Some have said that the USPTO has no impetus not to issue a patent because they only get paid for issuance, or at least, the patent, once issued, costs more than the process of issuance.
How about we require a fee for filing the patent (and for each resubmission in case corrections need to be made) and then charge no additional fees once the patent is issued.
This way, the costs are incurred regardless of whether the patent is issued and perhaps the onus won't be on the patent investigator to allow a patent through.
Frankly, in light of the settlement, whereby Microsoft was going to give away copies of their software with a total retail value of $x, the requirements ought to be adjusted in view of the retail price they are now offering for Windows XP (assuming the story is to be believed).
What I'm curious about is the salesman's talk about stability. Sure, it's probably just sales talk (like pillow talk, but for money), yet what if there is a grain (dare I say, kernel?) of truth?
For instance, RedHat and other distributions don't just put out stock kernels. They have their own patches they apply and make attempts to spruce things up. Granted, open source, so it's all out in the wild. Still, what if, by default, the "consumer" versions don't provide some of the nice patches that RH provides by default with the "enterprise" version? Yes, you can recompile the kernel, but perhaps that is what is meant by "stability" improvements in enterprise vs. consumer?
On the other hand, if the drug companies are to be believed, the exorbitant sums paid to said companies aren't all profit but also cover the R&D on currently researched drugs as well as all of the failed avenues of research (guess that's also part of R&D) for drugs that don't do anyone any good.
In which case what few drugs are made would perhaps be cheap in your scenario, but no one would enter the field.
I would imagine that part of what they can do by putting into the NDA the option to withhold whatever evidence they wish is to reveal specific exclusive pieces to whomever signs up. Joe One gets lines 400-500 of foo.c while Jane Two gets lines 800-900 of bar.c and ne'er the twain shall meet.
That way if 400-500 of foo.c is revealed anonymously as part of the conflicting code, SCO can go back and sue Joe One knowing he is the only one they showed that particular piece of code to.
The problem with this approach is that it doesn't change the fact that circumvention is possible in the first place. With that fact established, all this would amount to is a moratorium on hacks to make iTunes stream across any network, until such time as the music companies feel comfortable with the net as a profit medium. What then? Let loose the hackers of music (pardon the badly twisted phrase)?
Eventually these kinds of applications will be written. If anything, expedient examples of circumvention should lead us more quickly to the point of equilibrium where the music companies and the listeners are happy. Or at least where both positions aren't going to go anywhere different.
I'm having trouble with coherence right now (laying off of caffeine and...it...bites!).
IIUC, the baby bells keep records on who calls you and would presumably know the point of origin, even if it doesn't display properly on Caller ID. So why not then offer a *007 service or something. If a telemarketer calls you after you are put on the list, after hanging up, you dial *007 and the previous caller is automatically logged into the system as a DNC violator. For that matter, the telco probably could make sure you really were on the DNC and only offer you the service (for a small monthly fee I'm sure) if you were on the DNC list.
While true, where I work, we are bandwidth starved and the IT group has taken to setting a policy of no audio streaming. As a result, streaming in of any music or audio (or video for that matter) is forbidden.
Frankly, I've always been in favor of each individual receiving their own postal code. Put on your Big Brother Blinders though, because said code would be updated in a federally operated database that would map your postal code to a mailing address. That way, all mail sent to you goes to your postal code. Need to move? Tell USPS and the update takes place within a day or so and no need to notify anyone who sends you anything.
In addition, rather than having to worry about someone being able to "find you" because you have to put your physical address in circulation, unless they have access to the USPSDB, they won't be able to map your postal code to your physical location.
Not as a challenge or anything, but I've yet to see a reason why such a system would be bad.
