "too busy" to show other people any real kindness is nothing but a load of bullocks, because anyone who is too busy to show charity is already ethically misguided. What basis is there to presume that he would have changed?
Is it *possible* that he could have had a change of heart as he got older, if he should have lived longer? Of course it is... people have changes of heart all the time. But to suggest that this could have been a somehow *likely* turn of events is an entirely different kettle of fish, and it is what everybody who has responded to your post has taken exception to.
... I think there's a good chance he would have created a foundation which he would have micromanaged with the same level of obsession and intensity...
That's the bit that people are refuting, and why people are disagreeing with you. There is zero evidence to support that supposition, and plenty of evidence to suggest that it is completely false.
More specifically, he knew good ways to monetize great tech products that other people made.
Wozniak built the Apple computer, not Jobs. Jobs' involvement was helping Woz create a company around it... not that this was any small role, but it did not mean that Jobs was good at making a great new tech products.
Indeed... everyone knows that the first magnets fell to earth from that star, which is why it always experienced a small tug in that direction. Future magnets inherited this trait by mimicking the original magnets' functionality, which was to adhere strongly to certain types of metals.
And to that end.... what clearly expressed intent was shown by this man to commit a felony, when he claimed that he had the information on those weapons simply because he was curious?
One of the key differences between Jobs and Gates is that Gates retired
Jobs and Gates were almost the exact same age... both born in 1955.
Jobs was too driven by his focus on Apple to think about philanthropy.
I expect that Jobs was too driven by his focus on Apple to think about retiring in the first place. And besides, what sort of excuse is being too focussed on his own company to think about helping others? If anything, it only shows a abysmally poor sense of priorities that are absolutely nobody's fault but his own.
If he had lived to a point where he was ready to move on from Apple, he probably would have turned to "putting a dent in the universe" in some other way, with the same intensity.
Leaving aside the ethical issue that there is nothing stopping anyone, regardless of their age, from doing what they can to help others, your supposition is entirely hypothetical, and unsupported by his character, evidenced by some of his daily practices, an inflated sense of entitlement, and how he treated other people.
Is merely possessing the knowledge of how to commit a felony considered sufficient grounds to be considered guilty of intending to utilize that knowledge?
Yeah... except that credit card numbers are *SUPPOSED* to be secret. If you got a document that contained real credit card numbers, then that secrecy was compromised.
Knowledge of how to build a bomb is not secret... not remotely. Heck, I remember learning in school how to build an atomic bomb when I was in grade 12 (we never actually built one, of course... we were only presented with the theory, and from what I remember, the only hard part would have been trying to get the plutonium).
I remember when I was in high school, in my grade-12 chemistry class, the subject had come up about nuclear weapons, and I remember being in the camp of people in our classroom who felt that such things would be exceptionally difficult to build... well outside the capabilities of the average person. The teacher contradicted this view, and right at the beginning of our next class the following day, he handed out some instructions that explained exactly how to build an atomic bomb. The entire instructions fit on less than 4 pages, and I remember being shocked at reading it, incredulous that it could have been so simple. The only really difficult part, from what I recall, would have been trying to find a source of plutonium.
Knowledge should *NEVER* be illegal. Neither should curiosity. Only what you do with it.
But, again, this is just a derivative work"derivative" has a certain meaning in the context of copyright, and it only applies to things that are copyrightable in the first place. Ideas are *NOT* copyrightable. And if you copy the idea behind something that is copyrighted, then you are not infringing on copyright (although you may arguably be playing unfairly).
Consider also, there are commercial entities that specifically do not ever utilize GPL software in their own products because they do not want to deal with the consequences of being required to release their own source code for free. Instead, they develop "clean room" implementations that may work very much like the free software... all *specifically* to avoid working with somebody else's copyrighted work. If they could be held accountable for copying the mere ideas that software that inspired them had, the entire notion of "clean room development" would not exist.
And hey... should the creators of GIMP be liable to Adobe for copying the idea behind Photoshop? Should the creators of Inkscape be liable to Corel for copying the idea behind CorelDraw? Should every company that ever made a spreadsheet program pay licensing fees to the inventors of Visicalc?
"Inspired by" does not equate to "derivative work" under copyright law. Copyright law would have to change to accommodate this for that to be the case, and such a change would likely spell the end of copyright within a decade.
