Editors will inevitably disagree. As a function of this, contributions by even the most well-meaning editors will contain what they thought were statements of fact but are actually contested in some way. As the information naturally pouring into the article is barred the path of presenting opinion as fact, it turns to the path of second-least resistance- that of presenting opinion as such and leaving it strictly at that. Words characteristic of this stylistic phenomenon, such as "critics say..." and "some argue that...", are colloquially known in Wikipedia as Weasel words. A pronouncement that Montreal is the best city in the world will typically get rooted out of an article posthaste; an innocuous note that some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world will typically not.
The problem with weasel words isn't that what they state is false. Clearly that latter statement isn't; some people do say that. The problem is that truth, while obviously welcome and necessary, is not enough to constitute encyclopedic writing in and of itself. The progression of an article must also be relevant and informative, and this statement about what-some-people-say is neither. Who are these people, one might ask? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? Exactly how many is some, and why is this of any significance, anyway
It's ironic that people complain about Microsoft's large market share and how they exploit it, yet they are not willing to vote with their feet and give their money to a better alternative. Windows is Microsoft's product; they don't have to do anything they don't want to do with it, including updating/patching it. If they release a shoddy product and you're willing to buy it, then you've got no right to complain.
Yes, market forces would probably develop an idea more quickly than the idea's owner. But the market wouldn't have any ideas to build on without the smart people who come up with them. The whole point of copyright and patent law is to encourage smart people to share their good ideas with the rest of us. We all agree to respect their wishes regarding their ideas for a limited period of time in exchange for full disclosure of those ideas. This benefits both society and smart people. If you take away protections for ideas, then smart people will keep them to themselves and progress in technology and the arts would go downhill.
The trick is to find a balance that encourages smart people to share their ideas while benefitting the rest of us when their ideas are later set free. If idea owners can hold onto their ideas for too long (*cough* music artists *cough*), society does not benefit and they lose motivation to be creative and share more ideas. If the cost of IP to society is higher than the benefits of the ideas it fosters, then there's no point in giving idea owners these protections anymore. With protection limits being lengthened periodically (isn't music now protected for 90 years or something?!?), it's no wonder that people don't blink an eye when they copy a song. "You wrote that damn song 30 years ago, what have you done for me lately?"
The issue here isn't whether the government can read your email on another computer; it already can by using warrants. The issue is whether the government -- or anyone -- can read your email by a court order, which is easier to obtain than a warrant. The government is arguing that a court order or subpoena requirement is sufficient to protect the privacy of the public.
From the article:
During the investigation, agents obtained court orders allowing them to collect thousands of Warshak's e-mails from Yahoo and another e-mail provider. A court order requires a lesser burden of proof than a search warrant.
Warshak sued in federal court, claiming that the search of his e-mail violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures....
In July, a U.S. district judge agreed, ruling that e-mails stored on the server of a commercial Internet service provider can't be read without a search warrant....
The government appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which has yet to rule on the case. E-mail users are protected from overzealous investigators, the government argues, because a search of stored e-mail still requires a subpoena from a prosecutor or a court order from a judge.
What this comes down to is the difference between a court order and a warrant and which one best fits the nature of electronic messages and the method by which they're delivered.
There is no privacy contract, social or otherwise, between the sender of an email and the computers that forward it to its recipient. Each forwarder may belong to different enterprises, each with its own usage and security policies, which may or may not include archiving your email for future scrutiny. If your email is forwarded by a computer that helps the government or publishes your email then you're hosed. Otherwise, I would argue that your email, stored on a physical medium on private property, should require a search warrant, much like retrieving a written letter from your office or home would.
The issue here isn't whether the government can read your email on another computer; it already can by using warrants. The issue is whether the government -- or anyone -- can read your email by a court order, which is easier to obtain than a warrant. The government is arguing that a court order or subpoena requirement is sufficient to protect the privacy of the public.
From the article:
During the investigation, agents obtained court orders allowing them to collect thousands of Warshak's e-mails from Yahoo and another e-mail provider. A court order requires a lesser burden of proof than a search warrant.
Warshak sued in federal court, claiming that the search of his e-mail violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures....
In July, a U.S. district judge agreed, ruling that e-mails stored on the server of a commercial Internet service provider can't be read without a search warrant....