...then the offending code must be removed from the Linux kernel base, or at least from the source distributions (assuming it's not actually in the kernel). Eventually one of two things MUST happen. Either:
they must reveal (finally) what the problem areas are so everyone can remove the offending code, or
they must tell the commercial vendors what to fix, in which case diffs will indicate what changed and therefore what the offending code was
So I guess I'm wondering why the secrecy regarding what the offending code is and what it relates to. If the concern is that trade secrets or other special goodness will be revealed, that will come in time anyway as a simple result of Linux eventually being "fixed" and rereleased.
And another thing...when he said they are looking for other items of System V code that have been copied, it just seemed to scream "we're looking for other pieces of code that could be construed as having been copied".
Finally, a question...assume that a given chunk of code is very similar between Linux and SCO, so much so that it would appear to have been substantially copied. Now, let's further suppose it happens to be something that is obvious to a "practicioner of the art", to use a phrase from patent checks (I think). Does anyone know if that would be a standard useful to determine whether this piece of code could be considered infringing? i.e. where is the burden of proof? Does SCO have to prove that the code was actually taken from SysV code, regardless of whether the code might have simply evolved that way because it's the "best way"? Or does SCO simply have to indicate that code is similar enough to warrant belief that it could have been copied?
Well, be glad you don't use SQLServer then. As I recall, there were some licensing issues there and apparently the buck did NOT stop with Microsoft (or at least looked like it wouldn't).
Even if my anecdote isn't quite right, the point is, it doesn't matter where you get your software from if it has IP violations. If that is discovered, at best you will have to migrate to a new system. At worst, you may be liable for compensation.
So, what do you get from going with Windows? Well, you get the warm fuzzies you are so eloquently expressing. You get a large support infrastructure. You get the security of industrial inertia working for you (as evidenced by your ADSL connection example).
But don't believe that you are completely free from IP worries. If MS screws up, you may pay the price. And the price of admission is an upgrade cycle that currently costs more than most free and many commercial alternatives.
Hey folks, keep in mind, Microsoft is a company. They have a responsibility, a legal responsibility, to benefit their shareholders to the maximum extent possible. Understanding they are in for the long haul, they are choosing to perform philanthropic efforts in order to better their reputation. In addition, they get the side effect of a larger user base.
If, as some seem to think, they even had the option of being "purely" philanthropic, as in doing something that had absolutely no benefit for them, not even a bit of good PR, doing so would violate their responsibilities to the shareholders.
Now, are there a few (many?) people employed at Microsoft who truly believe they have a good product line and are truly happy that the company is doing this? Heck yeah. But the motivation of the "company" is and must always be to satisfy shareholders.
Okay, so a lady leaves her office at night, walking out into the parking lot after a heavy rainstorm. She's nervous, it's downtown and all, so she charges the jacket up.
So nervous is our damsel that she continues to scan the parking lot as she approaches her car, the only car in view. Unfortunately, not looking where she is going, she trips and falls face first into a puddle of water.
Now, I don't claim to know electrical applications very well, but wouldn't this potentially discharge the jacket and nail her as a result? And unlike the guy in the demo videos, she wouldn't be in any position to pull away.
Actually, if the article was titled "Why Apple May Tear Up Microsoft", I would agree it would make sense to argue market share and earnings.
But an article titled "Why Panther May Tear Up Longhorn", and referring to the technical merits of the two pieces of software, should really end being judged by the technical merits.
But, as you said...your opinion...there's mine now...wheeeee...
You're assuming that the "cause" of slashdot is to promot Linux, or to counter Microsoft.
The stated "cause" of Slashdot is right there under it's icon, on every page.
"News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
The direct "cause" of Slashdot (and OSDN and all of it's pretties) is money. It may have been different at one point, like when it was first started, and even until it became part of OSDN. But now, it is a business. They make business decisions.
Just like Linux advocates who work for Microsoft...their personal desire to see Linux "win" doesn't change the fact that the company they work for is in it for the money.
I wouldn't be surprised. In fact, I would be surprised if they didn't, considering it appears that Music Store is pretty much a web interface.