Well, for starters, you get to pay *less* attention. The result is that travelling will not be as fatiguing as it would if you actually had to drive.
The other significant bonus of autonomous cars is that, generally speaking, they will be far safer, because they can react to conditions more quickly than humans can. Exploiting communications technology in addition to this, if nearby cars were wirelessly networked together, they could also cooperate a great deal in their driving. Such cars would be able to drive faster, and much more closely spaced, in special lanes, of course, and could do much to reduce the headaches of rush hour commuting.
Only in areas where there is a lot of development. In cities and other well-established urbanized centers, they will have a large amount of roads already, and the actual number of changes from year to year is minimal. Over the course of a decade or so, yeah... the roads could end up being fairly significant, but the change is so gradual that you don't even notice it until you compare it to what it used to be that many years ago. Even in areas of rapid development, however, I reallly can't see any need to download map data more often than once every few weeks... month-old map data will probably be adequate for a self-driving car because it's probably adequate for a majority of drivers that wouldn't even have cause to know about the new routes yet
But in pretty much any real-world case, there *WOULD* be a person in the car, behind the wheel, and prepared to take over if the system encounters a situation it cannot actually cope with. In fact, recently prepared laws governing self-driving vehicles explicitly require that this be the case... so for the foreseeable future, there won't be any Johnny-Cabs.
ample evidence was offered showing that Apple's "look & feel" wasn't unique and copyrightable
Neither are red double-decker busses, nor photographs of them. Neither are photos of Big Ben. Neither is using a technique to desaturate everything in a photograph but one specific item in the picture.
This is quite possibly the single stupidest copyright ruling I've seen in the past decade.
These things are not going to be 100 percent self contained
They could be. There's no reason that they would not utilize already existing map data that has been stored on the system... this would be necessary as a backup, in the event that if for any reason it was unable to download any map updates. However, I'll give you that it will certainly download general map data for the region it is in periodically, at least. There's no requirement that this map data be updated constantly, since maps don't tend to change that much. Emergency detour information may be updated continuously, but it's not strictly required for an autonomous vehicle, any more than that information is always required for a human driver to get to where they want to go.
Someone steals your car. Notify law enforcement, and the perp is safely driven to headquarters.
Too troublesome. It is far more practical to simply disable the vehicle, just as the police currently do with bait cars when they have been stolen.
In a construction zone, everyone could be shifted over to the correct lane in the correct place, and automatically drive at a safe speed. Get some detour information, and everyone exits the interstate and takes the detour.
Yes... *EVERYONE*. Not just one person... everybody gets detoured. So somebody who manages to do this is going to end up having to deal not with just one driver arriving at their scene, but many. This is likely to be significantly more problematic than dealing with just one driver.
Just use a secret encrypted key exchange, like Diffie-Hellman, to set up a secure communication channel on the wire. While Diffie-Hellman may be susceptible to MitM attacks, it is about the closest thing you can get to foolproof protection against any form of eavesdropping on any type of broadcast channel, be that over radio, or on local ethernet line (unless the sniffer is a quantum computer, and would be thus break the encryption). To prevent MitM attacks, you need another type of system built on top of that, of course, but this article clearly states that the system in question is vulnerable to sniffers placed on the customer's physical LAN, and not MitM.
Not wanting to pay licensing fees is entirely irrellevant. He took the second damn photo, and by every right that is conceivable under ordinary copyright law, he properly owns the copyright on that original photograph as a unique work. Taking his own photo and manipulating it to reflect the same idea as somebody else's work of similar subject matter may very well be copying somebody else's idea, but again... and this cannot be overstated, you *CANNOT* copyright an idea. Either copyright law will have to change to reflect this decision (a idea so catastrophically stupid that it cannot be overstated, and that would probably, in the end, completely destroy the entire notion of copyright), or the judge's decision will be overturned when this is appealed.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think it was some sort of joke? They used colloquial slang. They used it while they were still in Britain. In context, it means to "party hard". They weren't being cheeky with anybody, they were just using their normal language. It's the DHS that figured that the homonym must mean something actually destructive, just because the term doesn't have any other meaning in the USA.
Seriously?
On MegaUpload?
