Two things said to me recently that irritate me

I had two things said to me recently that annoy the shit out of me.  One was regarding a conversation about ipad type tablet devices.  Someone asked which one they should buy and I told him that they only have one choice in iPad but there are a dozen or so Android platform tablets.  I advised him to look at the Androids simply because there was more variety.  Then some jackass piped in and said that it just depends on if they want it to be easy to use or hard to use.  This is typical Apple fanboy babble.  This is the same guy who thinks Apple is better than PC because of the hardware.  Uhmmm... Pretty sure the hardware is the same.  The operating system is what separates the apples from the windows machines.  Anyway, these same Apple freaks like to say that Android is just a copy of the iPhone, but then in the next breath they like to say that Android is more complicated than the iPhone.  Yeah... maybe that is true.  Toys are generally easier to use than real tools, so I guess Apple is easier.  I'm not even going to get into all the reasons that iOS has failed in keeping up with trends, but I will say that trying to pass Apple tech off as easier to use and that makes it better just shows off the ignorance of those who say it.  There isn't any difference in ease of use between Apple and Android.  The fact that you can do more with an Android doesn't make it more complicated for the average user.  However, for those of use who are more advanced users, the choice is clear.  Would you rather drive a Powerwheel that looks like a Jeep or crush it with the real thing?

The second thing I heard recently that is brainless is someone selling their motorcycle because they are expecting a baby.  Huh?? WTF does that have to do with anything???  I didn't have to sell anything before we had our kids.  Especially a motorcycle they are only trying to get four or five grand out of.  Unless you need to free up some income to pay for the baby because you don't have insurance (which was not the case here) then that is the most illogical statement of all time.  Riding a motorcycle doesn't become any more dangerous once you have kids.  And if you are that strapped for money that you have to sell your motorcycle the instant that your expenses go up, then you shouldn't have one anyway.  The reason for selling it isn't because you are having a baby.  The real reason is because you are broke and need to liquidate assets or eliminate payments.

Equally as stupid as the selling something because you are having a baby is when I see someone selling something because they are getting married.  WHO CARES???  You are selling it.  I don't care what you are going to do with the money or why you need to get rid of it.  Just tell me it is in good shape and provide me with maintenance records.  That's all I need from you.  No life story required.

Maybe it makes for better hits on online classifieds though.  I think this will be how I list my motorcycle for sale someday:

FOR SALE:  2006 Boulevard M50.  This bike has performed really well.  It goes when you turn the throttle and it stops when you apply the brakes.  I've put gas in it every time it has run out and put air in the tires any time they seemed low.  I'm selling the bike because I am currently in jail and need the money for bail.  I also may need the money to pay for an attorney.  If I am able to get out on bail then I'll have plenty of money for an attorney from the bank I robbed, so that shouldn't be a problem.  I could also use the money to buy a new entertainment center, so that is an idea too.  Either way, if you want to give me money then I'll give you my bike. 

How to comment on Facebook

Interesting indeed....

Court Rules That Code Isn’t Physical And Cannot Be Stolen, Only Copied

by Eric Limer | 12:27 pm, April 12th, 2012

Share on Tumblr

In December of 2010, former Goldman Sachs programmer Sergey Aleynikov was convicted of theft of trade secrets when he took some exclusive code out the door with him. This past February however, Aleynikov’s conviction was overturned due to a ruling in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, the court’s opinion has finally been published and it’s been made clear exactly why this conviction was overturned; code is not a physical object and cannot be stolen. The code was not stolen from Goldman Sachs, only copied. Since Goldman Sachs was not deprived of its use, it wasn’t theft.

For all of us who have been banging the “piracy is not theft” drum for years, this is a significant victory in redefining the terms of theft to more accurately reflect the digital world. There is, however, a little more to unpack in this particular case, which makes things as complicated as it makes them interesting. Let’s get some of the details straight here first. The code that was stolen was had to do with the firm’s high-speed trading system, which they alone possessed until Aleynikov walked away with. He was then charged and convicted under something called the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA), which pertains to the theft of trade secrets and such as well as the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA) which relates quite literally to stolen goods.

There are really two main things at play here. First and foremost, there’s the whole piracy versus theft thing, and the fact that — as far as the court is concerned — code is not a physical object. The NSPA makes it illegal to “transport[], transmit[], or transfer[] in interstate or foreign commerce any goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money, of the value of $5,000 or more, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted or taken by fraud.” Since the code isn’t a physical good and was not literally stolen, the court ruled, the NSPA doesn’t apply.

Here it’s worth noting that while Aleyniko didn’t literally steal the code or deprive Goldman Sachs of its use, he did deprive them of something: its exclusive use. The real kicker though, is that he didn’t deprive them of it by taking it for his exclusive use; he deprived them of its exclusive use by effectively destroying its exclusive use. Just think about that for a minute. It’s a lot more complex than words like “theft” or “copying” or “piracy” can really sum up. That said, it’s still soundly in the realm of trade secrets. If you were to take a picture of the fabled Coca Cola recipe, that’s pretty much the same thing. Or is it?