In addition, consider that they want to promote their Music Store as far and wide as possible, and that means Windows. It might even be a contractual obligation they had to commit to, in order to get sign on from the big 5 labels and some of the various individual artists they managed to get on board.
Check the contract. You get a handful of very routine services as part of your contract. They don't cover any prosecutorial work, only defensive (although they do provide lists of law firms at which you can apply for a discount for your membership). Regarding what they will defend you against, they won't cover anything involving felony crimes. (I'm fuzzy on that one. I know there are some serious offenses that, even if you are innocent, they simply won't even make the attempt to defend you for.) In addition, if it comes to conflicts of interest (i.e. if they are retained by someone suing you), you lose. They simply won't defend you. Even if the retainer was made after your membership was purchased.
In short, they will handle a handful of very basic things, but don't get the idea that you have a lawyer on your side from word one. It just doesn't work out.
In case you are wondering, my wife and I were having problems with a company. We were considering pressing charges, and had had a membership with PPL for awhile, so we decided to try it out. The most we get out of them was to have a law firm send a letter saying, in essence, leave these folks alone. That was when I found out that if we brought suit, the fees wouldn't cover it. When I started examining the contract, I also found out there were some serious points at which my fees were insufficient.
So don't believe it is any sort of "law insurance". It isn't. It will get you by in a DWI, perhaps. But I wouldn't go past that.
Although you are right in that SQLServer doubtless will consume more resources than Access, the main problem being considered here appears to be the synchronization problems. When everyone was using a single SAMBA share, some would get locked out and when multiple shares were used, manual synchronization had to be performed.
By going with SQLServer (or another database) and using ODBC for connectivity, you place all of the synchronicity issues into the hands of a database server, which is typically built to handle just exactly that, and the front end is handled by the client.
I was in high school from '87-'91 (4 years, fall '87 to Summer '91) and while I don't recall a specific incident where the English teachers I studied with stated that typed papers were required, I have the distinct recollection that they were in fact required.
Although we did have a "blazingly fast" Tandy 286 at the time, I didn't use it to do my papers and instead relied for a couple of years on a manual typewriter, moving to an electric typewriter near my junior year. I wasn't able to do papers on a computer until I went to college with a new 386 (weren't I the l33t bastich then, eh?).
So I wouldn't be surprised by schools requiring typed papers today, but with the understanding that typewriters might still be used (though manual typewriters are likely NOT common these days).
If you follow this link and look at the bottom, you will see the following:
Note: No license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with an annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00.
Granted, this is on the page entitled "Electronic Music Distribution", but the phrase does include "creating a personal music library" and so forth. I would think this is arguable.
Anyhoo, there is often a big difference between having a contract and enforcing the terms. Many companies include terms and conditions that limit the use or charge for use of their services and such, but don't enforce it unless there has been abuse.
All told, I still don't get warm fuzzies thinking about why they shuffled things around and didn't make it clear where Open Source stands.
First, an admission...I have used only a little FORTRAN in college, and that only to satisfy the requirements of a freshman level course. That said, although I find it hard to believe that other languages or libraries or toolsets are not up to snuff when it comes to the kind of number crunching you are doing. In any case, if it does seem that your application has serious number crunching needs, but you still feel compelled to use C,C++,Delphi,Perl,whatever, then perhaps you ought to wrap your number crunching code in a library, but written in FORTRAN. Then do your "other" code (infrastructure, UI, control) in the language of your choice, calling out to the FORTRAN code whenever necessary. If your application is as computationally intensive as you seem to imply, the additional runtime cost of a library load and callout should easily be offset by the savings in computation time due to the "better" language.
Another way to look at this is that most languages are created because a problem domain exists which the language creator thought would be better served by this new language. FORTRAN has long been considered the best language/implementation for computationally intensive applications. Use the right tool for the job.
I know people who have pirated copies of Photoshop on their computers. Why? They installed it once to make a button for their web page. And that was the last they used of it. Sure, MS Paint could do the same thing, but in their mind "Graphics = Photoshop" so they wanted to use Photoshop.