Got any real-world non-contrived examples, or is this just a hypothetical exercise designed for no other purpose than to second guess decisions over something that has no bearing in reality?
How can we "go back" if we were never there in the first place?
Possibly not, but your previous post does seem to suggest that it excuses it somehow.
Let's just go over it point by point....
What difference should this make if this were not some sort of attempt at excusing his uncharitable nature?
I bolded the key words in these statements, above. In the context of what you wrote, this heavily reads like you are trying to justify Jobs' less-than-charitable nature... or, as I mentioned above, at the very least excuse it.
And your concluding paragraph pretty much clinches your thesis. This hypothesis has absolutely no basis in reality, and based on how he treated other people anyways, there's plenty of reason to suggest that it is false. To conclude that he was simply just "too busy" to show other people any real kindness is nothing but a load of bullocks, because anyone who is too busy to show charity is already ethically misguided. What basis is there to presume that he would have changed?
Is it *possible* that he could have had a change of heart as he got older, if he should have lived longer? Of course it is... people have changes of heart all the time. But to suggest that this could have been a somehow *likely* turn of events is an entirely different kettle of fish, and it is what everybody who has responded to your post has taken exception to.
That's the bit that people are refuting, and why people are disagreeing with you. There is zero evidence to support that supposition, and plenty of evidence to suggest that it is completely false.
More specifically, he knew good ways to monetize great tech products that other people made.
Wozniak built the Apple computer, not Jobs. Jobs' involvement was helping Woz create a company around it... not that this was any small role, but it did not mean that Jobs was good at making a great new tech products.
Indeed... everyone knows that the first magnets fell to earth from that star, which is why it always experienced a small tug in that direction. Future magnets inherited this trait by mimicking the original magnets' functionality, which was to adhere strongly to certain types of metals.
And to that end.... what clearly expressed intent was shown by this man to commit a felony, when he claimed that he had the information on those weapons simply because he was curious?
Jobs and Gates were almost the exact same age... both born in 1955.
I expect that Jobs was too driven by his focus on Apple to think about retiring in the first place. And besides, what sort of excuse is being too focussed on his own company to think about helping others? If anything, it only shows a abysmally poor sense of priorities that are absolutely nobody's fault but his own.
Leaving aside the ethical issue that there is nothing stopping anyone, regardless of their age, from doing what they can to help others, your supposition is entirely hypothetical, and unsupported by his character, evidenced by some of his daily practices, an inflated sense of entitlement, and how he treated other people.
Secret in the sense that it's not supposed to be published... not secret in that it cannot be known. Obviously it must be given out to buy stuff.
Is merely possessing the knowledge of how to commit a felony considered sufficient grounds to be considered guilty of intending to utilize that knowledge?
If not... what else is required?
Knowledge of how to build a bomb is not secret... not remotely. Heck, I remember learning in school how to build an atomic bomb when I was in grade 12 (we never actually built one, of course... we were only presented with the theory, and from what I remember, the only hard part would have been trying to get the plutonium).
I remember when I was in high school, in my grade-12 chemistry class, the subject had come up about nuclear weapons, and I remember being in the camp of people in our classroom who felt that such things would be exceptionally difficult to build... well outside the capabilities of the average person. The teacher contradicted this view, and right at the beginning of our next class the following day, he handed out some instructions that explained exactly how to build an atomic bomb. The entire instructions fit on less than 4 pages, and I remember being shocked at reading it, incredulous that it could have been so simple. The only really difficult part, from what I recall, would have been trying to find a source of plutonium.
Knowledge should *NEVER* be illegal. Neither should curiosity. Only what you do with it.
But, again, this is just a derivative work"derivative" has a certain meaning in the context of copyright, and it only applies to things that are copyrightable in the first place. Ideas are *NOT* copyrightable. And if you copy the idea behind something that is copyrighted, then you are not infringing on copyright (although you may arguably be playing unfairly).
Consider also, there are commercial entities that specifically do not ever utilize GPL software in their own products because they do not want to deal with the consequences of being required to release their own source code for free. Instead, they develop "clean room" implementations that may work very much like the free software... all *specifically* to avoid working with somebody else's copyrighted work. If they could be held accountable for copying the mere ideas that software that inspired them had, the entire notion of "clean room development" would not exist.
