Time to get some new words, because QM has gone off the deep end as to what those words they're using actually mean.
That the chair I'm sitting in can affect and be effected by, oh, the Voyager spacecraft in a shorter spacetime than c allows does not mean that either my chair or the spacecraft do not actually exist if they are not observed. It may mean that the concept of my "cone of effect" is a bad one, and that I am not solely affected by those things within X distance of me.
Quantum Mechanics is a terrible term in and of itself, and essentially every part of it is handicapped by having equally terrible names applied thereof. Words with actual meaning are used in a way entirely separate from their meaning, because scientists, by and large, could not be bothered to coin genuinely new terms. Science suffers for this, and the mind-numbingly slow pace of advancement on the cutting edge is only half the problem.
That reminds me of the time my dad split an arrow, around the time the mythbusters aired saying that it was impossible. Got a picture? Was your dad using manufactured arrows, or did he make them himself?
The "myth" was that it was simply a matter of skill -- it's not. It's a combination of having enough skill to hit your own shot, and the luck of having an arrow whose grain allows for a down-the-line split.
Don't believe me? Get an axe and a bunch of old arrows, and try and split them down the middle with a single cut.
Correlation is indeed a measure of a relationship between a cause and effect
No, it's not. Correlation does not mean causation. Assuming that correlation means causation is considered a logical fallacy. Correlation is to causation what a rectangle is to a square.
If you take two groups, introduce factor X into one of them, and see a correlation between something and factor X, you've got a piece of data for causation. Do it a few more times, explain the mechanism if you can, and you've got a causal relationship.
While seeing correlation and assuming causation is indeed a misunderstanding of statistics, believing that there is no relationship between them is a more serious error.
Cosmic rays can affect our biodiversity, but heaven forbid anybody suggest the sun affects our weather! It's the evil of mankind! Go green--the new marketing buzzword for people to make money off of (like "carbs"). Thanks, Al Gore. The sun does affect our weather. But, as near as we can tell, carbon magnifies that effect and turns a cyclic phenomena into an exponential curve. If you're sitting on data that the sun has been consistently increasing in its output over the last fifty years, please do let the rest of us know. (We've certainly been watching it for awhile, and if we missed it then there's something fundamentally wrong with our instruments.)
Oh, and FWIW, "lo-carb" diets really do work, as well as any diet works. It's simply easier to eat less calories when you just eat meat.
Privacy does nothing to aid freedom. All privacy does is aid cowardice.
Freedom is the ability to go essentially anywhere you want, say anything you want, and associate with whomever you want. Privacy aids in none of these, unless you don't have the stomach to be seen with your "friends" in public.
From a business prospective there is zero reason to plan any moves to Vista in the near future. What gains will they get? NONE.
You mis-use that word. Vista has a modest slew of bits and pieces that really are worthwhile. When I was using the beta, I went through a two-week period when every tech problem I ran into immediately made me think of a vista feature that would make it easier.
Vista really does do things that Windows did not do previously -- if it didn't, there wouldn't be the incompatibilities that are so rampant. Saying that there is NO benefit is just plain old FUD, and lets a proprietary-software shill get the client to dismiss OSS out of hand.
how would it stand in court if you had a wireless access point that was open. Just claim that someone else used your network without authorisation to download the offending files (assume that the authorities did not find evidence on your storage mediums). 1: IANAL. This is semi-layman's conjecture. If you want a real answer, spend the $100 and ask a real lawyer.
2; Since these are civil suits, most likely with a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, your claim won't hold enough water. So what if there was a possibility of an open connection: is there any proof that someone else actually used it? If the sum total of the evidence better supports their story than yours, you lose.
IMHO, if you want to genuinely protect yourself, you'll start logging your wide-open router's MAC address connections, and keep them for as long as you can -- six years if you can manage it. (A lawyer in your state could tell you the precise statute of limitations in your hypothetical case.)
OTOH, if you want to break the law, you should be "browsing anonymously" with a proxy server and a "privacy" enabled P2P system.
You can't win a war either. Bullshit and liberal psycho-babble claptrap. No, basic understanding of war. There are no "winners" in a war -- there are only those who lose worse.
If you're sitting at a bar, and some guy gets rowdy, you get into a fistfight, and the other guy spends the rest of the night bleeding on the floor. Sure, you "won", but you'd much rather have not had to spill your beer and bruise your knuckles, to say nothing of the black eye you'll have in the morning.