This doesn't change the fact that they used an illegal copy. And just because someone has a mistaken concept of the capabilities of various applications (MSPaint vs Photoshop) does not give them the right to ignore the licensing restrictions that the developer of the software has put in place.
As for only having used the software once and never having touched it again, again, that is irrelevant. If I produce something and place restrictions on whether you can make copies for your friends (or even your enemies) then you have no right to make those copies. Maybe it would be financially a good idea for me to allow it, but we are supposing that the vendor has NOT allowed it.
As for finding a way to use it without paying, the instances you bring up...wanting to play with it for awhile...understanding it for a job...don't give anyone any rights to copies not authorized by the vendor of the software. It gives them reasons why they WANT those rights, but not the rights to make the copies. And finally:
Oh, no job, no money, can't buy software, can't learn software, therefore no job.
So. Let's take an engineer who needs/wants to learn ANSI specs for a job or just for fun. No job, no money, can't buy access to specs, can't learn specs, therefore no job. That doesn't mean that they have a right to gain illegal access to those specs. Now, as it turns out, there is a legal recourse. Go to your local library and check out copies of the books if they are available. Problem solved. The specs are allowed to be used in that fashion. Commercial software licensing typically is NOT licensed to allow for such access.
As you pointed out, your user does not view the software as "crucial". So one shouldn't now make the argument that "without a means of accessing the software freely, I can't afford to pay for it" as if it is their God-given right to use my software without compensating me. Either pay me or don't use it. I don't provide any other options and taking another option means you are using the fruits of my labor (even if the tiniest possible subset of features of my product) without my authorization. Let's be clear. I'm not arguing that enforcing my desires in this case would be financially rewarding for me. I am arguing that no matter how little of a product's functionality you want to make use of, you ought to obey the terms of their product licensing in order to use that functionality or you ought to not use their software at all. And that from a vendor's point of view, if a user cared enough to make use of their functionality (i.e. as you point out, for many folks Image Editing assumes Photoshop), then they would have cared enough to purchase the product had the license been enforced. Your casual user should have had the sense of right and wrong to understand that, unless someone is robbing you of fundamental and essential rights, if they require even the most onerous compensation in order to gain access to their product or service, and you are not willing to pay the price, then you should not use that product or service.
And before it begins, I can recognize that my statement is likely going to create responses of the type So if they required you to XXX in order to YYY, you would just do without YYY? where some combination of XXX and YYY would make my position sound stupid. My gut feeling is that software, at least at the present time, does not fall in the category of things that I will fight to death to have a copy of. If you want to discuss some value of YYY other than software, do it somewhere else. I'm talking about software here.
And lastly...
Ethics is all a matter of opinion. Law isn't. (well sorta..)
They feel that for every copy of X out there, that they should recieve money for it. Fair enough. But just because they believe they should have recieved the money doesn't mean that they've "lost it" when they don't.
No, they feel that for every user of their software out there, they should receive money for it. And I back that argument. I may not like the BSA or their tactics, but if I write some software, and I license it such that I do not give permission for a user to copy it and give the copies to someone else, then logically, assuming honest users, for every user of my software, I should have been paid my asking price.
As for the argument of having lost NUMPIRATES*PRICE dollars in lost revenue being inaccurate due to some folks copying software that they otherwise would not have bought, if software is crucial enough for someone to use, they will find a way to pay for it or do without the functionality or find an alternative.
Any argument that it is better for the software companies to allow this type of casual copying since it increases their user base misses the point that it is unethical for those users to do the casual copying in the first place. Not to mention illegal.
Lynn
"Like Flames On A Fire - These Are the.sigs of Our Lives"
To be pedantic (word choice?) Delphi wasn't available until 1994. I was working there in C++ compiler support when the first internal Delphi demos were being done. It was quite fascinating. Of course, I was wondering at the time why they didn't do it for C++. I had only to wait.