That’s where the second part comes in, the classification of this code as a trade secret. For those of you who don’t know the skinny on this, a trade secret is essentially the best alternative to a patent. Patents secure exclusive use, but they expire. Trade secrets, on the other hand, do not secure exclusive use in any legal sense — you can’t sue to prevent the use of a stolen trade secret — but they also don’t expire. A trade secret is exclusive to you as long as you keep it under wraps, ideally forever. Trade secrets are legally protected from theft however, in that you can charge the thief, but once they’re out, they’re up for grabs.

The EEA illegalizes the theft of trade secrets insofar as “they are related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce,” or in other words, trade secrets that you use to make a thing that you sell to people, like the Coca Cola recipe, for instance, or that famous blend of seven mysterious herbs and spices. The code at hand here just helped Goldman Sachs make stock and commodities trades in high volume and do it fast. They weren’t selling anything the code was used in or used to produce and they weren’t going to liscense the code. Therefore, the court ruled, the EEA doesn’t apply and considering that piracy isn’t literal theft, Aleyniko walks on a pair of interesting technicalities.

It’s fascinating really, and speaks to the legal complexities of an increasingly digital world, one where words like “theft” need to stop being thrown around so carelessly. Now that’s not to say Aleyniko didn’t do something to harm Goldman Sachs, or even whether or not he did something that he deserves to be punished for. That is a different question entirely. It does deepen the rabbit hole of what code is in the eyes of law. If your ostensibly trade secret code can be copied and the guy who took it can walk, maybe trade secret isn’t the way to go. A ruling like this is going to make patenting code look a lot more appealing all of a sudden, and patented code is a whole other huge mess. And while this ruling may encourage code patenting, it’s hardly a cut and dried precedent considering that Goldman Sach’s particular trade secret code was of a weird, non-commercial variety. Then again, social networking code doesn’t have any direct commercial applications either, so what if Aleyniko had stolen some code Facebook is hiding somewhere off in a secluded cyber-closet?

The issue of theft and misappropriation of code and other digital information is definitely a very complex one, and this ruling — if nothing else — calls attention to and respects that fact by refusing to simply fall back on the inappropriately simple conclusion “oh, it’s theft.” The Internet blew up in popularity a while ago, but the legal system clearly still has a lot of catching up to do. Hopefully we’re watching the construction of a new, unique lexicon and logic surrounding the realities of a digital world, and I don’t know about you, but I’ll be watching with rapt attention and bated breath.

(h/t Wired, image via New York Times, credit Chip East/Reuters)

Funny picture...

It is only funny because you KNOW IT IS TRUE!!! Look at the ipad gentleman's rant below for the details. All the iPad is is an overgrown iPhone. Way to think different...

Copying is not theft

Just to be clear on this... I don't agree with plagiarism. You can't copy something from someone and try to pass it off as your own. That is just wrong. But making a copy of something and giving credit to the author has always been acceptable. They even have specific rules on how you do that. There is a book I got in school that goes all into how to properly cite your sources in legal writing as well. So give credit where credit is due. Yes, this song I'm listening to is not an original piece by me. The band is well known and there is no way anybody would ever confuse me with being the artist, record company, or anything else to do with the production of the track. Someone shared their record with me and I made a copy of it. That doesn't sound so nefarious now, does it?

Need I say more...

Apple... Think different???

Seriously Apple? Is that really going to be your motto? Let's take a look at this...



There are currently over 64 different Android devices on the market available through a dozen different service providers running dozens of different launchers and roms. There are also on the market today a dozen different tablet devices running android software. All of these have the features of the iPad and MORE! More like USB plugs, SD Card Slots, quad core processors, twice the RAM, and better keyboard interfaces. That is just to start. All Android devices will also charge off any computer through a USB port. I can't even charge my iPad unless it is plugged into the wall or a Mac.

So is Apple different? Mmmmm... maybe four years ago they were. Now they are just the same ole same ole. Even their last iPhone launch and recent iPad launch was just more of the same. Nothing new and nothing driving people to buy it other than man fanaticism toward the brand. I can't take anyone seriously who uses an iPhone for anything other than a phone and media player. The iPad isn't terrible, but there are so many better options out there which are so much more user friendly. If I could justify spending the money then I would absolutely be rocking an Android tablet right now. I don't even bring the iPad with me to work anymore. I just don't get as much use out of it due to the limitations of the device that I wouldn't have with say, an Asus Eee Pad Transformer.

So enjoy standing in lines to get the latest remake of the last iOS product and keep telling yourself that you are thinking differently. All you are really doing is thinking just like Apple, and that isn't different at all. When everybody thinks differently and yet all the thoughts are the same, that is called something else. I think it is the opposite of 'originality'.