The government appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which has yet to rule on the case. E-mail users are protected from overzealous investigators, the government argues, because a search of stored e-mail still requires a subpoena from a prosecutor or a court order from a judge.
What this comes down to is the difference between a court order and a warrant and which one best fits the nature of electronic messages and the method by which they're delivered.
There is no privacy contract, social or otherwise, between the sender of an email and the computers that forward it to its recipient. Each forwarder may belong to different enterprises, each with its own usage and security policies, which may or may not include archiving your email for future scrutiny. If your email is forwarded by a computer that helps the government or publishes your email then you're hosed. Otherwise, I would argue that your email, stored on a physical medium on private property, should require a search warrant, much like retrieving a written letter from your office or home would.
I see two perspectives to this problem. I'm a computer science major and hopefully a future professional software developer, so half of me agrees with your point. The other half of me thinks the opposite:
Since software is information, and information can be infinitely duplicated at little cost, I would think that basing a business model on the assumption that an idea cannot be copied is a fallacy. It's like writing a recipe for cookies and giving it to your friends. After that, you can't control what they do with your recipe. They can make cookies all day long or call up their friends and tell them the recipe. Copying software is the same thing but on a larger scale. The problem isn't that software developers are losing money, it's that they thought they could hold onto that money in the first place.
I'm taking a database class right now and a fellow student discovered a bug with the way Oracle 10g does natural joins. My professor says this bug wasn't in Oracle 9. Way to go regression testing!
- I have no idea, I didn't read the EULA. Did you? If you did, congrats, you're one of the 0.01% that did. Sadly, that doesn't matter. You can't conjure up a legalese-fest document, have someone sign it, and then hold them to it in court. Why do you think most contracts require initials throughout the document? Answer: To indicate that the signer understands everything and didn't summarily accept the agreement stupidly. The iTunes EULA doesn't have you initial anything. Even if you disagree with that point, the premise of the iTunes DRM violates the basic assumption that consumers have: that they have the same rights they would have if they bought the music in CD-form. Obviously, iTunes DRM violates this assumption horribly.
- I'm sorry, when was it announced that m4p was incompatible with Ubuntu? Oh, that's right, it wasn't, it's just an arbitrary data format. Apple just never made it possible for me to use my music anywhere I want. I'm sorry, maybe I'm old fashioned, but I expect that type of freedom from my music. If Apple can't guarantee that kind of freedom out of the box, then it shouldn't have those restrictions at all. If you feel like rolling over and letting Apple tell you what you can do with your music, then fine. But if Apple is going to impose its DRM on my music, then it damn well better make sure that I can play it however I like.
I apologize if I seem condescending, I'm a little drunk right now.;)
Yes, you are locked in. I've never found a way to legally play my legally-purchased iTunes music on my main OS, Ubuntu. iTune's DRM restricts what should be considered fair use: playing my songs wherever I want, whenever I want, on whatever I want, in whatever format I want, without having to burn and rip it first. Screw those guys.
Look down at the lower-left part of your keyboard. The Z, X, C, V, and B buttons form a contiguous line. You can easily control playback with one hand. Play, pause, stop, in that order. Previous on the left, next on the right.
Look to the lower-right part of your keyboard. The up, down, left, and right buttons form a tight cluster. You can easily control volume and song position with one hand. Up and down make the volume go up and down. Left and right make the song go forward and backwards.
For those advanced users out there, you've got S for shuffle and R for repeat. I can see now how you can be so confused about these key bindings.
This arrangement makes sense to me, and in my opinion is better than Ctrl button combos.
IMO Winamp's controls are the best. Z back, X play, C pause/unpause, V stop, B forward, up/down volume, left/right fast forward/rewind. Simple, intuitive, and easy to remember. It does everything I want without awkward Ctrl or Alt button combos. IIRC, XMMS has these key bindings, too.
No, the problem is that Google is forcing an opt-out program on all authors, instead of asking for permission beforehand. Opt-out policies work well for the web, where an opt-in search would severely hamper search accuracy and helpfulness. However, this is not how copyright works in the physical world. You can't transcribe parts of a book and then, when sued by the author, complain that they didn't opt out of your copying policy.