Any-hoo, Delphi definitely doesn't belong in any of the class of '8x (80-89).
Slashdot Mirror
Some have said that the USPTO has no impetus not to issue a patent because they only get paid for issuance, or at least, the patent, once issued, costs more than the process of issuance.
How about we require a fee for filing the patent (and for each resubmission in case corrections need to be made) and then charge no additional fees once the patent is issued.
This way, the costs are incurred regardless of whether the patent is issued and perhaps the onus won't be on the patent investigator to allow a patent through.
Frankly, in light of the settlement, whereby Microsoft was going to give away copies of their software with a total retail value of $x, the requirements ought to be adjusted in view of the retail price they are now offering for Windows XP (assuming the story is to be believed).
What I'm curious about is the salesman's talk about stability. Sure, it's probably just sales talk (like pillow talk, but for money), yet what if there is a grain (dare I say, kernel?) of truth?
For instance, RedHat and other distributions don't just put out stock kernels. They have their own patches they apply and make attempts to spruce things up. Granted, open source, so it's all out in the wild. Still, what if, by default, the "consumer" versions don't provide some of the nice patches that RH provides by default with the "enterprise" version? Yes, you can recompile the kernel, but perhaps that is what is meant by "stability" improvements in enterprise vs. consumer?
On the other hand, if the drug companies are to be believed, the exorbitant sums paid to said companies aren't all profit but also cover the R&D on currently researched drugs as well as all of the failed avenues of research (guess that's also part of R&D) for drugs that don't do anyone any good.
In which case what few drugs are made would perhaps be cheap in your scenario, but no one would enter the field.
I would imagine that part of what they can do by putting into the NDA the option to withhold whatever evidence they wish is to reveal specific exclusive pieces to whomever signs up. Joe One gets lines 400-500 of foo.c while Jane Two gets lines 800-900 of bar.c and ne'er the twain shall meet.
That way if 400-500 of foo.c is revealed anonymously as part of the conflicting code, SCO can go back and sue Joe One knowing he is the only one they showed that particular piece of code to.
At least, if I were SCO, that's what I would do.
The problem with this approach is that it doesn't change the fact that circumvention is possible in the first place. With that fact established, all this would amount to is a moratorium on hacks to make iTunes stream across any network, until such time as the music companies feel comfortable with the net as a profit medium. What then? Let loose the hackers of music (pardon the badly twisted phrase)?
Eventually these kinds of applications will be written. If anything, expedient examples of circumvention should lead us more quickly to the point of equilibrium where the music companies and the listeners are happy. Or at least where both positions aren't going to go anywhere different.
I'm having trouble with coherence right now (laying off of caffeine and...it...bites!).
IIUC, the baby bells keep records on who calls you and would presumably know the point of origin, even if it doesn't display properly on Caller ID. So why not then offer a *007 service or something. If a telemarketer calls you after you are put on the list, after hanging up, you dial *007 and the previous caller is automatically logged into the system as a DNC violator. For that matter, the telco probably could make sure you really were on the DNC and only offer you the service (for a small monthly fee I'm sure) if you were on the DNC list.
While true, where I work, we are bandwidth starved and the IT group has taken to setting a policy of no audio streaming. As a result, streaming in of any music or audio (or video for that matter) is forbidden.
Frankly, I've always been in favor of each individual receiving their own postal code. Put on your Big Brother Blinders though, because said code would be updated in a federally operated database that would map your postal code to a mailing address. That way, all mail sent to you goes to your postal code. Need to move? Tell USPS and the update takes place within a day or so and no need to notify anyone who sends you anything.
In addition, rather than having to worry about someone being able to "find you" because you have to put your physical address in circulation, unless they have access to the USPSDB, they won't be able to map your postal code to your physical location.
Not as a challenge or anything, but I've yet to see a reason why such a system would be bad.