And hey... should the creators of GIMP be liable to Adobe for copying the idea behind Photoshop? Should the creators of Inkscape be liable to Corel for copying the idea behind CorelDraw? Should every company that ever made a spreadsheet program pay licensing fees to the inventors of Visicalc?
"Inspired by" does not equate to "derivative work" under copyright law. Copyright law would have to change to accommodate this for that to be the case, and such a change would likely spell the end of copyright within a decade.
The other significant bonus of autonomous cars is that, generally speaking, they will be far safer, because they can react to conditions more quickly than humans can. Exploiting communications technology in addition to this, if nearby cars were wirelessly networked together, they could also cooperate a great deal in their driving. Such cars would be able to drive faster, and much more closely spaced, in special lanes, of course, and could do much to reduce the headaches of rush hour commuting.
Only in areas where there is a lot of development. In cities and other well-established urbanized centers, they will have a large amount of roads already, and the actual number of changes from year to year is minimal. Over the course of a decade or so, yeah... the roads could end up being fairly significant, but the change is so gradual that you don't even notice it until you compare it to what it used to be that many years ago. Even in areas of rapid development, however, I reallly can't see any need to download map data more often than once every few weeks... month-old map data will probably be adequate for a self-driving car because it's probably adequate for a majority of drivers that wouldn't even have cause to know about the new routes yet
Well yes, you'll have to be paying attention... just probably not as much attention as you would if you were actually directly controlling the car.
Or do you never pay attention if your cruise control doesn't seem to get it right either, because of unusual road conditions?
But in pretty much any real-world case, there *WOULD* be a person in the car, behind the wheel, and prepared to take over if the system encounters a situation it cannot actually cope with. In fact, recently prepared laws governing self-driving vehicles explicitly require that this be the case... so for the foreseeable future, there won't be any Johnny-Cabs.
Neither are red double-decker busses, nor photographs of them. Neither are photos of Big Ben. Neither is using a technique to desaturate everything in a photograph but one specific item in the picture.
This is quite possibly the single stupidest copyright ruling I've seen in the past decade.
And why do you suppose that it will be any easier to do this than it is to hack into existing GPS systems to cause them to retrieve false data?
They could be. There's no reason that they would not utilize already existing map data that has been stored on the system... this would be necessary as a backup, in the event that if for any reason it was unable to download any map updates. However, I'll give you that it will certainly download general map data for the region it is in periodically, at least. There's no requirement that this map data be updated constantly, since maps don't tend to change that much. Emergency detour information may be updated continuously, but it's not strictly required for an autonomous vehicle, any more than that information is always required for a human driver to get to where they want to go.
Too troublesome. It is far more practical to simply disable the vehicle, just as the police currently do with bait cars when they have been stolen.
Yes... *EVERYONE*. Not just one person... everybody gets detoured. So somebody who manages to do this is going to end up having to deal not with just one driver arriving at their scene, but many. This is likely to be significantly more problematic than dealing with just one driver.
Just use a secret encrypted key exchange, like Diffie-Hellman, to set up a secure communication channel on the wire. While Diffie-Hellman may be susceptible to MitM attacks, it is about the closest thing you can get to foolproof protection against any form of eavesdropping on any type of broadcast channel, be that over radio, or on local ethernet line (unless the sniffer is a quantum computer, and would be thus break the encryption). To prevent MitM attacks, you need another type of system built on top of that, of course, but this article clearly states that the system in question is vulnerable to sniffers placed on the customer's physical LAN, and not MitM.
And you somehow think it will be miraculously easier to do this than physically assault somebody and rob him anyways?
Why don't you try to see how difficult it is to get people to download incorrect data from, oh... say... Google Maps?
Not wanting to pay licensing fees is entirely irrellevant. He took the second damn photo, and by every right that is conceivable under ordinary copyright law, he properly owns the copyright on that original photograph as a unique work. Taking his own photo and manipulating it to reflect the same idea as somebody else's work of similar subject matter may very well be copying somebody else's idea, but again... and this cannot be overstated, you *CANNOT* copyright an idea. Either copyright law will have to change to reflect this decision (a idea so catastrophically stupid that it cannot be overstated, and that would probably, in the end, completely destroy the entire notion of copyright), or the judge's decision will be overturned when this is appealed.