Re:Comic Book Guy Indeed...
on
Why Software Sucks
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You're railing on about his attack on programmers but not paying attention to the fact that end-users and not coders are the target of this book. They could give a rat's ass about DRM because other than some minor inconveniences and some extra costs, DRM is transparent to them. We have a right to be angry about DRM because it hobbles programmers from being able to actually take advantage of whiz bang new possibilities afforded by upcoming technology since DRM imposes artificial restrictions on us. Joe Average will NEVER "get" that.
1. Buy music on iTunes.
2. Reinstall your operating system without backing up.
3. Try to recover the music you bought from iTunes, only to have iTunes tell you that purchased songs can only be downloaded once.
Joe Average will "get" that, let me assure you. And he's pissed.
There was an earlier ruling by another federal judge that the ADA does not apply to web sites. Until a case goes to the Supreme Court, the applicability of the ADA to web sites depends on which federal district you're in.
I don't fucking much care what makes web "designers" happy. Instead they should focus on keeping us readers happy, which means that any web-page should be designed for any browser. That means IE, mozilla, opera, or simply whatever standard-conforming browser you have.
Reality check: only two browsers conform to the HTML standard (render HTML correctly) as of now, which are Opera and Safari. By your argument, web devs should focus on a minority of the web surfers out there. The reality is that web devs have to apply many tweaks and hacks in their work to make the web sites you take for granted look good on most browsers. "Any web-page should be designed for any browser" means a lot of extra work must go into working around the inconsistencies of how HTML is rendered by today's browsers. Instead of ranting at web devs for doing their job, you should rant at browser devs for not doing theirs by implementing the standards correctly.
If your page is fragile enough to break if someone uses a version of firefox with a patch to change the name and logo, then it will surely also break between firefox 1.5.0.5 and 1.5.0.6. By your logic, browsers shouldn't be improved either.
There is no such thing as fragile standards-compliant HTML, only fragile browsers. If the browsers rendered it correctly, web devs would be able to write it once and have it display the same on all browsers.
Too late.High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection (the Blu-ray and HD-DVD DRM) was broken years before it was ever put on the market. As expected, the industry has pulled the rug out from under itself by using a custom and unproven (and incidently, unsecure) encryption algorithm. Apparently, they had a requirement to keep the hardware gate count <= 10,000. According to the cryptanalysis, the following are possible for HDCP-compliant devices:
Eavesdropping on any data
Cloning any device with only their public key
Avoiding any blacklist on devices
Creating new device keyvectors
And all you need to do that are 40 devices. You can extract their keys and quickly calculate the master key, which can then be used to circumvent the DRM.
From the paper:
An attacker can reverse engineer 40 different HDCP video software utilities,
he can break open 40 devices and extract the keys via reverse engineering, or he can
simply license the keys from the trusted center. According to the HDCP License
Agreement, device manufacturers can buy 10000 key pairs for $16000. Given these
40 spanning keys, the master secret can be recovered in seconds. So in essence, the
trusted authority sells a large portion of its master secret to every HDCP licensee.
With the master secret in hand, one can eavesdrop on all device communications,
spoof any device, and clone any device, all in real time. One can produce a device
that, by parroting back the KSVs of its peers, cannot be disabled by any blacklist.
With a reasonable amount of computation, an attacker can also produce new device
keys not on any key revocation list.
I'm a fifth year in college right now and to date I have not witnessed one speech that needed a PowerPoint presentation. In my experience, people use PP as a crutch for remembering what they're going to say next, not to reinforce their points. Sadly, I've seen a professor do this as well (needless to say, it wasn't a very stimulating lecture). It's possible to use PP effectively, but it's sooooo easy to do it wrong. The last thing these kids need to learn to be professional is PP. To learn further about the detriments of (mis)using PP, learn about PP's possible connection with the shuttle crash.
The problem with what Microsoft does is that the software it bundles with Windows (e.g., Internet Exporer and Windows Media Player) are impossible to install by the average user. If you could boot up Windows for the first time, go to Add or Remove Programs, and uninstall those programs, then Microsoft would be fine. I've heard that you CAN easily remove Apple's software products, which makes it legal for Apple to bundle them with its OS.
Do you have the right to drive your car at whatever speed you want? Yes, for my counter-example the law is there to ensure drivers' safety, not protect IP. The point is that law can _try_ restrict use of a device, even if it's not really enforceable.