So I guess I'm wondering why the secrecy regarding what the offending code is and what it relates to. If the concern is that trade secrets or other special goodness will be revealed, that will come in time anyway as a simple result of Linux eventually being "fixed" and rereleased.
And another thing...when he said they are looking for other items of System V code that have been copied, it just seemed to scream "we're looking for other pieces of code that could be construed as having been copied".
Finally, a question...assume that a given chunk of code is very similar between Linux and SCO, so much so that it would appear to have been substantially copied. Now, let's further suppose it happens to be something that is obvious to a "practicioner of the art", to use a phrase from patent checks (I think). Does anyone know if that would be a standard useful to determine whether this piece of code could be considered infringing? i.e. where is the burden of proof? Does SCO have to prove that the code was actually taken from SysV code, regardless of whether the code might have simply evolved that way because it's the "best way"? Or does SCO simply have to indicate that code is similar enough to warrant belief that it could have been copied?
Well, be glad you don't use SQLServer then. As I recall, there were some licensing issues there and apparently the buck did NOT stop with Microsoft (or at least looked like it wouldn't).
Even if my anecdote isn't quite right, the point is, it doesn't matter where you get your software from if it has IP violations. If that is discovered, at best you will have to migrate to a new system. At worst, you may be liable for compensation.
So, what do you get from going with Windows? Well, you get the warm fuzzies you are so eloquently expressing. You get a large support infrastructure. You get the security of industrial inertia working for you (as evidenced by your ADSL connection example).
But don't believe that you are completely free from IP worries. If MS screws up, you may pay the price. And the price of admission is an upgrade cycle that currently costs more than most free and many commercial alternatives.
Hey folks, keep in mind, Microsoft is a company. They have a responsibility, a legal responsibility, to benefit their shareholders to the maximum extent possible. Understanding they are in for the long haul, they are choosing to perform philanthropic efforts in order to better their reputation. In addition, they get the side effect of a larger user base.
If, as some seem to think, they even had the option of being "purely" philanthropic, as in doing something that had absolutely no benefit for them, not even a bit of good PR, doing so would violate their responsibilities to the shareholders.
Now, are there a few (many?) people employed at Microsoft who truly believe they have a good product line and are truly happy that the company is doing this? Heck yeah. But the motivation of the "company" is and must always be to satisfy shareholders.
Okay, so a lady leaves her office at night, walking out into the parking lot after a heavy rainstorm. She's nervous, it's downtown and all, so she charges the jacket up.
So nervous is our damsel that she continues to scan the parking lot as she approaches her car, the only car in view. Unfortunately, not looking where she is going, she trips and falls face first into a puddle of water.
Now, I don't claim to know electrical applications very well, but wouldn't this potentially discharge the jacket and nail her as a result? And unlike the guy in the demo videos, she wouldn't be in any position to pull away.
What would the likely effect be?
Actually, if the article was titled "Why Apple May Tear Up Microsoft", I would agree it would make sense to argue market share and earnings.
But an article titled "Why Panther May Tear Up Longhorn", and referring to the technical merits of the two pieces of software, should really end being judged by the technical merits.
But, as you said...your opinion...there's mine now...wheeeee...
_lpp
You're assuming that the "cause" of slashdot is to promot Linux, or to counter Microsoft.
The stated "cause" of Slashdot is right there under it's icon, on every page.
"News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
The direct "cause" of Slashdot (and OSDN and all of it's pretties) is money. It may have been different at one point, like when it was first started, and even until it became part of OSDN. But now, it is a business. They make business decisions.
Just like Linux advocates who work for Microsoft...their personal desire to see Linux "win" doesn't change the fact that the company they work for is in it for the money.
Ho-hum...
_lpp
Actually, that particular mistake was the cause for some inflammation of this particular rumor, but the rumor has been around longer than that.
Here is a Macrumours article about the amd mixup: here
Note that it is dated November 24, 2002
And here is another Macrumors article dated April 8 2001 about the same rumor: and here
Just to clarify...otherwise, yeah, it's pretty funny where people get wacky ideas.