War is the breakdown of diplomacy. Every single time the United States has entered military conflict is because we already lost our attempt at an acceptable non-military solution.
(And, for the historical record, liberals are far more likely to go full-gear-for-bear on a real threat, rather than the conservative "oh what a wonderful army we have" pseudo-exercises.)
The planet isn't some big lump of rock sure it is. You're thinking of the biosphere, which is the Earth we actually care about.
I'm not. I think the solution to our energy problems is to reduce energy usage, not to keep looking for that magic bullet solution of abundant, free energy.
Looking for a "magic bullet" solution sparked the industrial revolution, bub. The "free" energy of the river replaced the hard work of grinding by hand. The "free" chemical energy of whale oil replaced the difficult process of making candles. And, most recently, the "free" energy of fossil fuels replaced not only whale oil, but the amazingly aggravating (and slow) energy of animal power.
In abstract theory, wind power has exactly the same expenses as fossil fuels -- research, construction, and operation. The big difference on wind is that, even if we somehow sucked out so much power from the atmosphere that the wind vanished, we could simply turn he things off and, a few storms later, the winds would return.
That's not racism. Racism is judging someone by their racial stereotype -- not simply stating one example of a stereotype.
It is not racist, for example, to say "that hassidic jew is wealthy", "that black man robbed me", or "that white guy ignored me." Racism is "he's jewish, he's got money", "he's black, he'll rob me", or "he's white, he can't understand da hood."
Or maybe we could patent something related to this.
If they fix a significant technical problem, they should get a patent to preserve at least some competitive advantage. Maybe 15 years is too long, but some force-of-law to encourage people to solve problems and tell everyone how they did it is a good thing.
I've got karma to burn. The parent isn't trolling --- but telling it like it is. No, he's trolling.
Let's say that you individually make $60,000 a year on ebay, and you skip out on the income and sales taxes. Assuming a 20% federal income take (as this is likely in addition to your regular job) and a 10% state income-and-sales take, that'd be $12k that the federal government either has to do without, borrow, or get from the rest of us, and $6k that your state has to do the same with.
Tax policies aside, it's just a rule of law thing. the law says pay the tax, so you pay the tax -- and if you don't like it, you get off your ass and work to change it.
_That_ is what's understood by "there ain't no free ride". No, it isn't. "There ain't no free ride" is a high school mnemonic (of Newton's Second Law, IIRC) turned into collegiate thesis, and it's every bit as oversimplified as "Einstein proved Newton wrong."
If you're going to get into the alterations to our energy-rich biosphere inherent in massive wind, tidal, or photovoltalic power, you need to remember to compare them to the alternatives. Would you rather have different weather patterns from a massive injection of hot air, particulates, and carbon, or different weather pattern from a slightly slower gulfstream?
If we had so many wind turbines that we were collecting enough power to run the world, would that not have some effect on the global wind patterns?
No. There is simply more power in the Earth's wind than we could harvest. Or, if you please, the current annual input of power into the atmosphere is greater than the total energy cost of human civilization, by a few orders of magnitude.
Remember: every single watt of solar power that reaches the ground winds up in the atmosphere as heat, the foundation of wind.
Also solar power cools the Earth's surface. Solar farms are envisioned as acres and acres of panels in the desert. That would turn a very hot spot into a very cold spot, changing the currents there, and thus affecting overall temperature distribution (ie, the wind).
If, and ONLY if, the solar panels were not only almost perfectly efficient, but also sucked energy from heat in the atmosphere.
Same sort of thing goes for tidal energy. If you collect enough, you are going to affect life in the ocean.
Tides are powered by the moon's gravity, bub. Sure you'll have an effect, but the tides are already affecting the moon's rotation.
There just ain't no free ride.
Depends on what you means as "free." Sure, the soup kitchen needs someone to pay for the soup, but the bums getting a hot meal get to enjoy someone else's largesse. Most of the power sources available to humanity work like that, including photovoltalic solar, fission, and hydroelectric.
The solution to super hackers is simple, hot women need to take one for the team
Hey, jerk-off.
The other three-out-of-four women are every bit as worthwhile as the "hot" ones. In fact, by and large they're a better match up for someone whose social skills keep them in their parent's basement.
The idea that only "hot" people get laid is a myth that betrays an amazingly poor grasp of statistics. Or beauty, for that manner.
I wished they took up the chance to pick a really good name worthy of one of the best long-time open-source projects around. Now we have to face on onslaught of bird jokes the next time we're sincerely recommending instant messaging software to Linux newcomers.