This is wrong. You're confusing patents with copyrights. A copyright protects an author's expression of ideas, but not the underlying ideas themselves. This is why many authors can write about the same thing and yet all be protected by copyright. A patent gives the owner the right to exclude others from using his ideas. So if a programmer sells a program that uses a patented idea, s/he must get permission from the patent owner first, no matter whether they copied the source verbatim or wrote it themselves. So ideas can be reserved for exclusive use, but only by patents, not copyrights.
I'm not sure patents can be enforced on hobbyist (e.g. non-commmerical open source) projects, though, so I'm not sure how patents would affect open source software. Just because someone owns a patent on toasters doesn't mean I can't build one in my garage or build many and give them away to friends. Intellectual property isn't thought control, but it can be used to control who profits from something.
Someone smarter than me in this area (a paralegal specializing in trademark law) commented:
"They registered the mark for services of arranging/conducting trade shows and business conferences in the fields of computers,
communications and information. To register they had to provide evidence of use, so yes. They can only go after others who are using the mark for the same services, as they did when they sent the little nonprofit a cease and desist to stop using it for arranging conferences. So they were perfectly within their rights to assert their tm ownership where they saw infringement, as in fact, they are required to do in order to maintain those rights. However, they could not legitimately go after others using the same term for computers or for internet technology, since their registration is limited to the conference/trade show services. (Unless they decide to assert they have a 'famous' mark, in which case they may try to prevent others from using it for anything.) However, the standards for evidencing ownership of a 'famous' mark are very stringent, including areas of use, length of
ownership, etc.
"It looks to me like they were ahead of the game in adopting a term that is so popular it's in danger of going generic. If the term was recognized at the time they filed as an industry term, then it was up to others to protest to the PTO when the mark was published for public review. To retain their rights, OReilly has to police usage, or just give up and acknowledge the name is in the public domain."
I agree. Trademarks are an artifical rule created by society, not some inalienable or natural right or protection. It's not meant to be a form of thought or speech control. I always thought the original intent of the provision for trademarks by law was to protect consumers against someone trying to make their product look like someone else's product. So while Apple can hold the "Apple" registered trademark for a computer company to protect its customers from buying fake "Apple" computers from others, it cannot prevent apple growers from selling/saying "apples" or a company in another business using the name "Apple" (correct me if I'm wrong here).
Plants cannot work without light. Therefore, light is part of plants.
Yes that is true.
Then I invite you, at your leisure, to find a plant, break it in half, and find light inside. Light and glucose are not the same thing. I was merely demonstrating that, while it may be true for many relationships, the argument is too broad to always be true.
Slashdot Mirror
There are ways to express a bias while seeming to present facts. See Wikipedia's policy on weasel words:
It's ironic that people complain about Microsoft's large market share and how they exploit it, yet they are not willing to vote with their feet and give their money to a better alternative. Windows is Microsoft's product; they don't have to do anything they don't want to do with it, including updating/patching it. If they release a shoddy product and you're willing to buy it, then you've got no right to complain.
Yes, market forces would probably develop an idea more quickly than the idea's owner. But the market wouldn't have any ideas to build on without the smart people who come up with them. The whole point of copyright and patent law is to encourage smart people to share their good ideas with the rest of us. We all agree to respect their wishes regarding their ideas for a limited period of time in exchange for full disclosure of those ideas. This benefits both society and smart people. If you take away protections for ideas, then smart people will keep them to themselves and progress in technology and the arts would go downhill.
The trick is to find a balance that encourages smart people to share their ideas while benefitting the rest of us when their ideas are later set free. If idea owners can hold onto their ideas for too long (*cough* music artists *cough*), society does not benefit and they lose motivation to be creative and share more ideas. If the cost of IP to society is higher than the benefits of the ideas it fosters, then there's no point in giving idea owners these protections anymore. With protection limits being lengthened periodically (isn't music now protected for 90 years or something?!?), it's no wonder that people don't blink an eye when they copy a song. "You wrote that damn song 30 years ago, what have you done for me lately?"
From the article:
What this comes down to is the difference between a court order and a warrant and which one best fits the nature of electronic messages and the method by which they're delivered.