_lpp
I wouldn't be surprised. In fact, I would be surprised if they didn't, considering it appears that Music Store is pretty much a web interface.
In addition, consider that they want to promote their Music Store as far and wide as possible, and that means Windows. It might even be a contractual obligation they had to commit to, in order to get sign on from the big 5 labels and some of the various individual artists they managed to get on board.
_lpp
Check the contract. You get a handful of very routine services as part of your contract. They don't cover any prosecutorial work, only defensive (although they do provide lists of law firms at which you can apply for a discount for your membership). Regarding what they will defend you against, they won't cover anything involving felony crimes. (I'm fuzzy on that one. I know there are some serious offenses that, even if you are innocent, they simply won't even make the attempt to defend you for.) In addition, if it comes to conflicts of interest (i.e. if they are retained by someone suing you), you lose. They simply won't defend you. Even if the retainer was made after your membership was purchased.
In short, they will handle a handful of very basic things, but don't get the idea that you have a lawyer on your side from word one. It just doesn't work out.
In case you are wondering, my wife and I were having problems with a company. We were considering pressing charges, and had had a membership with PPL for awhile, so we decided to try it out. The most we get out of them was to have a law firm send a letter saying, in essence, leave these folks alone. That was when I found out that if we brought suit, the fees wouldn't cover it. When I started examining the contract, I also found out there were some serious points at which my fees were insufficient.
So don't believe it is any sort of "law insurance". It isn't. It will get you by in a DWI, perhaps. But I wouldn't go past that.
My $.02.
Although you are right in that SQLServer doubtless will consume more resources than Access, the main problem being considered here appears to be the synchronization problems. When everyone was using a single SAMBA share, some would get locked out and when multiple shares were used, manual synchronization had to be performed.
By going with SQLServer (or another database) and using ODBC for connectivity, you place all of the synchronicity issues into the hands of a database server, which is typically built to handle just exactly that, and the front end is handled by the client.
Seems a reasonable solution to me.
I was in high school from '87-'91 (4 years, fall '87 to Summer '91) and while I don't recall a specific incident where the English teachers I studied with stated that typed papers were required, I have the distinct recollection that they were in fact required.
Although we did have a "blazingly fast" Tandy 286 at the time, I didn't use it to do my papers and instead relied for a couple of years on a manual typewriter, moving to an electric typewriter near my junior year. I wasn't able to do papers on a computer until I went to college with a new 386 (weren't I the l33t bastich then, eh?).
So I wouldn't be surprised by schools requiring typed papers today, but with the understanding that typewriters might still be used (though manual typewriters are likely NOT common these days).
Regards,
_lpp
If you follow this link and look at the bottom, you will see the following:
Granted, this is on the page entitled "Electronic Music Distribution", but the phrase does include "creating a personal music library" and so forth. I would think this is arguable.
Anyhoo, there is often a big difference between having a contract and enforcing the terms. Many companies include terms and conditions that limit the use or charge for use of their services and such, but don't enforce it unless there has been abuse.
All told, I still don't get warm fuzzies thinking about why they shuffled things around and didn't make it clear where Open Source stands.
Lynn
First, an admission...I have used only a little FORTRAN in college, and that only to satisfy the requirements of a freshman level course. That said, although I find it hard to believe that other languages or libraries or toolsets are not up to snuff when it comes to the kind of number crunching you are doing. In any case, if it does seem that your application has serious number crunching needs, but you still feel compelled to use C,C++,Delphi,Perl,whatever, then perhaps you ought to wrap your number crunching code in a library, but written in FORTRAN. Then do your "other" code (infrastructure, UI, control) in the language of your choice, calling out to the FORTRAN code whenever necessary. If your application is as computationally intensive as you seem to imply, the additional runtime cost of a library load and callout should easily be offset by the savings in computation time due to the "better" language.