Anyone who makes a bird joke would also make a "windows" joke. A pidgin is a slightly obscure but extremely well established term, and is PERFECT for an IM system.
I think I might just install it, and I've been pretty IM-adverse for a few years.
1: Don't believe it unless you've got the data. As I understand it, the variance between temp and CO2 are less than the margin of certainty in the data. here's someone who agrees with me.
2: Go into a greenhouse with a pair of thermometers and a black concrete block. Put the concrete block in direct sunlight, and place one thermometer on the block and one right in front of the glass. Put a fan blowing on the therm. by the glass. The rock will get hotter noticeably faster, both due to the air circulation and simple conductivity.
3: If Sun Spots were causing more cloud cover, there'd be evidence of this. We've had satellites staring down at the planet for quite awhile, checking the cloud cover of every part of the united states for, well, as long as I've been old enough to look at the weather. If it really is the cause, it should be a simple matter to pull them up and prove it.
4: I am not a statistician, nor a geologist, nor an ecologist. Heck, I'm not even a Scientist. And neither is Al Gore, or the right-wing pundits who dismiss his argument because they hate all things Democratic. I do know that an amazing majority of scientists think it's highly likely we're causing increased global warming, and the proper counter argument to scientific consensus is a theory supported by data, not a mere rhetorical theory.
As for the "documentary" -- there's no scam involved in global warming. Aside from injecting an ad hominem attack into what should be a scientific debate, the practical question about "global warming" isn't really one of how well one believes in the CO2 theory, it's one that simply asks "do you think pollution is a good thing?"
If you're still on the fence, consider this: We will run out of fossil fuels in the next 200 years, and our international security is currently disjoined by the disproportionate value given to countries that can export crude oil. It's in our interest to conserve and replace our dependence on them as soon as possible.
1: there would be a copy of any copyrighted work availible without drm encumberments (possiblly from schemes that are no longer availible) if and when the work finally enters the public domain.
No, not really. You'd have at best four years, and then a "digital copy licensed to the library" would be enough.
2: people wouldn't gnerally copyright trivial things. people would only use copyright if they thought they had a good enough reason too.
which would lead to a resurgence of publishers, perfectly legally, ripping off novices. Which would result in every has-been and never-was deluding the copyright office with crap.
3: there would be a lot less fighting over who owned the copyright to something.
Hah! Hahaha. Oh, that's hilarious.
Forcing registration would do nothing to clarify derivitive works, work-for-hire, or licensing agreements. Which is what all the fighting happens over.
1. Are you legally obliged to make it easy for someone to subpoena you? eg. by replying to an email asking for that information.
IANAL (I do have most of a Paralegal degree, sans only Ethics.)
I am not aware of any statute that requires you to actively seek out a subpoena. However, if you do successfully avoid a subpoena, you'll just wind up with a court summons, or a warrant. Generally, if someone's subpoenaing you it's in your best interest to read that subpoena ASAP, get yourself a lawyer, and talk to the judge. Don't avoid judges; they don't like that, and you don't want to be in the court of a judge who has reason to dislike you.
No one [alive] can prove that a dead human being is anything more than compost.
Yes, exactly.
Once you're dead, you can't bring proof back to the scientific community. But you definitely have zero doubts about God's existence, one way or the other.
Your argument starts off with an unprovable statement. A glib and clever-sounding one, to be sure, but unprovable.
It's not an argument, it's a simple statement of logical truth. It's entirely unrelated to the rest of my comment.
You did say, what you said was quite straightforward and can't really be misinterpreted. Give that you managed to, let me add in the necessary emphasis.
'create turn-key implementations of said systems, which after ten years or so are better than what an expert could do themselves. It happened with assembly lines. It happened with automobiles. And it happened with computers,'
If you can't interpret simple written English, well, then it's no wonder you think that the common man can't administer their own PC. It's hard to follow the basics when the only instruction you're given is "read the MAN pages, noob!".
Let me break it down to you:
* Expert A creates a turn-key solution, and spends his time improving that solution and selling it to his customers.
* Expert B creates a customized solution, and spends his time creating customized solutions for his customers.
ten years pass.
* Expert A's solutions have improved year-over-year. * Expert B's solutions are the same as they were ten years ago, and unless he uses A's system as a base ("on his own"), his from-scratch solution is worse than what A simply drops off.