There is no privacy contract, social or otherwise, between the sender of an email and the computers that forward it to its recipient. Each forwarder may belong to different enterprises, each with its own usage and security policies, which may or may not include archiving your email for future scrutiny. If your email is forwarded by a computer that helps the government or publishes your email then you're hosed. Otherwise, I would argue that your email, stored on a physical medium on private property, should require a search warrant, much like retrieving a written letter from your office or home would.
From the article:
What this comes down to is the difference between a court order and a warrant and which one best fits the nature of electronic messages and the method by which they're delivered.
There is no privacy contract, social or otherwise, between the sender of an email and the computers that forward it to its recipient. Each forwarder may belong to different enterprises, each with its own usage and security policies, which may or may not include archiving your email for future scrutiny. If your email is forwarded by a computer that helps the government or publishes your email then you're hosed. Otherwise, I would argue that your email, stored on a physical medium on private property, should require a search warrant, much like retrieving a written letter from your office or home would.
Go here for the US or here for the UK to get up to 4 free strap replacements.
Since software is information, and information can be infinitely duplicated at little cost, I would think that basing a business model on the assumption that an idea cannot be copied is a fallacy. It's like writing a recipe for cookies and giving it to your friends. After that, you can't control what they do with your recipe. They can make cookies all day long or call up their friends and tell them the recipe. Copying software is the same thing but on a larger scale. The problem isn't that software developers are losing money, it's that they thought they could hold onto that money in the first place.
I'm taking a database class right now and a fellow student discovered a bug with the way Oracle 10g does natural joins. My professor says this bug wasn't in Oracle 9. Way to go regression testing!
- I bought my music through iTunes.
- I have no idea, I didn't read the EULA. Did you? If you did, congrats, you're one of the 0.01% that did. Sadly, that doesn't matter. You can't conjure up a legalese-fest document, have someone sign it, and then hold them to it in court. Why do you think most contracts require initials throughout the document? Answer: To indicate that the signer understands everything and didn't summarily accept the agreement stupidly. The iTunes EULA doesn't have you initial anything. Even if you disagree with that point, the premise of the iTunes DRM violates the basic assumption that consumers have: that they have the same rights they would have if they bought the music in CD-form. Obviously, iTunes DRM violates this assumption horribly.
- I'm sorry, when was it announced that m4p was incompatible with Ubuntu? Oh, that's right, it wasn't, it's just an arbitrary data format. Apple just never made it possible for me to use my music anywhere I want. I'm sorry, maybe I'm old fashioned, but I expect that type of freedom from my music. If Apple can't guarantee that kind of freedom out of the box, then it shouldn't have those restrictions at all. If you feel like rolling over and letting Apple tell you what you can do with your music, then fine. But if Apple is going to impose its DRM on my music, then it damn well better make sure that I can play it however I like.
I apologize if I seem condescending, I'm a little drunk right now. ;)
Yes, you are locked in. I've never found a way to legally play my legally-purchased iTunes music on my main OS, Ubuntu. iTune's DRM restricts what should be considered fair use: playing my songs wherever I want, whenever I want, on whatever I want, in whatever format I want, without having to burn and rip it first. Screw those guys.
Look down at the lower-left part of your keyboard. The Z, X, C, V, and B buttons form a contiguous line. You can easily control playback with one hand. Play, pause, stop, in that order. Previous on the left, next on the right.
Look to the lower-right part of your keyboard. The up, down, left, and right buttons form a tight cluster. You can easily control volume and song position with one hand. Up and down make the volume go up and down. Left and right make the song go forward and backwards.
For those advanced users out there, you've got S for shuffle and R for repeat. I can see now how you can be so confused about these key bindings.
This arrangement makes sense to me, and in my opinion is better than Ctrl button combos.
IMO Winamp's controls are the best. Z back, X play, C pause/unpause, V stop, B forward, up/down volume, left/right fast forward/rewind. Simple, intuitive, and easy to remember. It does everything I want without awkward Ctrl or Alt button combos. IIRC, XMMS has these key bindings, too.
Sure you do. Ever hear of parody?
No, the problem is that Google is forcing an opt-out program on all authors, instead of asking for permission beforehand. Opt-out policies work well for the web, where an opt-in search would severely hamper search accuracy and helpfulness. However, this is not how copyright works in the physical world. You can't transcribe parts of a book and then, when sued by the author, complain that they didn't opt out of your copying policy.