Another way to look at this is that most languages are created because a problem domain exists which the language creator thought would be better served by this new language. FORTRAN has long been considered the best language/implementation for computationally intensive applications. Use the right tool for the job.
G'luck.
This doesn't change the fact that they used an illegal copy. And just because someone has a mistaken concept of the capabilities of various applications (MSPaint vs Photoshop) does not give them the right to ignore the licensing restrictions that the developer of the software has put in place.
As for only having used the software once and never having touched it again, again, that is irrelevant. If I produce something and place restrictions on whether you can make copies for your friends (or even your enemies) then you have no right to make those copies. Maybe it would be financially a good idea for me to allow it, but we are supposing that the vendor has NOT allowed it.
As for finding a way to use it without paying, the instances you bring up...wanting to play with it for awhile...understanding it for a job...don't give anyone any rights to copies not authorized by the vendor of the software. It gives them reasons why they WANT those rights, but not the rights to make the copies. And finally:
So. Let's take an engineer who needs/wants to learn ANSI specs for a job or just for fun. No job, no money, can't buy access to specs, can't learn specs, therefore no job. That doesn't mean that they have a right to gain illegal access to those specs. Now, as it turns out, there is a legal recourse. Go to your local library and check out copies of the books if they are available. Problem solved. The specs are allowed to be used in that fashion. Commercial software licensing typically is NOT licensed to allow for such access.
As you pointed out, your user does not view the software as "crucial". So one shouldn't now make the argument that "without a means of accessing the software freely, I can't afford to pay for it" as if it is their God-given right to use my software without compensating me. Either pay me or don't use it. I don't provide any other options and taking another option means you are using the fruits of my labor (even if the tiniest possible subset of features of my product) without my authorization. Let's be clear. I'm not arguing that enforcing my desires in this case would be financially rewarding for me. I am arguing that no matter how little of a product's functionality you want to make use of, you ought to obey the terms of their product licensing in order to use that functionality or you ought to not use their software at all. And that from a vendor's point of view, if a user cared enough to make use of their functionality (i.e. as you point out, for many folks Image Editing assumes Photoshop), then they would have cared enough to purchase the product had the license been enforced. Your casual user should have had the sense of right and wrong to understand that, unless someone is robbing you of fundamental and essential rights, if they require even the most onerous compensation in order to gain access to their product or service, and you are not willing to pay the price, then you should not use that product or service.
And before it begins, I can recognize that my statement is likely going to create responses of the type So if they required you to XXX in order to YYY, you would just do without YYY? where some combination of XXX and YYY would make my position sound stupid. My gut feeling is that software, at least at the present time, does not fall in the category of things that I will fight to death to have a copy of. If you want to discuss some value of YYY other than software, do it somewhere else. I'm talking about software here.
And lastly...
I think that pretty well sums up our differences.
-Lynn
No, they feel that for every user of their software out there, they should receive money for it. And I back that argument. I may not like the BSA or their tactics, but if I write some software, and I license it such that I do not give permission for a user to copy it and give the copies to someone else, then logically, assuming honest users, for every user of my software, I should have been paid my asking price.
As for the argument of having lost NUMPIRATES*PRICE dollars in lost revenue being inaccurate due to some folks copying software that they otherwise would not have bought, if software is crucial enough for someone to use, they will find a way to pay for it or do without the functionality or find an alternative.
Any argument that it is better for the software companies to allow this type of casual copying since it increases their user base misses the point that it is unethical for those users to do the casual copying in the first place. Not to mention illegal.
Lynn
"Like Flames On A Fire - These Are the
To be pedantic (word choice?) Delphi wasn't available until 1994. I was working there in C++ compiler support when the first internal Delphi demos were being done. It was quite fascinating. Of course, I was wondering at the time why they didn't do it for C++. I had only to wait.
Any-hoo, Delphi definitely doesn't belong in any of the class of '8x (80-89).