Contracts are not real life - they don't take into account "common sense" or personal interpretations.
No, they do. That's why a lawyer can find a loophole.
In your proposed case, your lawyer (IANAL, RU?) would need to prove that there's no definition in the Apple EULA, that the EULA is "vauge", and that "Apple TV is a computer" is a reasonable interpretation of the EULA.
If the term is "personal computer" or "general computer", you're even technically off base. If it's only "computer", well, then there's probably a definition in there, unless they mean that it can be installed on a person whose job is manually adding numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Time to get some new words, because QM has gone off the deep end as to what those words they're using actually mean.
That the chair I'm sitting in can affect and be effected by, oh, the Voyager spacecraft in a shorter spacetime than c allows does not mean that either my chair or the spacecraft do not actually exist if they are not observed. It may mean that the concept of my "cone of effect" is a bad one, and that I am not solely affected by those things within X distance of me.
Quantum Mechanics is a terrible term in and of itself, and essentially every part of it is handicapped by having equally terrible names applied thereof. Words with actual meaning are used in a way entirely separate from their meaning, because scientists, by and large, could not be bothered to coin genuinely new terms. Science suffers for this, and the mind-numbingly slow pace of advancement on the cutting edge is only half the problem.
The "myth" was that it was simply a matter of skill -- it's not. It's a combination of having enough skill to hit your own shot, and the luck of having an arrow whose grain allows for a down-the-line split.
Don't believe me? Get an axe and a bunch of old arrows, and try and split them down the middle with a single cut.
No, it's not. Correlation does not mean causation. Assuming that correlation means causation is considered a logical fallacy. Correlation is to causation what a rectangle is to a square.
If you take two groups, introduce factor X into one of them, and see a correlation between something and factor X, you've got a piece of data for causation. Do it a few more times, explain the mechanism if you can, and you've got a causal relationship.
While seeing correlation and assuming causation is indeed a misunderstanding of statistics, believing that there is no relationship between them is a more serious error.
Oh, and FWIW, "lo-carb" diets really do work, as well as any diet works. It's simply easier to eat less calories when you just eat meat.
its not about that...its about freedom
Privacy does nothing to aid freedom. All privacy does is aid cowardice.
Freedom is the ability to go essentially anywhere you want, say anything you want, and associate with whomever you want. Privacy aids in none of these, unless you don't have the stomach to be seen with your "friends" in public.
From a business prospective there is zero reason to plan any moves to Vista in the near future. What gains will they get? NONE.
You mis-use that word. Vista has a modest slew of bits and pieces that really are worthwhile. When I was using the beta, I went through a two-week period when every tech problem I ran into immediately made me think of a vista feature that would make it easier.
Vista really does do things that Windows did not do previously -- if it didn't, there wouldn't be the incompatibilities that are so rampant. Saying that there is NO benefit is just plain old FUD, and lets a proprietary-software shill get the client to dismiss OSS out of hand.
2; Since these are civil suits, most likely with a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, your claim won't hold enough water. So what if there was a possibility of an open connection: is there any proof that someone else actually used it? If the sum total of the evidence better supports their story than yours, you lose.
IMHO, if you want to genuinely protect yourself, you'll start logging your wide-open router's MAC address connections, and keep them for as long as you can -- six years if you can manage it. (A lawyer in your state could tell you the precise statute of limitations in your hypothetical case.)
OTOH, if you want to break the law, you should be "browsing anonymously" with a proxy server and a "privacy" enabled P2P system.
Have you tried visiting the many web sites thatt only work with IE, with another browser?
Name one. And tell me why you aren't simply not going there?
How about opening all the files people create and distribute using MS's proprietary formats, because they do succumb to MS's strong-arm tactics?
What, you don't have OpenOffice?
(And I can't recall the last time I saw an office document e-mailed without a "can you open this?" question first.)
If you're sitting at a bar, and some guy gets rowdy, you get into a fistfight, and the other guy spends the rest of the night bleeding on the floor. Sure, you "won", but you'd much rather have not had to spill your beer and bruise your knuckles, to say nothing of the black eye you'll have in the morning.
War is the breakdown of diplomacy. Every single time the United States has entered military conflict is because we already lost our attempt at an acceptable non-military solution.
(And, for the historical record, liberals are far more likely to go full-gear-for-bear on a real threat, rather than the conservative "oh what a wonderful army we have" pseudo-exercises.)