1. Buy music on iTunes.
2. Reinstall your operating system without backing up.
3. Try to recover the music you bought from iTunes, only to have iTunes tell you that purchased songs can only be downloaded once.
Joe Average will "get" that, let me assure you. And he's pissed.
There was an earlier ruling by another federal judge that the ADA does not apply to web sites. Until a case goes to the Supreme Court, the applicability of the ADA to web sites depends on which federal district you're in.
Reality check: only two browsers conform to the HTML standard (render HTML correctly) as of now, which are Opera and Safari. By your argument, web devs should focus on a minority of the web surfers out there. The reality is that web devs have to apply many tweaks and hacks in their work to make the web sites you take for granted look good on most browsers. "Any web-page should be designed for any browser" means a lot of extra work must go into working around the inconsistencies of how HTML is rendered by today's browsers. Instead of ranting at web devs for doing their job, you should rant at browser devs for not doing theirs by implementing the standards correctly.
There is no such thing as fragile standards-compliant HTML, only fragile browsers. If the browsers rendered it correctly, web devs would be able to write it once and have it display the same on all browsers.
And all you need to do that are 40 devices. You can extract their keys and quickly calculate the master key, which can then be used to circumvent the DRM.
From the paper:
I'm a fifth year in college right now and to date I have not witnessed one speech that needed a PowerPoint presentation. In my experience, people use PP as a crutch for remembering what they're going to say next, not to reinforce their points. Sadly, I've seen a professor do this as well (needless to say, it wasn't a very stimulating lecture). It's possible to use PP effectively, but it's sooooo easy to do it wrong. The last thing these kids need to learn to be professional is PP. To learn further about the detriments of (mis)using PP, learn about PP's possible connection with the shuttle crash.
The problem with what Microsoft does is that the software it bundles with Windows (e.g., Internet Exporer and Windows Media Player) are impossible to install by the average user. If you could boot up Windows for the first time, go to Add or Remove Programs, and uninstall those programs, then Microsoft would be fine. I've heard that you CAN easily remove Apple's software products, which makes it legal for Apple to bundle them with its OS.
Do you have the right to drive your car at whatever speed you want? Yes, for my counter-example the law is there to ensure drivers' safety, not protect IP. The point is that law can _try_ restrict use of a device, even if it's not really enforceable.
I'm not sure patents can be enforced on hobbyist (e.g. non-commmerical open source) projects, though, so I'm not sure how patents would affect open source software. Just because someone owns a patent on toasters doesn't mean I can't build one in my garage or build many and give them away to friends. Intellectual property isn't thought control, but it can be used to control who profits from something.
"They registered the mark for services of arranging/conducting trade shows and business conferences in the fields of computers, communications and information. To register they had to provide evidence of use, so yes. They can only go after others who are using the mark for the same services, as they did when they sent the little nonprofit a cease and desist to stop using it for arranging conferences. So they were perfectly within their rights to assert their tm ownership where they saw infringement, as in fact, they are required to do in order to maintain those rights. However, they could not legitimately go after others using the same term for computers or for internet technology, since their registration is limited to the conference/trade show services. (Unless they decide to assert they have a 'famous' mark, in which case they may try to prevent others from using it for anything.) However, the standards for evidencing ownership of a 'famous' mark are very stringent, including areas of use, length of ownership, etc.
"It looks to me like they were ahead of the game in adopting a term that is so popular it's in danger of going generic. If the term was recognized at the time they filed as an industry term, then it was up to others to protest to the PTO when the mark was published for public review. To retain their rights, OReilly has to police usage, or just give up and acknowledge the name is in the public domain."
I agree. Trademarks are an artifical rule created by society, not some inalienable or natural right or protection. It's not meant to be a form of thought or speech control. I always thought the original intent of the provision for trademarks by law was to protect consumers against someone trying to make their product look like someone else's product. So while Apple can hold the "Apple" registered trademark for a computer company to protect its customers from buying fake "Apple" computers from others, it cannot prevent apple growers from selling/saying "apples" or a company in another business using the name "Apple" (correct me if I'm wrong here).
Then I invite you, at your leisure, to find a plant, break it in half, and find light inside. Light and glucose are not the same thing. I was merely demonstrating that, while it may be true for many relationships, the argument is too broad to always be true.