I'm not. I think the solution to our energy problems is to reduce energy usage, not to keep looking for that magic bullet solution of abundant, free energy.
Looking for a "magic bullet" solution sparked the industrial revolution, bub. The "free" energy of the river replaced the hard work of grinding by hand. The "free" chemical energy of whale oil replaced the difficult process of making candles. And, most recently, the "free" energy of fossil fuels replaced not only whale oil, but the amazingly aggravating (and slow) energy of animal power.
In abstract theory, wind power has exactly the same expenses as fossil fuels -- research, construction, and operation. The big difference on wind is that, even if we somehow sucked out so much power from the atmosphere that the wind vanished, we could simply turn he things off and, a few storms later, the winds would return.
That's not racism. Racism is judging someone by their racial stereotype -- not simply stating one example of a stereotype.
It is not racist, for example, to say "that hassidic jew is wealthy", "that black man robbed me", or "that white guy ignored me." Racism is "he's jewish, he's got money", "he's black, he'll rob me", or "he's white, he can't understand da hood."
Or maybe we could patent something related to this.
If they fix a significant technical problem, they should get a patent to preserve at least some competitive advantage. Maybe 15 years is too long, but some force-of-law to encourage people to solve problems and tell everyone how they did it is a good thing.
Let's say that you individually make $60,000 a year on ebay, and you skip out on the income and sales taxes. Assuming a 20% federal income take (as this is likely in addition to your regular job) and a 10% state income-and-sales take, that'd be $12k that the federal government either has to do without, borrow, or get from the rest of us, and $6k that your state has to do the same with.
Tax policies aside, it's just a rule of law thing. the law says pay the tax, so you pay the tax -- and if you don't like it, you get off your ass and work to change it.
If you're going to get into the alterations to our energy-rich biosphere inherent in massive wind, tidal, or photovoltalic power, you need to remember to compare them to the alternatives. Would you rather have different weather patterns from a massive injection of hot air, particulates, and carbon, or different weather pattern from a slightly slower gulfstream?
If we had so many wind turbines that we were collecting enough power to run the world, would that not have some effect on the global wind patterns?
No. There is simply more power in the Earth's wind than we could harvest. Or, if you please, the current annual input of power into the atmosphere is greater than the total energy cost of human civilization, by a few orders of magnitude.
Remember: every single watt of solar power that reaches the ground winds up in the atmosphere as heat, the foundation of wind.
Also solar power cools the Earth's surface. Solar farms are envisioned as acres and acres of panels in the desert. That would turn a very hot spot into a very cold spot, changing the currents there, and thus affecting overall temperature distribution (ie, the wind).
If, and ONLY if, the solar panels were not only almost perfectly efficient, but also sucked energy from heat in the atmosphere.
Same sort of thing goes for tidal energy. If you collect enough, you are going to affect life in the ocean.
Tides are powered by the moon's gravity, bub. Sure you'll have an effect, but the tides are already affecting the moon's rotation.
There just ain't no free ride.
Depends on what you means as "free." Sure, the soup kitchen needs someone to pay for the soup, but the bums getting a hot meal get to enjoy someone else's largesse. Most of the power sources available to humanity work like that, including photovoltalic solar, fission, and hydroelectric.
The solution to super hackers is simple, hot women need to take one for the team
Hey, jerk-off.
The other three-out-of-four women are every bit as worthwhile as the "hot" ones. In fact, by and large they're a better match up for someone whose social skills keep them in their parent's basement.
The idea that only "hot" people get laid is a myth that betrays an amazingly poor grasp of statistics. Or beauty, for that manner.
I wished they took up the chance to pick a really good name worthy of one of the best long-time open-source projects around. Now we have to face on onslaught of bird jokes the next time we're sincerely recommending instant messaging software to Linux newcomers.
Anyone who makes a bird joke would also make a "windows" joke. A pidgin is a slightly obscure but extremely well established term, and is PERFECT for an IM system.
I think I might just install it, and I've been pretty IM-adverse for a few years.
0: It's Vostok! No "l" in there at all.
1: Don't believe it unless you've got the data. As I understand it, the variance between temp and CO2 are less than the margin of certainty in the data. here's someone who agrees with me.
2: Go into a greenhouse with a pair of thermometers and a black concrete block. Put the concrete block in direct sunlight, and place one thermometer on the block and one right in front of the glass. Put a fan blowing on the therm. by the glass. The rock will get hotter noticeably faster, both due to the air circulation and simple conductivity.
3: If Sun Spots were causing more cloud cover, there'd be evidence of this. We've had satellites staring down at the planet for quite awhile, checking the cloud cover of every part of the united states for, well, as long as I've been old enough to look at the weather. If it really is the cause, it should be a simple matter to pull them up and prove it.
4: I am not a statistician, nor a geologist, nor an ecologist. Heck, I'm not even a Scientist. And neither is Al Gore, or the right-wing pundits who dismiss his argument because they hate all things Democratic. I do know that an amazing majority of scientists think it's highly likely we're causing increased global warming, and the proper counter argument to scientific consensus is a theory supported by data, not a mere rhetorical theory.
As for the "documentary" -- there's no scam involved in global warming. Aside from injecting an ad hominem attack into what should be a scientific debate, the practical question about "global warming" isn't really one of how well one believes in the CO2 theory, it's one that simply asks "do you think pollution is a good thing?"
If you're still on the fence, consider this: We will run out of fossil fuels in the next 200 years, and our international security is currently disjoined by the disproportionate value given to countries that can export crude oil. It's in our interest to conserve and replace our dependence on them as soon as possible.
1: there would be a copy of any copyrighted work availible without drm encumberments (possiblly from schemes that are no longer availible) if and when the work finally enters the public domain.
No, not really. You'd have at best four years, and then a "digital copy licensed to the library" would be enough.
2: people wouldn't gnerally copyright trivial things. people would only use copyright if they thought they had a good enough reason too.
which would lead to a resurgence of publishers, perfectly legally, ripping off novices. Which would result in every has-been and never-was deluding the copyright office with crap.
3: there would be a lot less fighting over who owned the copyright to something.
Hah! Hahaha. Oh, that's hilarious.
Forcing registration would do nothing to clarify derivitive works, work-for-hire, or licensing agreements. Which is what all the fighting happens over.
If a copy isn't sitting in the Library of Congress and copyable by
the Librarian of Congress, then it should be treated as public domain.
The net effect of which will be a thousandfold increase in the workload of the Library of Congress, and not much else.
1. Are you legally obliged to make it easy for someone to subpoena you? eg. by replying to an email asking for that information.
IANAL (I do have most of a Paralegal degree, sans only Ethics.)
I am not aware of any statute that requires you to actively seek out a subpoena. However, if you do successfully avoid a subpoena, you'll just wind up with a court summons, or a warrant. Generally, if someone's subpoenaing you it's in your best interest to read that subpoena ASAP, get yourself a lawyer, and talk to the judge. Don't avoid judges; they don't like that, and you don't want to be in the court of a judge who has reason to dislike you.
And even if they could, on what grounds could you charge any of those places with a crime?
Fraud and unlawful computer access, to start. Racketeering too, and possibly money laundering or false advertising.
No one [alive] can prove that a dead human being is anything more than compost.
Yes, exactly.
Once you're dead, you can't bring proof back to the scientific community. But you definitely have zero doubts about God's existence, one way or the other.
Your argument starts off with an unprovable statement. A glib and clever-sounding one, to be sure, but unprovable.
It's not an argument, it's a simple statement of logical truth. It's entirely unrelated to the rest of my comment.
'create turn-key implementations of said systems, which after ten years or so are better than what an expert could do themselves. It happened with assembly lines. It happened with automobiles. And it happened with computers,'
If you can't interpret simple written English, well, then it's no wonder you think that the common man can't administer their own PC. It's hard to follow the basics when the only instruction you're given is "read the MAN pages, noob!".
Let me break it down to you:
* Expert A creates a turn-key solution, and spends his time improving that solution and selling it to his customers.
* Expert B creates a customized solution, and spends his time creating customized solutions for his customers.
ten years pass.
* Expert A's solutions have improved year-over-year.
* Expert B's solutions are the same as they were ten years ago, and unless he uses A's system as a base ("on his own"), his from-scratch solution is worse than what A simply drops off.
Contracts are not real life - they don't take into account "common sense" or personal interpretations.
No, they do. That's why a lawyer can find a loophole.
In your proposed case, your lawyer (IANAL, RU?) would need to prove that there's no definition in the Apple EULA, that the EULA is "vauge", and that "Apple TV is a computer" is a reasonable interpretation of the EULA.
If the term is "personal computer" or "general computer", you're even technically off base. If it's only "computer", well, then there's probably a definition in there, unless they mean that it can be installed on a person whose job is manually adding numbers.